Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, but I do appreciate Mr. Kucinich for bringing it up. And I think it is proper to debate this. I am a member of the Appropriations Committee. And many years ago in committee we voted to support the Skaggs amendment to an appropriations rule that would have put the war powers in effect during something in the Clinton administration, but I don't remember what the

skirmish was. So I think it is appropriate for us to debate this. However, I think the timing is not exactly optimal, particularly with troops in the field.

I also want to point out that it does appear to me that if the Democrat leadership was serious about this, they would have allowed hearings in the committee, and they should have had a committee vote rather than just put it on the House floor. But I am glad that you brought it up, and I know your absolute sincerity in this.

I also want to point out to you, as somebody who voted ``no'' on the litany I am about to give on spending, that if we are looking for money, perhaps in May of '08 we should not have passed a stimulus program of $168 billion; in July of 2008, a $200 billion bailout of Fannie Mae; in August '08, $85 billion by the Federal Reserve for AIG, which is now up to $140 billion; and in November of '08, $700 billion for the TARP bailout; and in January of '09, $787 billion for a stimulus program which was designed to keep us from getting to 8 percent unemployment, and we are now pushing 10 percent unemployment. That was followed by a $410 billion omnibus spending bill. And then we had in December of '09, a $165 billion jobs program. So we're spending a lot of money. And there's a lot of it out there.

But I would suggest if we're looking for money, what we need to do is get out of the bailout business, from General Motors to the banks. And I think we could find a lot of money on a bipartisan basis. And I know the gentleman is one of the strongest critics of corporate welfare, and yet that is what we have spent 2 years doing, Democrats and Republicans alike. I won't say it started with President Obama.

I do want to say this about the troops in the field. And I do respect your support of troops. I just got back from Afghanistan. I was there Saturday, and I was in Pakistan Sunday, meeting with General McChrystal, meeting with our leadership on the ground over there. We do have a new strategy. It is shape, clear, hold, build, and transfer. And in our first muscle movement under this, as you know we went to Marja, we went to the Helmand Province, and we had a military victory. But rather than leave it there, we have now worked on a successful civilian transfer to make sure that the Afghanis are ready to take on this new conquered territory.

Karzai was briefed from the beginning on the battle for Marja. One- third of the troops were Afghanis. They fought shoulder to shoulder with the coalition forces. The governor of the Helmand province was briefed. There is a new police force that is coming in there to crack down on the corruption in the Afghan police force, because that is one of the problems.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Thirdly, we now have an engaged Pakistan. One hundred forty-seven thousand troops have closed off the safe havens the Taliban has been running to in Pakistan itself in the meantime. Things are happening. And while I support the gentleman's concept of making sure the War Powers Act is followed, I think the timing is poor. So I will not support it at this time because of the progress on the ground, because of the troops that are on the ground.

But again, I want to congratulate the gentleman in his strong conviction of this. I do think it is something that we in Congress need to look at. We need to look at it carefully. I hope that the committee will have some hearings on this. And I hope that we might have some regular order and have an opportunity for the minority party to maybe even offer an amendment or a motion to recommit or something like that that I think would be very beneficial for us to have this national debate.

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me say to the majority, I am glad you have offset this money. I think that is a significant step for both parties, to have a spending bill offset. So I want to get that out of the way.

Having said that, I have got to say that I am very leery of another government spending program to address jobs. We are here because last year we spent nearly--well, we did spend $800 billion on a stimulus program that was supposed to keep us from going to 8 percent unemployment. Now we are at 10 percent unemployment.

The stimulus program before just added 31 brand new Federal programs and increased spending. I am ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, and spending in the USDA has gone up 26 percent. At some point we are going to figure out the Federal Government doesn't have the solution for everything.

This is not our only stimulus proposal or jobs proposal. In May of 2008, we had a $168 billion stimulus program that did not work. In March of 2008, the Federal Reserve said, well, we are going to shore up Wall Street with Bear Stearns, $29 billion. In July of 2008, the Democrat Congress and President Bush came in with a $200 billion bailout of Fannie Mae in order to shore up real estate. And not to be outdone, the Federal Reserve weighed back in a month later with the AIG bailout, $85 billion, now up to $140 billion, that was supposed to avert financial collapse, and yet it did not. And then in October of 2008, we had a $700 billion TARP bill. Then in January 2009, under President Obama, we had a $410 billion omnibus spending bill that was supposed to shore up the economy.

Of course, that brings me back to the other stimulus program. After a while, we're going to figure out everything we do is like Cash for Clunkers. It just doesn't work. If we want to help small businesses, we've got to quit spending money, number one.

I thank the gentleman.

Number two, we need to let community banks be released from some of the overbearing and unnecessary regulations in which they have to comply, because that causes them not to be able to lend money and thus small businesses are tied up in a credit crunch. Number three, we've got to let small businesses compete. We set rules. Big Business and Big Government set rules so that small businesses can't compete. There are things we can do. There are things we can do together on a bipartisan basis. We need to vote this bill down so that we can get to them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as a friend and mourn and share the loss not just to the Murtha family, the State of Pennsylvania, but to the entire Nation, and certainly every man and woman wearing a uniform.

I was proud to know Jack Murtha, proud to serve in the U.S. Congress with Jack Murtha. He was a bipartisan guy. He was a knowledgeable guy. He was a hardworking guy.

The military budget in appropriations is over $500 billion. It is a very thick bill. You have to know airplanes from submarines, from tanks to battleships. Jack Murtha knew that, and he would study it very deeply.

Jack Murtha, though, beyond being a professional Congressman, taught this Chamber many things.

For one thing, I learned as a guy who came up through some partisan battles and some nonpartisan battles that the Murtha-McDade relationship almost cast a certain circle around the State of Pennsylvania that made it a special place, that the Pennsylvania delegation had something that the other States did not have, and that was two great leaders--Republican and Democrat--who kind of set the tone not just for the entire State but for the rest of us to see how things could be. And indeed, the Pennsylvania delegation has still had great fellowship because of that legacy.

It was also reflected in his relationship with Bill Young. I can't tell you what a joy it has been for all Members of Congress who come and often see the battles that are so epitomized on the talk shows and the name calling and so forth, and you think that is Congress. And then you go into a committee room and you see Bill Young and Jack Murtha working together, not always agreeing but always affectionate and always having great respect for what the other one had to say.

And indeed, I can tell you as somebody who served here 18 years, sometimes you couldn't tell who was chairman. They were that close and that united and that focused on what was best for the troops. What a great relationship. And again, what a great example for the rest of us.

Jack Murtha was an old-school guy. He liked to have his bill done in a hurry. In fact, the chairman, Mr. Obey is there, and he knows while it was one of the largest bills, it was also one of the fastest bills to be passed so many times. He knew exactly where he wanted to go long before the hearing started.

I remember I had an amendment that had to do with electronic verification of social security numbers for people working on Federal contracts. The chairman didn't like it. And I remember Mr. Murtha--I submitted it, I worked the committee, the subcommittee very carefully, and he said, ``Kingston, we're not going to do that.'' That was it. That was my hearing. And when he said that, you knew that was it. The curtain was closed. The case was over.

And this same chairman could turn around and say to you, you've got a problem in Hinesville, Georgia, little old Hinesville, Georgia, a speck on the map, that because it's the home of Fort Stewart, the 3rd Infantry was expecting two more brigades, went out and built a lot of roads and schools and infrastructure in preparation for another brigade.

And then the Pentagon made a turn and decided not to send it to them. And who stood up for Hinesville, Georgia? Jack Murtha. Who did I go to and say, Look, if we're going to make this happen, we've got to do something to help these people because the Pentagon has done them wrong. They stood tall for the military but now the military has let them down. We're not going to let that happen. And Jack Murtha pulled through. Not just on that issue but time and time again.

Jack Murtha loved the United States of America. Jack Murtha loved the military. Jack Murtha loved the soldiers. He stood up not just for them, but for their families over and over again.

Congress has lost a great leader, as has the State and the United States of America. But the American soldiers have lost a true friend and a passionate guy who would do anything for the man and woman in uniform.

I say God bless Jack Murtha and his memory and everything he has done for the United States of America.

I certainly am. I wanted to ask the gentleman from Missouri something.

As I understand it, this theater tomorrow, this summit at the White House about health care, I want to make sure I understand, is it health care only? Certainly they're going to talk about jobs. We had the stimulus program when the unemployment was less than 8 percent. It is now over 10 percent. The stimulus program, which was over $800 billion, was spent over a year ago, it's deficit spending, it's borrowed money, and it was supposed to keep unemployment from going to 8 percent, now it's up to 10 percent. Certainly tomorrow at the White House the topic isn't going to be more spending for a government health care program. Certainly they do plan to talk about jobs.

Am I correct or incorrect?

If the gentleman would yield a second.

Actually, as price tags tend to expand after legislation is passed in Washington, the Obama stimulus plan was $787 billion, but they revised it now another $75 billion, so it is well over $800 billion.

Yes.

I'm glad you brought that up. Because as you know, as Republicans we overspent.

We spent way too much money. Now, I will point out this year's deficit alone at $1.4 trillion is more deficit than George Bush had in the entire 8 years. Let me repeat that. Eight years of Bush is still less debt than 1 year of President Obama.

Actually, also there might be something to it if the President had not been Senator Obama. Because Senator Obama voted for every single appropriations bill; and the Bush stimulus program in May of '08, about $168 billion; July of '08, Fannie Mae, $200 billion; Bear Stearns, $29 billion; AIG, $85 billion going to $140 billion, done by the Federal Reserve.

It absolutely does. But the thing I am saying on this Federal Reserve spending is that neither Senator nor President Obama has spoken out against that. He embraced the TARP bill, the Wall Street bailout, with both arms. That is $700 billion. Then there was $410 billion for the omnibus spending bill. And then, as you pointed out, $800 billion for the stimulus bill. Now he is proposing $950 billion for this government health care plan. And yet he still says that he wants to reduce spending.

I'm on the Agriculture Committee. We had a hearing today with the Secretary. I think the Secretary is a very decent Secretary. But the proposal of the administration is to freeze agricultural spending. Agricultural spending has gone up 26 percent since 2007. Yeah, you have a run on the bank----

There is no end to this. Today at the Business Roundtable the President said something like, I am a staunch capitalist, I believe in the capitalist system. And yet let's look at the last record. There is not a government regulation that this administration hasn't embraced and said, look, we need the government to do this.

The gentleman is right. Investment money is going to sit on the sidelines until the government sets the rules and keeps them. Businesses can adjust. Even if the rules are a bit excessive and high and unreasonable, business will adjust to it. But if you keep changing it, they can't adjust. So of course investment capital is going to sit on the sidelines. That's just economic common sense.

With more to come. More to come. As you said, cap-and- trade, but you did not mention the banking bill. This is another financial takeover. And you know, I haven't seen a lot of wisdom behind the government-knows-best mentality of the Pelosi House.

Well, you know, it's interesting the way the Pelosi- Reid-Obama triumvirate always is coming back to government and Washington solutions because, as I see it, looking at the government performance, Republican or Democrat, it hasn't been effective. Just think about Washington, D.C., two weeks ago, shut down because of snow. Now, you know it might be worth 48 hours, but this was a town where, essentially, everybody in the government took off for a week.

Now, it's interesting. My son works in Washington, D.C., in the private sector. Somehow, his roads were open. And I saw that over and over again, the private sector people could get to work 2 weeks ago in the snow. Not every day, not every hour, because it was a bad storm. But for government employees----

Well, let's just say the global warming campaign has been a great disappointment except for the Vice President's pocketbooks. He's done real well on this financially.

But, you know, you think about the government efficiency. Think about Katrina. What was that, $120 billion to rebuild New Orleans? I would think Democrats and Republicans share the blame. Government did not do a very good job.

Think about the war in Afghanistan, now going into its eighth year. We have not executed the war very well.

Think about Social Security. It's going broke. I look at my 24-year- old son and your children. They are not going to get it. That's a mathematical reality. That's not political spin. It runs out of money in 2030, period. Now, we could tinker around the edges and postpone that maybe a year or two, but it needs working.

I have a feeling it was Jimmy Carter trying to get us off Middle East oil. Is that----

And I think, at the time the export or the import amount from the Middle East was maybe 50 to 60 percent, or, no, excuse me. It was about 35 percent, and now it's up to the 50 or 60 level.

Yes. But let's talk about the Department of Education. Boy, I tell you what. School systems have really done well, haven't they, since the Department of Education. I mean, there's no way you could argue that.

Well, you know, the old expression, I'm from the government, I'm here to help. I haven't found a school board or a school board member back home or a teacher in the classroom who can't spend the money more efficiently and more effectively because, you know, there's an old Loretta Lynn song about raising children. One needs a spanking, one needs a hugging, and one's on his way. And you know, that's the situation with education. It's the teacher in the classroom who knows how to teach Johnny, not some bureaucrat on the sixth floor three offices down at the Department of Education in Washington, D.C.

Well, you know, what about Medicare?

Now, Medicare's a very important health care program for our seniors--my mom's on it and I think your parents are--and yet it's going broke. $36 trillion in unfunded assets? What are we doing to senior citizens? The program is going broke, and yet we have our head in the sand.

You know, there's a joke about the guy asks his friend, he says, Why don't you ever read the Bible? And he says, Well, you know what? I just don't understand all that stuff that's in there. And the guy replies and says, Well, I don't think it's the part that you don't understand that is bothering you.

And the President says over and over again, I guess this is maybe his background in, you know, Ivy League schools or, you know, the circles that run around in the Northeast that, well, the American people, bless their heart, they just don't understand this health care bill. You know, what has he given, 50 speeches? I don't know. I know I had 19 town hall meetings. The people understand the health care bill. If there's one certainty in the whole debate it is that the American people understand the Obama-Pelosi health care bill.

You know, the town meetings that you and I had, the town meetings where you did not have to have an invitation, the town meetings where you invited Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party members, independents, out-of-towners, nonregistered voters, the kind of town meeting where you had open mikes and anybody could stand up and say anything they wanted----

Well, you know what I found though? The people were reading the bill. And I've got to say this to the people who supported the bill, they found some good stuff in there and said to me, you ought to support that. And there were some things in there that I think are worthy of supporting.

But I still think it's very difficult to make a bad bill a better bill. I think it would be better to start all over, pick and choose some ideas from Republicans. You don't have to start at Ground Zero as if you've never heard of health care reform ideas, but you should start all over in this legislation.

What if this was the Pelosi-Boehner-Reid-McConnell bill? What a different thing. And I think that's what we want to do. We want to work with the Democrats.

We were shut out of the stimulus bill. We were shut out of the omnibus bill. We've been shut out of health care. Maybe tomorrow isn't just theater. Maybe it's the turning point. I hope that it is. You know, I'd like to see something get done. But a lot of times, you know, these things are just positioning.

Well, let me ask you this now. Who gets to look at it in 24 hours and when? Who is this group of people and when?

I understand there's some special interests for Louisiana, Connecticut, Michigan, and those are the deals we know about because those were a little bit more visible. But you can imagine all the other oddball stuff in there, the hospital wings that will be built here and there.

So special interest groups have clearly been on the inside of this and their fingerprints are all over the health care bill.

And, you know, not to mention there will be a new tax on individuals because, you know, when you're forced to buy something, that is a tax. And so there would be less money for customers of small businesses on a discretionary basis. Whether they're buying hamburgers or clothes or tires or whatever, they'll have less of it in their pocket.

Well, again, the American people do understand this Pelosi-Obama-Reid health care package. And, you know, I think one of the great examples of government efficiency we saw in August, Cash for Clunkers. It was a program, actually pretty simple program. You turn in your old gas guzzler, you trade it in for a more fuel-efficient car. We give you a tax credit. They take your old car, put it out to pasture and put it down. And, you know, it's kind of an easy thing to follow. Stimulates the car dealerships.

Well, that program was supposed to last from August to November. It was a $1 billion program. I think they hired 100 employees, came back a week later and said they needed 1,100 employees and $3 billion. And even doing that, Cash for Clunkers was dead and defunct within a matter of weeks.

So you now feel that that same government that brought us Cash for Clunkers, a $3 billion program, is going to be able to run a $2 trillion health care bill.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I was looking at the Tea Party list of priorities, which they call a contract from America, which you know, this is a grassroots deal, just popped up. And there are even different Tea Party groups. But they have nationally been surveying their members on what their priorities are.

The number one priority is to cut the size of the Federal Government spending. The number two priority, would the gentleman from Iowa like to guess? The number two priority of all of these thousands of participants on a grassroots' basis is, do not put something in the bill that doesn't belong in the bill.

So as the gentleman talks about these secret deals to the senator in Nebraska, the senator from Florida, the senator from Louisiana, people don't like that at all. If it's such a great deal for the good people of Nebraska, maybe it ought to go for the rest of the 49 States and maybe it doesn't need to be brokered in some smoke-filled back room.

So what you're saying is very important. It can't be understated. If this bill is such a great deal, why do you need to have all of those special interest side deals in order to get the votes from Nebraska or from Florida or from Louisiana?

I can't imagine what the Harry Reid U.S. Senate was thinking. How stupid do they think the American people are? How callous can they be to the sense of fair play? What kind of almost thuggery is it when you do that to people? It just doesn't sound right for the taxpayers all over the country to have to float the bill for one State. And as the gentleman from Missouri pointed out, there was also a special interest deal for Florida.

And I think the presumption was people are Christmas shopping, they're getting ready to have their families in. They're not paying attention. Let's just push through whatever we can.

Well, a funny thing happened in Massachusetts. They were apparently paying attention, and I think that that has woke up a lot of people around here.

We have a group in the House called Blue Dog Democrats. I am not exactly sure what a Blue Dog is because they certainly vote like the yellow dog Democrats from what I can understand. But I don't think there is any distinction except there is a lot of Democrats right now who are saying, Hey, I saw what happened in Massachusetts, and if this bill comes back, I think I am going to vote ``no'' and maybe make up for my ``yes'' vote previously.

How many Democrats did vote ``no'' in the House, do you remember? It was 220. You need 218. So there were two votes over 218.

You would think they would probably have something to say at the White House. They would be a little more moderate and have some good productive contribution to make.

Well, I would say if the gentleman is saying it's an arrogant power grab, he certainly is accurate, and that's apparently the model that he wants to have. The gentleman may also have quotes from Senator Joe Biden, who denounced using this nuclear option, as well as Harry Reid.

When they were in the minority, I think they were right. When we were in the majority, I think we were wrong. I don't think you should do that. I think that it is a desperation thing. And if you can't get the requisite number of votes, maybe you need to start all over on the legislation. But you do have very strong, unequivocal statements by Senator Obama, candidate Obama, Senator Reid, Senator Biden and yet total hypocrisy, that's what it is, is hypocrisy at this point.

The gentleman was talking about needing Republican votes. They do not need a Republican vote to stop anything or to pass anything. It's not just with this $950 billion health care bill; they could pass a jobs bill without a Republican vote.

They could pass the tax-and-trade bill without it. They could get out of Iraq or Afghanistan without a single Republican vote. They could have energy independence without a Republican vote. They could pass that card check, that special interest bill for unions, without a Republican vote.

Why aren't they doing it? I just think that they had no idea that America was not asleep at the wheel. They found out in Massachusetts, and they're scared to death, hey, this

might not be an isolated election. So we are seeing a lot of backpedaling right now. It's hilarious when you see some of these people, like the Senator from Nebraska who had the special interest deal on the health care bill. Now, he is all over this jobs bill. Oh, too much spending. You've got a $950 billion health care bill which he supports and a $15 billion jobs bill that he is against because of the spending.

Only in this town.

If the gentleman will yield quickly, a bill that was still being amended at 3:30 a.m. before we started debating it at 9 a.m. in the morning, a bill which you could say truthfully in your heart of hearts believe that not one single Member in the United States House of Representatives had read.

Let me just ask both of you, should Republicans take over this House, would you be willing to change the House rules to say any bill has to be posted online at least 72 hours before it's voted on; would you support that?

I am an appropriator, and I can tell you, generally all appropriation bills have been open rule. There have been a few rare occasions when we were in the majority that we had maybe a modified rule or a closed rule, but traditionally open rules were always the case on appropriations bills. When all else failed, at least there were appropriation bills to allow the minority party an opportunity to put in some amendments.

But the iron hand of the oppressive majority has closed down that system. It's not about Republicans versus Democrats; it's about 435 people who have been elected by 600,000 people to represent their views in their Nation's capital.

If the gentleman would yield, I want to tell you one of my rules experiences at the Rules Committee. Now, remember, the Rules Committee, when the bill is passed by, say, the Agriculture or the Education or the Energy Committee, it goes to the Rules Committee and they determine how long it's going to be debated and what amendments will be allowed and what amendments won't be allowed. That's why they're called rules. Four hundred thirty-five Members, you've got to have rules, strict rules, or you won't get anything done.

I was going to the Rules Committee. I had submitted an amendment, and I was waiting my turn to present my amendment to the Rules Committee for their consideration. And a staffer wrote me an e-mail and said, Your amendment has been rejected. Do you still want to sit in here and present it?

I said, Well, how could it be rejected? I haven't presented it and until I present it they can't reject it.

And my staffer said, I have some inside information. I've got a friend on the majority. Your amendment is not on the list.

I said, Well, what list?

The list of amendments they're going to allow.

I said, Well, this is just a total farce. You have Members of Congress sitting in a crowded room waiting their turn to present an amendment, and the Rules Committee behind closed doors had already decided which ones they were going to take and not take.

You know what's interesting about that bill, though, is dispute that strange route that it went for the strange product that wasn't passed by the committee, we still had a decent debate on it and passed the bill.

The importance of that is if you want open debate on health care, we now have an example that shows, hey, you know what, it works. This was a health insurance related piece of legislation. We had an open debate on it. It didn't have special deals for Nebraska or Louisiana. It did not have a big price tag on it. It had some Republicans against it, some Republicans for it, and the thing passed.

Oh, hey, what about doing that on everything else about health care? Wouldn't that be an interesting experiment in democracy?

You know, the amazing thing is, I was in the State legislature, and we had, out of 180 members, 26 Republicans, and yet the philosophies were still reflective of the State of Georgia. You could roughly say one-third of the people were fairly liberal, one- third of the people were

fairly conservative, and then another third were either right of center or left of center. And so you had to have the legislative deliberations to get a bill in order to get, for the Georgia House, 91 votes to pass something. So I assumed that Congress would be the same way, where you would have some people from really safe hard left, hard right districts, and then people maybe from more swing districts where it's reflective of the American people, but every bill would have the mark of both parties on it.

I was shocked when I came here and saw that it's full speed ahead with the majority party. I think that's why, when we took over the House in the 104th Congress, we had open rules. And you know what, we strayed from that. That was one reason the people threw us out and put the Democrats in. But now they've seen the Democrats, and they are sick and tired of this partisan stuff. They do want open debate on C-SPAN and amendments.

So you know what would really be nice? If Mr. Akin offers an amendment and I vote against it and you vote for it--and it's okay to vote against your party members. And maybe you prefer a Democrat one. But you know, once you understand something, you have the opportunity to debate it, as we did today, you get a better bipartisan product.

And so today, I don't know if the Speaker is in town, but perhaps she saw that and said, Oh, my goodness, so this is the way democracy works? Maybe we should do this on another dozen bills and cobble together a collection of health care reforms. Because it seems to me somewhere in the town meetings that's what people were saying; fix what's broken. Don't throw out the entire system. And if you did some one-shot bills, you could have targeted health care reform without some $950 billion government takeover of health care.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Nanophotonic Biosensor Detection of Bioagents and Pathogens

Requesting Member: Congressman Jack Kingston

Bill Number: H.R. 3326, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, FY 2010

Account: Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation for the Army

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The University of Georgia

Address of Requesting Entity: 111 Carlton St.--AHRC, Athens, GA 30602

Description of Request: The funding would be used to develop a rapid and sensitive means of detecting bioagents and pathogens that cause disease and rising mortality rates, particularly those that pose threats as agents for bioterrorism and military personnel. I certify that this project does not have a direct and foreseeable effect on the pecuniary interests of me or my spouse.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to say the concept of PAYGO sounds great, but it is an absolute fig leaf when you look at the practicality of it only applying to 2 percent of the budget. It's just not a genuine proposal.

But I want to say this: I think it is good to have this discussion. But both parties have been spending too much money, and not just Congress, but the Federal Reserve. Just think about 2008. Bear Stearns bailout, $29 billion. A Bush stimulus bill in May of 2008, $168 billion. The Fannie Mae bailout, $200 billion. The AIG bailout, $85 billion, going now to $140 billion. And that was under the Democrat majority in the House, and President Bush signed it into law. So both parties have been in this mix.

And then comes President Obama. A $787 billion stimulus bill that brought our unemployment from 8 percent to 10 percent. An omnibus spending bill, $410 billion. A health care proposal that costs over $1 trillion. Cap-and-trade that will cost American households $1,500 per house. And another stimulus bill that the Democrats, under Speaker Pelosi, just passed in December of about $60 billion.

Ladies and gentlemen, both parties are guilty, but this is the essence of it. It is a tripling of the national debt. Therefore, we have a debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is a mechanism, an outside trigger to force Democrats and Republicans to come together and cut spending. But instead what do we do? We move the trigger. And the result is this. And guess who inherits it. The children. And Gen X and Gen Y, who will already not get Social Security because it is going broke, and Medicare that has $39 billion in unobligated debt right now. We are not facing what we need to do.

Instead of moving the debt ceiling, we need to be going back into our spending and cutting spending, not kicking the can down the road for another Congress, another election, and another generation. Vote ``no'' on this. Let's stay over the weekend and start coming together to cut the budget.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, when I first came to Congress in 1993, we had computers but we did not have Internet. In fact, if it wasn't for Al Gore maybe we still wouldn't have it. I don't need to bring that up.

But you know, the reality is most of us, and my friend Mr. Gordon will remember, did not have cell phones. And then I remember there was a discussion that I had with one Member about, ``You know, I don't think it is fair for the taxpayers to pay for your cell phone. I think it is unnecessary.''

And I remember when I got a cell phone I wanted to have a 912 area code, because I didn't want the folks back home to think I went Washington if I had the 202 area code. But now in essence everybody has a mobile phone, as they do Internet. I remember Stacy Hall, our receptionist, who was the IT person since she was the youngest in the office. She was probably 22, a UGA graduate. She got this thing called the Internet, and she started planning her weekends with her friends.

Now, there were about five other 21-, 22-year-old kids on the Hill who knew what email was. So they started swapping. And then I remember eventually she told our scheduler about, ``You know, maybe you could use this like to schedule the Congressman.'' What a radical idea. And before you know it, 5 or 6 years down the road, everybody was addicted to it.

And then I remember 9/11, not many of us had a BlackBerry. But BlackBerrys had an ability to get out on the Internet a little bit better than cell phones, so BlackBerrys became an important thing. And I know Mr. Gordon and many of us here have seen all this grow, but now this phenomenal piece of equipment can find maps anywhere in the world. You can talk to somebody on the phone. You can take pictures and instantly send it to somebody. You can download music--although I have no idea how--and Internet people and look up things, Google online and Bing. And can you only imagine what this will be 5 years from now. It is unbelievable.

I entered Michigan State University, and the calculator was a slide rule. We actually voted my freshman year not to allow calculators because the Texas Instruments, I think it was called an SR-10--can I get an amen over there? I know you must have had one. It was $179. We voted in my chemistry class at Michigan State University not to allow calculators because most middle class kids could not afford it. And yet 4 or 5 years later you could get much better calculators that fit in your pocket for $10.

Technology has evolved at such a rapid pace, and yet along with it so have the bad guys. It used to be that maybe some interested math genius with a twisted sense of humor in Indonesia would hack into the Department of Defense computers just to see if he could, not really caring how many F-22s were in production, but just wanted to know. But then eventually the bad guys became more organized, more sophisticated, botnets, computer systems that talked to each other and shared information. A way of hacking into the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Centers for Disease Control, all kinds of government agencies with all kinds of sensitive information. But there is no need to stop there. Wall Street, financial information, other things that you could get out of universities, all of it is vulnerable.

And so this bill today is relevant because it shows that Congress is moving along with the technology to rise to the challenge. We need to have cybersecurity experts. So many of the cybersecurity experts that we have now come up through a law enforcement background and then they learn their computer training.

What this bill does is to reach out to that young 17-, 18-, 19-year- old, and identify them as being interested in this, and merge in all their talents and say come on in the classroom because we need you as a line of defense. Technology against technology has to have that wall in-between them, and that wall is a brilliant, well-trained human being. That is what this bill seeks to do.

In my own district, I have to brag a little bit, that Armstrong Atlantic University has a Cyber Security Research Institute. And it is working to bridge the gap so that the young people can have a viable career in cybersecurity. The program is to produce a more educated cybersecurity investigator with expertise in areas not only in technology but in law enforcement and law itself, and policy itself, and work with cyber forensics in order to produce the kind of professionals that we need to overcome the threat that we face as a Nation. We cannot be passive about this topic. We have to be proactive.

This bill shows one of the great bipartisan efforts of Congress, for us to come together and address something that is truly a national security threat. So I am proud to support it. If you want any more information, you can get it on my BlackBerry. I will be glad to download it for you.

If the gentleman would yield?

Especially if it is some of that good Tennessee music that you all produce.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask House Members within my voice maybe for some help. About three or 4 years ago we found a man in Savannah, Georgia, who's in his late forties, maybe early fifties, who does not have identity. We have no idea who he is or where he came from. But he is an intelligent, apparently college-educated, middle management type guy, maybe from Indiana. Mr. Burton actually helped us on him a little bit because he has memories of Indiana and Denver, Colorado. We've talked to the FBI. They've done a background check. We've talked to Social Security. They've done a background check. We've gone to many Federal agencies and asked them for their assistance trying to identify this gentleman. He has no Social Security number so he can't get a job. And he is totally in abeyance, basically forced to be homeless if not for the charity of some people who've taken an interest in his case.

So if anybody knows of a way to identify somebody, I would respectfully ask you to please let me know what it is, and I will be glad to follow whatever lead you can give me. And I appreciate that and thank you very much.

I thank the Speaker, the gentleman from Washington, and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands.

I had a lot of interest in this bill because I have spent so many wonderful hours at the Rocky Mountain National Park. My family has been going there off and on for nearly 25 years about once a year, and I can tell you, there is not a greater playground in the United States of America if you like the outdoors, if you like elk, if you like mule deer, if you like family, if you like just to get out and exercise and do the fresh air.

I have had the experience of hiking up Longs Peak three times, and those of you out West are very familiar with fourteeners and what a great thrill that is. But for somebody who comes from zero sea level in Savannah, Georgia, to go 14,000 feet in altitude up in the tundra--the tundra starts at around 11,000--it is such a great thrill to go through the Keyhole, to go through the Narrows, to go through the Boulder Field, to get on the summit of Longs Peak and look out for miles and miles. I will tell you, it is just such a great thrill.

I have also climbed Flattop Mountain, Chiquita, Otis, Hallett Peak, and Ypsilon Mountain. So many times doing that, I have done it with my family, my cousins, my small children and now my grown children. I have had a couple of them up on Longs with me.

My mother, who is now in her eighties, was the one who first got addicted to Rocky Mountain National Park. We had the opportunity many years ago to go to Chasm Lake together, and I remember my mother was probably in her seventies at the time, but that is a great hike. They actually rate hikes in terms of A, B, and C; A being the most difficult and C being a very moderately tough hike. Chasm Lake is one of those. My mother has been all over the Rockies, as has my sister Jean, both in snowshoes, in cross-country skis, and in tennis shoes and hiking boots.

I have gone trout fishing there many times with barbless hooks with my childhood friend Ross Fox. It's kind of discouraging for me to have to release trout, but I understand the big picture here. It has been a lot of fun. I have photographed elk and the deer and looked for marmots on the peak.

I just can't emphasize enough what a great vision that Enos Mills had, who is the father of the Rocky Mountain National Park, when he promoted this to become a national park. It was his vision. His brother Joe Mills also was a very passionate lover of the Rocky Mountain National Park. I have had the opportunity to meet Enos Mills' daughter who lives right next door to it. They are great advocates.

I'm sorry to rant and rave on a personal basis about something, but I want to recommend to anybody in Congress and anybody out there who is listening who doesn't live in Colorado who hasn't been there, it is a wonderful place. Regardless of your age, regardless of your interests, there is something there for you.

Madam Speaker, if you guys are interested--and I can tell you are--I would like to invite you to let me come show you my slides. I would be willing to do that. Y'all can come to my office and I'm going to show you my many picture albums, because it is something that is great.

Anyway, I'm glad we're doing this, and there are some things I think Congress does well. The National Park System certainly is one of those great things that Congress has done on a bipartisan basis and has a lot of support for it. So I thank the gentleman for letting me go down this personal trail today.

I thank the gentlewoman.

I wanted to rise in support of this resolution, but I also wanted to commend those who are involved in the rescue effort and the international communities, the governments, and the nongovernmental organizations, as well as the private rescue teams who have been on the ground.

I also want to give high marks to those people who had already been down in Haiti. One of them is Pastor Freddie Hebron from Savannah, Georgia, whose church has an ongoing missionary down there. Pastor Hebron was actually unaccounted for for about 38 hours, and the community was very concerned about him, but he is okay. He is still down there, although communication with him is a little bit spotty.

We also had another group, Pastor Bowman with Islands Church of Christ, who is down there led by Dr. John Rowlett and Dr. Brian Kornblatt, 14 American citizens who were down there and located outside of Port-au-Prince when the earthquake hit. And yet from their area, they started immediately dispensing medicine to the victims of the earthquake, eventually ran out of medicine, and then were stuck in an area isolated from the American Embassy, about 25 miles. They were able to get let out of there on Saturday at somewhat great danger and peril to them because at that point the street situation was beginning to deteriorate, with gangs and mobs that were out there and a lot of chaos. Richard Towns, who is a former marine, was one in their group and was able to get inside the Embassy. Once they got near it, and after a number of other obstacles, this group was able to return home to Savannah, Georgia, on Saturday with lots of prayer.

However, sadly, we still have two constituents from my area of Georgia who are unaccounted for; one is Courtney Hayes, who is a college student with Lynn University. She is a native of Douglas, Georgia. And another is a businessman named David Apperson, who is from Adel, Georgia. Both of them were staying in the Hotel Montana. Hotel Montana has suffered many losses. The rescue crew has brought out eight people from Hotel Montana, but there are others who are believed to be still trapped inside there.

In a conference call with the families yesterday we were told that the search-and-rescue teams--and some are private, some are international, and some are American; one of them is from Florida, one is from Fairfax County, and one is from Los Angeles--they're doing everything they can with scope cameras and listening devices and dogs and so forth to try to find whatever cavities remain in this rubble and focus on those areas where somebody could be trapped and surviving. The cavity question is actually more important right now than food or water, and so they're focusing on that.

A major concern of the families is what happens when the Government of Haiti, which is what we were told yesterday, the Government of Haiti decides that there is no point in further looking for survivors at the Hotel Montana. What we're concerned about as Americans is that we should make that decision, not the Haitian Government. I have written a letter today to the President, along with Congressman Rooney and Congressman Mica, who also have constituents in there, to not call off that search because we believe it is very important that the American Government do everything that it can for the Haitians and the other international citizens, but also do everything we can foremost for Americans who are down there who are unaccounted for.

So I would ask that formally of my colleagues--that Hotel Montana we know has some American citizens trapped in there, we do not know their condition, I hope that other Members of Congress will join me in calling for that search to continue. I also would call on the administration to do that, and commend the good work that they are doing all around and realize the challenge ahead of them. But my concern right now is the Hotel Montana. And I would ask for your prayers for Courtney Hayes, a college student, and David Apperson, who is a businessman from Georgia, who are both down there and still unaccounted for.

With that, I commend you in support of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to celebrate the 150th birthday of Valdosta, Georgia. This impressive milestone allows us to take the time to celebrate the city's progress over the past 150 years.

Valdosta was incorporated as a town in 1860, when Troupville, the previous Lowndes County seat, relocated to follow the expanding railroad. The city of Valdosta is home to more than 46,000 people, as well as Moody Air Force Base, where President George W. Bush received his National Guard flight training. Valdosta is commonly referred to as the ``Azalea City,'' as the red, pink, and white plants bloom in abundance throughout the city, especially in the spring.

According to tradition, the first train came over the new road to Valdosta on July 4, 1860. Willis Allen was designated as the first manager of the railroad, which was then called Savannah, Florida, & Western and later became part of the Atlantic Coast Line. Valdosta was primarily an agricultural city, and with time it became the largest inland market for Sea Island cotton in the world, until the boll weevil beetle eliminated the crop in 1917. Today, Valdosta's agriculture consists mainly of row crops such as tobacco, cotton and peanuts.

Valdosta has been the home of many skilled athletes, which earned the town the 2008 ``Titletown, USA'' award by ESPN. With 14 national titles, 47 conference titles, 99 state titles, and 289 region titles, Valdosta has certainly earned this honor. Valdosta has also thrived in the artistic realm. A number of comedians, actors, and musicians have emerged from Valdosta. The original ``Jingle Bells'' tune was even composed by one of Valdosta's music teachers, James Lord Pierpont. Valdosta's symphony orchestra--composed of local artists, students, and professors at Valdosta State University--attracts guest performers of international reputation. The Arts and Balloon Festival, held in April, serves to celebrate all of these artistic endeavors.

Whether you are admiring the beauty of Valdosta at the annual Azalea festival in March, watching one of the city's athletes perform on the national stage, or simply encountering friendly faces as you pass through one of Valdosta's many parks and historic districts, the city is no doubt a captivating one. From its birth in 1860 until today, the year of its Sesquicentennial Celebration, Valdosta has remained one of the nation's greatest and most productive cities. It is one of the many cities that keep Georgia on the mind, and I am proud to celebrate its history with you today.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I want to say, in January, the President rushed through a massive stimulus bill of $787 billion, which was supposed to be targeted and timely for shovel-ready projects. We had to do this to keep unemployment from going to 8 percent. Well, now it's at 10 percent. Rather than going back into the stimulus program and doing major surgery, we are adding yet another spending bill from a different account.

To begin with, the stimulus bill only had about 27 percent in public works-type projects. Most of it went to plus-up pet political projects of Congress and to create 31 brand new Federal Government programs. Even then, 12 percent of the money is all that has left town. Most of it is still in Washington, D.C.

To give you some examples, there is a Smart Grid program of $4.5 billion. None of the funds have been spent. There is a $2.2 billion alternative fuel program. None of those funds have been spent. There is a $4 billion energy innovative technology loan program. Only $2 million has been spent. There is an $8 billion high-speed rail project of which zero funds have been spent. There is $1 billion for the COPS grants program, and no funds from it have left Washington, D.C.

Before we go spending additional money, wouldn't it make sense to try to figure out what the logjam is?

You can go to the Web site of the stimulus program, and you can see the jobs that were created in the 99th District of the Virgin Islands or in the 42nd District of Connecticut. The only problem is there are no such districts. They are fictitious numbers. You could go to Augusta, Georgia, and look at the housing projects where 317 jobs were created. Only it really wasn't for creating jobs. It was a bonus for existing employees. Again, from the administration's Web site, $937 million was spent on 10,000 projects from which no jobs were created. The stimulus program is not working. We need to revamp it.

Another reason we don't have jobs under this administration is because of the cap-and-trade policy.

The cap-and-trade proposal is a scheme based on some phony numbers, not all of the numbers. Incidentally, I don't recommend Al Gore's book to anybody, but if you have time for reading today, keep that one in mind. It's going to run jobs overseas. We need to take a look at it. Particularly, it needs to be based on real numbers, not on phony numbers.

The health care policy is an 8 percent tax on small businesses with a myriad of new rules and regulations with the possibility of lawsuits. There is the banking bill, which is just going to crunch credit all over America. This is not the right thing to do at the last minute.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I stand in opposition to the rule and in opposition to the bill. One reason is that in 1969, when Congress passed Truth in Lending, it was with great intent. Nobody would argue against the purism of the heart. But the reality is, in 1969 before the bill even went into effect, before the new law became effective on the books, there were 34 official interpretations of what the rule would mean, and 10 years later there were over 13,000 lawsuits about it just trying to figure out what does this thing mean.

Now here comes this bill and there are all kinds of terms in there like ``excessive,'' ``unreasonable,'' and ``abusive,'' and they're not defined. Those are going to be defined in a court system by trial and error over a period of time.

We need to send this bill back to the committee and ask for definitions on this stuff so that we can, during these uncertain economic times, not put one more ambiguity on the private sector. I think that's the better way to do reform.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in order to recognize Georgia's Middle School Counselor of the Year, Maria Grovner. A native of McIntosh County Georgia, Ms. Grovner is the middle school counselor at Creekland Middle School in Gwinnett County Georgia. Before receiving the honor of being named Middle School Counselor of The Year, Ms. Grovner was recognized as Gwinnett County's Counselor of the Year and as the Region II Middle School Counselor of the Year.

As a result of Ms. Grovner's hard work and numerous undertakings, it is no surprise that she has received these accolades. In addition to implementing numerous student activities and promoting diversity and early college awareness at the middle school level, Ms. Grovner coordinates a Peer Leadership Conference for approximately 600 middle school peer leaders. Additionally, the Georgia School Counselors Association is fortunate to have Ms. Grovner serving as the Mentoring Program Co-Chair and as the Middle School Worksetting Vice-President. As Worksetting Vice-President, Ms. Grovner assists other middle school counselors throughout the state in implementing the best practices in their counseling programs.

Ms. Grovner's dedication to her profession and the students she serves is admirable and exemplary. Madam Speaker, I am proud to honor Maria Grovner as the State of Georgia's Middle School Counselor of the Year.