Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, having run a small business, I know what it's like to meet a payroll and offer health care benefits to my employees. I know what it's like to create jobs for families struggling to make ends meet. I also understand the consequences for small businesses when Washington imposes higher taxes, new government mandates, and more red tape.

Americans know that small businesses are the engine of job creation in their communities; government is not. And more than ever before, small businesses need solutions from Washington that help create jobs and provide quality, affordable health care for their employees.

Republicans have been offering those solutions all year long: solutions like allowing small business to join together to get health insurance at lower rates--the same way that large businesses and labor unions do today; promoting wellness and expanded health savings accounts to provide additional flexibility to small businesses; and ending junk lawsuits to lower health care costs for small businesses and all Americans.

Under the Democrats' costly government-run plan, however, health care costs are going to go up and countless small business jobs will be destroyed as a result. At the heart of the Democrats' plan is a massive tax increase which will fall most heavily on entrepreneurs that run small businesses. It also includes the harsh mandate that requires employers to provide health insurance or face a steep tax.

It will kill jobs, plain and simple.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 740 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize myself for as much time as I may consume.

I think this is a sad day for the House of Representatives. I think that this is nothing more than a partisan stunt aimed at trying to divert people's attention from the real issue that the American people want to talk about, and that is health care.

The gentleman from South Carolina made it clear the other night when he told the President's Chief of Staff that his behavior was inappropriate, and that is why he was calling to apologize to the President. The President graciously accepted his apology.

And last Friday, none other than the Speaker of the House, herself, said it is time for us to talk about health care and not Mr. Wilson. Now, the Speaker and I don't see eye to eye on every issue, but on this issue I think I am in full agreement with her.

Joe Wilson is a decent human being. He did the right thing. He called the President and apologized, and the President was gracious enough to accept it. And I just believe that a man who has spent 25 years of his life in public service in the State senate and here in Congress, who has four sons, all of whom were in the military, three of whom served in Iraq, we all know Joe Wilson. He is a decent man, and to put him through this on the floor of the House I think is unacceptable and it is a partisan stunt.

There has been behavior that has gone on around here far more serious than this, and it didn't bring a resolution to the floor to condemn someone's behavior.

Yes, people have made mistakes. Some have come down to the floor and apologized, others have not. But none of it, none of it required a resolution. And to think that the precedent that is being set here today, the precedent, think about it, never has this happened before, that we are going to bring a resolution of disapproving of his behavior. My goodness, we could be doing this every day of the week.

The American people sent us here to work together to solve the problems of our country. They didn't send us here to talk about our behavior. They didn't send us here to do that. What they want us to do is to deal with the issue of health care.

The President said we ought to work in a bipartisan fashion to get health care reform accomplished. I agree with the President. I'm here. I'm willing. I'm able. Set the time and the place, and we will be there with our solutions to the health care problems in the country.

But to divert the Nation's attention from the issues they care about, health care, trying to make sure that we get jobs back into our economy, trying to do something about record deficits and record debt, no, no, no, we are not doing any of that. We are here on some witch hunt, some partisan stunt that the American people are not going to respect.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the Republican whip, Mr. Cantor.

I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the Republican Conference chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, over the month of August, when Members were home in their districts, the American people were speaking loudly, and both Democrats and Republicans heard the message, I think, loud and clear. But as we stand here today, I would think the American people are probably looking at us wondering, do they really understand?

The American people are saying enough is enough; enough of the politics here in Washington, enough of the spending, enough of the big government takeover. And yet, here we are on the floor of the House today debating a resolution that should not be here, putting a man's name in the record books of disapproving of his behavior.

The gentleman from South Carolina admitted that he had made a mistake; he called the President and apologized. And yet, here we are on the floor of the House of Representatives debating a resolution describing his behavior. I think it's wrong. And I think we will rue the day that we set this precedent and brought this resolution to the floor.

I would just ask all my colleagues to remember what it is that we're doing here and the precedent that's being set. It's wrong. So I would ask all my colleagues to do the right thing, to stand up and to vote ``no'' on this resolution. Let's all respect our colleague who admitted his mistake and apologized. Let's all respect him. And the way that we do that is to vote ``no'' on this resolution.

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

Let me thank my colleagues for yielding and thank them for this resolution that's on the floor.

All of us will remember, I think quite clearly, where we were on the morning of September 11, 2001. I think all of us will remember the victims of this heinous act that occurred that day. But while we today remember those victims and remember their families and we remember those first responders who put their lives in danger as well, I think we, today, need to resolve that we will never forgive those who perpetrated that attack and vow that we will continue to go after them.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Missouri, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who understands quite

clearly that if we walk away from our efforts in Afghanistan, the Taliban will once again be in control, providing safe haven for those who perpetrated these attacks.

And while it's been now 8 years since that attack, our enemies are still out there, still attempting to injure Americans, kill Americans, both here and abroad.

I think it's critically important that we, as a Nation, never forget what happened on 9/11 and vow what many of us believe is important: that our number one job is to provide safety and security to the American people.

So I thank my colleagues for the resolution that's on the floor and honor those who gave their lives on 9/11 and think of their families and the first responders who continue to suffer today.

Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged resolution at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, here we go again. This is a major piece of legislation that was introduced last night at the Rules Committee about 12:15. Then about 9:36 this morning we saw another version of this bill introduced to replace the first version. And then at 10:50 this morning we see a third version of this same bill. Now, this may be a great bill. I have no idea. But the fact is that introducing three different versions of the bill yet this day and then bringing it to the floor some 4 hours later begins to ask the question, Did anybody read the bill?

Now, I think the chairman and the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee probably did read the bill and understand what's in it, but how about the other 431 of us who serve in this House who are expected to vote on this?

And my second complaint about this bill is the fact that we are considering it here in the House under a procedure where there is a whopping 40 minutes of debate, 20 minutes on each side, 40 minutes, and no amendments are allowed to be offered. We've got this major food safety bill here on the floor, and nobody gets to offer an amendment, nobody gets to have a debate about it, and nobody, clearly, has much of an idea of what's in the bill.

Now, as a longtime member of the House Ag Committee, I understand that we've got the safest food supply in the world. It's probably not perfect, but it is the safest food supply in the world, and we can do better. But to legislate in this manner under these conditions without Members having a clue about what's in the bill is not, in my view, in the best interest of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats in Congress don't want the American people to see this chart. This is the chart that outlines the Democrat proposal, which is moving through the House of Representatives, that contains as many as 53 new Federal programs, agencies and commissions. That's right. They're trying to restrict Members of Congress from showing this to their constituents. They say it's misleading. Well, there's nothing misleading about it. They just don't want anyone to see it.

Well, here it is. I'm using it. Are they going to turn out the lights? Are they going to turn off the cameras? Why don't they want the American people to see this?

Well, I think the American people deserve the truth about the Democrats' $1.6 trillion takeover of our health care system--more bureaucracy and more taxes, more mandates and more government involvement in your life. Guess what? It also means less jobs for Americans.

According to a model developed by the President's own Council of Economic Advisers' chairperson, this proposal will cost Americans some 5.5 million jobs over the next 10 years. The National Federation of Independent Business says that at least 1 million small business jobs will be lost. Over the weekend, even the Congressional Budget Office made it clear that this will cost low-wage workers an opportunity to get a job.

Listen, after the stimulus hasn't worked, most of my constituents are continuing to ask the question: Where are the jobs? We have a stimulus bill that's not working. We have a national energy tax bill that came through here last month that will cost millions of Americans their jobs. While this will ruin the health care system that we enjoy in America, let's not forget that it will cost us millions of American jobs when most Americans continue to want to know: Where are the jobs?

Madam Speaker, my colleagues, last night the President addressed our Nation about the issue of health care, and there were some statements made by the President last night that aren't quite accurate.

One, he said that we will keep government out of health care decisions. Now, if that's the case, I wonder why there was $200 million set aside in the stimulus bill earlier this year so that the government could do a comparative analysis to determine which treatment was most effective in terms of a potential cure for a disease. This is clearly going to give the government information that they believe is the best treatment when the doctors and their patients may not agree.

And secondly, I'd point out that if you look at an amendment that was offered in the Energy and Commerce Committee the other night, the amendment said real simple that no government bureaucrat will make any decisions or interfere with any decision between a doctor and their patient. And I would add that that amendment was rejected on a party- line vote.

Secondly, the President said if you like your current plan we will give you the option to keep it. I wish that were true. But as I noted the other day on the floor, under the ERISA provision, I believe that thousands of companies will drop their company health care plan because after 5 years it's going to have to be approved by the Department of Labor and the health care choices czar to ensure that the company plan meets certain Federal standards. I've got to tell you this is going to drive a lot of companies out of offering the insurance that people have today. They will have no option but to go to the government plan.

And thirdly, he said no plan will add to our deficit. Well, the Congressional Budget Office last Friday came out and said the plan that was being considered will add $239 billion to our deficit over the next 10 years. And if you look further at this plan, you will see that while the cost of the plan is $1.6 trillion, the tax increases don't go into effect until 2011, but the real cost of the plan doesn't begin to add up for about 5 years. And so when you get into the out years, beyond 10 years, you see these exploding deficits, because it's going to cost $200 to $300 billion a year more, over and above the tax increases already in this bill. At a time when we've got record deficits and record spending here in Washington, we don't need to be adding to the deficit.

And lastly, the President said Republicans want to kill health care reform and have not offered better ideas. I've got to tell you, earlier this year when I handed Speaker Pelosi the gavel, I said that when Republicans had to oppose our new President or our colleagues across the aisle, it was our obligation to say how we would do it better.

We had a better solution on the stimulus bill. We had a better solution on the budget. We believe that we had a better solution on the energy bill that was here last month. We have offered our better solution on health care. We outlined those in a letter to the President back in May when we asked for a meeting and got a nice, polite letter back from the President that said, Well, thank you for your ideas, but we'll see you at the end of the process.

Republicans have a better solution that won't put the government in charge of people's health care, that will make sure that we bring down the cost of health care for all Americans and ensure affordable access for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, American families and small businesses are hurting. The economy has been hurting; but this morning, in previewing the President's speech tonight, our former colleague, the President's chief of staff, said this: We've rescued the economy.

Now, I'm sure that the 9.5 percent unemployment rate that we have in our country today--and from most economic experts on its way up, don't believe that we've rescued the economy. The 11.1 percent unemployment rate that we have in Ohio, I'm sure those people are looking up today wondering, wait a minute, the President's going to say we rescued the economy? I don't think so.

Not only has the stimulus bill not worked and the economy not been rescued, the President continues to promote policies that will create more unemployment in America.

The national energy tax that went through this House last month will cause millions of Americans to lose their jobs over the next 10 years, like 2.5 million per year. And we're debating the health care plan, the government takeover of health care, which according to the President's Council of Economic Advisers' model will cost 5 million more Americans their jobs.

I don't believe that the economy has been rescued.

Mr. Speaker, before I came to Congress, I ran a small business. And in that small business I offered a health insurance benefit to my

employees. I offered a pension benefit to my employees. Both of these plans were as a result of a 1974 Federal law called ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, that allows employers to offer health plans to their employees and pension plans to their employees across State lines.

Over the years, employers now provide health insurance to their employees, to the total of about 132 million Americans that today get their health insurance through their employer.

But in the Democrat health care plan, I noticed this morning in an article from The Wall Street Journal there's a provision in there that, in their bill, after 5 years all employer plans will have to be approved by the Department of Labor and the new Health Choices Commissioner, who will set Federal standards for what is an acceptable health plan.

Now, these employers are providing these plans to their employees. They're trying to provide a benefit their employees want and need. And now the Federal Government is going to decide what your health plan is going to look like.

I would suggest that a lot of employers in America are going to look at this and decide, You know, this really isn't worth it. Under their plan, if you're an employer and you don't provide health insurance, you have to pay an 8 percent payroll tax to the Federal Government. Eight percent.

Now, most employers probably pay more than this for their health care. And so, as a result, I would think a lot of employers are just going to pay the 8 percent tax and allow their employees to be shoved into the government-run plan.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, some 23 million Americans would lose their benefits from their employers and be forced into government health care. According to the Lewin Group, 114 million Americans would be forced into the government plan.

This is not what the American people want. And if you put an 8 percent tax on payroll, guess what? Employers are going to hire less people. And most of my constituents are asking, Where are the jobs? And if you tax employment through this health care plan or you tax employment under this crazy national energy tax, you're going to create less jobs in America.

At a time when we need jobs and we need our economy going again, we don't need to be taxing employers and taxing employment, because we're going to get a lot less of it.

Mr. Speaker, I think I must be confused. The unemployment rate in our country is at over 9\1/2\ percent, as I speak. The unemployment rate in my home State of Ohio is now over 11 percent. Two million Americans have been put out of work since the stimulus bill was signed into law. Our budget deficit is already this year over $1 trillion and expected to reach nearly $2 trillion. And faced with this news, what's the House doing today? Talking about a $700 million welfare program for wild horses and burros.

Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that our constituents may be confused about their Congress?

Let's get this straight. We're debating a bill to spend millions of dollars to save wild horses, but yesterday, Democrats in the House blocked Republicans from offering an amendment to prevent Federal dollars from being spent on saving unborn children. Oh, yeah. $700 million today to save wild horses and burros, and yesterday, we weren't even allowed to offer an amendment to save the lives of unborn kids. That doesn't make any sense to me. But I think, Mr. Speaker, most of my constituents would look up and go, well, that's just Washington being Washington. And it doesn't make any sense that we're debating a welfare program about wild horses when the American people really want to know, where are the jobs?

Debating this bill, I frankly think, is an insult to the American people who are out there looking for work; small businesses who are looking for customers trying to keep their doors open.

And if Democrats want to do something serious here in this House, they should join with Republicans and focus our efforts on those things that will help create jobs in America, which, after all, is the number one priority of the American people.

Probably ought to do a few other things. If we're going to talk about creating jobs and keeping jobs in America, maybe we ought to scrap Speaker Pelosi's national energy tax, which is going to cost us about 2\1/2\ million jobs every year over the next 10 years. Or maybe we should shelve the government takeover of health care that's being debated in several of our committees as we speak, which is going to take the health care, the private health care, away from millions of Americans and shove them into some government-run system, and on top of all that, has a giant tax on small businesses. It taxes employment, and it's even going to lead to even greater job losses in our country.

But if we're serious about wanting to create jobs, maybe, maybe we could work together to bring the American Energy Act to the floor of this House, our all-of-the-above energy strategy which will create well over a million new jobs here in America, bring us more energy to the marketplace with lower prices, reduce our dependence on

foreign sources of oil. And guess what? If we do all of the above, we'll actually have much cleaner air than the bill that passed here last month.

Mr. Speaker, I think American families and small businesses deserve better than what they are getting out of this Congress. They expect us to work together on their behalf. They expect us to deal with issues that will help get this economy moving again, and help create jobs; not to be debating a $700 million program, welfare program to save wild horses and burros.

I think the gentleman's amendment is a good amendment. His amendment will cost $500,000. That's $699,500,000 less than the underlying bill. It will be at least a step in the right direction, and maybe our constituents, Mr. Speaker, would think that we've got some sense for once in our lives.

I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding. I want to thank Mr. Flake for his attempt to have my amendment offered. As you know, the gentleman asked unanimous consent to substitute for his amendment an amendment that would provide for a continuing scholarship program for students--poor students here in the District of Columbia.

This is an issue that many of us fought very hard for some 5 or 6 years ago. Unfortunately, the administration and the majority party here in the House have decided to end this program and only allow those students who are currently enrolled to finish. It does nothing to address the siblings of these students that are in these schools.

The reason this program was set up is because the District of Columbia had some of the worst schools in America. And while we spend nearly $15,000 per student for the students here in the District of Columbia, this small program is serving about 2,200 kids--2,200 kids, to give them a chance.

And all they wanted was the opportunity to debate the continuation of this program. But the majority party says, No, no, no. We can't have a debate on that. Why? Because we might win. And it wouldn't be us winning, it would be the poor kids in D.C. who are currently getting these scholarships. But we can't even have the debate. We can't even have a vote. What has this place become?

I just think it's outrageous that Members on either side of the aisle don't have an opportunity to offer amendments to these appropriation bills. This process now has gone on for 4 or 5 weeks, and it appears that it will go on for the next couple of weeks.

This is not what has ever happened in the 18\1/2\ years that I've been here--the 19th appropriation season I've been through. I've never seen anything like this in terms of the majority willing to suppress virtually all the Members of the House on both sides of the aisle.

And I think that the amendment that I wanted to offer to help save this program for poor kids here in D.C. was a worthy amendment. And I think Members on both sides of the aisle wanted to have an opportunity to debate that amendment and have a vote on it. But, no, it couldn't happen.

So I would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Madam Speaker, it's been said before on similar occasions, but bears repeating today: This institution simply could not function without the assistance of the many gifted professional staffers who serve us--and serve our country--here in the House of Representatives.

I rise today to honor the service of one such individual, Pope Barrow, whose talents and tireless dedication have improved countless pieces of legislation during his 41 years as a legislative counsel in the House.

Often, Members of Congress are described by the media as ``law makers.'' Well, Pope Barrow is a ``law writer''--and one of the very best ever to serve in that capacity, going all the way back to the days when laws were written by hand, with pens, on parchment. He's that good.

You know, it's not easy--in fact, it's darned hard--to translate the complex and often confusing ideas we come up with around here into clear, concise legislative language that accurately reflects the will of the Congress. But that's precisely the work Pope Barrow dreamed of doing when he came to Washington in 1968, fresh out of Harvard Law School, to start his new job in the Office of the Legislative Counsel.

It was an impressive office to be sure, but young Pope Barrow began at the very bottom of the ladder as a Law Assistant. Over time, he moved steadily up the ranks, first to Assistant Counsel, then to Deputy Legislative Counsel, until in 1997 he was appointed ``The'' Legislative Counsel to the House.

That's when Pope Barrow's work first came to my attention--because a short time later I became chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee. Pope and his top-notch team in the Office of Legislative Counsel were invaluable to me and my staff during those years. Their assistance helped ensure that our bills were properly prepared and ready on time at each stage of the legislative process. They willingly lent their expertise from the early development of a rough concept to the consideration and final passage of a bill and its eventual signature into law.

Pope's work was always completed in a professional and timely manner no matter how challenging the circumstances. Indeed, Pope and his team continued assisting my committee even during evacuations of the Capitol complex on September 11, 2001, and the deadly anthrax attack several weeks later.

Pope was also instrumental in modernizing the Office of the Legislative Counsel to make it more efficient and effective; he worked tirelessly to upgrade the computer programs used to produce legislative documents, and to make all information available in a user friendly electronic medium.

Madam Speaker, much of what I've just said emphasizes why Pope Barrow's service has mattered to the House. But the best explanation I've ever heard of why the work of the House Legislative Counsel matters to the American people came from Pope Barrow himself. So let me take a moment and share with all of my colleagues here today something Pope said several years ago:

If there is one thing that we can do here, it is to

minimize the enormous cost to society of having laws out

there that nobody understands, with everybody having to feud

and fight over what it's supposed to do and what it means;

and with agencies struggling to put out regulations when they

don't really know what the underlying statutes are supposed

to mean. Then people have to puzzle over it and fight over it

and courts have to litigate it. It is really much better to

get the bills written clearly in the first place.

Now I'm sure that Pope Barrow would be the first to tell you that far too often Congress misses that target, sometimes by a country mile. But what he won't tell you is that when our legislation is confusing or seems contradictory, it's almost always in spite of--not because of-- the outstanding efforts of Pope Barrow and the dedicated professionals who serve under him.

Madam Speaker, at a time when fewer Americans than ever before spend an entire career working in one place--for the same employer--the United States House of Representatives has benefited greatly from Pope Barrow's commitment to serve here for more than four decades.

Over the past 41 years he has left an indelible mark on laws that have kept our country safe and touched the lives of Americans in ways far too numerous to list. That's a legacy of which Pope Barrow and his family should be truly proud--and for which those of us who serve in the House of Representatives are deeply grateful.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate, thank, and recognize my constituent Mr. Steve Bartels. Steve is a testament to the hard-working nature of the agricultural community and he has been a staple of the Butler County, Ohio community for more than three decades.

As the agricultural educator for the Ohio State University Extension Butler County Office, Steve has spread the necessary knowledge that aids the success that the agriculture industry has had on the economy of not only Butler County, but the entire state of Ohio. His hands-on approach has assisted thousands of individuals in improving their farms or gardens. Steve is most widely-known for his exceptional involvement in the Farm-City Tours, which began in 1976. Farm-City Tours allow individuals to get a free up-close-and-personal tour of a family farm in Butler County. Whether it be cattle or Christmas tree farms, Steve has an extraordinary wealth of knowledge that he has been able to share with the citizens of Butler County for many years. His hard work on obtaining a grant that enabled the extension office to hire a fourth agent has allowed many more Butler County children to be educated on this vital industry.

Steve's contributions to the Ohio State University Extension Butler County Office will be felt for many years to come. While I and the Extension Office are sad to see him go, I would like to congratulate him on his accomplishments and wish him a long, happy, and healthy retirement.

Let me thank my colleague for yielding and say, John, that there's hardly a Member in this entire body that is more respected than you, because while you can be a fierce partisan, many of us know that you are someone that we can work with, and we have worked with, and there is a lot of mutual respect.

On behalf of all of our colleagues, John, we love you and want to say happy birthday to you.

And while you are all standing, I have done this once before, it probably doesn't comply with the rules of the House, but for those of you who don't know the Boehner birthday song, the second verse is exactly like the first verse.

This is your birthday song. It doesn't last too long. Hey.

All right, everybody, ready. This is your birthday song. It doesn't last too long. Hey.

Happy birthday.