Floor Statements

Well, first of all, I thank the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Bishop, for his leadership in this area, both on the budget as well as the discussion on petroleum. He was a leader and the one who took the initiative on this no-cost stimulus plan, which I also cosigned as well, along with Mr. Vitter on the other side of the House and I think one or two other Senators. So I thank Mr. Bishop for his leadership and also allowing me to participate in the discussion tonight about the budget.

What has happened here this afternoon in passing this budget in the House of course yields three very bad things; that is, a budget that spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much.

It was only a few days ago that I spoke on the floor here about the fact that it is not just a matter of how much we spend, but it is a matter of where do we get this money from? And there is only two ways to get money that you don't have, and that is if you discount the Social Security Trust Fund, which we of course steal from daily. That is, either to borrow money, and you have to find people who have got the kind of dough that can lend that; or, you have got to print it out of thin air.

Well, who have we been borrowing money from? Well, we have been borrowing it from China. And the amount of spending that we are doing is now getting to an extent that even the Chinese, who seem to be flush with cash, can't seem to keep up and don't know how long that they are going to be able to lend us money before those interest rates begin going up.

Well, of course the other option is to print money. And we have been through that before. In fact, there is a number of precedence that we have seen over history, and the one that I point out that is the most poignant is pre-World War II Germany. And what happened there?

After World War I, the winning powers of the allies imposed a war reparation requirement on Germany. Germany couldn't afford this, and so in order to pay the money back, money they didn't have, they just simply printed it. And of course they had humongous inflationary rates to the point where, to buy a loaf of bread, you had to actually carry your currency in a wheelbarrow. Zimbabwe today is having a very similar situation.

We have also seen this precedence in our own economy. The spending spree that we went on in the sixties began to hit us in the seventies, along with, of course, the oil and gas problems that we had. And by the late seventies we had severe problems with inflation that was as high as 10, 12, 13 percent. And it was one of those things where, if you didn't get a raise every year, you were actually getting your pay cut. That ultimately led to terrifically high interest rates in the range of 20 percent, and of course we went into a severe recession in the early eighties.

It seems like that we in this body don't seem to learn the lessons. And the lessons are that any way you frame it, if you spend it, you are going to someday have to pay for it. And, you know, it is interesting in our own personal budgets, in our homes, in our cities, and in our States, we have to balance our budget. But for some crazy reason, we in the Federal Government are not required to balance our budgets.

Sometimes it makes sense to borrow money, just as a in your home you might want to borrow money to take out a mortgage to buy a home, perhaps that makes sense. But when it comes to running up tremendous credit card debt, spending today and paying tomorrow, then certainly it is a very difficult and dangerous way to live, and that is what we are doing today in America.

With this budget that has just been passed, we are seeing that deficits are now immediately exploding from a high of $500 billion a year to over $1 trillion a year. We are going to see a debt that already was growing pretty fast accelerate such that it doubles in 5 years and it triples in 10 years. But let me talk a little bit about the subject that my friend Mr. Bishop was discussing, and that is energy.

This FY 2010 budget has a negative impact on energy, just as he suggested. For one thing, it removes over $30 billion in tax incentives for oil and gas businesses. Now, I am sure the Shells and the Chevrons can handle that just fine, but the vast majority of exploratory drillers out there are small family businesses. And, of course, drilling is a risky operation to begin with, and that is the whole reason for having tax incentives is to encourage businessmen to go out and take a risk. But now that the tax incentives have been removed, what is going to happen? There is going to be less risk taken, there will be less drilling. Of course, that is going to further our oil dependence. And in my State of Louisiana, which is a heavy petroleum dependent State, it is going to tremendously affect jobs, and that is good jobs.

We could, over time, lose as many as 70,000 jobs. And again, we are talking about independent oil drillers. We are not talking about the big ones. The loss of the depletion allowance and the loss of the write-off of intangible drilling costs will effectively shut down these businesses in many cases. It will broaden our dependence on foreign oil, as I mentioned, and result in increased threats to our national security as we have to search around the world to have energy sources to run our Nation.

I support exploring alternative energy resources such as, of course, solar and wind. But when do we expect that we will be pulling up next to a windmill and filling our car up with windmill fuel? It just isn't going to happen. Solar, we are not there yet. None of these technologies are coming on line. Yes, we see them in Europe, but they are subsidized by the governments. They have to stand on their own. We just went through a recent experience with this with ethanol where we were running the cost of feed through corn in order to create ethanol, and that was, of course, done with subsidies. And then in the meantime, it drove up the cost of chicken. And that severely impacted my district, where we have Pilgrims Pride, the chicken-producing farms, and almost created bankruptcy for over 200 chicken-producing families, not to mention the jobs that would have been lost. Hopefully we have saved that. But that came directly as a result of efforts to subsidize and encourage ethanol from corn, which is really a very inefficient use of corn.

Nonetheless, I do support research in these areas. And at some point when we can actually create electricity into our grid in a cost- effective way, I'm all in favor of it. I'm also in favor of the use of nuclear energy. It doesn't produce any carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And certainly anyone who ``thinks green'' has got to think that nuclear energy is the way to go for electricity. And other countries have taken the lead on that, such as France, with about 80 percent of its electricity produced that way.

Well, let me discuss a little bit, and I hope the camera can pick this up, this, of course, is the ArkLaTex, this is Arkansas, northwest Louisiana and Texas. And in the crosshatch here is an

area called the Haynesville Shale. Now, shale is a rock formation in which certain petroleum products are found, sometimes oil, sometimes natural gas. In this case, it is natural gas. And we have known about these deposits for many years. However, we didn't know how to get to them. The technology was not there. And something was invented called ``horizontal drilling,'' where we can literally go down deep in the ground, turn horizontally, we can crack open the shale and we can take out the natural gas.

Now, what lesson does that teach us? Well, it teaches us that the more we advance technology, the more access to fossil fuels we have and the safer we make it. As far as safety, I will give you an example, and that is offshore drilling, OCS, where, for instance, with Hurricane Katrina, there were a number of rigs that were destroyed; however, there was not an appreciable leakage of any oil from these rigs. In fact, there is more oil in the ocean leaking today from the bottom naturally than ever from any rigs. So we know that technology, when put together with fossil fuels and with nuclear energy, is really the future until hopefully some day we can harness the power of the wind and the sun.

This Haynesville Shale is projected to contain over 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas production, one of the, if not the, largest natural gas deposits in the world. Now, natural gas emits probably half the carbon in other products as other forms of energy such as oil, certainly much less than coal. So it is cleaner. And here in Washington, D.C., we see buses driving around, and on the side is printed ``this runs on natural gas.'' You don't detect any odor. You don't see any smoke coming out there. There is no question that that is a better way to go. But we don't have the infrastructure yet where you can pull your car, if it did run on natural gas, to the pump and get it filled. But we can do that. It is just a simple matter of taking the initiative, and that will come with time. So we can become, as a nation, far more independent by using natural gas than we can trying to develop oil. But we still can't ignore the opportunities for oil such as in ANWR and offshore and even on Federal lands.

I will also point out that beyond the 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas production potential, we are already seeing 10 to 20 million cubic feet of natural gas production per day in the ArkLaTex. Lots of jobs are being produced. Money is flowing in the economy, and it is really helping out northwest Louisiana in these difficult times. In fact, our unemployment level is half what it is in some States. We don't have the real estate issues that others have. And certainly it is not just because of the Haynesville Shale, but it certainly is helping. It is injecting tremendous amounts of capital into our local economy and creating thousands of jobs.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just what to say that the issue with the budget is still problematic. We are, again, pushing this country way over into the leftist socialist realm. Even the leftist socialists from socialistic countries in Western Europe think we have lost our marbles. They think what we are doing is crazy. Even the ones that used to criticize us for being too conservative are now criticizing us for being too liberal. Just the other day, both France and Germany said ``no more stimulus packages.'' They think we are crazy if we want to move forward with another one. So enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. And this budget that passed the House today is way over the top. And I'm afraid that we are going to see even more coming down the pike.

So, in closing, I want to thank Mr. Bishop, my friend from Utah, for giving me this opportunity to talk about this. And I await some more discussion about the petroleum industry and its impact through the budget.

Madam Speaker, for the past few months we've heard our liberal colleagues repeatedly talk about renewing America's promise. Is it America's promise to place an insurmountable debt burden on our future generations?

This Congress just passed the largest series of spending bills in American history, and now this administration has unveiled a $3.6 trillion Federal spending plan. The U.S. is facing its largest deficit in history; yet we have placed a mortgage on America's future, and it's up to our children and grandchildren to make the monthly payments.

This budget doubles our debt in 5 years and triples it in 10 years.

My liberal colleagues have fostered in a new era where you can become the head of the IRS without paying your taxes, where pork-laden appropriations bills are done behind closed doors, and massive spending bills are designed in secrecy.

Writing blank checks from an empty bank account appears to be our real promise to America. Promoting a new era of irresponsibility has become this Congress' real agenda.

I will not vote for this budget, as it spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act, the title of which betrays the true nature of this bill. It represents nothing resembling ``free choice.''

This ``card check'' legislation is un-American and would strip workers of their fundamental democratic right to a secret ballot. Without the protection of the secret ballot, workers are likely to be exposed to pressure and coercion from union bosses and organizers.

My question to those who support this bill is: Why are you afraid of a secret ballot? Can't we give workers credit for making the right decision for themselves?

In addition, a recent study has shown that increases in union workers under card check rules will likely lead to an increase in unemployment due to making their businesses less competitive.

At a time when we should be focusing on job creation, the majority is pushing through legislation that will put millions of American jobs at risk while simultaneously eliminating a cornerstone of American democracy--the secret ballot.

As a small business owner myself, I can tell you that this legislation is a poison pill for the economy. I urge my colleagues to vote against this leftist, socialist legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak of the extraordinary accomplishment recently of one of my constituents, Albert Brooks Corley.

Brooks has been in my karate class affiliated with the Shreveport Karate Club back in my hometown of Minden, Louisiana, since he was just a little guy. Today, he has grown into a tall, strong young man. After years of hard work, he was recently awarded a first-degree black belt in karate by Sensei Mikami, a karate champion and eighth-degree black belt. Having worked for years to obtain my black belt in Japanese karate, I know the hard work and persistence it takes to obtain this level of martial arts expertise.

Apart from developing into a tough, aggressive and coordinated martial artist, Brooks is a fine young man who is now completing his education in order to be gainfully employed.

Brooks is truly a model by which young people should aspire to achieve the potential that each may obtain. Therefore, I heartily commend him in his recent achievement and the many achievements ahead. Furthermore, I commend his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Corley, for raising such a fine man.

I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina.

I want to speak out on this rule and certainly the underlying legislation for the omnibus public land bill. The Constitution of the United States has long been a thorn in the side of many activist judges in this country. Last week we witnessed another act of hostility towards the Constitution when a U.S. district judge single-handedly decided to recede one of our basic constitutional rights. The ruling by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly eliminating a law-abiding citizen's right to carry a concealed weapon on Federal lands is a direct assault on the second amendment.

The right to bear arms was a founding principle of our democracy, and the second amendment spells out this principle in clear, unambiguous language that requires no clarification or translation: ``The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' Citizens should not lose this right just because they are standing or driving on Federal lands.

It is our responsibility in Congress to craft legislation that is in accordance with the Constitution. And we should not see cede this responsibility to an agenda-driven activist judge.

I urge my colleagues to join me in upholding and protecting this country's founding document by voting to restore Americans' second amendment rights on public lands.

``A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.''

Let us never forget the second amendment and its importance.

I would like to take this privileged opportunity to honor and celebrate the life of Private Jason Watson. Private Watson is from Many, Louisiana, and recently died in Afghanistan.

Private Watson gave that last full measure of devotion to defend our freedom, and his death is a reminder of the cost of our liberty. Remember that it's not the Congressman and it's not the reporter who guarantee freedom of speech, it's the uniformed servicemembers working every day.

He proudly defended America so that we may never experience the horror of another terrorist attack on our home soil. While little will comfort the pain his family feels at this time, I want to thank them on behalf of our country, a grateful country, and let them know that their family will be in our prayers.

Private Jason Watson died a hero. I challenge my colleagues to remember our role here in Congress to make responsible decisions to protect the lives of Americans and to uphold the values and the pillars of freedom this brave young man died for.

Well, I want to thank the gentlelady from Minnesota. Thank you for your work and leadership, particularly in this area. And by the way, I love watching you speak because I think I can learn a lot of tips from you. So I do appreciate that.

I also want to reflect on my colleague from Georgia that just spoke, a physician, who made a lot of good comments about the tilt that we have right now going towards socialism, certainly liberal socialism at the very least.

You know, it's true, Mr. Speaker, that we've spent in this bill and prior bills over the last 2 months, it's evident that our government is spending too much, taxing too much, and borrowing way too much. Remember, that the Congress just passed a $787 billion stimulus package, $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill loaded with over 9,000 earmarks, and remember, our President promised that he would not support earmarks. Now the administration has unveiled a $3.6 trillion Federal spending plan, a spending plan that the nonpartisan CBO, Congressional Budget Office, has now determined will produce $2.3 trillion of more red ink than the President initially predicted.

I want to turn the camera and the people across America to this picture here and explain really what it is. These are kids in Germany in 1923, and they're stacking what looks like bricks. What they are, in fact, stacking is their currency. That's Deutsche notes right there, and in 1923, the value of the currency in Germany as a result of cranking out money, cranking out money, printing paper to pay back war reparations they couldn't pay back, it made the currency so dilute that it took a wheelbarrow, literally a wheelbarrow of cash just to buy a loaf of bread. That's just how bad inflation can be, and we all know the end of that story. It ended up into Nazi Germany.

I also bring your attention to this. This is, believe it or not, a $10 billion bill. It can be found in Zimbabwe, the same problem, trying to solve their fiscal problems by printing more money. And if you keep printing more, you get a situation like this where a $10 billion bill is required to buy an egg. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's what this bill will buy. However, that's only a few weeks ago. Today, they have something-- in my hand, you can see a $100 trillion bill, believe it or not. And what is it worth? The same value as confetti.

Now, we might think, well, these kind of tragedies cannot happen to us in America. Well, is that true? Just today, the Chinese announced that they do not like our dollar. They feel like that even though they're one of our largest debtors, they no longer trust us in our debt.

Well, I thank the gentleman, my fellow Louisianan, Mr. Scalise, for yielding for a moment. I also thank my friend from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) for his comments as well.

You know, we are talking a lot about budget deficits. And we hear this word to the point where we're almost numb. We have to ask ourselves: Well, what difference does it make? If we go another year in deficit spending or perhaps over $1 trillion in deficit spending, is it going to change our lives?

So I think the average person out there who's maybe watching us on C- SPAN this evening has got to contemplate: What difference does that make?

Well, let me point out a couple of things in history that maybe we should think about. You may recall that during World War I, the allies defeated Germany and, after doing so, we required war reparations. The only way that Germany could deal with that, could actually make those war reparation payments, was just to print more money. They had to deficit spend big time.

It became such a problem that it literally took a wheel barrow to carry enough currency to go buy a loaf of bread. Of course, that sounds silly. It sounds like a caricature. But these people were in desperate need.

We, of course, suffered during the Great Depression. But the Germans, because of this, were in a tremendous need. It caused a complete collapse of their culture and their society. And what did we get in return? We got Nazism. We got Adolph Hitler. He took control of Germany only because that country became so desperate that it could not keep what was otherwise a democracy, could not keep that going.

We fast forward to the 1960s when we went through this second wave, if you will, of social programs in America; the first being, of course, the New Deal under FDR and so forth.

We have Lyndon Johnson who, of course, instituted many entitlement programs, many of which we have today. We saw that that deficit spending began at that point, and it began to accelerate. It was worsened by a prolonged war in Vietnam. But we really didn't see evidence of it, just like today.

Well, are we really seeing evidence of budget deficits? Are we really impacted in our daily lives?

Well, slowly but surely as the seventies rolled around and we began to also have problems with energy, we began to see inflation going up to the tune of 10, 12, 13 percent. We also went into a period of stagflation, where the economy became stagnant, prices remained high. The people who were hurt the most in all that were people on fixed incomes, because every year their dollars bought less.

And so then this country got into something we call cost of living increases, and everybody looked forward to that. They had to have the cost of living increases. But some got more than others and some didn't get any at all, and so we saw the deterioration in our economy and our standard of living as a result of inflation. To solve this, we put the hammer down by cutting off the supply of money, which made interest rates go up. I can remember trying to buy a house and getting a mortgage for an 18 percent interest rate, and that is because we were trying to bring the growth of money under control.

Mr. Speaker, the impact of deficit spending and budgets that are out of control do affect us in everyday life. I am old enough to have seen this happen, have studied it in school, have family members who were injured during World War II indirectly as a result of some of these financial consequences that occurred.

I feel like one of the main problems we have with our government today is we don't learn from history. History just seems to repeat itself over and over and over again. If there is anything we have learned in the past, that is that we have got to have fiscal discipline in our government. At home, I have to balance my budget, as difficult that is sometimes. My city, my State, they all have to balance the budget. Why is it that my Federal Government, the most important government, the most powerful government in this world, why is it that it can't keep its fiscal house in order?

I am a newbie Congressman, I have only been here 2 or 3 months. Before I came here, I really have had this nagging question: What is it about Washington that Washington can't get it right? And I was hoping that in coming here I would get at least some insight as to why we do crazy things with our spending and so forth. Unfortunately, now that I am here, it is worse than I ever thought. I am still seeking those answers.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And also I want to thank Doctors Murphy and Gingrey in your leadership on this subject and your years in Congress.

I want to say first of all, Mr. Speaker, that health care in the United States is among the best in the world, but the financing of it is a basket case. We have 47 million uninsured Americans and they are not who you think they are. They are not the poor; they have Medicaid. They are not the elderly; they have Medicare. They are not workers for large corporations or the government, such as us tonight. They are owners of small businesses and their employees. They have tremendous difficulty acquiring affordable insurance. And I see this every day.

I, myself, am a small business owner apart from being a family physician with still an active practice. And what is, in fact, going on in this situation is this: the risk pool for a small business is very small, and all it takes is one heart transplant or certainly renal dialysis and it can blow the whole plan up; everybody in the company can find themselves without insurance.

Well, I think that we, on the GOP side, we Republicans, and certainly we Republican physicians, agree with the other side and also with our President that we do need comprehensive health care. We need access to health care and coverage for all Americans.

And in fact, when you think about it with the entitled laws in the 1980s, every American today is entitled to health care regardless of his ability to pay. And if you don't believe me, go to an emergency room demanding care, and you will receive that care without anyone asking about your ability to pay. And that is certainly an honorable and laudable value that we have.

The problem is that that same individual probably has an illness such as diabetes or hypertension, which, if they had received care early in the disease or maybe in a stage of prevention, would not only not be in the emergency room, but the outcome would be much better and the cost would be much lower.

So, you see, when someone goes to the emergency room or staggers into an emergency room perhaps on their death bed and we providers have to pull them out, somebody gets a bill for that. And that bill is going to be many times higher than what it would have been otherwise. This, of course, creates bankruptcies. Many families end up filing bankruptcy after going through a major thing like this. So who absorbs that cost? The cost is absorbed by those who pay insurance premiums and taxpayers.

So it is not free medicine. So since we're already providing the resources, why not front-load that into preventative and early diagnostic care?

I am a strong believer in health care reform, and I will just tick through several of them that I think need to be implemented with all dispatch.

First, we need to have portability. Dr. Murphy mentioned that before. We do need to go to electronic health records in a way that is going to make practices more efficient. We need to do away with archaic insurance laws which cause these small risk pools. We need to create large risk pools and make ``pre-existing illness'' a term that is no longer in the American lexicon.

We need to make sure that everyone gets basic private health care insurance, and I think that family physicians should be the linchpin in health care because it has been proven time and time again that family physicians, the primary care providers, create a much more efficient form of health care, but they also work very closely

with their colleagues to ensure that they get uploaded or downloaded or whatever is necessary in order to get the best.

But let me comment on one more thing before I yield. And that is that we're right now in a crossroads of decision making. We all agree that we need comprehensive health care reform. The question is will it be a single-payer governmental system such as what we have today with Medicare or Medicaid, or will it be a private health care system?

Now if we expand Medicare to include everyone, as some have suggested in this body, what is going to absorb that overflow and cost?

You see today, Medicare is somewhat successful in that the fraud, abuse, and the waste is being absorbed by the taxpayer and also those who pay private subscription rates. When we go to an entire system that is a single payer Medicare system, there will be nobody to pick up the tab at that point. So what are we left with?

Well, number one, we know that when you have a government-type system, a micromanaged system from the top, you end up with spot shortages, which we already have today; and I am sure that Dr. Gingrey will discuss that further. But also you have a situation beyond the spot shortages that is how do you control costs? And government can control costs only one way, and that is rationing. That means that somebody is told ``no'' when there is in fact something that can be done.

On the other hand, you take a private system, even if it's funded by government entities, either partially or in whole, if it's administered privately, it is far more efficient. And I will just give you a quick example.

Today, we talk about fraud and abuse and waste. And how can we find this fraud and abuse and what do we do about it? Well, we have to go after it legally to prosecute it. It is very expensive. You only find the tip of the iceberg. In a private plan, everyone works to build efficiency in the system, and if someone is just a little bit off the graph, you reeducate, you help them, or if they don't respond. You terminate them. You don't have to worry about finding someone who is manufacturing health claims or any of that kind of nonsense. It just doesn't happen.

So the bottom line is we need to get physicians, all providers, on board with working towards a much more efficient system, and we need to get the patients involved as well.

For many years, as my colleagues here, I know, have experienced, you couldn't talk patients into accepting generic drugs. Today with the tiered payment systems, the incentives are in favor of generic drugs, and now you can't beg patients not to take generic medications because they are much cheaper.

So there is a lot of work that we need to do, Mr. Speaker, and these are just some of the suggestions.

But finally, I would just like to say that we need to do a lot more to improve the availability, particularly of primary care providers, and we're going to have to do that by increasing the reimbursement rates because what we're really getting is a paradoxical effect. The more we clamp down reimbursement rates for family physicians and others, the more they have to do other things to make up the difference, which echoes costs throughout the system.

So thank you.

Before today, I've never seen that. So I would have liked to have been there, however. I can assure you of that.

I thank the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, just a few months ago, I was on the other side of C- SPAN. I was watching what was going on. I was only elected in December.

I come from North Louisiana, where people respect the institutions, and we are talking about two very big and very important institutions: AIG, which we know is too big to fail. That is the reason why we have been bailing AIG out. And then, of course, our Presidency and Congress itself.

I guess the rhetorical question I have after this embarrassment, which is, first of all, how did this screw-up happen? And, where is that person or persons who is willing to own up to the mistake that was made here?

But going back to the beginning. We remember that in the first TARP issue, money was of course dealt out very quickly, almost overnight, as a result of the need or perceived need for bailout, and we found that money was going to spas in California, and pheasant hunting in the U.K. That should have at least given us some warning that this kind of abuse would happen.

Then, we fast forward. We released the money again, no strings attached, and we find out that some kind of deal was struck, only with Democrats in the room, that first put in and of course then took out in conference, we think, this very important clause that would have avoided bonuses, very rich bonuses, over $1 million in some cases, to people who were part of the problem.

It really comes down to this: Is it incompetency, or is it dishonesty? I think that is the second question that we have to answer beyond who was involved in this. Certainly, we have the Secretary of the Treasury, who was approved under dubious conditions to begin with, having somehow forgotten to pay or perhaps incompetently did not pay his taxes. And then he was up to his hips in this whole situation with the bailout but somehow didn't realize that this clause would be put in and then somehow jerked out. Even the administration has more or less offered him up as a scapegoat by saying that they really didn't know really what was going on and that really happened on his watch. I certainly think first and foremost that Mr. Geithner should resign. I think he has done enough damage as it is.

Also today there was a disgrace in the House where we had rammed down our throats a stimulus bill which no Republican supported and which did not contain a protective measure that should have been in to avoid these disgraceful bonuses. It was released only hours before. And being, of course, over 1,000 pages, it was impossible for anyone on this side of the aisle to have any idea of what was in that bill, much less some small clause as this.

After all of that, hoping to gain that money back and perhaps some honor to this House, the Republican freshmen advanced a bill that would have put such strings attached to the $30 billion left in the bailout that would make it impossible for them to receive it without paying this back 100 percent. Instead, that bill never made it to the floor, and we had upon suspension another bill that was, honestly, a horrible bill, although it was the best bill we have to date, which only took back, through taxes, 90 percent of the money that was paid out in bonuses.

Of course, the question is, is this even constitutional? Is it constitutional to pass a bill that has pointed at a very small segment of the society to punish them and to do it on a retroactive basis? I'm not a lawyer. I don't know. But it would be very interesting to see what comes to light. I would also like to know what part our Speaker had in this. It just seems like that once light is thrown into a situation like this, all the leadership who is behind it blow out like a covey of quail.

So I ask today that perhaps we have investigations, perhaps we find the

folks who were really behind this. In any event, we need to avoid this from happening again. So in closing, I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the question is, is it incompetency or dishonesty? I certainly hope it is not the latter. And if it is incompetency, I think we need to renew some leadership positions and get us back to a competent pathway.

And with that, I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, this is budget time again, and this budget proposed by the administration has some very major flaws in it. It creates a greater tax burden on the American people, among other things. The budget calls for a $637 billion tax increase for the majority of small businesses that pay taxes as individuals.

The cap-and-tax program, not the cap-and-trade but cap-and-tax program, will increase taxes conservatively by $646 billion on energy to every household in America. These households can expect to pay more than $3,000 a year extra on their utility bills. This is money taken directly out of the pockets of working families struggling to pay bills each month.

This budget also caps the value of itemized deductions for those with higher incomes and really middle-class incomes, reducing charitable giving by $9 billion a year which will devastate charities.

Finally, this budget reinstates the death tax which has been found to lower overall employment by $1.5 million.

This budget spends too much, wastes too much, and taxes too much.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the accomplishments of two outstanding basketball programs that brought home Louisiana State titles in my district over this weekend.

The Springhill High School Lumberjacks won the Class 2A State championship on Saturday with a 70-66 victory over Many High School. Antonious Markray ended a stellar high-school career with a game high of 29 points for the Lumberjacks. This is the first State title in the modern era for Springhill, Louisiana.

Also winning a State title this weekend were the Class B champions from Zwolle High School. The Hawks beat Rapides 55-53 with Antonio Holmes leading the way. He finished with 17 points and was awarded the MVP trophy. This is the third State title in 4 years for Zwolle.

Congratulations to the players, coaches and parents of the Lumberjacks and the Hawks for a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a father, a physician and a Congressman to express my deep concern over the administration's decision to allow taxpayer dollars to incentivize the destruction of human embryos.

For the first time in our country's history, the Federal Government is going to encourage the destruction of human embryos. Newer techniques for making embryonic-like cells without destroying any embryos and advances in adult stem-cell umbilical cord blood treatments are showing that the use of embryos for stem-cell research is becoming obsolete.

Over 73 different diseases have been treated, at least experimentally, with adult or cord blood stem cells, including type I diabetes and heart disease.

Because of recent steps by our President, pro-life taxpayers are now footing the bill for the promotion of abortions overseas, doctors are in danger of being forced to perform abortions regardless of moral or religious objections, and now taxpayer funds are going to support the destruction of human embryos in the name of research.

Embryonic stem-cell research provides no guarantee of scientific advancement, but it does guarantee the innocent unborn have lost a critical battle.

Mr. Speaker, the Interior Department is going forward with the oil and gas production lease sale in the central Gulf of Mexico. I welcome the Interior Secretary to my home State of Louisiana this March.

While visiting our great State, I would like to remind Secretary Salazar that although it is a positive gesture to move forward with this lease sale, the benefit of these leases will greatly be diminished under tax hikes--that is removal of exploratory incentives that are included in this administration's budget proposal.

This $30 billion tax increase could devastate an industry that directly and indirectly employs over 300,000 Louisianans. This tax increase will wreak havoc on small independent producers and third- party services. It will also continue to perpetuate the cycle of high fuel prices and our addiction to foreign sources of energy who want to see our democracy fail.

In short, this proposed budget does nothing to solve our energy needs. If anything, it will lead to more cost and massive job loss for many Americans, especially in Louisiana, who are suffering in this economic recession.

Madam Speaker, in northwest Louisiana energy means

jobs. However, the President's recent budget proposal will eliminate more than $31.5 billion in tax incentives for oil and gas businesses, the vast majority of which are mom and pop businesses.

The loss of depletion allowance and the writeoff of intangible drilling costs will effectively shut down all future drilling for the majority of wells drilled in the continental United States. In a business that is so risky, what is the incentive now to take a risk?

It is the wildcat driller's rugged individualism that has made this industry what it is today, keeping our gas prices and the cost of heating our homes as low as it is today. It could be much higher.

Independent oil men and women in Northwest Louisiana rely on drilling tax incentives to reinvest capital in their companies and hire employees at good salaries. This legislation will drastically hurt small oil and gas business owners in my district and result in major layoffs of personnel.

Less domestic production means more imports, price spikes for consumers at the pump and an increased threat to our national security. Let's take this dangerous anti-jobs and anti-consumer provision out of the budget bill today.