Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from the President of the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association expressing grave concern over the administration's budget proposal we were sent last week. Our Nation's oil and gas industry is not made up of the five or so Big Oil companies; instead, it is several thousand independent oil and natural gas producers. It is these companies that drill and produce the vast majority of oil and natural gas produced here in the United States.

The administration's budget proposals will strip the economic incentives that provide the investment capital that is needed to explore and produce oil and gas for our country. Without these incentives, exploration and production of oil and natural gas will drastically decline, trillions of dollars will be lost, tens of thousands of jobs will be lost, and our Nation's energy security will be severely threatened.

In my home State of Louisiana, 25 percent of the Nation's energy is produced. We are the heartbeat of our Nation's energy infrastructure. Simply put, the administration's budget proposals will put that infrastructure and our country at great risk and drive up home utilities and gas at the pump.

Thanks to the gentleman for yielding.

I have put up a quote here which we'll get to in just a moment, and it is on the subject that we are currently discussing about stem cell research. I apologize if some of this is redundant, but I think this new information is very interesting and very exciting and I think it bears perhaps a little important redundancy.

For more than a decade Congress has been debating the ethics of using taxpayer dollars to fund research that requires the destruction of a human embryo. Science is making this debate obsolete.

At the beginning of the embryonic stem cell debate, only 2 years after human embryonic stem cells were first derived, President Clinton's Bioethics Council concluded, and here it is written, that in our judgment, in 1999, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission under President Clinton, said, in our judgment, the derivation of embryos remaining following infertility treatments is justifiable only, that is only if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing this research.

Now, thanks in part to the very same researcher who first discovered how to derive human embryonic stem cells, researchers have discovered how to make pluripotent embryonic-like stem cells without harming or destroying a human embryo.

Let me repeat that. They have discovered a way of creating embryonic- like stem cells without harming or destroying a human embryo.

You may have heard about these cells. They are called IPSC for induced pluripotent stem cells. They were first discovered in 2007. These cells are made by reprogramming adult cells, such as cells from your skin, into embryonic-like cells.

Of course, just to digress for a moment, to understand what the purpose of this whole idea of stem cells is, it is taking undifferentiated cells, and the future is amazing. We can create organs potentially.

Just think about, in terms of kidneys, hearts or whatever being transplanted. We would have organs that would no longer require any sort of immuno-suppressive drugs.

Anyway, in the 2 years since this technique was first published, hundreds of scientists have been feverishly at work perfecting this technique. Just this week, researchers published a major, just this week now, a major improvement on the technique of creating human iPSC stem cells. You may have read about this in the Washington Post that came out on Monday.

Previously, in order to reprogram cells to their embryonic-like state, researchers relied on viruses which were known to cause cancer when injected into humans. Now, researchers have shown that it is possible to make iPSC stem cells without the harmful virus. In fact, the factors used to reprogram the cells are completely removed, leaving behind only the embryonic-like iPSC stem cells.

So what this means is, not only are we having to use embryonic cells, which means destroying an embryo, a human life, but we can literally take it from the skin of an adult. And even more importantly, we don't have to use viruses to reprogram the nucleus. The problem with viruses, of course, you can introduce all sort of matter into the DNA, such as cancer, which is very dangerous.

These cells are even better than embryonic stem cells from embryos created through IVF because they can both be patient-specific and disease-specific, even for diseases we only barely understand.

Surely this meets the criteria set forth by the Clinton Bioethics Commission. Researchers, funded in part by our own National Institutes of Health, have discovered a viable and promising alternative to destroying embryos for their stem cells. Such research is no longer justifiable, even according to the Clinton criterion, which I've laid out here in large print. And certainly research that is both morally controversial and out of date does not need to be subsidized by the American taxpayer.

So, even in spite of all this, through private means, embryonic stem cell research can still go on, even though it's not needed, as long as taxpayers do not pay for it.

I feel there was never a justification in the past to destroy embryos for the purpose of stem cell research. But now we have two reasons to embrace this new technology, and that is, as I pointed out a minute ago, the fact that it's safer because we don't have to use viruses, and we no longer have to destroy embryos.

So, in closing, Madam Speaker, surely, even those who maintain a pro- abortion position will support this newer, safer technique which requires no Federal dollars to destroy human embryos.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Pilgrim's Pride Poultry Company announced the closing of three chicken processing operations throughout the southeastern United States.

In and around my district in North Louisiana, 1,300 jobs were lost. It is important for the American public to know why and how these jobs were lost. In addition to the decline in consumer protein demand, Pilgrim's Pride was most affected by high feed prices causing a loss in the last year of over $1 billion, forcing them into bankruptcy.

The main cause of these high prices was Federal mandates to increase the use of ethanol. This large spike in corn prices is being felt throughout the country by consumers and producers alike. Is this a foreshadowing of more disasters to come because of the governmental manipulation of the energy markets?

Just like the mortgage debacle, governmental meddling in markets continues hurting the working family, both directly and indirectly.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate nine young men in my district who exemplify leadership, commitment and perseverance--Kendall Belcher, Carter Boyd, Alec Giglio, and Austin Hunter from Shreveport, Louisiana, and Lincoln Hall, Gabe Castro, David Chatelain, Anthan Adkins, and Samuel Wisher from Natchitoches, Louisiana. They have all been named Eagle Scouts.

The award is the highest achievement in scouting and represents excellence in the three goals of scouting--citizenship training, character development and personal fitness. These nine young men proved they are worthy of an honor given to only 5 percent of all scouts, not to mention the population in general.

I congratulate these young men for this tremendous accomplishment, and I urge them to continue on the path of leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak also about H.R. 1106, the so-called mortgage cram-down bill which, I am afraid, is being crammed down the throats of the American citizens.

There are families in this country seriously hurting in these tough economic times. They're looking for ways to keep their homes from going into foreclosure.

I would support a targeted measure to help those who didn't overreach when they purchased a home, but this broad stroke cram-down bill we have been given allows the court system to modify home mortgages, including reducing the loan principal. This would leave responsible homeowners to pick up the tab for the mistakes of others. Also, it would further encourage folks to file bankruptcy, rather than working out their financial problems. Giving the judges the power to arbitrarily change the terms of a mortgage is not the direction we need to go in this country. Home buyers will be forced to pay higher interest rates and downpayments if lenders face the risk that a judge could change mortgage terms in the future.

It was the meddling in the mortgage industry by Congress that helped start this economic mess in the first place. Why should we continue meddling?

Continued efforts by Congress to reward unwise financial decisions will keep the dream of affordable home ownership unattainable for many responsible citizens for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, last night we heard the President in this very Chamber make the call for Congress to rise above the politics and to work together for the benefit of the American people, even though this side of the aisle has been shut out of virtually all related legislation.

The President called for fiscal responsibility, and I couldn't agree more. But I am perplexed that he would make this call sandwiched between the biggest wasteful bills that the liberals in Congress have ever submitted. We need to stop the runaway spending to fund programs that don't immediately put this country back on track for economic stability and which create even more deficits in years to come.

It is very foolish to spend heavily on an unprecedented number of earmarks, only to attempt to balance the budget on the backs of small businesses and those who work and save. Governor Jindal pointed out in his response how effective less government, less spending, and real government reform can be in my home State of Louisiana.

I say that instead of increasing dependence on government to run our daily lives, I strongly suggest that we let the entrepreneurial spirit and the work ethic of Americans with real leadership from Congress create the pathway out of our economic problems.

Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago this body spent over $1 trillion of taxpayer dollars on programs that will grow the size of government, but won't stimulate the economy to help us get out of this financial crisis.

Consumer confidence remains low, and fear of the future remains, as evidenced by the lowest Dow since 1997.

Last week I held two town hall meetings in my district in Northwest Louisiana. In both meetings, the feelings were the same. People are scared and they are angry. They are looking for solutions. Instead we give them wasteful spending and social programs funded with one-time money. Now we hear of a plan to finance this with taxes on the back of small businesses and on the taxpayers themselves.

To help this economy, we must allow business to expedite depreciation schedules, eliminate capital gains taxes and reduce payroll deductions and dedicate dollars to infrastructure projects, including I-49 in Louisiana.

As we move to consider the half trillion dollar omnibus, I urge my colleagues to act fiscally responsible and in a bipartisan manner.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the stimulus bill that was just passed this afternoon, a bill of wasteful spending, a bill that does not directly deal with the economic crisis. Tax cuts for individuals and families have been sacrificed and businesses will not be given the help they need.

But the good news is we're going to buy new cars for government employees, doorbells in Mississippi, and mice protection in San Francisco.

The bill also includes a very scary marker for universal health care, foreshadowing the policy of letting the government decide whether people are too old or too sick to receive treatment.

Americans need a bill that directly affects families and small businesses now. But it won't come. Even liberal economists predict that the unemployment rate will remain around 8 percent over the next couple of years, and that is a near 25-year high. The nonpartisan CBO is predicting that this plan will hurt the economy. The majority of Americans do not agree with this plan. They deserve better and we can do better.

Mr. Speaker, I pray that God will help America after Congress has passed such an expensive, expansionary and socialist legislation today.

From my neck of the woods, north Louisiana, we have quite a number of engineers. And right now I'm very concerned about engineers because of our current economic situation. President Obama just mentioned that his stimulus bill is better than no bill at all. However, I have to point out that we Republicans have submitted H.R. 470, which is a far better version and far more stimulative. We talk in increments of billions and trillions of dollars, $1 billion here, $100 million there. But I want to put a real face on the stimulus bill. A few days ago, we were contacted by Michael Moss, a constituent. He is a small business owner in Shreveport, Louisiana. Michael is 51. He owns a financial services business that has been operating in our community for over 30 years. Michael called and asked, where is the bailout for his small business? Everybody else is getting a bailout. He employs six hardworking Louisianans. And they work themselves to death. Also he employs elderly parents who rely on him or his business for their income. Michael doesn't own a jet plane. Yet he gets no bailout. He owns a used Ford Explorer instead. He doesn't own a home. He merely rents one. But he is still working his small business. He discussed the stimulus package. And what he is saying is, look, the small businesses are creating the jobs and need the help. Small businesses create jobs so families have stable incomes in order to go out and spend. He suggests, and I agree with him, that we need to expedite depreciation schedules, eliminate capital gains tax and eliminate payroll deductions immediately. Remember that we make plans based on what we expect our tax situation to be, especially my fellow business owners. We know that the tax returns are going to be there, and we go ahead and plan to spend the money.

Madam Speaker, I am very concerned today about teen violence. There is a lot we need to do about teen violence. But in dealing with the stimulus bill, I see that we are spending our money every place but teen violence. The stimulus bill passed by the House last week and now pending in the Senate is nothing more than a Trojan horse. It has all of the labels that make it sound effective, but when we look into the details, we see a myriad of new social programs and entitlements, busting our budget for many years to come.

Economists uniformly insist that a stimulus package must be quick and create jobs. The version that just passed does neither. They have shown us that cutting tax rates for individuals and small businesses is the best way to accomplish this.

Madam Speaker, I support the Republican alternative that would immediately boost our economy by cutting taxes for those who actually pay them. This plan would create 6 million jobs over the next 2 years. That is twice the jobs at half the cost. This plan saves future generations from a crushing debt burden, and shows that Congress can act in a fiscally responsible way. I realize that the stimulus package is currently in the Senate, but if it comes back, I really think that we need to make a very complete reconstruction of the stimulus bill. I ask that we make this Trojan horse a dead horse, and that we pass commonsense legislation to get this economy back on a sound footing.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in agreement with the gentlewoman from North Carolina, the gentleman from Texas, and the gentleman from South Carolina. As this body considers whether to burden future generations of Americans with more debt in the name of improving the economy, it is imperative that we look at the facts.

The proposed legislation will create or save 3 million jobs. At $825 billion, the economic stimulus bill, in its current form, will spend $275,000 per job. Additionally, deficit spending will not expand the economy. If that were true, then the current $1.2 trillion deficit, the largest in history, would already be rescuing the economy. We wouldn't need another $825 billion.

Trade groups state that every $1 billion in highway ``stimulus'' can create 35,000 new construction jobs. But Congress must borrow that $1 billion out of the private sector, costing the private sector the same number of jobs. Any type of effective stimulus cannot create jobs for some while costing jobs for others.

Ladies and gentlemen, we do not need to continue down the path of wasteful spending. If we are going to steady the U.S. economy, we must stimulate American enterprise while returning to the practice of making fiscally responsible decisions on behalf of the American people.