Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on February 25, 2008, I was unavoidably detained and missed votes. Listed below are the votes I missed and how I would have voted had I been here.

H. Res. 978, Rollcall No. 69: Expressing support for the designation of the week of March 3-7 as ``School Social Work Week'' to promote awareness of the vital role of social workers in schools, and in the community as a whole. Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.''

H. Res. 930, Rollcall No. 70: Supporting the goals and ideals of ``Career and Technical Education Month.'' Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.''

H. Res. 944, Rollcall No. 71: Honoring the service and accomplishments of Lieutenant General Russel L. Honore, United States Army, for his 37 years of service on behalf of the United States. Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, on February 12, 2008, I was unavoidably detained and missed votes. Listed below are the votes I missed and how I would have voted had I been there.

H. Res. 954, rollcall No. 43--Honoring the life of senior Border Patrol agent Luis A. Aguilar, who lost his life in the line of duty near Yuma, Arizona, on January 19, 2008. Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.''

H. Res. 909, rollcall No. 44--Commemorating the courage of the Haitian soldiers that fought for American independence in the ``Siege of Savannah'' and for Haiti's independence and renunciation of slavery. Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.''

H. Con. Res. 281, rollcall No. 45--Celebrating the birth of Abraham Lincoln and recognizing the prominence the Declaration of Independence played in the development of Abraham Lincoln's beliefs. Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, on February 6, 2008, I was unavoidably detained and missed votes. Listed below are the votes I missed and how I would have voted had I been there.

H. Res. 867, rollcall No. 29, Commending the Houston Dynamo soccer team for winning the 2007 Major League Soccer Cup: Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.''

H. Res. 942, rollcall No. 30, Recognizing the significance of Black History Month: Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.''

H. Res. 943, rollcall No. 31, Remembering the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and honoring its crew members, who lost their lives on January 28, 1986: Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.''

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

It's Friday. We're about to go home. What have we done this week? Well, we've seen earmarks for golf courses air-dropped into the Defense appropriations conference report. The Woodstock Hippie Museum is now back in play for Federal dollars. Is there any dispute that Congress has earned its 11 percent approval rating.

Today's bridge to nowhere take us to Albany, New York where lawmakers of that State's legislature will enjoy a per diem write-off for days that they are not working in their State capital.

I say to my friend from Washington, imagine if you were an IRS tax compliance officer, probably with an approval rating higher than Congress, and this was the scenario presented to you. A hypothetical State, we'll call it State Y, begins its legislative session in early January and adjourns its legislative calendar at the end of June. Nothing unusual about that. But this particular State legislature extends its session, declares itself to be in session for the remainder of the year, even though no legislative business is conducted. The question before the IRS is, should those lawmakers be entitled to a $150 a day per diem for days that they are not in their State capital?

The IRS ruled, correctly in my view, that they should not be entitled to this special tax break.

Well, notwithstanding that, in this bill, tucked away, is a provision that basically says that this per diem is allowed for all 365 days. And for those of you that are quickly doing the math on the back of your envelope, $150 plus a day equals $55,000 a year. Now, who foots that bill? Taxpayers from Missouri, taxpayers from the State of Washington, taxpayers from Massachusetts.

Now, I will give credit, I see my friend from Oregon is here, who, in committee, voted with us, as well as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) that this was an inappropriate provision. I applaud the gentlemen for that.

The IRS in its tax policy and priority guidance, in other words, the red flags that the IRS really wanted to take a look at was, in fact, this specific provision. The IRS had raised a red flag. But because of the powerful chairman, I see him on the floor, my good friend from New York, the powerful chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and the powerful chairman of the Rules Committee, who coincidentally happen to hail from the State in question, instead of a red flag by the IRS, they now have to wave a white flag. And again, taxpayers across the country are on the hook.

I would just say this, and I say this somewhat tongue in cheek.

When we get to the larger debate about the alternative minimum tax, I think one thing that all of us agree upon, of course, is that with the intent of that tax we have gone far afield. Unfortunately, I suspect we are going to have a lot of finger-pointing and partisanship and Republicans didn't do this and didn't pay attention or whatever. I would simply point out that facts are stubborn things in the fact that in 1969 I think the party in control during that session of Congress creating the tax was then the Democratic majority, and I seem to recall that the Republican Congress sent to a Democratic President a bill that would have completely, finally, permanently repealed the alternative minimum tax; and, unfortunately, the Democratic President vetoed that bill. So I think there is enough blame to go around if that's why you're coming to the floor to assign blame.

But the AMT, as has been pointed out, was originally created by the then-majority to hit about 150-plus wealthy families. This particular provision inserted not an extended, expiring provision, but a brand-new provision, but this brand new provision helps 150 legislators. Of this rifle shot, former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee Rostenkowski would most certainly be proud.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I look at the time, it is about 13 years ago exactly at this moment that I was standing at the altar saying, ``I do'' to the love of my life. So I must begin by wishing a happy 13th anniversary to the most beautiful woman in the world, with all respect to those ladies that are here present. I guess every marriage has obviously some high points and some disappointments.

And the other reason for me coming to floor is to actually speak about the disappointment that I have with the White House, particularly with its veto of H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act, often referred to as WRDA. This veto, if I must say so, was ill advised and I expect will be overridden by this House tomorrow and the Senate in the coming days.

I acknowledge that the President, during the veto message, mentioned that when the WRDA bill left the House, it was about $15 billion. The Senate's version was at 14 billion. And the final version of the water resources bill was somewhere around 23 billion. Yet certainly the White House understands that the bill that left the House had different priorities emphasized, different projects were being considered by the Senate and as such when the conference was convened, those bills had to be combined. The President, in his veto message, said, in essence, I fully support funding for water resources projects.

Respectfully, I must point out that the President's budget each year woefully underfunds the Army Corps of Engineers budget in my view, the operations and maintenance budget. And the White House went on with its veto message to say, My administration has repeatedly urged Congress to authorize only those projects that provide a high return on investment.

Well, I share the White House's belief that taxpayers deserve a dollar's worth of services for every dollar they remit in taxes. But just looking at water resources projects in terms of dollars and cents is what caused us to only have category 3 levees in New Orleans. We have seen how short-sighted that decision was. In fact, I would suggest that over the last 25 years, every dollar that the Corps has invested in flood control has been returned six-fold in potential damages that had been averted.

A WRDA bill has not been passed by Congress in 7 years. Communities around this Nation are now in desperate need for projects such as levees and protective coastal wetlands. Moreover, in the past 7 years, our water-borne transportation infrastructure has continued to crumble. There are 192 active locks on navigable waterways in this Nation. The average age is 60. The President, by his veto, is choosing to ignore these needs, possibly harming the lives and certainly the livelihoods of millions of people in this country.

One of the most important projects for the Missouri-Illinois delegations is the much-needed modernization of the five locks on the upper Mississippi River and two on the Illinois waterway. This is something that we helped author back in the 108th Congress. And certainly I acknowledge my good friends and supporters of this, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), the dynamic duo from Illinois, Mr. Costello and Mr. Shimkus on our side of the aisle, and also Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Baker have been instrumental in bringing this project to fruition.

Look, these locks are vital to farmers, manufacturers and many other industries in Missouri, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. These locks on the Mississippi and Illinois rivers facilitate the movement of 100 million tons of cargo every year. While almost 50 percent, half of this is cargo, is agricultural, the river also transports asphalt for road construction, coal for electricity. In fact, did you know that every gallon of jet fuel that is used at O'Hare and Midway Airports in Chicago is transported on our navigable waterways?

The shipments of these products via the river saves the American public between $800 million and $2 billion over other modes of transportation. Certainly I would suggest that while not every farmer in the region uses the river to ship crops, all growers are impacted by it. Every day the price of grain a farmer receives at his home market is based on the price of grain that moves on the Mississippi River to export markets. The lower the cost of transportation here within our own borders, the lower the cost of U.S. grain is on the world market, the more grain the United States is able to sell to our foreign trading partners.

As some in this Chamber know, I have a personal experience shipping on the river. I grew up in the shadow of the levees along the Mississippi in southeast Missouri. Lock modernization, I can assure you, will ensure that farmers in Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin and elsewhere continue to have the same benefit that my family had growing up on our family's farm, the ability to ship crops to international markets via the most cost-effective method.

Now, many of these locks, unfortunately, are being held together with bailing wire and duct tape. Our senior

Senator, Senator Bond, is fond of saying that these locks belong on the National Register of Historic Places. He is actually mistaken. They are already on the National Registry of Historic Places.

I urge this House to override the President's veto.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Never in my wildest dreams would I imagine that on a day in August of 1997 that a Democratic President would sign a bill presented by a Republican Congress, and that that would be a high-water mark as far as consensus between a divided government, 10 years ago, the high-water mark of a divided government coming together to create a solution. I was here to help create the bill. In that instance, a Republican Congress worked with, negotiated with, compromised with the President of the other party to create a solution to the problem of children who had no health insurance.

Now, I would say, Madam Speaker, that the 2007 version of the Children's Health Insurance Program is almost unrecognizable from the original bill, and certainly beyond the original intent of that bill.

For instance, New Jersey currently has a planned amendment that would use income disregards which would allow it to raise its SCHIP eligibility levels to 350 percent of poverty. That's about $71,000 for a family of four. And don't just take my word for it. Look at section 114, subparagraph A under the bill. And that would continue under this bill.

Many adults without children would be eligible under this bill. Don't take my word for it. Read subparagraph A of section 112 of the bill. You know, the bill allows States to move them to Medicaid, but allows it to pay.

The Federal Government should not be, in my humble opinion, in the business of paying for States who want to cover childless adults that are grandfathered in this bill. And on behalf of my constituents in Missouri, should I ask them to reach in their pockets then and to pay for health care for a family of four in New Jersey making $70,000 or a family of four in New York making $80,000?

So it comes down to this. In fact, there are still 79,000 kids in Missouri, Madam Speaker, that are still at or below 200 percent of poverty. Those are the kids we need to reach out to to provide health insurance.

So the question at the end of this vote is this, to my friends on the other side, Do you want the politics or do you want the policy?

I continue to reserve my time, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to an individual who is now the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, who also helped create the Children's Health Insurance Program back in 1997, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Before yielding to my friend from Texas, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to a previous speaker, the gentlelady from New Hampshire, who said that she would have voted against the original bill had she known or had she believed that, in fact, a family of four making $80,000 would qualify their children. Well, in fact, I would point the gentlelady to section 114, subparagraph A of the bill that allows income disregards.

And I would say to the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who pointed out that, yes, it was the administration that granted the waiver, there are some on this side who would suggest the administration has approved unwise waivers in the past. But even this administration has indicated to a particular Governor that before we allow this waiver to occur, in the instance of New Jersey, so many additional enrollees would have to meet the intent of the SCHIP program, to which the Governor said, ``I don't have to abide by that.'' And I find that a bit difficult to swallow as we then discuss whether this should be the law of the land.

I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

With all respect, Madam Speaker, I don't need to be lectured to by a Member who did not even support the original Children's Health Insurance Program.

The fact is that we reached compromise 10 years ago. And I recognize that the chairman of the Health Subcommittee can ram through a bill when you've got the votes, as the original bill was done, without any input from anybody else, that it's my way or the highway. And I recognize that when you have the votes, that's one way you can try to enact legislation.

So my question still stands, after this veto is sustained, Do you want the politics or do you want the policy? I hope the latter. Because I guarantee you we can have a meeting of the minds.

Mr. Camp and I, Mr. Boustany, in fact, introduced the Kids First Act that would reauthorize this program. It's similar to the alternative in the Senate that would increase State allotments by $14 billion over the next 5 years, that would allow 1.3 million new low-income children to be covered, that reimburses States at their Medicaid matching rate, fully offsets the bill without raising taxes, bolsters current provisions to provide premium assistance to kids who have access to private coverage so that we can better coordinate public and private programs to prevent the crowding-out effect.

So once this political effort is done, I hope we can have a meeting of the minds.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer this motion to recommit to the underlying bill, the Tax Collection Responsibility Act.

The motion to recommit would actually incorporate H.R. 2380, which is a bill for which I am the original sponsor. It is a bipartisan bill, and I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, especially those who have cosponsored the bill, would see fit to support this motion to recommit.

Since I have these few moments, and I see the distinguished chairman of the committee who may be responding, let me anticipate some points or questions perhaps and try to respond to them.

We may hear the question: Why are we doing the death tax repeal now?

Well, three times in the last session of Congress did we have the opportunity to debate this issue and vote on it. Again, this House in a bipartisan fashion voted to completely, permanently repeal the death tax.

I am not certain under the new majority that we will have that opportunity or not. There is a policy rationale for considering this measure now. One is the certainty.

As the Speaker knows, right now there is a $2 million exemption, a 45 percent rate, a very punitive rate. That exemption in 2010 goes up to a complete repeal, and there is lack of certainty, especially those family businesses that are looking to plan on how to dispose of those assets. So I think now is an appropriate time.

We may hear from my good friend, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, is this bill paid for. And I would suggest first of all that there is no budgetary impact in fiscal year 2009. We are looking beyond January 1, 2011, before any budgetary impact. And I would quote the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee who at least has been quoted in the paper as saying he is ready to tackle some big, tough issues, like the alternative minimum tax. The permanent death tax repeal is significantly less loss of revenue to the government than repealing the

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I was unavoidably detained and missed September 7th's rollcall vote, number 869. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague from the Show Me State for yielding, and I rise in support of the Berry-Ross-Hare- Emerson-Hulshof-Costello amendment.

We have tasked the Federal Emergency Management Agency with educating the public of the flood risks to their homes and businesses. I think we agree and support their continued efforts in the education campaign so long as it is done based upon the best modeling and sound science available.

But I do not support FEMA pushing homeowners into purchasing flood insurance when they don't need it. This is exactly what FEMA seems to be doing with the zone X shaded floodplain note. Zone X shaded is the area behind a certified 100-year or 500-year levee but still within the 100-year floodplain. Within these zones, FEMA attaches a note, the purpose of which I believe seems to intimidate homeowners into purchasing flood insurance through a very strongly worded suggestion.

Now, if you talk to FEMA, they will tell you those notes don't require individuals to purchase flood insurance; and I guess I can say my beautiful wife, Renee, doesn't require me to buy an anniversary present, but there are some things that just seem to be understood.

Of particular concern, as has been expressed, is that when you have certain lenders or others who see this warning, this stark warning, that they may in fact require homeowners when in fact the law does not.

Again, I acknowledge what my colleague and friend from Cape Giradeau has said. I am for floor insurance. It should be, for instance, mandatory in special flood hazard areas. But we have areas in this country where tremendous resources have been used to create a very adequate flood protection system. Mrs. Emerson's district is one of those, systems that are constructed and maintained and certified by the Federal Government.

So individuals that live behind these certified levees, whether they have been constructed by the Federal Government or constructed under the supervision of the Federal Government, they pay their due, they pay Federal taxes, and often they have participated in the levee districts themselves. I think this is a commonsense amendment, and I am proud to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3540, the Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2007. As the gentleman, my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, indicated, this bill is a 3-month extension of the excise taxes that currently fund the Airport and Airway trust fund.

Time is of the essence, as the Speaker knows, as these taxes are due to expire at the end of the month, and it is imperative that we do not cut off this source of funding that benefits our Nation's airports and the aviation community, as well as the tens of thousands of airline passengers. I see my colleague from Illinois nodding, and we shared a plane ride here moments ago.

In addition, there has been a lot of discussion about a way to reformulate the way we fund the trust fund. There have been some interesting ideas bandied about by different points of view. This temporary extension allows us that additional time to consider some fundamental reforms to the tax structure that finances the Airport and Airway trust fund and to spend some more time studying the NextGen air traffic control modernization proposal before we move towards conference with the Senate to consider FAA reauthorization.

As the gentleman from Michigan pointed out, this bill was reported out of our committee by voice vote. Since it extends to the end of the calendar year the existing taxes dedicated to the trust fund, there is no effect on revenues as we extend the current baseline. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee.

We have no other speakers remaining, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I was unavoidably detained and missed one of Tuesday's rollcall votes, No. 877. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 3096, the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2007.

I have to admit, Mr. Speaker, that it is with conflicting emotion that I rise, as is my custom, to report on the annual Hoops for Hope basketball game, an intense athletic contest between Members of Congress and representatives of the lobbying community.

Normally, I'm accompanied with a handsome trophy indicating the success of our athletic endeavors. In fact, seven times out of the last 9 years said hardware has joined me here at the table. Alas, I will admit the absence of said hardware suggests the outcome of last Monday night's game. The lobbyists defeated the Members team 45-36.

Now, some point out that the enhanced lobbying disclosure rules that have been passed are to blame in that we were unable to utilize secret plays. I often point out that the universe from which the teams are drawn, the universe of lobbyists, of course numbers in the thousands, indeed the tens of thousands from which they can draw their athletic team whereas we, on the other hand, are limited by a finite number of 535.

One observer of the game wryly noted that he hoped the Members of Congress team were current on their dues to the local bricklayers union in that, shall we say, our shooting percentage was not that good.

The bright spot, however, as is the case every year, is that significant funds were raised for local charities. Indeed, last Monday night's event at the Smith Center, on the campus of George Washington University, raised over $60,000, bringing the cumulative total of funds for local charities to over $300,000 over the life of this very spirited but worthwhile contest.

Specifically, the local charities this year included Horton's Kids and the Luke Tiahrt Foundation, as well as Saint Anthony's. Before the game, many of the children actually served by those funds were in attendance. So it was great to see the recipients of those charitable efforts being there and participating in that contest.

A couple of quick thanks: As always, George Washington University was extraordinary in their hospitality in providing the gymnasium of the Smith Center. We had celebrity coaches. Coach John Thompson, III, Georgetown University's basketball coach, was the Members of Congress' coach. He didn't have a lot to work with, unfortunately, last Monday night. We are checking with the NCAA to make sure that that blemish is not going to be included in this year's Georgetown record. On the other side of the court was Coach Karl Hobbs from George Washington University. Again, we appreciate the unselfishness of both Coach Thompson and Coach Hobbs.

I also want to acknowledge, I am not sure they want their names mentioned necessarily, but my colleagues, Mr. Tiahrt of Kansas, Mr. Larsen of the State of Washington, Mr. Kind of Wisconsin, Mr. Flake of Arizona, Mr. Thune from the other side of the Capitol from South Dakota, Mr. Meek of Florida, and Mr. Crowley of New York, again, gave it our best. But we fell

short. But as they always say, there is next year.

So, finally, with apologies to Mr. Longfellow, I would conclude by saying:

Somewhere in this favored land

The sun is shining bright.

The band is playing somewhere

And somewhere hearts are light.

Somewhere men are laughing,

Somewhere children play.

But there is no joy in Washington,

The lobbyists won the day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a lot of self-congratulations, at least on one side of this Chamber. Let me congratulate some who have spoken here for what appears to this Member to be a pretty breath- taking lack of consistency. My good friend from Fremont Hills has pointed the finger to this side and said we Republicans, we don't care about children.

I would remind my chairman, Mr. Speaker, that the children's health program was created by a Republican majority. The gentleman points out that this bill today is funded, as the gentleman is nodding, as that bill was funded. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago and 2 days on July 30, rollcall vote no. 345, on this floor, on the conference report creating the Children's Health Insurance Program, I was proud to be one of 346 ``aye'' votes. There were 85 ``no'' votes. The gentleman from California was a ``no'' vote. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee was a ``no'' vote. I find that a bit interesting. Because, today, the gentleman from California talks about this being the identical bill. This is not the identical bill.

As my friend from Louisiana has said, we would love to reauthorize the

program for needy children. But should we allow a family in New York making $80,000 a year free health care, free to them, but paid for by 15,000 constituents I am privileged to represent who would have their vision care or dental benefits or oxygen services cut, and the savings then given to that couple making $80,000 in New York City?

One-half of the new enrollees under the majority's bill, those new enrollees would be people who already have health insurance coverage. There is, as the gentleman pointed out, a brand new, per capita tax on every health plan in America that raises $2 billion. There are rifle- shot reimbursements for hospitals in order, presumably, to sway undecided Members from Michigan and New York and Tennessee.

And can anyone really defend the children's health program for childless adults, childless adults now being able to qualify for the children's health insurance program?

Needy children, absolutely. Well-to-do adults, I suggest no, certainly not at the expense of cuts to senior citizens. We can do better. I urge a ``no'' vote.