Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize the bravery of Mr. Michael Oakley of Savannah, Tennessee. On the night of April 13, 2005, Mr. Oakley showed the highest form of human compassion when he risked his own life to save an unknown motorist trapped in a vehicle that was engulfed in flames following a traffic accident. Despite the extreme heat of the fire and suffering from severe burns, Mr. Oakley returned to the wrecked sport utility vehicle multiple times, determined to save another man's life. Thankfully, Mr. Oakley was successful.

In honor of this astounding act of selflessness, Mr. Michael Oakley was awarded the Carnegie Medal for Extraordinary Civilian Heroism. This award is given by the Carnegie Hero Fund Commission and Mr. Oakley was one of only 19 to receive this recognition. He was chosen for this award due to his outstanding courage which should stand as an inspiration to all men and women across Tennessee and our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in both thanking and congratulating Mr. Michael Oakley for his heroism; he is indeed, a worthy recipient of this outstanding honor. And may God bless all of the Michael Oakleys of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in a continuing call for responsible leadership in this House.

It has now been 107 days since the President called for Congress to produce a supplemental bill that will adequately fund the war on terror. And after more than 3 months of political theater and grandstanding, we have a leadership that hasn't produced anything. A bill will come before us today, hopefully that will fund the troops, and quite simply this will hurt our men and women in uniform.

These are not my words but those of a sergeant first class from Tennessee serving in Iraq who wrote to me recently. She has said this, and she is frustrated with some of the things in Iraq but is committed to her duty. And I would like to quote from her letter.

She writes, ``I believe that before Congress keeps pushing to get us out of here just to get their sons and daughters home, they need to take a step back, talk to the soldiers.'' She continues, ``I have lost several good friends, brothers and sisters in arms, to this place, but I do not want my children to come back here and clean up this mess if I had the capability to take care of it myself. I know that if we pull out now, the next generation will be right back here to finish what we did not, because too many people are worried about their own political agenda. I am proud to be an American soldier, doing my job to protect my country and help others.''

God bless this soldier, and God bless all who with her serve.

Mr. Speaker, you know, leadership is not as it appears; leadership is as it performs. And what the American people want to see is us performing and solving problems for them, addressing the issues that affect them, not window dressing. And window dressing is a lot of what we've done since the Democrats took control of the Chamber, brought forward their ``Six for '06,'' and by the way, not one single bill has been signed into law.

A few other things. We've named a lot of post offices. Today we are going to have a supposed price-gouging bill. But you know, the harder thing would be to really address production, exploration, distribution, innovation in the oil and energy industry to make certain that we have a sustainable supply.

And by the way, it's been 106 days since the President sent us a request for emergency spending, and finally we are going to get a bill that can be signed into law.

Leadership is not as it appears, it is as it performs. Let's solve problems for the American people.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in opposition to this legislation, because I certainly feel that it is going to increase the cost of gasoline to the American people. H.R. 1252 does purport to crack down on price gouging and marketplace manipulation by integrated large oil companies. Yet that is not what this legislation is going to do.

We had a hearing in committee about it yesterday, and I wish, indeed, that we were going to have the bill before us for a markup. What I find in this piece of legislation is that it will put a target on the back of every small business owner who runs and operates a neighborhood convenience store, a filling station or a truck stop. As I said in our hearing yesterday, there are so many of these that are the local gathering spot. These are not people that are going to gouge their neighbors.

You know, I know it is tempting to react to constituents' frustration with high gas prices. We are all frustrated with that. But the way to do it is not passing a hastily drafted price-control legislation. We should be focused on the real problem and work for real results on this issue. That is what our constituents want.

H.R. 1252 is not going to give us the real results. What we are going to see is a turn-back to energy policy, back to the Jimmy Carter era. It is a clumsy attempt, I think, to punish bad actors who take advantage of the public. But the bill adopts some vague language, employs some heavy-handed criminal penalties, some unenforceable civil penalties that no small business owner could afford.

I do think it's a little bit of legislative overkill, and some people would call it unconscionably excessive. They are entitled to that point. It was my hope that Congress would go through regular order, would address some of the issues pertaining to this Nation's energy policy, and look for some real solutions to the root problem.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk just a little bit about some of my encounters with my constituents over the weekend. What they are saying when I meet them is, what is going on in Washington? What is happening up there? We thought we were going to see a different type of environment. But you know what, it seems like nothing is getting done.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, they are right on the mark, because we are zero in '07 on the six for '06 that the leadership had promised that they were going to do.

More importantly to my constituents, and especially to some of those at Fort Campbell that I had the opportunity to spend time with on Sunday evening as they had their Normandy barbecue, the number one question was, what is going on with the Iraq supplemental? It is truly a disservice to our men and women in uniform for this not to be passed. Our troops in the field need that funding.

Other constituents were saying, what is this we are hearing about this budget? My goodness, the single largest tax increase in history?

Yes, indeed. And I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, many of us will stand in the gap to keep that from becoming law.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on leadership.

The American people have entrusted us with a great responsibility to represent their interest in this great House. The people of the Seventh District of Tennessee work hard and represent what is good about America, and it is my honor to speak on their behalf.

In my district there are farmers, bankers, truckers, accountants. My district is as diverse as America itself. One thing they believe in is the goodness and strength and perseverance of our country. They entrust us to do the right thing, no matter the circumstances.

They want lower taxes and believe that they, not the Federal Government, should have first right of refusal on their paycheck. They believe that if 10 percent is good enough for God, it should be good enough for the government when it comes to taxing that paycheck. And they think that government should learn to live within its means.

Most importantly, they want action, not political grandstanding. They want results, not rhetoric. They want and expect us to solve problems. They expect us to stand in the gap, stand up for them, and do our jobs.

They expect us to lead.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, and I am so pleased to be joined by three gentlemen from Texas, if you will, two judges and a physician. And we are all part of the Republican Study Committee and are certainly committed to carrying forth the conservative values that we appreciate here in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed hearing the conversation and listening to the conversation and discussion between my two colleagues as they have talked about this law that is a fairness issue, and I think so many people do look at it and say, my goodness, $350 million for those that are in prison, and as the gentleman said, rewarding illegal behavior.

And that is something that people are very sensitive to right now, especially in light of the impact that illegal immigration has made on so many of our communities, the cost to those communities and the concern with our citizens that there are some here in this body that would like to consider amnesty and reward those that have broken the rule of law.

I also enjoyed the conversation about health care and that being provided to those that have been imprisoned. I've been visiting with my Realtors from Tennessee, yesterday and today. They've been on the Hill. The number one issue for them is small business health plans and access to affordable health care. And these are people that really do such a great job in working to improve the quality of life and work with our communities. And they are struggling with providing health care for their employees. They are struggling with providing health care for their families and insurance.

And then when you hear about those that are imprisoned, as they leave having grants for health care provisions, you know, there's just something not right about that. There is something that is a little bit inappropriate about them having access to that when hardworking, middle-class families are struggling with that issue.

We have got so many things to talk about. We have had such an interesting day here. We have had some procedural moves, as Mr. Gohmert mentioned. There is a rule that the majority was trying to change. It dealt with germaneness. This is a rule that has been on the books since 1822, part of our House rules, part of the decorum and conduct of the House. And for expedience, for convenience, this is something that they were choosing to try to change, very unfortunate, and the kind of change the American people certainly did not vote for. They want to see the rules of the House and of this great institution respected, and it's been unfortunate.

I have been greatly disappointed, and as my constituents, I've heard from three or four of them during the day that have said what's going on. And it's been with great disappointment that I've explained to them that for power, the sake of power, we saw the majority trying to eliminate a rule that has been a part of the order of this House since 1822. And we hope that they will push that aside and decide that they are going to abide by the rules of the House as they have been laid forth and have worked well for centuries, if you will.

I think also we could touch today on the fact that today marks 100 days since President Bush sent the request over for supplemental spending for our troops. It has been 100 days of inaction or putting forward bills that they knew were going to be vetoed, of political grandstanding, and I find that to be unfortunate. And it is with regret that we have to admit that that is a tactic and a mode of operation that the majority has decided to take.

They have had time to pass D.C. having the right to vote. They've had time to pass bills that would recognize schools. They've had time to name post offices. They've passed bills on global warming. They've passed legislation to

protect wild horses, but there hasn't been time to craft a bill to get money to our troops in the field.

It is a matter of priorities, Mr. Speaker, and how unfortunate that the frivolous nature of some of the legislation that has come before us, that has consumed the time of this body, would be placed as a priority above the legislation to get funding to our troops in the field. And our soldiers are running out of cash. This effort is running out of cash, and we are in a global war on terror, and it is imperative that we get that money where it needs to be to those troops.

But that has not been the priority of the majority. They chose to bring forward a supplemental bill that they knew was going to be vetoed because it had an additional $24 billion worth of pork barrel spending. So then they decided to rework it and break it into two supplementals so that the California salmon could get their money and you could get Ag money and you could get Katrina relief money. You could get all this spending and not put it through regular order, but let's get that money to that California salmon out there. We've already had Tuna-gate; so now let's go throw some more money in here for this.

And how very unfortunate to that put into a wartime supplemental. This is a wartime supplemental. Our primary responsibility is keeping our Nation safe, keeping it secure, making certain that when you get in that car to get those children to the bus stop, to go to school, when they go to that school, you know that they are safe, that you're not going to have a group of terrorists like the Ft. Dix six come show up at the shopping mall or at the college baseball game and try to destroy our citizens. People want that type security, and it is unfortunate that that has not been a priority.

I tell you, I look at what is happening before us and some of the things that have been passed by this body, naming the post offices and recognizing schools and horse legislation and some of those things, and you'd think maybe the Democrats have an insecurity agenda. Maybe that is their agenda for this session, this 110th Congress.

And then as we look at the supplemental, which was supposed to be passed and out of the way before we started on DOD appropriations for next year, and that is what has been before us today, we also are in the midst of looking at the budget which contains a $392.5 billion tax increase over 5-years, the single largest tax increase in American history, $392.5 billion. You would see your marginal rates increase. You would see the cap gains rate increase. Child tax credit would be cut in half. Tennessee and Texas are two States that enjoy sales tax deductibility because we're wonderful States without a State income tax. That would go away. $392.5 billion tax increase over 5 years, single largest tax increase in history. It would cost $2,611 per taxpayer in my State of Tennessee. That is the amount of increase that we are looking at.

And quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, my constituents know that government is overspent and taxpayers are overtaxed and they are tired of it. They also know that government does not have a revenue problem. It is a spending problem that government has, and my constituents also believe that if 10 percent is good enough for God on Sunday, then it ought to be good enough for the government. And they believe that we should learn to live within our means.

They are tired of working hard, getting their paycheck, looking at that pay stub and realizing that the Federal Government has first right of refusal to their paycheck because before that worker ever gets that paycheck deposited in his account, the Federal Government has put his hand into that wallet and has extracted every dollar they want out of that paycheck. Social Security comes out, your Medicare comes out, all your taxes come out. There you go. There you go, Mr. Speaker. The Federal Government has first right of refusal on your paycheck, and that is something that it is time that we should be changing.

We have so many things that are budget issues, and I want to circle back around to the health care issue that comes back to us every time we look at the budget, every time we look at DOD, Department of Defense, health care comes to the forefront. And we're so fortunate at our Energy and Commerce Committee that we have some physicians who serve on that committee with us, who are articulate and well-versed in health care and what it is, what we need to do in order to be certain that this Nation stays healthy, individuals stay healthy but that our health care delivery systems stay healthy.

I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for some comments on the health care issue.

I thank the gentleman from Texas. I appreciate this so much. How interesting that something that would yield a $3.8 billion savings has been overlooked and left on the table. But I think that what we see from this, and what the takeaway for us is, that we have an innovative idea, and as the physician from Texas said, our States are great labs for finding things that work. They do such a great job looking at needed reforms, whether they are educational reforms or health care reforms, and finding things that work.

You take a program like the liability reforms in Texas that have reduced insurance rates by over 22 percent, and then you run that out on a national basis and you say, okay, over 5 years, we can save $3.8 billion, not to include it, when you know it's a concept that works, not to bring it forward for discussion from the House, so that you can elevate the awareness of this.

Look for a pilot project for this if you need be, if you need further evidence and some qualified data to work from. But to be able to say, all right, we are just not going to do this because we like the status quo, we like the way the status quo is, and we are not interested in something that will be new, different, or maybe save some money.

We would rather be spending money and spending they are, to the tune of the single largest tax increase in history that the liberal majority and the liberal leadership in this House is bringing forward in their budget, $392.5 billion over a period of 5 years.

It has been a pleasure to stand with my colleagues tonight and to talk a little bit about our budget, to talk about some of the gamesmanship, if you will, that has taken place as the majority has tried to change a rule that has been on the books since 1822, lack of respect for the traditions of the institution.

We also would recognize with sorrow the fact that this is the 100th day since President Bush said, our men and women in uniform need additional funds. It is an imperative that we get the funds to them, and still no bill in sight. We have a Memorial Day break coming up upon us. I think it's unfortunate.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. It has been so interesting to me, and the gentleman mentioned Fort Hood and Killeen, Texas and his constituents there. Fort Campbell is in my district in Montgomery County, Tennessee, and to see these men and women, and to hear their stories and to see their need, as I have worked with that post since coming to Congress and working to meet their needs, one of the lessons to me has been, and I think this should be one of the lessons learned for all of us who are Members in Congress, when you cut funding to programs like the military, then there is a price to pay for that. And we are constitutionally charged and directed to provide for the common defense and the security of this Nation.

One of the things that happened during the Clinton Presidency, in order to generate a surplus, was cutting the military funding and cutting the intelligence funding. And we have heard, 4 years. This is not anecdotal, it is something that is fact and something that was bragged about, actually, a little bit in the late 1990s, was not putting that money into R&D, not researching the next generation of tanks or choppers or fighters or artillery or armor, because the Cold War was over and there wasn't a big threat. So let's cut that funding, and then let's put that money into something else.

And the same thing happened with intelligence, as the gentleman was saying. There was money that was cut back from that and put into social programs and domestic programs and not put into keeping that intelligence network strong and viable. And it takes about 5 years for one of our intelligence agents to develop an asset that is a reliable asset for information to protect our country. And I hope this is a lesson learned.

When we look at what happened to our country on September 11th, that is the date our Nation stopped responding to acts of terrorism as civil disobedience and started responding to acts of terrorism as an act of war, September 11th. We had been attacked for 2 decades prior to that, but that day was the day it changed. And as we looked at that and realized that on September 11, 2001, we were not under a George Bush budget, we were still under a Bill Clinton budget, and the Bush budget was kicking in about the 1st of October.

We have to realize that what you had were many years where our military had been telling us, we are pulling down on all of our resources, our reserve resources, we are pulling these down; and we need to be replenishing, we need to be careful where we are. I think that is a lesson, and I hope it is a lesson that we realize, that when you put something in place, you have to maintain it. When you build for the common defense, you need to maintain that in order to be able to stay strong.

I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, later this week the liberal left in the House will take up the Defense Authorization Act, legislation that is supposed to make our Nation more secure and help our troops in winning the war on terror.

But you will have to excuse the American people if they don't understand the leadership's real agenda here, because you actually have to read through 452 pages of the National Defense Authorization Act to find it. Subtitle F, section 951 reveals all you really need to know: a significant diversion of national security resources to indulge the liberal fascination with global climate change.

The language paints an unwelcomed portrait of the liberal left's agenda on

national security: Wax philosophical about the so-called impact of global warming first and, only after that, talk about the real issue of the war on terror. This is the second time in as many weeks that the left plans to force this body to vote on a bill that would fund special interest priorities at the expense of our national security. It is unconscionable. It is unfair. It is not right. It is an abusive use of Federal funds.

Welcome to national security, Democrat style.

I thank the gentleman so very much. I am pleased that we are talking about the issue that so many Americans are talking about right now, and that is the energy needs of our country.

One thing that you touched on, I think, that is just so vitally important to see, the solutions that we work toward are going to be American solutions, and it is not going to be something that is simple, or you can't change it with the stroke of a pen. This is something we are going to have to work our way out of, things we can do right now. Right now, through conservation efforts, things that we can do over the next decade, through exploration, through the innovation, things that we can work over the next 25, 30 years toward, as we look at diversification of our supplies, and commercialization of new technologies and new forms of fuel.

But the thing is, when you look at all of that diversity, and having a wide, broad answer, a sustainable American energy policy, we know, it is American solutions that will lead us to being free of the influx of foreign oil and foreign energy sources into our country. I think that what we have to do is look at the steps we are going to take over the next couple of years and the next couple of decades as being more or less next level steps to the building blocks that we have put in place.

Our party has had a tremendously strong record of conservation. You can go back to Teddy Roosevelt and look at the efforts that he had toward conserving this Nation's natural resources and the legacy that was put in place there, and how we have moved forward through the decades now to where we look at our environment and energy and, say, you know, we passed a good bill in 2005. It brought forward, moved forward, a lot of our alternative energy sources, our renewable resources, and allowed for additional exploration of those natural resources that we have here.

Now it is time for us to push it a little bit further down the pike. That's what the American people want to see. They know that fuel prices are high. They understand that. They know that our electricity use is going to increase over the next couple of decades. They understand that. They accept that.

What they want us to do is to get the costs down, to be certain that we have access to an ample supply of affordable energy.

If the gentleman will yield. That is indeed one of their frustrations.

And one of my constituents this past weekend said to me, you know, I appreciate all the talk that's out there about the environment. I appreciate the talk that is out there about energy.

But, let me tell you something. Global warming is not a national security issue. And what I don't like is the fact that the liberal left is taking money out of homeland security. They're taking money out of intelligence. They're diverting funds from all sorts of budgets up here to study their fascination with global warming. And that is something that our constituents are not happy with. And as one of my constituents said to me, I don't think global warming had one single thing to do with September 11.

They want us to focus on what should be our priorities. And as we're talking about the budget and the priorities of the House, one of the things we have continued to hear so much about is a tremendous amount of concern from the small business people that are in our district, all of our small business owners, especially our female-owned small businesses who are extremely concerned about the budget that the Democrat leadership has brought forward that would be the single largest tax increase in history.

These are women who have stepped forward. They are taking a risk. They are taking the responsibility of running a company, and now they are getting ready to be hit with the single largest tax increase in history by a leadership that I guess does not understand the necessity of being a small business owner and looking at those books, being a single mom and wanting deductibility for that child tax credit; small business owners that are sharing in the ownership of this; married couples that are looking for marriage penalty relief that want to continue small business expensing. And every time they turn around, the government is wanting to take more of their pay check.

My constituents want to know that they've got first right of refusal on that pay check, not the Federal Government. They know government has a spending problem. It doesn't have a revenue problem.

And as I've said many times on this floor, a lot of my constituents believe if 10 percent is good enough for God, 10 percent is good enough for the government. And they feel like we should do a better job of managing the people's money, and they are exactly right.

Indeed, I will.

If the gentleman would yield, that is their projections for right now. We are just a few months into the new majority, and it took them just a couple of days to increase regulations and increase spending. It took them a couple of months to start raising taxes, and look at where they've gotten. They already are spending so much more than they should be that at this point this is where they are. And we haven't even gotten through the first year of this.

We haven't even gotten through the first budget. And we would see those rates on ordinary income tax go from 35 to 39.6 percent on January 1, 2011. That's 1/1/11. And that is when they would raise that. We would see that child tax credit cut in half. We would see cap gains go back up, and we're just a few months into this. This is the Hold on to Your Wallet Congress, and I would recommend that people hold on to that wallet because they want to get their hand on your pay check. And I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss the topic of leadership. The American people are demanding action from this Congress and so far they have really seen very little.

A recent Wall Street Journal-NBC poll shows that more than 60 percent of Americans think that this Congress has done little or nothing since the leadership change took place in November. And you know what, Mr. Speaker, they are right. Not one piece of the liberal agenda has been signed into law. Instead of crafting legislation that can be implemented, this Congress has wasted the last 4 months and taxpayer dollars as a stage for political theater, and they have nothing to show for it.

When I go home to my district, like I did this weekend, and visit with my constituents, what I am hearing from them is really a lot of frustration. They are getting tired of the political grandstanding. What they want to see, Mr. Speaker, is action. They want us to be problem solvers on the problems they face every day.

The people of the Seventh District want us to hold the line and to not raise taxes. They want to keep more of their hard-earned money. They don't want government to have first right of refusal on that money. They want first right of refusal, and they want to keep those paychecks in their pocket. I believe that the American taxpayer knows how to better spend his own money than the Federal Government.

In my district, we hear a lot of people talk about keeping that money. I have said many times, if 10 percent is good enough for God, 10 percent ought to be good enough for the government. My constituents agree with that.

The people of Tennessee want to win in the war on terror. They want us to support our men and women in uniform by giving them the supplies they need to win. Anything less than that is insulting to the men and women who stand to protect us every day. The liberal leadership of this Congress says the war is lost. It is time to give up. They also claim to support the troops. In my district, Mr. Speaker, we believe you can't have it both ways. You don't support the troops by threatening to withhold critical funding. You don't support the troops by imposing artificial deadlines and taking control of battlefield operations out of the hands of the men and women and the commanders in the field. And you don't support the troops by telling them that you think the war is lost.

The people of Tennessee want our borders secure and they want us to enforce the immigration laws on the books. Granting illegal immigrants amnesty is insulting and unrealistic. It is insulting to all of our constituents who have spent years of time and money entering the country the legal and right way. It devalues all of their hard work and their efforts, and if anyone thinks that granting amnesty to illegal immigrants that are already here will stop more people from crossing the border in the middle of the night, well, they are just fooling themselves.

All of this talk of amnesty will only increase illegal immigration and the traffic that it brings at our borders because it is setting a precedent for the future. We know that. We have seen history repeat itself. Do they actually think that those who are illegally here will voluntarily go back to their home country, stand at the back of the line, and pay a fine when they are already here? And if they are caught, it is rare that they are deported. That is the incentive to integrate the right way, to come into this country through legal channels.

The law should be enforced, Mr. Speaker. That is what people want to see. No amnesty, enforce the laws on the book, not reward those that have illegally entered the country, be certain that people immigrate to this Nation the right way.

It is also a matter of national security. In this post-9/11 era, it is against our national security interest to allow an open border. For instance, three of the six people that are charged in plotting to attack U.S. Army post, Fort Dix, were in the country illegally. Records show there is no record of them ever entering this country. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were in the country with expired visas. Yet, several of them still had their driver's license.

It is evident that radical terrorists whose sole purpose is to destroy this Nation and our way of life are here living among us. It is time that we stand in the gap. It is time that we do our job, that we lead, and we do it to protect the American people. They are watching.

Mr. Speaker, in March, the Homeland Security Committee unanimously approved a bill to authorize funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the coming year. It wasn't a perfect bill, but it was one the committee accepted.

Now the liberal leadership plans to strip the most critical provisions in the legislation. These are not controversial points that should make my colleagues on the other side of the aisle uncomfortable. Unless, of course, the Democrats do not agree with an increased emphasis on immigration enforcement at the ports or secure biometric identification for aliens captured at sea or critical funding to protect America's food supply. But, as we've all seen since the Democrats took over in January, we know that is the case.

But it actually gets worse. The liberal leadership voted against allowing noncontroversial amendments to increase information sharing between DHS and cops on the beat, allowing DHS to investigate Social Security fraud at the workplace, and increased fines of employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.

Mr. Speaker, this bill makes a mockery of the democratic process, does nothing extra to secure our borders and will, unfortunately, probably make our Nation less safer.

Welcome to Homeland Security, Democrat style.

I object.

I object.

I object.

I object.