Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, yesterday we learned of two important developments as the White House plans to grab control of the day-to-day management of the U.S. Census Bureau: (1) The U.S. Senate's chief committee on government oversight scheduled its first hearing of the year to investigate the matter; (2) Senator Gregg withdrew his name for the consideration of the Commerce Secretary position, citing ``irreconcilable difference'' with the President on the future of the U.S. Census.

These developments solidify what we already know: a political grab of the Census will jeopardize the non-partisan operations of the Bureau, and potentially disrupt the completion of a competent, reliable census.

My Republican colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously joined my call for an oversight hearing in the House. The Senate has heard our call. What do House Democrats have to hide? Americans deserve a non-partisan and accurate census, not one driven by partisan politics. Let's hold a hearing and ensure that we give them that.

I thank the gentleman from Texas. And I thank him for his leadership on this issue, and also for leadership on health care and for his passion and concern for the American people and their ability to control their health care information and to retain that relationship they have between the physician and the patient. And we know that from actions in this bill that relationship will be damaged, and possibly could be done away with, and a bureaucrat at the Comparative Analysis Center beginning to make decisions on what kind of health care individuals can seek.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise tonight, and I follow right along with the comments from the gentleman from Texas. I have deep and abiding concerns about this legislation.

We are in a recession. The American people want to see action. This is not the action that they want. Indeed, I have had constituents that have called and e-mailed, and local officials who have said, you know, stop, and do this right. Do not give us a spending bill that is going to leave us with an insurmountable debt.

Today is the birthday, the 9-month birthday of my first grandchild. His name is Jack Ketchel. And as Jack turns 9 months old today, Jack is receiving from the Federal Government a $35,000 debt. Tomorrow Jack's share of the national debt will go up. By the time young Jack Ketchel turns 21 and starts to enter the work force, there is no telling what that is going to be because Jack is going to be heaped upon his head, and he will see this every single year, a growing debt that comes from a growing deficit that comes because Members of this body chose to take the easy way out, to grow government, to pass a government stimulus bill; not a stimulus bill, Mr. Speaker, that would address the needs of the American people, not a stimulus bill that is going to encourage small business and private sector growth, but a stimulus bill that is going to include in it nearly a thousand pages. And by the way, the gentleman from Texas has the size of the bill as it passed the House.

Mr. Speaker, this body, the members of the Democrat leadership in this body and in the Senate, will choose to spend 1,206,185,567 taxpayer dollars. That is a billion dollars, $1.2 billion per page of that bill. That is what they're spending.

Now, you know, I thought this was to be the Congress that was about the children. I think that we are going to look back at this, I think our children are going to look at this and our grandchildren are going to look at this and say, no, this was the Congress that fleeced the children and the grandchildren. And it grieves my heart that my grandchild, and my grandchild that is going to be born in June, are going to face limited opportunities and a future that, many times, may be in jeopardy because the economic health of our Nation is impaired by the debt that we have.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked. They go hand in hand. And when we choose to spend for the moment instead of planning for the future, we jeopardize that future.

Now, we have to stop and say, as we look at this bill, there's $400 million in here for a social services block grant. There's $30 million for the San Francisco Bay area wetland project to save a mouse. There's $125 million for D.C. sewers. There is $140 billion to the States to reward States that have not planned for a balanced budget that they are mandated to have by their State constitutions. It includes 31 new programs and growth in 70 government programs. This is a big government stimulus bill.

I think it is a very sad day. We know our Nation is in recession. We know the American people want action. They are begging this body to halt and to not pass this bill. It is a spending bill, Mr. Speaker. It is not a stimulus bill.

I yield back to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, you know, this Nation is in a recession, and our constituents are absolutely outraged with what they see happening in this House. They want action. But they do not want the Democrat stimulus bill

that passed the Senate yesterday. What they want is a stimulus for Main Street. They know the best stimulus is a job.

They do not want the Democrat big government stimulus bill that was passed across in the other Chamber yesterday. They know that stimulus should be targeted, it should be immediate, it should be temporary, and it should yield results.

Yesterday's bill brings us $400 million on social services block grants, $300 million for green golf carts, $198 million on the DHS headquarters consolidation, $300 million on FBI construction, $125 million for District of Columbia water and sewer projects.

What they want is focused, targeted stimulus, not a big bill that our children and grandchildren are going to continue to pay for the rest of their lives. Let's oppose this bill. Let's focus on targeted stimulus that will yield results.

Mr. Speaker, you know, I find it amazing that we are in the middle of a debate of a good resolution. We are all for engineers. We like the innovation and the creativity that they bring forward. But, Mr. Speaker, what we are faced with is, is this the appropriate time for this type discussion? Or, is the time now to try to read through this, let's see, 1,500 pages that we have had laid before us? The spending bill that is masquerading under the title of stimulus, when we are told by the Congressional Budget Office that, at best, 10 percent of this bill would be spent this year?

We know that stimulus is to be timely, it is to be targeted. But we also know that this bill is going to spend money for 10 years. And I will tell you what. It is of great concern to me that our children and our grandchildren are the ones that are going to be paying for this, because we are heaping on their head another $1.2 trillion. And that doesn't include the interest, another $1.2 trillion of debt.

Now, I am told that this bill spends, per page, $1,206,185,569 per page.

That is how much is being spent in this legislation that has not gone through regular order, that has not been debated. All the programmatic spending that is in here, there is not time for that. And we are hearing one of the reasons is because there are codels that are leaving at 6 o'clock on Friday. Now a codel is a congressional delegation.

So because we have to hurry up and finish and get to recess, we can't get inside the numbers and figure out what we're going to do with this bill.

Now some of it we have found out, if you're into golf carts, there is $300 million for green golf carts. We have also $125 million for sewers in D.C. We have $500 million for NASA exploration activities. We have $2 billion for FutureGen. We have $70 million for an energy-efficient visitors centers program.

These are all items that may be worthy of standing on their own merit. The problem is this is not a stimulus bill. It is a spending bill. It has become the biggest pork barrel bill that we have ever seen. It is full of special interest earmarks and favors that will go to specific industries.

I urge everyone to vote ``no'' on this, and I urge us to take our time to debate.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the tremendous career and professional accomplishments of Brenda Lee, a legendary member of the Tennessee recording arts community and an international star, on the occasion of her receipt of the 2009 Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award on February 8, 2009.

The Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award is presented by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Science to performers who make significant contributions in the field of recording arts. Brenda Lee's career epitomizes the ideals established by the Recording Academy, and provides a benchmark for success that few artists worldwide can match.

Brenda sold over 100 million records during her career, and sold more records than any other woman in the history of recorded music. In doing so, she established a long-lasting connection with both American and international fans while holding the title of ``Most Programmed Female Vocalist'' for five consecutive years according to Billboard magazine, and three consecutive years according to Cashbox magazine. This standard of excellence yielded 29 gold records, international acclaim throughout the world, induction in the Country Music Hall of Fame in 1997, and induction in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2002.

More importantly, Brenda Lee remains an active community leader in Nashville, Tennessee where she and her husband Ronnie continue to make their home. Her charitable contributions include volunteer leadership in organizations spanning from the Kidney Foundation, the American Heart Association and the March of Dimes to the YWCA for Abused Women.

On behalf of constituents throughout Tennessee's 7th District and music fans around the world, I applaud Brenda Lee for her lifetime body of work, and congratulate her well-deserved acceptance of the 2009 Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the extraordinary life of Ambassador Joe Rodgers, who passed away on Monday at the age of 75. He exemplified the values of dedication, hard work and perseverance; and he committed himself to serving others. This is the inheritance he leaves his family and all those who knew him.

Although a native of Alabama, he built many of the iconic buildings that define his adopted hometown of Nashville. From the Schermerhorn Symphony Center to the Wildhorse Saloon to the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum, many of the most well-known and well-loved buildings in Middle Tennessee will stand as a permanent memorial to Joe Rodgers. He was an enormous force in the construction industry, building a series of companies that built hotels, hospitals, university buildings and countless other structures around the country and around the world.

Not content to rest on his success in business, Joe Rodgers engaged in public life through his support of candidates who shared his belief in fiscal conservatism. He would eventually become National Finance Chairman for both the Republican National Committee and the re-election effort of President Reagan. In 1985, President Reagan named him the U.S. Ambassador to France. His exemplary service was rewarded with the rank of Grand Officier of the Legion of Honor presented by French President Mitterand. He also served on both the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and the U.S. Trade Representative's Foreign Advisory Committee.

At home in Nashville he was involved with countless civic, charitable and religious groups such as the Boy Scouts of America, the Chamber of Commerce, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and Vanderbilt University.

Indeed it is difficult to find another person who has had so much impact on so many different aspects of our community. He will be missed and our sympathy is with his loving family.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in appreciation of a life well lived.

Madam Speaker, I think that, I would hope, that not only my colleagues but the American people realize that this bill today contains a $72 billion tax increase on the American people, what Congressional Research Service calls the most regressive of taxes, because it is tobacco taxes. But this is a tax increase that is coming full steam ahead at us. And, Madam Speaker, it is not there to go into a program that we all originally supported the way SCHIP was originally set up. This expanded SCHIP goes to middle-income children; it does not focus on low income and uninsured children. That is a sad day for us. Indeed, part of the 900,000 children that are expected to be added already have access to health insurance.

I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote against the tax increase and vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for yielding.

And indeed we are having a robust debate on this issue today. And I rise in opposition to the bill that is before us. I support moving forward for this transition. Just to correct the record a little bit, Mr. Speaker, on some of the things that have been said. We hear all of this, well, 95 percent of America is ready for this transition to take place. On January 22, 95 percent of this country was ready. That is the day that that number was released, January 22. Now we are coming up on the February 17 date. We know that over 300,000 people per week are coming off the list waiting for that coupon. And they are moving forward with readiness. Their expectation is that the Federal Government is going to make good on their promise. And they are going to move forward with this on February 17. Now it is important to our broadcasters. Talk to any of our broadcasters out there. They will tell you that they are running two systems. They are running their digital, and they are running their analog. And they are ready to move that spectrum out. My goodness, you all are so concerned about climate change, they are using all this electricity to run these two systems paying extra bills. They are telling us, ``We need this to take place.'' We are hearing from first responders. And the gentleman from New York said that those that have acquired the spectrum at auction are not upset about the delay, that they're fine with the delay. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, that is not what we hear. They are very concerned that in good faith they moved forward through the auction process, in good faith they have acquired this spectrum, in good faith they are preparing for jobs, and we're all concerned about jobs growth, jobs that will be going into place as we move to digital and analog moves into a new area for abuse. It is time for us to move forward on this and keep our word to the American people.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

This is, again, as we are standing here today, just quite an amazing debate that we are having. How interesting it is that we get down to the finish line of something that has been in the works for years and the Federal Government wants to call a time out and say, Let's push it off for another 4 months.

Of course, we all know that one of the reasons appears to be giving one company a competitive advantage. We find that very unfortunate that you have someone who is reported as a lobbyist for a company, and they have been an advisor for the administration on this situation, and it is about a competitive advantage.

One of the things that I do want to mention is so much has been said about the national organizations that are supporting this. I find it very interesting, Mr. Speaker. When I am talking to my local law enforcement community, when I am talking to my local broadcasters, they are much in opposition to what we hear being expressed as the opinion of the national organizations.

But isn't that the way it goes on issue after issue? You have got the D.C. way and then you have got, as we say, the Tennessee way. The local way. And your local broadcasters have committed incredible resources to this. They have worked with their communities.

Seniors are prepared. We know that according to Nielsen. Seniors are more prepared than just about anybody for this. We know that the American public is ready for this to take place and we know that our first responders are saying let's get this done so that we have that interoperability that was missing on 9/11, we have interoperability that was missing at Katrina. We have a readiness and a timetable for solving a problem that the American people have said we want to see some action on this.

Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to delay this. Let's show the American people that the Federal Government can keep their word on something, and it is making this transition.

Madam Speaker, you know, last week our Democrat leadership in this House passed their $1 trillion spending bill, and now we will see what our colleagues across the hall in the Senate are planning to do with that.

But, Madam Speaker, I think it's important to note, we Republicans know that excessive spending is not stimulus. And last week's bill was a spending bill. We know that the permanent way to work through to stimulus is to have it targeted, to have it temporary, to have it focused and to make certain that it is there to give jobs. We know the best way to do this is through tax incentives, tax reductions, regulatory relief, making certain that the private sector can create the jobs, because there is no economic stimulus that is better than a job. That is the best way to do this.

Now, also, Madam Speaker, the Democrat leadership in this House has seen us with a $1.2 trillion deficit for this fiscal year in 2008. That's the spending they did in 2008. I mean, swiping those numbers off the credit card. They are at it again with another $1.2 trillion, adding that to our national debt.

It is time for everyone to stand up and oppose the Democrat stimulus bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say thank you to my colleagues who are joining me on the floor to fight this stimulus bill that we have before us. Actually, using ``stimulus'' on this piece of legislation is an incorrect term, because when we look at this, what we have learned today is primarily that this is just another spending bill.

I find it so interesting. I don't know if my colleagues have had the opportunity to look at what the information we've had from the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO. And I know time and again, when we were in the majority, you all would take the CBO figures as the gospel. So it's a little bit of a head scratcher to us. You want to say you have a stimulus bill. But it's a spending bill. It's going to cost $1.1 trillion when you add the interest. But, interestingly enough, Mr. Chairman, that money doesn't go into the economy quickly. And I think that is what our constituents are so interested to learn.

Out of this $836 billion, and you add the interest in and you are at $1.16 trillion, now, $92 billion of that is released within the next 12 months. That is 2009 money. And then in 2010 you get another $225 billion, and in 2011 you get $159 billion.

Well, Mr. Chairman, ``stimulus'' means something immediate that is targeted, that is focused and that is going to address a problem. And we don't see that in this piece of legislation.

It is more spending on top of more spending. It is $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. It is $16 billion for Pell Grants. It is $2.1 billion for Head Start. It is $200 million for the National Mall. That is not stimulus.

That is not stimulus. That is government spending. That is growth of government problems. If you want to stimulate the economy, reduce taxes and leave money with the taxpayers, pay attention to small business and listen to their needs.

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, the Democrats in Congress are building a ``Bridge to Bankruptcy'' for a lot of small businesses, for a lot of American families and for the U.S. government.

I urge my colleagues to stand strongly against H.R. 1.

Madam Speaker, last year, the EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for a rule to give EPA's bureaucracy regulatory oversight of greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions under the Clean Air Act. This rule would affect both mobile and stationary sources.

If EPA is allowed to implement this rule, almost every small agricultural operation, including family farms, will meet the 100-tons- per year threshold. The cost of this rule will be a ``tax'' of $175 per cow, $88 per head of beef cattle, and $20 per hog. In addition, any new farms or existing farm expansion will be burdened with the ``New Source Review'' permitting requirements. These permits, which are extremely costly and time intensive, must be acquired before any new changes take place.

While members of Congress may disagree on regulation of GHG emissions, the final decision should be made by Congress and not mandated by the EPA. H.R. 391 asserts Congress' authority over this issue by pre-empting EPA from regulating GHGs under the Clean Air Act.

Please join me and support our farmers by cosponsoring H.R. 391. Congress must not allow EPA to establish regulations that place new costs on farmers and consumers.

Please contact me directly or have your staff contact Rodney Bacigalupo at 5-2811, [email protected], to add your name as a cosponsor of H.R. 391 or to request further information on this issue.

Madam Speaker, today, the House is again going to consider the Democrat SCHIP Expansion Act.

This polarizing expansion of the welfare state was stopped by the veto pen last year, and that's where it ought to stay. Once again, the bill fails to ensure that all low-income children will be covered; but, instead, it is going to increase the number of adults on SCHIP. Once again, the bill will grant health care benefits to illegal aliens. The bill will force the taxpayer to pay the health care premiums for children who already have quality, private health insurance. Even though President-elect Obama promised we wouldn't tax anyone making less than $250,000 a year, this bill will impose the most regressive tax on the poor in history with the tobacco tax increase.

It is shameful that the Democrats are playing politics with America's needy children. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Madam Speaker, I do rise to oppose the rule and also to oppose H.R. 2 that is covered in this rule.

One of the reasons is, indeed, the process. We have heard mention of it being a closed process and a closed rule, as indeed it is, and that doesn't speak to any type of bipartisanship. I had what I thought was a very germane amendment which was not allowed.

Madam Speaker, what this would have done was to phase out coverage, phase out coverage for nonpregnant adults. Now, this bill is SCHIP, the State Children's health insurance Program. It is to cover low-income children. But we have a majority in charge in this House that is not taking this bill to the health subcommittee. It is not taking it to Energy and Commerce Committee. It is bringing it straight to the floor.

In this bill that you will vote on is coverage, expanded coverage for adults. That, indeed, is unfortunate.

As we have heard, there also are tax increases. There is a $70.8 billion tax increase over the next 10 years in this bill. It is tobacco taxes. The Congressional Research Service, which is nonpartisan, calls tobacco taxes the most regressive of the Federal taxes. That is included as a pay-for in this bill for expanded coverage and changing of a block grant program that has worked successfully for low-income children, changing it to an entitlement program.

There are a list of reasons to oppose this bill. Weakening of eligibility requirements, weakening of section 211, weakening of your proof of citizenship, proof of who you are, weakening those requirements. All of that dilutes the purpose of the SCHIP program. It dilutes the coverage of health care for low-income children.

Oppose this rule. Let's do this right.

Madam Speaker, you know, it is so interesting as we have this debate, SCHIP, as it was originally put in place, is something that we are all for. That program as a block grant program worked well.

But, Madam Speaker, here is a 285-page bill that the Democrat majority laid on the table yesterday about 1:00.

In that bill, it allows for expansion of coverage to adults. We know that there were over 700,000 adults on this program at some point in 2006. We also know I had an amendment that would have removed, phased out all non-pregnant adults from this program and that amendment was not allowed.

This bill, this bill, will actually crowd out a lot of the low-income children who have benefited from being on the SCHIP program, and I find that very unfortunate that we will reduce the amount of health care available to the children of the working poor and allow the expansion of adults and middle-income children.