Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for bringing forth this tremendous amendment this evening for us to consider. I am grateful for his willingness to bring this forward because this is a concerning issue for so many Americans, concerning on so many issues, and concerning for people as well who are concerned about the use of tax funds.

There is an article that appeared in The Wall Street Journal in 2008 that was a fairly deep expose' of Planned Parenthood and what Planned Parenthood was doing with their money. I would like to quote from that article:

Flush with cash, Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide are aggressively expanding their reach, seeking to woo more affluent patients with a network of suburban clinics and huge new health centers that project a decidedly upscale image.

Executives say they are rebranding their clinics to appeal to women of means, a move that opens new avenues for boosting revenue, and they hope new political clout. Two elegant new health centers have been built, and at least five more are on the way; the Planned Parenthood facility in Denver, Colorado, is 52,000 square feet. They feature touches such as muted lighting, hardwood floors, and airy waiting rooms in colors selected by marketing experts.

Planned Parenthood has also opened more than two dozen quick-service ``express centers,'' many in suburban shopping malls, including my home State of Minnesota. Some Planned Parenthoods sell jewelry. Some sell candles, books, and T-shirts right next to the contraception. It is ``a new branding,'' says the president, Leslie Durgin, senior vice president at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.

Planned Parenthood is the Nation's largest abortion provider. They reported a record $1 billion in annual revenues. One-third of that comes from the Federal and State grants that we are discussing this evening.

And the nonprofit ended their year with a surplus of $115 million, or a third of the grants that they received from government, and with net assets of nearly $1 billion. In 2008, Planned Parenthood had 882 clinics nationwide. One of their competitors--and they do have independent, for-profit competitors--said Planned Parenthood is ``not unlike other big national chains. They put local, independent businesses in a tough situation.''

Even as the total number of abortions in the United States has dropped, the number performed by Planned Parenthood has grown to nearly 290,000 a year. In 2005, Planned Parenthood accounted for one in every five abortions, and they are pushing to increase their market share.

The president of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains also said she has encouraged more Planned Parenthood clinics to offer abortions. Sarah Stoesz, who heads the Planned Parenthood operation in my State of Minnesota, said she recently opened ``three express centers in wealthy Minnesota suburbs, in shopping centers and malls, places where women are already doing their grocery shopping, picking up their Starbucks, living their daily lives.''

And stopping off for an abortion.

``I like to think of it as the LensCrafters of family planning,'' Steve Trombley, the top executive in Illinois, said as he toured an express center a few doors down from a hair salon and a Japanese restaurant in the well-to-do suburb of Schaumburg, Illinois.

The strategy draws new patients and money. In Illinois, Planned Parenthood officials say they take a loss of nearly $1 a packet on birth-control pills that go to poor women under Title X. However, they make nearly $22 on each month of pills sold to an adult who can afford to pay full price out of pocket. And the majority of woman who stop by the new Planned Parenthood in Schaumburg are in that group of affluent women.

In 2008, Planned Parenthood's political action arm planned to raise $10 million to influence the fall campaigns. Under Federal tax law, the health care wing of Planned Parenthood can't support political candidates, but they can mobilize voters and they can advocate on issues like abortion rights and sex education in schools, all paid with Federal grants.

To encourage the new wave of patients to join the cause, an express center in Parker, Illinois, sells political buttons next to the condoms and sets out invitations for political activism by the magazine rack. The center opening in Denver in 2008 uses 20 percent of their space for health care; 40 percent of their space they use for meetings, including political work.

I thank the gentleman.

In Portland, Oregon, a planned 40,000-square-foot headquarters will include space for candidate forums and phone banks, as well as a clinic. Again, all paid for with an additional subsidy from the Federal and State taxpayer. Mr. Greenberg said donors were initially skeptical about the size and the $16.5 million cost, but eventually they came around because the building becomes ``a symbol for our outreach and a symbol for our community activism.''

Madam Chair, it is clear after extensive study and review by this Wall Street Journal what we are seeing today is that Planned Parenthood is focused on political activity, and they are focused on becoming big business. When you have the executive director of Planned Parenthood in Illinois saying they want to become the LensCrafters of big abortion, I think we should listen to them. If they want to become the LensCrafters, then let them become the LensCrafters.

As my colleague, Mr. Pence, said, abortion is legal today in the United States, but the taxpayers shouldn't have to support it. And if they want to become the LensCrafters, Planned Parenthood, a billion- dollar organization, should lose the $300 million they receive in Federal grants, and they should also have their tax-exempt status seriously studied by the Internal Revenue Service. If they are competing with for-profit businesses and putting them out of business, then Planned Parenthood has no business holding a nonprofit status that benefits that organization.

On any number of levels, Madam Chair, this year, more than any other year, we need to completely defund Planned Parenthood and begin a process to end the tax-exempt status of this now profit-seeking, political-seeking organization.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today.

This evening, we will hear from the President of the United States in his State of the Union address, and it is a privilege for the people of our country to be able to hear from our President what his remarks are about the State of our Union.

We look forward to hearing, Mr. Speaker, what the President's plan will be going forward to lift our country out of the high unemployment rates that we have been dealing with during these last 20 months. To have the unemployment rate in excess of 9 percent

and, in some cases, over 10 percent has been unacceptable. It's been a hardship for so many people in the Nation.

Also, I am looking forward to finding out what the President's pro- job growth agenda will be going forward. We want to get unemployment rates back to much lower levels so that families and businesses can thrive again.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I am looking to find out what will be the specific cuts that the President will be proposing. We haven't heard specific cuts so far. In fact, we have heard that the President may be referring to investments, meaning more spending yet again, spending that this country simply cannot afford because, as we know, Mr. Speaker, we are falling off the cliff in terms of debt increases. That is not good for the next generation of Americans.

Second, I am wondering what specific pieces of legislation that the President has proposed would he be willing to repeal. We know, for instance, that the cap-and-trade proposal that's working through the EPA will be one that will be a job killer. We know that for the health care law as well, that it is, in fact, a job killer.

Finally, I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, what areas of regulations the President would be willing to do away with. The President had made a statement last week that he wants to direct all of the agencies to look for regulations that would kill jobs. Well, we know that the EPA regulations will, in fact, do that, and we are wondering if, perhaps, the President would be willing to put those on the table and delay implementation of the cap-and-trade system through the EPA.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we also know that with Americans paying in excess of $3 a gallon for gasoline that it may be wise now to look at American energy production. What would those proposals be from the President? We look forward to hearing that this evening.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.

ObamaCare, as we know, is the crown jewel of socialism. It is socialized medicine. The American people spoke soundly and clearly at the ballot box in November. And they said to us, Mr. Speaker, in no uncertain terms, repeal this bill. And so today this body will cast a vote to repeal ObamaCare.

And to those across the United States who think this may be a symbolic act, we have a message for them: this is not symbolic. This is why we were sent here, and we will not stop until we repeal a President and put a President in the position of the White House who will repeal this bill, until we repeal the current Senate, put in a Senate that will listen to the American people and repeal this bill.

Because what has been the result, Mr. Speaker? It's been this: it's been job loss, it's been increases on costs to the American people. I have seen everything from 26 percent increases on health insurance to 45 percent increases on health insurance. This will break the bank, and we won't let that happen to our country.

So make no mistake, Mr. Speaker. We are here to stay and our resolve is firm. We will continue this fight until ObamaCare is no longer the law of the land and until we can actually pass reform that will cut the costs of health care.

Madam Speaker, today I join with my colleagues in condemning the savage attack in Tucson last Saturday that shattered the lives of so many innocent victims, and their families and friends, and broke the heart of a nation. Since the news of this awful tragedy, I have prayed through tears for comfort, and for peace in the midst of the storm, for the families of the six people whose lives were senselessly ended by a gunman who had no concern for human life. I have also been praying for healing for those who were injured; among them a respected colleague and friend, Gabby Giffords.

Gabby and I came to Congress together in 2006. Over the years we have often voted differently. From time to time, we found ourselves at opposite ends of the table during media interviews, offering contrasting viewpoints. But the moment we stepped away from the set, we greeted each other as we often did on the House floor, as friends, with a hug, a warm smile, and a few precious moments of conversation. I cherished those times with Gabby, and I look forward to renewing them as she recovers and returns to the good, faithful, and hard-working service that she has given to the people of Arizona's 8th District.

I am rejoicing to hear the doctor's prognosis of recovery for Gabby, but my heart is broken for the families of the six victims who lost loved ones in that unconscionable act last Saturday. They were American citizens who were brutally gunned down even as they were taking advantage of the time-honored American tradition of meeting face-to- face with an elected representative for a free and open discourse about issues of concern. One of the small ways we can honor their memory is to carry on with that discourse, opening our doors to the American people, listening to their concerns, and exercising the free exchange of ideas that has marked our nation throughout its history.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from California for yielding.

To me, one of the most obvious problems with this bill that we are being called upon to verify today and to vote for is simply a numbers problem. If we are looking at this Pigford claim whereby we have black farmers who are stating that they are discriminated against, we had approximately 14,500 claims that were paid out in the first Pigford I class action lawsuit. But now what's very interesting is that the black farmers themselves are saying we are looking at a potential universe of about 18,000 black farmers. The period in question when the United States Department of Agriculture is alleged to have discriminated against black farmers is between 1981 and 1997. Between that 16-year period, according to the numbers that people agree on, there is a universe of about 18,000 black farmers. Well, in the Pigford I settlement, 14,500 black farmers received claims. What this means then is we would have to presume that nearly every black farmer in the United States applied for a loan from the USDA. Then we would have to presume that every black farmer qualified for receiving that loan from the USDA. Then we would have to presume that every black farmer who applied who qualified was turned down for a loan, and then finally we would have to presume that every black farmer in the United States was also discriminated against, and that's why they were turned down.

So it wouldn't just be one office of the USDA. This would be rampant discrimination all over the country. What's unbelievable is that in the face of this alleged gross discrimination by which the taxpayers of this country have already paid out $1 billion in payments, not one USDA employee in the country has been fired for discrimination. Not one employee has even been suspended or reprimanded or fined. How could this be?

And now in the Pigford II settlement, which isn't even a lawsuit, which is something that Attorney General Eric Holder and the Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack came together and just came up with an idea that they would have a second settlement because apparently there were even more claimants that wanted to receive money, now we have a universe that will be paid out in this settlement today of 94,000 claimants.

How in the world, Mr. Speaker, can you have 94,000 claimants in addition to the previous 14,500 claimants if there were originally only 18,000 black farmers in the country? This is a simple math problem. That's why we're saying before one more dime goes out of the U.S. Treasury for a claim, we have to investigate before the checks go out to claimants, not after. We aren't even talking about subsequent investigations.

This is an outrage and one vote that no Member of this Congress should vote for. This will be an albatross around the neck of any Member of Congress that votes to fund this obviously fraudulent claim.

I urge my colleagues to consider what the Claims Settlement Act truly represents before voting on the bill. This legislation includes over a billion dollars to settle the Pigford discrimination claims of black farmers alleged against the United States Department of Agriculture. Unfortunately, Pigford is rife with fraudulent claims and to settle before an investigation can take place does the American taxpayer a disservice.

Why has Eric Holder not investigated these allegations of fraud? Why has no one at the USDA been fired over this?

As a consistent fighter against out-of-control government spending, I cannot stand idly by as I see the United States taxpayer put on the hook for even a dime to Pigford. It's time for Congress to fully investigate the Pigford claims because the numbers just don't add up.

By the National Black Farmers Association's own data, only 18,000 black farmers exist in the United States, but under Pigford II 94,000 claims of racial discrimination have been filed thus far.

Justice should be served to those who experienced discrimination, but settlement funds should only go to those wronged.

I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa, Steve King.

It was some months ago when Steve King had first told me about the situation with Pigford. He has been investigating and looking into this matter for probably about 3 years now. He is very interestingly situated by having a seat on both the Judiciary Committee and the Agriculture Committee, and both of those committees have something to do with this case.

I want to go back to basics for just a moment, if I can, because, as Congressman King was giving me details about this case, on every level, it just didn't add up. He had talked a little bit about the reparations angle, and that, of course, was an opinion that was written by Judge Friedman in the very first class certification case with Pigford, Pigford I. That was about $1 billion of tax money that went out to the claimants.

This is now a situation called Pigford II. As Congressman King rightly said, there is no judgment. This is simply something negotiated around a table with, I believe, Attorney General Eric Holder and, I believe, with Tom Vilsack, Ag Secretary. They got together and came up with an agreement. They came up with this settlement, but here is part of the problem.

I am a former Federal tax litigation attorney, Madam Speaker. In that capacity, when I was working as a Federal tax lawyer, we had to refer to something as our standard of measurement. We would use the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Well, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the years in question, the maximum number of black farmers in the entire period for which we were talking about giving people money for alleged discrimination claims was about 33,000 black farmers. Now, there is dispute that even that number is egregiously high, 33,000. Well, in the Pigford I settlement, there has already been $1 billion that has been paid out. The estimate is something like 15,000 to 18,000 claims that have already been paid out.

So here is the situation: Under Pigford II, we now have new claimants who have come to the fore who have said they want to have money, too. Well, just think. If the entire universe of black farmers is 33,000, today we have 94,000 claimants asking for money in order to be made whole.

How does this make sense? If you have a total universe of 33,000 black farmers, how can you possibly have 94,000 claimants?

You'd have to presume that every black farmer in the United States applied for a loan to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That's almost statistically impossible. Then you'd have to assume that every black farmer who applied for a loan qualified for that loan. That would also be a statistical improbability. Then you'd have to assume that every black farmer in the

United States who applied for a loan was qualified and that they were turned down for their loans. As to every single black farmer, not one would have been given a loan. Then you'd have to presume that every single black farmer in the country applied for a loan, that they qualified and that they were turned down. Then you'd also have to assume that every one of them was turned down because they were discriminated against.

This is unbelievable. Even if you believe all of that, we still have 60,000 too many claimants than there were black farmers. The numbers just bespeak obvious fraud in this situation. So the taxpayers are supposed to pay out another $1.15 billion? It doesn't make sense.

Remember, what we would have to talk about is that every black farmer in the United States would have had to apply for a loan and would have had to been turned down because of obvious discrimination.

What's even more bizarre is that after all of this terrible discrimination that has been alleged, after the $1 billion that has been paid out and after the $1.15 billion that Speaker Pelosi wants to pay out this week--after all that and after all of this discrimination at the USDA, there isn't even one employee who has been fired, who has been suspended, who has paid a fine or who has been reprimanded. We can't find evidence of even one. In fact, just the opposite is true.

There are whistleblowers who have come forward from the department who have been willing to testify privately that there is obvious fraud that's going on right now. So it really begs the question: Why have the settlement? Why pay out 94,000 claimants when there is only a total universe of maybe 33,000 black farmers? Why is that? What's going on?

In an article that just came out last week in the Associated Press, the reporter wrote that, once this claim is satisfied of $1.15 billion for Pigford II, the next claimants are already in the queue. They're the Hispanic farmers who allege they've been discriminated against, and they're the women farmers who allege they've been discriminated against. If that's the case, why is the United States Department of Agriculture even allowed to be in business anymore if they have this blatant level of bigotry and discrimination going on? Why haven't they been fired?

I think what we need to have--and I believe that this is something in the future that Congress needs to do because it's certainly not happening today, Madam Speaker, under the headship of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. What we need to have is a very thorough review of every single claim that's going out the door, because these payments are going out in the form of $50,000 payments per claimant, tax free.

So not only do they not pay the taxes, we the taxpayers are paying the taxes for the claimants. We're paying a payment of $12,500 to the IRS on behalf of each claimant. So the claimant will get $50,000 tax free, and we the taxpayers will even pay their tax bill for them. And what's worse, we will even wipe off the books any outstanding loans that they have on their farm property. Everybody's going to want to know where to go to sign up for this deal. Who wouldn't want to do that? You have farmers all across the country right now that are trying to make ends meet, and meanwhile they have to watch this spectacle go on at the USDA.

Every single claimant needs to be fully investigated. Not one check should go out the door if it's not warranted. No one disagrees that if the USDA did something wrong and if they acted in a discriminatory manner, the people should be allowed to be made whole. Everyone agrees. But I would be the first person to stand on this floor of the House of Representatives and say if that is the case, then each of these USDA employees should be, at minimum--at minimum--written up in their personnel file, reprimanded, fined, and most likely fired if they're causing the taxpayers to have to pay out what would add up to be over $2 billion. We are here talking about, in these weeks, what can we do to cut the budget. I think this is the perfect place to start here in Pigford when we're paying out 94,000 claimants when there is a total universe of 33,000.

I want to thank my dear colleague from Iowa, Representative Steve King, for being on this issue and dogging this issue for 3 years. And now here we are coming to the climax. We are about to see another $1.15 billion about to go out the door, $1.15 billion that we don't have, which my colleague rightly said we will have to go to China and borrow and our children will have to get second and third jobs to pay back. This is just flat out wrong. Can we say it? Can we be gutsy enough on the floor of this House of Representatives to say this is pure and complete fraud that is about to be voted on this week. It's wrong, and it's got to stop.

And I want to encourage any of my colleagues on either side of the aisle, vote ``no'' on this bill. I will be voting ``no.'' Representative King said he will be voting ``no'' because this will be a vote that I guarantee will haunt Members of Congress in the future if they vote ``yes'' because of the obvious fraud that will very soon be discovered and played out for the American people to see.

I yield to my distinguished colleague from Iowa.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Ken Norbie of St. Cloud, Minnesota for his contributions as ``Volunteer of the Year'' to St. Cloud Hospital.

Since 1990, Ken has logged in over 4,000 hours of volunteer time with Imaging Services, Mended Heart and Facility Tours. He has made a lasting impression on everyone at the hospital through his caring and compassionate manner. The traits, along with his dedication, make him a wonderful choice for the ``Volunteer of the Year'' award from St. Cloud Hospital.

Ken is truly a blessing to the patients, staff and faculty at St. Cloud Hospital, and I ask this body join me in recognizing the important contributions he has made to the hospital and the surrounding community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Brigadier General David J. Elicerio of Ham Lake, Minnesota, upon being named the 34th Red Bull Infantry Division Commander. The Red Bulls hold a special place in the hearts of all Minnesotans, and I'm so pleased to congratulate Brigadier General Elicerio on his new role with the Minnesota National Guard.

Brigadier General Elicerio has served in the Minnesota National Guard for 30 years including a peacekeeping mission to Bosnia and two tours in Iraq. His leadership capabilities have led to a decorated career and a distinguished reputation in the Guard. From his experience as a senior staff member and having commanded troops at the company, battalion and brigade levels, Brigadier General Elicerio will bring a wealth of experience that I know will maintain the enormous confidence we have in our troops.

Madam Speaker, I ask this body to join me in recognizing Brigadier General Elicerio on this special occasion and to express our gratitude for his service and the sacrifices his family has made in dedication to preserving freedom in America.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor George J. Weiss, Jr. of Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota. George has received the 2010 Presidential Citizens Medal for `exemplary deeds of service for their country or their fellow citizens'.

A World War II Veteran with the United States Marine Corps, George has received this high distinction for founding the Fort Snelling Memorial Rifle Squad in 1979. The group is made up of more then 125 volunteers who perform final honors at military funerals. George and his Squad have honored over 500,000 veterans, and are forever remembered by families across the State of Minnesota who have said goodbye to loved ones.

Madam Speaker, I ask this body recognize the contributions of George J. Weiss, Jr. along with me, and that we all remember the sacrifices our veterans make for their fellow servicemembers.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I ask to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit proposes to add a new amendment to the bill freezing the rate of pay for ourselves, Members of Congress, and for the non-uniformed Federal employees. The amendment relies on the definition of civil service provided in title V of the United States Code which covers positions in the executive, the judicial, and the legislative branches.

The bill before us contains numerous and repeated references to title V of the United States Code, yet the gentleman makes the point of order that this amendment is not germane to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us includes provisions, such as the recently adopted Sarbanes amendment, that affect the policies of all executive branch agencies, not just the Department of Defense. And on that basis, I believe that the Chair will find the provisions of the amendment limiting pay for civilian executive branch employees germane. I also believe that the bill is broad enough to cover judicial employees as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, that then leaves the question of ourselves, our pay, and that of non-uniformed Federal employees, legislative branch employees. So, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be improper for the Chair to use a point of order for the purpose of protecting the employees of the legislative branch and for the purpose of protecting and shielding us Members of Congress from the pay freeze herein being proposed. And it would otherwise be in order for employees of the executive branch.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I ask the question: Do we really want to go on record saying that the rules of this House should not be used to shield our own Members of Congress' salaries and also those of the legislative salaries of the non-uniformed branch from being fiscally irresponsible?

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge you not to sustain the point of order because when the average wage and benefit package of government workers is double that of private employees, then we should not use--

I am speaking on the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We should not use the arcane rules to somehow exempt ourselves as a Member of Congress from our own pay increases and that of the non- uniformed Federal offices under the responsibility of tightening our belt.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today this Congress had a chance to save our American taxpayers $2 billion next year by halting another scheduled pay raise for Federal employees, but this Chamber refused once again to listen to the cries of the American people.

Today, we know that our budget deficits are clearly unsustainable. They are falling off the cliff, dropping off the cliff of financial sanity, and we simply can't afford anymore to continue the out-of- control spending policies that have marked both Republican and Democrat leadership here in Washington, DC.

I thank my colleague, Representative Eric Cantor, for spearheading the new program called YouCut, where we reach out to the American people and ask them to tell us what they would like us to cut here in Washington from the Federal budget.

Clearly, the government doesn't create the wealth or the jobs in this country. It's the private sector that does that. And when the government taxes and spends the way it has been the last several years, then innovators and entrepreneurs are stripped of the flexibility that they need to create jobs by excessive taxes and burdensome regulations.

We're now at the point, Mr. Speaker, where we have over $13 trillion in debt. Who ran the debt up? This is under Democrat leadership, but this is under Republican leadership. Both parties have been at fault with increasing the debt that the next generation has to pay. It isn't a Republican or Democrat issue. And the American people are outraged by all of the out-of-control spending that's been going on in this city by both political parties.

Under President Bush, the Federal employees received across-the-board raises of 3 percent in January of 2008 and 3.9 percent in January of 2009. The same thing happened under President Obama. He recommended increases in pay for Federal employees in each of the years he's been in office. In fact, since the year 2000, Federal workers have received annual pay raises of 3.6 percent a year. But we could have, today, eliminated the latest Federal employee pay raise and also put the kibosh on the pay raises for Members of Congress, but that was voted down, unfortunately, primarily by the Democrat majority of this body.

According to the newspaper USA Today this week, they reported the typical Federal worker is paid 20 percent more than a private-sector worker in the same occupation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in 83 percent of all job categories between the government worker and the private worker, 83 percent of the time Federal employees are paid more, in fact, substantially more, than their private counterparts. This doesn't include the value of benefits like health care and retirement. When you take them into account, this graph shows Federal employees are making double what people in the private sector are making.

In fact, the numbers, Mr. Speaker, show the average wage and benefit package for a government employee today in America is almost $120,000. For their counterpart in the private sector, their average wage and benefit package is just under $60,000 a year. Double is what people who are government workers are making over those in the private sector.

This Chamber today couldn't even bring themselves to freeze the pay increases of these government workers that are making double what people in the private sector are making today.

Here's one example. Federal employees making over $100,000. When the recession started 18 months ago, 14 percent of Federal employees made over $100,000. The recession has been very kind to government workers. Now it's 19 percent of government workers make over $100,000 a year.

Here's an even more specific example. In the Department of Transportation, only one government worker made over $170,000 a year. Eighteen months of the recession and we have 1,690 employees now making over $170,000 a year in the Department of Transportation. That's even before you consider overtime and bonuses.

The recession has been very kind to the government worker, not so much for those in the private sector.

My proposal today would have prevented Members of Congress from getting pay increases. Unfortunately, the majority party did not want to prevent their own pay increases. We would have kept in place the pay increases for our military. Why? Because they deserve it. At 1.4 percent increase during a time of war, we should not ask our military to make that sacrifice.

I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I thank him for his statements in reviewing some of ``the week that was.''

That's really the theme of this hour that we have. We are talking about some of the events that have happened, a kind of ``week in review,'' if you will, of the events of this week. I'm sure the gentleman will want to comment on some of these things as we go on, but we need to go through items that are very crucial and critical, not only to the future of the Nation but to what has happened, in particular, this week. We saw this week that our country took a very historic line and broke it, and it was this:

We broke the $13 trillion mark in debt for this country. This is real money, and all we have to do is know the comparison. Think of dollars in terms of time. A million seconds equals 11\1/2\ days. A billion seconds equals 32 years. A trillion seconds equals 32,000 years.

Then think of that in terms of money and what debt will mean for the new generation that is coming up. All of us are a part of the debt- paying generation. All of us have to pay for this out-of-control spending, but it is in particular those who are born today, who are between the ages of 5 and 30, who are now the debt-paying generation. Just with the stimulus bill alone, $787 billion, which we didn't have, we had to go and borrow it from foreign countries in order to spend that money. With debt service, that bill will cost us over $1 trillion. This is the cost of that bill to the debt-paying generation.

Those who are between the ages of 5 and 30 will spend, presumably, 45 years in the workforce. For every month the debt-paying generation is in the workforce, one will effectively have to go out and buy a full- sized iPod and give it over to the Federal Government. The next month, one will have to go out and buy another full-sized iPod and give it over to the Federal Government. That is the real cost for the debt- paying generation's lives, those who are between the ages of 5 and 30. For 45 years, they will have to effectively buy the price of a full- sized iPod for their portion of paying off just that one debt obligation that has been accrued by this body.

This week, we broke the $13 trillion mark. No one's hands are clean on this deal. Republicans spent too much money. This red line on the chart shows the excess debt that was accrued under Republican leadership. This blue line shows the excess debt that was accrued under Democrat leadership. It's by a 2:1 ratio, so it's both parties that have been part of the problem. Yet, under the recent leadership of the Democrat Party, we have seen literally debt fall off a cliff of fiscal sanity.

I have another figure that came out this week as well that I'd like to share, and it's on who is getting paid and on what has happened to pay scales in the United States. No one thought it could get this out of whack, but this is how stunning the statistic is.

If we look at those who are government workers, Federal employees, and if you take comparable professions in the private sector versus those of government employees, government employees, on average, make more than private employees in 83 percent of all professions. So, whether it's white collar or blue collar or management or professional or highly skilled or low skilled, it doesn't matter. In 83 percent of all professions, it's the government worker who is making more than the person in the private sector.

Well, is that so bad?

Well, consider it's the private sector that creates the revenue to pay for the government workers. Not only do the government workers make more; they make substantially more than their counterparts in the private sector--on average, 20 percent more in wages--but that isn't the whole package. When you combine the wages with the benefits package, which would be health care and retirement benefits, the government employees are making double what their counterparts are making in the private sector.

So, if you take someone, let's say, who is a janitor who is working for the government, the person is making, on average, double what a janitor is making in the private sector. If a person is a cook or if a person is a copy editor, on average, they are making double what people are making in the private sector. If you're working in the private sector at the exact same job, you're making about $60,000 a year versus $120,000 a year if you're a government employee.

So, today, this body was offered the opportunity to freeze the increase in wages for government employees. This body decided to take a pass. They didn't even want to freeze the increase, the next increase, in wages for the only sector in this economy that is making double what people in the private sector are making.

We also offered an opportunity for people in this body to freeze the wages of Members of Congress in 2011 and thereafter. Again, this body took a pass. Recently, on a Web site called YouCut, 500,000 American people voted and said this is the number one issue they would like Congress to address--freezing the salary of government employees.

Did this body listen? Well, not the majority party.

Those who are in the Republican Party voted almost uniformly to freeze the wages. In fact, I think it was uniform. One hundred percent of Republicans voted to freeze the wages of government employees and to freeze the salaries of Members of Congress. That didn't happen on the Democrat side of the aisle. Perhaps that could be because, as we have seen, it is the Democrats, unfortunately, who have been wild with taxpayer money, spending it at a rate of over double the excess rate that Republicans have spent. That's just one of the issues that has happened this week.

We also were watching the tragedy of the administration's late-to- the-dance response to the tragedy of the Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico with BP. Where was the competence from the Federal Government and from the Obama administration when we needed them most, when all of this oil has been gushing into the Gulf and destroying the shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico, destroying the way of

life and fishing opportunities and rich tourism opportunities for those who live on the Gulf Coast? Where was the competence from our government when we needed it most?

We haven't seen competence in the government's hands-off policy with this disaster. We needed to ask the question on day one, what did the Obama administration do about the Coast Guard? What did they ask the Coast Guard to do to intervene? On day one, they weren't there. What did the administration do on day one with the booms that could have been put out in the ocean in order to quarantine off, if you will, this oil as it surged to the surface? Nowhere to be found.

The administration, they were hands off. They didn't do anything. Where were the boats that could have been commandeered by the government to be sent into this region to deal with that oil plume as it was coming up in the water and destroying marine life? Nowhere to be found. Why? The administration was hands off on this policy. They were missing in action.

Where was the emergency plan to deal with an oil rig explosion? There wasn't one. We found out to our horror there was no plan A, much less any plan B to deal with an emergency of this magnitude. And still the oil flows.

Also we saw this week the travesty of 1,000 soldiers now dead in Afghanistan. This is a horrible, chilling thought to see this happen, and we mourn their loss and we weep for their families and thank them for their service to our country.

Then, finally, today more news came out from the White House. We saw this week that back in February Representative Joe Sestak of this body said he was offered a job by someone in the administration in order not to run against Senator Specter in the primary in Pennsylvania.

Today, after three months, the White House said it was former President Bill Clinton who as an intermediary offered Mr. Sestak a job to stop running for political office in the primary in Pennsylvania against Senator Specter. Why? Because apparently President Obama backed Senator Specter for that political office. The only problem is that this activity is illegal to do under the United States Code, whether a job was offered either directly or indirectly by the administration.

When President Obama was asked yesterday in his press conference, the President refused to answer the reporter when he asked the question, Major Garrett. Instead, the President said the White House would issue a formal response.

Well, the American people need answers to this very serious question that was asked by Major Garrett: Who authorized former President Clinton to make this offer to Mr. Sestak? We don't know. The White House won't tell us. Who on the President's staff was involved in any of these discussions? We don't know. The White House won't tell us. What was offered to Mr. Sestak? We don't know. The White House won't tell us. Who was present when the offer was made? We don't know. The White House won't tell us. And what was the reply? We don't know. The White House won't tell us.

Did President Obama discuss this job for leaving the political race when he met with President Clinton this week at the White House? We don't know. The White House won't tell us.

This is a very serious charge, and for three months the media has failed to press President Obama for an answer, much less press him for details. Now that Mr. Sestak has won the primary over Mr. Specter, this issue looms large, and it demands an answer from the White House.

Double standards are wrong when it comes to equal application of the law. The law should not apply just one way for Republicans and another way for Democrats. We need to get to the bottom of this very serious issue, no matter which political party is in the White House.

If the gentleman will yield, just recently the President made an announcement on the nuclear strategy document that he will also change the language and no longer allow the use of the term ``extreme radicalism'' in the document as well. Now we are applying terms of political correctness to our military documents and to our documents for our national security.

We can go ahead and change all the terms we want, but that doesn't make any difference to the people who mean to destroy our country and to kill our people. They still have the same intent. And it seems that the first rule of war is to know your enemy and appreciate what their purpose is.

I think the thing that shocked me the most in this Chamber was when we took a vote, the last vote of the week before we left town, and it was unbelievable, because it expanded the civil rights of terrorists.

If you recall, those who interrogate like, let's say the underwear bomber on Christmas Day, when he was taken off the plane and interrogators sat down with that underwear bomber to find out everything he knew, and, of course, we found out it was less than an hour he was subjected to interrogation.

Well, the bill that was passed in this Chamber would put a 15-year jail sentence on our interrogators, our good guy interrogators, if they were found to treat an alleged terrorist either inhumanely, cruelly or in a demeaning fashion.

Now, the one thing we know is that our Attorney General is now giving taxpayer subsidized attorneys to these terrorists after they try to kill us, which they don't necessarily have the right to. They're given Miranda warnings. The privileges and immunities under the Constitution reserved to a U.S. citizen are given to terrorists, they're given a taxpayer subsidized lawyer, and so how often do we think it will be that these taxpayer subsidized lawyers, under this new bill, will raise the issue that the interrogator was maybe demeaning his client? Try 100 percent of the time. And so, won't that have a chilling effect on our interrogators when they're trying to pull information out of these terrorists? Maybe information like, do you have a computer? How are you financed? Are there any other guys like you out there? Are there any more coming behind? Maybe information like that that would help us to keep our people safe.

This is the unbelievable action of the current Democrat majority that is not keeping our people safe, and, in fact, as the gentleman from Texas said, is working to enhance the civil rights, not of freedom- loving, God-fearing, patriotic Americans but of terrorists who seek only the destruction of the United States and to destroy the lives of the American people.

Thank God, if I could just reclaim my time, that we are standing in the well of the United States House of Representatives, one bastion left for free speech, at least I hope so for the time being.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the U.S. Small Business Administration Minnesota Business of the Year, Short Stop Custom Catering, owned by Byron Bjorklund of St. Cloud, Minnesota. Bjorklund was inspired by a college class assignment to write a paper on running a business. From that paper, Bjorklund opened Short Stop restaurant in east St. Cloud and three years later, a second location in west St. Cloud.

Bjorklund was only a senior in college when he opened his first business, and a growing business coupled with a growing family had Bjorklund looking for options that would keep him in an industry and business he loved, while also allowing him to enjoy his family life. Opening up Short Stop Custom Catering in 1995 provided him with the freedom and security that so many entrepreneurs and business owners appreciate.

But, Bjorklund's story does not end there. Bjorklund opened his restaurant as a training facility for students with special needs. Bjorklund was particularly touched by one student with Down syndrome who returned to work at the place he loved so much even after graduating high school. Later, Bjorklund and his wife would discover their fifth child had Down syndrome and the circumstances ignited a passion for working with the Down Syndrome Association of Minnesota. Since 1999, Short Stop Custom Catering has catered the annual Buddy Walk while Bjorklund recruited donations to make the event free to the participants; over 5,000 people last year alone.

Today, Short Stop Custom Catering is a staple in the St. Cloud community, serving as an exclusive caterer to many local businesses for events and daily meals. Small businesses are the backbone and lifeblood of our neighborhoods and business owners like Byron Bjorklund remind us all of the difference one individual can make in a community.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Byron Bjorklund not just for the innovation and entrepreneurial spirit he displays, but also to ask that this body also recognize his commendable service to the St. Cloud community and the Down Syndrome Association of Minnesota.ome Association of Minnesota.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the U.S. Small Business Administration Minnesota Business of the Year, Short Stop Custom Catering, owned by Byron Bjorklund of St. Cloud, Minnesota. Bjorklund was inspired by a college class assignment to write a paper on running a business. From that paper, Bjorklund opened Short Stop restaurant in east St. Cloud and three years later, a second location in west St. Cloud.

Bjorklund was only a senior in college when he opened his first business, and a growing business coupled with a growing family had Bjorklund looking for options that would keep him in an industry and business he loved, while also allowing him to enjoy his family life. Opening up Short Stop Custom Catering in 1995 provided him with the freedom and security that so many entrepreneurs and business owners appreciate.

But, Bjorklund's story does not end there. Bjorklund opened his restaurant as a training facility for students with special needs. Bjorklund was particularly touched by one student with Down syndrome who returned to work at the place he loved so much even after graduating high school. Later, Bjorklund and his wife would discover their fifth child had Down syndrome and the circumstances ignited a passion for working with the Down Syndrome Association of Minnesota. Since 1999, Short Stop Custom Catering has catered the annual Buddy Walk while Bjorklund recruited donations to make the event free to the participants; over 5,000 people last year alone.

Today, Short Stop Custom Catering is a staple in the St. Cloud community, serving as an exclusive caterer to many local businesses for events and daily meals. Small businesses are the backbone and lifeblood of our neighborhoods and business owners like Byron Bjorklund remind us all of the difference one individual can make in a community.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Byron Bjorklund not just for the innovation and entrepreneurial spirit he displays, but also to ask that this body also recognize his commendable service to the St. Cloud community and the Down Syndrome Association of Minnesota.ome Association of Minnesota.

Madam Speaker, on May 18, 2010, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 273-275. Had I been present, I would have voted: rollcall vote No. 273, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 2288, the Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Improvement Act, ``nay;'' rollcall vote No. 274, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 4614, Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act, ``aye;'' and rollcall vote No. 275, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 1327, Honoring the life, achievements, and contributions of Floyd Dominy, ``aye.''