Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on January 26, 2010, I was unexpectedly detained and could not vote on H. Res. 990, expressing support for designation of January 2010 as ``National Mentoring Month.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

I thank the gentleman from Iowa.

I also have so much esteem for my colleague from Tennessee, Dr. Roe, and also my colleague from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey. They are just wonderful examples, and they enlighten all of us who aren't medical professionals. But they've been there, done that. They have skin in the game, and they know what's at stake. They know what's at stake for those who have put so much into becoming physicians, who have put their life on the line to be healers, but also the people they serve. They see the real cost in human health, in terms of misery that is down the road if we embrace this system.

I come at it a little bit differently. My background is that I am a former Federal tax lawyer, and I see how egregious tax costs can destroy businesses, destroy families, individuals, farms and creativity. And also as a business owner. My husband and I have started two businesses. We're not a big deal; we've employed 50 people, but we do know what it is to take and start a business from scratch using our own equity, our own capital. We have to be disciplined and make a lot of good decisions. We have to get it right every time so that we can make a profit.

My husband told me that he spoke to a number of other small businessmen that have said to him they will have to cut jobs with their small businesses if this health care bill goes through. There are a lot of small business employers that would love to provide health insurance, but they can't because currently health insurance is so expensive.

I think one thing that cannot escape this discussion that we're having tonight among colleagues, whether we're health care professionals or tax lawyers or small business owners, is this; President Obama's Chief Economic Advisor, Christina Romer, said herself that if President Obama's plan would go into effect, that America would see 5.5 million jobs lost if we adopt his plan. Not only would it cost us trillions of dollars that we simply don't have, but it would cost us 5.5 million American jobs. It isn't that those jobs wouldn't be done, but they wouldn't be done in America. It's another 5.5 million jobs that would go offshore.

I yield to the gentleman from Tyler, Texas, Lou Gohmert.

It eliminates them, and I think one can understand why. We saw a chart or a graph that was recently produced several weeks ago. It plotted all of the private-sector experience in the Presidents from the last 100 years. It showed that in President Obama's Cabinet, in his administration he has less private-sector experience in real job creation than any other administration: 7 percent experience. No wonder every answer that comes out of this administration is more spending, higher taxes, more government. But the last seven economic recessions, every blooming one of them

we have come out of the recession--from government? No. From small business creation.

We would love, in our small business, to create more jobs, but I will tell you this, from the other small business job creators that I know in Minnesota: Right now they are scared to death. They don't want to add more jobs because they know if they add more jobs, they're stuck with more costs that they may not be able to take. They don't want to hurt the existing people they have now that they hired. They don't want to have to close their doors and fold up. A great business in our State, Home Value stores, just announced last week that they were closing their doors after over 35 years in business. Why? Because of this job-killing, bone-crushing debt that's coming out of Washington, D.C. Let's reject that.

The American people last night rejected President Obama's decision because if there is one headline that would encapsulate all of 2009 it would have to be this: ``The Federal Government takeover of private industry.'' That's what last year was all about. The American people said no way; we believe in America, we believe in job creation, we believe in prosperity. And that's what last night's poll numbers reflected.

Absolutely. Yes, I would. I would agree with that.

It would. And that's what I am so worried about as a tax lawyer, that this will mean diminished opportunities for Americans because we will see increased taxes in defiance of President Obama's promise to the American people.

It would be irreparable harm. It would be very difficult to come back from.

If I could just respond on the tax portion. Government can directly mandate that you must pay a percentage or a fee, which is a direct tax. But if government requires you to do something or purchase a health insurance policy in conformity with what government says must be the items in that policy, that's just as much a tax as if government says you must pay a percent or an exact amount. The final result is the same because the taxpayers' pockets are picked for what government mandates it must be picked for. It is a tax, pure and simple. That's the point.

It's not the same.

If I could add to that, the one thing that doesn't get talked about very much here is the iron ceiling on wages that was contained in this bill.

If you have a double-income couple with no kids and if their combined income is $64,000 a year or more, at that point they lose all Federal subsidy. So what they have to do is go out, and if their employers pay the 8 percent fine to the government and don't provide health insurance, they have to go with after-tax dollars and purchase health plans, which, in Minnesota, would cost about $14,000 a year. So you'd have a couple making $64,000 a year who has to go and buy a plan out- of-pocket; but if the couple made $63,000 a year, Uncle Sam would pay their way. That's the iron ceiling on wages. There is no incentive to make a dollar more, because you would be so heavily penalized by going out of the subsidy, and that kills the American Dream.

Why would we have a couple of people here in this Chamber make a decision for over 300 million people? Let's free up decision-making for 300 million people to make the cheapest and best choices for themselves.

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 5 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, January 21, 2010, at 10 a.m.

I want to thank the gentleman from Tyler, Texas, Louie Gohmert, for the wonderful job that he has been doing. I caught some of the gentleman's remarks briefly, and I was so pleased that you talked about this whole concept of the greatest terrorist recruiting tool, Gitmo or U.S. weakness.

You are exactly right in your description of what we are looking at now with Gitmo. What we are looking at the President's idea of closing Gitmo is actually a fiction.

And the gentleman may have already addressed that issue, but it can't be underscored enough in my mind: Gitmo will not be closed. Yes, it may no longer be in its current physical location off of U.S. soil, but Gitmo will simply be packed up into boxes, a moving van is going to show up, and that moving van will be taken across water and across land. And, guess what? Gitmo is going to have a new address. It will fill out a change of address form for the worst of the worst terrorists that we know of that are enemy noncombatants against United States citizens, only now these enemy noncombatants, rather than being held safely and securely off U.S. soil, will be brought on to U.S. soil, where they will be on U.S. soil in Thompson, Illinois, in the heartland of this great country, whereby they will have opportunities potentially to do what we know terrorists have been doing for the past several years, and that is recruiting through the U.S. prison system for more people to become radicalized in their Sharia-compliant view of jihadist extremism.

Is this going to make anyone safer in the United States? Ultimately, that is the final question that we as Members of Congress have to satisfy ourselves: Will we be safer bringing these terrorists from Gitmo onto U.S. soil or will we be safer keeping them secure where they have been all along, on Gitmo? I think it is keeping them on Gitmo.

Something else I would like to bring up if I could, just for a minute, just to divert, and it is the issue of this underwear bomber on Christmas Day. This is such a horrible travesty that was averted simply because the incompetence of this terrorist. But for his incompetence, we would have this Chamber filled with Members of Congress screaming about, What happened? Why weren't we secure? We would be having lively discussions every night. Thank God this terrorist was not successful. But he came so close to taking out nearly 300 innocent lives.

We have seen this path before, and there is a common thread that occurs. The common thread are people who are sold out to radicalize Sharia-compliant jihad. That is the thread. Why aren't we as a government looking for people with that profile?

Oh, I guess I said a bad word. Profile? Is that a politically noncorrect word now? We are not supposed to say it? Well, let's talk about what we need to do to keep safety foremost. Not political correctness. Safety of the American people. That is what this is about.

The American people are right to be outraged when they think that their government is lifting up the tenets of multiculturalism over the tenets of the safety and security of the American people.

Oh, that the day would never come when, in the name of political correctness, Americans would die needlessly in tragedies like the one thankfully that was averted on Christmas Day. May that never be.

And for my money, one of the worst things that happened is that when this underwear bomber was taken off of the plane, he had a small interrogation, then was given his Miranda warnings, was given a defense lawyer, and that is the end of it. Now duct tape is over his mouth. The United States will never again benefit from what this terrorist--I suppose we are supposed to say ``alleged terrorist''--what this fellow intended against American citizens and other citizens from other nations of the world. This is a travesty.

He should not have been given his Miranda warnings, in my opinion. He should have been fully vetted and interrogated for what he was, because, let's remember, we have to make a decision. Are we going to take this war seriously or are we going to treat this as a criminal act akin to breaking and entering?

This is war. You can't have anything more clear. Someone who comes intending to bomb a plane, a Northwest Airlines plane over Detroit, this is an act of war. This is not a breaking and entering. This should not have been a Mirandized situation, given full rights to a lawyer and told forever and ever, You don't have to say a word. Now we are giving you all the rights, privileges, and immunities of an American citizen even though you aren't one. You are a Nigerian, and you planned evil intent for a lot of innocent people.

This is beyond belief to me. I just can't believe it. That is why I am so grateful to the gentleman from Tyler, Texas, because you are asking exactly the right question: Is Gitmo a recruiting tool or U.S. weakness? When you lawyer up and Mirandize actual terrorists in the midst of a terrifying event, an act of war against America, you don't Mirandize. You treat them for what they are.

You treat them for what they are. You interrogate them. Why? Because at the end of the day will the American people be safer or will we be more at risk? Closing Gitmo, that location, moving it to Thompson, Illinois, opening it up, it's still Gitmo; now it's just Gitmo North rather than Gitmo South, and that equals U.S. weakness.

With that, I yield back to the gentleman from Tyler, Texas.

Absolutely.

If the gentleman would yield on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. This is an extremely important point. Again, the mastermind of 9/11, who achieved his goal of killing 3,000 innocent Americans in the World Trade Center bombing, he got his way. Why would we give him his way by bringing him to New York City at over $200 million a year taxpayer expense to give him a show trial when he's already pled guilty and already asked to be executed? What happened? Did the President, did the Attorney General say to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Now wait a minute; you don't want to plead guilty. Wait a minute; you don't want to be executed. You want to come to New York City. You want to have the trial just like you asked for in the first place.

Why would we do that? Because the only message we will be sending to future terrorists will be you, too, can have a show trial in the city of your choice if you come to America. Or, if you try a terrorist activity, you, too, can be Mirandized and be part of the American legal system.

I yield back to gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 37 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Friday, January 15, 2010, at 9 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3326, the Fiscal Year 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, as amended by the Senate. However, while I applaud the hard work of House leadership in bringing this much needed legislation to the floor, I regret that an opportunity to more fully address the threat posed by suspected terrorists currently under detention by

the United States government has been missed.

The United States military is responsible for keeping Americans safe. And in light of the challenge that we face in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Federal Government's commitment to our soldiers has never been more important. As such, I'm pleased we're working to ensure that the promises we've made to those who serve in our Armed Forces are kept. Whether it's the 3.4 percent military pay increase or the $104 billion to improve military equipment, I believe we must ensure our troops receive the support they deserve for the great sacrifice they have made by serving our country, and clearly this bill represents a strong show of that support.

However, while H.R. 3326, as passed, is a strong bill, I was disappointed that one of the most troubling issues of the day was not addressed. Critical to ensuring individual Americans' safety is the future treatment of the dangerous enemy combatants housed at the Guantanamo detention facility. Rather than allowing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to be tried in New York City through our civilian court system and transporting Guantanamo detainees to Thomson Correctional Institution in Illinois, Congress should unequivocally restrict enemy combatants to trial by military commission and permanently deny funding to transport them into our country.

Madam Speaker, we are at a critical juncture in our nation's history. However, as we work to bolster a strong national defense, we cannot ignore the ever-present threat posed by those rogue agents who wish to do us harm. I believe a cornerstone of addressing this threat is to remove the current legal ambiguity with regard to detainee treatment. By trying these detainees in a civilian setting, we are allowing them to exploit our judicial system for personal gain and undermine the work of our military commissions, which have served our nation for centuries.

So while I am pleased to be here on the floor today supporting our troops, it is my sincere hope that the questions surrounding America's prosecution of enemy combatants will be answered in a way that best ensures our national security.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Millie Klapel of Andover, Minnesota, on the occasion of her upcoming 100th birthday this December 20, 2009. As friends and family gather to celebrate her life, I am pleased to share her accomplishments with this Congress today.

Millie has lived the American dream. She worked for one of Minnesota's favorite department stores, Dayton's, in the monogram department. In her free time Millie volunteered at her church and taught Sunday school class for over 60 years. She also visited shut-ins and served as a prayer warrior for those in need of support during difficult times. In her 90's, she was honored as runner up for Sunday School Teacher of the Year from the Assemblies of God churches.

Millie is an inspiration to her family, friends and community and has always put others first. Even at 100 years old, she still lives on her own and maintains her independence.

Madam Speaker, again, I'd like to wish Millie Klapel a happy 100th birthday and I ask this Congress to join with me in celebrating Millie's life.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives once again sidestepped its constitutional obligation to fund our Nation's Federal priorities in a responsible manner and railroaded a massive spending bill through the House without allowing an open and honest debate that American taxpayers deserve. While I believe this legislation contains important funding for many programs administered by Federal agencies, spending bills and the projects they fund must be considered individually on their merits, and not obscured by being tucked into a giant ``omnibus'' spending package.

Right now, the national debt has already ballooned to a whopping $12.1 trillion and Democrats are ready to increase the debt limit by another $1.8 billion to accommodate their rabid spending habits. But at a time when American families are struggling to make ends meet and Federal deficits are skyrocketing at a record pace, it is absolutely necessary for Congress to fully commit to fiscal responsibility and scrutinize how every tax dollar is spent. While I understand the difficulty associated with such a large task, I, like so many of my colleagues, believed the Democrat majority when they pledged to ``create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.'' I was hopeful that their stated commitment to open government would entail the individual consideration of each of the 12 annual appropriations bills, setting a path towards restoring the confidence and trust of the American people.

Unfortunately, the actions taken today indicate that our leadership is content with the status quo, and will avoid difficult decisions that should be made in order to prevent saddling future generations with debilitating debt. By combining half of the total appropriations bills into one measure, this majority has shown that it has no interest in real transparency and is more focused on growing government to accommodate their tax-and-spend agenda than being good stewards of the taxpayers' money.

Congress should show the American people that it is serious about making the same tough choices American families make every month. But this bill's 24 percent increase in government spending ignores the realities of our limited budget and assumes the taxpayers will just pick up the tab in future years. While the bill includes some of Minnesota's local priorities, it strays far from representing anything but a big government spending bill that lacks any consideration of our massive budget deficit.

Indeed, in the same manner as households across America set a budget, Washington needs to set a budget, and stick to it. However, the tax and spend approach to government being exhibited this year serves as a haunting indication that no amount of spending or government control is too much for the Democrats. That said, it is my sincere hope that as Congress moves forward with next year's budget and spending priorities, strict attention will be paid to protecting the American taxpayer and fostering an atmosphere of bipartisan cooperation and fiscal responsibility.

Madam Chair, last July an economist from Arizona State University had determined that since the inception of ``Bailout Nation'' in September of 2008, the Federal Government has taken ownership or control of 18 percent of our economy, and if President Obama gets his way and takes over the health care industry, that's another 18 percent of our economy, or 48 percent. Then, if President Obama and former Vice President Al Gore have their way and cause electricity rates to necessarily skyrocket by taking over the energy industry and imposing a national energy tax, that would mean the government takeover of another 8 percent of the economy for a total of 54 percent.

As harmful to freedom as these bills are, they don't hold a candle to the government takeover and control of every financial transaction of the financial industry. And why? Because when government controls credit, when government rations credit and bails out its politically well-connected friends, that's gangster government at its worst, and that throws a net of government control over every financial transaction entered into in this country. Some experts say that is government control of another 15 percent of the economy for a total of 69 percent. This is stunning, nothing less than stunning.

Could it be that not in our lifetime but in less than 18 months' time the Federal Government will take over or control nearly 70 percent of the American economy? And the majority has the audacity to berate this side of the aisle for suggesting the word ``socialism''?

Heaven help the American taxpayer. Heaven help the American entrepreneur. Heaven help the maintenance of freedom for the sake not only of our people but for the sake of the continuance of the Constitution of these great United States.

I object.

I object, Mr. Speaker.

I object, Mr. Speaker.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this job-killing bill that will cut $500 million from Medicare and potentially collapse the economic economy.

Mr. Speaker, the American people overwhelmingly reject the government takeover of our health care. Last Friday, a couple from Hawaii decided the time is so short they needed to get on a plane, come to Washington to beg their Representative to vote ``no'' from Hawaii. What sacrifices freedom-loving Americans are making to get their government's attention and how big our government has gotten.

They brought me this beautiful, precious lei, and I am reminded that the one who created this lei also created our freedom. Are we so insensible to the high cost our forebears paid to purchase our freedom? Tonight, would we foolishly bargain those freedoms away? The American people, our forebears, generations yet unborn, are crying out to us tonight for us to preserve their freedoms.

Vote ``no'' on the government takeover of health care.

Mr. Speaker, it all begins with life and with protecting the most vulnerable among us, the unborn. Life is the watershed issue of our generation. How can one claim to call the destruction of innocent human life ``health care''?

Orwellian statements aside, it is the duty of government to preserve and protect human life. If we do nothing else tonight, let's choose life.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Joe Larson of Washington County, for the more than 30 years he has served in the Washington County Veterans Service Office. As a veterans service officer over 3 decades, Joe has surely touched the lives of thousands of returning service men and women. It's a calling that requires perseverance, diligence and passion.

As a veteran and Purple Heart recipient himself, Joe was uniquely qualified for this position. The instant bond among veterans was nurtured by Joe's experience and dedication to both his job and his fellow vets. For over 30 years, it has been his duty to file paperwork, make follow up calls and contact agencies on behalf of Minnesota's veterans. But for 30 years, Joe's calling was much higher. He was an advocate, a listener and a friend to so many veterans readjusting to life at home. His concern was genuine and his passion was unparalleled.

And so I rise today, Madam Speaker, to give thanks to and honor Joe for the difference he has made to veterans scattered throughout Minnesota. And as he looks forward to his retirement, he can move forward knowing his was a job well done. He will be very truly missed by coworkers and veterans alike.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that we need to know about this health care bill that Speaker Pelosi is putting before the American people. It's what President Barack Obama's economic adviser Christina Romer said: simply this, if this bill passes it will mean 5.5 million job losses.

That's probably why the Wall Street Journal has called this the worse bill ever. Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting, the Pelosi bill has it all, but even worse, in an already downbeat economy, 5.5 million jobs lost. Let's go with the positive alternative, which the Republicans have been happy to share with the President.

Let's pass a positive alternative for the American people and not have job loss.

Madam Speaker, the United States and Israel have shared a close relationship of friendship, cooperation, and strategic alliance that serves as an example to the rest of the world. I believe it is imperative for the United States to unequivocally reject the findings of the Goldstone Report, in order to preserve and nurture this relationship.

The U.N. Human Rights Council has long been recognized for its anti- Israel bias, so it comes as little surprise they would rubber-stamp the ``Goldstone Report'' and its findings of ``crimes against humanity'' with regard to Israel's activities in Gaza. To quote Israel's Ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, ``Israel basically was the equivalent of being summoned to a court in which its guilt was already presumed . . . I can't think of any country in the world which would participate in such a farce of justice.''

Indeed, while this report condemns Israel's actions, it ignores the precipitating causes of Israel's self-defensive actions, concluding that Israel's military operations were ``deliberate and systematic,'' and directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, failing to acknowledge Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism, namely the thousands of rockets launched daily at its citizens. Moreover, the Goldstone Report ignores the extraordinary steps taken by Israel to minimize civilian casualties, often putting its own soldiers at greater risk to do so.

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that recent years have been marked by escalating armed conflict between Israel and Hamas; however, I believe the United States should stand steadfast in its commitment to a free and secure Israel as the Middle East comes to embrace the liberties and freedoms of democratic societies.

Madam Speaker, on November 3, 2009, I was unexpectedly detained and could not vote on H. Res. 867, calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the ``Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict'' in multilateral fora. Had I been present, as a cosponsor of this resolution, I would have voted ``yea.''