Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it was 1 year ago today that Lehman Brothers collapsed. And as we mark this 1-year anniversary, it is also with trepidation that we remark that the Federal Government today is the leading insurer, the leading lender, and the leading carmaker in the United States, the Federal Government.

Since the inception of Bailout Nation less than 1 year ago today, an economist from Arizona State University has documented, today the Federal Government owns or controls 30 percent of private business profits. That's right, 30 percent. And if President Obama gets his way and nationalizes an additional 18 percent of private wealth in the health care industry, that would be nearly 50 percent of private business profits.

Think of that, 50 percent of private business profits nationalized in less than 1 year's time. We can do better. Let's enjoy freedom. Let's embrace freedom and let's say no to Bailout Nation and to the Federal Government taking over the private economy.

And let's investigate ACORN.

Mr. Speaker, the context of my remarks is engaging the issue of the current financial situation that the United States finds itself in.

Mr. Speaker, it was less than 1 year ago that the government began Bailout Nation, which was $700 billion in tax money that was given to the United States Treasury Secretary for the purpose of stabilizing America's financial situation. Let's take just a brief history of what has happened in the United States in just less than 1 year's time.

This Congress appropriated essentially a blank check to the Treasury Secretary of $700 billion, a blank check. The Treasury Secretary literally could do anything he wanted to do with that $700 billion. That $700 billion went to the Treasury Secretary. It's gone to bail out banks. It's gone to bail out an insurance company, and it has gone to set up the automobile task force.

In that time we have seen $700 billion go not only for that bailout; we also saw $29 billion go to Bear Stearns to shore up that investment banking house. We also saw $200 billion go for Fannie and Freddie, the secondary mortgage company, because, remember, all of this began with a meltdown in the housing industry. So we thought, first of all, money needed to go to bail out the secondary mortgage provider.

Almost all loans today in the United States are now backed up by the Federal Government. This is amazing what has happened to our country in less than 1 year's time. We saw over $100 billion of our tax money go to bail out the largest insurance company in the United States, AIG. Still the United States taxpayer has yet to be repaid the money for AIG. We have yet to be made whole.

We have yet to be made whole for the money that was extended to General Motors and Chrysler. That's tens of billions of dollars that were given to the car companies. We were told that we had to give them tens of billions so they wouldn't go into bankruptcy. Well, lo and behold, what happened? Both GM and Chrysler went into bankruptcy.

We were told that we had to give all of this money to Freddie and Fannie so that they won't go into bankruptcy, and we continue to pour taxpayer money into Freddie and Fannie. Not only that, the American taxpayer was told to give another $75 billion in mortgage bailout money.

At what point do we say enough is enough? Two hundred billion dollars for the secondary mortgage company, another $75 billion for mortgage bailout. But that wasn't enough because the American taxpayers were told we needed to give a trillion dollars in stimulus programs. A trillion dollars. That money hasn't been completely let out, thank God. Every penny that hasn't let out at this point should be reeled back in, and we shouldn't be committing any more of that money.

We also agreed in this body to spend another $400 billion in an end- of-the-year budget gap that we were able to shore up.

At this point we know the Congressional Budget Office has said that our country will be in deficit $1.6 trillion this year, and it may get worse. How do we know that? Unemployment is at 9.7 percent, and President Obama's own economic adviser has said if we pass his version of the government takeover of health care, we will lose 5.5 million more jobs. We have lost 4 million jobs. If we pass President Obama's health care reform, by his numbers, we will lose another 5.5 million jobs. And if we pass his national energy tax, the cap-and-trade bill, this energy tax, by President Obama's own numbers, will cost our economy an additional 2.5 million jobs lost every year going forward. This doesn't seem to be working for us as we look at this 1-year anniversary of Lehman Brothers collapsing.

So now the Federal Government owns or controls 30 percent of all private business profits. And if President Obama gets his way and takes over another 18 percent of our economy in health care, that means the Federal Government will own or control 48 percent of private business profits. Just think, a year ago 100 percent of private business profits were private. Today we're looking at the specter of 48 percent of private business profits owned or controlled by the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, that's why the American people are nervous. That's why they don't want government to own or control any more of our economy.

I could never hold a candle to the stunning Steve King of Iowa, so I thank you for deferring to me for a few minutes, and I am extremely grateful for the gentleman's comments on the floor so far this evening.

One thing that has been brought to my mind from your comments is you'd recalled that you'd remembered that President Obama came to meet with House Republicans down in the bowels of the Capitol building, just below where we're standing now, and he gave a private speech to us where there were no members of the press. One thing that I recall from that meeting with the President is the President had said to us he would prefer to enact his full agenda and be a one-term President rather than not enact his agenda and be a two-term President.

I think that the American people cannot underscore enough the fact that the President is very determined in his desire to enact this health care legislation, and perhaps never again will one party hold the type of cards that have been dealt in their hands as they hold right now. That's why I think the American people recognize that, with an overpowering one-party domination, we see an intention to enact this government takeover of health care that literally will lead to life- and-death decisions.

You talked about three different areas where the government has gotten involved, and it reminded me of yesterday, when I was meeting with a group of constituents, and a gentleman told me this story. He said he'd just purchased from what is now known as ``government motors'' in our country--because the Federal Government has taken over not one but two car companies. The United States Government is now the largest car manufacturer in the United States. Well, government motors--and again, this is nothing derogatory against our dealerships. Our dealerships, through no fault of their own, are in the current situation that they're in. We know 3,500 car dealerships have received pink slips from our government, putting out of work about 150,000 good American-paying jobs.

Well, in the midst of this, a gentleman told me yesterday he went to what's now called Government Motors, fondly. He purchased a top-of-the- line vehicle, brand new. His dashboard split, so he has a brand-new dashboard in this top-of-the-line vehicle from Government Motors.

He went down to the good dealership, excellent dealership that he purchased the car from. Dealership said, sure, it's under warranty, we will take care of that for you. The gentleman waited. He didn't hear back. He said, hey what's up with my dashboard, brand-new car, top of the line, Government Motors? It's under warranty, what gives?

I am calling all around the country. This wonderful local dealer turned over every stone that he could. And do you know what he discovered? In the entire country, in the United States, there isn't one single dashboard available to replace this brand-new top-of-the- line dashboard in the car he just purchased.

What am I going to do?, he said. Well, since the Federal Government took over GM, suppliers have been let go. No new suppliers are in place.

So here this gentleman purchased a car. It's the last of its series. How many suppliers are going to be out there bidding for a car that will never be built again?

That's part of the problem when government takes over. Because does government really have to worry about customer satisfaction the same way that a private business has to worry about government satisfaction? I think that's what the American people in their innate genius understand in the middle of this health care debate.

They understand that when government is in charge, government doesn't necessarily have to worry about customer satisfaction unless you are an elected official. Then you know you have to go back to your constituency. You have to answer for the votes that you cast and the decisions that you make.

But if you are government and you own the company and you dominate the company, what do you worry about customer satisfaction, especially if you are not only the car maker, but you also control the contracts with the dealerships and you are the lender? Because, let's face it, now the Federal Government is also the lender when it comes to car sales.

And the Federal Government is backing a lot of the credit card loans that are out there now. So where is the public going to go, and who does the Federal Government have to answer to?

And this is what people know, because now it's about my health care and my child's health care, and my elderly mother's health care. And I really care about my mother, but will a bureaucrat, a nameless, faceless bureaucrat give a rip if my mother can't get her hip replacement or she can't get the pacemaker?

Remember, that question was asked of President Obama. He held a townhall meeting in the White House, and, recall, there was a woman who stood up and said, President Obama, my mother was 100 years old. I couldn't get one doctor to give her the pacemaker she needed until finally I found a doctor who said your mother has a lot of spirit. I will get her a pacemaker. He did, and her mother was still living 5 years later, doing very well with her pacemaker.

President Obama's response? He said, Well, you know, maybe a pill would be the better answer than surgery.

Well, the woman didn't need a pain pill. What she needed was the surgery. And this is exactly the point.

Will we have bureaucrats and politicians looking at their bottom lines in their constituencies rather than having a doctor who, really, his best interest is to make sure that patient is healed and becomes well? Who will make the decisions in this upcoming scenario? That's really what the American people want to know.

That's right.

Let's go back to the crux of this issue, and it is the economy, what's happening in the United States economy.

And as we have seen, the Federal Government comes in and effectively nationalizes about 30 percent of our economy, and they are on a deep, long drive to make sure that they can nationalize another 18 percent by taking over health care. And what's more, with the national energy tax, they want to take over even more of the national economy so that the Federal Government would effectively own or control well over 50 percent of the private business profits earned in this company. What has it yielded for the economy?

And I just looked at an article today that was in the Hill newspaper. And it said President Obama's chief economist has said, today, the jobless rate will remain high despite economic growth. She voiced worry that the economic growth expected in the coming years won't be enough to bring down the unemployment rate to pre-recession levels.

Christina Romer said, in 2010, that's next year, Representative, next year, the economy will likely grow, but the jobless rate will peak at 10 percent.

We are at 9.7 percent unemployment now. It's going to grow, according to the President's chief economist, up to 10 percent. It won't start falling at a rapid clip.

In fact, the administration, independent economists expect next year steady but not over-the-top GDP growth of between 2 to 3 percent. That will bring unemployment down slowly, but not by big movement; Unemployment on the right trajectory, but not coming down.

This is incredible. We were told we had to pass in 3 days a trillion- dollar stimulus plan because the President said otherwise we would go to 8 percent unemployment. We could only wish we had 8 percent unemployment.

We are at 9.7 percent. The President's chief economist said we are going to over 10. And according to the President's chief economist, if this health care plan goes into effect, we will lose another 5.5 million jobs. If we put his national energy tax into plan, it will be another 2.5 million jobs lost every year. The President is bent on a China-India jobs stimulus plan.

We are losing American jobs, ceding them to our national competitors, and the Americans aren't gaining anything for it. That's why last week the flash point, when President Obama stood here in this Chamber and gave a speech to the joint session of Congress, there was one story that overshadowed the entire night, and that was one of our colleagues, Mr. Joe Wilson of South Carolina who had made a statement to President Obama.

And in the midst of that statement, Representative Joe Wilson became effectively the point at the tip of the spear on this debate. And it was over the issue of whether the President was accurate in his statement that illegal aliens would be receiving health care benefits coequal with other Americans that are here lawfully in our country and at the expense of taxpayers. That was really the flash-point issue.

And what we found out last Friday night, we saw Democrat Members of Congress saying we are willing to put that verification in the bill, in other words proving that our colleague, Joe Wilson, was right, which makes it almost incomprehensible to me to believe that the Democrat majority plans to bring about a resolution tomorrow in this very Chamber condemning our colleague for his words.

He has already apologized for his lack of decorum, everyone agrees with that.

But to think that you would say to one of our colleagues, who the Democrats have already proved right by admitting that they are going to take the provision out of the bill that Representative Wilson was referring to?

It's almost uncanny to me that we would live to see such a day when that would happen.

Which is why I thank the gentleman from Iowa, Representative Steve King, for penning a letter asking others of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join that letter in support of our colleague, Joe Wilson. I was very happy to sign on to your letter.

But you, Steve King, the stunning Steve King of the State of Iowa, you took the initiative on that front. You were right to do so. And I am extremely grateful for your leadership on this issue. Because this is the point. When we're talking about this, it isn't about the President; this isn't about any Member of Congress. This is about the American people. Will the American people continue to enjoy the finest health care system that the world has ever known or will we lose our freedom of choice over health care and will Americans lose the control over another 18 percent of private business profits.

This is a big deal. This is a really big issue. Because, since the inception of Bailout Nation less than a year ago, 30 percent of private business profits are now owned or controlled by the Federal Government. If President Obama gets his way, that's another 18 percent--almost 50 percent.

This is the issue right now. Will our economy be better off by government taking over the economy. No? Are you kidding. We've already seen demonstration of that in the last few months. Surely, we would not be better off with President Obama nationalizing health care and the energy industry.

That's exactly right, Representative. Again, we know President Obama's intention is to effectively nationalize the energy by giving the Federal Government control over the use and distribution of energy.

Remember, we had a conversation earlier.

Then-candidate Obama, Senator Obama, made the statement during the course of his campaign. He said, Americans can't think that they can drive SUVs, set their thermostats at 72 degrees, or eat as much as food as they want, and think the rest the world will be okay with that.

Well, let's take a look at the report card since President Obama has come into office. By taking over GM and Chrysler, what we're seeing is the diminution of the SUV. We're seeing a lot of these high-end vehicles now being phased out, and instead we're seeing the new cars that the President wants to have put in place by Government Motors. That's the SUV portion.

What about setting our house temperature at 72 degrees and buildings like this one at 72 degrees? Well, once we have the government effectively nationalizing energy, people won't be able to afford to set their thermostats at 72 degrees. They will be sitting at home shivering at 55 degrees in winter, and in summer most likely won't even be able to turn on the air-conditioning.

And what about food? President Obama said we can't eat as much food as we want and think the rest of the world will be okay about that, as if that matters to freedom-loving Americans. Well, we just heard last week that the Federal Government now under the Obama administration is calling for a reordering of America's food supply. What is that going to mean? Now will the White House decide how many calories we consume or what types of food we consume?

You're from an agriculture State, I'm from an agriculture State. My farmers are very concerned about this. Our farmers are some of the greatest geniuses the world has ever seen. When you think of the percentage of farmers that we had in this country producing the food when the Nation first began, we're now at less than 2 percent of our population produces all of the food that Americans consume. Not only that, a good portion of the world as well.

That's right.

If the Representative would allow me to intervene, there is one want that we don't have to worry about any more, and that's one organization in the United States that has been given a great abundance, and that's the organization ACORN.

I know that you have done a great deal of work in trying to expose the nefarious activities of ACORN. We learned last week that ACORN, which has a persistent record of voter fraud indictments across the country, was brought under indictment for 11 counts of voter fraud down in the State of Florida. And then there were videos that came out showing that ACORN, which is a grand recipient of Federal money, was found facilitating bringing in underage girls illegally across not only State lines but across our country's borders into the United States for the purpose of prostitution.

ACORN was not only enabling this illegal criminal business, they were also coaching people on how to avoid their tax payments that they would have to pay and how to go into federally funded housing.

That's why I have been writing letters to the Census Bureau, to the Housing and Urban Development Agency, to call on them to stop all current and future grants and to investigate all past grants.

ACORN has been a recipient of $53 million in Federal funds since 1993. Now, since President Obama, who is a former employee of ACORN, since he has become the President, now ACORN has access to $8.5 billion. And in another bill that passed through the House, an additional $1 billion--a billion dollars, $8.5 billion ACORN has access to.

Why didn't I do something about that?

I did. I have and you have. We've been writing letters.

I did. I offered an amendment in Financial Services. It did pass out of the committee. And the amendment said that organizations like ACORN or similarly situated organizations that are currently under indictment for voter fraud would be ineligible to have access to Federal grants.

Chairman Frank voted for that amendment in the committee, yes.

Well, it came to the House floor and Chairman Frank said in the course of his remarks here on the floor that he was not--he didn't read the amendment fully. He wasn't aware of what the amendment said. And so he said it came to his attention later by his staff, and so now he was going to change that.

I can't tell you whether ACORN spoke with him or not. I have no knowledge of that. All I know

is that when Chairman Frank came to the floor, he proceeded to pull my amendment out of the bill, which he did, which meant that now ACORN would have access to another $1.5 billion in addition to the $8.5 billion that they already have access to.

ACORN, in my opinion, should have the Internal Revenue Service look at their tax-exempt status. In my opinion, I think ACORN has a very tough time proving that they should hold onto their tax exempt status. Not only that, they have a tough time proving that they should be a recipient of any more Federal housing grants. If they want to be an organization, they can, but they shouldn't be a recipient of Federal taxpayer funds.

Aren't there over 200 affiliated organizations housed, and it's a two story building?

Over and over, I have had people tell me that ACORN is effectively the electioneering arm of the Democratic Party, and that is concerning. At least I would think that the Democrat majority that controls this House would want to hold hearings to clear their name, to say that ACORN is not our electioneering arm and prove that assertion false. I would think that's exactly what they would want to do, which is why I wrote letters to Chairman Barney Frank and to Speaker Pelosi, demanding that we have oversight hearings and investigate ACORN to take a look at all of the grants that ACORN has received to see if they have been spent wisely, if they've been used according to the rules that have been set up for their disbursement.

Oh, yes, I have.

No. They knew they were guilty, Mr. King.

This is ACORN enabling it. And one of our colleagues said that he would hold hearings about ACORN. Several months ago there was one indictment after another that came out after voter fraud. Now these latest indictments deal with the housing grants that ACORN is receiving. He announced that he was going to hold hearings and investigate ACORN. Then the next thing we knew, he was not going to hold those hearings because he said the higher ups told him--these are his own words--he said, the higher-ups told him that he was not to hold hearings.

I think the American people have a right to know. I think they have a right to know that these red flags about ACORN didn't just happen last week. These red flags have gone up months and years ago. Remember, the Speaker of the House said that she was going to drain the swamp. That's what she was going to do, drain the swamp of corruption. But could anything be more corrupt than a taxpayer-funded tax-free organization doing the electioneering bidding for a dominant political party? Does it get any more circular than that and, some might suggest, incestuous?

And also there's video footage today of the President speaking to ACORN, saying that ACORN would be a part of his decision- making on various bills.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 48 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, September 15, 2009, at 10:30 a.m., for morning-hour debate.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Lieutenant Commander Mark Dickinson, a Minnesota native with St. Cloud and Big Lake roots, upon his retirement from the United States Navy. After 20 years of service, Mark is retiring from military service but will continue to serve his country as a civilian working for the Navy. I am proud to share Mark's distinguished career with this Congress today.

In 1989, Mark enlisted in the Navy and worked his way up to Petty Officer First Class serving on the USS Kamehameha, USS Nebraska and PCU Louisiana. As a commissioned officer, Mark served as Supply Department Head on the USS Maryland, which, under his leadership, won the Supply Blue ``E'' awarded to the finest supply department in the squadron and the prestigious Edward F. Ney Award for outstanding food service- something every sailor can appreciate!

Mark began work at Naval Reactors as Manager of Shipbuilding Contracts in 2003. In this role, he successfully oversaw the construction, repair and modification of nuclear powered ships and also helped negotiate the acquisition of private shipyard facility upgrades necessary to refueling and defueling operations of nuclear aircraft carriers. Mark's negotiation and implementation of cost incentive programs has set the Navy up to save more than $850 million dollars. Since 2007, Mark has been the Deputy Director of Acquisition and this March he assumed his current responsibilities as Director of Acquisition at Naval Reactors where he continues to lead shipbuilding efforts.

It is with great honor that I congratulate LCDR Mark Dickinson on 20 years of dedicated service to the United States Navy. Madame Speaker, I rise so that this Congress may also pay tribute to Mark and wish him and his family all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3357, however I do so with great hesitation.

This legislation infuses the Highway Trust Fund with $7 billion from the Treasury in order to prevent a shortfall that will impact the fund in only a few short weeks. The Highway Trust Fund, which is financed by the gas tax, is facing insolvency, again. For months it has brought in less revenue than previously expected as families have felt the pinch at the pump and were forced to conserve more than ever before.

Important transportation projects across Minnesota would be seriously jeopardized or delayed should this fund go bankrupt. That is simply not something we can allow. And that is why I must vote for this legislation.

You will recall that we faced this very same Hobson's choice last year. Transferring funds from general revenue to cover the HTF shortfall must not become a precedent and Congress must set itself seriously to the task of reforming the way it pays for infrastructure improvements.

Furthermore, this is a stark reminder of the dramatic ripple effect our dependence on foreign oil continues to have throughout our nation. Our failure to aggressively pursue energy independence hurts all aspects of our economy. We must implement an ``all of the above'' energy strategy and increase our domestic supply of energy resources now so that we do not continue to band-aid this transportation crisis time and again.

Perhaps most disappointing in this specific instance is that the majority also loaded up this legislation with a hodgepodge of entirely unrelated spending, increasing spending levels for three other government programs facing shortfalls. It increased the Federal Housing Administration's capital fund to $400 billion, from $315 billion, thereby increasing the fund's statutory floor. It increased Ginnie Mae's guarantee of mortgage-backed securities by $100 billion, from $300 billion to $400 billion. And, finally, it authorized ``such sums as necessary'' to shore up the Federal Unemployment Account which may encounter a shortfall due to rising claims for unemployment benefits.

Talk about a blank check. In one fell swoop, and after only 40 minutes of debate on the House floor, this bill spends billions upon billions of dollars. Members barely had a chance to know what was being voted on as the text of the legislation was not even available until the very last minute.

We must restore the integrity of this House and stop shoving legislation through that Members have not even had a chance to read and fully digest. I hope that the Majority will work with the Minority in the future to ensure more time and transparency is allotted throughout the legislative process.

And, I hope that we will have an opportunity to address the long-term flaws in each of these programs so that taxpayers are properly protected from these emergency shortfalls.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant support of H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. While I support the legislation, it is by no means perfect and it is my sincere hope that the concerns I share with my colleagues in the House will be addressed as the bill moves through the legislative process.

Ensuring the safety of America's food supply is a critical issue, which warrants our utmost attention. In light of recent outbreaks of food-borne illnesses that have caused sickness and death in our country, I believe it is imperative the action be taken to restore confidence to the American people in the food they eat. This task requires careful analysis of our current food supply dynamic, as well as thoughtful consideration of implications of any potential solutions. Our constituents deserve no less.

Indeed, every link in the food supply chain from the farm to the shelf plays a valuable role in delivering a safe product to consumers, and I believe each link requires flexibility in order to continue to provide high-quality, competitively priced goods to American consumers. A dutiful producer should expect unwarranted government intrusion no more than a consumer should expect their next meal will make them sick.

The detrimental consequences of an overly onerous federal government and bureaucratic red-tape must be carefully weighed against the need for regulation to ensure safe foods. That being said, H.R. 2749 does attempt to find a balance. As a result, the bill has earned the support of a wide range of stakeholders from farm groups to distributors.

Madam Speaker, while I stress the importance of continued work to improve the bill, I support its passage and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3269.

This misguided legislation will do nothing to restore confidence in our financial markets and could, in fact, undermine our nation's economic recovery.

The bill directs federal financial regulators to literally prohibit compensation arrangements it deems ``inappropriate.'' But when did it become appropriate for the federal government to take on this role?

How can we not expect this to stifle the global competitiveness so vital to American companies? When American companies are subjected to rigid pay structures as set by government bureaucrats and companies in other nations are free to follow the market, common sense tells us that America's top talent will go elsewhere.

Furthermore, the bill requires an annual shareholder vote--a non- binding vote--on executive compensation, which seems terribly impractical and complex and may only exacerbate problems, not fix them. We're heading down the same road the trial lawyers have led us in the courts, and experience tells us that that road leads to a distorted market.

We've heard from groups across the nation on this--from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents more than three million American businesses and organizations, to the United Brotherhood of Carpenters union. They all say that requiring them to hold an annual shareholder vote on compensation is overly burdensome and could actually diminish proper due diligence by investors.

On average, most companies already approve these packages once every three years. The Republican alternative, which I support, would honor this real-world practice. Our substitute would also allow shareholders to opt out of the shareholder triennial advisory vote if two-thirds vote to do so. This gives the shareholders more flexibility to decide whether they actually want this ``say on pay.'' This is real empowerment of the shareholders--not just lip service.

Finally, our substitute strikes the section of the bill which directs government bureaucrats to determine the compensation arrangements of private companies rather than its board and shareholders.

No one on our side of the aisle is for freewheeling pay practices or lack of oversight. But, we are calling for balance. We support an alternative that would preserve American competitiveness while ensuring real transparency and disclosure over compensation packages. The majority's legislation is sound-bite governance at best, extending onerous regulatory burdens that have little more than the appearance of actual empowerment of American shareholders.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Kari Dombrovski of Talahi Elementary School in St. Cloud, Minnesota. Kari was awarded the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching this July for her work as a second grade teacher.

This award is the highest recognition that an elementary school teacher may receive. She was selected first by a statewide committee and then by a National Science Foundation Committee. Kari's dedication to instilling the building blocks of learning in students may have earned her the award, but the real winners are the kids. The young children that get to spend time with her in her classroom already know she is one of the nation's finest teachers.

I rise to congratulate and honor Kari Dombrovski's dedication to the children of Talahi Elementary School. The Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching is a public recognition of her passionate work in the second grade classroom. The faculty, parents and students that she works with know what a special teacher she is and it is my honor to highlight her accomplishments to this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend I had the occasion to speak with a businessman in Minnesota who employs 110 people in his business. And he told me, Michele, right now health care is the most expensive part of my business, and under President Obama's plan, it will cost me an additional $12,000 a month and I just don't have that money. We know that the President's own figures say that about 5 million jobs will be lost in this country if his bill goes through.

There are so many small businesses, Mr. Speaker, who would love to offer health care, but it is the Congress that has made it so expensive for small businesses to offer health care.

Jobs will be created, but this is where they're going to be created, in government bureaucracy. This is the picture of the bureaucracy that the Democrats will create if we get government takeover of health care. And remember, the American consumer stands on this side of the bureaucracy, the doctor stands on this side. This is like America's newest board game. You have to navigate all of these agencies to get to the goal of your doctor and your health care. We can do better. The Republicans have a positive alternative.

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

I rise today in support of House Resolution 593.

This summer, on August 21, our Nation will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the entry of the beautiful island of Hawaii into the United States. It was in 1959, Madam Speaker, that then-President Dwight David Eisenhower signed Proclamation 3309 proclaiming the beautiful State of Hawaii as our 50th State.

Hawaii is one of four United States that were independent prior to statehood. The Kingdom of Hawaii existed from 1810 through 1893, and it was an independent republic between 1894 and 1898, when it became a United States territory. It was in 1900 that Hawaii was granted self- governance; and though many attempts were made to achieve statehood, Hawaii remained a territory for nearly 60 years.

The road to statehood for Hawaii was not without its challenges. One of the most devastating times in the history of not only Hawaii but of the Nation as well was the attack on Pearl Harbor and the outbreak of World War II, which interrupted the drive for statehood. But, finally, on August 21 victory was achieved in 1959 when Hawaii was admitted to the Union.

During the last 50 years, Hawaii has contributed immeasurably to the richness of our way of life here in the United States. The contributions of Asian Pacific Americans have enhanced and benefited our rich cultural heritage in so many ways, not the least of which include the arts, sciences, mathematics, sports, commerce, and many other aspects of American culture, not the least of which is great American tourism.

Hawaii has also contributed to the diversity of our Congress by electing, as my colleague said, the Native Hawaiian Members of Congress: Prince Jonah Kalaniana'ole; the first Asian American Member as well, as my colleague mentioned, Mr. Hiram Fong; the first woman of color, and we are so pleased, Patsy Mink; and the first Native Hawaiian to serve in the Senate, Daniel Akaka.

It is well known that Hawaii is home to some of the country's most beautiful landmarks and landscapes and some of the most diverse weather as well in the United States, including eight national parks, which preserve volcanoes, our Nation's fragile ecosystem, and the sites of historical national significance.

Hawaiians are also known to be a people with a great sense of pride in their history, their tradition, which can be found in their traditional music, dance, and sporting events.

Our Nation is so grateful to the contributions of Native Hawaiians. But most of all it is the stunning beauty of these tropical islands that leave many residents and visitors with a desire to share in the experiences of our 50th State and return again and again and again for Hawaii's wonderful, not-to-be-repeated hospitality.

Hawaii truly is a place like no other with a people like no other. And this August we all gather to recognize and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to extend my congratulations to my colleague, the distinguished gentleman Mr. Clay, on his birthday today. It is also my brother's birthday today, and we are so thrilled for this anniversary.

I come from a State which has recently celebrated its sesquicentennial, 150 years, and we know Hawaii will be even more beautiful when Hawaii celebrates its sesquicentennial.

We send a lot of Minnesota dollars to Hawaii with all the tourists that we send. Our climate, you may not have noticed, is a little different from that of Hawaii. Minnesotans love to visit, and we extend the invitation to come back and enjoy our hospitality.

We have a lot of shoreline, too. We have about 15,000 lakes, and our fish are about this big, our muskies. So please come and fish in Minnesota, and we will return the favor and often come to visit the beautiful State of Hawaii.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back.

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

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

I rise today in support of House Resolution 373, which I authored in order to raise awareness of hydrocephalus, a devastating neurological disorder which often leaves individuals and their families in constant fear of sudden, irreversible damage or even death. Hydrocephalus, or water on the brain, as most people refer to it, is a medical condition that results in abnormal accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid, otherwise called CSF, in the ventricles or cavities of the brain. Sadly, the prognosis for individuals afflicted with hydrocephalus is difficult to predict and is often fatal. Moreover, while this condition affects approximately 1 in every 500 births, as my colleague Mr. Clay said, very few people are even aware of this devastating condition.

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke is currently conducting research related to hydrocephalus prevention and treatment. However, more must be done at the community level to educate individual Americans about this surprisingly prevalent disorder. Recognizing the month of September as National Hydrocephalus Awareness Month will bring this disease to the public's attention and, I believe, will encourage the discussions necessary to more effectively address the devastating effects of this disease and provide support to families who live with it every day.

For example, currently the most common form of treatment for hydrocephalus involves the insertion of a shunt in order to maintain the flow of fluid from the brain. This outdated practice has been around now for almost 50 years and often results in complications that can jeopardize the life of the often very young child who is the patient. As one parent summarized for me, ``My son and all the other children who suffer from hydrocephalus are literally 12 to 15 hours away from irreversible damage, if not death, if a shunt failure was to go undetected or left untreated. This sometimes paralyzes parents, and there has got to be a better treatment out there, if not an

outright cure, we just have to find it.'' Mr. Speaker, I know you would agree we just have to find it.

That being said, I would like to share the thoughts of a mother whose daughter Ally developed hydrocephalus at 1 year of age. She sent this letter to my office in hopes that sharing it with our great Nation will develop greater awareness of the disease among the general public. And with greater research, she's confident that it could be diagnosed more accurately and treated more efficiently. We certainly hope so. This is her letter, Mr. Speaker:

``My name is Michelle Janson. We have a 9-year-old daughter Ally who developed hydrocephalus at 1 year of age. The cause of her congenital hydrocephalus allowed her to be eligible for a fairly new procedure called a third ventriculostomy. Although there was a lot of information at the time about shunts, very little was known about the third ventriculostomy. After we researched our options and interviewed several neurosurgeons, Ally underwent a third ventriculostomy on July 9, 2001.

``This year Ally has reached 8 years as one of the lucky few who have not encountered infections, revisions or malfunctions, as frequently seen with shunts. Although she does have other rare medical conditions to complicate things, she is leading a fairly normal childhood. She was the only one in her third grade class to be chosen to participate in the Young Authors Club and maintained straight A's throughout the school year, something many thought would be impossible.

``Several years ago we searched for a support group close to home that would provide our family with support and education about the condition. That's when we became involved with the Pediatric Hydrocephalus Foundation. The visions of those involved have encouraged us to actively participate in educating, providing support and to raise funds for local communities and families in need. The founders, Michael and Kim Illions, have also been active with government officials such as you to initiate a resolution known as H.R. 373 to declare September National Hydrocephalus Awareness Month.''

Mr. Speaker, before I close, I want to echo the comments that Michelle Janson makes about the vision that Michael and Kim Illions have for children and families living with hydrocephalus. I have had the privilege of getting to know this lovely couple and their beautiful baby boy named Cole through my work on this resolution. They have such optimism and faith, it just permeates everything they do and say. It's hard not to feel more hopeful when you are with great people like the Illions, and that's the kind of support that they provide other families who live with hydrocephalus and the kind of support that we all hope will be spread by this resolution today. I want to urge all of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to start spreading this hope today by taking a moment to learn more about hydrocephalus by visiting the Web site hydrocephaluskids.org. It's the Web site for the Pediatric Hydrocephalus Foundation. Through increased awareness and education, we will take the steps that are needed to modernize the treatment of hydrocephalus and move toward a cure. I urge my colleagues to join myself and the 89 bipartisan cosponsors of House Resolution 373 in supporting the recognition of September as National Hydrocephalus Awareness Month.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from the State of New Jersey, Mr. Leonard Lance.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of House Resolution 373.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I happily rise today in support of H.R. 3072, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 9810 Halls Ferry Road in St. Louis, Missouri, as the Coach Jodie Bailey Post Office Building. This honor is much deserved, Mr. Speaker, as Jodie Bailey was a coaching legend in St. Louis.

He began his basketball career as a talented player, and later Jodie Bailey found his true passion in coaching basketball. It was in the 1940s when Jodie Bailey began coaching the Vashon Wolverines within the all-black Illinois-Missouri League and helped them win league titles in 1943, 1945, 1947, and 1948. He also guided them to the Missouri Negro Interscholastic Athletic Association State Championship not one, not two, not three, but four times.

And during this tenure, segregation still existed within the school system and many people were not aware of his greatness during the beginning of his career. That is true no longer. However, after school integration, the Vashon Wolverines were able to go on to participate in a regional championship and the State quarterfinals in 1963.

Coach Bailey's success with coaching did not end with the Wolverines. He coached O'Fallon Tech, guiding the Hornets to their only State championship in 1968, where they became the first all black Public High League basketball team to win a Missouri State championship.

Soon thereafter, O'Fallon dropped its sports program, which caused Coach Bailey to find a new job coaching Northwest High School, where he immediately helped them win a regional title in 1969. Wherever Coach Bailey went, success followed. Overall, Coach Bailey coached three different Public High League basketball teams and led those teams to a total of 824 wins and 198 losses, a phenomenal record.

Coach Bailey's formula for his coaching success was simple. Coach Bailey said this: ``To be a successful basketball coach, you need three things. You have to have a well-conditioned team; you have to be fundamentally sound in every phase of the game; and you also have to be team oriented, because there's no `I' in the word team.''

Though recognized for his exceptional coaching abilities, Coach Bailey was also respected as a mentor. On and off the field, Coach Bailey was a man of his own. He urged his players to concentrate on the fundamentals of basketball. He emphasized the need to use their natural abilities to become even better. By employing his talent for support and inspiration, Coach Bailey positively impacted the lives of so many young men that he coached during his 42-season career.

Sadly, the St. Louis basketball community lost Jodie Bailey in March when he died at the age of 88. For his dedication to the St. Louis basketball community, I happily join with my fellow Members, and especially my colleague Congressman Clay, to join us in supporting H.R. 3072.

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

Mr. Speaker, I again join with my colleague Mr. Clay and urge all of our colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 3072.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this last Saturday was a very sad day in Minnesota. We laid to rest a fallen hero named Daniel Paul. His parents were in attendance, his family, our community, and we came together in sorrow and tears, our governor, our two Senators, and we went as a community for this fallen hero.

He was really a remarkable man, Daniel Paul. He was so remarkable, 22 years old, he didn't fear anything. And he willingly laid his life on the altar of freedom for all of us. And it was one more reminder, Mr. Speaker, of how heavy the cost of our freedom is and yet how remarkable these young men and women are who voluntarily, with full assurance in their heart, lay their life down for us.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to come today and make reference and thanks to this young man who gave his life for us to his parents, to his siblings, to his extended family who have all sacrificed so much with the loss of this young life.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to honor the memory of Daniel Paul and thank him for his service to our country. And also for those in our community who doff their hats, the patriot guards, the motorcyclists who lined the streets with their flags. I was never more proud to be an American than this last Saturday when I saw our community recognize this cost and pause and honor his memory.

We need to know what the people who advise the President of the United States think and believe about health care reform, Mr. Speaker. Listening to the President's adviser's actual words I believe is very enlightening.

This morning I read a column written by Betsy McCaughey, and I would like to quote from it extensively now. This is from a column dated July 24, 2009. Ms. McCaughey wrote the following. She said, The health bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions about your care in the hands of Presidential appointees. Government will decide, not the people, not their doctors, what our plan will cover, how much leeway our doctor will have, and what senior citizens will finally get under Medicare.

But what is even more important, Mr. Speaker, are the actual words of the President's advisers on health care. Here are the words from one of the President's first advisers, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House Chief of Staff. He has already been appointed to two key positions: one is Health Policy Adviser at the Office of Management and Budget, the other is as a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

This is what Mr. Emanuel has written, and I quote, ``Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely `lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change.''

Isn't this what the Democrats have claimed we are going to find $500 billion in savings for? The President's own adviser says this is just lipstick, this is just a paper covering, this isn't where the real savings are. Savings, the President's adviser writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients. Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, he writes. Now, hear me, Mr. Speaker, this is the President's adviser writing this, Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously ``as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others.''

But that is what the people want their doctor to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patient and consider social justice, such as whether the money would be better spent on someone else. This is

a horrific notion to our Nation's doctors, but it is a horrific notion to each American because doctors believe, as Americans believe, that social justice is given out one patient at a time.

But the President's adviser, Dr. Emanuel, believes communitarianism should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the nondisabled. So watch out if you're disabled. Care should be reserved for the nondisabled, not given to those who are ``irreversibly'' prevented from becoming participating citizens. ``An obvious example,'' he said, ``is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.''

We just lost my father-in-law to dementia 2 months ago. I thank God that the doctors were able to alleviate my poor father-in-law's symptoms at the end of his life at age 85.

Apparently, under the Democrats' health care plan, my father-in-law would not have received the high quality of care that he received in his last 2 months of life. Or if you're a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy, watch out.

In fact, the President's adviser defends discrimination against older patients. He writes: ``Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. Every person lives through different stages of life rather than being a single age. Even if a 25- year-old receives priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 now was previously 25.''

These bills that are being rushed through Congress right now, maybe even this week, are going to cut over $500 billion out of Medicare in the next 10 years, putting it on the backs of our State legislature to fill the gaps. Knowing how unpopular these cuts are, the President's Budget Director, Peter Orszag, has urged Congress to delete their own authority over Medicare to a new Presidentially appointed bureaucracy that will not be accountable to the public.

Here is the President's next adviser, Dr. David Blumenthal. He recommends that we slow medical innovation in order to control health spending. You heard me right. He said let's slow medical innovation to control health spending. He has long advocated government health spending controls, although he concedes they are associated with longer waits and reduced availability of new and expensive treatment and devices, but he calls it debatable whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost.

Mr. Speaker, Americans need to wake up and read what the President and his advisers are saying. It may scare them to go to the phones and call their Members.