Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Dr. France A. Cordova on her nomination by the Smithsonian Institution's Board of Regents and appointment by joint resolution of Congress to serve as one of the Smithsonian's nine citizen regents. Her outstanding scientific contributions in the areas of observational and experimental astrophysics, multi-spectral research on x-ray and gamma ray sources, and space-borne instrumentation make her an ideal candidate for this prestigious position.

Born in France, Dr. Cordova attended high school in California and went on to graduate cum laude from Stanford University in less than four years. She then earned a PhD in Physics from the California Institute of Technology, and in 1997, she was awarded an honorary doctorate by Loyola Marymount University. In 2007, Dr. Cordova moved to the Hoosier State and was appointed the eleventh president of Purdue University, as well as professor of physics and astronomy for the University.

Again, I commend the excellent work of Dr. Cordova and her many scientific contributions. Hoosiers are blessed to have the talent and expertise of Dr. Cordova at Purdue University, and her appointment to the Smithsonian's Board of Regents is a true honor for Indiana. I am confident that she will prove a valuable asset in her new position at the Smithsonian Institution.

Mr. Speaker, let me rise in gratitude to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, and the minority leader, Mr. Boehner, for bringing this important resolution to the floor. Bringing a bipartisan resolution to the floor is perhaps the best way to commemorate the bipartisanship that followed the extraordinary events of 8 years ago this Friday.

I was here on Capitol Hill that day as my colleagues were. It was just as pretty a day as it is today, and the shock and horror of the images on the television screens, the smoke rising from the Pentagon, still are with me today and informs my service in this building, as it does all of our colleagues.

Let me say today's resolution is important because, as the Old Book says, we are to mourn with those who mourn and grieve with those who grieve. And we are also to pay the debts of honor and gratitude to those that are owed. This resolution today remembers those we lost that day, and this Nation should never forget the lives that were lost at the Pentagon, in the heart of our great City of New York, or in a field in Pennsylvania. So we remember them today, and we think of their families.

We rise to pay a debt of gratitude to all those who rushed in when others were rushing out, who filled recruiting offices, who put on the uniform of the United States and went in and confronted this terror where it all began. As we grieve and as we mourn, as we remember and as we pay debts of gratitude, let us also resolve to continue to do all that we can to maintain that bipartisan commitment that began on that very day and continues to this day to make sure that our Nation and our soldiers and those who protect us at home and abroad have the resources that they need to get the job done and come home safe.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to a dear friend and to honor the memory of a great man who will long be remembered in Columbus and across the State of Indiana as a business and community leader.

For years, Dick Johnson was regarded as a role model in the business community of eastern Indiana. Dick will be remembered for his willingness to share in his successes with others; he will undoubtedly be missed by his wonderful family, but also all those whose lives he touched.

Dick Johnson was born on November 25, 1932 in Fort Wayne, Indiana to Samuel Gideon and Jessie Loomis Johnson. Dick spent his youth in Fort Wayne before graduating from the Indiana University School of Business in 1955.

At IU, Dick showed the promise of a young man committed to honesty and integrity that would be fulfilled each day of his life. Dick earned the nickname ``honest Abe'' and was elected president of his fraternity, Sigma Alpha Epsilon.

Dick also demonstrated his love for country, completing ROTC training and serving as a Lieutenant in the U.S. Army from 1955-1957.

Dick began his business career in 1957 when he purchased a Shell Oil distributorship which would become the Johnson Oil Company. Dick's business acumen was evident as the company grew and diversified under his leadership.

In 1981, Johnson Oil Company opened its first convenience store in Nashville, Indiana. Now the Bigfoot Food Store chain operates more than 200 locations in Indiana, Kentucky, and Illinois.

Dick was often recognized for his leadership in the business community, serving as President of the Indiana Oil Marketers Association and on the National Distributor Council for Shell Oil. He was also honored as the 1988 Columbus Small Business Person of the Year, the 1994 IU Distinguished Entrepreneur and the 2000 Ernst and Young Entrepreneur of the Year.

Dick Johnson will always be remembered for what he accomplished in the business world, but those closest to him also know of a kind- hearted man with a commitment to his community.

He chaired the Columbus Front Door Committee and served as the president of many organizations over the years including the Columbus Chamber of Commerce, the Heritage Fund of Bartholomew County, the Columbus Economic Development Board, and the Columbus Regional Hospital Foundation.

Dick and his beloved wife Ruth were also significant philanthropists, donating to causes such as the Columbus Area Arts Council and the Columbus Senior Citizens Center.

As a proud graduate of Indiana University, Dick was so very proud of his founding sponsorship of the Johnson Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the Kelley School of Business.

I first came to know Dick Johnson as a respected competitor of my father in the business world. Then, as now, Dick Johnson was admired for his devotion to his faith, his family, his business acumen and his unblemished reputation for integrity.

Dick Johnson was a public man who saw business as a means to improve his community, his state, his university and his nation.

To his loving wife Ruth, his children and entire family I offer my deepest condolences and prayer that they may be comforted with the faith we share.

Columbus and Indiana have lost a giant and I have lost a cherished mentor and friend.

Mr. Speaker, the American people know we need health care reform in this country, but thanks to House Republicans and a handful of Democrats in Congress, the American people have been given a reprieve on the Democrat plan to enact a government takeover of health care, paid for with more than $800 billion in new taxes. Now, that tax increase number has been disputed in the past 24 hours, so I thought I'd pull the stats.

According to the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, the House Democrat reform bill includes $543 billion in a surtax on high-income filers, $208 billion in increased taxes on businesses, an additional set of tax increases--international tax increases which they refer to--of $37 billion, and more taxes on benefits of $2 billion. Taxes on individuals who do not purchase bureaucrat-approved health insurance--$29 billion. So the total amount of tax increases included in the Democrat bill, according to official estimates, is $820.1 billion over 10 years.

The chance for the American people to know what's in this plan and to come back and to pass health care reform without more government and more taxes? Priceless.

Let the debate begin.

First, let me commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) for his yeoman's work in bringing these important discussions to the floor of the House of Representatives. Judging from YouTube, it appears people in Missouri are pretty interested in the subject of health care reform. And not surprisingly, in the ``Show Me State'' there seems to be a fair amount of skepticism out there about it. I'd like to speak to this whole business of government takeover, but I won't take more than just a couple of minutes of the gentleman's time.

First, let me say emphatically to anyone that might be looking in, Mr. Speaker, House Republicans support health care reform. We've been calling for health savings accounts to be greatly expanded to small businesses around this country for years. We've been calling for association health plans that

would allow people to pool together resources around the country, the way Federal employees do to purchase private health insurance.

We've been talking about trying to end the age of defensive medicine by allowing for the adoption of medical malpractice reform in this country. All these kinds of changes, we believe, would reduce the cost of health insurance, reduce the cost of health care in this country in the long term. What the Democrat plan, even as it's being modified at this very hour, continues to include is a government-run insurance plan that would lead to a government takeover of our health care economy, paid for with nearly $1 trillion in tax increases.

Now, I saw the President of the United States today on the television giving a speech expressing, with a rather uncharacteristic passion, his frustration with two things, and I wanted to speak to those in the few minutes that I have. First, the President said no one wants to have a government takeover of health care. Well, I don't doubt the President doesn't want it to happen, but there's something about bureaucracy that when, it is unleashed in certain ways, it takes over areas of our economy. It's an unbroken truth of the history of governments around the world that unchecked, unlimited government expands.

And whatever the President's intention, the reality is that should this government create a government-run insurance option to so-called compete with the private sector, that government option would compete with the private sector the way an alligator competes with a duck. It would consume it. And most Americans know that. Now, the other thing the President had a problem with--

Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding. But let me say, the other point the President expressed was that some of us, and some independent organizations were trying to scare the American people by suggesting that if the government introduces a government-run insurance option, that you'll lose your health insurance. But the Lewin Group, which has been praised by Republicans and Democrats over the years, actually estimated 114 million Americans would likely lose their health insurance if the Democrat health care plan and the administration's plan were actually to be adopted.

But why is that? Now, to be perfectly fair, the President did make the point today at the podium that nothing in this plan will make people give up their private insurance. And I want to grant that point, Mr. Speaker, for anyone that might be looking in. That's not really the point, though.

What the administration and some of our colleagues fail to understand is that as soon as Uncle Sam offers health insurance, a government health insurance for every American employee for free, there's almost no employer in America who's not going to sit their employees down during this worst recession in 25 years and say something like, look, I love you; we appreciate your being here, but we're trying to keep the lights on and the doors open at this business, so you know what? We're going to cancel the health insurance that we have through this company, and we're going to send you down to Uncle Sam to apply for it.

That's why the Lewin Group, which is an independent organization, and common sense should tell the American people, if the government introduces an insurance program to compete with the private sector, tens of millions of Americans will lose the health insurance they have.

So, whether it's the intention that we have a government takeover, the fact is, if we insist, as the Democrats in Congress and the administration are, on a government option, even with the tweaks they're putting around the edges, it will result in a government takeover, because tens of millions of Americans will be relegated to that new government program.

That's why I really believe that we have to oppose this program, that we have to scrap this government takeover with its $1 trillion tax increase and that we have to start over and come around to those bipartisan solutions that Republicans are prepared to work on today.

I yield.

Madam Speaker, I rise to state that I was unavoidably detained and unable to vote on rollcall votes 644, 645, and 646. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on Nos. 644 and 645, and ``nay'' on No. 646.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans do support reasonable health care reform that will lower the cost of health care and health insurance for every American family and for every American business, but the Democrat plan for health care reform amounts to a government takeover of health care in this country, paid for with nearly $1 trillion in higher taxes.

The American people know what government-run health care will mean: higher cost, bigger deficits, less coverage, less quality, less choice, and more bureaucracy.

House Republicans have led the fight against this government takeover of health care, and now House Republicans and a handful of Democrats are on the verge of a historic victory for the American people and for our American health care economy, but we need your help.

If you oppose government-run health care, call your Congressman today. If you oppose higher costs, bigger deficits, less coverage, and more bureaucracy, call your Congressman today. If you want real bipartisan health care reform that lowers the cost and that addresses the real needs of our health care economy with American solutions, call your Congressman today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, and I rise in support of the Pence amendment.

I welcome the opportunity to debate my distinguished colleague on the topic on the floor, and will do so respectfully in an effort to alleviate what he described as his confusion about the bill.

A couple of basic facts: Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. According to their annual report, most recently, they boasted of having performed more than 300,000 abortions in this country.

Another fact: Planned Parenthood is the largest recipient of Federal funding under Title X. According to that same annual report, Planned Parenthood received approximately $350 million in government grants and contracts.

The Pence amendment before the Congress today simply states that none of the funds made available under this act shall be available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under Title X of the Public Health Services Act. The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of Federal funding under Title X. As I believe a majority of the American people would attest, the time has come to deny all Federal funding to Planned Parenthood of America.

Now the case for that: The Public Health Services Act was first enacted in 1946 and in 1970. It included the creation of Title X. Title X is the only Federal grant program that provides Americans with comprehensive family planning and related preventative health care services.

As my colleague just said, let me echo: Title X does provide a broad range of important and quality services to the underserved community in this country. Over 4 million Americans are served every year, 67 percent of whom are low-income. Approximately 600,000 abortions are prevented by Title X family planning funding, and it's reassuring to many of us that abstinence education is required of many clinics.

First, the Pence amendment does not cut or reduce the budget for family planning by one penny. Let me say that again to my colleagues in the majority, to whom I am grateful today to have been extended the opportunity to bring this amendment. The Pence amendment does not cut one penny from the budget of Title X.

Also, let me make a very clear point. I understand that current law and regulation prevents Title X funds from going directly to fund abortions, as my colleague just said, but there is no question that the money that Planned Parenthood receives for its operational expenses from the Federal Government frees up resources that can be used to provide and to promote abortions through its abortion clinics. Common sense teaches no other idea.

So these are important points as I rise and urge what I believe will be bipartisan support for this amendment. I believe it echoes the views of millions of Americans on the point as well. We could talk about the role Planned Parenthood plays in the abortion trade in this country. We could talk about the real scandal of the fact that 1 out of every 2 African American pregnancies ends in abortions. We could talk about the allegations of fraud and investigation; but let me just say to my colleagues:

The time has come to deny all Federal funding to Planned Parenthood. We have the opportunity to do it today. I urge the adoption of the Pence amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.

I believe with all my heart that ending an innocent human life is morally wrong; but I also believe it's morally wrong to use the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans to fund abortion providers. The Pence amendment before the House today simply states that none of the funds made available under this act shall be available for Planned Parenthood for any purpose under Title X. Title X is the only Federal grant program that provides Americans with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. It does important work in communities around the country.

Now while I understand that current laws and regulations prevent Title X funds from flowing directly to funding abortions, today the largest recipient of Federal funding under Title X is Planned Parenthood, and they're well able to use the resources they receive from taxpayers to offset the resources and free up resources to engage in the abortion trade, which they boast last year over 300,000 abortions performed. Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America, should not be the largest recipient of Federal funding under Title X. I urge my colleagues in both parties to join me in supporting the Pence amendment. The time has come to deny all Federal funding to Planned Parenthood of America, and the Pence amendment would do that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

With that, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to whether the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee has any speakers on this amendment?

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify with my good friend from Wisconsin that the author of the amendment would like to reserve the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, with that, I would like to recognize the distinguished Member, Mr. Cao, for 1 minute.

(Mr. CAO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to recognize for 1 minute the distinguished Republican whip, Mr. Cantor, from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I will close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Pence amendment simply states that ``none of the funds made available under this act are available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under Title X.'' That's all it does. The Pence amendment does not cut one penny from Title X. It merely prohibits those funds from flowing into the largest abortion provider in America.

The Pence amendment is endorsed by National Right to Life Committee and a score of other organizations representing traditional values. We cannot reduce the number of abortions in America while increasing Federal funding to the Nation's leading abortion provider. The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of Federal funding under Title X. The time has come to deny all Federal funding to Planned Parenthood.

I urge my colleagues in both parties to join us in supporting this sensible amendment. Let's choose life. Let's defend the defenseless. Let us defend taxpayers. I urge adoption of the Pence amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The time has come to deny any and all funding to Planned

Parenthood of America. The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of Federal funding under title X.

Today, I filed an amendment to block any funds under title X in the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill from going to Planned Parenthood again. It's the same amendment that was supported by 189 bipartisan Members in the year 2007, and I'm confident it would enjoy broad support again.

The Pence amendment would simply prevent funds under title X from going to Planned Parenthood. It would not reduce the total amount of funds available for ethical family planning services.

The truth, is title X clinics do important work in the underserved communities around this country. A number of federally funded clinics across the Nation offer beneficial services, including patient counseling, breast cancer screening, and ethical family planning.

By contrast, Planned Parenthood's annual report reports that it received $350 million in revenue from government grants and contracts. In the same annual report, they boast 305,000 abortions provided.

Title X money should go to meet the underserved community, not to provide offsetting resources for the largest abortion provider in America.

I'm sorry I missed Speaker Pelosi's remarks on this PAYGO debate, but I do have a copy of what she said in January of 2007. She said, ``After years of historic deficits, this new Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. Our new America,'' da-da-da-da-da. I quote with great respect.

Under the Democrat majority, we have seen a Congress that has presided over the most unprecedented spending spree in American history. Since Democrats took over, the Nation's deficit has exploded by a factor of 10: $162 billion in fiscal year 2007, we're at a trillion now, and we're headed for $1.8 trillion in fiscal year 2009. Public debt has doubled from $4.8 trillion in 2006. The national debt is set to triple by 2019 under the Democrats' budget, including PAYGO, I understand.

You know, I heard the President had to move his press conference from 9 o'clock to 8 o'clock tonight because the popular television show America's Got Talent is on at 9, so the President is going to have his press conference tonight at 8. So the TV lineup tonight should be America's Got Talent at 9, and America's Going Broke at 8. And there is nothing in this PAYGO rule that's going to do anything about it.

The truth is, under this PAYGO deal, discretionary spending, which amounts for 40 percent of all of the spending, is being increased at 8 percent in this year. It's completely excluded from this. Emergency legislation, mandatory spending is not subjected. Hundreds of mandatory programs are not subjected.

We're hearing a lot about fiscal discipline, putting our fiscal house in order. When Democrats say PAYGO, they mean you pay and they go on spending. Well, as usual, Republicans have a better plan to restore fiscal sanity to Washington, D.C., thanks to the great leadership of Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

The Republican substitute will focus on spending. The fundamental problem of the government's fiscal policy is spending and deficit. It targets problem areas by sequestering certain discretionary spending that grows faster than inflation, protects retirees, troops and veterans, no automatic tax increases. It actually reduces the deficit, takes a very straightforward approach, and I commend my colleague for bringing it forward.

I urge my colleagues to get real. No more slogans. No more prepackaged bumper sticker talk about fiscal discipline and reform. The American people want us to come together in real and meaningful and bipartisan ways to get spending under control here in Washington, D.C., and the Ryan substitute is a powerful and important step in that direction, and I urge its support.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today at a time of a great moment in the life of this country. The American people are hurting. We are facing in this country the worst recession in a quarter century. We have lost 2 million jobs since this Congress and this administration enacted a stimulus bill. The unemployment rate at the time we passed the stimulus bill was 7.5 percent. We were told that we had to spend that nearly $800 billion, borrowed from future generations of Americans, so the unemployment rate wouldn't go over 8 percent. It is now 9.5 percent and rising.

We saw this Democratic majority pass a budget that will double the national debt in 5 years and triple it in 10, and that's if the economy starts to grow again, which sadly, few economists believe it will in the near future.

Now this summer we saw this majority, in the name of global warming, pass a national energy tax that will essentially raise the cost of energy for businesses and individuals by thousands of dollars per year.

And now comes health care reform, a government takeover of health care in this country financed with nearly a trillion dollars in tax increases. Yet my colleagues, many of whom I deeply respect, come to the floor this week to talk about something called PAYGO, fiscal discipline. Well, the truth is that in this majority and this administration, PAYGO means you pay and they go on spending.

The truth is we have got to come to terms with these difficult times. We have got to begin to demonstrate the priorities that businesses and family farms and working families are demonstrating at this time of national challenge and economic recession. Families and businesses are sitting down and prioritizing what should come first.

We ought to have national energy legislation to set us on a pathway toward energy independence. We ought to have health care reform that brings real competition into our economy and lowers the cost for consumers. But the first thing we ought to be doing is coming together and creating jobs.

We know how to create jobs. John F. Kennedy knew it, Ronald Reagan knew it, George W. Bush knew it when the towers fell: fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C., and tax relief for working families, small businesses, and family farms.

The last thing we need right now is one more massive tax increase, one more government takeover of one more American industry. What we need is focus, and we need to prioritize what this Congress is working on. We ought to be asking what the American people are asking today with a heavy heart as they look at Washington, D.C.: Where are the jobs?

Health care, energy independence, other priorities, other talking points on Capitol Hill are not going to get the American people back to work. Congress should come together, men and women of goodwill and strong principle, and work in such a way that can restore this economy, and then work in a bipartisan way on the other major issues facing our country, so help us God.

In the midst of the worst recession in 25 years, after months of runaway Federal spending, bailout, record deficits, and a national energy tax, now comes a government takeover of health care paid for with nearly a trillion dollars in tax increases.

Before we move on to the next big government scheme of this administration, the American people are asking, Mr. President, where are the jobs?

Make no mistake about it, the President's health care bill would do nothing to lower the cost of health care and would be a disaster for the American economy. If ObamaCare passes--according to the experts--if ObamaCare passes, you will probably lose your health insurance and you might just lose your job.

The American people know we can do better. We must do better. For the sake of our economy and reform, I implore my Democratic colleagues, say ``no'' to a government takeover of health care and higher taxes and say ``yes'' to a bipartisan majority in this Congress that is committed to fiscal discipline, reform, and putting Americans back to work.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully ask, as both I and my record were directly challenged by the distinguished majority leader on the floor, and given the fact that I've already utilized my 1 minute extended during the debate at the opening of this session, when a Member's record is challenged on the floor of the Congress, does a Member, under the Rules of the House, have the opportunity to obtain time when the distinguished majority leader refuses to yield time?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, is it proper for a Member to direct an entire address to another Member of the body as opposed to the Chair or the Speaker?

Further parliamentary inquiry, if I may.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, would it have been in order for the distinguished majority leader to raise questions about my record and the positions that I've taken here in the Congress during the course of my career in the context of floor debate under these rules?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished majority leader came to the floor moments ago, and he asked the question that Republicans have been asking since midday today. It's a question that millions of Americans are asking, ``Where are the jobs?''

Now the leader--I know it was unintentional--misstated my record, saying that when I was here in 1993 that I opposed health care reform. In fact, I was elected to Congress in the year 2000. But it was an honest mistake and a misstatement of fact, and I acknowledge it.

But can I just suggest, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the millions of Americans that may be looking in, let's stop looking to the errors of the past by Democrats or Republicans and let's come together today to create jobs for the American people.

Republicans are here to say that a government takeover of health care, financed by $1 trillion in tax increases is a disaster for this economy. It is unconscionable for this majority and this administration to insist on the adoption of a government takeover of health care financed by $1 trillion of tax increases during the worst recession in 25 years.

As the distinguished majority leader just said, Republicans say with one voice, ``Where are the jobs?''