Floor Statements

I thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey for his moral leadership, not only for organizing this discussion tonight among our cherished colleagues but for a lifetime of standing in the gap on behalf of the defenseless. I commend Chris Smith and to no less extent his wife for their work on behalf of the unborn.

Mr. Speaker, I come to this Chamber cognizant of the fact that tens of thousands of Americans will brave the elements tomorrow, as they do every year, on what will be the 36th anniversary of the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott. I bristle at the term ``anniversary'' because, in my life, anniversaries are special things. We remember them at fondly remembered occasions, and this is certainly not the case.

This is the annual marking of that decision which 36 years ago tomorrow nullified all of the hard-fought bills and legislation over 100 years at the State level that put restrictions on the abortion of unborn children in Roe v. Wade.

It is accurate to say that life is losing in Washington, D.C., both in our judiciary among a pro-abortion majority in the House and the Senate and now with the election of a pro-abortion President of the United States.

But let me say with confidence that while life may be losing in Washington, D.C., I believe life is winning in America. Despite the best efforts of the pro-abortion movement, the defend abortion on demand, more Americans embrace the sanctity of life today than ever before, especially younger Americans.

While more than 50 million innocent human lives have been ended by abortion since Roe v. Wade, I am happy to report, Mr. Speaker, that abortions have declined by nearly 20 percent in the last 15 years. That actually figures out to be more than 881 lives saved per day, each a poignant reminder of why we can never relent in the defense of life.

Now there are many theories about why attitudes are changing about the sanctity of life in America. Some people believe that moments like this on the floor of legislative chambers have their good effect, and I would like to believe that, but I am not really sure that I do.

Now, some think that it's about political activism and people organizing and communicating. And while that plays a role, I am not sure that it's changing attitudes in America.

And even some much more plausibly believe that legions of organizations across the country that fall under the heading of crisis pregnancy centers, organizations have come alongside young women with unwanted pregnancies and provide them with resources and a message of hope and encourage them to choose life are changing hearts, and I am much more prepared to believe that that's true.

But I actually believe in my heart of hearts that what's changing in America today is happening in the quiet

counsels between mothers and daughters, between grandmothers and granddaughters, women who themselves were victimized by abortion. I believe we are telling the most cherished younger women in their lives the truth, and attitudes are changing across kitchen tables and over coffee in living rooms.

And that's why I believe that life is winning in America. But that doesn't obviate the need for us to take action here on Capitol Hill, and action we will take, not only as we prepare to respond to what may be an eminent executive order upending one of the most popular restrictions on foreign aid in recent American history. There are rumors, Mr. Speaker, that the so-named Mexico City Policy will be overturned by our new President, and we prepare to make a case on behalf of American taxpayers and on behalf of pro-life Americans of the wrong decisions if it comes to pass. We also prepare ourselves in the legislative process to both defend and advance the cause of life.

Just moments ago, with 63 original cosponsors, I reintroduced legislation that I brought to this floor in the last Congress, the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act.

It comes as a surprise to many to learn that the largest recipient of nonabortion Federal taxpayer dollars through title 10 is the largest abortion provider in America. Most Americans don't realize that.

Let me say that again, that the largest recipient of Federal funding through title 10 is the largest abortion provider in America.

Now, Planned Parenthood, that recipient, will be very quick to say that, well, title 10 can't go to providing or promoting abortion services, and that is certainly true, but it doesn't change the fact that the largest abortion provider in America is also the recipient of literally tens of millions of dollars in Federal taxpayer money that go into their nonabortion related activities.

Our legislation, reintroduced today with broad support and in the last Congress, cosponsored by nearly 200 of our colleagues, would restrict any Federal family planning funds from going to organizations like Planned Parenthood, who perform abortions on demand or for any reason, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

With this I close. I believe that life is winning in America because there is a moral reawakening on this issue. It's happening in the quiet counsels of the home and the workplace and in faith communities. But that doesn't change the fact that we must take a stand on this floor, on the National Mall tomorrow and in all of our communities on behalf of the unborn.

It would be William Wilberforce who said famously of his long multi- decade struggle against the scourge of slavery, he said, ``Never, never will we desist till we . . . extinguish every trace of this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, looking back to the history of these enlightened times will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so long a disgrace and dishonor to this country.''

Strong words, but I believe they are words that resonate with the conscience of a Nation. America is great because America is good, and at the very center of the American experiment is the belief in the value and the sanctity of every human life. Until we restore that principle to the very center of the rule of law in this very Nation, we risk the ongoing vitality of the American experiment. I believe it with all my heart.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.

Mr. Speaker, we are in a recession. Many American families are hurting. Many millions more worry that they'll lose their job next. And it is important that this Congress, in legislation before us today, in the related legislation and in upcoming bills, take action. Inaction is not an option. But more important than just doing something, it is imperative that Congress, on behalf of the American people, do the right thing. And I rise today to say from my heart that the American people know we cannot borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy.

This legislation, related as it is to the second half of the banking bailout that passed the Congress last fall, is the wrong approach. I opposed that legislation last fall both times it came up because I believe that economic freedom means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. The decision that Congress made to give the Federal Government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupted this basic truth. There were no easy answers at the time. But the American people deserved to know then and deserve to know now there are alternatives to massive government spending and bailouts.

We come today to consider legislation that, as the gentleman just stated, is preamble, if you will, to the TARP vote that may or may not come to this body, and I acknowledge that. But the truth is that it is all interrelated. And Congress and this body may soon be asked to approve and police the second $350 billion installment to the financial markets in this country approved last fall, and we will be asked to do so under a new set of promises from a Congress in this legislation and a President, neither of which's sincerity do we question on this floor today, but it's a set of promises about oversight and promises that we'll spend the money better, and I rise today to say that there is just simply a better way.

Taxpayers should not be asked to pay another $350 billion for a bailout that could be disbursed far beyond the original authorization of this Congress to undetermined industries in ways that we have seen used already for the initial tranche of this bill. House Republicans believe that enough is enough. We believe, as most Americans do, that we cannot borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy.

The real answer that House Republicans embrace, and I believe that it is an answer that most Americans embrace, is that it is time for us to put the American taxpayer first. It's time for us to say ``no'' to more bailouts, however well additionally supervised, no more bailouts, no more excessive government spending. It's time this Congress began to reduce the burden of taxes on working families, small businesses, and family farms and began to practice the kind of fiscal discipline that the American people expect.

So I rise today in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. And however well-intentioned, I believe it is, in effect, only preamble to legislation that could come to this floor that would be the wrong decision for the American people. The American people want us to walk away from the politics of bailouts, and they want us to take this country in the direction where we're not releasing the power of the Treasury to solve our very real economic woes but we are passing the kind of tax relief that will release the resources, the genius, the courage, and the ingenuity of the American people. As President John F. Kennedy said, all ships will then rise on a rising tide.

Mr. Speaker, with apologies to the gentleman from California, I would ask unanimous consent that Mr. Mike Thompson be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 226. His name was errantly added to that bill, and I would like it removed and offer my apologies.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for a millennia, Israel was a dream; in 1948, it became a reality. But in recent days, the periphery of Gaza has become a nightmare for Israeli men, women and children.

I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 34, a bipartisan measure which recognizes Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza and reaffirms the United States' strong support for our partner.

Time is of the essence. This very morning Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel despite the United Nations cease-fire resolution passed last night. Israel has a right and Israel has a duty to defend her people against the attacks of a terrorist group that victimizes the people of Gaza and Israelis on her borders. In the face of those evil acts no nation could tolerate, I commend Israel for working to minimize civilian casualties.

But in these dire circumstances, America must stand with Israel. We must show the resolve of our relationship as peaceful democracies, and we must show the resolve of a relationship borne of the intimate and deepest held values of both of our people, for the history of Israel is a history of struggle.

Over 60 years ago, the State of Israel, under the leadership of a small band of courageous Zionists, declared independence in its ancient homeland. It was promptly recognized by the United States, and it was promptly attacked by its Arab neighbors. The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same.

Israel prevailed against the long odds then, again in 1967 and in 1973 and countless other times, and Israel will prevail again today; but she will not do so alone.

We and all the freedom-loving nations of the world must stand with Israel and condemn the violence that's been perpetrated against her people. We cannot stand idly by while a gathering menace grows in the region and a

menace perpetrates such acts of evil against our cherished allies.

We must come together to rededicate ourselves to the preservation and protection of Israel as a Jewish state and of Jerusalem as her eternal capital, and I commend all of my colleagues for bringing this timely resolution to the floor.

As every American knows, this economy is hurting, and millions of Americans are anxious.

House Republicans applaud our President-elect for focusing on legislation. Today, President-elect Obama will say that this Congress must act boldly and act now, and we agree. He has invited House Republicans to bring forward ideas to stimulate this economy, and we will gladly do so, but the American people know we cannot borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy.

In that vein, House Republicans will insist that tax relief go to taxpayers, that it be permanent and that it create jobs. We'll demand a stimulus plan to be transparent and accountable and achieve its intended results. As this legislation is developed, there will be the need for competing interests and for compromise, but let this point be clear:

In this cause, in the cause of stimulus legislation, House Republicans will be on the side of the people who will pay for the stimulus bill. House Republicans will be on the side of the American taxpayer and will demand a stimulus plan that will turn loose the inherent power of the American economy, a stimulus plan that will be accountable, transparent and will achieve the intended result.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Clerk, as chairman of the Republican Conference, I am also directed by unanimous consent of that conference to present for election an individual today, but let me say also from my heart it is one of the great privileges of my life to do so, to present for election to the office of Speaker of the House for the 111th Congress the name of a man from the heartland of America, a man of humble beginnings who came to Washington during a time of reform and led and is prepared, starting this day, to lead this Congress back to the aspirations and ideals of the American people, the name of the Honorable John A. Boehner, a representative-elect from the State of Ohio.

Madam Speaker, as chairman of the Republican Conference, I am directed by that conference to notify the House of Representatives officially that the Republican Members have selected as minority leader the gentleman from Ohio, the Honorable John A. Boehner.

Madam Speaker, as Chair of the Republican Conference, I am directed by that conference to notify the House of Representatives officially that the Republican Members have selected as minority whip the gentleman from Virginia, the Honorable Eric Cantor.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment to the resolution, but before offering the amendment, I request that there be a division of the question on the resolution so that we may have a separate vote on the Chaplain.

Madam Speaker, I offer an amendment to the remainder of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican Members of the 111th Congress collectively represent more than 100 million constituents in this Nation. The changes that are being contemplated by the majority today represent an erosion, not of the interests of elected officials, not even of the interests of a political party, but, Mr. Speaker, I say with respect, it represents an erosion of the interests represented in this place of over 100 million Americans.

As I listen to this debate, I can't help but wonder what our constituents who might be looking down from the gallery and looking in from elsewhere are thinking. How does this affect them? Instructions being promptly or forthwith, motions to recommit.

But really what we are here to object to in this rule package is really the death of democracy in the Democratic Congress. What we do not wish to see is a return to the heavy-handed imperial Congress days that ruled Capitol Hill for some 40 years. And walking away from the provision of the current rules that allows the minority to offer a motion to recommit that would be promptly reported back erodes those minority interests. Repealing term limits on committee chairmen erodes the fundamental principles of reform that the American people voted overwhelmingly into this well in 1994.

And so, as we prepare, 2 weeks from today, to receive a new President of the United States of America, as we are just a few hours past bipartisan speeches, it is important to know and to remind the American people that rules matter. The rules on the back of a box of a board game matter, and the rules of the House matter; and they matter because they determine whether or not the interest of all Americans will be represented in this place.

And, sadly, we begin this Congress in an inauspicious way, learning that change does not equal reform, and I urge that we reconsider this rule.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and thank the doctors and nurses in the Office of the Attending Physician for their work in saving the life of one of my staff members, Matt Lloyd, on the afternoon of October 8, 2008. After getting an allergy shot in the U.S. Capitol building, Matt had an anaphylactic reaction to an allergy shot that caused him to require immediate medical attention. His blood pressure dropped to 60 over 40 and his pulse was 40 beats per minute and dropping. He had very little time left to live.

Thanks to the quick reaction and medical professionalism of Dr. Rob Summerlee, nurses Susan Deans, Lara Crouch, Jean Larson, corpsmen Tom Wolff, David Short and Tre Sutherland, Matt is still with us today. Had each of these professionals, particularly Dr. Summerlee, not reacted in an urgent manner with care and precision, not to mention the correct decision, there is no question Matt would have died.

Too often we take the sacrifice and expertise of those who serve us in the medical field for granted. Yet we are reminded, as in Matt's case, that they must handle an enormous amount of pressure when someone's life is dependent on them making the correct split second decision.

I thank God for placing these good men and women in the nurse's station in the Capitol the day Matt had this reaction and owe them a debt of gratitude for saving his life.

Madam Speaker, we come to this floor in the midst of an extraordinary time in the life of this economy and in the life of our cherished domestic automotive industry.

The American automotive industry is facing a financial crisis. Millions of jobs are on the line. Let me say from my heart, Madam Speaker, inaction by this Congress is not an option, but I rise in opposition to the rule, and I rise in opposition to the legislation that will be brought to the floor under this rule, because I believe the American people know we cannot borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy.

We cannot borrow and spend and bail our way back to a vibrant automotive sector here in the United States. The legislation that will come before the Congress today will take $15 billion in taxpayer money and make it available to the automotive industry, appoint something in the form of a car czar for the purpose of organizing and encouraging the kinds of changes in the industry that Washington, D.C. believes are appropriate.

But I would say the bailout proposed by the White House and congressional

Democrats is fundamentally flawed. It exposes the American taxpayer to more debt, fails to reorganize our domestic auto manufacturers, and does not fix the immediate credit crisis that those good companies are facing.

Instead, the Democrat bill will actually prevent the necessary changes and force us back into the same situation where taxpayers will undoubtedly be asked to bail this industry out again and again and again. The Democrat bailout also seeks to create, as I mentioned, something known as a car czar with the responsibilities of making car companies more profitable, more fiscally responsible. Well, trusting a Washington bureaucrat, who has probably never even tightened a lug nut, with fixing what ails the American automotive industry is not the answer.

Today, House Republicans propose the American Automotive Reorganization and Recovery Plan. It is an effort to lock in the restructuring promised over the last few weeks with firm benchmarks and a tight timeline. Also, in the place of a taxpayer-funded government bailout, House Republicans would encourage private investment to finance a Detroit recovery in this year and the next. It is a solution that will protect our domestic auto industry and the American taxpayer, and that must be paramount in our interest.

Under the Republican plan, the Big Three, having presented their plans for restructuring, would be required to lock in a tight timeline with a high degree of specificity about the kinds of changes that will make our domestic auto industry truly competitive and on parity with those cherished companies that have made foreign investments and are manufacturing cars here in the United States.

Secondly, we would establish a process for reaching an expedited agreement. Instead of nationalizing America's auto companies by having the Federal Government take a stake interest in those companies, an equity and stock position, we would rather say that because of the many legal and contractual hurdles to restructuring, the companies would be urged to accomplish a restructuring through the use of a prepackaged bankruptcy or other legal mechanism to bring all stakeholders to the table for an agreed-upon determination about their future.

With regard to interim financing, again, Madam Speaker, we would not look to the Federal Treasury to finance a recovery in Detroit, but, rather, we would look to the private sector. We would create a hand up, not a hand out, by creating an FDIC-style insurance program where auto companies could be required to purchase insurance as a backstop to private lending that's made into their industry. Now, many of us believe that this would loosen up an extraordinary amount of financing, the so-called debtor-in-possession financing, which is so scarce in our economy today--so a serious reorganization and recovery plan, with hard timelines and urgency.

Secondly, a process using the existing judicial institutions of this country to enforce that restructuring; and, thirdly, a priming of the pump with a new federally backed insurance program to encourage investment in Detroit is the antidote to what ails us. Simply handing $15 billion out to Detroit today, however popular it may be with some Americans, I believe, in my heart, it would ultimately be a disservice to the American taxpayer, to our children, and our grandchildren.

So I urge consideration of the Republican plan, the American Automotive Reorganization and Recovery Plan. I urge my Democrat colleagues to allow such a proposal to come to the floor, and I oppose this rule.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Our Nation is confronted by a serious financial crisis. It's a crisis of confidence in our financial markets and a crisis of confidence in government. While many are anxious about how we will confront this crisis as I saw on the faces of my constituents this week, many more approach this moment with faith, not fear.

We will get through this. But we must do so in a manner consistent with the principles that make America great. The President and Congress were right to act with all deliberate speed and I am confident all my colleagues are motivated by the best interests of the Nation.

It must be said that Republican leaders and my colleagues in the House worked hard to improve this bill. We slowed the process down, removed outrageous subsidies that were to be added and managed to include an optional insurance plan. And because of the principled stand that Republicans took on this floor last Monday, the bank deposits of Americans are safer and the balance sheet of their local bank is more secure. But even with these important improvements, this legislation remains the largest corporate bailout in American history, forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector and passes the cost along to the American people.

I did not come to Washington to expand the size and scope of government. I did not come to Washington to ask working Americans to subsidize the bad decisions of corporate America. Therefore, I cannot support the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.

While this bill promises to bring near-term stability to our financial

turmoil, I ask my countrymen, at what price? The decision to give the Federal Government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupts a basic truth of our economy. When the government chooses winners and losers in the marketplace, every American loses.

Some say this crisis is too acute to rely on antiquated notions about the role of government in the private sector, but I disagree. I believe the principles of limited government, free enterprise and representative government are as relevant today as they were in 1776.

In another October--1964--Ronald Reagan addressed another time for choosing. He said their choice was ``whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.''

There are no easy answers, but the American people deserve to know there were alternatives. House Republicans offered an alternative that would have made Wall Street instead of Main Street pay the cost of this recovery and would have injected liquidity into our markets through fast-acting tax strategies.

Should this current legislation pass and our economy continue to struggle, I am hopeful Congress will turn to these proven remedies based on American ideals. Teddy Roosevelt said, ``An American must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs.''

With this bill we place upon the American public a responsibility which is not theirs: bailing out financial institutions after they made irresponsible business decisions. This we should not do. Instead we should confront this crisis with resolute courage, with faith in God and faith in the principles of freedom and free enterprise. I respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.