Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on behalf of my amendment to the fiscal year 2010 Agriculture Appropriations bill.

This amendment would simply maintain funding for the Food and Drug Administration at the same level as last year. It would save taxpayers $373 million. As American families struggle to tighten their fiscal belts and spend less, I believe Congress should stop spending so much.

Tragically, many of my colleagues were not allowed the opportunity to bring their amendments up for debate today. Because Democratic leaders have changed the traditional process, American families have missed over 70 opportunities to reduce wasteful programs and to fix what's broken here in Washington, the outrageous spending that we're doing.

You would think in these difficult times that Congress would be willing to restore the people's faith in the way that we spend their money. I think most people would like for us to be more frugal. For my part, I also tried to offer an amendment to reduce the bill's funding level by half of a percent, 0.5 percent, a reduction of just half a penny out of every dollar spent, but that amendment was not allowed to be offered on the floor today, as well as were many others that I offered.

Other amendments I offered would have saved hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars by eliminating double dipping, maintaining other programs at the 2009 levels, and preventing the purchase of new Federal lands, but these amendments were not allowed either.

Mr. Chairman, as the House conducts one of its most important tasks, the appropriation of funds, we owe it to the American families and people to have an open debate, to allow all ideas to be heard, and to work towards real fiscal constraint here in Washington. We can do that in a bipartisan manner, but we're not allowed to do so by the leadership. In fact, the Democrats should be as outraged as I am that their voice is not heard either. Debate is being stifled, and it's not right. It's not fair not only to us, but it's not fair to the American people.

We have to stop this outrageous spending that we're doing. I urge my colleagues to support my modest and simple amendment.

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

Would the gentlelady yield?

Mr. Chairman, maybe the gentlewoman doesn't know that I'm a physician. I'm concerned about people's health. And my amendment won't do a thing to cut all those programs that you're accusing me of trying to cut. And I resent the fact that you're accusing me of trying to cut that because I'm not trying to hurt people. I'm not trying to harm folks. I'm not trying to stop research. And my amendment wouldn't do that.

My amendment would simply put the funding at the current level. We are stealing our grandchildren's future by spending so much money, by creating a huge debt. I'm not picking on the FDA. What I'm trying to do is I'm trying to save my grandchildren's future. And what we have right now with this bill is a 14 percent increase in funding over last year. That's outrageous. And I resent the fact that you're saying that I'm going to cut all these programs, because my amendment will not.

And, frankly, I just don't understand this kind of emotional debate because it's not debate and it's not correct. The thing that I want to do is I want to save my grandchildren's future by stopping this outrageous, egregious spending that we're doing here. We don't have the money.

Let's keep all these programs. I would love to see us have continuing resolutions for all these appropriations bills across the board, freeze the spending for at least a year.

The people in my district are suffering. Most counties have a 13 to 14 percent unemployment rate. And what we are doing is we are increasing the budget for this bill, for this appropriations bill, by 14 percent. That's outrageous.

And I tell you, the American people should be outraged. They should be calling every single congressional office and saying ``no'' to these spending bills that are just basically stealing our children and grandchildren's future.

We have got to stop this spending. It's absolutely ridiculous. It's going to bankrupt this country, if we're not already bankrupt. And I'm just trying to save spending the taxpayers' dollars. It's absolutely critical that we do that.

The budget that was presented by our President increases the debt over the next 5 years more than every single President since George Washington. I

hear your side keep talking about the debt President Bush created. I wasn't here during that time. I voted against all the bills that we have had since I've been up here, and I think George Bush was wrong in creating that much debt. But your President and my President is creating more debt than George Bush and every other President in history.

We need to stop this spending.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I want to give my personal congratulations to Congresswoman Tauscher, and I just look for great things out of you. Congratulations.

I rise to speak against this rule. This rule is blatantly unfair to the American people. It is quashed. It is. It has prevented good amendments to be introduced on this floor and to have the proper debate that we should have over something that is extremely important, as this bill is. We have just gotten this, but let me tell what you this bill is, America, Madam Speaker. This bill is going to kill millions of jobs in America. People are going to be put out of work because of this bill.

Now, we hear all the time about global warming. Actually, we have had flat-line temperatures globally for the last 8 years. Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human-induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus.

But this is going to kill jobs. It's going to raise the cost of food. It's going to raise the cost of medicines. It's going to raise the cost of electricity and gasoline. Every good and service in this country is going to go up, and who is going to be hurt most? The poor, the people on limited income, the retirees, the elderly, the people who can least afford to have their energy taxes raised by, MIT says, over $3,100 per family.

This rule must be defeated. This bill must be defeated. We need to be good stewards of our environment, but this is not it. It's a hoax.

I encourage people to vote against the rule and the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of the amendment to restore $1.2 billion in funding for missile defense.

Just yesterday, North Korea threatened to wipe the United States off the map. It is unconscionable that we would decrease funding for our missile defense system during a period where North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs and ballistic missiles pose a real and increasing threat to the United States.

In May, Iran test-fired a new two-stage, medium-range, solid fuel, surface-to-surface missile which could reach Europe, Israel, and United States forces deployed in the Persian Gulf. This $1.2 billion cut forces an unnecessary choice between protecting our homeland against longer-range missiles and protection of our forward-deployed troops and allies against shorter-range missiles. The threat will only continue to increase over the next decade as technology increases for them. We are decades behind in having a comprehensive multilayered system.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chairman, the House is now considering the Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010.

Appropriations bills have traditionally been brought to the floor under an open rule where all relevant amendments are allowed to be offered to the bill. Sadly, the majority has decided to reject precedent. We're once again operating under a structured rule on an appropriations bill.

And what is the reason given for silencing the representatives of millions of Americans? Time. In their push to get through massive spending bills, the leadership in this House have decided that doing so quickly is more important than having a quality debate on how the taxpayers' money is being spent. Not allowing votes on relevant amendments is a historic blow against the rights of all Members of this great institution. More importantly, this Democratic stunt muzzles the voices of the American people. Only 13 amendments out of 105 that were offered in the Rules Committee were made in order. I personally offered 12 without a single one made in order. And to think that we Republicans are the ones being called ``childish.'' Come on.

At a time when our Nation faces an economic crisis, record debt, rising unemployment, this year's Interior Appropriations bill spends a whopping 17 percent more than last year.

One of my amendments that was not allowed would have simply reduced the amount appropriated under this act by a mere half of a percent, 0.5 percent. That's half a penny for every dollar that the Federal Government spends. Another amendment of mine would have reduced the amount of appropriations in this bill by the amount of unobligated stimulus funds that was given earlier this year.

The Founding Fathers gave Congress the sole power of the purse. In article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution it specifies that ``no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.'' Many of the Founding Fathers believed that the power of the purse is the most important power of Congress.

In Federalist No. 58, James Madison wrote: ``This power of the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people for obtaining a redress of every grievance and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.''

Whether you believe that the Federal Government is spending too much money, as I do, or not enough, the American people deserve an open process that allows votes on how we spend their money, regardless of how much time it takes.

The appropriations process is one of the primary ways that Congress exercises that power given to us by the Constitution.

I ask that the majority leadership reconsider this dangerous path we are headed down. All Members of Congress must be allowed to offer all relevant amendments on all appropriations bills and let the people's voices be heard. Please let their voices be heard on the floor of this House.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise today in strong opposition to this rule. I submitted six amendments to this bill. And I am outraged that the Democrats have denied my rights to debate and receive a vote on any of them today. And actually they not only denied my right, but they are denying Americans the ability for us to present amendments that will stop this outrageous spending.

One of my amendments would have added funding to the 287(g) program, which provides State law enforcement with the training and subsequent authorization to identify a process and then, when appropriate, detain immigration offenders that they encounter during their regular job as law enforcement. I had many amendments. But the Democrats denied my constituents, denied the American people, the ability to have my voice and others' heard.

They are stealing our grandchildren's future with this outrageous spending. We have got to stop it. The American people need to stand up and say ``no'' to this steamroller of socialism that is being brought by the Democratic majority and their leadership.

Madam Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise today in adamant opposition to this rule.

This is one of many rules which do nothing but censor our side from being able to put forth amendments that make sense, that cut the size of the Federal Government, that cut the size of the huge growth in Federal spending.

Now under the Constitution, national defense should be and must be the major function of the Federal Government. We have to have a strong national Federal defense, and we have to have the experts tell us how that comes about. We need to have the experts tell us what defense systems are needed, such as the F-22.

The prior speaker was talking about how it's unneeded and how those funds could be utilized for social programs, but I disagree. National defense should and must be the major function of the Federal Government. We need to fund our defense because we have people around this world, countries as well as the terrorists, who want to destroy what this country stands for. So we need to fund missile defense; we need to fund the F-22; we need to fund those defense programs as well as the research and development that's absolutely critical to make sure that we stay a sovereign and a secure nation.

But also many Republican amendments were submitted. In fact, I submitted some myself. But the majority decided to stifle our ability to be able to bring those amendments to the floor, to talk about things that Members of Congress think are very important in this bill. But we were hushed. Our voices were quieted. Why? Because we have a steamroller of socialism that's being forced down the throats of the American people. We're trying very hard on our side to stop the outrageous spending. We're trying on our side to have a fiscally responsible government, not only in defense spending but also all across the board. We have an energy tax that's being proposed just this week that's going to cost jobs. It's going to put people literally out of work. It's going to raise the cost of food, medicine and all goods and services in this Nation.

Unfortunately, over and over again we've seen this majority, the leadership of this Congress, prevent Republican proposals from being brought to this floor, from being debated, from being presented to the American public for public examination and for us to be able to debate them. But we've been censored, and it's wrong. The American public needs to stand up and say ``no.'' I very adamantly encourage my colleagues to say ``no'' to this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution. This judge should be, and I think will be, impeached with this resolution. And it's about time for this body to do its constitutional authority, to be a check on judges. Unfortunately, this Congress has not fulfilled its constitutional authority in many instances.

Article I, section 1, sentence 1 says, all legislative powers therein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

We have had a perversion of the Constitution by both administrations of both parties in the Presidency, as well as by Congress. The Constitution has been perverted. We all swear to uphold the Constitution against enemies, both foreign and domestic. We've got a lot of domestic enemies of the constitution, and I think enough is enough.

Under the Constitution, in the writings of our Founding Fathers in the Federalist Papers, including the first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, they very clearly delineated what they meant for the Constitution to mean. And it's time that we, as Congress, took our rightful places, being the strongest power of the Federal Government, to stop this spending, to stop the destruction of our children's and grandchildren's future.

I rise in support of the resolution.

This afternoon . . . the House of Representatives will exercise one of the great checks and balances built into the United States Constitution . . . the power to impeach.

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment.

Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution lays out the criteria for who can be impeached and for what offenses . . . It specifies that-- ``the President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for . . . and conviction of . . . treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.''

These ``civil officers'' include federal judges and cabinet members.

The serious nature of impeachment is evident as the House of Representatives has only moved to impeach 18 officials in more than two centuries . . . This includes two presidents . . . one cabinet member . . . one senator . . . and 13 judges--not including today's proceedings.

Judge Samuel B. Kent . . . of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas . . . has pled guilty to unwanted, non- consensual sexual contact with two employees . . . testifying falsely before a special investigative committee of the federal judiciary . . . and making false statements to the Department of Justice.

His crimes certainly fit the high standard for impeachment that our Founding Fathers intended . . . I applaud the members of the Judiciary Committee on both sides of the aisle for exercising their Constitutional duty and moving this to the full House for a vote.

When thinking about today's historic action . . . I also think about how far Congress and the Federal Government have strayed from what our Founding Fathers intended.

One only needs to read the historic Federalists Papers . . . written by three of the most prominent authors of our U.S. Constitution including the very first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice . . . to understand that our Founding Fathers intended Congress to be the strongest and most powerful of the three branches of government.

Yet, too often in this modern era . . . we the Congress . . . have abdicated our power to legislate . . . allowing the Judicial and Executive branches to greatly expand their roles far beyond what the framers of our Constitution ever intended . . . all while taking liberty away from the American people.

Today, the Executive and Judicial Branches are sadly doing the job of the Legislative Branch . . . regardless of which party sits in the White House or in the Speaker's chair.

President George W. Bush went forward with the auto bailout despite Congress's clear opposition . . . President Barack Obama has created numerous unconstitutional ``Czars'' with massive power once reserved for Senate-confirmed officials.

Executive Orders were once rarely used . . . but today they have become the norm for Presidents to bypass Congress and judicial review.

And today, our federal benches are filled with judicial activists who are hell-bent on legislating from the bench.

When is this madness going to end?

When is this body . . . the United States Congress . . . going to reclaim the power the Constitution has given this institution . . . intended to protect the liberties of the American people?

Today we are exercising our Constitutional authority to remove a judge who clearly is not fit to serve. But this should also serve as a wake-up call to this legislative body that our work should not stop with just this one vote.

We must continue to bring accountability to those who violate their constitutionally-permitted responsibilities. . . . Those who legislate from the bench . . . without regard to the will of the people . . . Those who by-pass the Congress to institute policy.

As our Nation's first President once said: ``Government is not reason, nor eloquence . . . It is force . . . And like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.''

Today, we may use force to impeach . . . But we should constantly remind ourselves that this Nation sits on the precipice . . . looking to us for direction.

I urge my colleagues to not only support this resolution to impeach Judge Kent . . . I also urge them to take this opportunity to reflect on where we are headed as a legislative body . . . to stand up and take back the authority granted by the U.S. Constitution on behalf of the American people we represent.

Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move the reconsideration of the vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move for reconsideration of the vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, I was unable to vote on the following bills: H. Res. 430, H.R. 2325, H.R. 729, and H. Res. 540. If I had been able to make these votes, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 430, ``yea'' on H.R. 2325, ``nay'' on H.R. 729, and ``yea'' on H. Res. 540.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today with an amendment which will strip funding from the bill that is aimed at implementing a new National Climate Service. At best, this new Federal agency is duplicative. At worst, this is an egregious waste of taxpayer dollars for an endeavor which is not even based on sound science.

Mr. Chairman, there is no consensus among policymakers, academics, researchers or bureaucrats about how a National Climate Service should even be structured, and yet here we are funding it. This lack of agreement was not more evident than during a Science and Technology subcommittee hearing just last month regarding the development of this exact agency.

At that hearing, four alternate structured proposals were presented by different witnesses. They ranged from merging existing agencies to the creation of a nonprofit entity to provide this research, but each and every one of them was shot down.

In order to implement any entity of this nature, we must first be sure that the infrastructure for monitoring our weather and climate patterns is already in place, but that infrastructure is currently not there. In fact, according to the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. climate observing system is in rapid decline. This includes both our ground-based and our satellite-based measuring systems. Updating these systems and making sure of the information they provide should be the foremost priority when it comes to monitoring our climate.

In fact, just today, in the Committee of Science and Technology, we just heard how the polar orbiting satellite system has tremendous cost overruns, how they're not flying the satellites and how NOAA and the Defense Department, particularly NOAA, desperately need these satellites to help them give us proper weather predictions. Yet we're not funding that. We're funding this National Climate Service, and we're putting off these pressing needs. We're focusing on establishing yet another bureaucratic web to navigate through. We're doing nothing more than decreasing efficiency and increasing Federal red tape.

What we know for sure is that this new, unnecessary agency will grant broad-sweeping authority to the executive branch with little congressional input. That's it. The details are being left up to some Federal bureaucrat. As we all know by now, the devil is in the details.

Additionally, there is an absolute dearth of information regarding the costs and benefits of setting up such an entity. Without such basic knowledge, how in the world can we, in good conscience, fund this rudderless endeavor? We have no assurances that this National Climate Service will turn out to be anything more than a new regulatory agency for the proposed tax-and-cap scheme, but maybe that's really the goal here.

I do not like to think ill of the intentions of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle; but with such an ambiguous mandate with, obviously, little congressional oversight, what else are we to assume?

Time and time again, this Congress has jumped headfirst into the deep end of issues which we still know little about. The Wall Street bailout, the auto bailout, the stimulus, and now the National Climate Service are all prime examples of how Congress' eyes are bigger than its grasp.

So I ask my colleagues to please support my amendment. Let's reevaluate this attempt at funding an impudent new agency. Let's stop the funding for the new National Climate Service. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, I respectfully disagree with my friend that this is not the place. We are throwing money at something that has not been established, and you're funding something that's not needed--a whole new agency. NOAA has no clue of how to deal with this new National Climate Service. In the Science Committee, we've gone through the authorization process, and we've had multiple proposals given to us. Over and over again, the majority has shot down every proposal besides just establishing this new agency that's not needed.

Nobody knows how to operate this thing. Nobody knows what it's going to do. If, indeed, this is funded, it is going to totally remove from Congress any oversight or anything else, and it is going to put it in the executive branch. We've got to save the taxpayers' dollars. We've got to stop this egregious spending of money that we don't have. It just has to stop.

Will the gentleman yield?

Will you assure me that, in conference, if the authorizers do not put into place an authorization of new climate service that no funds will be expended on establishing a new National Climate Service?

Will the gentleman yield?

Well, there are funds appropriated, and they are in this bill to establish this unneeded, totally unauthorized Climate Service, and I am adamantly against establishing that.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we have heard it a thousand times that every vote counts, but, Mr. Chairman, if we allow for the use of the practice known as ``statistical sampling,'' as this bill clearly allows, it is my fear that every voter will not be counted and maybe some voters might be counted more often than others.

Since the new administration has come into office, they have made it known that they plan on politicizing this basic constitutional function of the Federal Government. At a time when the Federal Government is endlessly enacting unconstitutional laws and executive orders, it is incumbent upon this body to safeguard at least one obligation that is required of us by the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution requires the government to take an actual head count. Not a guess, not an estimate, but a physical head count. Statistical sampling, however, simply creates profiles and assumes how many people live in various parts of our country, and it does not actually do any counting.

In other words, sampling makes people up. It even guesses their age, their sex, their race, and even their background. Implementing this process would undoubtedly leave the census open to massive amounts of fraud and political tinkering. With groups out there like ACORN, who are potentially in line to be entrusted by our government anyway, allowing sampling to be used in addition to their already known shady practices, we might as well just say we don't care in the least about getting accurate results. Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. We must take legitimate steps to ensure the integrity of next year's census.

I believe there was another amendment made by my friend Mr. McHenry from North Carolina that would have done even more to ensure the integrity of this process. Mr. McHenry and my friend and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) have worked tirelessly on this very issue. They know more than any other Members in this Chamber the pitfalls and the constitutional concerns that come with the use of statistical sampling, both as it relates to the census and to the apportionment process of this very body. But because of this gag rule that the majority has imposed upon us, Mr. McHenry's amendment will not be eligible to be debated, which is shameful. This is just one example of how the Democrats' decision to completely close off the amendment process for this bill is ending up shutting out meaningful debate.

The tactics employed yesterday in the dead of the night are completely against the promise of openness and honesty that this body is supposed to stand for.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I respectfully disagree with my friends on the other side. This doesn't have anything to do with the American Community Survey. It has to do with the census, and that's the reason that the amendment is written the way that it is written. It says the census and the census only. It has to do with the census. It has to do with the apportionment that's based on the census. And the Constitution requires actual counting, not statistical surveys or statistical sampling. It is to ensure integrity that we know who's here and what they're all about. And that's what my amendment is all about.

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

Mr. Chairman, this whole amendment process is flawed. We had other amendments that were maybe considered better. And because of these flaws, the American people surely will not receive the accurate census that the Constitution requires that they receive next year.

We have made many efforts to try to cut spending, but those were all counted out of order too by the new rule. This is a flawed process that is deplorable, and we should have let the process go on. And I find it detestable, frankly.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Broun of Georgia

Amendment No. 48: At the appropriate place in the bill

insert the following

Sec. . The amount of the discretionary appropriations

otherwise made available in this Act for any department or

agency is hereby reduced by .5 percent.

Offered By: Mr. Broun of Georgia

Amendment No. 50: At the appropriate place in the bill,

insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Broun of Georgia

Amendment No. 36: Page 78, line 17, insert ``(reduced by

$5,000,000)'' after ``$440,000,000''.