Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of extending surface transportation funding for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year before the authorization expires at the end of this week, on March 4th. I support the highway program; it is a critical part of an efficient and effective 21st century transportation infrastructure in the United States. However, I want to highlight a concern I have with an extraneous provision that is included in the language of this extension.

Section 308 of this bill attempts to extend the budget ``firewalls'' in Section 8003 of SAFETEA-LU for highway and transit categories to protect those programs from having to compete for funding against all other discretionary programs should Congress put in place overall discretionary spending caps. More specifically, Section 8003 amends Section 251(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 that expired on September 30, 2002--a law that is squarely within the jurisdiction of the House Budget Committee.

Section 308 of this extension has no substantive effect not only because there are no overall spending caps for FY 2011, but because Clause 3 of Rule XXI in the new House Rules for the 112th Congress eliminated the requirement to uphold such firewalls.

However, if the intention is that this provision should have a substantive effect, it is premature.

There are many tough choices ahead given the fiscal realities we face. We clearly need to set caps on spending. Funding guarantees that protect a certain category of spending prevent lawmakers from having the flexibility to balance other needs within an overall discretionary spending cap. Given the nation's trillion dollar deficits and $14 trillion in debt, Congress should be working to remove, not continue, spending floors in statute.

Furthermore, these highway and transit firewalls were originally established to protect the user-pays/user benefits principle. Unfortunately, the opposite has happened. The Highway Trust Fund is insolvent and has required $35 billion in bailouts since 2008. The Congressional Budget Office projects shortfalls of $140 billion over the next ten years.

These spending guarantees have pushed the Highway Trust Fund deeper into insolvency and have forced it to rely more and more on borrowed money. I am concerned that continuing even the appearance of firewalls for these categories in this extension suggests that spending on these programs is a higher priority than getting deficits under control. It also suggests that surface transportation should get first claim on the Treasury over other priorities for discretionary spending such as Veterans medical care or funding for our troops.

Congress may decide that ultimately highways and transit have such a high priority that we should continue to run high deficits to pay for them, but we should do that as part of the budget process and not part of a short-term highway extension that must be passed quickly or the entire program shuts down.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 3 of House Resolution 5 and

House Resolution 38, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record the allocation for fiscal year 2011 to the Committee on Appropriations.

This interim allocation will be used to enforce sections 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Section 302(f) prohibits the consideration of legislation inconsistent with the budgetary levels set forth in the budget resolution and the accompanying report.

For the Committee on Appropriations, the allocation for fiscal year 2011 is set at $1,055 billion in discretionary budget authority.

This submission also includes language related to Advance Appropriations as required by House Resolution 5.

If there are any questions on this interim allocation, please contact Paul Restuccia, Chief Counsel of the Budget Committee.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I'm enjoying sort of the hyperbolic rhetoric we are hearing here today about one person, one committee, one man dictating in all these things, as if it's an unprecedented action. Well, this move is not unprecedented. The reason this is necessary is unprecedented. It is unprecedented since the 1974 Budget Act passed that Congress didn't bother to pass or even propose a budget.

Madam Speaker, the reason we are here today is because the last majority last year didn't even bother trying. That means we have no budget in place. And with no budget in place, there's no Budget Act to enforce. That means government is going and spending unchecked. No limits. No policemen on the beat. Nothing.

Why are we giving this kind of power to the chairman of the Budget Committee to put these numbers in? Because we don't get the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office until tomorrow. And we've said all along what we aim to do: bring discretionary levels down to pre- bailout, pre-stimulus levels. And then for all the authorizing committees, it has put the CBO baseline in place. The CBO baseline doesn't exist right now. It comes tomorrow. So what we are simply trying to do, Madam Speaker, is get some sense of limits back on spending, is to get some sense of a budget process back in place. We don't think we should have a system, a spending process, without restraints, without limits, without any prioritization. That is exactly why we are doing this.

Business as usual has to come to an end, Madam Speaker, and we've got to put limits on spending. And that is why we have a Budget Act, to police the spending process to make sure that it conforms. But there is no Budget Act, there is no number to police, because they didn't do a budget last year. That is exactly and precisely why this measure is necessary.

So all the rhetoric aside, the days are over of unlimited spending and of no prioritization. And the days of getting spending under control are just beginning. This is a first step in a long process. This is a minimal, small down payment on a necessary process to go forward so that we can leave our kids with a better generation, so we can get this debt under control, so the spending spigot can close, and so we can do right by our constituents and treat their dollars wisely.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 26, I call up the bill (H.R. 2) to repeal the job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to begin by saying why we're doing this, and I want to get into the accounting of all this at a later time in this debate. But let me just simply say why we are here.

We are here because we heard the American people in the last election. We are here because we believe it's really important to do in office what you said you would do. We said we would have a straight up- or-down vote to repeal this health care law, and that's precisely what we are doing here today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why do we believe this? Because this health care law, if left in place, will accelerate our country's path toward bankruptcy. This health care law, if left in place, will do as the President's own chief actuary says it will do: It will increase health care costs. We are already seeing premiums go up across the board. We are already hearing from thousands of employers across the country who are talking about dropping their employer-sponsored health insurance, and we are already hearing about the lack of choices that consumers will get as this new law is put into place. This new law is a fiscal house of cards, and it is a health care house of cards. It does not make our health care system better. I would argue it makes it weaker.

There are two ways to attack this problem, and I want to say in the outset to my friends on the other side of the aisle we agree that health care needs fixing. We agree that there are so many serious, legitimate problems in the health care system that need fixing. Affordable insurance, the uninsured, people with high health care costs and high health care risks, those need to be addressed. But we can fix what's not working in health care without breaking what's working in health care.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would simply say this: We believe we can get to the moment of having affordable health care for every American, regardless of preexisting conditions, without having the government take it over, without $1 trillion of a combination of Medicare benefit cuts and tax increases. We believe in this: Let's have health care reform put the patient in charge, not the government in charge.

I yield myself an additional 20 seconds to simply say we believe that health care ought to be individually based, and it ought to be patient centered.

There are two ways to go: Put the government in charge and have the government put in place rationing mechanisms to tighten the screws and ration health care; or put the consumer in charge and have providers compete for our business as patients, hospitals, doctors, and insurers. That's the system we want.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a new member of the committee but a senior Member of Congress, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes to address some of the charges we've heard.

Number one, they're saying this is a jobs bill. Half a trillion dollars in tax increases creates jobs? That mandates the taxes, that creates jobs?

Others have been saying, well, this isn't going to pass the Senate and the President's not going to sign it, so why bother doing that. If that's the logic we take on every bill we bring to the floor, then we ought to just go home. We think it's important to define ourselves with our actions, and that's why we're acting. We think this law should be totally repealed, and that's why we're doing this.

Let me speak to the fiscal house of cards as represented by this law. The minority is saying, This reduces the deficit. Just look at the letter from CBO to Speaker Boehner. It reduces the deficit by $143 billion over 8 years; $230 billion over 10 years.

It does that if you manipulate the CBO. I've heard charges of Enron accounting. The only Enron accounting that's been employed here is the previous majority gave the CBO a bill full of smoke and mirrors and made them score that.

Well, here's what the CBO says, if you take away the smoke and mirrors. If you take away the fact that there's $70 billion in CLASS Act premiums that are being double-counted; $53 billion in Social Security taxes that are being double-counted; $115 billion in new appropriations required to hire the bureaucracy that wasn't counted; $398 billion in Medicare cuts that are being double-counted; and oh, let's not forget the fact that we're going to do the doctor fix, $208 billion, that we just discounted and ignored.

When you take away the smoke and the mirrors, this thing has a $701 billion deficit. If you don't believe me when I say it that way, how about this way: The CBO says this raises the debt.

Now, how is that different where they say on one hand the bill lowers the deficit but on the other hand it raises the debt? Because when the CBO looks at whether or not a measure raises the debt, they can look at everything. They look at the interplay of all fiscal policies to determine its effects on the debt. When they score a particular bill and its effects on the deficit, they look at what you put in front of them, all the smoke, all the mirrors, the double-counting, the noncounting, the discounting, and they give you that answer.

So if this bill actually lowers the deficit, how on Earth can it then increase the debt? You know why? Because you have to play a phony trick with all this double-counting to do that. What does this bill ultimately do when you really look at it all? This bill blows a hole through the deficit. When you look at the first 10 years, this bill is a $1.4 trillion increase. That's because you have 10 years of tax increases and Medicare cuts to pay for 6 years of spending. But when you actually look at the full 10 years of implementation of this law, $2.6 trillion in spending. $2.6 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this as far as jobs and the effects of this health care bill. I had a very alarming conversation with a very large employer in Wisconsin not too long ago, a privately held company with thousands of employees. She takes good care of her employees.

I yield myself an additional 20 seconds to say this.

She said to me, I believe it's my obligation to offer health insurance to my employees, but my two competitors, my publicly traded competitors, have already said they're dumping their employees. Instead of paying $17,000 a year for employee health care, they're going to pay a $2,000 fine. That's a $15,000 difference that her competitor will have as a competitive advantage against you.

So what did she say? ``I have no choice. I'm dumping my employees into this exchange.'' And thousands of employers are making the same decision. This should be repealed.

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

I yield myself 10 seconds simply to say that if the doc fix should be considered outside, then why did the Democrats have it in their bill in the beginning?

Secondly, either we are financing this entitlement or raiding the Social Security and Medicare funds--you can't do both. If you are going to fund the entitlement with these revenues, then you are consigning to raid Social Security and Medicare.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash), a new member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), a new member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a new member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to a member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have already fairly well established the fact that when you strip out all the budget gimmicks and all the double accounting, ObamaCare is a budget buster. But let's take a look at where we are as a country.

We have a debt crisis coming in America, Mr. Speaker, and the primary reason why we have this mountain of debt is because of our already existing health care entitlements which have a massive unfunded liability. So what did the previous majority do? They just put two new unfunded, open-ended entitlements on top.

Now, a lot of people on the other side of the aisle said health care is a right and we are giving it to the people. Well, if we declare such things as a right to be given to us by government, then it's government's right to ration these things; it's government's right to regulate these things; it's government's right to pick and choose winners and losers. Health care is too important for that. I want to be in control of my and my family's health care. I want individuals to be in control of their health care and their destiny.

We have to ask ourselves when we create these new programs how much of our children's future and our grandchildren's future are we willing to sacrifice to give them this mountain of debt that is getting worse by the passage and creation of this law. This, of all reasons, is why we should vote to repeal.

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

I thank the gentleman from Los Angeles, California, for yielding.

Madam Speaker, it's a good day because we're bringing some fiscal sanity back to this institution. What governed this place with the rules in the last two Congresses was a ruled called PAYGO. Let me walk you through what PAYGO accomplished. Before we had the Democrats' PAYGO rule, the deficit was $161 billion. Now it's $1.4 trillion. Its report card wasn't so good. After the last two Congresses, PAYGO was gimmicked or waived 32 times, to the net total of $932 billion in extra deficit spending. But when PAYGO was used, when it was invoked, it was more often used to raise taxes.

Madam Speaker, we do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. And that is why this brings CutGo--cut-as-you-go. If you want new spending, you better cut spending somewhere else to pay for it.

This does a couple of other things. It gets rid of a gimmick which was used very artfully in the last Congress to use reconciliation procedures to grow more government and create new spending programs. It also adds a new rule that says we need to look at the fiscal consequences in the future of what we're doing--not just in 5 years, not just in 10 years, but in the out years--because the debt crisis is coming, mark my words.

It also gets rid of the automatic debt increase. We used to call this the Gephardt rule. Congress has to vote a clear up-or-down as to whether or not to vote the debt limit. And what also happened last session for the first time since the 1974 Budget Act passed is that the House didn't even propose, let alone pass, a budget. That is why this gives us an interim authority to actually put a budget in place so that we can have a mechanism to actually police the budget. We have no budget; we have no limits; no restraints; no priorities whatsoever because of the failure of the leadership in the last Congress. And that is why this interim authority occurs: so that we can actually put some numbers in from the CBO to police and actually have budget enforcement until the new budget arrives.

Madam Speaker, I was absent for legislative business and missed rollcall vote 663 on December 21, 2010, and rollcall vote 664 on December 22, 2010. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 6547, the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act, and ``no'' on rollcall vote 664 (H.R. 847).

The vote I wish to discuss is the bill H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/ 11 Health and Compensation Act. Without a doubt, Republicans and Democrats can agree that both the victims of the attacks on September 11, 2001, and the first responders who bravely served following the attacks deserve to be fairly treated and compensated. However, this bill would create a new health care entitlement, the World Trade Center Health Program, while also extending eligibility for compensation under the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001. As a result, had I been present, I would have voted against passage of the bill.

Since the terrorist attacks occurred nearly nine years ago, I have supported legislation to ensure that these individuals are cared for and receive access to the services they deserve. However, rather than working with Republicans to craft a bill which truly addressed the shortcomings in care provided to those directly impacted by the September 11th terrorist attacks, the Majority instead rushed this bill to the floor in the waning hours of the 111th Congress, refusing to allow an open debate or consider amendments.

The result is a deeply flawed bill. H.R. 847 creates yet another mandatory spending program--increasing spending by $4.2 billion dollars over 10 years--and paying for it by an excise tax on foreign manufacturers, an extension of Travel Promotion Act fees, and the extension of HI-B visa fees.

There is no doubt that we owe a debt of gratitude to those who came to the rescue of countless individuals following the attacks on September 11, 2001, but these provisions distort that noble goal. At a time when our budget

deficit is $1.3 trillion and our national debt stands at $13.8 trillion, we must accurately account for those programs that take priority. I remain hopeful that as the 112th Congress convenes, my colleagues and I can work together to reform some of my concerns with this proposal and truly provide the services these first responders deserve.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, let me address just a few of the issues that I have been hearing here on the floor. I am hearing some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle saying, ``We just can't afford these tax cuts.'' Well, let's look at it.

Only in Washington is not raising taxes on people considered a tax cut. What we are talking about here is not cutting taxes. We are talking about keeping taxes where they are and preventing tax increases.

The second point: We, meaning the government, can't afford this. Whose money is this, after all? Is all the money that is made in America Washington's money, the government's money, or is it the people's money who earned it? I hear all this talk about the death tax, the estate tax. This is going to give a windfall to these people, all this money going to these privileged people who have built these businesses, made all this money. It's their money.

Which is it? Do we have a country built on equal natural rights, where you can make the most of your life, get up, work hard, take risks, become successful, create jobs, grow businesses, do well, earn success, and, yes, pass it on to your kids? What on Earth is wrong with that? That's the American Dream.

And to my friends on my side of the aisle who simply don't like some of the spending in this bill, I don't like it either. So let's cut the spending next year when we're in charge.

There's junk in the Tax Code. Everybody agrees with this. This is advancing some of the junk in the Tax Code. And what I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle is, next year, let's get rid of that junk in the Tax Code when we're in charge. But right now, let's not hit the American people with a massive tax increase.

If we want to get this debt under control, if we want to get our deficit going down, there are two things we need to be doing: We need to cut spending and we need to grow the economy.

We need prosperity in this country. We need job creation. We need people going from collecting unemployment to having a job and paying taxes so the revenues can reduce the deficit. And if we raise taxes, even the Congressional Budget Office is telling us, if this bill fails and these tax increases continue, we're going to lose 1.25 million jobs next year. Do we want to do that?

Low tax rates give us economic growth. Low tax rates make us competitive in the international economy. Low tax rates allow businesses to plan.

Is this a growth package? No, it's not a growth package. You know why it's not a growth package? Because it still proposes to move this uncertainty forward. It's only a 2-year extension.

So we're not talking about a pro-growth economic package, but we're talking about preventing a destructive economic package from being inflicted on the American people in about 2 weeks. The last thing you want to do is put more uncertainty in the economy, hit the economy with a huge tax increase, trigger a stock market sell-off, and lose jobs.

So do we want to make these permanent? You bet we do. And that's exactly what we're going to be advancing. But the last thing we want to do is inject more uncertainty, raise taxes. We need economic growth. We need spending cuts. That's exactly what we intend on doing. And I think that's the message the voters sent us here. So let's prevent this tax increase from happening. Let's clean up the stuff we don't like in this bill next year. And

let's make sure that when people go to Christmas, they know they're not going to have a massive tax increase 5 days later.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that is necessary to prevent our economy from getting worse. This is not a bill that's going to turn it around. Next year, let's pass the policies that will turn this economy around.

I thank my colleagues on a bipartisan basis for doing this.

As the chief sponsor of this, I rise in support of H.R. 5873, which would designate the United States Postal facility at 218 North Milwaukee Street in Waterford, Wisconsin, as the ``Captain Rhett W. Schiller Post Office.''

In 1999 I had the pleasure of appointing Rhett, Captain Schiller, to the United States Military Academy at West Point, an institution from which he subsequently graduated with a major in Chinese. Following his graduation, Captain Schiller was assigned to the 82nd Airborne at Fort Bragg, first as a platoon leader in Company B and later as an executive officer for Company A of the 3rd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment.

In 2006 he was assigned to the 5th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division. Very cool. It was in this capacity that he was deployed to Iraq as part of a Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition Team.

On his 100th day in the country, while leading a squad of six paratroopers and six Iraqi Army soldiers, Captain Schiller's unit came under small arms fire during a canal cleaning operation. Captain Schiller was killed in action on November 16, 2006.

He has earned the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Iraqi Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Army Ranger Tab, the Expert Infantryman Badge, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Master Parchutist Badge, and he graduated as the honor graduate from his Reconnaissance and Surveillance Leadership course. Captain Schiller also qualified for the Army Commendation Medal.

I knew Rhett Schiller. He was a young man coming out of Waterford,

Wisconsin, in Racine County, idealistic, energetic, extraordinarily gifted, and patriotic. He became a leader in our military in the Army. He served under the command of a very personal close friend of mine, Colonel Andy Poppas from Janesville, Wisconsin, who I grew up with, who also went to West Point, and was his commanding officer.

When we heard that he was killed in action, Andy and I had emailed each other at that time about this. Colonel Poppas emailed Rhett's dad, who had put long years over at S.C. Johnson Wax.

From his own commanding officer, who, like I said, is a good friend of mine, this is a story of a man who was brave. This is a story of a man who cared about his country and who cared about the men and women he served with and who put himself in harm's fire so that he could protect those around him, those he was serving with.

And this is the stuff that makes our country great. It is this kind of dedication, this kind of sacrifice that the best and brightest within our communities come to the military to serve our country and all that it stands for. This is why we do these bills, why we do this dedication, and why it is so wholly proper and fitting to dedicate this post office in Waterford, Wisconsin, the ``Captain Rhett W. Schiller Post Office.''

I'm so proud to do this. I am pleased that my entire Wisconsin delegation are cosponsors of this legislation so that we can have this proper and fitting memorial so that when young people go through the post office, they will know that one among their ranks in their community stood up, offered bravery, service to country. And that is the kind of example that makes this country the freest, greatest, most exceptional, and prosperous country in the world. And I'm just so proud to have known Rhett Schiller and so proud to actually sponsor this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I, along with Representatives Dave Camp of Michigan and Jeb Hensarling of Texas, submit the following statement for the Record with respect to the Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair on the Price (R-GA) Lame-Duck Privileged Resolution.

As members of the Fiscal Commission, we are dedicated to getting spending under control and meaningfully addressing our fast-growing and unsustainable deficits. If the Commission reaches a bipartisan consensus, it is our hope that House and Senate leadership would work on a bipartisan basis to determine how and when those recommendations would be brought to the floor. There is no greater crisis facing America than the unchecked growth of spending that is fueling massive increases in our deficits.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a rule, not a budget, really not a budget enforcement system. We have a rule that will deem to the Appropriations Committee $1.1 trillion to spend on discretionary spending. This really is an unprecedented occurrence here on the House floor, because what is happening is we are marking a moment for the first time since the budget system was created in 1974 that dictated how Congress does budgets.

For the first time since the 1974 Budget Act, the modern budgeting system in Congress, the House isn't going to do a budget. The House is not going to do a budget. They will call this rule budget enforcement, but all it really is is giving up $1 trillion to the Appropriations Committee to spend. No budget, no priorities, no restraints, just turn the spending system on.

Now, the majority talks about PAYGO as their budget enforcement. With all due respect, I think PAYGO is a sham, and whenever it is not circumvented, whenever it is actually applied, it is usually used to raise taxes on the American people.

Another problem, Mr. Speaker, is what they are talking about in this rule is that the President's Fiscal Commission will assemble and bring a recommendation in December, and that will serve as our budget this year, or something to that effect. I am a member of the Fiscal Commission. I hope that we actually do come up with some concrete answers and some fiscal steps in the right direction.

But what is the Fiscal Commission? It is a commission appointed by Executive order by the President of the United States. So in effect are we saying that we are going to delegate the legislative branch's authority and responsibility to budget the power of the purse to an executive branch commission? Are we now simply saying that the President will appoint people and they will write the budget? Whatever happened to protecting the separation of powers? Whatever happened to Congress actually doing its job? Whatever happened to actually passing a budget?

So, what we have here is we have a very tough election year, I suppose, and people don't want to do a budget. But they want to spend. So, for the first time, for the first time since the 1974 Budget Act was in place, the House isn't even doing a budget. We are going to spend the money, but we are not going to account for it. We are not going to prioritize.

So when you take a look at the budget we are living under, the one that

passed last year, the first Obama budget, that is the budget that is the incumbent budget. What does that budget do? It doubles our debt in 5 years and triples our debt in 10 years.

Our debt just hit the $13 trillion mark. We are watching Europe in the throes of a debt crisis because they borrowed too much money, they taxed too much, they slowed down their economies, and now they are in crisis mode. Well, that is exactly what is going to happen here if we don't get our fiscal house in order. That is exactly what the credit markets are going to do to us if we don't show that we are serious about our fiscal responsibilities.

So what is the primary responsibility of the legislative branch of government? Budgeting. And what is this majority doing? They are not budgeting. We are deeming. We are deeming $1.1 trillion so we can start spending. Not budgeting; spending. No restraints, no priorities. Spending.

Mr. Speaker, I really worry about this. I worry a lot about this, because I worry we are sending all the signals--the wrong signals; the wrong signals to the economy, to businesses, to the credit markets, to entrepreneurs, that the Americans don't have their fiscal house in order, that our government isn't functioning because it is not budgeting. That is a shame.

We should reject this and get on to the business of actually budgeting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the sentiment from my friend and colleague from Wisconsin. We introduced this legislation together. We have 76 cosponsors. It's a very simple issue.

Number one, we have a Pittman-Robertson fund, which is a user-fee for hunting and fishing. If you buy firearms, you buy ammunition, there is an excise tax that is paid which goes to the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund for conservation and habitat management.

As the cochair of the Sportsmen's Caucus here in Congress, the largest bipartisan, bicameral caucus in Congress, our job in the caucus is to make sure that we protect not only hunting and fishing rights, but also hunting and fishing habitat. And there is a snafu in the law here, and that's simply what we are trying to clear up. This is a bill that's fully paid for.

This bill is very, very simple. Most of Pittman-Robertson taxes are collected on a quarterly basis. Unfortunately, though, with respect to ammunition and firearms, it's done on a biweekly basis. That is a huge unnecessary burden for manufacturers. There are lots of small manufacturers, Kolar in Racine, Premium Shotguns, you name it. There are lots of small manufacturers out there, and they don't get the cash flow through their business to be able to pay this excise tax on this biweekly basis. They don't get the money from the retailers in time to cover the tax expenses. And therefore what's happening is we are making these manufacturers, especially the smaller ones, have to go out and get loans in order to pay the excise taxes.

All this simply does is harmonize the tax payments schedule to jibe with the other excise taxes that are paid into the Pittman-Robertson fund to a quarterly basis. That simple.

So let's take away this very burdensome regulation, this very burdensome tax compliance regime on small and large manufacturers of firearms and ammunition, harmonize it with the rest of the Pittman- Robertson excise tax collection system, and make sure that these small businesses, which are really struggling, which are the backbone of the conservation funding system, which are huge providers of jobs and recreation in States like Wisconsin and all throughout America, let's just get this cleaned up. Let's pass it. It's bipartisan. It's paid for. This is one of those issues that's sort of rare these days where we have come together to get something that makes perfect common sense.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

At this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a distinguished senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I simply want to say this is a commonsense solution that ought to be passed. It harmonizes the schedule. It takes a burden off of businesses, and I think the gentleman from California put it well.

Yesterday, we saw a great strike for liberty from the Supreme Court where they reaffirmed the individual's right to keep and bear arms in this country. That is now an issue that has been set by the Supreme Court where individuals have rights in this Nation and that the job of government is to protect our equal, natural rights.

So I think it is very fitting that this, on the day after the Supreme Court reaffirmed the individual's right to keep and bear arms, regardless of where they live in America, as citizens of America, that we ought to help ease this burden on the manufacturers of firearms and of ammunition so that they can get back to the business not of just tax collecting on a biweekly basis but of producing, of selling, of creating jobs, and of getting this country moving again.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I voted for this legislation because it avoided deep reductions to Medicare physician pay but was offset to avoid any increase in the deficit. While I support this legislation, I have some concerns about where this leads us in the future.

First, this legislation illustrates why we must fundamentally reform Medicare. Our Nation's physicians who treat Medicare beneficiaries currently face a 21 percent reduction. It is critically important that we correct this. Although this legislation provides a much-needed temporary solution, it makes the Medicare physician problem even greater when this short-term fix expires in six months, requiring a 26 percent reduction to payment rates. That is completely untenable.

Unfortunately, that is precisely the path that the health care bill enacted earlier this year puts us on. In addition to Medicare and Medicaid's obligations, that bill created two new health care entitlements. I think this legislation is the sign of things to come. We will increasingly face difficult reductions to medical providers or require that health care be rationed through government bureaucracies. We will be told that to avoid this we need to either run up the debt or raise taxes on the American people. I think that is a false choice and we should instead fundamentally reform these programs to put them on a sustainable path.

Second, I have some concerns with the pension relief provisions of this bill. Companies are struggling to get by due to a stagnant economy. This legislation will provide temporary pension relief. Under our cash-based budget, these pension relief provisions produce savings over the next ten years. We do not have a full analysis of the long- term consequences of the pension provisions, but it appears these savings are likely to be more than offset by greater federal obligations that will appear outside the ten year window we use to enforce the budget. While this pension relief may make sense in today's economic environment, we need to explore the budgetary impact of these pension provisions to get a better understanding of the full impact before we pursue this as an offset for future legislation.

Madam Speaker, last week, due to a death in the family, I was not present to vote on the House floor. Had I been present, I would have cast the following votes:

Rollcall 291: H. Con. Res. 278 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree--``yes.''

Rollcall 292: H.R. 1017 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass as Amended--``yes.''

Rollcall 293:. H.R. 5330 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--``yes.''

Rollcall 294: H.R. 5145 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--``yes.''

Rollcall 295: H. Res. 1258 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended--``yes.''

Rollcall 296: H. Res. 1382 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 297: H. Res. 584 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 298: H.R. 3885 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 299: H.R. 2711 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Concur in the Senate Amendments--``yes.''

Rollcall 300: H. Res. 1189 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 301: H. Res. 1172 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 302: H. Res. 1347 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 303: H. Res. 1385 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 304: H. Res. 1316 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree as Amended--``yes.''

Rollcall 305: H. Res. 1169 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended--``yes.''

Rollcall 306: H. Con. Res. 282 On Agreeing to the Resolution--``no.''

Rollcall 307: H. Res. 1404 On Agreeing to the Resolution--``no.''

Rollcall 308: H. Res. 1161 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 309: H. Res. 1372 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 310: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``yes.''

Rollcall 311: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``yes.''

Rollcall 312: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''

Rollcall 313: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``yes.''

Rollcall 314: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''

Rollcall 315: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''

Rollcall 316: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``yes.''

Rollcall 317: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''

Rollcall 318: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``yes.''

Rollcall 319: H.R. 5136 On Approving the Journal--``no.''

Rollcall 320: H. Res. 1391 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended--``yes.''

Rollcall 321: H. Res. 1403 On Ordering the Previous Question--``no.''

Rollcall 322: H. Res. 1403 On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''

Rollcall 323: H. Res. 1403 On Agreeing to the Resolution, as Amended--``no.''

Rollcall 324: H.R. 4213 On Concurring in the Senate amdt with amdt (except portion comprising section 532--``no.''

Rollcall 325: H.R. 4123 On concurring in Senate amdt with portion of amdt comprising section 523--``no.''

Rollcall 326: H.R. 5116 First Portion of the Divided Question-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 327: H.R. 5116 Second Portion of the Divided Question-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 328: H.R. 5116 Sixth Portion of the Divided Question-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 329: H.R. 5116 Seventh Portion of the Divided Question-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 330: H.R. 5116 Eighth Portion of the Divided Question-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 331: H.R. 5116 Ninth Portion of the Divided Question-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 332: H.R. 5116 On Passage--``no.''

Rollcall 333: H.R. 5136 On Agreeing to the En Bloc Amendments, as Modified--``yes.''

Rollcall 334: H.R. 5136 Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair-- ``no.''

Rollcall 335: H.R. 5136 On Motion to Recommit with Instructions-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 336: H.R. 5136 On Passage--``no.''

Madam Chair, Last week, the House of Representatives considered an amendment offered by Congressman Patrick Murphy to H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, to repeal the Armed Forces personnel policy of ``don't ask, don't tell.'' Due to a death in the family, I was not present for the vote on the House floor. Had I been present, I would have voted against this amendment.

While I believe no American should be denied the ability to serve their country because of their sexual orientation, it is important to balance this commitment to serve with the practical implications of this dramatic policy change.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff repeatedly asked Congress to allow the Department of Defense the time to complete its comprehensive review of ``don't ask, don't tell'' before taking legislative action to change this policy. These requests were denied by the Majority, whose actions imply that Members of Congress are in a better position to determine personnel policies than military leaders themselves.

We have a responsibility to consider the views of those men and women in uniform, and a duty to allow the leaders of our Armed Forces to finish their review before taking premature legislative action. By refusing to take into consideration the ongoing review by the Department of Defense, the Majority risks undermining the relationship between our elected leaders and the men and women serving our Nation. I have serious concerns with the potential for this preemptive decision to negatively impact our military's ability to recruit, retain, and ready servicemembers now and in the future.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and to say thank you to Martin Leonard Skutnik. Lenny is retiring after 30 years of service to the Congressional Budget Office. As you know, Madam Speaker, the Budget Committee relies heavily on CBO and on the professionalism, dedication, and competence of its staff--and those are the very traits I think of when I think of Lenny Skutnik: professional, dedicated, and competent. Lenny paid perhaps one of the highest compliments an employee can pay to his employer when he said recently that he was ``proud to have been a part of it [CBO].'' That pride was evident in his work and the support he provided CBO in ensuring its products were printed and disseminated in a timely manner.

Lenny had a career at CBO of which he can be proud and Lenny--through his unforgettable actions on a cold day in January nearly 30 years ago--filled this nation with pride even as we watched the fate of Air Florida Flight 90 in horror. On that January 13th, which will forever be remembered by those who then lived and worked in and around Washington, DC, Lenny provided a very real face to heroism. Lenny pushed his own safety to the back of his mind, defied logic, and willingly jumped into the icy waters of the Potomac to help those in need. Lenny's humility and grace keep him from acknowledging he did anything extraordinary, yet we know differently. Lenny's actions provide inspiration to us all and provide a vivid example for us to use when describing the concept of heroism to our children.

Madam Speaker, the Congress was fortunate to have Lenny Skutnik as an employee for the last 30 years and this nation is proud to call Lenny one of its own. I wish him a long, healthy, and happy retirement. He has earned it.