Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today Republicans are on the floor of the House of Representatives speaking out on behalf of the American people that we believe that the leadership of this House of Representatives should bring forth a budget, a budget that would give the American people more confidence in this body. We are at record low numbers of people who have confidence in the leadership of the House of Representatives, the ability to lead this country in a direction that will bring us closer to jobs and addressing the issues of this Nation.

We just got the budget numbers that come in from May, and through May of this year, we have a $936 billion deficit. Mr. Speaker, the American people understand that we must have a road map, a road map to lead America back to where we become an employer Nation again. Taxing, spending, and unemployment will not lead us that way.

I urge this House leadership, the Democrats, please bring forward a budget where the American people can be part of this debate.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Carolyn Garver for her hard work and dedication to advocating on behalf of children with autism.

Dr. Garver's lifelong passion of working with children with autism began in 1979 when she joined the Autism Treatment Center, where she currently serves as Program Director. In addition to her years of experience, she is a licensed Child Care Administrator and holds a Ph.D. in Health Studies. Dr. Garver is a recognized expert in autism and has presented at numerous national and international forums, most notably at the Indo-U.S. Science and Technology Forum in New Delhi, India in September 2006. She also presented at the 2008 Texas State Conference on Autism and the Texas State Head Start Association on Autism Spectrum Disorder. She also serves on the Advisory Task Force at Texas Tech University's Burkhart Center's Autism Program and is a Board Member of the Dallas Chapter of the Autism Society of America.

Dr. Garver has devoted her life to this worthy cause, working closely with families, individuals, and agencies. She is a tireless advocate and a remarkable woman that possesses great compassion, patience, knowledge, and hope--hope for a brighter future for individuals with autism.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. Carolyn Garver for her dedicated efforts to empowering individuals with autism and helping them reach their full potential.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend from Colorado, for giving me such time as the Republicans may have, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this will be the 31st time that I have handled a rule on this House floor in this Congress, and this is the 31st time that I have yet to handle an open rule. In fact, out of the over 120 rules of this Congress, we have not debated one open rule. Not one open rule this Congress.

I don't believe that closing debate, limiting amendments, and shutting Democrats and Republicans out of thoughtful ideas is a good way to run this House. And I know and you know, and I say this often, that our Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, promised when she told the American people that she would run the most open, honest, and ethical Congress, I don't think she had this in mind, and I know we didn't as Republicans; and I don't think the American people did, not to have one open rule this Congress.

I know we are getting ready to finish this Congress in a couple months. But one would think that when the Speaker spoke those words, she had something in mind other than closed rules or some modified rules. Open, honest, ethical. Not one open rule this Congress.

One thing that I do have the opportunity to say today, however, Madam Speaker, is that the call for a vote on the previous question to allow for this week's YouCut winner will be good. YouCut is the new Republican online voting tool for Americans to pick what wasteful government spending they would like to see cut every week and which should be an agenda on this floor every week.

I admire the majority for finally having a bill that saves the taxpayer money. Don't know how many times that's happened in this Congress or under this Speaker. But what I can tell you is hundreds of thousands of Americans this week have been on the YouCut site, and they came up with lots of answers. So I applaud the Democrat majority for coming up with, finally, a bill which will save taxpayers money.

Additionally, today we are here to discuss an important step in providing the Department of Housing and Urban Development, also known as HUD, with the tools it needs to supervise and monitor the single- family mortgage insurance program run through the Federal Housing Administration, known as FHA. That's what we are here for, and I am glad that this bill is here. Saving money and running the government more efficiently, and providing the tools, is what Congress should be for.

It is necessary to understand why these changes are important. And in my opinion, my colleagues, who really work across party lines, need to do more of this kind of work of helping rather than providing more rules and regulations. The continued importance of protecting the taxpayer is primary and important to people who are paying the taxes. They want to know that there should be more work like this being done in Washington.

As the housing market collapsed over the last 2 years, private lenders have scaled back their activities, with the FHA significantly increasing its share of the single-family mortgage market from less than 5 percent to now more than 30 percent. With higher mortgage share comes increased taxpayer exposure. The elevated levels of delinquencies and foreclosures across this Nation have had a detrimental effect on the financial health of the FHA, which is why reforms in this legislation are an essential piece of fixing and addressing this problem today.

I applaud the gentleman, Mr. Frank, and I applaud the gentlewoman, Mrs. Capito, for working together, for essentially bringing a huge part of Mrs. Capito's bill to the floor today. The taxpayers have already paid their fair share for bailouts and failed stimulus programs, resulting in record debts and record deficits. It's important to bring some stability and to recognize problems before they happen.

H.R. 5072 incorporates a majority of the provisions from my friend, Ranking Member Shelley Moore Capito's, legislation, H.R. 4811, the FHA Safety and Soundness and Taxpayer Protection Act. This legislation from Representative Capito provides additional enforcement, the financial and risk assessment tools necessary to adequately administer the program, to detect fraud and abuse, and to strengthen underwriting standards and, perhaps best of all, to protect the taxpayer.

While the legislation is a step in the right direction, it is important to note that the benefits of using government subsidies to promote homeownership to be more balanced against the potential risk of insuring less creditworthiness with borrowers, and exposing the taxpayer to additional risk, is perhaps the best part of this bill. It is extremely important to have proper underwriting, and to ensure that potential home buyers have the appropriate amount of personal funds invested in the transaction to make sure that the housing market does not collapse again.

Madam Speaker, while this legislation is an important step, Congress should do more to protect the taxpayer from having to suffer the consequences of bailouts in another government housing program.

Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey, also on the Financial Services Committee, offered several amendments which were not made in order by the Rules Committee, and so they will not be voted on today on the floor.

These amendments, however, are worthy of speaking about it. They would have protected taxpayers from yet another government bailout as we were setting the rules for the future to say the Federal Government should not be in the bailout business.

My friends on the other side of the aisle once again continued to shut out not just Scott Garrett but taxpayers and people who had ideas, that are called Members of Congress, and not allow a debate on commonsense solutions that save the taxpayer money.

Once again, I applaud the gentleman, Mr. Frank, for bringing this bill to the floor, but we need more and more discussion about how we limit taxpayer exposure.

I believe that Congress and the administration must be extremely cautious and always vigilant in their oversight of this program and others to make certain that the program is adequately capitalized and is run in a safe and sound manner that protects the taxpayer from the need not only for another bailout but wasteful government spending.

Additionally, as the housing market begins to stabilize, we must begin to look for ways to decrease reliance on the Federal Government guarantees and encourage the reentry of private capital and investment in the mortgage market.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) to discuss his ideas on this bill.

Madam Speaker, a couple times ago when I was on the floor and we were doing the rule, we got into this debate about blaming George Bush for everything, and I would simply remind my colleague, as I did that day, I'd pin the tail on the donkey. We know who controls the spending and taxing around here.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the favorite son from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Madam Speaker, I am glad the gentleman was forthright that he tried to kill the bill that passed the House, went to the Senate and died, the GSE reform bill. The gentleman did say he voted against it, and he did.

I would also remind the gentleman, today is today, and where's the budget? Where's the budget for the House to vote on? Where's the budget? Deafening silence. We should be doing the budget, the budget where the people of the United States find out what the glide path and direction should be for this country for all this spending. Deafening silence, Madam Speaker. Where's

the leadership there? We were talking about a small FHA bill. How about for the United States, all the spending that's going to happen? So, once again, pin the tail on the donkey.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

If I could answer the gentleman's question, Madam Speaker, of how many more speakers, I've got three or four more speakers.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Charleston, West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), former mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, now a Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wheaton, Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

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

Mr. Speaker, I gather that the gentleman from Colorado is now, by shaking his head, through with other speakers, and I will go ahead and offer my close. And I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's interesting that we blame George Bush, and yet he never got a bill to sign. It's a pretty interesting concept when we blame the President for something that never came to his desk.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans continue to offer commonsense solutions to rein in the current spending spree by our Democratic colleagues. We, like the American people, would like to see some transparency and accountability from our elected leaders.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to vote on the previous question.

The legislation before us today brings some stability to the currently wavering housing market; but Americans are still concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the Democratic agenda, the Democratic agenda of taxing and spending, the Democratic agenda that the three largest political items by this Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and President Barack Obama will lose 10 million American jobs, ten million American jobs that still hang in the balance based upon the whims of this majority party.

Mr. Speaker, I think that increasing deficits, increasing spending, more taxes on business, shrinking job numbers, it's a sad day if we want to look back and blame everything on George Bush, and yet we know why this is happening. For that reason, I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question to bring some fiscal sanity and restraint to this body and a ``no'' vote on the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It seems like every time I come to the House floor, I point out that my Democratic colleagues are using an unprecedented, restrictive, and closed process on the House floor, and here I go again to tell the exact same story. In fact, I am not even sure anyone on the House floor knows what we are debating or getting ready to vote on right now. It's amazing. Bill after bill, day after day. We were provided with a copy of the final bill at 9:06. I guess that beats 3:15 in the morning.

Mr. Speaker, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic majority promised the American people that they would run the most open, honest, and ethical Congress. To date, this Congress and I think the last one has seen more backroom deals, arm twisting, and more partisan negotiations than ever before. I think the American people are fed up with it. They want transparency, they want accountability, and I think what they are looking for is solutions. Standing up and touting this bill when nobody even knows what's in it and how great it is, I think, a sham.

Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the Democrats, and I repeat that, it is my understanding that the Democrats are planning to amend the rule to change the text of the underlying legislation that we are discussing here right now. Are they planning changes to the $100 billion in spending? I don't know. What are they going to do? I don't know. What's in the amendment? More spending? I betcha. More taxes? I'm sure. Are they gutting the State Medicare funding portion? Are they eliminating the COBRA extension? Will doctors see a 21 percent cut in reimbursement next week? I don't know, nor does anybody who is going to vote on this bill.

Unfortunately, the answers to all of those questions, regardless to what's in their amendment, is yes. The Senate has already made it clear to this House and my Democratic colleagues, the press, and the American people that they will be going home--as a matter of fact, they've already done that--before acting on the extenders package that we are doing right now.

So, Mr. Speaker, what is the point? Why is the Speaker having this bill today on the floor? This isn't about jobs. It's not about the unemployed. It's not about those without insurance or it's not even about physicians. It's about a political agenda. It's about taxing and spending and a message on this floor that tries to make it seem like it's the reverse.

I would submit to you that if this Democratic majority were trying to help small business, they'd start with any one of the top five issues that small business has and that they present through the National Association of Manufacturers, and they've done this for years. That list is ignored.

Yesterday in CQ Today, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee was asked whether the Democrats' backroom deals were going to hold up on the House floor, and her response, and I quote, Are you kidding me? We're Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, what's in the deal? Does it provide any real solutions? Are we voting on this to accomplish anything? I would say in the next 2 hours we will be voting on legislation that this body will have no clue what is in the bill. Once again, par for the course.

It's also my understanding that the Democratic priorities of implementing new and permanent taxes, increasing debt spending, deficit spending, and fixing errors and oversight in the Democrats' trillion dollar health care bill is exactly what it will also be in the bill today. But I don't know. Yet the majority continues to patch the Nation's problems together with expensive short-term fixes that create even greater budget shortfalls in the future rather than dealing honestly with them.

Monday night in the Rules Committee, I asked Chairman Levin to quantify, please, how many jobs this bill would create since the majority insists on calling it a jobs bill. The fact is he couldn't. This legislation throws billions of dollars at a bunch of short-term solutions while creating permanent, new taxes on business. I know the Democrats like to call them corporations, but I call them employers.

This legislation will increase the tax treatment of carried interest for real estate, energy, and investment partnerships, in some cases more than doubling the tax rate from 15 to 35 percent. That's it. The Democratic agenda: Tax and spend. Tax and spend employers, and then blame it on them when something bad goes wrong. Maybe better, blame it on George Bush.

Also, this bill increases payroll taxes on S corporation shareholders as well as changes the longstanding U.S. International Tax Code law. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, these changes could saddle small business, American worldwide companies, and investment partnerships with draconian tax increases that will hinder job creation and decrease the competitiveness of American business. And that I quote. Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle are still calling this a jobs bill. I know what it is, and so do you. Taxing and spending--the hallmark of the Democratic majority. Job killing measures once again present on the floor of the House of Representatives today.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the extenders bill that is before us today has billions in additional health care spending, spending the Democrats couldn't find to offset for their $1.2 trillion health care bill. So they didn't include it because they wanted to mask the true costs of the bill that we passed on or around March 22.

One key example, this legislation prevents a 21 percent cut to physician reimbursement for Medicare payments, but by preventing this cut for the next year and a half, they leave physicians with a 33 percent cut in 2012 that will cost over $300 billion to fix. That's not open; that's not honest, and I don't believe that's ethical.

Mr. Speaker, today I talked about how Republicans over and over continue to be shut out of the process on the House side, even right now, where I suspect my colleagues would offer an amendment to change the text to something not one of my Republican colleagues have seen and no one on the House floor has read.

This legislation provides us, for a couple of months, an extension for noncontroversial extenders by levying new permanent tax increases on small business--the engine of our economy--and, of course, investment partnerships.

And lastly, this legislation uses budget gimmicks to push our Medicare programs further in debt, putting the care of our Nation's seniors at risk. Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to move forward with this tax-and-spend agenda and then blame their inability to receive the results they want on somebody else.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question to bring some fiscal restraint back to this House and ``no'' on the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).

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

Mr. Speaker, you know there is no way to get around this. This is a monster tax increase and permanent tax increase on taxpayers and business.

I want to quote from the National Association of Manufacturers, which are all about American manufacturers: American companies who do business overseas will find a monster tax increase on them for doing business, penalizing them.

It says many of the tax-increase proposals, which are mischaracterized as a tax loophole--you know, they are actually tax law--actually represent significant changes to a tax policy that has been supported by Congress and this administration.

Now, they are going to come back and change that. You have got to blame somebody.

It's obvious to me that what we will end up doing is pinning the tail on the donkey, because we know who is about trying to kill jobs. It comes through heavy taxation, and it comes through rules and regulation. I have got letter after letter after letter from businesses across this country who say this will harm American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have our colleagues on the Democratic side come and talk about jobs.

It's not going to happen. These are massive tax increases. Business is trying to say, through the letters which I

will more fully get into in a minute, that's how to kill jobs in this country, permanent tax increases. Oh, no, those are corporations, those are evil corporations.

My friends, they are called employers. You are putting permanent tax increases on employers, which means you will have fewer jobs in this country.

Don't blame it on somebody else; blame it on yourself. Pin the tail on the donkey. That's the reason why we don't have jobs. We don't have jobs because 4 years ago, when the Democratic majority took over, all they talked about is taxes and spending, rules, regulation, more on business. And Members come to the floor and say, this is just about jobs.

Read the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Grandfather community, North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond back that, in fact, we are doing well in Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I'll reserve my time while they figure it out.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the gentleman is correct. There were jobs that were added. They were government jobs. They were government jobs because of the census, and that is why we saw an uptick.

Let's go back to Texas. I know there has been a lot said about Texas. In Texas, unemployment jumped from 6.8 percent in April 2009 to 8.1 percent in April 2010. That's an additional 188,600 people unemployed.

I appreciate you all in trying to take credit for this great, robust economic boom that's going on in this country. The fact of the matter is it's not working that way.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter dated May 24, 2010, from IBM. I'm going to read just the last paragraph because it shows, really, the misnomer of my Democrat friend's argument about how great this bill is, the jobs bill.

It reads, ``Despite the 1-year renewal of the R&D tax credit, which we and other technology firms have long supported, the late insertion of large, new, permanent tax increases, together with hundreds of billions in new deficit spending that has not been offset, leads IBM to strongly oppose this legislation.''

Hundreds of billions of dollars in new deficit spending.

This reminds me a lot of the firefighter who goes out and sets a fire and then shows up to put it out, trying to get credit when, in fact, that firefighter is an arsonist. IBM gets it. IBM gets it and they understand: hundreds of billions of dollars of new deficit spending that has not been offset.

I thank the gentleman for asking.

You know, I had seen a report, and we received information up in the Rules Committee that there would be an expectation of 500,000 census jobs across the country.

I appreciate the gentleman.

I think the overwhelming context I had was that the jobs that are being created are in government.

I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me.

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

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

we began this rule by talking about Republicans' having received a copy of the rule and the bill at 9:06. We talked about how the Senate has left town and that we are doing this bill today to no avail, because it expires when we will all be gone, which is next week.

We've got doctors who will not be properly reimbursed. Oh, I'm sorry. That big cut occurred from this Democrat majority, and now we're trying to show up and show how we've got to help physicians. Once again, it reminds me of that firefighter who sets his own fire. This Democrat majority cut the doctors. Now we're hearing that doctors won't see Medicare patients, and now we show up to save the doctors.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line to this whole thing is that massive, new tax increases are in this bill, while at the same time, somebody is trying to take credit for all of these millions of new jobs that will be created. Yet, when asked, the chairman of the committee had no evidence to support that. It was just an opinion.

That is exactly the same kind of opinion that we saw from the prior chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who, when asked about the health care bill--and even though he knew it would diminish jobs because of the guesstimate of CBO of some 5 million jobs--wanted to push this as a jobs bill, wanted to push health care as a jobs bill, and now we are doing it again.

The U.S. Chamber says changes to the tax treatment of real estate, energy, and investment partnerships will result in negative consequences for capital formation, innovation in real estate, energy, investment, and jobs in America.

The bottom line is that this Democrat majority has three big political items, not just taxes and spending, but the three largest political items will net lose 10 million American jobs, as decided by the Congressional Budget Office.

This Democrat majority is insistent on killing jobs in America. They are insistent on taxing and spending. They are for the diminishment of the investor, and they are going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. I think it is a big mistake to try and show up and say, Those darned Republicans won't go along with us. They won't vote for an extension of unemployment.

I will tell you what the Republican Party stands for: It is jobs, investment and the opportunity to have more jobs in this country.

Mr. Speaker, we end our debate today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate and respect the debate that's going on today, and I want to thank the Rules Committee for making in order an amendment to this bill.

Mr. Chairman, currently private health care providers are treating brain injury patients with new and innovative treatments with remarkable results. And I am disappointed, however, to report that many of these treatments are currently not available within the military and veterans medical facilities across this country for our heroes who are suffering from traumatic brain injuries.

I have engaged the military now at the senior military leadership for quite some time, and I am not satisfied with the military's response to TBI, traumatic brain injuries. With that said, in an effort to further aid our military members and to fix this delinquency, I introduced the TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury, Treatment Act, H.R. 4568, in February of this year. I am offering it as an amendment today.

The TBI Treatment Act establishes a 5-year pay for performance pilot program. Essentially, what would happen is that any member of the military or who is being treated today by the Veterans' Administration would be able to ask for being able to go outside the military system to a private or free enterprise market system and to be able to have the latest innovative procedures applied to them.

Private health care providers would be authorized and reimbursed to provide proven treatments to active duty soldiers and veterans at no cost to the

patient. I believe, and I believe the Members of this body believe, that it is important to work with the military leadership however they need help in getting to the correct answer.

I am asking for each of us today as Members to look very carefully at this issue and to join me in supporting this amendment. This amendment helps to expedite these groundbreaking treatments to make sure that, effective immediately and quickly, our Nation's veterans, who are suffering from TBI and the myriad of problems that come with that, will receive the most leading-edge answers available in medicine today.

So I ask my colleagues to please join with me in this bipartisan amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I also note as I stand that I am opposed to the provisions known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell changes. Yesterday at the Rules Committee we had a rather vigorous debate, and at the end of that debate when I had an opportunity to talk with members of the committee who were there, I said, Please tell me about the debate that took place in the committee. There was none. It should have been in the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this issue really demanded an opportunity for the members of the Armed Services Committee to fully debate and vet and lead the way on this issue rather than it being part of a political issue that is dominated by the Democratic Party.

I believe that the members of the military, honored heroes of this great Nation, should not be a part of a political agenda but rather be a part of good policy for this Nation. I think it's a slap in the face to the members of the military to be driven down a road that is driven by a political agenda from the left in this country rather than wise policy. I am disappointed. I related that to the committee and its leadership yesterday, and I will say it on the floor of the House today, that I believe that when we go forth in dealing with the military, we should go forth altogether and not as a political agenda.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Jack Colley who passed away on May 16, 2010. He was the head of the Texas Department of Public Safety (TXDPS), Division of Emergency Management.

Prior to joining TXDPS, he served in the United States Army from 1970-97 and retired as a Colonel. He was a valuable member of TXDPS and changed the field of Emergency Management. During his tenure, Colonel Colley was involved in the response and recovery of some of the largest incidents and disasters in Texas, such as the Space Shuttle Columbia crash in 2003, Hurricane Rita in 2005, and Hurricane Ike in 2008. Learning from the fallout of Hurricane Katrina, he began efforts to evacuate and shelter companion animals, emphasizing that no one would be left behind because they could not bring their pet.

He sought to make disaster response quicker, faster, and smarter and utilized innovative methods to make the Division of Emergency Management more effective. Among his many initiatives, Colonel Colley pushed for an Interstate Emergency Response Support Plan (IERSP)-- partnering with Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, the first of its kind in the nation. Under his leadership, the Division of Emergency Management also focused on Re-Entry Task Forces that provided critical care and security and restored infrastructure within the first 72 hours after a storm. He was a visionary, a great leader, and a dedicated public servant. The great State of Texas has suffered a great loss; Jack Colley will be missed by all.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in recognizing the legacy of Colonel Jack Colley. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Chase Thompson Phillips, a young man that I have known for sixteen years.

In June, he will graduate from Mexia High School as a Distinguished Honor Graduate. Chase is a member of the National Honor Society and the baseball team. This year, he and his doubles partner, Blake Dornak, competed in the State Tennis Tournament in Austin, Texas. They are the first duo from Mexia High School to qualify for the state competition and they made it to the quarterfinal round of the 3A State Tennis Tournament. This feat is particularly impressive since Chase and Blake did not have the guidance of tennis coaches or benefit from any practice matches. It speaks loudly of Chase's work ethic and dedication.

This year, he received the Dallas Safari Club's Colin Caruthers Younger Hunger Award for his passion for hunting and commitment to community service. Started in 1991, this prestigious award honors young member hunters for their significant accomplishments, academic excellence, and civic involvement. He was previously honored with the International Youth Hunting and Conservation Award from

Dallas Safari Club and has also done anti-poaching work for black rhinoceros in Zimbabwe. Chase was also selected to represent Limestone County at the American Legion Boys State Conference in Austin, Texas.

Over the years, I have watched Chase grow up into a mature, responsible young man. He is selflessly committed to serving his local community, giving generously of his time and effort to make our world a better place. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in honoring this fine young man. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Chase Thompson Phillips, a young man that I have known for sixteen years.

In June, he will graduate from Mexia High School as a Distinguished Honor Graduate. Chase is a member of the National Honor Society and the baseball team. This year, he and his doubles partner, Blake Dornak, competed in the State Tennis Tournament in Austin, Texas. They are the first duo from Mexia High School to qualify for the state competition and they made it to the quarterfinal round of the 3A State Tennis Tournament. This feat is particularly impressive since Chase and Blake did not have the guidance of tennis coaches or benefit from any practice matches. It speaks loudly of Chase's work ethic and dedication.

This year, he received the Dallas Safari Club's Colin Caruthers Younger Hunger Award for his passion for hunting and commitment to community service. Started in 1991, this prestigious award honors young member hunters for their significant accomplishments, academic excellence, and civic involvement. He was previously honored with the International Youth Hunting and Conservation Award from

Dallas Safari Club and has also done anti-poaching work for black rhinoceros in Zimbabwe. Chase was also selected to represent Limestone County at the American Legion Boys State Conference in Austin, Texas.

Over the years, I have watched Chase grow up into a mature, responsible young man. He is selflessly committed to serving his local community, giving generously of his time and effort to make our world a better place. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in honoring this fine young man. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a young man that I have known his entire life, Grayson James. He is a Cub Scout with Pack 437 and saved his father's life on the evening of Thursday, February 11, 2010.

After an afternoon of sledding with his daughter, Mr. Joe James began experiencing shortness of breath. Upon his return home, Grayson listened carefully as his father, Joe, described his symptoms-- shortness of breath, sweating, pain, and being thirsty. With his Readyman training in first-aid, Grayson recognized that his father was having a heart attack and insisted that his mother call 911. The paramedics arrived and quickly rushed Mr. James to the hospital for surgery to repair the blockage in his heart. Grayson's quick thinking, presence of mind, and the utilization of his scouting skills saved his father's life.

For this courageous act, the Boy Scouts of America are awarding Grayson with the Medal of Merit. This prestigious award is given to those who have performed a significant act of service that is deserving of national recognition. He handled the situation with a great sense of calm and confidence, reassuring his family in the midst of this urgent situation. I am tremendously proud of Grayson for applying the principles and skills he learned in Scouting and for being prepared.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating Grayson for receiving the Medal of Merit and in recognizing him for his courage.

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

I thank the gentlewoman from California for the extension of the time, my friend from the Rules Committee, whom I enjoy working with very much.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill.

Yesterday in the Rules Committee, the Democrat majority once again shut out good Republican ideas while rolling 15 Democratic amendments into the manager's amendment. These were 15 Democrat requests to add into the bill, and the Rules Committee saw fit to get that done for those Members of the Democratic Party. This is not the way to have an open, honest Congress, as our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, promised in 2007.

Madam Speaker, what Republicans are going to talk about today is a number of issues, but perhaps key among them is the priority items that are on this floor today that is about more spending, more deficit spending, and against the ideas that this Speaker and the Democratic majority have talked about, about paying for bills.

I think what we are going to learn today, and as we move forward, is the Democratic Party is having problems making a decision about how they will pay for these bills because we have had so much massive spending, so many new programs, that this majority is incapable of setting any priorities. In other words, if you want something else, the public was sold, that the Democrats would be open to taking it from somewhere else and constantly making prioritization. In fact, that's not true. What it's all about is just adding in more spending and more debt without regard for making tough decisions.

I disagree with that. I think it's a bad policy. I think if you say you are going to require bills to be paid for under PAYGO, you should do that. Once again today we see where that is not true with another bill on the floor that is about spending more money. One hundred percent deficit spending in this bill.

Today I am also going to discuss other issues. And it's really about the bill. This bill is too costly. It raises serious questions about the Department of Energy's ability to effectively implement this program. And it will allow the Federal Government to pick winners and losers in the private sector while all of these companies are trying to take care of making us more efficient, but then picking the winners and losers.

H.R. 5019 would authorize $6.6 billion for what I am going to call a cash for caulkers program, $6.6 billion of new deficit spending. This bill would provide tax rebates to participating contractors and vendors who would perform qualifying energy-saving measures that meet efficiency and insulation targets in Federal standards. That's a whole lot of words for a program that in essence is too expensive, unnecessary, and I believe a waste of taxpayer dollars, especially at a time when growing deficits are causing this country to have failing markets and confidence in this government.

Republicans strongly support legislation that promotes effective energy efficiency. But 150,000 jobs, as are being talked about, for $6.6 billion on the back of the American taxpayer is not a good deal. It's not a fair trade. And to that point, the Democrats on the Rules Committee all voted against allowing my colleague Mr. Latta, the gentleman from Ohio, from even offering his amendment on the House floor today, which would have suspended the provisions of this bill if it added to the Federal deficit. This majority doesn't even want to have a conversation about controlling spending. And that's why they will continue to shut out Republican Members as they come to the Rules Committee with wise, prudent, and conservative ideas.

This 2-year program will be administered through the Department of Energy, which has already proven to be a terrible manager of the $4.7 billion from the economic stimulus weatherization program in which only 30,297 homes have been weatherized, about 5 percent of the stated overall goal of more than 600,000. These are all, I am sure, great ideas and lofty goals, but it's taxpayer spending, taxpayer money, and more deficit spending.

The Home Star Energy Retrofit Program will undoubtedly experience the

same administrative problems, implementation problems, and oversight problem for the Department of Energy. What a shame we just didn't give it directly to consumers rather than creating a program that then must be administered following Federal standards, Federal rules, and more and more and more participation from Washington, D.C. Allowing the Federal Government to get bigger and bloated and to control this process is not an efficient way to run this government or spend the American people's tax dollars.

Additionally, this legislation is not technology-neutral. It is not the role, I believe, of the Federal Government to pick winners and losers in the private sector, yet that's exactly what this bill does. This legislation lists 13 energy-saving measures that qualify for rebates of varying dollar amounts. That's right, we are going to tell people exactly how to do this and what qualifies.

There are many energy products that were left off the list or that will not qualify because of what are considered technical requirements. These are so numerous that we simply cannot effectively have a good program. It should be about effectiveness, saving energy, and allowing a consumer to be engaged in making these decisions so that we assure that the real cost and the delivery of that product was known and understood by the consumer, not just ordering something that came from the Federal Government, having somebody show up at your door, and then being reimbursed by the Federal Government, with the consumer being left out in the cold rather than a demand about what they were after and knowing what their needs are.

Over a year ago, Speaker Pelosi and the President promised that unemployment would not reach 8 percent or above. Since that time, 4 million Americans have lost their job. And that was a promise. We have now reached a 10.2 percent record unemployment rate, and continue to hover well over that promised 8 percent figure.

Madam Speaker, I believe the American people understand what this change has meant. It has meant a bigger Federal Government, record spending, and incredibly high deficits for as far as the eye can see and over the horizon. This is another example of the kind of political agenda that adds to that of the Speaker and the President that will, if all implemented, net lose over 10 million American jobs. Losing 10 million American jobs from a political agenda is a problem to the Republican Party.

We believe that the ability to make progress and work here in Congress for the best effort of the American people in the creation of jobs, not net loss of 10 million jobs, should be what this Congress should be focused on. You see, Madam Speaker, we think that America should be the employer nation. We believe that America has always led the way, the leader in the world to making sure we are competitive, and to make sure that we have a smaller, more efficient Federal Government, with unlimited opportunity for freedom for citizens back home. This bill effectively takes the citizenry, the consumer, out of the equation and puts the Federal Government central not only in people's lives, but central in paying the bill.

We should work with the investor and the free enterprise system. That is what has made us the global leader for our grandparents, our parents, and this current generation. We only have unemployment and this horrible high debt because of the political considerations of the Democratic Party and their agenda. And the Republican Party is on record again today as saying enough is enough.

The national debt continues to grow rapidly towards $13 trillion, yet our Democrat majority friends are spending billions of more dollars again today on an excessive program that sets burdensome technical requirements, picks private sector winners and losers, and hands the reins over to the Department of Energy to dole out the funds as it sees fit. Shuttling our responsibility, not allowing the amendments in the Rules Committee for commonsense legislation, rolling 15 Democrat amendments into the manager's amendment, and a $6.6 billion cost that will come directly from deficit spending, which means we have to go borrow and once again go to the world or the Chinese or others to say ``please help us'' is a bad way to run this business.

Madam Speaker, it is obvious to me that the political agenda is more that the Democrats want than the commonsense attributes of saying, enough is enough, let's know what we're doing.

So I am going to urge a ``no'' vote. I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, jobs are the issue, and so is debt. And taking debt of $6.5 billion to add to this deficit that we have got to pay for should be a priority. Spending five or six generations' worth of money in a year-and-a-half is not a good way to pass on a better America.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Bowling Green, Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 additional minutes to the gentleman from Ohio.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from Auburn, Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Clarence, New York, (Mr. Lee.)

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire, if I can, upon the time remaining on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will continue to reserve my time.

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

The facts of the case are out on the table today. The Federal Government is going to run this program. It will determine the winners and losers. It will decide which of the technologies will be reimbursed. It will decide how this

program is going to work. We in essence take the consumer out of the equation. The taxpayer of this country, as the bill is written, will have $6.6 billion in new deficit and debt that will be on the future of this country, our children and our grandchildren. We will continue to have less ability to effectively have jobs in this country as a result of the continuing debt.

We have heard this story before. We heard about how great the stimulus was. Well, the stimulus, which was called a jobs bill, was about anything but jobs. It was about big government and diminishing the size of the free enterprise system.

The health care bill, oh, it's all about jobs. And we found out just days after that was passed, whoops, you better add another $600 billion to what the real cost will be because it was not included, despite the debate and all of the time on the floor. The health care bill was as much about health care as the stimulus was about jobs.

Here we are adding another promise from the Democrat majority: this is about jobs. But what this party fails to talk about is, okay, 150,000 jobs for $6.5 billion worth of spending, new debt not paid for, not adequately enumerating the things that will really happen in the marketplace. We have already talked about the promises that were made during the stimulus, and of that only 5 percent has materialized out of the Department of Energy. The reason why is because people don't have money. People do not have money because they do not have jobs. We do not have jobs in this country because of the Democratic majority who has made a decision that their political agenda to diminish the size of the free enterprise system is just fine for them.

The three largest political agenda items of this Democratic Party, the Speaker and the President, net lose 10 million American jobs. That's why people do not end up having jobs and why people will not be able to buy into this plan either. Because people are unemployed. They are hurting. They are concerned about how they are going to take care of themselves. Quite honestly, Madam Speaker, this country is afraid. They are afraid of the massive debt, and we are going to pile on another $6.5 billion today.

We talked about how and when the Democrats took control of this Congress, they promised little job loss, lower deficits, and we have only seen the opposite. Additionally, little to no progress has been made to providing real solutions to the high unemployment rate; 150,000 jobs won't cut it. We are getting ready to lose 300,000 more teachers' jobs because communities can't afford to have the teachers. They can't pay for them. And we are here today to vote on another $6.6 billion, a spending spree for the Federal Government to manage and pick the winners and losers in the energy saving sector. It is bad policy.

Where are the jobs? Where is the ability of people to make decisions? Nope, we are going to let the Federal Government decide this.

Madam Speaker, Congress, the Democratic Party, believes we can just spend our way out of this economic crisis. We need reforms. We need to work together. We need America to be an employer nation again. Ah, the old days with Republicans, all that debt they caused, not a drop in the bucket compared to what this 4 years of Democrat control has done.

I once again stand up for my party and say no, we are not going to participate in this. We K-N-O-W exactly what this Democrat majority is all about. One-party rule is bad for this country. Not accepting amendments from the other party is not good for the country.

I encourage a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the grand opening of the Elite News National Religious Hall of Fame Museum on Thursday, April 29, 2010.

First launched in 2000 by Mr. William Blair, Jr., the National Religious Hall of Fame Museum seeks to celebrate, encourage, and showcase the positive impact of ministers in our local community. The inductees are individuals that have been active in ministry for at

least fifteen years and are honored for their community, social, and spiritual contributions. Their dedicated efforts have positively influenced our community and touched the lives of numerous individuals, spanning generations.

The National Religious Hall of Fame Museum highlights the important role ministers play in our society. They work countless hours, wholeheartedly devoted to serving God and mankind. Although the results of their tireless efforts may be unseen by many, the impact of our ministers speak loudly in the legacy they leave and in the lives they transform. This museum serves as a tribute to how they have made our community and our world a better place.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating Elite News and their commitment to honoring ministers with the National Religious Hall of Fame Museum.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the IMPROVE Act sets the record straight on the importance of competition in Federal contracting. My amendment simply clarifies that nothing in this bill restricts the current public-private competition requirements that already exist in title 10 of the United States Code.

Competing contracts help the government to be a ``smarter shopper.'' This process simply compares costs and performance currently being used by the Federal Government to alternatives available in the private and nonprofit organizations. Whether the benefits are produced by keeping the work within the agency, or from contracting out, the best deal for the taxpayer and our national defense should win every single time.

The Office of Management and Budget Report on Competitive Sourcing Results for fiscal year 2007 showed that competitions between year 2003 and 2007 have saved the taxpayer $7.2 billion. Expected savings from competition are approximately $1 billion a

year. Taxpayers will receive a return of about $30 for every dollar spent on competition. Competition simply gives the taxpayer the opportunity to be a smarter shopper and to get the best products available for the very best price.

I not only encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, but also to adopt competitive sourcing procedures in all of our Federal agencies. What is good for the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense and all across this government is certainly good enough for the Department of Labor and all agencies.

This IMPROVE Act is one step toward combating the waste, fraud and abuse of contracting within the Federal Government. I support this legislation and believe it is not only intended for the right purposes, but will also achieve that. I ask that all of my colleagues support passage of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) not only for his testimony before the Rules Committee yesterday, but also that of Mr. Conaway.

With the intent of their legislation, they are trying to streamline the government, save money, produce a better product, and perhaps more importantly, to make sure that the American people have confidence in the money that they are spending that goes for the intended reasons. For that I not only appreciate you, Mr. Chairman, but also the hard work and the thoughtfulness that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has put into this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are being told today by our friends, the Democrats, to trust Washington and to trust them. Yet the Obama- Pelosi legislation which passed this House earlier last year promised that, if Congress passed the $787 billion stimulus package, national unemployment would never rise above 8 percent. Today, the national unemployment is 9.7 percent and is hovering near a 25-year high.

I think it is time for the American people to recognize that the answers do not all reside here in Washington, D.C., but that we need to take care of our business. Our business should not be about trying to do a lot of things to a lot of other people but to focus on jobs for this country. Jobs are the number one issue. Jobs are the things which will spur the American entrepreneurship and the creativity that will allow us to be competitive with the world.

Where are the jobs?

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Glenn A. Adams, the current President of the National Eagle Scout Association (NESA).

Since taking over as NESA President in 2008, Glenn's dedication and leadership has strengthened the organization through innovative outreach efforts and a variety of events, expanding the community of Eagle Scouts. On April 29, 2010, his hard work will be recognized when he receives the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award (DESA).

Since it was first introduced in 1969, the DESA is given to an Eagle Scout that has shown distinguished service in his profession and community for a period of at least twenty-five years. Glenn is most deserving of this great honor and prestigious award for all he has done for NESA and Scouting. His active involvement is notable; he serves on the Longhorn Council Boy Scouts of America (BSA) Foundation Board and as a Committee Member of the National Scouting Museum. He was also the former Scoutmaster for Troop 326 and has made generous financial contributions dedicated to providing scholarships for deserving Eagle Scouts. Glenn has always led by example and his active involvement in his local community speaks loudly of the impact he has had.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in recognizing Glenn for all he has done for the Boy Scouts of America and join me in congratulating him as he receives this prestigious award.