Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Major Jon. M. Lauder and his dedicated service to this great Nation.

After graduating from the Virginia Military Institute with a degree in Civil Engineering in 1994, he has served on active duty with the United States Marine Corps. He proudly served two combat tours in Iraq, including the initial assault into Iraq in 2003 as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. After a combat tour in Eastern Afghanistan as a part of Operation Enduring Freedom, Major Lauder served as a U.S. military observer in Israel during the summer of 2006 during the Israeli- Hezbollah war. He is currently the Commanding Officer for the Marcie Corps Recruiting Station in Dallas, Texas.

On May 14, 2010, Major Lauder will be turning over his command and will move to Washington, DC for his new assignment at the Pentagon. It has been my distinct honor and pleasure to work with him. I proudly call him my friend and know that Major Lauder's dedicated service has made our Nation a safer and better place.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our heartfelt gratitude to Major Lauder. I wish him and his family all the best.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize T.C. Marsh Middle School's Army Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) and Corporal David Bates on their winning the National Middle School Drill Championship for the third time.

Corporal David Bates has led the JROTC program for the past eleven years. He has taught them the importance of personal responsibility, discipline, commitment, and hard work. Under his leadership, T.C. Marsh's JROTC has taken the prestigious title of National Champion three times in the past four years.

After spending countless hours practicing their drills, the cadets were ready to compete and capture the national title once again. In addition to practicing daily, cadets also garnered the support of teachers, families, friends, and the local community to raise $12,000 to help cover the cost of equipment and travel expenses. They are the essence of discipline, dedication, and hard work. By working together, the cadets have developed a mutual respect for each other and honed their leadership skills.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating the members of the JROTC and Corporal David Bates on their well-deserved victory. I commend them for their dedication and hard work and I wish them all my very best.

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.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Major Jon. M. Lauder and his dedicated service to this great Nation.

After graduating from the Virginia Military Institute with a degree in Civil Engineering in 1994, he has served on active duty with the United States Marine Corps. He proudly served two combat tours in Iraq, including the initial assault into Iraq in 2003 as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. After a combat tour in Eastern Afghanistan as a part of Operation Enduring Freedom, Major Lauder served as a U.S. military observer in Israel during the summer of 2006 during the Israeli- Hezbollah war. He is currently the Commanding Officer for the Marcie Corps Recruiting Station in Dallas, Texas.

On May 14, 2010, Major Lauder will be turning over his command and will move to Washington, D.C. for his new assignment at the Pentagon. It has been my distinct honor and pleasure to work with him. I proudly call him my friend and know that Major Lauder's dedicated service has made our Nation a safer and better place.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our heartfelt gratitude to Major Lauder. I wish him and his family all the best.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize T.C. Marsh Middle School's Army Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) and Corporal David Bates on their winning the National Middle School Drill Championship for the third time.

Corporal David Bates has led the JROTC program for the past eleven years. He has taught them the importance of personal responsibility, discipline, commitment, and hard work. Under his leadership, T.C. Marsh's JROTC has taken the prestigious title of National Champion three times in the past four years.

After spending countless hours practicing their drills, the cadets were ready to compete and capture the national title once again. In

addition to practicing daily, cadets also garnered the support of teachers, families, friends, and the local community to raise $12,000 to help cover the cost of equipment and travel expenses. They are the essence of discipline, dedication, and hard work. By working together, the cadets have developed a mutual respect for each other and honed their leadership skills.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating the members of the JROTC and Corporal David Bates on their well-deserved victory. I commend them for their dedication and hard work and I wish them all my very best.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, for extending me time on this FAA Reauthorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, this may not come as a surprise to you or Members of this body, but once again we are here to discuss a bill on the floor that has come to the floor under a closed rule. We continue this process in this House of Representatives despite the promise from the majority that they would lead this floor with open and honest and ethical debate and, once again, this is neither open, and I do not believe it's an honest process if Members of this body are shut out day after day after day after day after day in the Rules Committee, Republicans and Democrats, who cannot come to this floor as a result of the Rules Committee action that we took yesterday. They are not even opening this process up to the Members. I think it's bad for this body, I think it's terrible for the Rules Committee and, even worse, I think, to extend the expectation that we would be open on this floor is a misnomer, and it has been for almost 4 years now.

This Democrat majority has not allowed for one open amendment process this entire legislative session, not one, not one, Mr. Speaker, and that's unprecedented. Last week, as we were up over the weekend Saturday in the Rules Committee for the important health care debate, Members came to the Rules Committee the entire day with over 80 Republicans amendments, presenting ideas, ideas that they had, some which were outstanding bills and some which were small and minor fixes.

Yet at the end of the day, before we voted on Sunday, gleefully the Rules Committee majority, including our chairwoman, gleefully announced all 80 Republican ideas were defeated, all 80 Republican ideas were slam dunk in the Rules Committee. All 80 Republican ideas that Members came to express themselves up on the floor, slam dunk, and gleefully the bill was held as is, no additional outside comment necessary, Democrats have it down. This has happened day after day, bill after bill.

We are here, Republicans on the floor of the House of Representatives today, saying, again, that's not right. That's not the way to run this ship, this is not open, and this is not the process that should be followed.

So I guess that when the Speaker promised we are going to be the most open, the most honest, the most ethical Congress, I don't think she was referencing how she and our chairwoman would be running the Rules Committee or the legislation on this floor. Not only is this rule closed, but it allows for martial law authority, meaning that whatever the majority wants to do, they can do on this floor, all the way throughout the weekend, all the way into Monday.

The Rules Committee continues to shut out Republicans, our ideas, and to circumvent the rules that this committee has traditionally had simply to pursue an agenda. I believe last weekend, as thousands of people were outside trying to have their voices be heard, once again, this body did not listen to them and rejected their pleas, which really begs the question, I think, would the majority each time a bill comes up for consideration eliminate the amendment process from the debate?

Is that what they are afraid of? Are they afraid to debate these? Are they afraid to have Members like the gentleman, Mr. Mica, come and present his ideas, ranking member of the committee, a gentleman who has spent lots of time working with people to make this bill better?

What are they afraid of? Are they trying to protect their Members from tough votes? Are they afraid of the process? What is it that continues this process with not one open rule this legislative session? Oh, by the way, we are in the second session right now, this is the second year.

Today's closed rule is all about the Federal Aviation Administration, known as the FAA, and this is their reauthorization act. This bill would reauthorize the FAA for 3 more years. While U.S. air travel plays a fundamental role in our economy, and making safe provisions, a cornerstone of this legislation, is important, yet there are controversial provisions, including cost increases for passengers, excessive spending and labor negotiations, and job losses. Today I would like to talk about those parts of this bill that were not amended, do not allow for Member contest, for amendments.

Keeping up the tradition of Democratic Party spending, this bill authorizes $70 billion over 4 years. This is a historic level of funding for the FAA, which should come as no surprise from this Democrat-controlled Congress that has already set record levels of deficit and spending over the past 4 years and, once again, aiming for a $1.6 trillion deficit this year, $200 billion worth of deficit last month alone.

This legislation reiterates the 1998 labor agreement between the National Air Traffic Controllers Association and the FAA. This is a terrible precedent to have Congress interject itself in a current labor dispute, especially when it is on the back of the American taxpayer. According to CBO, this agreement is going to cost taxpayers $83 million this year and over $1 billion throughout the 4-year reauthorization. This bill puts funding for other important safety and air traffic control modernization programs at risk. Forget the negotiation--we will just take care of that here on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Additionally, this legislation directs the FAA to conduct biannual inspections on all foreign repair stations. This completely disregards the bilateral safety agreements and invites foreign retaliation that threaten 130,000 American jobs at service stations. Mr. Speaker, why does this Democrat leadership continue to bring bills to the floor of the House of Representatives that threaten American jobs?

We should be all about ensuring that American jobs are taken care of, not putting them at risk. We have seen record unemployment over the last year. As a matter of fact, in the last year since President Obama has become our President, here in several months, we have doubled the amount of people who are unemployed in this country. More and more people are out of work every day directly because of the political agenda and will of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi on this floor of the House of Representatives with votes of Democratic Members.

Americans want jobs. We want a pro-growth strategy. We want to make sure and should be on this floor talking about being competitive with the world, not here trying to satisfy union concerns and raise taxes and diminishing more jobs and putting them at risk.

Despite the record unemployment and the 130,000 jobs this bill currently threatens, it goes one step further by invalidating all antitrust immunity grants to airline allowances 3 years after enacting their contracts. This will hurt U.S. carriers' competitiveness and threaten another 15,000 jobs.

Mr. Speaker, why would we want to become less competitive with other foreign nations? Why would this Congress want to place America in a defensive position against the things which have strengthened Americans' relationship with other countries and ensured, not just that we would get along, but American jobs in the process.

This legislation also increases the Passenger Facility Charge, known as the PFC for those of us who are regular travelers, up to $7 per flight. That is a 56 percent increase from the current allowable $4.50 per flight charge.

At a time when our airlines, not unlike all other areas of this economy, are struggling, we are now going to stick it to those who are flying to pay for these boondoggle expenses that I believe this Congress is creating. While the FAA says the fees are important to fund FAA-approved projects to enhance safety and security, what it's really all about is being able to pay for this union contract.

You know, these projects also include things like bike storage for passengers that are laid out in the bill, bike storage for passengers on airlines. I don't know about you, but I don't know how many passengers who bike to the airports with their luggage, but that's what we are going to do. We are going to go and make bicycle areas available at airports. That's just a lot of money, and it's a lot of wasted money that does not make sense at a time when we should be making tough decisions, not adding to the expense that is required at every airport in this country.

This reauthorization does very little to improve our Nation's air traffic control modernization program, known as NextGen. Despite concerns and growing congestion in our Nation's airspace, the bill does not provide a dedicated funding source, does not establish an air traffic control modernization board, and does not provide NextGen with needed borrowing authority, authority to be prepared for our future. Without proper funding and oversight, NextGen will fail to properly deploy the congestion in U.S. airspace, which is reaching critical levels, to ensure the safety areas are fully adopted to.

This legislation does include the bipartisan bill H.R. 3371, the Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act, that passed the House of Representatives last year. This is a step in the right direction for the future safety of airline travel, ensuring our pilots have the appropriate screening and training that is necessary.

Over a year ago, Mr. Speaker, the President promised that unemployment would not reach 8 percent. Over 3 million Americans since then have lost their jobs. That was a promise. We have now reached a 10.2 percent record unemployment rate and continue to hover well above the 8 percent that we were told would be the margin. Congress needs to stop the record spending, needs to focus on creating jobs, not diminishing them, as this bill threatens 130,000 jobs today.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have the ability to make progress in Congress, create jobs, and grow the economy. America should be called the ``Employer Nation,'' and, instead, this Congress fails to understand how jobs are formed through investment and reinvesting within businesses in this country.

We should work with the investor and the free enterprise system to become the global leader. We should not rely on governments to pull us out of this economic stumble that we are in.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, who is the ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. Mica.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I once again would like to thank the gentlewoman for the time she has extended to us. And I appreciate the gentleman, Mr. Mica, for being here today on the floor.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that the House is operating an unprecedented restrictive rules process, once again, continuing the 4 years, into our fourth year of this very interesting process to deny Members the opportunity to come and to place their ideas on this floor, to debate their ideas, and a chance to vote on them. I think it is a bad way to run the House.

Every time a rule is up, we get to say, Well, brand-new record. Brand-new record here for the House of Representatives.

I think you heard the frustration that came from a gentleman who has devoted his life, not only his career, to the transportation infrastructure areas of this country, but also the FAA and a lot of initiatives and ideas that he wishes he could have been a part of to make this better. But, once again, our friends on the other side of the aisle refuse to work with the Republicans. They refuse to allow amendments or even a motion to recommit, and then given themselves martial law, same-day suspension authority, and other circumventing activities just to get their job-killing agendas through this House of Representatives.

If it weren't just job killing, it would be simple for the American people to understand, but it is also record taxing and spending. Big Government. Big Government, empowering government-types of rules and bills on this floor. And we oppose that.

If we continue to borrow, tax, and spend down this pathway that the Democrat majority has that we have been pursuing since 2007, we are going to keep finding that not only do we keep losing jobs, but our country functionally will be broke. Not just broken, but bankrupt-type broke. We are noncompetitive, and we are doing nothing to create competitiveness around this world. As a matter of fact, we are trying to play hardball with other countries.

No wonder this President is seen, and America is seen, in the world's eyes the way that we are. We are told that others diminished America's reputation, but what we are doing here today is just another opportunity to go stick our finger in the eye of our friends around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed. We heard the gentleman from Florida say he is outraged. All we can do is that which is given to us. We will vote ``no.'' We will vote ``no'' on this rule. We will vote to try and gain some opportunity to where we can have balance back on this floor, and we will continue to stand up and talk about how we would like for this country to be an employer Nation.

We would like to have this Congress aim at its business and what it does, instead of part-time or summer jobs; full-time jobs, employment, and opportunity for the American people. We would like to see this Congress take on the opportunities to say that we recognize that the way we will have jobs is by lowering taxes and giving investors an opportunity, a chance to place their hard-earned money into the free enterprise system where jobs can be built and grown, an opportunity not to have the three largest political agenda items that this Democratic Party, this President Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi stand for, three major political items that would net lose this country 10 million jobs.

This last weekend as we were up in the Rules Committee, we were talking about the diminishment of jobs or the guess of diminishment jobs in this health care bill, and I stated what I believe was factually correct: around 4\1/2\ million jobs would be lost. And one of my Democratic colleagues yelled back, It's only 3 million jobs--only 3 million jobs are expected to be lost by this health care bill.

That is 3 million American jobs today that we are knowingly, willingly, voting to say, That's okay. We don't care about those jobs, because what we want to do is to take care of some 25 million people who do not have insurance coverage and are underinsured on health care today, and yet remaining another 25 million that are out there.

The cost-benefit ratios are staggering from this Democrat majority. It is staggering what we are doing to the free enterprise system, to families, to jobs, to people who want to have an opportunity to have a job, the dignity to take care of themselves. It's staggering to me the amount of debt, the amount of spending that takes place from this Democratic House of Representatives. It's staggering to me to see that this leadership and the votes that are made on this floor of the House of Representatives day after day are from our past and perhaps our future.

We don't even care if we read the bill. We don't care about the process. We care more about our political agenda, a political agenda about making government bigger, about bankrupting this

country, about taking jobs from American people, about the cavalier nature in which this is done.

And then we look at the opportunity as we go through the bill to see that this health care bill, and other bills like we are having here today, simply empower other people, bigger government: 16,000 new IRS agents will be hired simply to make sure that this health care bill is enforced.

It's these kinds of questions, Mr. Speaker, which Republicans and I believe others are raising about the leadership of Barack Obama and the leadership of Nancy Pelosi; and yet we look up and see day after day the votes that are on the floor.

Don't even worry about reading the bill. Let's just get this done: this is why we are having problems in this country. We should open up the process.

We should have open, honest, ethical debates. We should be willing to accept Republican ideas. We should not be gleeful when, Well, we reject it. Eighty Republican ideas. Job well done, Democratic team. Let's slam-dunk those Republicans. Let's not allow their ideas.

Mr. Speaker, for this country to work, and to work properly, it's going to take all of us working together, not just the Democrat majority because they have the votes to slam-dunk Republicans. We believe process is important. We believe ideas are important. We believe that the Republican Party has lots of ideas that we will continue to stand up for. We are an alternative party and we will continue to show up every day faithfully for the American people; faithfully to say that we believe in not only freedom and opportunity, but we believe in the free enterprise system and people to have the dignity of jobs.

And we are going to fight these job-killing Democrat ideas. We're going to fight these taxes and the spending that takes place, and we will make sure that the American people understand this is just another chance today to put America further and deeper into debt. It makes us sick to our stomach when we have to have Members who come and say, I was shut out of this process. No wonder I'm going to vote against this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in Texas we have a law that's called the deceptive trade practice. And if this were being done in Texas, it would be against the law, because this is deceptive, what we are talking about here today. What is being sold is deceptive.

We're hearing about the 35 million Americans that will be covered, but the other 23 million that will not be covered, they are not talking about.

And secondly, they are not talking about the $500 trillion worth of physician reimbursement that is not included in this bill. And if people think you've got insurance or you can change insurance just to give everybody coverage, if you don't have a doctor to go to who can be paid for, then you won't get time to see the doctor.

Mr. Speaker, this is deceptive what is being put on the table here today.

The gentleman said call him a radical. I will. He is a radical.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Sam H. Pack, one of the most influential leaders in the American automotive industry on thirty meritorious years of service.

Mr. Pack began his career in the automotive industry with Ford Motor Company. After his eighteen year tenure, he moved on to become the President, General Manager, and Partner of Lee Jarmon Ford, Inc., a dealership in Carrollton, Texas. In 1986, Mr. Pack purchased sole interest and as owner, the dealership has experienced continued growth under his leadership. The many loyal customers he has gained over the years can be attributed to his commitment to excellence and belief in quality customer service. His entrepreneurial spirit, business savvy, dedication, and hard work can be seen in his many successes as the proud owner and President of Sam Pack Auto Group.

Aside from his successful career, Mr. Pack firmly believes in giving back to his local community. His monetary contributions to numerous philanthropic organizations has touched the lives of many and helped nonprofit organizations more effectively achieve their mission. Beyond giving financially, Mr. Pack also gives generously of his time and effort. He is actively involved in various civic and professional organizations such as the Metrocrest Chamber of Commerce, North Dallas Shared Ministry, Episcopal Diocese of Dallas Children's Foundation, National Automobile Dealers Association, and the Dallas New Car Dealers Association where he currently serves as the Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to joining me in honoring Mr. Pack. I wish him and his family all the best and congratulate him as he celebrates the 30th Anniversary of Sam Pack's Five Star Ford.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate A.K Mago on receiving the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Award.

On January 9th, the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Award was presented to A.K Mago for his outstanding work which has enhanced India's prestige in the United States. He is the first recipient of this award from the Houston Consulate Jurisdiction, which covers Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas.

The Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Award is the highest honor conferred on overseas Indians. The award is presented by the President of India as a part of the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas Conventions, which have been organized annually since 2003. Recipients of this award have made significant contributions towards a better understanding of India abroad and have supported India's causes and concerns in a tangible way. Additionally, the honorees have made significant contributions in the welfare of the Diaspora, philanthropic and charitable work in India and abroad, and in building closer links between India and its Diaspora in the economic, cultural, and scientific fields.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our congratulations to A.K Mago for receiving this high honor.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Ebby Halliday Acres as she celebrates her ninety-ninth birthday today. Ebby has truly made a lifelong impact on the Dallas community and real estate industry through her many entrepreneurial and philanthropic endeavors.

Ebby Halliday Realtors was founded in 1945 by Ebby and her beloved husband, Maurice Acers. Their company began with only fifty-two homes in North Dallas, and has since grown to become one of the largest privately owned residential real estate firms in the country. Success for Ebby Halliday is not simply a result of her hard work and entrepreneurial spirit. She is notorious for the personal care and attention she gives to her employees, agents, and buyers. She has received numerous awards recognizing her professional success over the years. To name a few, Ebby received the Horatio Alger Award in 2005, the Visionary Award from Foundation Fighting Blindness, and the Linz Award in 2008.

Ebby is also celebrated in the Dallas community for generously donating her time and efforts, as well as significant financial support, to numerous philanthropic endeavors. St. Paul Medical Center, United Way of Metropolitan Dallas, and the Communities Foundation of Texas are only three of the many nonprofit organizations and causes that have been personally touched by Ebby's love for her community and dedication to making the City of Dallas a better place.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our heartiest congratulations to Ebby as she celebrates her ninety-ninth birthday. May we all strive to match Ebby's passion for improving our communities and her unwavering commitment to success.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the time.

Madam Speaker, the Republicans in this body are in a quandary again today because of the way this bill was brought to the floor, and I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Culberson) to ask some questions.

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman--and I am extending my words to him at this time. I do appreciate the gentleman, Mr. Oberstar, for being available to come down to the floor, but that is not the process. The process is the gentleman should have been upstairs at the Rules Committee. There was not one person available on behalf of the majority to come up to the Rules Committee to explain the bill. An explanation of, ``Well, none of this is new,'' is an inadequate explanation to the American people and to this body, and the Speaker should be embarrassed. This is not open. This is not, I believe, ethical, because the decisions were made and there was no discussion.

I believe we are calling into question, Republicans are calling into question today about how this House is being run. And I do appreciate the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and, in fact, I admire him a lot. Despite its being only perhaps 15 or 18 pages, that is an inadequate explanation. This House should not stand for it. The Members of this body should say we will not tolerate this. And I am deeply disappointed once again.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time he may consume to the ranking member, the gentleman from San Dimas, California.

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

Madam Speaker, the gentleman said it best about this bill: Nobody even really knows what's in it. There was no general discussion. There was no one made available to come to the Rules Committee to answer questions. There were no committee hearings on this. This isn't the way to run this House, and it's not just Republicans that are down saying this. It's Members of the majority party also. It is this kind of unthoughtful and unprofessional conduct that is being put off on this body to where Members don't even know what's in the bill, have not had the time. And once again, Republicans are down saying it's not open, it's not honest, and certainly not ethical.

I would like to yield 3 minutes at this time to the favorite son of Winterpark, Florida (Mr. Mica).

Madam Speaker, there is an answer to the gentlewoman from Texas, which is to vote against this rule. Vote against this rule. Then become a part of the process for the things which you would hope, would expect, and would want to be in the bill so at least your feedback can be accepted.

We've been told now that the Senate is the problem, but the problem is this House, Madam Speaker. The problem is the way we are doing things. The gentleman Mr. Oberstar said, Yes, we've been waiting for months to get this from the Senate. We took 2\1/2\ minutes upstairs this morning--not one hearing, not one person who represented the Democratic Party who would explain what is in this bill. Now we are down on the floor, trying to figure out what is in the bill, getting it just hours ago. This is a flawed process.

Madam Speaker, hearkening back to February 5, 2009, over a year ago, in the CQ article, `` `Regular Order' Will Prevail in House After Stimulus Is Complete, Pelosi says,'' the article reads, ``Speaking at House Democrats' annual policy conference, Pelosi said in her opening speech, `Of course we will go forward under regular order. We now have a large majority and a President who will sign legislation.' ''

It's not happening. It's not happening again today. It did not happen even after February 5, 2009. We should be embarrassed, but as the old saying goes, beatings will continue until morale improves.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Bainbridge Township, Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Parliamentary Inquiry

Madam Speaker, you know, we have heard all this before, and it is not working. The bottom line is what this Democratic leadership and this Democratic President are proposing is not working, and that is why we are back at the well, so to speak, again.

Over and over and over again we have a bunch of people that want to claim, ``Oh, we know how to get this done. Look at what President Clinton did.'' That was a Republican House of Representatives. Those were free market ideas. That was encouraging this country to be competitive. That was doing things that would encourage America and American business to go hire people.

The three largest political items of Speaker Pelosi and President Barack Obama have lost this country 10 million net jobs. No wonder American business is not hiring people. They are getting things jammed down their throat.

The President of the United States when he was a candidate talked about all the great things that could be accomplished, and since the President has been in the White House, he has done nothing but call people names, pick on them, belittle them, bully them, and then turns around and wonders why we have no jobs, why his agenda is not working. It is obvious why it is not working, because it is not made to work. It is made to bully the free enterprise system.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlewoman for asking. I appear to have one additional speaker plus myself.

Madam Speaker, if I could inquire of the time that remains on both sides, please.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate that this House of Representatives is made up of 435 Members who take time every week to come here to Washington. Perhaps they live here, but they still come to work, I believe, with a sense of obligation and duty, all 435 of us, to be fully participatory and to be a part of a moving body and a process that should work for the American people.

We are now in our fourth year of leadership that denies the American people and the Members of this body an opportunity, I believe, to even participate; not just fully participate, but to participate.

This bill that is on the floor again today is an example of a process that is very deceptive, because our friends, the Speaker and the Democratic leadership, talk about being open and honest, and yet the bill is here today with just hours' notice, with no one up in the Rules Committee on behalf of the Democrat leadership even explaining what is in the bill. I believe, again, the American people will reject this kind of leadership when the American people want to be engaged and Members of Congress want to be engaged.

So, today, Republicans are going to ask that we reject this, and we should reject this, because we know that Republicans have better ideas.

At this time I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, the Republican leader (Mr. Boehner).

Madam Speaker, I believe that our Republican leader, John Boehner, has said it very clearly, and that is that the way we are operating is not in the best interests of this House, the institution, or the Members.

We have heard lots of colleagues on the other side cut down and argue about this isn't even a job bill because it is not even going to create jobs and how inefficient it is. But until this Democratic leadership agrees that they want to be open, that they want to be honest about what is in the bill, and that they want to be ethical about how decisions are made, Republicans are going to keep coming down to this floor.

Many times I have argued openly in front of our Rules Committee chairman, Louise Slaughter, and said, Please know that the Republican Party wants to be better at our job, not as loyal opposition, but as an alternative party, and you do not even allow us an opportunity to know what is in the bills.

It is ridiculous. We find ourselves in the role of asking questions, making statements, and doing things that, to the American people, look awkward and, quite honestly, unprofessional.

I lay at the feet of the Speaker of the House and the Democratic leadership and my great Rules Committee chairman, Louise Slaughter, once again a request: If you want this body to have a chance to not look unprofessional and perhaps stupid, like we don't know what we are doing, and to gain back some trust of the American people, you have got to open up the process to where we as Members of Congress are able to come down with an educated opportunity to understand what is in the bill, to engage our colleagues on a professional basis, and to be able to thoughtfully talk about the content of the bill.

This is an embarrassment. It is an embarrassment that after we heard a year ago that we will start going through regular order now, we are still not doing that, that Members of Congress cannot even see the bill hours before they read it, nor do we know the content because nobody came to explain it.

It is wholly inadequate to people who are back home, Madam Speaker, to expect their Member of Congress, who comes up here 40 weeks a year to represent people, to be told we don't even know what is in the bill.

I encourage a ``no'' vote. I encourage a ``no'' vote on this rule. I will say once again to my friends that are Democrats, if you want to read the bill, if

you want to open up the process, your vote is the one that will make it happen. Don't blame that on somebody else. I have said it over the years. If you want to read the bill, then vote ``no'' on the rule. If you are perfectly happy with the process that is happening, go ahead and support this rule. But don't go back home and tell people, well, you know, I really didn't have a chance. That is a bad thing. Their vote matters on this floor.

Madam Speaker, every single one of us is issued a voting card that should be controlled by the Member, not by somebody else. Today, the Republican Party is coming down once again on this floor and saying directly to the American people and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, We are not happy. The process is flawed. And we are going to hold accountable every Member that votes for this rule today, just like we are for the others.

So if you bring what we consider to be a less than stellar bill to the floor and the process is part of that participation and you shut it out, you can expect to hear the same from the Republican Party. We want to be a part of this process, the American people do, and I even heard today your own Members again.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill that is with us today. The safety of this Nation, protecting America from terrorists, is of high and vital concern not only to this Member, but I think every single Member, as we have been reminded time after time that we cannot take our eye off the ball, that the security of this country is a job that must be done all day, every day, by a group of savvy professionals that I believe we presently have in this country. It is a combined effort of not only law enforcement and intelligence, but also it involves bright minds from this body also.

Today what we are here to do is to consider reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act. This act was done 9 years ago, 9 years ago when our Nation was struck. It was crafted in such a way that there were provisions, ideas, thoughts that we did at the time where we said we need to make sure they are reauthorized, that these ideas are looked at, where we go through the processes and see what happens not only with our own effectiveness with the law, but also how our intelligence agencies are nimble enough to adapt themselves to make these changes.

At the same time I say I am for this, it is unfortunate that my friends on the Rules Committee, my Democratic colleagues, continue to deny the minority due process by not allowing us to offer a motion to recommit. Time and time again Republicans are shut out of the amendment process, forcing us to simply accept what comes forward.

I encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to stop restricting this process in the House.

Almost 9 years ago, as I stated, Congress passed this PATRIOT Act, bipartisan support, at a time that was very difficult not only for us to see that enemy that was at us, but also for us to understand more clearly how we should respond, and this Nation did respond. We responded with a PATRIOT Act that was specific in nature that allowed intelligence agencies to stand a chance to fight those against us.

This legislation was and still is vital to our intelligence capacity and our desire to show the enemy that we're willing to fight, that we're willing to stand up and protect this country, that we're willing to go to the lengths that are expected of anybody who wants to protect their own homeland.

Earlier this week, Ranking Member Lamar Smith of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from San Antonio, Texas, urged Democrat leaders, as we did not know whether this bill would come forward, to extend those expiring provisions, stating: ``Congress has a duty to protect the American people. Failing to reauthorize our national security laws in a time of heightened threat is reckless.''

These were the types of public comments that Republicans are making about the need to make sure that we press this body to get done its job with those processes.

Yesterday, up in the Rules Committee, the gentleman, Mac Thornberry, also from Clarendon, Texas, testified in the Rules Committee about the importance of extending the expiring PATRIOT Act provisions at the time we were debating the Intelligence bill. I thought that Mr. Thornberry was well on point, was thoughtful, was articulate about the significance of providing the necessary debate on important issues and amendments.

I think we just had a debate here on the floor where we went through how these issues need to be talked about in this body and every single Member needs to understand them as a result of their constitutional duty to protect and defend, not just our Constitution, but this country. And I wholeheartedly agree with his assessment when he said we need to provide the intelligence community with the appropriate tools to protect this Nation.

Yesterday, the Senate passed this legislation by voice vote; confirming the importance of acting immediately. Look, I'm just for getting it done. I'm just for getting it done. If the Senate wants to do it by voice vote, that's fine.

Today we are here on the floor to talk about the three provisions that were set to expire. They were set to expire because the previous Congresses have said we needed to have an active debate on these issues, like to talk about them, allowing the government to seek court orders for roving wiretaps on terrorism suspects who shift their modes of communication.

Mr. Speaker, if there's one thing we learned, the enemy is smart and nimble and quick. They adapt themselves to the way we do business. We need to give our intelligence agencies the ability to be nimble, quick and to adapt themselves also. Glad this is being redone just in time.

To allow investigators to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court order to procure certain records in national security investigations, you've heard this said for a long time. The people who are trying to protect this country are few in number, and the cases against them are very large. The number of people who are seeking to turn our country into another war

zone where civilians are killed, where planes are blown up out of the sky, where we have inundation of our national security efforts, as well as cybersecurity, are numerous. We need to make sure our investigators have a clear understanding about the rules and are able to receive information in a legal process.

Lastly, to allow the government to apply special court surveillance orders involving suspected terrorists that are called ``lone wolf'' terrorists who do not necessarily have ties to larger organizations.

I think the gentleman, Mr. Rogers, made a point here from the Intelligence Committee that our ability to be able to see this for what it is, whether it's a part of a larger terrorist group or whether it's a lone wolf acting on his own, that we need to be able to make sure that we can fully vet these individuals before shutting them down and allowing them just to be treated as a person who's committed a crime. We need to be able to see that which is aimed at this country and to fully vet them.

When people who are overseas terrorists come into this country by lying to us about why they would be coming and their intents, we need to be smart enough and nimble enough to pick these up.

Each of these provisions are used by law enforcement officials and intelligence agents to prevent terrorist attacks. By reauthorizing these provisions today, which my party, the Republican Party, fully supports, we believe, for an additional year, will provide the appropriate defense and intelligence measures to protect Americans from another event like 9/11.

If I offered some comments, Republicans would have been in favor of making these permanent in law. Of course, we need to make sure that we're re-evaluating these, but these should be made permanent law so that our law enforcement agencies set themselves in a position to be nimble enough to see the attack against us.

I think 9 years' worth of effort has told us we need to give our law enforcement every single tool that we believe is reasonable. I think we've done it today. I wish we'd done it for more than a year, because here we are, we will be here a year from now, perhaps struggling with the same issue.

Let's make these permanent additions to the Homeland Security PATRIOT Act. This country is under a constant threat of violence and terrorism, and that's why it's necessary to make sure that all of our intelligence and law enforcement have the appropriate tools to defeat those who would wish to do us harm.

We don't need to look back very far to Christmas Day; but I would say to us that after that, we still had warnings that came from our intelligence community that said, and expect more, and expect more; which is the reason why we should be making these issues that we talked about today, not extending them for one more year, but to make them permanent to give our guys, our team, our men and women who are engaged in the professional aspect of protecting this country, the tools which they need to protect this country.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I will reserve the balance of my time.

I would appreciate that. And in a colloquy, if the gentleman would allow me the time since he has indicated he has no further speakers, I will go ahead and consume my time with the knowledge that he would then be ending very quickly. And I thank the gentleman very, very much.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to go ahead and proceed using up all my time at this time with the knowledge that he will be through.

Mr. Speaker, at this time we have the gentleman from Gold River, California, a gentleman, Mr. Lungren, who has served as not only a Member of this body, then went back to California, served as the Attorney General from the State of California. He's a very thoughtful Member. He sees very clearly the laws of this country and the Constitution of this country, but he also sees the need for us to be nimble enough to see the attack that's against us, to be able to respond and to give our men and women who are on the front line all the assets and resources only that are necessary, but the laws and the underpinning of being able to make sure that we can fully protect this country.

And I will yield to the gentleman 6 minutes at this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, we're talking about something that is real important today. We've been talking about something that is real important, and I think the point that's made today is that the Republican Party supports the extension of the PATRIOT Act that we're doing here today. These three provisions are very important.

We're questioning why we have to move these on a piecemeal basis. We should move them. They should become permanent law. We believe that the enemy that is at our doorstep, that is all around this world, that is attacking our allies, our friends, people who love freedom, that that is not going to go away. We need to give our intelligence officials the ability to know that they are going to hard-code this in their books and their training and what they do instead of exceptions to, well, we might not want to do this in the future. Mr. Speaker, we need to give our team that's protecting us all of the tools that are available.

We're going to vote for this today because we think it's the right thing, but we think it ought to be made permanent. We think it ought to be a provision that all of our law enforcement, all of our intelligence officials understand why we're doing this, and we want to send them a strong signal: Protecting this country is not something that should be taken lightly from a perspective of what might expire. We want to give them all of the tools that are necessary. We want to make it permanent. Let's put it in their permanent training manual, not in an exception rule that they have to follow up and retrain people about what the law is.

Protecting this country should not be something that is related to whether we have an expiring provision or not. Let's make it permanent. Let's get that done. It would be my hope that the Intelligence Committee of this House would move to get that done as soon as we've passed this today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, no surprise, I rise in opposition to this closed rule. The charade of Speaker Pelosi running ``the most open, honest, and ethical Congress'' is once again confirmed today that that's not happening. That is not happening here again on the floor, and it's related to this activity that we went through in the Rules Committee upstairs just yesterday.

At a time of record deficits and record unemployment, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are simply trying to blame Republicans and George Bush rather than looking at their own responsibility of what they have done in the last year that has placed enormous, enormous financial strain on this country. Never once did they talk about that responsibility, that they led this country, saying, We must go and spend this money because it will lend itself to jobs. And we're going to have the stimulus bill. We're going to call it the stimulus bill.

The President went all over the country and Members of Congress went all over the country and sold this. It didn't work it. It didn't work. It didn't work big time. I didn't hear any offer of, Whoops. As Vice President Biden said, We guessed and it didn't work.

I think it would have been appropriate this morning for the gentleman from Massachusetts or anybody from the Democratic Party to stand up and say, You know, we did guess. I know those Republicans told us this wouldn't work, but we really guessed and we guessed wrong. The Vice President has the guts to say that. I think this body should say the same thing, rather than trying to blame this on George Bush.

Today, we're here to raise the debt limit an additional $1.9 trillion. Now, the first question is: My gosh, why so much? Because so much burden and debt has been added. The bottom line is we're only here because what our friends Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Party have done did not work. They took out a monster loan that is not paying off. But today, there is not even a vote. It's required, but not even a vote or a debate on the issue of raising the debt limit. In fact, the majority party has used deceitful procedural games to hide the fact that they are raising the debt limit again, for the sixth time, six times since they took control of the House. Why, you ask? Well, it's to give their members political coverage and a vote on statutory PAYGO again. I guess we're going to keep blaming George Bush, President Bush, for this.

The bottom line is, Madam Speaker, as I speak to each of the Members here on the floor today, this is about raising the statutory debt limit $1.9 trillion. And my colleagues and I are going to spend the time today discussing the current economic climate, the reason why things aren't working. The majority's principles and priorities of spending and taxing and borrowing and the President's fiscal year 2011 budget-- $3.6 trillion--that was just released this week tell the reason why.

Madam Speaker, we've told you over and over again, if you take the investor out of the equation, if you tax the American people, if you destroy job creators, if you go at employers and have a battle with them, they will get it. They will quit employing people.

Our President seems to have, every time I watch him, he's always after somebody. He's always got a problem; the bankers, the doctors, insurance. Every time I look up, our great President, Barack Obama, has an ax to grind with somebody, and it's generally employers. And then he wants to turn around and say, How come we don't have any jobs? Oh, we're going to get those. We'll get those. This is America. We can do anything.

But the policies are not creating jobs; they're creating debts. They're creating circumstances where this country has to again today borrow for the debt limit and pass a bill here today that says we're going to raise the debt limit $1.9 trillion so our government doesn't go belly up. Madam Speaker, that is over $46,000 per American family, just what we're doing now. Since September 2007, the year our friends the Democrats took control, over $3.8 billion, on average, has been added to the national debt every single day.

The President's budget borrows too much, taxes too much, and spends too much. But what it does is it kills the goose that lays the golden egg. Then we wonder why we don't have jobs in this country.

The $3.6 trillion budget represents nearly a 30-percent increase in total outlays since 2008. The budget includes more than $2 trillion in job-killing tax hikes, with nearly a 20-percent jump in the first year alone. I get it. I get it as an individual taxpayer, and that's why I virtually sold all my stock. I got out of the stock market because this administration and this Congress want to kill economic growth and opportunity, and I can't take that and everybody else can't take that. And so that's why you're seeing employers and others say, Enough is enough. That's what we're saying here today.

This tax includes taxes on small businesses, investors, and families earning less than $250,000 a year, also. I thought we heard the President say that he was going to give everybody a tax cut. They keep talking about it. Boy, it's a great idea to float. Sure wish you'd deliver on that one. But let's also go to the high side. We need investors to be in the game, Madam Speaker. We need investors, and this bill taxes the stuffings out of them.

Additionally, the President's budget runs up a record budget deficit again. We're going to vote on it again. Democrats, Yea, we support the President. All these great priorities. The national debt is predicted to double once again over 5 years and triple by 2019, and that's a mistake. Interest alone would set the American taxpayer back roughly $6 trillion, just the interest over the next decade.

The American people want Congress, want Washington to rein in borrowing, taxing, and spending. They don't want more of it. They want Congress to stop talking about what they will do about helping jobs and to actually make the environment better. There's still an experiment going on out there, Madam Speaker, and people are not buying it because they are concerned about Washington and what they're going to do next. Taxing, spending, and borrowing is not a way to start this new year.

During last week's State of the Union, President Obama stated, Starting in 2011, we will prepare to freeze government spending for 3 years. Great. Great, Mr. President. That was Thursday night. I went upstairs just yesterday and I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee on H.R. 4061, the Cybersecurity bill, the first bill right out of the bag, and I took the President up on that and said, Hey, I think we ought to have an amendment added to the bill, since the bill doesn't do it, that would have frozen spending just on two programs for 3 years. My amendment would have saved a paltry $47 million. That's all, just $47 million. I know it's not a lot. And you would not have believed the calls at me about how out of line I was and how this was the most important thing in the history of our country.

This body is not prepared to make tough decisions. This body is not prepared even to cut $47 million after we clapped for the President just the other day. This Democrat majority continues to pursue initiatives and policies that will lead to more unemployment and bigger and more deficits. This administration and the Democratic majority promised the American people they would aim for jobs and economic recovery, health care, cleaner energy, better education. That list goes on and on and on. And I will tell you what we've got for it: record deficits, record spending, and record unemployment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by the way, I like this PAYGO thing that my friends, the Democrats, are pushing. But when it comes down to it, they waive PAYGO on a regular basis.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Chico, California (Mr. Herger).

Madam Speaker, it's a good thing we're here on the floor of the House where we're exempt from things like deceptive practices, because this body would be guilty today. Here we are with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010. Madam Speaker, 32 pages of this 56-page bill are exemptions to pay-as-you-go. So 32 pages are--Oh, we say we're going to have pay-as-you-go--but 32 of the 56 pages are, I'm sorry, but it does not apply to the following items. Madam Speaker, that's deceptive.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the favorite son of Dallas, Texas, the gentleman Mr. Hensarling.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, once again, a hyperbole that does not match the action. Out of the 56 pages of this bill, 32 pages are exemptions to pay-as-you-go, 32 of the 56 pages that

our good friends are touting as the answer and the right way to do it. But most intriguing is that we've heard that the way to do it is the way it's being done here, because it's open and honest.

There is not even a vote on the debt limit; it's self-executed in the rule. So let's go and vote for PAYGO and talk about how responsible we are. Oh, at the same time, make sure we fund what we've done, $1.9 trillion. The Rules Committee is pretty good up there, Madam Speaker. Know how to hide things. Know how to obfuscate the real facts of the case. The facts of the case are the American people know what's going on. They K-N-O-W what is going on. Over the last year, I've heard from constituents also, and they want a good economy and they want jobs. And the Democrat majority is simply not stepping up to this.

I'm going to encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule when it's our time to get that done. Just so our colleagues understand this, we're going to have a vote on this one here today.

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Madam Speaker, I'd love to engage the gentleman if he would take the time; but I'd like to ask him, if he says it's so good, why are 32 of the 56 pages exemptions to PAYGO? And I would like to find out if this is so real----

Good. I'd like the gentleman to address why are 32 of the 56 pages----

Oh, we're going to blame it on Ronald Reagan now. I reclaim my time and I appreciate the gentleman for blaming this on Ronald Reagan. I tell you what, I would be very pleased to engage in a dialogue with the gentleman if you'll answer one question.

Why are you down on the floor, your party saying this is the real deal and yet 32 of the 56 pages exempt spending?

I would enjoy the gentleman doing that. I yield to the gentleman.

Then why are we--we did the same thing but now it's okay for you.

I am engaging with the gentleman.

I appreciate the gentleman. You know, I think the best evidence, and reclaiming my time, I think the best evidence that this is not working is the deficit rising from $161 billion in 2007, to $1.4 trillion last year and $1.6 trillion this year; $161 billion in '07 to last year, $1.4 trillion and this year $1.6 trillion.

I would say that the preponderance of the evidence does not support the hypothesis. Today, in this rule, we didn't really debate the debt limit about being honest about the vote; but we're going to go ahead and have an opportunity, Madam Speaker, when my colleagues vote ``no'' on the previous question, that we will be allowed to amend this rule to consider an end to the TARP Act to stop the bailouts which are a part of this problem. This act would immediately terminate the Troubled Asset Relief Program and reduce the debt ceiling by the amount of remaining authorized TARP funds, which is nearly now $200 billion.

We cannot continue what we're doing, spending taxpayer dollars and having these bailout programs. This is an ineffective program.

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

Madam Speaker, America is calling for fiscal responsibility. And I welcome the gentleman from Tyler, Texas (Mr. Gohmert) to speak for 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, if I could engage Mr. McGovern for the purpose of letting him know that I am down to my final few minutes, I have two additional speakers. He has a lot of time remaining. I would ask that he engage his speakers and his time as we roll it down.

Madam Speaker, spin zone. I love it. The gentleman is talking about all these Republicans want to privatize Social Security and Medicare. We're responsible. Well, what the gentleman forgot is it's the Democrats' proposal that takes $400 billion out of Medicare, $400 billion. Those are not only talking points from the 1990s that the gentleman is hung up on, it's not truthful.

I would like to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, in the remaining time, I would just like to say that I think the American people are watching and they are listening, and they heard a good debate here

on the floor about these corporations that Republicans try and get all of these tax breaks for. I'd like to remind the gentleman those are called employers, and employers in this country have the second highest tax rate of any country in the world.

Darn right Republicans are trying to cut taxes, because we want the American people to get employed again, and attacking employers is the key thrust of what the Democratic objective is all about. No wonder we've lost jobs. We're attacking employers, attacking employers. The President, the gentleman Mr. Hoyer, the Speaker, Mrs. Pelosi, attacking employers. No wonder we've got an unemployment problem.

But this budget is filled with reckless spending and unsustainable debt. Don't blame that on somebody else. Accept the responsibility yourself. This is the biggest budget we've ever had. And for the President to come and say, as a takeaway, Just as you know, American people, we're going to start this spending process to where we freeze spending, it's really a joke.

The bottom line is the American people know what the problem is. They've clued in on it. They even know the pages of the bills where they have seen the majority party try and take advantage of the taxpayer, rip health care out from their advantage where they could have their own health care, take dollars away from their employers and tax them.

I will tell you, the Republican Party is going to stand up for jobs again today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule, yet another closed rule before the Congress, and I object to the process by which this bill was brought to the floor. Last week, both of the bills we're discussing today under this rule failed to get the two-thirds vote in this body. Instead of working together to resolve the differences with the bills between the leadership, my friends on the other side of the aisle, the majority, simply rescheduled them for floor action today with no Republican input.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we're going to debate these bills, and once again, the Democrat leadership's priorities in this Congress--let's be honest about that--it's about spending money. Spending money, Mr. Speaker, is what this Democrat leadership priority is all about. However, tonight our body will welcome the President of the United States. And the President will be here for the State of the Union, and we will be able to hear from the President about his priorities and about--I think we will hear about how he wants us to work together, work together. Ideas from both sides.

Hey, I get it. The Republican Party is not in the majority. The American people get that. We're in the middle of Democrat majorities that have been in place for 3 years now. And I suspect we'll hear from the President about how important it is to work together and use bipartisan measures to reconcile our differences for the American people so that they can have confidence in Congress, our ability to work together on big issues and small issues, set priorities that the American people can understand.

Yet, Democrat leadership just last week took down the Idaho Wilderness bill and then placed it on the calendar for today with the exact same language, but they removed my colleague, a Republican, Dr. Mike Simpson, as sponsor of the bill and replaced him

with a member of the majority party. Payback time, I guess, is once again in order here on the floor of the House of Representatives, on the exact same day that we're going to welcome the President, and we're all going to put that big smiley face on tonight. We're all working together. Boy, we don't know what's wrong with the problems of the country, but we're going to work together, and then be admonished about telling the truth, which is, Congress is the problem.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party is here to do the people's work. We're here to work together. We continue to have ideas that are shut out in the room just above this floor, just above this body, up there called the Rules Committee. We've been trying for years to do that. I wonder if the President would consider that working together by the way we're doing this. I hope he does not. I hope he admonishes us, and I hope he takes us to task and says that foolish political gamesmanship is wasting America's money and America's time, because time is important to the American people, because there are a whole lot of people who are without jobs. They're without jobs because of the lack of bipartisanship and working together in this body, all for spending money because that's what this Speaker wants to do. I think the American people want Democrats to rein in their borrowing, taxing, and spending ways. That's what I think. I don't know. Maybe you'd have to ask the American people.

Oh, by the way, I think they've spoken in New Jersey and Virginia and again last week in Massachusetts. I think they want Congress to stop talking about what they will do to provide jobs and talk about all the things that are happening and actually get to the work of getting it done.

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot to say today, but at this time I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) who, last night, very clearly in the Rules Committee, as ranking member talked about what Republicans' hopes and dreams were just on this bill and the process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the gentleman an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman said. I know he was busy. I find times when I cannot attend a Rules Committee meeting, and I know the gentleman was not there yesterday. But I need to help him with what actually happened.

As a matter of fact, the Republicans did ask for an open rule. We were not without ideas. You have to open the rule to get amendments in, and we were denied. I also would point to, you know, the idea that we're all sitting around here, Oh, golly gee, we're all bipartisan-- when, in fact, the gentleman voted against the bill just this last week, I assume because he disagreed with the substance of the bill. But he was joined by lots of Democratic colleagues that actually took down the bill because once again, I assume substance--not because it was a Republican's name on there. It will be interesting to see what happens today when there is a Democrat Member's name on there to find out if the same policy differences that existed last week, even though it's the exact same bill, whether those same policy problems still exist today or really whether it was just politics.

And we'll be able to know this afternoon. We'll be able to know because it's the exact same bill and the argument the gentleman is making, We're just all getting our job done around here.

Mr. Speaker, we disagree with the bill. And we spoke yesterday not just about Dr. Simpson's bill; we also spoke about the bill with the $50 million in St. Croix. And I am going to outline part of that here. But it's based upon substance. And the substance that we believe is important is directly related to the National Park Service giving us their study which they spent $500,000 doing. And last night upstairs, we just blew it off: don't worry about that recommendation; National Park Service, they're going to say it's okay.

I'm sorry. In testimony: Do you know what the substance, what they're going to say? No, but I have a good idea. You know, I sit on the committee. I am a ranking member or I am the committee chairman.

Mr. Speaker, that's the wrong way to run this House. It's the wrong way to run the Rules Committee. That's the wrong way to do things, to ask somebody to do a study and spend half a million dollars and just go ahead and move the legislation without even hearing from people about the substance of the issue.

Forget about it being beachfront property, $50 million, $9 billion backlog of taking care of national parks in this country, and yet it's going to take another million dollars annually just to take care of this beachfront property that the Democratic leadership wants to push.

Americans across the Nation are struggling, Mr. Speaker. They're struggling to provide for their own families and their loved ones. Last week, the Department of Labor released data showing that 12 million Americans are collecting unemployment benefits and over 15 million are currently unemployed. That is double, that is double in 1 year.

There is only so much blame that goes around. At some point the Democratic leadership is going to have to say after 3 years of running this economy into the ground, they're going to have to stand up and be big about it. It's the policies of taxing and spending that the Democratic leadership, the Democratic Members are letting them get away with in this body.

I think somebody is going to have to explain the priorities at some point: why they're putting these two bills back to back, why they're trying to oppose it 1 week with the same policy, the next week presumably will pass it. I will watch with great interest, Mr. Speaker, to see exactly what happens today on the vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's all about priorities; and, you know, I welcome the debate that we're having here today.

We asked that we not do this. We asked, at the Rules Committee, let's not do this bill. Isn't it better that we don't go spend $50 million right now?

It is an island. By the way, every piece of land on the island is not beachfront property.

The bottom line is that we are choosing because it's a priority to do this. It's a priority, and those priorities the Republican Party disagrees with.

Additionally, the second bill that comes under this rule that failed to get two-thirds vote last week is the one we're talking about, H.R. 3726, the Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act. And what this bill really does, as we've heard, is it authorizes but does not appropriate $50 million. If there is anybody in this body who believes that we're going to have a significant debate about the $50 million when it comes in a huge package of appropriations, they're wrong. This puts it in line to be a part of another massive spending bill.

Meanwhile, as we go and buy new Federal land in the Virgin Islands, unemployment rate at 10 percent, that's problematic to me. Even more, Americans, lots of them, don't even have the opportunity to go visit this new $50 million purchase because economic climates are so bad. And you know, even if we weren't running a $1.4 trillion deficit and raising the debt limit by another $1.9 trillion in the next few weeks, there's still this backlog that we could prioritize and put the $50 million in to take care of the $9 billion maintenance backlog that we have in this country.

And by the way, that's cultural. Lots of sites in this country are cultural that are national parks. And the priorities should be of existing decisions that we have made.

I just think it's a bad way to go. But I think it represents exactly the mindset of the Democratic leadership: another good way to spend money, put a happy, smiley face on it, and talk about it's a really good thing for taxpayers.

We're going to find out more when the National Park Service finally releases their study. We are going to find out what they would say. But the Republicans up in the room in the Rules Committee last night said let's wait. Let's not spend the money. Let's wait to find out what we do. And most of all, let's make this an open rule so every Member can bring their ideas down here.

It's not going to happen. Party-line vote.

So what today's legislation should show the American people is about this Congress' priorities: First, that the Democrats refuse--once again, nothing new--to work with Republicans on anything from water bills to national health care reform. Secondly, that jobs and the economy come second to the $50 million worth of taxpayer funds for beachfront property that most Americans will never, never, ever see.

Mr. Speaker, Americans want jobs. They want fiscal responsibility by this body. They want us to work together on the issues and the problems facing this country. And I think they are seeing, once again today, after what was called the wake-up call last week, that we are not doing any of those.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrat majority continues to serve initiatives and policies that will lead to more unemployment, more debt, and more taxation. This administration and the Democrat Congress promised Americans they would be serious about jobs, economic recovery, health care, cleaner energy, and better education. The list goes on and on and on. And what we see after 3 years, now entering the fourth, of Democratic leadership majority in this body is that they are driving our country to record deficits, record unemployment, record spending, and record inability to take responsibility for what they have done on their watch being the policy arm of this government.

This rule does not represent any commitment to fiscal sustainability, either. And with this legislation, Congress only continues to increase Federal debt, slows down our economic recovery, increases the Federal burden and the financial burden placed on our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration promised Americans if Congress passed the stimulus bill that unemployment would not go beyond 8 percent. That was a long time ago. They promised that it would save millions of jobs. Here we are 1 year later, record unemployment and more than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs since the package that was called the ``jobs bill,'' a $1.2 trillion stimulus package, and today in the papers we read about not only is it not working, it is doing what Republicans said at the time. It is going to add to unemployment and debt that will increase at an exponential rate.

In June of last year, my friends on the other side of the aisle passed a cap-and-trade bill that would also raise prices on energy and goods and services for hardworking Americans across this country. In my home State of Texas, the average household would expect to pay more than $1,100 extra a year. No wonder--no wonder there is an outcry. Once again, part of a legislative package, an initiative, that would lose 1.38 million manufacturing jobs. They are in the middle of that right now.

Somebody is going to have to stand up and take accountability for this, because it is happening on the leadership of the Democratic Party's watch. And today, despite these facts, we are spending more money and going to place America in a deficit position again.

Mr. Speaker, in November this last year, the Democrat-controlled House passed sweeping health care reform that effectively diminished employer-based insurance and now is a part of a debate as we continue to lose jobs. It's time that the Democratic Party began working with Republicans if you want to bring jobs back.

Mr. Speaker, the majority party is out of touch. They are out of touch with Americans. Their priorities on borrowing, taxing, and spending are killing our economy and ruining progress for job growth. I know, once again, today I, Republicans, are the minority party. All we can do is stand on the floor and talk. But we believe that the processes up in the Rules Committee are important. That's why we were there even last night trying to say this is the wrong thing to do and that $50 million more does matter. We cannot remedy the economic circumstances that we're in by increasing spending, not on national parks in the Virgin Islands and not on a $1.3 trillion health care bill that will destroy 5\1/2\ million jobs.

Huge energy and health bills are going to raise taxes and kill jobs, and certainly raise expenses for States. And people over the last year, we've heard our constituents say that they want stability, they want us to work together, and they want us to focus on the things that would bring about a better tomorrow.

I disagree with what we are doing again today, and I respectfully would say to the American people and my colleagues we should defeat this bill. It's the wrong direction. It's a bad idea, and the timing of this is very bad.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to welcome the President of the United States tonight. I hope we listen to what he says.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for representing the Democratic Party today. I think that it's important as we approach today that the hopes and expectations of a Nation who tonight will listen to our President will be in our hearts and our minds.

This country has had serious days in our past, and we are in serious days today. I don't think there is any problem bigger than a solution in this country. I do believe, however, and I have believed this, that when it comes to the economy, building jobs and working to create a better environment where America is competitive in the world, that it will require not just a basic sense of understanding marketplaces, but really, Mr. Speaker, of discipline, of seeing the problem for what it is.

It is a problem that has been self-induced. It is self-induced by this body, who in the midst of the greatest expansion--and I remember just a few years ago with my friends who were Democrats, oh, all this money that this country has, we are not spending it the right way. The priorities are mixed. We should go spend more money and help people who do not have the advantages because this booming economy has not gotten to them yet.

Mr. Speaker, I do understand that. I do understand that a lot. I spend a lot of time working with disabled people in this country. But what happened in that process was we flipped so far over to where we are now killing the goose that lays the golden egg, and that is the free enterprise system. The free enterprise system, as a result of this Speaker and the policies of the Democratic Party, are pushing an agenda that would lose this country 10 million jobs. We are in the middle of that.

The assault on employers is part of the political agenda. I get that. I think the free enterprise system gets that. But the American people have now caught on. And I think it's time, if we really want to talk about having jobs, jobs that can be competitive with the world, jobs that are not nickel-and-dime jobs or here today and gone tomorrow, that it will require a discipline and a philosophy of understanding how jobs are created and the free enterprise system and the decisionmaking.

The decisionmaking is that this Congress needs to do at least three things:

Number one, they need to make sure that we cut capital gains taxes so that people will invest in this country. They will invest in this country, and the creation of jobs will occur.

Secondly, we need to make sure that we do away with, or greatly diminish, depreciation. Depreciation is government competing against the free enterprise system for money.

And perhaps most importantly, or lastly, the death tax. The death tax because literally, after three generations, anybody who owns a family- owned business has to lose it. It's gone. It's gone from taxation from a Federal Government that is controlled by those who want to tax and spend and diminish that for the spending of the government rather than people who have jobs.

So, look, I think we ought to take the responsibility today. I think, just like somebody going to a meeting and admitting that they made a mistake and they were wrong and they have a problem, being honest about the problem, the creation of jobs won't come through some trickery. It will only come from doing the things that business itself will tell you it needs: reducing capital gains on a permanent basis, reducing the problem that we have with depreciation, and lastly, the death tax. We don't have to take it to $1 billion or half a billion dollars. We could move it probably to $50 million or $60 million and stop the burden, the bleeding, that is happening where people are losing their land, their property, and their businesses. But it takes someone who understands that.

I spent 16 years in the free enterprise system, 16 years where I never missed a day of work. I loved what I did. But I saw Washington as the problem. That's why I came to Congress. I still see government as being the problem. And here today, we give a lot of lip service to jobs, and people act like, well, I just really don't know what to do.

The fact of the matter is the political agenda of losing 10 million American jobs, which we are in the middle of, health care, cap-and- trade, and card check are strangling this country. If we want to be honest about this, just like an alcoholic showing up at an AA meeting and admitting there is a 12-step process to coming back, we need to understand that we are taxing too much, we are spending too much, we are borrowing too much, and the debt is strangling this country.

Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs?

I yield back my time.