Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

The scene and the content of this debate is really like a bad movie in a lot of ways. You rewind the tape and we have ultimately had this conversation about a year ago when the Democratic majority, Madam Speaker, said to the American public, look, we want to borrow $1 trillion, and with that trillion, trust us, it's going to be great. Jobs are going to be created. The sun is going to come out. The tulips are going to be there, and it's all going to be fabulous.

It didn't work out that way. Eleven percent unemployment in the State of Illinois, the difference between the promise of the borrowing, 8 percent unemployment, has now eclipsed to 11 percent in Illinois. And in my home

State, Madam Speaker, that means 200,000 people have taken on debt and haven't been rescued. They weren't rescued in December when the majority said we're going to raise the debt limit again, and they're going to be rescued by this. This is a classic underperformance.

And the majority, with all due respect, hasn't recognized the failure of the stimulus. In fact, they don't even like to use the word ``stimulus,'' Madam Speaker.

So in this context, I say let's stop this madness. Let's get back to our first priorities. Our first priorities are to be a nation of disciplined spenders, and we ought not to empower folks to borrow and create more and more debt into the future.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I thank the majority for making this amendment in order and a special thank you to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) who was instrumental in putting this together.

The amendment is actually very straightforward and very, very simple. It just inserts the word or phrase ``community college'' at four different points in the bill.

What this amendment is trying to do is to expand the pool of people that we're reaching out to to bring into this idea of taking on this great challenge of cybersecurity. In a nutshell, I'd like to read just a quick paragraph from a community college in my district, the College of DuPage, located in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. It says of this amendment that it will capitalize on the abilities of the exceptional faculty, talented students, and the state-of-the-art facilities at the College of DuPage and institutions like it to produce careers and put in place systems to protect our country. And similarly, the amendment is supported by the American Association of Community Colleges.

But I think, putting this into a larger context, it's important, because if you look at where we're going as a Nation, and notwithstanding all the turmoil that we've seen regarding our economy and where we're attempting to go, and we're struggling with great unemployment rates and so forth, without question, it's the technology sector of our economy that's going to lead the way. And without question, we're going to need an underlying system that is secure. And so I think casting a wider net, including folks in the community college system who have proven themselves time and time again, to ultimately invite them into this solution, I think, is the way to go. It's a fairly straightforward amendment and it says that technology is important for our Nation and, ultimately, technology and cybersecurity are important for our Nation.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) for such time as he may consume.

I thank the gentleman for his kind words.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in recognition of the long and distinguished service of Itasca Fire Protection District Assistant Chief Greg McDonald on the occasion of his retirement. Assistant Chief McDonald recently concluded his loyal service to the community he has been faithfully serving since 1972.

Assistant Chief McDonald first volunteered for the Itasca FPD for 13 years and rose to the rank of captain. Following this period of service he was promoted to Assistant Chief in 1991.

Day in and day out Assistant Chief McDonald led the men and women of the Itasca Fire Protection District as they risked their lives to protect Itasca. His leadership is reflected in their bravery and courage.

Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in celebrating this special occasion and the long years of service and commitment that it represents.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, it is the holiday season, and the majority is saying, Cheers.

Here we are, and it's really been an unbelievable party, hasn't it? I mean here we are, and you have all of these folks who have come together, doubling the national debt, as was described, over a 5-year period. The majority will now triple the national debt, and it is as if all they can do is keep serving. No discipline. Hey, cheers. Here you go. Enjoy. Well, here is what happens at the end of that binge. Here is what happens at the end of that kegger:

Ultimately, the old man drives up into the driveway and looks around, and the party is going to be over. Who is going to be there to clean it up? Our children and our grandchildren, Madam Speaker. They are the ones who will be there, taking care of this mess over a long period of time.

So we ought not be continuing serving a government that has been overserved time and time and time again. Instead, what we ought to do is avoid the generational theft, do what is right by our children and grandchildren and not increase this debt.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think it's a sad argument, ironically, that the majority is using, and that is to kind of procedurally hold hostage, a group of teachers who are counting on predictability and clarity and forthrightness and transparency from this Congress, and now it is 21 days before a tax provision upon which they are going to rely is now dangling before them.

And what this House is being told by the majority is either you vote for these teachers or you push them off, and these are your choices. Is that really as good as it gets? Is that really as robust a tax provision and a tax policy that we can come up with, to dangle a group of teachers out and sort of manipulate them on the House floor in terms of an argument and say, ``You're either for teachers or you're not''?

Well, I think the American public sees through that argument, Mr. Speaker. I think that the American public has a hope and an expectation that we are not going to get to this false trade; that is, that we are going to permanently increase taxes on job creators while offering temporary tax relief. That's a bad deal. That's a real bad deal all the way around.

And it gets particularly difficult if you think about the extension of that logic: Are we going to have this same debate in the 2010 cycle when we're going to be dealing with tax rates, we're going to be talking about dividend rates, and we're going to be talking about individual rates? Are we going to be having this same permanent tax increase in exchange for temporary tax relief?

Mr. Speaker, that's a bad deal. We ought to walk away from this. We ought to vote ``no'' and send this back to the committee where it belongs.

I thank the gentleman. I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for highlighting the research and development elements of my home State. And I guess my reply is that simply casting a wider net and grabbing more procedural hostages, I don't find it persuasive, because I think the false premise that is the basis of this bill is the permanence versus temporary argument; in other words, that the tax hikes that are being articulated are going to be permanent tax hikes. The tax relief that is being used, Mr. Speaker, to really sell the bill are going to be temporary tax relief.

I find it ironic that here we have had a jobs summit at the White House with the congressional leadership and obviously the President, and so much consternation that we all share about what? About the unpredictability of our economy.

This is an opportunity, I think, for us to come together on the research and development tax credit, for example, and cast a larger vision, and to say for R&D to make great strides in this country, there has to be a sense of predictability to it. We can't keep it on a short leash of 12 months. That's too short of a cycle. The accountants in these firms are going to be saying, Look, you can't rely on the Congress necessarily to come through.

So I think that is ultimately the argument that I'm making. I think we have a false choice, as Mr. Camp said. I think we can do better, and I would hope that we did. But I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts highlighting the State of Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the passage of H.R. 1454, legislation to create a postal stamp to benefit the Multinational Species Conservation Fund. I appreciate the leadership of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in crafting this bill and am pleased to support this effort to improve global wildlife conservation efforts.

The bill before the House today, H.R. 1454, would establish a Multinational Species Conservation Fund stamp through the United States Post Office in order to provide the public with a convenient opportunity to contribute to important international conservation efforts.

Like many of my constituents in the west and northwest suburbs of Chicago, I believe that we are called to be good stewards of our environment and natural resources. This means exercising a healthy respect for animals, both domestically as pets, and in the wild. As the parent of four children, I want to pass along to them an appreciation of the beauty of God's creation.

The proceeds of the stamps sold under this legislation will benefit the research and protection of at-risk species including African elephants, Asian elephants, great apes and marine turtles. This legislation provides a great avenue for animal welfare supporters to make a financial difference in international conservation efforts on a daily basis, one stamp at a time.

Madam Speaker and distinguished colleagues, I encourage supportive members of the public to select these new stamps when they become available to help show their commitment to safeguarding our precious natural resources and wildlife.

I urge Members to support this bill.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think the gentlelady made an excellent point highlighting the weakness of this bill. The gentlelady from Nevada pointed out that this is not indexed for inflation. Let's make no mistake: a characterization that someone else is kicking the can down the lane, this bill, in fact, kicks the can down the lane because if it's not indexed for inflation, then at the very least we are going to be knocking up against the alternative minimum tax problem that has so plagued this Congress over the past couple of years.

I heard, Mr. Speaker, a couple of minutes ago one of the folks on the other side of the aisle who is sort of characterizing things as folks weren't paying taxes. I want to put that into a context. Look, here is a little bit of a list. If you're running around the United States of America and doing any kind of economic activity, these are the taxes you're going to run into. You're going to be paying capital gains, you're going to be paying Federal income taxes, or unemployment taxes, or motor fuel taxes, or gift taxes, Medicare taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, real estate transfer taxes, telecommunications taxes, sales taxes, self-employment taxes, Social Security taxes, State income taxes, tolls, bridges. You name it, you're going to be loaded up with taxes.

And so here is an opportunity for us to say, let's have a clear, good shot. As Representative Camp said a couple of minutes ago, death should not be a taxable event. Let's not act as if this accumulation over a period of years has not been taxed along the way.

So I think the National Association of Manufacturers accurately pointed out that it's not the tax burden alone that's the problem here. It's not simply the fact that it's not indexed for inflation. But the cumulative effect is, in fact, the problem because according to the NAM, $94,000 a year is spent on tax preparation and estate planning. I say let's lift the tax burden. Let's recognize the cumulative nature of taxes that people are paying. Let's not, with a straight face, try and say people aren't paying taxes, and let's vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, on December 3rd, 2009 I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 928. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize the long and distinguished service of Carol Stream Fire Protection District Chief Michael Kanzia on the occasion of his retirement. On September 30 of this year, Chief Kanzia concluded his loyal service to the community he has been faithfully serving since 1976.

On November 19, the Village of Carol Stream will gather to celebrate Chief Kanzia's impressive career, from his time as an on-call firefighter to his days as Fire Chief.

Day in and out Chief Kanzia led the men and women of the Carol Stream Fire Protection District as they risked their lives to protect our communities. His leadership is reflected in their bravery and courage.

Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in celebrating this special occasion and the long years of service and commitment that it represents.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Can you imagine what it would be like if this House at this time took President Obama's admonition seriously? A couple days ago he said this on his trip to China:

It's important, though, to recognize that if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double dip recession.

Can you imagine what would happen if this House came together and said, No, no, no, no, no. We're actually going to take this seriously. We're going to deal with this debt question, and we're going to lean into it in such a way that gives, what, a buoyancy to the American economy as opposed to continuing to drag down.

With all due respect to the majority leader when he was on the House floor a bit ago, he argued, in essence, don't worry about it because it's in the President's budget. Well, think about where that takes you. The President's budget is the problem. The President's budget doubled our national debt in 5 years and will triple that debt in 10 years, which is one of the reasons why Americans are so increasingly concerned.

Look, we all come together and we know the physicians need to be compensated fairly. We know that seniors ought not bear this burden. But why not work together to take the President's admonition seriously to take the debt question seriously and come up with a real fix?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill that would lead to possible jail time if you don't comply.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, if you are at home and you are sort of flipping channels between the football games and C-SPAN,

and you flipped on and only heard the majority party, you would think, wow, what a great plan. I mean, really, you would think people are just going to fall all over themselves, and all these adjectives and declarative statements just sound wonderful. Until you look inside that bill and you find handcuffs.

Now, I am not talking about figurative handcuffs. I am talking about criminal penalties; criminal penalties that have been mentioned by the gentleman from Texas, criminal penalties that have been mentioned time and again on this floor. We have heard from the best and the brightest all afternoon, and not a one of them have answered why it is you have to criminalize people to coax them into a plan that is fabulous. It makes no sense.

And these aren't my words. This is actually coming from the Joint Committee on Taxation, in a letter that was written, ironically, with Chairman Charlie Rangel as the chairman of that committee, released 48 hours ago, that says in fact if you don't comply with the individual mandate, what happens to you? You can be subject to 5 years in prison and you can be subject to a quarter of a million dollars in fines.

And the other side, with all due respect, with all the adjectives and all the flourishing speech, has failed to answer that question.

I submit to you, if we listen today, if we listen to the remainder of this debate, they will be silent in terms of a good answer as to why it is you need to criminalize people to coax them into a plan. It's a failure, and we ought not stand for it.

The small businesses, the entrepreneurs, and the self-employed that this would have an impact on, they say, ``Look, don't criminalize us. Give us relief. Let us purchase across State lines.'' Not in the Democrats' bill. ``Give us real tort reform, real liability reform.'' Not in the Democrat bill in any substantive way. ``Let us purchase and work together to pool to lower costs down.'' The right to remain silent shouldn't be the word from the government.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

For those that are unfamiliar with the Capitol grounds here, it is really a thing to behold. Here we are, the four of us that have this great privilege of being in conversation, not just with one another, not with just the House of Representatives, but really with the American public, on this season of our life that we have really not seen before.

I was walking outside a couple of minutes ago, and I glanced up at the dome, and the light on the top of the dome was on. And those who have not been to Washington, D.C., before know that that is really a symbol of freedom. When that light is on at the very top of the dome, that signals that freedom is under way, democracy is afoot.

And I just decided, I literally have my trench coat, it is a cold evening here in Washington. My trench coat is literally over there. I walked up the stairs and walked in, and I thought, who is on the House floor? And I wasn't surprised to find the gentleman from Arizona. I wasn't surprised to find the gentleman from Michigan. I wasn't surprised to find the gentleman from New Jersey. Because I think what the four of us have an understanding of is that this is a time of choosing.

We are all familiar with the book of Genesis and the story of Isaac. Isaac had two sons. One was Esau and one was Jacob. Esau was the oldest son; and, as the Bible tells that story and as we all know, in that culture at that time, the oldest son had the lion's share of the inheritance, right? Really, when the old man died, he had everything coming to him.

As the story goes, Esau is out in the field. He comes in. He is hungry. He says to his younger brother Jacob, ``I am hungry.'' Jacob is making some stew. Esau says, ``Give me some stew.''

What does Jacob say? ``Give me your birthright.'' And Esau, like a fool, gives his birthright away for what? For a pot of stew.

The political left in this country is coaxing the American people right now, who are very uncertain. We are in uncertain economic times. They see health care costs that are skyrocketing out of control. They have concerns about preexisting conditions and jobs and a whole host of other things. And the political left is saying, give us your birthright of freedom. Give us your birthright of opportunity. Entrust it to us, who can't balance a budget, who are spending your children's prosperity away, and trust us.

What I think I am sensing, and I think what all three of us are sensing, the American public is saying, whoa. Whoa. We are not going to trade a birthright away, for what? For nothing? To entrust the future to people that literally cannot balance a checkbook? People who have taken our national debt and will double that amount in 5 years and will triple that amount in 10 years? That is incredibly sobering.

So here we are on the brink of Speaker Pelosi grabbing control of one-sixth of the American economy, one-sixth of the American economy. As we speak, the Rules Committee is meeting. They have not had the opportunity to fully vet this bill.

It went from 1,000 pages that was fundamentally rejected by the American public over the August recess, fundamentally rejected by the thousands of Americans that showed up over the last couple of days, and yet now she has doubled down. With all due respect to the Speaker, she has doubled down and taken 1,000 pages and turned it into 2,000 pages.

It takes away my breath. I think it takes away most Americans' breath, thinking about the amount of indebtedness being created and, ultimately, this generational theft.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

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

In a nutshell, I think we would be much better served and, ultimately, the public would have been much better served with an open rule. I have an amendment which, under an open rule, I would have proposed. While all of this is very interesting--talking about credit card debt and those protections--and while you can have a conversation about that, the elephant in the room is this idea of national debt.

My amendment would have simply said that income tax return forms would have been amended to have four lines on them as follows: Number one, the taxpayer's dependent shares of the national debt; the taxpayer family's share of the national debt; how much each individual's share of the national debt increased in the last year; and how much adjusted gross income would be required to meet the burden of that share in the national debt.

Here is where we are right now: this Congress and this administration have doubled the national debt in 5 years, and they will triple the national debt in 10 years. Why does that matter?

That matters because we are experiencing a feeling in this country that one generation is not passing on a legacy of prosperity to the next generation. In other words, one generation is actually stealing from the next generation. Why? Because of a lack of discipline that comes from this Chamber, a lack of discipline that says we're going to spend our way into prosperity.

What Americans understand, Mr. Speaker, is you cannot borrow and spend your way into prosperity. As to the idea that we're going to incur more and more and more debt, whether it's from a stimulus that has underperformed, whether it's on a bloated budget or whether it's on a health care bill that takes people's breath away, it's so costly, I think, by and large, Americans have said enough is enough.

So, towards that end, I rise in opposition to the rule. I think the rule is tone deaf, and it doesn't offer a larger conversation on debt.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of minutes ago there was a Member on the Democratic side who I sensed had a twinkle in his eye when he was trying to make the assertion that there were no Republican alternatives to this bill, because anybody that has been around this place knows that that is a joke. There are 50 Republican bills and 100 amendments that were offered by Republicans, so the notion that the GOP is showing up late is complete nonsense, and I think the twinkle in the eye is witness to that.

But here is the part that is no joke. The part that is no joke is that this bill, Mr. Speaker, creates 111 new bureaucracies that Speaker Pelosi is going to foist on our constituents.

We all know what it is like to get the constituent panic call when they can't navigate through some labyrinthian bureaucracy, and now there is going to be 111 new offices, departments, commissions and so forth that our constituents are going to have to deal with. They are ill-equipped to deal with an aggressive Federal Government that is going to take over one-sixth of the economy.

We can do better. Let's vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, if you are from the northwest suburbs of Chicago, today you woke up and you

looked at the Chicago Tribune and you read an article that said your property taxes are going to go up 20 percent. If you turned on the radio, you probably heard folks talking in Chicagoland about unemployment at 10.5 percent in Illinois, a number that we have not seen since the early 1980s. If you have been listening to the debate in Washington, D.C., in the past couple of weeks, you have been hearing about this crushing debt that is coming on you, your children, and your grandchildren.

I went this afternoon to the Bureau of the Public Debt in downtown Washington and watched within a twinkling of an eye $44 billion that was borrowed on a 2-year note. That type of attitude and the attitude of spending and spending and spending is becoming weary for the folks that I represent in the Sixth District of Illinois.

It's time for this Congress to discipline itself and come up with a health care plan that meets people's needs but doesn't break the bank.