Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the House overwhelmingly defeated by a vote of 318-97 a blank check on spending. We stopped the unconditional raising of the debt ceiling. The fact remains, we are in a debt crisis because Washington spends too much, not because it taxes too little.

America is drowning in debt, and we need to significantly reduce spending and make long-term reforms that encourage private sector job creation and move toward a balanced budget. Raising the debt limit without restoring financial accountability was unacceptable, and that's why I voted against this irresponsible debt limit increase.

I can't comprehend why this administration continues to push the same dangerous failed strategy that got us into this economic mess. The failure to increase the debt limit on the floor Tuesday would be enough evidence for the White House and Washington Democrats to conclude that Americans want Washington to stop signing a blank check, spending money we don't have and sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren--grandchildren that I personally have an opportunity every time I open my BlackBerry to see their faces and be reminded that it's for them that I speak and this House spoke on Tuesday evening.

Yet more than 100 House Democrats signed on to a letter publicly advocating for a debt limit increase without spending cuts and reforms. And unfortunately after meeting with the President yesterday, I'm not sure he's heard the people on this issue either.

According to the latest evidence, only 11 percent of Americans support a blank check raising of the debt limit and more spending. This vote demonstrates that President Obama and the House Democrats are far out of step with the rest of America and should join House Republicans in working to cut spending. The American people have said ``no'' to the Democrats and they're not going to take it anymore, not another blank check of more spending and more debt for the Obama administration.

It's the time now to think of the next generation and not the next election and take time to rip up a blank check of defeat for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a textbook case, I believe, of self-induced amnesia this morning from my liberal colleagues. But the American people spoke in November, and I heard the mandate: Cut Federal spending so that more resources can be left in the hands of American families and small businesses so that they can save and invest in order to grow jobs.

I responded to their mandate by voting for billions in cuts. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refused to receive the message, but the message is still true.

Let's put the budget issue into a little perspective. It actually is quite simple. They didn't pass the budget when they had control, and now we have to clean up the mess. My liberal Democrat friends want to shut down government in order to maintain their overspending status quo, even at the expense of not sending paychecks to our courageous troops and their families at home.

On the other hand, I and my Republican colleagues want to keep the government open, pay our troops, and respond to the people's demands for cuts in spending and a return to the blessings of freedom.

Our Republican leadership has worked and negotiated with the other side in order to keep the government open, while cutting deficit spending, but it has been to no avail. The Democrats won't give up less than one-half of 1 percent spending in order to keep the government running on a trimmed-down budget and pay our troops. The argument has come down to the size and scope of the spending. And President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and the Senate Democrats, like a stubborn mule, refuse to move in the direction of their masters, the Constitution and the American people who are telling us to cut spending.

It's time for them to start listening to the American people. It can't be just about the next election; it must be about the next generation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a topic that affects every American, rising energy prices. I've spoken on this floor about it before, and I will continue to do so until we increase our energy production here in America, and our dependence on the political earthquake zones of this world is depleted.

While President Obama was traveling in South America, I returned home to my district last week, and I heard from my constituents loud and clear: Gas prices are too high. We need to do something about it. That's why I found it so outrageous and appalling when I heard our President last week offering assistance and encouraging energy production, not here in America, but in Brazil.

No, that's not the right direction. We need to encourage energy production right here at home, not Brazil. We need to develop our offshore energy resources so that jobs can be created here in America, not Brazil. And we need to encourage energy independence so that we return to more reasonable energy costs, not in Brazil, but right here in America.

Mr. Speaker, the time is now to confront this issue and encourage energy exploration and production right here at home. The time is now to create our independence from foreign energy sources and secure our present and future as good stewards of our God-given resources and the blessings of liberty.

Mr. Speaker, let me cut to the point. Gas prices have skyrocketed at the worst possible time, the economy is in a slump, and people are hurting. The administration and congressional Democrats are making the problem worse with their burdensome energy regulations that destroy jobs and drive up costs. Democrats and the White House are blocking commonsense reforms that would allow for more targeted energy exploration here at home, which would lead to lower gas prices and additional job creation and greater security.

Three weeks ago, I had the privilege of sitting in the office of Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel. He expressed great appreciation for America, but also ended by saying that he was greatly concerned that America was unwilling at this time to do what was necessary to make sure that we had an energy plan of independence from, as he called it, the earthquake zone of the Middle East. And I agree. So I am joining with my colleagues, my Republican colleagues, their common sense and pro-growth, in proposing an alternative.

I believe we should allow for more exploration in Alaska, so I cosponsored H.R. 49, the American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act. I believe we should pass an all-of-the-above energy plan. So that is why I am becoming an original cosponsor of H.R. 909, A Road Map to America's Energy Future. And the government should stop the painfully slow permitting process for drilling in the gulf, so I joined with Representative Scalise and others of my colleagues in the House to urge the President to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, the current energy policy is one of overregulation, and it is not working. We must work to change that now. I stand ready to work with my colleagues to created an energy policy that lowers energy prices and allows for more job creation. The people of my district and of this great country are demanding nothing less.

Well, I appreciate my colleague from Missouri. I appreciate you holding this time this evening as we can talk about those things that impact our whole way of life in the United States.

We, I'm sure, understand here on the floor this evening the impact of what our Framers and Founders had in mind of a limited government, a government that believed very clearly that free people, with the opportunity to be creative and use the resources that they have, could indeed make a life that was filled with happiness in their pursuit that involved property and all that went with it.

As the subcommittee chairman for Workforce Protection, I had the opportunity to look at some things that are coming up right now that are being proposed as workplace safety standards. And this goes into cost issues that are huge regulatory costs, but also costs that ultimately reduce jobs and opportunity. One such regulatory issue is related to the noise regulation being proposed by OSHA. Now fortunately that has been pulled for the time being. It was pulled a couple days after we introduced the fact that we're going to hold hearings on it, continue to hold hearings. We found out in the process that noise standards--and all of us here would say that a worker ought to be safe, reasonably speaking, in their workplace.

I worked at U.S. Steel South Works shortly after high school, worked in the furnace division. I worked on a mole platform. I worked in a hooker shaft, which was lifting and holding pig iron and a number of other things. And I had reasonable expectation to be safe, including using hearing protection that involved either earmuffs or earplugs. What this new standard would have required would not have been simply putting earplugs into employees that would meet the standard, or earmuffs, but would require businesses to purchase machines that weren't only guarded or shrouded safely for hearing protection, but machines that would be reduced in the noise standard to a point that, as we looked at it more carefully, most likely weren't even machines made yet. They hadn't been produced. So we're talking about businesses that want to employ people that increase the economy--because you and I both know that the economy is produced in the private sector, not in the public sector, that the private sector entrepreneur, the taker of risk, produces an idea, comes up with it, ultimately hires employees to carry out the job, and then we put reasonable regulations to make sure that those employees are safe, that the hearing is protected as well. But we don't say to the employer you must buy a machine that isn't even produced yet, that isn't made yet in order to protect--

I appreciate my good friend from Missouri again holding this conversation tonight.

And I think you're leading into the key point here. Because bottom line, when you talk about entitlement spending, those entitlement programs that we've come to expect in the United States, whether it be Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security--and most of us, at least in this room tonight, have paid into Social Security a long time.

It's not a voluntary tax. And in just a couple of short years, I will be capable of receiving that myself. I've not had a choice to do that.

And yet the only way that we can see those entitlement programs continue, at least if we did it right, is have an economy that's growing, have people that are employed, that are paying into the entitlement programs, the taxes that are there. Even if we don't talk about any alternative way for younger employees coming down the road in the future, we still have to have the ability to put dollars in. That comes from having a job.

So when we go back to what Dr. Boustany was talking about on the issue of energy, when we talk about the regulatory concerns that I expressed that are destroying jobs, I go back to my own home State of Michigan, my own district, Seventh District. Michigan, who led the Nation for 4 straight years on unemployment. A State that was known for its manufacturing, its auto industry, always having jobs, high standard of living.

And yet, as a result of government growing too large, too strong, too intrusive, and spending too much and taxing too much, we've destroyed the economy in Michigan. And now the new administration comes in and has to go through almost insurmountable odds to try to restore an economy that has jobs so they can pay in to this.

Everything wrong. Everything to destroy it.

Right.

I assumed I would get you into a rant on that because I know you're passionate about that. It's absolutely true.

I can show you from experience in Michigan as we went through this type of downturn back in the 1980s: too-large government, increased taxation, increased spending for all sorts of programs.

We ran businesses out of the State. We turned that around in the nineties, and we cut taxes 26 times. We right-sized government. We put Workfare and Edufare in in place of welfare. We encouraged businesses to thrive and grow. What happened? By reducing taxes, cutting spending, the economy grew. More revenue came in, and then government had to control itself from spending those revenues from less taxes, but still increased revenue because people were working, they were spending, they were saving, they were investing, they were taking care of themselves.

Lo and behold, the American people with their own intellect, their own intelligence, their own creativity began to grow an economy that made things right for themselves. And then they had choice. They had opportunity. They could be creative. They could build new machines. They could build machines that met the noise standards that were presently available, as opposed to saying we're going to create jobs by saying you can't have this noise standard here and you can't take care of it with an ear plug or an ear muff; you are going to have to produce a machine that isn't there. So look what we're doing.

And my good colleague, I have a letter from OSHA that says that was part of an economic development plan, to encourage the development of new machines that would meet these noise standards so that then you would have new jobs. Well, wait a second. The people that would produce those, and more importantly the people that would buy those machines, could not do that because they couldn't afford it. So here's Big Government again with its own ideas that ultimately destroys an economy.

Right.

I was not.

I was thinking about it.

You meant the tax cuts, the tax relief.

It gave incentive.

Isn't it the simple principle that what you give incentive you get more of, and what you discourage you get less of?

You give incentive to people to use their own resources with American exceptionalism and let the market forces work, everybody benefits.

And a lot of spending.

And I believe that more and more people, even those that are using the entitlements, the Social Security, Medicare, understand that and are growing in their fear that unless we do something, they indeed will be hurt. But I think that you and I together, and many who are of like mind, understand that we must do something, but we can do something that's better.

We can do something that assures people that they will have what they expect.

And we can do it the right way without the Big Government issues and getting down to that American exceptionalism that says we can trust people to do for themselves, if given the incentive and opportunity, better than what Big Government can do.

Well, I think, not necessarily the suffering idea, I think in doing something that's credible and the right thing to do, it gives people optimism that the answer is here. It will take some tough decisions but ultimately the people who are in need will be taken care of.

The other people with the great creativity, the American exceptionalism that's there will find ways to do it and do it better, and ultimately a greater opportunity for the future, and that's optimism.

Not at all.

And I think the people spoke in November. I think that speech they gave to us, my good friend, is that we must take this opportunity. This is our point in time. This is our date with destiny, as it were. If we back off from tackling the big things, we will not only lose there, but all of those little special things will be taken away as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor The Chelsea Area Chamber of Commerce, 2010 Business Leadership Award winners. The Large Business Award winner is Cleary's Pub and the Small Business Award winner is True North Jerky Co. These annual awards are presented by the Chelsea Area Chamber of Commerce and the Ambassador Club of the Chamber.

The formal presentation of each award will be during the February 17, 2011, Annual Meeting for the Chelsea Chamber of Commerce. Each of these award winners was judged in several areas that include; displaying innovative ideas and services, demonstrated leadership in the Chelsea business community, support of the Chelsea Area Chamber of Commerce, and contributing to the economic impact of the City of Chelsea.

Cleary's Pub is owned by Pat Cleary, Meg Boomer, and Joan Henry. This brother and sister team of owners has been in business for 20 years in their familiar Main Street location in downtown Chelsea.

True North Jerky Co. is owned by Phil and Jennifer Tolliver. Phil and Jennifer also are the franchisee for Bearclaw Coffee Drive-Thru located adjacent to the Jerky Co.

These local businesses in the 7th Congressional District have established themselves as true leaders and entrepreneurs who continue to spur economic growth even during these tough economic times.

I would like to commend and congratulate these businesses owners on their successful business ventures that have contributed greatly to the City of Chelsea, Michigan, and the 7th Congressional District.

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

Mr. Chairman, currently, the CR funds the National Endowment for the Arts at the approximate fiscal year 2008 level of $145 million. Amendment No. 196 takes the funding levels back to the fiscal year 2006 levels at $124.4 million. If accepted, this cut returns $20.6 million to the spending reduction account.

Though some would call for the full defunding of the NEA, I'm not doing that. You see, I believe in the true fine arts, and of course that's defined by individual standards, I understand. I found that to be a fact for a number of years when I was a finance chair of a symphony orchestra. People will support what they appreciate.

However, at a time when our government is in a position where it must cut Federal spending, I believe one of the main sources of the funding for the arts needs to be through philanthropy, but that only happens best in a sound and a growing economy. This budget crisis, this economy, continues to be frustrated by the spending of government, which frustrates individuals, who, indeed, would be willing to support and, in fact, still do support the arts as well.

The National Endowment for the Arts does provide benefits to our country, and helps fund some true fine arts. However, we are asking them to only fund their true priorities, priorities approved by the majority of taxpaying citizens, of sponsors and of patrons of the arts. Limiting resources sometimes refocuses and defines that focus.

We know that the public has had questions on some of the programs that the NEA has supported--major questions, major concerns. Attention to those concerns will gain the support of the taxpayer as well as of the philanthropist. Our country is in financial hardship, and we are not taking programs like the NEA off the table.

I refer to a letter I received last night from a very strong patron of the arts, of the symphony for which I served as a finance chair. He is the chairman of a major manufacturing corporation in my district, who is writing about what they have just gone through as a business. I will just read excerpts:

Until today, we have been operating under a forbearance agreement that began in 2008. It has been a struggle. Our leadership group accepted 15 to 50 percent cuts in salary, and our hourly staff accepted 10 percent wage reductions. Our salesmen continue to find new opportunities. We reduced our spending tremendously and only spent for essentials. Our belt was very tight. We did all we could to help ourselves, and we all made many sacrifices. Above all, we never stopped believing in our future.

That's the type of impact that happens in the private sector, even in programs we enjoy, benefit from and help out on, that we need to understand. Our country is in financial hardship, and we are not taking programs, even like the NEA, off the table.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Walberg

Amendment No. 196: Page 281, line 21, insert ``(reduced by

$20,594,000)'' after the dollar amount.

Page 359, line 13, insert ``(increased by $20,594,000)''

before the period at the end.

Offered By: Mr. Walberg

Amendment No. 197: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Madam Speaker, last November the people of Michigan, workers that long defined manufacturing, sent a message to Washington that business as usual in this town is not working.

Currently, the unemployment rate in my home State is at 11.7 percent and even higher in some counties in my Seventh Congressional District.

Over the past 2 years, we have witnessed burdensome laws being imposed on businesses and still feel the threat of costly regulation that prevents companies from growing and hiring. Small businesses are the engine of job creation in this country. Even the current administration believes ``that they bear a disproportionate share of Federal regulatory burden.''

The Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration reports the total cost of Federal regulation has increased to $1.75 trillion. The cost per employee for businesses with fewer than 20 workers now averages $10,585. A Heritage Foundation study found last year alone the Federal Government issued 43 major regulations, with costs estimated in tens of billions of dollars.

One of the threats many employers face is working with the current Department of Labors' Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Everyone recognizes the need for commonsense rules that promote workplace safety.

However, onerous rules and regulations should not be a roadblock to job creation and economic growth. Currently, regulations by OSHA cost small businesses, which are defined as businesses with fewer than 500 employees, between $650 and $781 per employee. There are serious questions about whether OSHA's ``punishment before prevention'' approach to workforce safety is really in the best interests of the workers.

Last month, OSHA withdrew two costly proposed regulations. OSHA's noise standard proposal would have mandated companies spend thousands or millions of dollars for quieter machinery when simple adequate solutions are already in place. A week later, OSHA temporarily repealed its musculoskeletal disorders reporting requirement after claiming it did not receive enough insight from small businesses to proceed. This would have overwhelmed our small business owners in paperwork and potentially opened the door for increased fines. And while it was repealed, I cannot stress the unease many businesses feel about knowing the fact that this is only a temporary withdrawal.

There have also been expressed concerns about the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division recently establishing a new arrangement with the American Bar Association. This agreement, known as the Bridge to Justice Program, sets the stage for the potential of costly litigation of a great many companies by trial lawyers who are out to line their own pockets. This arrangement goes into effect when the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division receives a complaint that it will not investigate. It sends the claimant referral to the American Bar Association, who will help provide private attorneys for them to pursue their claim. Will this new referral arrangement between the Wage and Hour Department and the American Bar Association truly help workers, or is it intended to punish the employers? This is a critical issue, especially for small businesses.

In our subcommittee, it is my goal to find answers to many questions facing our workforce and employers; questions like: Are the rules providing the necessary protection to workers or merely creating costly animosity between government and free enterprise? How can we more fully understand and protect the interests of workers and employers alike? In other words, are the regulations that govern our workforce sensible or arbitrary?

Madam Speaker, Congress needs to step up its oversight of the Department to ensure their proposals do not hinder a business's ability to grow, hire new workers, or ensure the cooperation of its employees to advance workforce safety.

It is my objective as the Subcommittee Chairman of Workforce Protections to examine regulations as they relate to the workplace. The committee will look at any policy or proposal, regardless of whether it is a Democrat or Republican idea, that may lead to fewer jobs and opportunities for the American workforce. We plan to hold hearings to determine how to best remove the burden of government regulation on our businesses while holding fast to our commitment to workplace safety.

Thank you, my friend and colleague from California. I am delighted to be here.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember a great man and a great President, Ronald Reagan. Although President Reagan's 100th birthday would have been celebrated this year, I am reminded how clear and timeless his principles of limited government and individual freedom remain. Many of his ideas ring as true today as they did when I first heard him speak so many years ago.

Beginning in 1984, I had the pleasure of meeting President Reagan several times as a member of the Michigan legislature. The first time I met him was when I had the honor of welcoming him to Michigan on behalf of the House of Representatives and the Republican caucus. Though I forgot most of my planned speech in greeting him, he treated me as a colleague and expressed a genuine interest in our agenda for the State.

His warmth and disarming kindness is what I will always remember about him personally. I always left, after subsequent meetings, believing more strongly in America's exceptionalism and knowing that his commonsense principles would always succeed here and abroad when attached to character, courage, and grace. I am certain that his timeless principles when followed will endure for many, many years to come.

May God bless the history and memory of Ronald Reagan and the country he loved.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the repeal of the government's takeover of health care.

We are well aware of how the health care law created hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes while doing little to drive down costs and causing millions to lose access to health coverage. Even more troubling is how dramatically this law grows government and constricts individual freedom and American exceptionalism.

When this laws was passed, the Democrats said it would create 4 million new jobs. Instead, we got over 2,000 pages of job-killing new taxes and less choice. This law was clearly an overreach of government control.

In place of government-run health care, true reform can be achieved through multiple patient-centered alternatives, including expanding HSAs,

association health plans, and allowing the purchase of health insurance across State lines.

Americans agree. A Gallup/USA Today poll this week confirms that only 13 percent of Americans support the current law. Simply put, the American people want this law repealed, and so do I, as I promised.

``The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside, and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Corporal Travis Webb from Adrian, Michigan who was injured in an improvised explosive device (IED) blast in Mosul, Iraq on January 22, 2007. He lost both legs and his best friend Nicholas Brown died in his arms after the blast. The following poem is dedicated to a true American hero, Travis Webb.

A Soldier's Story

Throughout our Nation's history

Such magnificent men of honor and glory, have so been seen

Who so went, where angel's feared to tread

Who went off to war

All for us, the ones who so lived and died and so bled

All so we could be here!

As this is a soldier's story!

All about Heartbreak, Faith and Glory

All about life and death

As he put himself in harm's way, as his best friend died in

his arms that day

When courage comes to crest!

All about a young man from Michigan . . . Travis, and his

heroic stand

As all of us, he would so bless

Who came out of such hell and fury!

A Hero from The 2-7 Cav . . . 11 Bravo, Corporal Webb, his

soldier's story

A fighting force to be feared, who gave all he had so very

clear

A Soldier's Story

Who, into that valley of death . . . so walked

All with his two fine legs, as was our freedom bought!

His charge, his thought's

The life of Travis Webb, so much to all has taught

All about courage and faith

As this mighty Michigander makes his way

As no other's could so take his place

As throughout his young life, his flow and ebb

Through the good and bad!

A work of art, to be said!

As it all began

With a young man with no direction

Until, he found his life's true passion . . . his reflection

Reaching, his greatest introspection

His fine reflection, in a Uniform

As A Soldier's Heart and soul, so proud and bold . . . so

very warm

All for his country 'tis a thee

As a future Hero was born, as we would see

While, on battlefields of honor and death and gore

Charging bravely so, so ever . . . ever forth!

When, Looking down

As there it was he so found, no more

His two strong fine legs, which made up this most valiant

force

While, there in that moment of truth

As in that moment we find the answer, the proof

All about what courage, and a magnificent heart can do!

To build where none lie left

To climb the highest of all mountains, no less

To Teach Us all . . . to so bless

To Reach Us . . . to so Beseech Us, all no less

To But Be The Best

When, Courage comes to Crest

Day by Day

Night after Night

To win the battle, to win that fight!

As he will not give up, will not rest!

As is this soldier's story, our hearts have blessed

As we watch him grow

For he has a life to live

And to this our world, so much more to give!

Could such faith and courage, we so know? Possess?

And, if I ever have a son

I, but hope and pray . . . that he could so be like this fine

one!

Shining, all in Faith's True Son

A Soldier's Story, Travis Webb our hearts have won!

All in our Lord's Heart, that will be done

Amen!

--Albert Carey Caswell

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009.

Each project listed below:

H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009.

September 24, 2008.

Name of Project and Amount: Cold Weather Layering System (CWLS)--$2.4 million

Bill Number: H.R. 2638.

Account Information: Navy, O&M, MC Operation and Maintenance, MARINE