Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Kent and Marilyn Fannin as ``Angels in Adoption.''

In 2003, Kent and Marilyn Fannin came to Family Service and Children's Aid in Jackson, Michigan and inquired about providing a home for abused and neglected children. Although they had a young son of their own, they felt their mission in life was to provide for other children who needed them.

Within a year of being licensed as foster parents, they began caring for a severely mentally and physically handicapped 7-year-old boy who suffered from cerebral palsy, seizures and autism. He was non-verbal and functioning as an 8-month-old. Even though the couple recently had their second child, they gladly accepted this child into their home. Within 6 months, because of the Fannins' hard work, encouragement and support, this young man progressed until he was able to feed himself, walk with assistance and communicate his needs.

In 2005, Kent and Marilyn began attending a Bible and missionary training college and were considering serving on a foreign mission field. However, during this time, the now ten year old boy's mother released her parental rights. After spending some time considering the situation, they made the decision to adopt this child and decided their mission in life was to help other children like him. In 2006, the Fannins were contacted again about a baby girl who needed placement. They chose to adopt her as well. They recently cared for a 1\1/2\-year- old legally blind child and have since become the birth mother's support system. When a 9-year-old girl needed emergency placement, Kent and Marilyn helped nurture her through a traumatic time.

Caseworkers describe the Fannins as patient, generous, understanding, nurturing, stable, considerate and selfless. They treat children, families and workers with respect and are always willing to go the extra mile for a child in need. They are never negative. They carefully and prayerfully consider which children they can be most effective with. They do not seek attention for themselves and ask nothing in return. They have dedicated their lives to helping needy children.

``The dedication of Kent and Marilyn to giving cheerfully of their time and talents has left an indelible, lifelong impact on the lives of several boys and girls in south-central Michigan. It gives me great pleasure to honor this remarkable couple that truly deserves the title `Angels in Adoption.' ''

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, in considering tonight's legislation, I am reminded of a quote from the great communicator himself, Ronald Reagan: ``The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And it if stops moving, subsidize it.''

I find it ironic that we sit here this evening debating a clause to provide millionaires with Federal funding in the name of spurring investment when the majority party constantly supports to tax private investments out of business.

The best way to encourage innovation and investment in the marketplace is to reduce financial and regulatory impediments. The key is reducing regulation. Congress must support tax measures that have proven to stimulate the economy, such as extending the capital gains and dividends tax reduction beyond 2010. These commonsense tax reductions have a proven track record of producing greater wealth and encouraging further investment in the economy.

Instead, the majority in Congress has stood in the way of providing tax relief by supporting and passing a budget containing the largest tax increase in American history, which would result in a $3,000 tax increase for the average taxpayer in Michigan and in every other State. Now the majority wants to subsidize millionaires with funds that would be better used to assist the middle class.

Title III of the bill before us creates a brand new program in the Small Business Administration to promote so-called ``angel investors.'' Angel investors are those financial backers who provide venture capital funds for small startups or entrepreneurs.

Among other things, this new SBA program will provide funds of up to $2 million to qualified angel investors. These millionaire investors will take taxpayer dollars to finance their own small business. This begs the question: Who exactly are these angel investors? Do they have halos? Do they really need government money if they are already millionaires?

According to the regulations referenced in this bill, a qualified angel investor would be ``any natural person whose individual net worth, or joint net worth with that person's spouse exceeds $1 million.''

In other words, to even qualify to receive government money, these angels already have to be millionaires.

According to the University of New Hampshire, angel investments totaled $25.6 billion nationally, up 10 percent over the previous year. I don't know about you, but it appears angel investors already are having financial success, and I question whether they need help from the American taxpayer.

Title III of the bill also includes a new grant program to help develop new angel investor groups; in other words, a taxpayer- subsidized grant program to help millionaires get together and make investments. One can only wonder if these programs come with a complimentary tin of caviar.

My motion to recommit would simply strike the two sections of bill that authorize taxpayer funding for these angel millionaire investors. Congress does not need to enact another Federal

entitlement program to help millionaires decide what to invest in. The focus in this debate should be on lowering taxes for every American to encourage investment and personal wealth to create entrepreneurship and allow job creators to thrive.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, with O.J. Simpson back in the news, House leadership has decided to take one of his famous lines and use it to escape responsibility for a multitude of massive, budget-busting spending bills that they are trying to pass.

Raising taxes nationwide by $400 billion, including an on-average $3,000 per tax increase per American citizen? The Democrat majority says, ``not guilty.''

Withholding the passage of veterans health care bills for political purposes? The majority again says, ``not guilty.''

Granting illegal immigrants health care benefits and taking Medicare Advantage benefits away from our seniors and putting them in waiting lines for wheelchairs? The House leadership pleads ``not guilty.''

Well, sorry majority party. The American people are tired of your wasteful spending, and they will not acquit. This Congress needs to instill fiscal discipline and balance the budget so our families can build a better, brighter future.

Mr. Speaker, as I travel throughout my south-central Michigan district, I have learned over the past few months in town hall meetings, small group meetings, or coffees, that virtually all Americans believe we owe a great debt of gratitude to those who have worn the uniform in service to our country.

Unfortunately, Democrat leadership in both Chambers appears willing to make the veterans appropriations bill, which funds our Nation's veterans health care, become part of political gamesmanship in Washington.

It appears Democrats may withhold sending this bipartisan veterans funding bill to the President in an effort to ensure greater spending levels for their pet projects. There is a chance Democrats will hold off on final passage of this legislation so they can include it in a massive budget-busting spending bill at the end of the year.

Let me be very clear. The funding of veterans should not be a political issue. Congress should swiftly pass this important legislation, and Republicans and Democrats should jointly celebrate when it becomes law.

Mr. Speaker, No Child Left Behind originally sought to return some education policy-making authority to the States, but in its current form the legislation is a massive spending bill filled with Federal mandates that increases the presence of Federal bureaucrats in our classrooms.

Today, Michigan teachers are forced to adopt a ``teach to the test'' mentality and spend valuable time on paperwork instead of students.

It has been estimated that teachers and school officials have spent an additional 6.7 million hours completing the cumbersome paperwork required by No Child Left Behind.

As Congress considers the future of education policy in America, we must find a way to give our schools, communities and parents greater flexibility, reduce the bureaucracy in education and ensure the best educational opportunities are being given to our children.

Because I believe each child's educational path should be determined by a child's parents and not by the Federal Government, I am an original cosponsor of the A-PLUS Act, an alternative education policy introduced this year in the House. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Department of Defense appropriations bill that is straightforward, as the amendment simply states this: ``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to award a grant or contract based on the race, ethnicity, or sex of the grant applicant or prospective contractor.''

I was glad a similar amendment passed unanimously last week on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill, with the acceptance of the Chairman of Appropriations.

Government contracts and grants should be awarded on the basis of work, quality and cost, and all firms should have an equal opportunity to compete for taxpayer-funded projects.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concern of the chairman. However, it is a fact that this cuts out none of the minority contractors, small business contractors. They still have the great number of programs that they can use in the process of contracting.

Throughout the government, contracts and grants are awarded with preference given on the basis of race, sex and ethnicity instead of on the basis of work, craftsmanship and cost.

Though this policy may be motivated by good intentions, I agree with Justice Clarence Thomas about preferences in government contracting based on race, sex, and ethnicity when he stated, ``The paternalism that appears to lie at the heart of this program is at war with the principle of inherent equality that underlies and infuses our Constitution,'' as well as, I might add, the quality of our armed services.

The Federal Government continues to engage in these preferences via set-asides to contractors.

Last fall, in my home State, Michiganders voted overwhelmingly, 58 percent to 42 percent, in favor of amending our State Constitution to outlaw racial preferences in public education, employment and contracting.

Like my constituents in south-central Michigan, I oppose any and all forms of discrimination, but I also support nondiscrimination, the practice or policy of refraining from discrimination.

Once again, the Federal Government is behind State governments in creating equal opportunity for all Americans, as Michigan followed California and Washington banning discrimination in education, contracting and hiring.

My support of nondiscrimination compels me to continue working against discrimination in government policies because every American deserves equal treatment when competing for business contracts, and our Federal Government should treat all applicants for such contracts on an equal basis.

This amendment would require the Department of Defense to make contracting decisions based on the quality of work of a firm, the cost, and equality among firms. It should be noted that this amendment has no impact on programs directed at small business operated by veterans and those with disabilities.

I believe this commonsense amendment will help ensure that all American businesses and individuals competing for public work projects are given a fair, nondiscriminatory opportunity, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, let it be known, it is my special privilege to congratulate Jackson County on its 175th anniversary.

Jackson County was named after President Andrew Jackson and was formed on August 1, 1832. Growth in Jackson County took off, and the world's largest walled prison was built in 1838, followed by the Michigan Central Railroad in 1841 that sparked growth and led to the discovery and production of coal mining.

The diverse economy of Jackson County has grown the last 175 years to include: manufacturing, industry, medical and educational institutions, small business, and agriculture.

Some of the most beautiful scenery in the Midwest is in Jackson County. Residents and visitors recognize it for its many golf courses, hundreds of lakes, festivals, Michigan International Speedway, and acres of city and county parks.

Jackson County families are at the core of the community, supporting strong schools, family values and superior educational opportunities for everyone. Hundreds of churches and synagogues attest to the moral fabric that makes up Jackson County.

The citizens of Jackson County are its greatest resource. They continue to work together to provide a pleasant place to work, live, play and raise a family.

In special tribute, therefore, this document is signed and dedicated to honor Jackson County on its 175th anniversary. May the members of the Jackson County Community continue to benefit from the many wonderful attributes the county offers and seek to individually contribute to its growth and prosperity.

Madam Speaker, Let it be known, that it is my special privilege to congratulate the Cascades Falls on its 75th anniversary. I congratulate everyone who has been involved in the life of the falls for the last 75 years.

Cascades Falls is the result of a man's dream to do something for the people of Jackson and to build an attraction that would provide visitors with a positive impression of the city. That man was CPT William Sparks.

The falls opened on May 9, 1932, to a crowd of 25,000 people. Guy C. Core described the Cascades Falls premiere: ``As gloom of dusk thickened, water splashed down concrete falls into reflecting pools. Powerful lights flashed on, and the colorful, fast-changing spectacle drew gasps of admiration from the assembled crowd.''

Today the Cascades Falls are still described the same way by its visitors; the warm summer nights lit by the lights of the Cascades and the sky glowing with fireworks. The Cascades Falls are a monument of beauty and distinction that has remained a source of enjoyment and fond memories to millions of visitors.

In 1943, the Sparks family gifted the 465-acre Park and Cascades Falls to Jackson County.

The life of the Cascades Falls is dependent on the community and all of those at the County Parks and Recreation who dedicate themselves to the protection of the falls.

In special tribute, therefore, this document is signed and dedicated to honor the Cascades Falls on its 75th anniversary. May others know of my high regard for the Cascades Falls, and may generations to come enjoy this spectacular attraction.

Madam Speaker, I support renewing SCHIP to aid children in low-income families. But the bill that the Democratic leadership plans to bring to the floor this week is an absolute train wreck that will lead to a nanny-state, government-run health care system.

This bill would cause 3.2 million seniors in 22 States, including over 14,000 in my district, to lose their Medicare Advantage benefits. The Congressional Budget Office says this bill would shift 2.1 million children who are currently in private health care plans to less effective, government-run health care.

Additionally, this bill guts several fiscal responsibility measures designed to keep Medicare spending in check, encourage illegal immigrants to apply for SCHIP and Medicaid benefits by eliminating the requirement that persons applying for such services show proof of citizenship or nationality, and makes it possible for people 25 years old to receive SCHIP benefits.

In summation, this bill takes a program designed to aid children of low-income families and instead expands our welfare state and sides with bureaucracy rather than the needy children and seniors.

Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose this form of legislation.

Offered By: Mr. Walberg

Amendment No. 6: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3123, legislation that would extend by 1 year temporary protective status for all Liberian refugees living in the United States.

I also count it a privilege that this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. I appreciate the efforts of Congressman Kennedy and others in working on something that is the right thing to do.

Currently, all Liberian refugees living in the United States under temporary protective status have until October of this year, and then they'll be forced to return to Liberia.

As someone who had the privilege, and I say that sincerely, of helping a Liberian refugee start a brand new life in America, living in my home, forcing these Liberians out of our country is the wrong policy.

Liberia has been torn apart by two long civil wars over the past 2 decades, and while civil war finally ceased in 2003, Liberia is still years from developing the infrastructure needed for Liberian refugees to return.

Liberia's path remains very difficult. With an unemployment rate of 85 percent, shortages of running water and, according to the United Nations, a mere 26 physicians practicing medicine in a country of 3.4 million people, Liberia cannot absorb the estimated 3,600 Liberians who would be required to return.

Some of the estimated 3,600 Liberian refugees who are here legally in the United States came to our country when civil war broke out in Liberia in 1991, and they're now raising children born in America.

This legislation addresses an urgent situation faced by Liberian refugees who have legally come to America, many over 15 years ago, established careers, bought homes, raised American-born children and become valued members of their communities.

One of the unintended consequences of the temporary protective status is it did not foresee that civil wars would continue many years, leaving refugees in America stuck in a state of flux.

The United States Government must allow these law-abiding, hardworking Liberian refugees the chance to not only continue contributing to American society as they do, but also to continue playing a pivotal role in furthering Liberia's recovery from years of strife and turmoil.

This is the right thing to do. It's an opportunity that we have. It's an opportunity for resources to a foreign country that is a friend of ours that costs us very little because they, the refugees, are the ones primarily giving back.

And so I ask, Madam Speaker, that we, as a Congress, roll up our sleeves in this way and support this legislation to give one simple year to remain for this country to move ahead

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. For several months, the House Agriculture Committee worked in a bipartisan manner to pass a bill that would make historic investments in conservation, nutrition and renewable energy, while maintaining strong support for American farmers. The committee put aside partisan differences and worked together on a bill that meets the needs of American farmers, without raising taxes.

Today House leadership has brushed aside months of hard work by Republicans and Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee and decided to insert a 600 percent tax increase on manufacturers who employ 5.1 million Americans workers and pay $325 billion in wages. Additionally, the anticompetitive Davis-Bacon provision included in this bill would drive up the

cost of building ethanol plants and discourage alternative energy production.

Yet today, this rule does not allow Members a vote on striking these provisions. Right now, governments throughout the world are cutting taxes for job traders to attract investment. The Democratic proposal will drive investment and jobs out of America and greatly diminish America's competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I strongly oppose this rule.

Madam Chairman, after months of bipartisan work in the House Agriculture Committee on a farm bill that meets the needs of American farmers without raising taxes, House leadership is inserting a 600 percent tax increase on U.S. subsidiary manufacturers in the 2007 farm bill. Democrats want to slap manufacturers, who employ 5.1 million American workers and pay $325 billion in wages, with a massive tax hike.

As representative of a State and a district where the agricultural and manufacturing industries account for a larger share of employment on average than in the rest of the Nation, this is a double slap in the face.

Many are not aware that Michigan, the auto capital of the world, is second in the Nation in agricultural diversity. Not only do I feel like the months I spent canvassing my district meeting with farmers and members of the agricultural community were for naught, I am also deeply worried about the impact of this proposed tax hike on south central Michigan.

In the Wolverine State, U.S. subsidiaries play a vital role in supporting jobs and employing 201,000 Michiganers.

I just inquire of the other side: Why are we moving away from policies that encourage job development and investment? And what is a tax increase on manufacturers even doing in the farm bill?

The Ag Committee put aside partisan differences and worked together on a bill that meets the needs of American farmers without raising taxes. The House should be voting on that bill, crafted in a bipartisan manner, that meets those needs without foisting this on the public.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to pose an important question to this House, and that question is this: Do we really need race, ethnic or gender-based preferences for roads?

Today I am offering an amendment to the transportation bill we are currently debating that would stipulate no funding in this bill may be used by the Department of Transportation to discriminate based on race, ethnicity or sex.

Though this policy may be motivated by good intention, I agree with Justice Clarence Thomas about the DOT's affirmative action programs where he states, ``The paternalism that appears to lie at the heart of this program is at war with the principle of inherent equality that underlies and infuses our Constitution.''

Last fall in my home State, Michiganders voted overwhelmingly, 58 percent to 42 percent, in favor of amending our State constitution to outlaw racial preferences in public education, employment and contracting. Like my constituents in south-central Michigan, I oppose any and all forms of discrimination. But I also support nondiscrimination, the practice or policy of refraining from discrimination.

My support of nondiscrimination compels me to state on this floor that every American deserves equal treatment when competing for business contracts, and our Federal Government should treat all applicants for such contracts on an equal basis. The Federal Government should never view any American as part of a group, but rather look at them as an individual. By granting the Department of Transportation the ability to discriminate based on race or sex, this House would essentially create affirmative action preferences for our Nation's highways.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and ensure that all American businesses competing for public works projects are given a fair, nondiscriminatory opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to go further on it. I think it is rather self-explanatory that we are talking here of just assuring the practice that we don't commit discrimination in the process of our hiring and contracting practices.

We in the State of Michigan labored long and hard during the last election cycle, from both sides, to indicate what value there was in making sure that under the context of our Constitution and the laws that have been put in place to enforce that Constitution, that we are each given rights to benefit from those unalienable rights, namely the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or property. If we were to bridge that with any discriminatory practice, we take that away from one, and we can take it away from all.

For that purpose, this amendment is offered. I would appreciate the support of my colleagues.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am almost speechless with the fact that this very simple amendment has not been challenged aggressively yet. It is a straightforward amendment. As I said very clearly and sincerely, not only am I opposed to discrimination, I am also strongly supportive of nondiscrimination. For that reason and

that reason alone, I ask that this amendment be adopted by my colleagues.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my esteemed colleague if he has any speakers prepared to draw attention to this amendment? Otherwise, I think that we ought to close with acceptance of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle come together in unity on this and accept this proposal that seeks to provide that we don't have discriminatory practices that go on within our Department of Transportation.

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

Offered By: Mr. Walberg

Amendment No. 24: At the end of the bill, (before the short

title), insert the following: