Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 76, I was unavoidably delayed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

I thank the gentleman from California. Today, another Kansan is going to get laid off, and they will struggle to pay their bills. Our economy needs help and our people need help. But this bill isn't help. This bill will only place a drag on our economy because it does nothing to solve the underlying problems that hamper our economy.

The Federal Government has a role to help ensure American workers are free to prosper. But borrowing money for massive government spending is not the answer.

The reality is, this bill, some nearly $800 billion in spending and tax cuts, consists entirely of money we do not have. So how are we going to get this money?

There's only three ways to get it. We can ask the Treasury Department to print more money. But we know from the 1970s that causes inflation. The second is we can raise taxes. We'd have to raise taxes $2,600 per American. And we know that higher taxes create higher unemployment. I'm not interested in raising taxes.

The third way is to borrow money from investors. But our investors here in America don't have the money. We'd have to go to other countries, like the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia, because China and the United Kingdom have their own economic problems. They can't raise the money themselves.

So, to attract this money, we're going to have to raise interest rates, and higher interest rates--some 4 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office--causes higher credit card rates, higher car loan rates, and higher home mortgage rates.

We are following the legacy of Paul Volcker from the 1970s. Back then, they called it the misery index. During the 1970s, the media added inflation, unemployment, and interest rates together to get the misery index. And it's coming back. Back then, it was 21.98. Today's, it's 7.92.

There's a better plan than the misery index. We could give every American money by giving them a payroll tax holiday for several years. That would be a 10 to 20 percent pay increase for working Americans, and they would know best how to spend the money for their families. With the money they will buy goods or they will save their money or they will invest their money. All of that creates jobs. Because making more money available for new ideas in the marketplace does create jobs.

Vote ``no'' on this legislation. Vote ``no'' to the misery index. This package will get more money to hardworking Americans by giving it directly to them with a payroll tax holiday, because that is the best plan.

We can stop the return to the misery index by getting people back to work, by getting more money in their pocket. Let's go for a payroll tax holiday. Vote ``no.'' Let's go back to conference. Cut the government spending, add back a payroll tax holiday for working Americans, and return the economy to the strength it once had.

I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, there is no argument that our economy is on a downhill slide. Chairman Obey conveyed that very well in his opening remarks. But there is an argument on how we get out of this economic slide downwards.

The bill before us is based on the philosophy that government spending will stir the economy. It will not. Historically, we know that bailouts and government spending simply don't work.

During the Great Depression, high Federal spending did not save our economy. Instead, it remained stagnant. World War II built the industrial base. And it was in the 1950s, with the private sector, that drove us to a number one economy in the world.

In the 1990s, Japan tried to stimulate their economy with the bailout of banks and with federal government spending. They borrowed the equivalent of $250 billion and spent it. What happened? Their economy remained stagnant, and their average per capita income went from second in the world to tenth in the world.

This bill has the same idea that failed in the 1930s and failed in Japan: borrowed money, Federal spending. But there is a better plan. Let's get the money directly to working Americans.

Let's cancel the unauthorized and new programs and new spending in this bill and return it in the form of waived payroll taxes for working Americans. Give them a vacation from payroll taxes. It will be like a 10 percent pay raise.

We all know what they will do with it. They will do one of three things. They will either save it, which helps the banks recapitalize and creates mortgages and home sales; or they will spend it, which creates a demand for goods and a demand for more jobs; or they will invest it, which means companies can expand their businesses and hire more employees.

All we have to do is exchange the unauthorized new government spending and transfer that money back to hardworking Americans who earn the money. A very simple concept that will have a direct stimulation to our economy. And it will happen this year. We will not be waiting until 2010 or 2011 or 2012 or 2013. It will happen this year.

So let's cancel those new unauthorized programs and give back the taxes to working Americans and get the economy rolling.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 34, a resolution recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I applaud Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner for bringing this resolution to the floor.

We stand in solidarity with those praying for real and lasting peace and an end to the terrorism brought upon the people of Israel. I am confident the acts of aggression carried out by those seeking the destruction of the State of Israel will not end in success. Peace will come to the land of Israel once again.

Born out of genocide and conflict, the modern State of Israel has developed into a free, democratic and prosperous country. I have been to Israel several times and I have seen how they make the desert bloom. I have witnessed their corporate compassion to take care of people in need. I have heard their pleas for peace. An unfailing ally of the United States, Israel is a beacon of freedom and religious tolerance in the Middle East.

Israel understands the dangers of terrorism all too well. From suicide bombers to thousands of incoming rockets and mortar shells, the people of Israel have experienced mass casualties of enormous and unacceptable proportions.

As Israel currently undertakes military efforts in Gaza, I stand with the Israeli Government and the Jewish community as they seek to establish peace and protect its citizens from terrorism. Hamas and radical Islam must be defeated.

No nation can sit idly by while its people are killed, its children are traumatized, and the daily life of its people is severely disrupted by terrorism. Ask yourself, would America tolerate more that 3,000 rockets launched against our homeland in just 1 year? No, we would protect our people. Israel has the responsibility to protect its citizens, as well, and that is what it is doing in on-going operations in Gaza.

Americans look forward to peace in Israel and the Middle East, but until Hamas and its terrorist allies relinquish its arms and renounce violence, the hope for peace can not be attained.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Although I join my colleagues in steadfast opposition to pay discrimination, this ill-advised, over- reaching, and disingenuous overhaul of civil rights law is the wrong approach.

Pay discrimination is not a partisan issue. Pay discrimination strikes at the heart of the American Dream. For more than 40 years, the 1963 Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has made it illegal for employers to determine an employee's pay scale based on his or her gender. I wholeheartedly agree and support these laws. Every American should be able to work hard, and make a living for his or her family. We can not tolerate gender discrimination in the workplace.

This legislation, however, is about bad politics rather than good policy. H.R. 11 was supposedly written to remedy a sad situation for one person--Lilly Ledbetter. She was apparently paid significantly less than her counterparts at Goodyear Tire Company during her tenure there. Decades later Ms. Ledbetter filed a claim of discrimination. Taking her claim through the courts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 29, 2007 that the statute of limitations had unfortunately run out.

Instead of simply restoring prior law, by overturning a Supreme Court ruling against Ms. Ledbetter, in reality, Democrats will gut a decades- old statute of limitations that prevents the filing of ``stale'' claims and protects against abuse of the legal system. Current law rightly provides a statute of limitations to file a discrimination claim, up to 300 days after the alleged workplace discrimination occurred. Under this bill, however, employees or retirees could sue for pay discrimination years, even decades, after the alleged discrimination.

How can a company defend itself when the accused offenders left the company decades before? The answer is--they can't. And that is exactly the answer desired by the trial lawyers who support this legislation. This legislation will not end pay discrimination, but it will certainly encourage frivolous claims and lawsuits. It is inevitable that under this legislation employees will sue companies for reasons that have little if anything to do with the accused discrimination.

Madam Speaker, the issue of pay discrimination is too important to consider this poorly crafted, politically motivated piece of legislation. As much as we sympathize with Ms. Ledbetter, H.R. 11 is bad legislation. Let us instead join together, work in a bipartisan manner, to address pay discrimination while not destroying decades- worth of solid employment discrimination law. Until then, I ask my colleagues to join with me in opposing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today we debate a bill with a good title that fails to make one single step toward the purported goal. H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act, is being advanced as a bill to protect women from wage discrimination, but this bill is really about increasing lawsuits, not protecting women.

I join my colleagues in rejecting wage discrimination. The American Dream is not possible without wage fairness. This debate, however, is not about wage fairness; it is about this Democrat majority rewarding one of their most loyal special interest groups--trail lawyers.

For more than 40 years, the 1963 Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act have made it illegal for employers to determine an employee's pay-scale based on his or her gender. I whole-heartedly agree with and support these laws. Every American should be able to work hard, and make a living for his or her family. We cannot tolerate gender discrimination in the workplace.

Instead of strengthening these laws, H.R. 12 offers no additional protection from discrimination. It simply expands opportunities for trail lawyers to cash-in under existing nondiscrimination laws. By opening discrimination claims to unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, H.R. 12 will give great incentives to trial lawyers to bring frivolous claims. Such claims will inevitably lead to higher costs to businesses at a time when so many are struggling to remain open. High business costs often lead to job cuts. In this time of economic downturn, it is wrong to increase the burden on employers and risk additional job losses for the benefit of wealthy trial lawyers.

Mr. Speaker, strong nondiscrimination laws are critical to the future of our nation; however, H.R. 12 has nothing to do with paycheck discrimination. Now is the time to find solutions to the challenges facing our economy, not endanger our businesses with frivolous lawsuits. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, no one wants to see the auto industry fail. I don't want to see this. This would result in millions of job lost. I don't, however, believe this is the right approach for the long-term viability of the American auto industry and the sustainability of millions of American workers.

In October, the Treasury Secretary came to Congress asking for a $700 billion blank check for the financial industry. I said then and I repeat today, a quick bailout fix might work for a short time, but it may not be long before we are asked again for more tax dollars. In fact, some have said the $15 billion being given to the auto manufacturers will get them through to March 2009. Then what? A quick bailout fix might work for the short term, but without addressing the underlying problems, we will be asked again for more tax dollars.

We cannot keep passing bailout after bailout without fundamental reforms to help American workers and businesses achieve long-term prosperity. The plan offered today offers more government involvement instead of incentives for private-sector solutions. We are placing risks on the American taxpayer that private investors are not willing to take. Furthermore, this bill does nothing to address economic competitiveness barriers faced by the American automotive industry.

I also strongly oppose the job-killing provision contained in this bill that would ban these automakers from leasing or owning business jets. The use of business jets by company leaders is not why the U.S. auto industry is in financial trouble. This provision is a symbolic slap in the face to more than 1.2 million workers spread across every State whose jobs depend on general aviation. Banning our automakers from leasing or owning jets makes as much sense as asking them to stop using BlackBerrys and laptops--tools that have made us the most efficient and productive workforce in the world.

I remain committed to working for a long-term solution with Democrats and Republicans who are willing to put the good of our country ahead of short-term fixes. It's the right thing to do.

Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, I was sent to Congress in November 1994 because the people of the 4th congressional district of Kansas believed in the message of less Government spending, personal and corporate responsibility and lower taxes. Therefore, I remain committed to those who

sent me here and opposed to the unprecedented power that would be given to the Federal Government through this bill.

Last week, the Treasury Secretary came to Congress with a message: he needed $700 billion and he needed it now. I understand the need to act and the need to act quickly. At that time, however, I stood with my Republican colleagues and opposed the hasty call for an unprecedented blank check to the Federal Government.

Over the weekend, Congress negotiated with the Secretary to work out a better proposal through several non-government based approaches. Some of the provisions I could support but the fact remains that a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street is too much for our taxpayers to bear.

On Monday, I joined with a majority of my Republican and Democrat colleagues to defeat this short-sighted fix that exposed Americans everywhere to long-term debt that could lead to an even greater financial crisis.

Not wanting to be outdone, the Senate quietly inserted over a billion dollars worth of pork: $148 million for wool fabric producers, $2 million for the makers of wooden arrows for children, and a $100 million tax break to benefit NASCAR racetracks. Even Hollywood got a tax break gift worth nearly half a billion dollars.

What was a three-page idea had grown in a week to more than 450 pages.

What it comes down to is that a $700 or $800 billion bailout with voluntary reforms was not a plan I could support. Worse yet, Sec. 112 of the Senate bill, allows foreign financial institutions who hold troubled assets as a result of extending financing to financial institutions that have failed or defaulted on such financing to participate in this massive Government bail-out. What does this mean? Simply, the Federal Government has invited foreign financiers to participate in this bailout on behalf of every American.

However, my decision today to oppose the Senate bill does not come easily. Many of us lost savings. Many employers expressed concerns about access to credit so they could make payroll for their workers. I heard from hard-working Kansans who were concerned about a downsized economy that could force them out of a job.

A quick bailout fix might work for a short time, but it may not be long before we are asked again for more tax dollars. This is evidenced by recent Government bailouts of Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, AIG, and the $25 billion tossed to the auto industry. A quick bailout fix might work for the short term, but without addressing the underlying problems, we will be asked again for more tax dollars.

An economic rescue plan needs to include reforms that tie mortgage broker's commissions to borrowers' timely payments; a mandatory FDIC- type insurance program for entities with troubled mortgages; a suspension of ``mark to market'' accounting procedures; a temporarily suspension of capital gains taxes; and a permanent, not a temporary increase on FDIC coverage from $100,000 to $250,000 coupled with an increase in premiums so that the statutory obligation of 1.15 percent is met.

The mandatory FDIC-type insurance program would require the Treasury Department to guarantee (losses up to 100%) resulting from the failure of timely payment and interest from mortgage backed securities originated prior to the date of the enactment. Such insurance, I believe, would provide immediate value to the securities and a foundation for which they could then be sold. I am disappointed this provision was not included as a mandatory program.

Furthermore, instead of a Government-driven bailout, I support an alternative where the Government enables and coordinates a greater involvement of private investors. An alternative could be to allow companies to carry-back losses arising in tax years ending in 2007, 2008, or 2009 back 5 years, generating a tax refund and immediate capital.

These are just a few alternative provisions that I believe would be better than merely throwing money at a problem we hope to fix. I want Kansans to go to bed tonight with peace of mind and not worry about their savings. I am ready for this financial turmoil to calm and for us to focus on other important things in our lives. But I could not support a $700 or $800 billion bailout plan that embraces temporary relief while shunning long-term reform that brings lasting stability.

I remain committed to working for a long-term solution with Democrats and Republicans who are willing to put the good of our country ahead of short-term fixes. It's the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 669, unavoidable delays caused me to miss this vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, fundamentally, there is something wrong with the way we are proceeding. The arguments use fear to build confidence. We are on an artificial deadline, rushing to judgment, fearful we can't get there in time. No one has addressed the fundamental reason that has brought us to this state of fear. No one has talked about it because this bill does not fix the underlying problems. Your fear drives you away from reasoning.

So now the worm turns. Those of you who complained the rich are getting richer want to take money away from those who can't afford it and give it to those who live the life style of the rich and famous. Those of you who curse corporate welfare pursue the biggest corporate welfare bill in history. Why? Because of fear. Taxpayers don't want to throw good money--their money--after bad behavior.

Vote against this. Fix the underlying problem. Don't let fear drive you to a bad decision. Vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, over the past week, our Nation's financial flame has begun to smolder under the reckless decisions of several large investment banking firms whose assets were tied into mortgaged- back securities. The result--there is a credit squeeze and depending upon what this Congress decides to do in the coming weeks, credit could become scarce and thousands of Americans who rely on credit as a bridge over life's troubled waters could be left out in the cold.

I am concerned about unfair and deceptive credit card practices and support efforts to protect consumers. I don't think a bill that will result in higher interest rates for consumers is a good idea, however.

In 2005, I voted for, and Congress passed, the ``Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Act'' to help consumers get control of their debt. This bill also stipulated that open-end credit plans, such as credit cards, are required to include a minimum payment warning on the billing statement, indicating the length of time it can take to pay off a given balance. The warning includes a toll-free number the account holder can call to receive an estimate of the time it would take to repay his/her balance if only minimum payments were to be made. These common sense reforms, which President Bush signed into law, are already helping consumers improve their financial standing.

Furthermore, the Federal Reserve, Office of Thrift Supervision, and National Credit Union Administration are currently finalizing regulations to prohibit unfair and deceptive credit card practices and make disclosures more transparent. The proposed regulations, which are expected to be finalized in December, address a number of goals of this current bill. Those proposed regulations eliminate universal default, prohibit double-cycle billing, require advance notice of rate increases, and rein in over-the-limit fees. Regulations are better suited to addressing these problems than legislation because they can be adapted more readily to changes in market conditions. The proposed regulations are the result of extensive research and consumer input, have received extensive public comment, and should be finalized without legislation.

As drafted, the bill will increase costs and reduce access to credit for millions of Americans while eliminating low-rate credit options that will hurt individuals and small businesses alike. It does so by, among other things, limiting the ability of card companies to manage risk, as well as by dictating the terms under which credit card loans must be repaid. These requirements will force card companies to increase the cost of credit to all consumers to compensate for the added risk, and to eliminate attractive low-cost offers because they will no longer be able to generate a reasonable rate of return.

The result, Americans will be paying more for their credit cards and have less access to low-cost alternatives, such as zero percent balance transfer offers. Millions of small businesses that rely on personal credit cards to assist in their operations will likewise be hurt.

For these reasons, I cannot support this bill and instead vote in favor of our Nation's consumers.

Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution spending bill contained needed funding provisions, many of which I support. In fact, three separate Appropriations bills--Defense, Homeland Security, and Military Construction--Veterans Affairs are included in the Continuing Resolution (CR) package. The insertion of these individual bills within the CR will ensure the safety and security of our Nation, maintain the commitment of Congress to our men and women in uniform, and provide for the needs of our veterans through the next fiscal year.

Despite the needed funding to our troops and veterans, the Democrat leadership decided to take political advantage of this spending bill and slipped in several inappropriate spending measures. This legislation includes unjustified spending measures that should have had the opportunity to be considered through the normal legislative process, and not tacked onto a massive, catch-all Appropriations bill.

One of these unjustified spending measures includes a $25 billion bailout of the auto industry of which $7.5 billion is appropriated in the bill. First in line were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac then Bear Stearns, and now a bailout to the auto manufacturing industry--Mr. Speaker, where does it end?

We must address the core economic problems that hold back workers from better paying jobs and that stifle businesses from being successful. The best and most responsible approach Congress can take is to continue to pursue policies designed to get our economy growing again. After September 11, 2001, our Nation's general aviation and airline manufacturing industry greatly suffered. Congress had a choice, to throw millions of dollars at the aviation industry or take a market based approach and allow accelerated depreciation of its products. The Republican majority chose to pass a jobs and economic growth bill that included depreciation and expensing provisions, which according to manufacturers, have resulted in back orders until 2012-2013. This is just one example of a market based solution to an economic crisis.

This is the type of policy that should guide this Congress in dealing with the failings of the auto industry, the housing industry, and so on. I cannot support a bill that attempts to undercut the integrity of our Nation's free market infrastructure through a $25 billion bailout of the auto industry.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 645, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Madam Speaker, in accordance with the February 2008 New Republican Earmark Standards Guidance, I submit the following in regards to the Fiscal Year 2009 Department of Defense Appropriations Act found in H.R. 2638:

Life Support Radio Test Sets for the Air National Guard

The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2009, H.R. 2638, contains $1,000,000 for Life Support Radio Test Sets for the Air National Guard in the Air Force, Other Procurement Account. The entity to receive funding for this project is Aeroflex at 10200 West York Road, Wichita, KS 67215-8999.

The funds will ensure the functionality of the survival radio equipment used by Air National Guard aircrew. The money will be used to allow each squadron to purchase enough test systems so that they can fulfill their requirement to be available for use in multiple locations at one time. Unfortunately, insufficient numbers of test sets have been fielded to address these issues, leading to maintenance backlogs and also to unfamiliarity with the test set equipment and its procedures on the part of field maintenance personnel. The cost of each Life Support Radio Test Set is $52,936. The anticipated source of funding for the duration of the project is funding from the government, since the customer is the Air Force.

No matching funds are required for this Department of Defense project.

Radio Personality Modules for SINCGARS Test Sets

The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2009, H.R. 2638, contains $2,400,000 for Radio Personality Modules for SINCGARS Test Sets in the Army, Other Procurement Account. The entity to receive funding for this project is Aeroflex at 10200 West York Road, Wichita,

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 638, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''