Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, November 3, 2009, I missed a series of three votes. I missed rollcall votes Nos. 835, 836, and 837.

I request that the Congressional Record reflect that had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall vote No. 835: ``yea'' (On agreeing to H.R. 3949).

Rollcall vote No. 836: ``yea'' (On agreeing to H. Res. 398).

Rollcall vote No. 837: ``yea'' (On agreeing to H. Res. 866).

Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to speak against the Democrats' proposed health care plan. Frankly, it's hard to understand who my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are listening to. Certainly, it's not my constituents.

Their concerns, like those of millions of Americans, have been ignored as this bill has been written. The same provisions that caused the concerns and the fears that I heard in August town hall meetings are still in the ``new bill.''

Overwhelmingly, the American people have said ``no'' to government- run health insurance, but it's still in the bill. Also in the ``new bill'' are the same higher taxes for employers and individuals, taxes which will kill jobs. These are the very employers and individuals suffering from double-digit unemployment in many States today.

Maybe after several months, Mr. Speaker, some have found it easy to forget what they heard in August, but I haven't. This new bill is just more of the same, more backroom-brokered deals deciding the fate of millions of Americans. The only noticeable change in this bill is the addition of an extra 1,000 pages or so.

Americans deserve health care reform. Hopefully, they will get it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, former President Woodrow Wilson, who was, of course, a considerable scholar of this institution, used to reflect that Congress on the floor is Congress' theater, but Congress in committee is Congress at work.

I want to particularly commend Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Simpson for the manner in which they worked and, more importantly, for how they worked together throughout the process.

We hear a great deal--and there is sometimes considerable truth in it--about the absence of bipartisanship. I just want to make a point as a freshman member of this subcommittee as to how much bipartisanship there was on the subcommittee and as to how well we worked together. Of course, that couldn't happen without the chairman and ranking member setting the example and taking the lead.

You know, like all Members, I look at this appropriations bill, and I come to an undebatable conclusion that it spends too much money on things that I don't care about but not nearly enough on things that I do. Unfortunately, every other Member seems to have a somewhat different opinion about what is important and about what is not, and it has been left to the chairman and ranking member, as best they can, to work through that. Yet where I think there can't be much debate is that this is truly an excellent piece of legislation and funding from a Native American perspective and from the perspective of Indian country.

Madam Speaker, it's a trite but true observation that the First Americans are often the last Americans. They live shorter lives; they are poorer on average; they are less educated; they have less opportunity. This bill makes major steps to try and correct those inequities. It does really revolutionary things, in my opinion, in terms of health care, in terms of law enforcement, and in terms of education.

I want to particularly thank again Ranking Member Simpson and Chairman Dicks for taking that into consideration. I want to thank, frankly, every other member of the committee who I found really focused on this issue, and I want to thank the staff, which really did a superb job as well. We had a series of absolutely first-rate hearings, and I think we made good and wise decisions that the American people can be proud of.

It was a privilege to be able to participate on this committee.

I yield.

Well, the gentleman, as always, is very kind.

Madam Speaker, again, I want to thank the committee, and I want to thank the leadership of the committee. I look forward to the passage of this very important legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to reflect just a moment, as we all have, on our mutual friend John McHugh. Obviously, I didn't have the opportunity to know him in New York. I first got to know him as a politician in 1992, about the same time I got to

know you, Mr. King. I was the executive director of the National Republican Congressional Committee. John was running in what was a tumultuous year, a very challenging year for incumbents in both parties, an era of very low trust in the institution of Congress and in the politicians who engage in civic activities. And what I remembered was how effortless John McHugh made his victory appear. He was able to do that simply because the people in his district knew him from long years of public service, and they recognized the quality, the integrity, and the character of the man. The fact that he's been reelected eight times since that first election without ever having a serious contest in a very competitive district is a testament, frankly, to the excellence with which he represented his constituents and the high esteem in which he was held, frankly, not only by the people he represented, but by the people here in this institution.

We all know John as a Member's Member, somebody who is incredibly thoughtful, incredibly thorough, incredibly bipartisan, and incredibly gracious while still being amazingly effective in presenting an argument and a point of view. I had the privilege of getting to know John not as a candidate but as a public official when I arrived in Congress in 2003. I went to the Armed Services Committee and found myself--because I, too, represent a military district--his vice chairman on the Personnel Subcommittee. What impressed me about John's performance as the chairman of that subcommittee was his incredible depth of knowledge about all military issues but, particularly, his commitment to military families.

I remember, John taught me what is a very common saying on the Armed Services Committee, ``You recruit a soldier, but you retain a family.'' He thought about those soldiers very deeply. He understood the sacrifices they made. His intimate acquaintance with the great 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum and his wide travels and interaction with military personnel made him understand that it was a social unit as well as a fighting unit, and how you retained the quality of life in an era of an all-volunteer army was really crucial to attracting and retaining soldiers and their families.

I grew up in a military family, and I remember my father leaving the military after 20 years, largely because it was the right thing to do for his family. He didn't want to, but there simply weren't the benefits available to the families that we now provide. John was a big part of moving us toward the kind of support systems for families that make it possible for our soldiers to perform so effectively in the field.

I, too, have had the opportunity travel with John abroad, and I just have to say this as an American, not just as his colleague--I can't think of anybody that I would rather have representing us in a foreign locale and in front of other nations than John McHugh. He exemplifies the very best traditions of public service in this country, and he always handles himself with such incredible grace and incredible wit, and he is so remarkably articulate when he's expressing his points of view.

I think the fact that he was chosen by President Obama to be Secretary of the Army speaks incredibly well of both of them. It tells you the manner in which John is regarded by members not only of his own party but the other party, and it tells you, frankly, that the President has thought profoundly, in a bipartisan sense, about foreign policy and certainly about the military, where he's tried to recruit the best people he could find to provide the civilian leadership for our forces at a time of war. I can't think of anybody better to fulfill that task than John.

Now, I have to say, there are a lot of reasons I will miss John McHugh, but probably, selfishly, the best is he smokes a mean cigar. Not only that, but he always looked like I always thought I would like to look as a Congressman. John looks the part. He could be a movie Congressman. You know, he is a handsome guy. He is extraordinarily well dressed, and when he smokes that cigar, he is so amazingly sophisticated. And by the way, he knows a lot about them.

I just want to close by saying that it's been a great personal privilege and an honor to serve with somebody like John McHugh, and I wish every American had the opportunity to know that Congress is, indeed, populated by people like John, that they come here, they're not flamboyant. He is not the sort of person that, you know, is ever going to lose his temper or create a scene. He just does his job with excellence, professionalism, decency, and courtesy every day, and I can't think of an individual who is as knowledgeable or as suited to lead the United States Army as a civilian Secretary in a time of war than John McHugh.

So I want to thank my friend for his years of splendid service in this House and to, frankly, thank him a little bit early for his service to our country, because I have no doubt he will discharge his duties as the Secretary of the Army. I also want to express my appreciation to the President of the United States for making such a wise and bipartisan choice.

With that, I yield back to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic health care bill now being drafted behind closed doors is bad for seniors, bad for taxpayers, and bad for the quality of America's health care system.

It will cut Medicare spending on seniors. It will cost taxpayers $1 trillion, and it will push the American medical system toward an underfunded, overregulated, government-run health care system. We can do better than that.

Republicans have offered in good faith positive proposals putting patients first, reforms that protect the doctor-patient relationship, increase accessibility, and truly make health care more affordable. However, these ideas have never been heard in the back rooms of the Capitol where the Democrats are crafting their own partisan proposals.

Mr. Speaker, the majority's proposals continue to ignore medical liability reform, something the President himself said would be addressed. Tort reform has yet to be raised in the deliberations of our Democratic majority.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow the government to stand between patients and health care. Americans are smart enough to know the difference between no choice and a real choice.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3183--Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, for FY2010

Requesting Member: Congressman Tom Cole

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Provision: Title III

Account: DOE--Science

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: ``The University of Oklahoma''

Address of Requesting Entity: 660 Parrington Oval, Norman OK 73019

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of 1,000,000.00 to The University of Oklahoma (OU) for its technological advantage in the production of carbon nanotubes, via the use of a proprietary catalyst and a truly scalable production process, commercialized by an OU startup company (South-West Nanotechnologies, SWeNT). The Center for Applications of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes (CANTEC) investigates the applications of the SWNT produced in the CoMoCAT process in several important areas: biomedical applications (biosensors, cancer cell targets, and cancer therapeutics), polymer composites of unique electrical and mechanical properties, metal-nanotube composites, thermally conducting composites, transparent electrodes, solar cells, field emission devices, and thin film transistors.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, October 14, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and I missed the first vote in a series of five votes. I missed rollcall vote No. 775.

Had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall vote No. 775: ``yea'' (on agreeing to H. Res. 768).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R. 3548, the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act. While I have supported unemployment extensions in time of economic emergency, and will continue to do so, I will not give my support to this particular legislation because it unfairly taxes states with strong economies to pay for workers in states that have engaged in poor economic planning.

As you know, the bill would extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks in states where the average unemployment rate is over 8.5 percent. To pay for this extension, the legislation extends the 0.2 percent Federal Unemployment surtax for one more year. This is a tax that all employers are required to pay regardless of the state unemployment rate. In other words, citizens in states with low unemployment will be paying for benefits in states that have been fiscally irresponsible or have mishandled their own unemployment fund.

Currently, Madam Speaker, there are 27 states with an unemployment rate of over 8.5 percent. But many states have engaged in commonsense approaches to economic development to avoid this catastrophe. In my home state of Oklahoma, for example, our unemployment rate, though rising, is still only at 6.8 percent. As many of you know, Oklahoma suffered a major economic downturn in the 1980s due to the oil bust. However, during the late 1980s and early 1990s, the state of Oklahoma and business community learned from this experience and made great strides in economic diversification. In the years following, housing prices in Oklahoma remained stable and infrastructure grew. Today, Oklahoma's energy, agricultural and entertainment industries are strong and help to support a robust, diversified economy.

At the same time, the state of Oklahoma has worked hard to ensure that its unemployment fund remains solvent. Though many states' unemployment funds were not prepared for a major recession, Oklahoma is one of the only states that will not have to borrow from the federal fund to repay benefits to unemployed workers. In fact, Madam Speaker, the state is not raising the unemployment payments next year. It is entirely inappropriate to force the citizens of states like this to pay a tax in order to pay for the irresponsibility of others. Oklahoma already pays more in unemployment taxes than they receive back from the system, and this extension only makes the situation worse.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I again would like to emphasize that I am not opposed to ensuring that Americans have means to support themselves in economic hardship. However, I do believe that it is unwarranted to tax the citizens of the 23 other states who have produced good economic growth and responsible governance.

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege to be here with my colleagues and participate in honoring our former colleague in this Chamber, Wes Watkins. Usually when you come down to the floor on an occasion like this, you are armed with all sorts of wonderful prepared remarks, and you lay them out.

But I would rather talk about my friend, Wes Watkins, spontaneously and, frankly, from a rather unique perspective because I have run races against him, and I have run races for him. And I have to tell you, I never beat him when I ran a race against him, but I was a lot more successful working for him.

He is really an extraordinary political figure in his own right. As my friend, Congressman Boren mentioned, he served as a State senator. He was a

Congressman. He ran for governor twice, frankly, nearly getting the Democratic nomination in 1990. Had he gotten that, he undoubtedly would have won the election and have been the Governor of our State. He ran again in 1994 as an Independent. Very unusual. By the way, his congressional district voted for him as a Democrat, voted for him as an Independent, and then later voted for him as a Republican. I have never seen a loyalty directed toward an individual that way.

In the course of his 1990 campaign, he got to be pretty good friends with my client, Frank Keating, who later went on to be Governor. Frank Keating thought so much of Wes Watkins, his opponent, that he offered him a job in his Cabinet as a Secretary for international trade because Wes was so passionate about bringing jobs and opportunity to the people of Oklahoma. That says a lot about you as an individual that one of your opponents thinks so highly of you that they want to move you over into their administration.

Unfortunately, some of Wes's colleagues in the State senate in Oklahoma decided that having run as an Independent instead of a Democrat, they were not inclined to do that. But a number of years later, an opportunity came up when the seat that he won came open again. Our good friend, Bill Brewster, decided to retire. And I remember, Wes was still registered as an Independent, and there was 17 days before the cutoff when you had to choose your party. The minute that Frank Keating, then Governor Keating, saw that congressional seat was open, he literally within 20 minutes called Wes Watkins and said, Wes, I want you to run for Congress. I don't care if you run as an Independent; I don't care if you run as a Democrat. I'm a Republican. I would like you to run as that. That doesn't matter. We are going to do everything we can. We need you back in the Congress of the United States. We need your passion and your commitment for economic development and to help the people of this State.

Wes honestly made, I would say, a tough political call because he would have won as a Democrat. He would have won as an Independent. He chose to become a Republican for a lot of reasons, but I think partly because he thought we were in the majority then, he thought he would be very effective in that role, and he was. He was an extraordinarily effective Congressman for his State.

Now, when I think about Wes, you can't think about Wes and not think about Lou Watkins, his partner, his only real political consultant and, quite frankly, now a regent at Oklahoma State University, one of the really fine public figures and one of the best classroom teachers I ever saw in my life. As a college political science professor, I used to occasionally go and deal with her students. And incredibly fair. Together, they have done so much good for our State. They are deep in the hearts of the people that they manage to serve.

I do want to tell one polling story and one media story about my friend, Wes Watkins. When he first decided to run as a Republican, the district was literally registered over 80 percent Democrat at that time. We did a survey. In the survey you ask what are called open-ended questions: What do you like most, what do you like least about this individual.

I never saw this before, 97 percent of the people could tell you something specific about Wes Watkins, all of it positive: he helped my father get a job; he helped bring this business to our community. It was the most incredibly impressive testimony for an individual's good deeds and using public office in an appropriate way to help people that I have ever seen in my life.

We sent the media consultant to travel with him around the district for 3 days. She came back and I asked, What did you think?

She said, In 3 days I only met one person who didn't call him Wes in every little town. She said it was actually a young lady, probably 16 or 17 years. She came up to say, Mr. Watkins, could I please shake your hand. Thank you for something you have done for my family. The consultant said he just threw his arms around her and said, Honey, just call me Wes.

He is just a remarkable human being. I want to thank both of my colleagues for this recognition, particularly my good friend, Dan Boren, who worked with him. Wes Watkins has done as much for our State as anybody I have seen in my political lifetime. And continues to do it. And so does Lou. This is such a fitting and appropriate honor. I am happy to join my friends as a cosponsor and look forward to voting for this particular piece of legislation with a great deal of pleasure.

Offered By: Mr. Cole

Amendment No. 1: After section 104, add the following new

section (and amend the table of contents accordingly):

Offered By: Mr. Cole

Amendment No. 2: Page 318, line 16, before ``after'' insert

the following: ``before, on, or''.

Offered By: Mr. Cole

Amendment No. 3: After section 714 of the amendment added

by section 101 of the bill, add the following new section

(and amend subsequent sections and the table of contents

accordingly):

Offered By: Mr. Cole

Amendment No. 4: After section 817, add the following new

section (and amend subsequent sections and the table of

contents accordingly):

Offered By: Mr. Cole

Amendment No. 5: Add at the end of the bill, add the

following new title (and amend the table of contents

accordingly):

Offered By: Mr. Cole

Amendment No. 6: Add at the end of the bill, insert the

following new title (and amend the table of contents

accordingly):