Floor Statements

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. 2847, the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Tom Cole

Bill Number: H.R. 2847

Provision: Title I

Account: NOAA-ORF

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

Address of Requesting Entity: 100 E. Boyd St, Room 1110, Norman, OK 73019 USA

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $2,000,000 to support research and development for a Phased Array Radar system, with the capability of detecting forecasting advanced detection of tornadoes, and other forms of severe weather at the National Severe Storms Labs (NSSL) in Norman, OK. Approximately, $800,000 is for Development of polarimetry and a phased array panel for advanced weather radar observations; $700,000 for Fundamental research on imaging radar technology as a possibility for multi-function national radar coverage; and $500,000 will be used for precision laboratory experiments for radio wave scattering of hydrometeors for advancements in numerical weather prediction.

Requesting Member: Congressman Tom Cole

Bill Number: H.R. 2847

Provision: Title II

Account: COPS Law Enforcement Technology

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: ``The Chickasaw Nation''

Address of Requesting Entity: 1130 West Main St., Ada, Ok 74820

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $750,000 to administer a law enforcement visual intelligence technology project for the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations, which encompasses 22 counties in Southern and Southeastern Oklahoma. Approximately, $39,000 will be used for program administration; $688,000 will be used for image libraries; $7,500 will be used for media distribution and equipment; and $15,500 will be used for installation, training and customer support. For

the first time, all federal, state, and local agencies operating within the aforementioned areas will have a common visual imagery tool to jointly manage emergencies. The project enhances public safety, officer safety, and puts sophisticated geospatial intelligence information into the hands of those responding to fire, crisis, 911 calls, and more. In this way, they can better respond to the situations at hand and do so more safely.

Requesting Member: Congressman Tom Cole

Bill Number: H.R. 2847

Provision: Title II

Account: COPS Law Enforcement Technology

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: ``City of Norman, Oklahoma''

Address of Requesting Entity: 201 West Gray, PO Box 370, Norman, OK,

Mr. Speaker, I rise today not only as a Member of Congress representing 11 tribal nations, but also as a proud member of the Chickasaw Nation to support the passage of H.J. Res. 40. I would like to thank Mr. Baca for his leadership on this bill and for all the work he does on behalf of Tribes. This bill recognizes of the achievements and contributions of Native Americans to the United States and encourages all Americans to observe the day after Thanksgiving as Native American Heritage Day. As a Nation with a tragic history in the treatment toward Native Americans, it is important that this Congress recognize the contribution that native peoples have made to the development of our Nation.

Today, there are 562 federally recognized Indian tribes in 34 States. Mr. Speaker, throughout the course of American history, these tribes ceded millions of acres of land to the United States, but have never ceded sovereignty or agreed to self-liquidation. Today, Indian lands are only about 5 percent of all land in the United States. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, many tribes remain fractured and broken, due to the destructive policies toward Native Americans. However, tribal heritage, history and contributions to the United States remain robust and all Americans should remember to honor the contributions of this courageous group.

Mr. Speaker, from the birth of the United States, Native Americans have contributed to our success as a country. The first European settlers could not have survived without the help of the native communities. Even during the Revolutionary War, Native Americans fought along side the colonists to fight for liberty. During their journey west, Lewis and Clark depended on tribes to see them through harsh winters and save them from starvation. Mr. Speaker, even while it was the policy of the United States to remove or destroy tribal governments in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Native Americans still worked alongside European settlers to grow our Nation both economically and culturally.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the course of our history, Native Americans have fought with, against, and for the United States. In fact, Indians have served in all the country's wars and historically enlist in the military in great numbers. Though all Native Americans did not even have U.S. Citizenship during World War I, they still volunteered their service. It is estimated that more than 12,000 American Indians served in the United States military in World War I. By using native languages to confuse the enemy, these soldiers were able to turn the tide of one of the bloodiest wars in history. These ``Codetalkers'' continued this heroic effort in World War II. Historically, Native Americans have the highest record of service per capita than any other demographic group and there are over 190,000 Native American veterans today.

Today, Mr. Speaker, tribal communities are vibrant and growing. Tribal governments are strong, ensuring that their people retain their culture, values and way of life. In my state of Oklahoma in particular, home to 39 distinct tribes, Indian Country is flourishing. Tribal enterprises contribute millions of dollars to the State's economy and provide thousands of jobs for Oklahomans. Mr. Speaker, unlike private corporations, Native American owed businesses give back to their communities by investing in basic infrastructure, healthcare, education, law enforcement and a host of other government services. In many areas, tribal cultural activities are the only access to the arts and humanities that the local population can readily access. The changes that have been made my Native businesses in recent years are absolutely astounding. Tribal cultures enrich American life, and tribal economies provide opportunities where few would otherwise exist.

As legislators and as Americans, it is vitally important that we consider the contributions that Native Americans have made to the success of our great country. It is equally imperative that Congress remembers that we have engaged with Indian tribes as a government-to- government relationship with tribes since the first European settlers arrived in North America. As we make laws that will affect Indian Country, we should do so with the intention of keeping tribal governments strong, self-sufficient and encourage the preservation of tribal cultures.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to vote in favor of this significant legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this supplemental, and, frankly, I want to congratulate the majority on the legislation. I am particularly pleased with the military portion that was worked out in negotiations between Mr. Murtha and Mr. Young. The extra dollars that were provided beyond what the administration requests I think were wise expenditures.

I certainly don't agree with everything in the bill and have my differences over process, both in the committee and more profoundly, frankly, on this floor, where I wish we had the

amendments available that my friend, Mr. Tiahrt, mentioned. But, by and large, it's a great bill and, frankly, it deserves our support.

I think we ought to stop for a minute, Mr. Speaker, and recognize the significance of the vote that we are about to take. With the passage of this proposal, President Obama, in my mind at least, effectively becomes a war President. In his campaign, he said that Afghanistan was the central front in the war on terror, and he also said, if necessary, he would move into other countries to pursue al Qaeda. Since he has been elected, I think he has actually put those views into effect in this legislation and in other actions. He has chosen a new commander; he has increased the size of our forces in Afghanistan dramatically; he has begun a civilian surge, which alters in some ways, and I think appropriately, the nature of our mission; he has requested additional forces from European countries; and, frankly, he has made it clear that he is expanding activity into Pakistan.

This is a major commitment. It's not a commitment that will be over in a year. Frankly, I suspect President Obama will be dealing with this issue throughout his Presidency, whether he's a one- or two-term President. As long as he continues to operate in this capacity, frankly, I think he deserves bipartisan support. I think a war President deserves bipartisan support from Congress. He will certainly have it from me as long as he is consistent with the principles he has laid out and operates under the advice, although reserving the final decision to himself, of the commanders on the ground.

So it's a good piece of legislation and it deserves to be passed.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, March 31, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and I missed the first vote in a series of three votes. I missed rollcall vote No. 173.

Had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall vote No. 173: ``no'' (On agreeing to H. Res. 279).

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And, Madam Chair, I rise to oppose this Democratic budget. As we have heard repeatedly tonight, it spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much.

But I want to be fair to my friends on the Democratic side. There is one area of the budget where there is a glaring exception to that rule, and that is the defense of the United States of America.

Over the course of a 10-year projected Obama budget, we will move from 20 percent of the Federal budget down to 14 percent devoted to defending the country. We will move from just over 4 percent of the gross national product to 3 percent to defend the United States of America. We will risk canceling major weapons systems, like the future combat system, a tanker that will help us project air power around the world and missile defense, at a time when the North Koreans and the Iranians are developing missiles. That risks jobs, that risks security. That is reckless in a dangerous world.

That is not just my opinion, Madam Chairman. Let me read from Robert Samuelson's recent article, ``Obama, the Great Pretender.''

``It would be responsible for Obama to acknowledge the big gamble in his budget. National security has long been government's first job. In his budget, defense spending drops from 20 percent to 14 percent of the total from 2008 to 2016, the smallest share since the 1930s. The decline presumes a much safer world. If the world doesn't cooperate, deficits will grow.''

More importantly, American soldiers and American security will be at risk, Madam Chairman. So let's reject this budget because it does spend too much, it does borrow too much, it does tax too much. And let's embrace the Republican alternative which spends less, borrows less, taxes less, but, most importantly, puts more resources where it counts, defending the United States of America.

No, sir. But I do have some information that might help you as you move forward. I wouldn't say that this would be definitive. I think you should ask every individual, as you're doing.

But I do have a signed list of people that were in the room--that were principal negotiators in the room. I think they need to be able to answer for themselves, as one of them, Mr. Frank, already has.

I do want to point out in defense of some of our colleagues, Mr. Lewis' from California name is there, but it's scratched out because he wasn't allowed to be in the room. There's also Mr. Camp from Michigan. His name is scratched out, too, because he also was not allowed to be in the room.

And then there's the distinguished Senator Cochran from Mississippi. His name is also crossed out because he wasn't allowed to be there. Then there's Senator Grassley from Iowa. His name as well is scratched out.

So I don't know that that would prove that they did not do it, but I think that's a very strong indication they did not. Coincidentally, they're all Republicans. But I thought that might help you as you pursue your vision.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for the way in which he framed the debate and did it in a way we can all understand. But this has been a troubling episode as well.

I think I guess what I'd call Bonusgate begins, I like to think, with three words. We've heard a lot of the three words recently. We've heard the word inherit, we've heard the word transparency, and we've heard the word accountability.

Well, this is not a situation that was inherited by this administration or by this majority. This was a situation that came into being on their watch. This is a situation where they have not been transparent. Quite the opposite. They have done everything they can to obscure what happened, when it happened, who's responsible.

Finally, it's certainly an incident where, at least to this point, nobody has been held accountable for anything. It's just something that somehow is unfortunate, but we are going to move collectively to try and correct before we have even identified who created the problem for us in the first place.

What do we know? Well, we do know a lot. We do know that Secretary Geithner has been involved in designing legislation around both the bailout and the stimulus literally since November--really, since September, when he was involved in his capacity as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve in New York.

We do know that, frankly, he was aware at some point late last year or probably early this year, at the minimum, there were going to be large bonuses paid. Certainly, the Fed had been informed that, and we would expect in his position there and as Secretary of the Treasury he would have been informed.

We do know that he had the means to stop this. He literally released $30 billion at the beginning of this month to AIG. At that point, he could have said, Look, you do this; no money. You're bankrupt.

I suspect something could have happened where these bonuses wouldn't have been paid out.

We also know that he didn't bother to tell the President of the United States, for whom he works and to whom he is responsible, anything about this until the day before it happened. That's what the Secretary has said, that's what the President has said.

So we know that Mr. Geithner has been around this problem a lot and we know that he did not--or, it appears he did not inform the President.

The second thing we know relates to the stimulus bill. My friend, Mr. LaTourette, went through that pretty well. We had a bill that was rammed through, literally was put together in a hurry, where this body guaranteed its Members by unanimous bipartisan vote we would have time to read it. We weren't given the time that in this body we said we would give Members.

We know that the bill eventually ended up in a conference committee. We have a pretty good idea who the six people were there, one of whom we now presume had nothing to do with this. I would certainly take the chairman at his word.

And we know that that language was inserted in that conference. It was not something that was inherited from the last administration. It was not something, to be fair, that was even in the first version of the stimulus bill. It was something that was specifically put there.

And so, while we know that the majority didn't read the bill and we know that the minority didn't read the bill, and I doubt the President read the bill, somebody read the bill. Somebody read the bill well enough to know, Hey, there's language in here that's going to prevent the payment of bonuses--and we need to get that out and put something in. So somebody did indeed finally read the bill.

We also know that today, rather than confront those questions, we decided we'd do everything we could on the floor of this body to look like we were doing something. As a matter of fact, I would argue we made a lot of the same mistakes.

We presented a bill that hadn't gone through committee, that people hadn't seen, that hadn't been discussed, because we needed to show that we were going to act. And we presented a resolution which, thank goodness, did not make it through, which essentially would have exonerated the administration.

Now those are all things that we know. What should we do, is now the real question, it seems to me. The first thing we should do is do what the President did in the very first week of this administration and say: I made a mistake. I think the classic word was: I screwed up.

I think the President and the administration, certainly the majority, screwed up. I think admitting it would be helpful.

The second thing I would do if I were the President of the United States is fire the Secretary of the Treasury. I wouldn't wait for him to resign. I would make the point that if there's something this explosive and this important and this damaging and you know about it for months and you don't bother to tell me about it until the day before it happens, when I'm in

almost no position to do anything about it, I'm sorry, you're not really who I need to be the Secretary of the Treasury. Goodbye.

I think the President would score enormous points within his own party. Indeed, earlier this evening we actually heard essentially a Democratic Member of Congress calling in this floor for him to do exactly that, something he ought to do.

Finally, we need the people in that room to just simply fess up. One out of six of them did it; and, if they did it at somebody else's instructions at the White House, then they ought to tell us who that was. Who sent that language down? Or, ``I drafted it,'' or whatever. But there is not that many people involved. I still retain faith that the truth is going to come out here and that people will step up and do the right thing.

The great British statesman Winston Churchill was often exasperated with our people and with the United States. He used to like to say, ``You can always count on the American people to do the right thing, after they have exhausted every other possibility.''

I would suggest that is what the administration has been doing, they have been exhausting possibilities. But in the end, they just simply need to do the right thing: Fire the Secretary, in my opinion, who certainly has not served this President well; admit, whoever put this language in there, that they did it, and tell us who instructed or asked them or requested that they do it; and, finally, just level with the American people instead of pass smokescreen, whitewash legislation, which, by the way, is dangerous in and of itself, as my friend from Ohio alluded. You don't use the Tax Code as a punitive weapon directed at people. It is pretty close to a bill of attainder. It is an extraordinarily bad and blunt instrument, and to do it only to provide cover is, I think, a dangerous thing. I don't think many of my colleagues who voted for this on the other side expect that this will become law. This was a political exercise on this floor put together at the last minute to give people cover when they went home.

So let's show Mr. Churchill for once that perhaps he is mistaken; perhaps we can do the right thing without exhausting every other possibility. I ask the administration to step forward and do that, provide the kind of leadership that the President promised that he would give us in the campaign, leadership that is transparent, leadership that is accountable.

I yield back to my friend from Ohio.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 1105, FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act:

Requesting Member: Congressman Tom Cole

Bill Number: H.R. 1105

Account: Higher Education (Includes FIPSE)

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: East Central University

Address of Requesting Entity: 1100 East 14th Street; Ada Oklahoma 74820

Description of Request: Provide an addition of $476,000 for curriculum development at the Economic Development Training and Education Center, including purchase of equipment. Of the $476,000, 15% will be used for curriculum development supplies, 20% will be used for personnel, and 65% for equipment and classroom needs.

Requesting Member: Congressman Tom Cole

Bill Number: H.R. 1105

Account: Higher Education (Includes FIPSE)

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Mid-America Christian University

Address of Requesting Entity: 3500 West 119th Street; Oklahoma City,

Madam Speaker, as the Republican Co-Chair of the Native American Caucus and as the only enrolled tribal member in Congress, I rise today in recognition of the 100th Anniversary of the passing of a Native American hero, Goyathlay, more commonly known as Geronimo.

Born into one of the most dangerous eras in Native American history in 1829, this Apache leader devoted his life to leading his people both spiritually and militarily. Though outnumbered and less armed, Goyathlay valiantly and successfully fought both Mexican and American troops in order to maintain the independence of his own people for decades. Even when his own wife and children were killed by attacking soldiers, his resolve never ended to keep his people free and safe.

In 1886, when the United States government launched an expedition to capture Goyathlay, he never rested. Constantly moving, and exhausted, he demonstrated true leadership and resolve by and preventing his band of Apaches from resigning their sovereignty to the United States government. When Goyathlay and his band were finally captured, they were moved as prisoners of war to several different bases in Florida, Alabama and Oklahoma. Finally, Goyathlay was transferred to Ft. Sill in Lawton, Oklahoma were he is buried today.

On this 100th Anniversary of his death, it is my sincerest hope, that his descendants might find healing and peace as they heal from the tragedies suffered by their ancestors. Today, Goyathlay can serve as an example for all of Indian Country. Though the United States policy toward Indian Country has drastically improved since the time of Goyathlay, the fight for tribal sovereignty is far from over. His strong dedication to this principle as well as his determined leadership is truly inspirational for all those fighting for Native Americans today.

Again, Madam Speaker, I am proud to speak today to honor one of the greatest Native American heroes in history. As the San Carols Apache Tribe and others throughout Indian Country gather to honor the life of this great leader, I wish them all the best and hope that this anniversary is a marker of healing for the Apaches and all Native peoples.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask that we all uphold the honor of the House and keep our commitment to the American people.

Less than 3 days ago, my good friend and colleague, Mr. Lewis of California, asked this House to instruct our conferees not to record their approval of the conference agreement on the stimulus bill until the text of that agreement had been made available in an electronic, searchable, and downloadable form for at least 48 hours. That motion passed unanimously.

Essentially, we gave our word, the word of the people's House, to all Americans, guaranteeing them that they would have ample opportunity to review this proposed legislation.

This bill was filed last night. It is over 1,000 pages long. And, with the exception of omnibus legislation, it is the largest spending bill this House has ever considered. Madam Speaker, I must confess, I haven't had time to read the legislation; my staff hasn't had time to read the legislation; I doubt my colleagues have had time to read the legislation; and, most importantly, the American people have had no time to read the legislation.

So now, less than 10 hours since we could first see this 1,000-page bill, we are poised to break our commitment to the American people and to pass this legislation with little or no time to even read it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 1. This underlying bill is unfocused, it's bloated, and it's self-defeating. It won't stimulate our economy. It will certainly stimulate growth in the size of government.

The bill fails in four basic areas:

First, its tax cuts are too small, too temporary and simply don't encourage people to purchase products or employers to hire people.

Second, much of the spending in the bill is recurring and will add to the size of government and ultimately slow future growth.

Third, our country is at war and yet nothing in this bill helps those protecting our freedom. And by ignoring legitimate procurement issues, we fail to take a measure that would actually stimulate the economy.

Finally, Madam Speaker, this bill is sold as an infrastructure bill, yet only 7 percent of the spending is actually on infrastructure. We can do better than this. We can have a bipartisan, open process and pass legislation we can all be proud of.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about the proposed stimulus legislation. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, never have so few spent so much so quickly to do so little. The stimulus bill, now totaling a staggering $789 billion, does little to aid our ailing economy. Let me put $789 billion in perspective. That is more money than we spent in 5 years of war in Iraq. That is more money than we spent in Afghanistan. Seven hundred eight-nine billion dollars is nearly as much as the total of all United States currency currently circulating worldwide.

This spending bill creates some 30 new Federal programs and agencies, growing government to the largest size ever. In fact, the spending in this bill is larger than the budgets of most governments and nearly twice the size of the oil-rich economy of Saudi Arabia. What we need is more money in the hands of those who pay taxes, create jobs and invest in our economy. Instead, we're giving billions to those who will grow government and raise taxes.

Madam Speaker, this is not a road to recovery. This is a recipe for disaster.

Mr. Speaker, it's my very sad duty to inform the House, as many of you know, my part of the country in

Oklahoma and parts of Texas were devastated last night by a series of tornados. We lost eight people in the little, tiny town of Lone Grove in the southern end of the district, at least eight. Rescue workers are still going through and trying to see if there are any additional losses, about 43 injured, 17 severely. So pretty devastating for a small town.

So I would ask, Mr. Speaker, for the House to observe a moment of silence for those who lost their families and those who are working to rescue and comfort the bereaved.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak against going to conference on the stimulus bill, H.R. 1. However, I'm also rising in support of keeping the conference open.

The time has come to expose this legislation for what it is, a grab bag of special interest projects that will do little in the way of stimulating the economy and will significantly increase our deficit, literally risking our bond rating and triggering future tax increases.

Never in the history of our country has so much money been spent in so little time with, frankly, so little oversight.

As a new member of the Appropriations Committee, a gentleman asked me, well, what's it like? I said, I don't know. I showed up to one meeting. We spent $358 billion in about 3 hours. It was an open process. There was full debate, but there hadn't been subcommittee meetings, and there wasn't time for genuine discussion and give-and- take, in my view.

This train is moving so fast down the tracks, it's hard to determine, frankly, what's in the legislative package from day-to-day, and unfortunately, in my opinion, the package has not been bipartisan in nature. It's not been developed through negotiation and discussion.

Madam Speaker, I trust the President when he says that this should be a bipartisan package, and frankly, I wish the Democratic leadership in the House had seen fit to make it so. But a bipartisan package generally requires the two sides to sit down and negotiate, and frankly, genuinely bipartisan legislation usually requires that some Members on each side vote ``no.''

What we have today is a package that's going to be rammed through on a largely partisan vote where, frankly, the minority feels like it hasn't had an opportunity to participate. Again, I have no problem with that because that's the legislative process. As our friends like to say, they won the election.

Of course, so did we. Everybody that's in this body won an election. Everybody has a point of view, and if you want to have genuine bipartisan legislation, then you have to involve the other side.

The route we're taking will end up, again, in virtually universal support by Democrats and universal opposition by Republicans. It doesn't have to be that way. We could have either debated the Republican alternative or done something else and found common ground.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman from Kentucky knows, I was racing over here as my colleague from Oklahoma was extolling our Heisman Trophy winner Sam Bradford. I was caught on the barber's chair as this momentous event began, and so the gentleman has been kind enough to allow me to address some of my remarks toward Mr. Bradford's achievement.

I want to begin by thanking my good friend, the gentlelady from Oklahoma, Mary Fallin, for bringing the resolution to the floor honoring Sam Bradford and his remarkable achievements. He was born in my colleague's district, but his distinction was really earned in mine because he plays at the University of Oklahoma, and we're extraordinarily proud of him as a player, as any college would be.

He frankly has won two Big 12 titles in his 2 years. He's had the opportunity to play for a national championship. We came up a little bit short in that game, and we congratulate our friends at the University of Florida who played a great game with a great quarterback, Mr. Tebow, but we look forward to having the opportunity to meet them or somebody else somewhere down the road.

We're proud of everything he's done. He's led the country in passing. He's one of the most accurate throwers, led the country in touchdown passes. You could literally list the achievements at great length, but frankly, we're proud of him as a student.

In a day when a lot of athletes are there simply to play football or basketball or track or whatever their sport is, Sam Bradford is a 3.95 major in finance at the University of Oklahoma. So he's pretty serious about his academic life.

We're proud of him as a person. Frankly, he's active in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. He is active in Read Across America. Obviously, we're very proud of his native heritage as a member of the Cherokee Nation. And that's important to us in Oklahoma, certainly important to me as a member of the Chickasaw Nation, to see the kind of role model he is, not only for Cherokees but, frankly, for young men and women all across Indian country, regardless of tribal affiliation.

I think we're probably most proud of him, Mr. Speaker, for the manner in which he leads. He is a quiet leader. He's not a shouter. He's not somebody that is theatrical on the field. You don't see him engaging in taunting for the type of celebration that frankly glorifies the individual at the expense of the team. You see him lead by example.

And all of his fellow players comment on this repeatedly, that in the huddle, he's quiet, he's professional, he's business-like, he's quick to give the credit to the people that he plays with; and, frankly, he's quick to give the credit to his opponents who he regards with respect and as worthy adversaries and people who bring their own traits of hard work and character to the field.

The relationship that he had with not only Mr. Tebow but also with our rivals in the south, Colton McCoy of the University of Texas, is the kind of relationship you like to see on the football field, and frankly probably something all of us in this Chamber could take a lesson from.

I doubt there is any fiercer rivalry in college football than there is between the University of Texas and the University of Oklahoma. And I also doubt that there are any two schools that are prouder of their two quarterbacks, and

I also doubt there are any two quarterbacks that respect one another's talents more and are quick to praise the other's achievements not only over the course of the season but in the contest in which they're in.

So we are extraordinarily proud, obviously, of Sam Bradford, Mr. Speaker, because he's led us to victory on the athletic field, because he's been a student; because, frankly, he's engaged in activities beyond being an athlete and beyond being a student to help others and to help his community, because of his Native American heritage. But most of all, simply because of the kind of person that he is.

He's a role model not just in athletics and not just from my State but, frankly, he's the kind of person that all of us should aspire to be. And he's wise beyond his years, and he conducts himself in a manner well beyond his years.

With that, again, I thank my colleague, Ms. Fallin from the State of Oklahoma, for bringing this resolution. It's a privilege for me to speak on it.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend and distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee from California for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation. Let me say at the outset, I respect the Rules Committee and the very important function that it carries out as a former member, but it is preeminently, as it should be, the Speaker's committee. In this case I believe the Speaker has presented us with legislation in a format that is unlikely to receive significant minority support and participation, and, frankly, that is unfortunate, Madam Speaker, because I think it is avoidable.

There is much in the current situation that, frankly, the two parties in this body agree on. We agree that we are in a serious recession. We agree that dramatic Federal response is required to deal with job loss and the mounting economic challenges we face. We agree that tax cuts are an important part of that solution. We have some disagreement over which ones and how much, but clearly it is an area we can find common ground on.

We agree that infrastructure is important to moving us forward, although I regret there is very little of this bill, frankly, that deals with infrastructure. Less than 10 percent in total actually goes to infrastructure spending. I think that is something we could find common ground on and enlarge. We disagree, quite obviously, over a whole range of other spending issues which constitute over half the bill.

In our opinion, the spending is simply too much. There are too many new programs that have not been authorized and gone through the appropriate committee process. There is unsustainable spending in this program, things like Pell Grants and IDEA money that is good, but frankly will ramp up and then immediately crash down. Or we will set ourselves up for a future tax increase, which I don't think anybody, certainly on my side of the aisle, is anxious to do. So there are areas of agreement and disagreement.

Madam Speaker, it is not too late to find common ground. We could defeat this rule and ask the Rules Committee to send us back three items that we could consider sequentially and separately. We could root out the bad programs. We could find common ground. We could find common ground on tax cuts. We can find common ground on infrastructure.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

We could then have our disagreements over the spending portion of the bill. We could vote on each of these items separately. They could later be merged and sent on as a separate bill. In that process we would find significant bipartisan participation and agreement. But, unfortunately, the rule under which we are likely to bring the legislation to the floor is going to make that impossible and give us the old partisan debates that the country would like to see us move past.

So I would ask my colleagues to reject this rule and ask my capable friends on the Rules Committee in both parties to go back and to give us the type of process and the type of bill that will yield a bipartisan outcome, a bipartisan victory. That is what the country wants, that is what America needs, that is what the President has asked us to do. That is what we are capable of doing if we will address this matter in the appropriate manner.

So I urge the rejection of this rule and the beginning of a bipartisan process where we can find so much common ground.