Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman from Kentucky wants to know why Republicans oppose the government takeover of our health care system, I would invite him to consult the many, many refugees from Canada and Britain who have come here to America to get their health care, because they simply can't survive with bureaucrats telling them what treatments they'll get and when they'll get them.

The Republicans are proposing to bring within the reach of every American family a basic health plan that they will own, that they can change if it fails to suit them and that they will hold wherever they work and under whatever circumstances they work; but Madam Speaker, I'm here on different business this morning.

I'm here to talk about the right of workers. Their right to gather and to bargain collectively with an employer is a fundamental right of labor. It often strengthens the position of individual workers as they negotiate with a powerful employer. Yet survey after survey tells us that union members are less satisfied with their jobs than nonunion workers, and many Americans today simply refuse to work in union shops at all.

So why is it that a bargaining process designed to improve workers' satisfaction should produce such dissatisfaction?

Perhaps the answer rests with the simple human desire in each of us to excel in what we do and to be recognized and rewarded for that excellence. Collective bargaining increases the ability of workers to take a stronger position to negotiate with an employer, and this is good, but they're then left to give up any individual rewards for outstanding work.

Union workers end up trapped with a one-size-fits-all contract that denies them the dignity that comes from individual excellence and achievement. No matter how hard that worker toils or no matter how much he produces, he gets paid exactly the same as the coal worker who puts in minimal effort.

Well, why shouldn't workers get extra pay and performance bonuses beyond the union-negotiated wage base? Why does the wage floor set through union contracts also have to be a wage ceiling for those union members who go the extra mile to get ahead?

Union leaders may see value in wiping out individual initiative to build solidarity among rank-and-file members, but those workers would be far better off if they could enjoy both the advantages of collective bargaining and the additional rewards of individual performance raises and bonuses. Many unionized businesses would gladly pay individual workers more if they could. Some have tried, but over the years, the National Labor Relations Board has repeatedly struck them down.

For that reason, I have introduced the Rewarding Achievement and Incentivizing Successful Employees, or RAISE Act, H.R. 2732. It will allow working union members to escape the false choice between collective bargaining and individual reward that our outdated labor laws have forced upon them. Senator Vitter has introduced a similar bill in the Senate.

Under the RAISE Act, union members would retain all of the collective bargaining rights under current law, and employers would be bound to the wage and benefit schedules negotiated under those laws. In addition to the floor established by the union contract, employers could add bonuses for those workers who go the extra mile, combining the benefits of collective bargaining with the rewards of individual achievement.

Years ago, Admiral Grace Hopper observed that, in all of her years in the United States Navy, she had determined that the greatest impediment to human progress is the phrase ``but we've always done it this way.'' That's the only answer we've heard so far in opposition to this simple reform, and in days like these, that's no answer at all.

Madam Speaker, in memory of Jack Kemp, I would like the following article included in the Congressional Record.

Republicans Looking for a modern inspiration? Jack Kemp's life provides

ideas

(By Jack Cox)

There has been much press coverage these days about the

problems of the Republican Party seeking a new identity that

resonates with Americans. Too often, Republicans and

conservatives are criticized for lacking compassion and

concern for many social issues of interest to many Americans.

In the 1960's, Conservatives had little involvement in the

historic battle for civil rights. Most Republicans opposed

the civil rights act in 1964, including Presidential

candidate Barry Goldwater, and a great deal of resentment

grew within the African American community over this apparent

indifference.

It was, of course, Republicans with President Lincoln that

led the battle to end slavery and liberate blacks from the

intolerable practice. Thirty two years earlier, William

Wilberforce, a noted Member of Parliament and British

Christian leader had led the battle to end slavery in

England. Unfortunately, during the last half of the 20th

Century too many conservatives, Republicans specifically,

were uninvolved in the battle. That disinterest was tied not

to bigotry but rather other priorities including a major

battle to oppose the spread of Communism from the Soviet

Union and ``Red China.'' Senator Goldwater, a charter member

of the Phoenix NAACP, opposed it on states' rights grounds.

It was a warm summer day during the 1996 Presidential

Campaign that the National Association of Black Journalists

annual convention was held in Nashville. The organization, as

most journalism groups, invites Presidential candidates to

address their members. On that humid Tennessee day Republican

Presidential Candidate Robert Dole and Vice Presidential

Candidate Jack Kemp were slated to speak to the several

thousand African American journalists from around the nation.

Most Republicans would have described this group as anything

but a friendly organization to GOP candidates.

Senator Dole was introduced with polite applause. Then Jack

Kemp was introduced and he received a standing ovation. I sat

in awe as these black Americans applauded a white Republican

leader. Jack stayed after his speech and shook the hand of

every young journalist who wanted to meet him. There was no

story about this incident and it has received no notice that

I have ever seen. Why did Jack get this reception? It is easy

to understand why -- Jack Kemp cared and he demonstrated that

care over a life time. He was committed to the wisdom of a

free market but he also saw that sometimes people fell

through the cracks and that government has the responsibility

to help them.

However, Jack was committed to giving people opportunity,

not hand outs. He had the strong respect of millions of

Americans. In my many personal conversations with Jack and my

work with him, that caring attitude came through like a laser

beam! Jack, in the past decade, spoke strongly for a guest

worker program for illegal immigrants and a method for these

folks to become legal residents of the United States. Jack

saw these people as hard workers who were trying to achieve

the American dream, one sought by millions from throughout

the world.

Jack observed one time ``Republicans many times can't get

the words `equality of opportunity' out of their mouths.

Their lips do not form that way.'' He also declared ``There

really has not been a strong Republican message to either the

poor or the African American community at large.''

He also noted ``When people lack jobs, opportunity, and

ownership of property they have little or no stake in their

communities.''

In 1964, Senator Barry Goldwater was defeated for the

presidency. Look Magazine, shortly after the solid defeat,

asked writer Richard Cornuelle to write a piece entitled a

``Positive Agenda for the Republican Party.'' In 1965,

Cornuelle published a new book ``Reclaiming the American

Dream.'' Cornuelle, like Jack Kemp, called on Republicans to

have answers and a positive agenda instead of constant

opposition to government. He coined the phrase ``the

independent section'' which described the vital role that

associations, churches, and individuals play in meeting the

needs of society.

Unfortunately, Dick Cornuelle's ideas, like Jack Kemp's,

were not seen as providing direction for the future of the

Republican Party by some leaders. Jack Kemp was a dynamic

individual who, like Ronald Reagan, always saw a glass half

full rather than half empty. If the Republican Party is to

begin

carrying a positive banner of hope and leadership, it will

need to be like Jack Kemp's. Perhaps with the loss of Jack

Kemp, the time has come for the party and Conservatives in

general to reexamine their priorities and reach out to all

Americans.

Indeed it is a time for all Americans to rekindle their

faith in an America of strong commitment to a free market

system which strives to reach all Americans, not with a hand

out but with a hand up. Kemp reminded us ``There are no

limits to our future if we don't put limits on our people.''

At the same time, Jack never lost his commitment to the

idea that a growing economy is the only answer to enriching

more Americans instead of fewer. He saw redistribution of

wealth as a policy for failure. His vision for government was

simple: ``Every time in this century we've lowered the tax

rates across the board, on employment, on saving, investment

and risk-taking in this economy, revenues went up, not

down.'' It was interesting that another dynamic leader in the

Democratic Party held that same view, John F. Kennedy,

another inspirational leader.

Finally, as the Republican Party thinks about is future and

the Democrats, now in power, contemplate how they responsibly

use their power, we should remember Jack Kemp's words

``Democracy without morality is impossible.'' I, as so many

others Americans of all colors and all parties, will miss

Jack Kemp.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with the sad duty of recognizing the death in combat of Army Specialist Jeremiah P. McCleery, age 24, of Portola, California.

Mr. Speaker, if you read the observations of his friends, you very quickly realize this was not only an irreplaceable loss to his family and a monumental loss to his community, but it was also a terrible loss for our country.

Miah, as he was known, was simply a good kid. He made friends easily, he had a great sense of humor, and he had wanted to join the Army since he was 4 years old. He was an exemplary soldier who commanded the friendship and respect of his colleagues. He had fallen in love with a girl at Fort Hood before he shipped out, with their whole lives ahead of them.

A friend of his, Josh Rodgers, was asked when Miah McCleery was happiest, and the answer was, ``doing anything with his dad.'' They had lost his mother, Collette, to cancer a few years ago. His father, Joe, worked at a refuse collection company and later at a sheet metal business, and Miah was often at his side.

That same friend was asked why Jeremiah had enlisted. The response, ``he always wanted to when he was a kid. He probably just wanted to out of patriotic duty to go serve. And I think he wanted to go do his part.''

The question first asked by Jim Michener thunders across the countryside with a loss like this: ``Where do we get such men?'' Mr. Speaker, I don't know how to offer condolences to Miah McCleery's family, to his father, Joe, to his sisters, Lynette and Chastity, and to his grandparents and many friends. The loss they bear is beyond my comprehension.

I can only offer my awe and gratitude that humanity has within itself a small band of brothers like Jeremiah McCleery who stepped forward not for treasure or profit nor even to defend their own freedom. But rather, to win the freedom of a people half a world away. And they do it because their country asks and because it is virtuous and noble.

A few feet from here in the Capitol Rotunda is a fresco called the ``Apotheosis of Washington.'' It depicts General Washington, in uniform, ascending to the heavens, flanked by victory and freedom, and surrounded by the essence and fruits of a free Nation. And in that depiction, Washington beckons.

From little towns like Portola, California, decent young men and women with promising futures, like Jeremiah McCleery, have answered. And I don't know where we get such men, and I don't know how their families can bear it. But I do know what we owe them. And I do know that we can never repay that debt, except to honor their memory and keep their sacrifice always in mind, those who gave up everything ``to proclaim liberty throughout all the land, and unto all the inhabitants thereof.''

Mr. Speaker, it comes down to this: Free societies punish acts. Authoritarian regimes punish opinions and thoughts.

Now, the supporters of this bill speak of punishing violent acts, but we already punish those violent acts, as well we should. This measure calls for additional punishment, not for the violent act, but for the opinion behind the act.

Before we embarked down this path, the opinions of the criminal were irrelevant. It was the act that we proscribed, and it was the act that we punished. Many civil libertarians warned us then that if we place in the hands of government the ability to define what opinions it likes and doesn't like, and then to punish those opinions on top of the acts themselves, then we've started down a very dangerous and slippery slope.

That opinion, I think, was clearly illustrated when the committee voted down an amendment to include veterans, for example, under these protections under the hate crimes law. Now, the supporters of this measure made it very clear that they're actively involved in singling out particular opinions with special protection and for special prosecution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the statue of Ronald Reagan could not possibly be arriving here at the United States Capitol at a more appropriate time in the history of our Nation. In these difficult days, we need to remind ourselves as a Nation what it was like when it truly was morning again in America.

They say it is always darkest before the dawn, and Ronald Reagan took office at a far more difficult time than the one we are having right now. We tend to forget double-digit unemployment, double-digit inflation, interest rates above 20 percent, mile-long lines around gas stations, American embassies seized with impunity, and an American military so weak it couldn't mount a simple rescue mission.

The arrival of this statue and all that it represents is a potent reminder that when our Nation has drifted off course, we have always found our way back to those grand and uniquely American principles of individual rights, personal responsibility, limited government and free enterprise that define us as a people.

It is true, Ronald Reagan was a great communicator. But as William Saracino has said, Reagan wasn't communicating cookie recipes. He was communicating the self-evident truths of the American tradition. And those truths resonated throughout the Nation and ultimately produced that bright moment when we realized that it indeed was morning again in America.

May this statue of Ronald Reagan remain here always as a promise that America's greatest days still lie ahead and that our founding principles will always shine as a bright beacon toward a safe harbor in the stormy tempests we have encountered and that we have yet to encounter.

Mr. Speaker, many Americans have been shocked in recent days to learn that banks that are seeking to repay TARP money have been told that the Treasury will not allow them to do so. The taxpayers were promised that this money was to be used to buy up toxic assets and that it would be repaid to the Treasury as soon as humanly possible. Well, not a single toxic asset has been purchased, and now when several banks have attempted to return that money, they have been told the Treasury will not allow them to do so.

This is a travesty. Just a few weeks ago, many Members of this House in this Chamber reacted to the AIG bonus fiasco by saying, ``We want our money back.'' And yet when some banks have attempted to do exactly that, they have been turned away at the Treasury gates.

Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced legislation to require the Secretary of the Treasury to accept TARP repayments unconditionally and immediately when they are presented. I hope that I can count on the support of all of those in this House who promised their constituents that these funds would be repaid at the earliest possible opportunity.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I feel a moment of rare bipartisan agreement coming on. I noticed several of my friends on the left said that our problems are rooted in the fiscal mismanagement of the Bush administration. The gentleman from Virginia had a very good chart entitled Record Deterioration of the Budget Under Republican Administration.

I agree. There is no denying it, George W. Bush increased spending twice as fast as his predecessor Bill Clinton did. He turned a budget surplus into a chronic deficit. You are absolutely right.

So if we all agree that Bush spent too much and borrowed too much, then why in the world would we want to pursue the same folly on an even grander scale? Why would we take that Bush administration's unsustainable rate of spending growth and send it even higher? Why would we want to take that budget deficit, which is indefensible, and triple it?

If budgets that spend too much and borrow too much on the road to economic prosperity work, then why aren't we already enjoying a period of unprecedented economic expansion? The fact is, these policies don't work. And it doesn't matter whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican. They don't work, because government cannot inject a single dollar into the economy that it has not first taken out of that same economy. Those policies don't work for the same reason that you can't spend yourself rich or borrow your way out of debt or tax your way to prosperity.

If you want to know where these policies lead, just look to my home State of California. I have watched three governors, Republican and Democrat, do exactly what my friends on the left assure us is the road to prosperity. They increased spending at unsustainable rates, they ran up unprecedented debts, and they imposed crushing new taxes. And the result is that today California has been transformed from the Nation's Golden State to a state of collapse.

A record level of government spending has not produced prosperity; it has produced one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Interest costs driven by years of borrowing are now eating into its budget. Its tax burden is producing a population exodus unknown since the days of the Dust Bowl. In fact, the State has spent so much that it has just imposed the biggest tax increase by any State in American history. California has borrowed so much that it is now in very real danger of defaulting on its obligations before the end of the summer. And, I am concerned that the President and many Democrats in Congress are making exactly the same mistake that the Bush administration made and that three California governors made, only on a much greater scale.

Madam Chair, I would suggest that, at a moment like this, perhaps it is time that we recognize the first law of holes: When you are in one, stop digging.

Madam Speaker, today this House passed H.R. 1256, which takes tobacco regulation to a whole new level and, at the same time, imposes onerous new fees that are going to be transferred to consumers as higher prices. The entire debate over the bill was over what method should be used to do so. Before we close today's proceedings, I'd like to offer a somewhat different perspective.

Many years ago, author and commentator Bruce Herschensohn made this point. He said, ``For every pleasure in life, there is a corresponding risk. I think that's a universal truth--for every pleasure in life, there is a corresponding risk.

And he pointed out that it's true that with enough taxes and laws and restrictions and regulations and penalties and lectures, government can produce a virtually risk-free society. But it will also be one of the most colorless, pleasureless, tedious, and miserable societies ever conceived by the mind of man. I believe that's the case.

The health risks of smoking are real and they are well-documented. Our schools rightly make a concerted effort to inform every child of the health risks of tobacco--and they do a good job of it. Our government warns every adult of the health risks of tobacco--and they do a good job of it, too.

As a result, I don't believe there's a single individual in the United States who doesn't well and fully comprehend the health risks of tobacco. But once those warnings are issued, how much farther should government go to make individual decisions for rational adults if they weigh the risks of smoking for themselves?

Ten years ago, after California had imposed yet another tax on tobacco products, I got a letter from a woman who said, ``I'm 81 years old. I have been smoking my entire life. If I have to quit now, I'm going to die.'' She then went on to meticulously calculate how much the new tax cost would cost her on her limited, fixed income, and asked if I could help.

Madam Speaker, in every society, in every part of the world, in every period of history there is always a large group of people who simply want to be left alone to live their lives according to their own best judgment. And there's always a smaller but more domineering group who believe they're so good at running their own lives that they're just naturally entitled to run everybody else's as well.

Rarely has that conflict between these two groups come into sharper focus than in the ongoing efforts to restrict and regulate and tax and harass and intimidate individuals who, after weighing all the risks, decide to smoke anyway.

Personally, I think they're making a very bad decision. But they probably think others are making a very bad decision when they decide to go skiing or bungee jumping or skydiving or thousands of other pleasures that incur corresponding and calculated risks.

I wonder tonight whatever happened to the notion of personal responsibility and whatever happened to the notion, as Jefferson put it, of ``a wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another but shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, Americans are awakening to the danger of a budget that spends too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much, because they know what that means. They know that you can't spend yourself rich; they know you can't borrow your way out of debt; and, they know that you can't tax your way to prosperity.

No Nation in the world has ever spent and borrowed and taxed its way to economic health, but many Nations have spent and borrowed and taxed their way to economic ruin and bankruptcy.

If you all want to know where all of these policies are taking us, just look to my home State of California.

There a tragic succession of Governors increased spending at unsustainable rates. They ran up unprecedented debts, and they imposed crushing new taxes. And the result is that today runaway spending has impoverished our economy. Interest costs are eating our budget alive. And our tax burden is producing one of the highest unemployment rates in the Nation and the biggest out-migration of domestic population in our history.

Indeed, we debate this budget on the very day that California begins collecting the biggest tax increase ever imposed by any State government in our Nation's history, the natural consequence of runaway spending, just as President Obama relies on the biggest tax increase by the Federal Government in our Nation's history. There will be backbreaking new taxes on small businesses, on investment, on energy production and on charitable giving. And this isn't complicated stuff. If you increase taxes on productivity, you get less productivity. If you increase taxes on energy production, you get less energy. If you increase taxes on charitable giving, you get less charity. If you increase taxes on investments, you get less job creation.

Madam Chairman, I have watched too much spending and too much borrowing and too much taxing wreck my home State of California. I beg you, do not let those same policies ruin our country.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, Abraham Lincoln once told of a farmer who said, ``I ain't greedy for land. All I want is what is next to mine.'' I think our Federal Government is starting to resemble that farmer.

H.R. 146 is a massive land grab that would literally put more land in the United States into wilderness designation than we currently have actually developed from coast to coast. That pretty much means no human activities other than walking through it--as long as you don't touch anything. So I have to ask a question, when is enough enough?

The Federal Government already owns nearly 650 million acres of land. That is 30 percent of the entire land area of the United States. It owns 45 percent of my home State of California. Now, compare that to the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., the Federal Capital, the home to every agency in our vast Federal bureaucracy. The Federal Government owns only 25 percent of the District of Columbia.

The bill is estimated to cost about $10 billion, not only to pay for this land grab but for all of the other bells and whistles that are attached to it. That includes congressional earmarks like $3.5 million to celebrate the birthday of St. Augustine, Florida, and $250,000 to decide--to decide--what we are going to do with Alexander Hamilton's boyhood home in the Virgin Islands.

Now, $1 billion of the $10 billion of this bill is for salmon population restoration on the San Joaquin River in California, with the stated objective of establishing a population of at least 500 salmon.

Five hundred salmon. One billion dollars.

Mr. Speaker, that comes to $2 million per fish. And that is without accounting for all of the costs that will be incurred by central valley farmers as water that is already in critically short supply is diverted to this project.

Overall, this bill spends $10 billion of people's earnings. In real world numbers, that means about $130 from an average family of four through their taxes. I'm afraid that the mega-spending by this administration has begun to desensitize us to figures that are under $1 trillion. But let's try to put this $10 billion in perspective. The National Park Service reports a maintenance backlog of $9 billion on the land we already own. So, we can't take care of the land we already have, but we are going to spend $10 billion on acquiring additional land that we can't take care of.

This bill withdraws 3 million acres of land from energy leasing. Just from reserves that we know about, that is

going to cost the American economy 330 million barrels of oil and 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in Wyoming alone.

I was particularly struck by a provision that allows the Federal Government to condemn private property where fossils are found. So if you find a fossil in your backyard, Mother and Father America, be very careful. You will be well advised to keep it a secret. Under this bill, such a discovery could cost you your property.

This bill also means new restrictions on BLM lands. Now these public lands currently contribute to our Nation's economy by providing multiple uses such as farming, ranching, timber harvesting and offroad vehicle recreation, all for the broader public good. I have an awful lot of land in my district that is under Federal jurisdiction and under BLM management, and the constant complaints that I get from the public are not that there is too much access to public lands, but that there is too little access and too many restrictions to those lands. This bill codifies the National Landscape Conservation System, which means less public access and more restrictions on the public's use of the public's land.

So I ask again, when is enough enough? The preservation of public land is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end, that end being the public good. And the public good is not served by the mindless and endless acquisition of property at the expense of the sustainable use of our natural resources, the responsible stewardship of our public lands and the freedom and property rights of our citizens.

National Rifle Association of America, Institute for

Legislative Action,

Fairfax, VA, March 10, 2009.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Republican Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner: On behalf of the

National Rifle Association, I am writing to express our

support for the Altmire amendment to S. 22, the Omnibus

Public Land Management Act of 2009. The Altmire amendment

would ensure that the provisions of S. 22 will not be used to

close lands that are currently open to hunting, fishing,

trapping, target shooting and other forms of traditional

recreation. In addition, the amendment clarifies that the

states retain the authority to manage resident fish and

wildlife.

Encroaching development and the increasing population

demand for open space has resulted the closure of federal

lands that were once open to traditional forms of recreation,

such as hunting and target shooting. Whether it is the

closure of a trail that served as the access point for a

generations-old hunting camp or the closure of large areas to

target shooting, the sportsman's way of life has been under

attack. There are those who would exacerbate this situation

by attempting to use land designations to further close

federal lands to sportsmen. This is why the Altmire amendment

is necessary.

The Altmire amendment has already been applied to the

National Landscape Conservation System Act within S. 22. It

is critical to extend this protection for sportsmen to other

areas of the bill, specifically Titles V and VIII pertaining

to Rivers and Trails and National Heritage Areas,

respectively. This is precisely what the Altmire amendment

would do.

While the NRA takes no position on S. 22 as a whole, the

meaningful protections provided by the Altmire amendment are

critical to preserve access for sportsmen and the authority

of the states to manage resident wildlife populations. For

these reasons, we support its inclusion in S. 22.

Should you have any questions or need additional

information, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at

(202) 651-2560.

Sincerely,

Chris W. Cox,

Executive Director, NRA-ILA.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly support H.R. 1404. It is going to add some flexibility in managing firefighting costs on our Federal lands, but my friend, the gentleman from Washington, is absolutely correct. Our firefighting costs would be much lower and our revenues would be much higher if we'd restore the sound forest management practices that this Congress long ago abandoned. Instead, we've embraced a radical and retrograde ideology that we should abandon our public lands to overpopulation, overgrowth, and benign neglect. Bills like this one are made necessary precisely because of this public falling.

A generation ago we recognized the importance of proper wildlands management. We recognized that nothing is more devastating to the ecology of a forest than a forest fire, and we recognized that in any living community, including forests, dense overpopulation is unhealthy.

And so we carefully groomed our public lands. We removed excessive vegetation, and we gave timber the room it needs to go. Surplus timber and overgrowth were sold for the benefit of our communities. Our forests prospered, our economy prospered, and forest fires were far less numerous and far less severe than we suffer today.

Today, we're seeing the damage done to our forests and to our economy by this Luddite ideology that human beings shouldn't touch our natural resources.

My region in northeastern California has been tormented by devastating fires in the last few years, and the reason is quite simple. As one forester explained it at a hearing we conducted in Sacramento, the excess timber is going to come out of the forests one way or the other. It's either going to be carried out or it's going to be burned out.

A generation ago, we carried it out, and it fueled prosperity throughout our region and produced a cornucopia of revenues to the Federal Government. But today, it's being burned out, fueling devastating fires that are destroying vast tracts of land and destroying the abundance and prosperity that we once enjoyed.

The first victim of this wrongheaded policy is the environment itself. Our recent forest fires have made a mockery of all our clean air regulations. As the gentleman from Washington pointed out, those concerned about carbon dioxide might be interested in a report by scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado at Boulder. They estimated that a single forest fire in California in 2007 produced about 25 percent of the average monthly emissions from all fossil fuel burning throughout all of California. Anyone who's seen a forest after one of these fires knows that the environmental devastation could not possibly be more complete.

But the cost of these policies doesn't end there. Timber is a renewable resource. If properly managed, it's literally an inexhaustible source of prosperity. And yet my region, blessed with one of the most bountiful renewable resources in the Nation, has been rendered economically prostrate. A region that once prospered from its surplus

timber is now ravaged by fires that are fueled by that surplus timber.

The gentleman from Washington mentioned the little town of Quincy, California, that happens to be in my district--population 2,000. About 500 families. As of May 4, 150 of those families are going to be out of work because the sawmill had to shut down. Environmental litigation has tied up about two-thirds of their timber harvest.

The company that owns that sawmill, Sierra Pacific, also just announced today that it's shutting down its sawmills in Sonora and Camino for the same reason. That's another 310 families out of work.

This is not environmentalism. A true environmentalist recognizes the damage done by overgrowth and overpopulation and they recognize the role of sound forest management practices in maintaining healthy forests.

So, Mr. Chairman, while I support this legislation, we wouldn't need to be spending so much putting out fires and we'd have a lot more revenue to do it with if we would spend a little more effort on restoring sound forest management practices to our national forests.

Madam Speaker, I have been asked to present more than 6,000 postcards that were generated by the Armstrong and Getty radio show to protest policies that can best be described by the new bumper sticker ``Honk if You're Paying My Mortgage'' or today's reprise ``Honk if You're Paying AIG's Bonuses.''

These postcards represent the first stirring of the public against some of the excesses that we are seeing out of this administration on the mortgage issue.

Rick Santelli of CNBC struck a nerve last month when he asked, ``How many of you want to pay your neighbor's mortgage who has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?'' Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty, who host the popular radio talk show in Northern California, asked the same question of their listeners. And here's their response:

On each of these thousands of postcards is the story of a responsible family struggling to make ends meet in the worst recession in a generation, families who are meeting their obligations, who are staying current with their mortgages, even though many of them are upside down on their home values and owe more than their home is worth. And they're watching as this government says to borrowers who lied on their applications, who put no money down and accepted teaser rates, and who withdrew all of the equity of their home to pay for stuff, don't worry, we'll force your neighbor to pay your mortgage.

They're watching as this government says to lenders like AIG who knowingly made loans to people they knew couldn't afford them, who made millions creating the housing bubble, don't worry, we'll cover your million dollar bonuses with taxpayer money.

But the families who sent in these postcards keep making their payments, many eating into their savings, foregoing vacations, postponing retirements, turning down consumer purchases because they stand by their word. These are the families that turned down the opportunity to flip that house, to make that quick fortune, to cash in on their equity for a second home or a boat they couldn't afford. They are the 92 percent of borrowers who are making their mortgage payments, despite all of the incentives that this administration's offering them to stop. And these postcards are eloquent testimony to their resentment at being required to bail out the banks and the borrowers who created the housing bubble, who caused the credit collapse, and who now are being subsidized, bailed out, and lavished with multi-million dollar bonuses paid for with our tax money.

Joe Getty asked the question yesterday, ``What has happened to the words 'sadder but wiser'? What has happened to that American tradition that you make your own decisions, good or bad, and then you live with those decisions?''

The President tells us that if your neighbor's home is on fire, you don't quibble over who pays for the water. And that's true. But as Jack Armstrong pointed out, if my neighbor burns down his house by shooting off Roman candles in his living room, I'll be darned if I'm going to pay for him to rebuild it.

Armstrong and Getty, Rick Santelli, and others are speaking for the vast silent majority of Americans who pay their bills, who honor their commitments, and who make this country run.

The President recently said that we are all to blame. Well, no, we not all to blame. Those families who passed up the get-rich-quick real estate seminars and turned down the loans they couldn't afford or settled for a smaller home or who rented because that's what they could afford, they're not to blame, and they shouldn't be left holding the bag.

Ninety-two percent of Americans are making their mortgage payments not only because it's the right thing to do, but because they know that the sooner the market corrects itself, the sooner our homes will begin to appreciate once again.

By prolonging the real estate correction, by propping up bad loans, by undermining responsible homeowners, and by rewarding the smartest guys in the room who created this catastrophe with taxpayer-paid bonuses, this government is extending the agony and postponing the day when the market will bottom out and home buyers can safely re-enter the housing market.

Madam Speaker, I take great hope from the public's response to Armstrong and Getty's invitation to protest the mortgage bailouts. It means that the American spirit is not dead, that there are still millions of Americans who believe in individual responsibility and integrity. And even if such people are in short supply in Washington today, they still comprise the vast majority of our Nation, and that great silent majority is fast tiring of remaining silent.

Mr. Speaker, many people were quite relieved when President Obama promised to reduce taxes on 95 percent of Americans. Last week, the President introduced his new budget that depends upon a staggering tax increase of $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. If that fell on every one of us, that would come to nearly $15,000 for an average family of four, or about $1,500 per year, out of that family's paychecks. So what a relief it was to hear the President's assurances that that is only going to be a tax on the rich. Except, it is not.

As we begin dissecting the President's new taxes, it is becoming crystal clear that they are actually hitting squarely at the middle- class, working families who are struggling to make ends meet in the worst economy in a generation. Let me walk you through the reasons why the President's new taxes are something that every middle-class family should fear.

There are about $650 billion of direct tax increases, including a boost in the income tax of nearly 40 percent. Now, that is the part that the President says will only be on the very wealthy, which he defines as people making $125,000 a year or couples making $250,000. But when you scratch the surface, you learn that more than half of these folks aren't folks at all; they are small businesses. So if you work for or you own a small business, chances are this tax is for you. The rest is coming from increases in business taxes, either directly, or as cap-and-trade taxes for carbon dioxide emissions. That is a huge levee on every business that emits carbon dioxide. That includes construction, agriculture, cargo transportation, energy production, manufacturing, baking, distilling. Is that anything for the middle- class to worry about? You bet it is.

I will let you in on a little secret of government finance: Businesses do not pay business taxes. There are only three possible ways that a business tax can be paid. It is paid by us as consumers through higher prices; it is paid by us as employees through lower wages; or, it is paid by us as investors through lower earnings, that is, what is remaining of our 401(k)s. There is simply no other possible way a business tax can be paid.

The income tax deduction for charitable contributions is being curtailed for upper income taxpayers upon whom charities rely for the vast bulk of their donations every year. That means a lot less charitable contributions and a lot more demand for government services.

At just the moment when investment is desperately needed to create new jobs, the President proposed hiking the capital gains tax. That means a lot less investment and a lot less job creation.

Now, this is not a complicated principle: If you tax something, you get less of it. If you tax productivity, you get less productivity. If you tax charitable contributions, you get less charitable contributions. If you tax investments, you get less investments and less jobs. If you tax energy production, you get less energy.

So just at the time when we need more productivity, more charity, more investment for jobs, and more energy, the Obama administration proposes a massive tax increase that they have the gall to tell us will stimulate the economy. These taxes will hammer every American, either directly or indirectly. At exactly the time when we should be reducing burdens on the economy, this administration wants to increase them.

If the President wants to raise taxes because the government is out of money, what makes him think that the American people happen to be flush with cash? This is exactly the mistake that Herbert Hoover made in responding to the recession of 1929. He dramatically raised income taxes, import taxes, and spending, and he turned the recession of 1929 into the depression of the 1930s.

Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, pointed out that a government that raises taxes in response to a recession makes exactly the same mistake as a shopkeeper who raises prices in response to a sales slump. California has again ignored that warning. It is set to impose the biggest State tax increase in history on April 1. That is going to be $13 billion from California families, proportionately a little bit less than the President's taxes, but it is in the same ballpark. I suspect that by the time the Obama budget, with all of its tax increases, comes up for a vote, California will have become a poster child for what not to do. Maybe, by then, the administration and the majority in Congress will figure out that raising taxes in a recession is not exactly the smartest thing that we could be doing.

I thank my friend for yielding. I thank the House for its indulgence.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure. Perhaps only one generation in a century is fortunate enough to actually know a truly great leader, and ours was that generation. But our children and our children's children will know him, too, through the power of his words and the force of his ideas, his undying faith in freedom, his eternal belief in America, and they will know him, and know him well, because our generation will make sure of it.

The passing of Ronald Reagan didn't mark the end of an era. Rather, it marked the beginning of one--an era of American renaissance and resurgence, an era when America rediscovered her belief in liberty and faith. Ronald Reagan opened that era. It's now for our generation to cultivate it, to expand it, and to extend it to the next.

He often reminded us that, for America, the best is yet to come. He was right. Because his memory will be walking beside us and counseling us and guiding us to those bright decades and centuries ahead.

This commission is an important act in support of a large and solemn pledge--a pledge from this generation to all future generations that we will keep Ronald Reagan's memory alive, that we will uphold and advance his vision of America's greatness and of her goodness, and this act is but one thread in the tapestry of memory that will stretch through time to the latest generation.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of Dr. Gregory Freydman of California.

Dr. Freydman spent most of his life seeking freedom for his family, and finally fulfilled that dream at the age of 72 when he legally immigrated to the United States from the Soviet Union. He had been a renowned oncologist there and had risked his livelihood and his liberty to speak out against Soviet abuses.

Having seen firsthand the misery that tyranny inflicts on its people, Dr. Freydman devoted himself to learning English, studying the American system of government, and passing on his appreciation of American founding principles to his children and to his grandchildren. He proudly became a U.S. citizen at the age of 77.

The highlight of his life was spending his final years in freedom with his beloved wife, Polina, secure in the knowledge that through a lifetime of struggle, he had secured the blessings of liberty for his posterity.

May he now rest in peace.