Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 152, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

I thank my friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for yielding and for his leadership in this area and for organizing this hour this evening.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard a lot of conversation tonight about health care and about access and affordability and quality and primary care physicians. I think it's important to talk about the thing that all of those affect, and that is patients. Patients are what this is all about.

I'm pleased to join my physician colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle tonight to talk about patients and the effect of health care and national health care policy on patients.

If I think about the eight physicians who are here on the floor tonight, we probably have seen a half million patients in our professional life and get a sense about what it means to take care of people and make certain that they get well, depending on the malady that befalls them.

We all have our different principles about health care. Mine are five--the usual three: Access and affordability and quality. Then I add innovation and responsiveness. I think it's imperative we have a system that has the greatest amount of access, the greatest amount of affordability, the highest quality, and the most responsive and most innovative system.

I would suggest, as I know my friend would agree from Georgia, and my other physician colleagues here, that governmental intervention and increasing involvement doesn't improve any of those things. It doesn't improve access, it doesn't improve affordability, it certainly doesn't improve quality, doesn't improve innovation or responsiveness.

So what's the solution? What's the solution for the patients across this Nation who are maybe watching this evening, Mr. Speaker, and saying: What are you going to do?

Well, the solution, I believe, as I know my colleagues do, is to make certain that patients have ownership of the system. The only way to get the system to move in the direction that patients want it to move is to have a patient-centered system so that patients own and control their own health insurance policy.

Everybody's got to have health insurance. You can get to that system in a way that most of us support, which is through the Tax Code. Making certain that it makes financial sense for all patients to have health insurance. But, once they do, how do you make the system move in the direction it ought to move, and that is the direction that patients want it to move. It's to allow for patients to own and control their health insurance policy, regardless of who's paying the cost.

That's important because that changes the relationship between the insurance company and the patient. Right now, when the patient calls the insurance company and says, You're not doing what I need to have done, or my doctor recommends, the insurance company, by and large, says, Call somebody who cares. Because you aren't controlling the system.

When patients own and control the system, then the system moves in the direction that patients want it to move.

We are working diligently to come up with a product that will allow the American people to look to Washington and say, Hey, those guys are doing what we think ought to be done in our health care system.

I'm so pleased to be able to join you tonight and talk about positive solutions for our health care system that puts patients in control.

I yield back.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to Specialist Aaron Drake Sandlin, a constituent of the Sixth District of Georgia and one of the many Americans who serve in our Nation's Armed Forces with honor and valor.

My Soldier--Only Yesterday

(By T. Maxwell Sandlin)

Only yesterday--the pregnancy test was positive

And your mom's face glowed

Then you were born healthy

And my pride showed--only yesterday.

Only yesterday--late feedings kept us up nights

And you ooed and cooed at Christmas lights,

As in your car seat you saw the sights--only yesterday.

Only yesterday--I snapped your picture

As you slept like a log;

With a little stuffed toy

Called Brownie Dog--only yesterday.

Only yesterday--selling popcorn for the Scouts

Day after day you went all out.

We shed a tear--the both of us,

As you got on that yellow bus--only yesterday.

Only yesterday--crayon artwork on refrigerator

Drawn by the masterpiece that I would later

Share with the nation in a cause greater;

But, we didn't know it then--only yesterday.

Only yesterday--along a river at a family camp

As you got to know cousins, uncles and aunts,

And those veteran uncles in the firelight glow,

Their WWII stories told--only yesterday.

Only yesterday--we faced the coming teenage years

With their pitfalls, trials and fears.

You grew so fast you stripped your gears--only yesterday!

Only yesterday--driving in your first used car,

The leash got longer

And you drove far

I saw you son as a rising star:

Becoming a man--only yesterday

Only yesterday--you were bringing us papers from Sunday

School

And memorizing the Golden Rule.

Hiking these mountains and swimming in pools.

You can't be grown. . . . it was only yesterday!!

Only yesterday--they called your name and you came down

You and your brother in your caps and gowns,

All those years we couldn't wait.

Your mom and I saw you graduate--only yesterday.

Only yesterday--as I rehearse

Your mother, well, she knew it first

That after thinking about it hard

You told her you joined the Army National Guard!!

She knew I'd be proud and so I was--only yesterday.

Only yesterday--you went to boot camp at the fort,

And you did not sell yourself short

You joined the army at a time of war,

Like your family that went on before--only yesterday.

All those yesterdays we enjoyed

Only yesterday--we learned you were being deployed,

To fight those who attempt to destroy. . . . Those yesterdays

. . .

Only yesterday--I'll say it over and over:

Only yesterday--it was me and my Cub Scout

And today it was me and my soldier!!!

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to just point out a couple fallacies on the arguments on the other side.

I think it's important that everybody appreciate why this law is in place in the first place, why isn't cramdown allowed in a bankruptcy on a primary residence. And the reason, Mr. Chairman, as you well know, is that it's to encourage primary residence ownership. If lenders don't know what amount of principal they are going to be able to get back on any loan, then they will not be encouraged to loan men and women across this Nation money to purchase a primary reason. That's why. It's very simple.

So what this will do is make it so there will be less money available for homeowner purchasers, there will be less money available for individuals to gain their primary residence.

Higher interest rates will certainly occur. The gentleman from Vermont, I chuckled when he said that Citigroup was supporting this. Well, as has been said in the past, Mr. Chairman, ``Surprise, surprise, surprise.'' Citigroup is supporting it because it gets billions of dollars from the Federal Government. What can it do? In this political economy, under this leadership and this administration, in this political economy, politicians are directing who the winners and losers are, who gets money; and consequently, Citigroup can do nothing but support what this majority and this administration wants.

It's a political economy. It's not a market economy. We need to return to a market economy so that the American people can realize their hopes and dreams and make it so that more individuals are able to purchase their primary residence without the imposition of the Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mr. Chairman, at a time when the government is going to unprecedented lengths to stabilize the banking system, this legislation is short-sighted, untimely, unfair, and counterproductive.

Now, while some might see cramdown as a quick fix, in reality the legislation will have a costly impact on generations to come. Ranking Member Smith of the Judiciary Committee sent a thoughtful letter to the administration raising concerns about the bill, saying that it would lead to, one, significant taxpayer liability for Federal mortgage guarantees by redistributing wealth from responsible taxpayers to irresponsible borrowers and lenders; two, the hoarding by banks of hundreds of billions of dollars in capital, undermining the efforts that have been undertaken by the government since September to stabilize the financial market; and three, additional constriction in the home lending market. This bill punishes those who have lived within their means and acted prudently by forcing them to subsidize those who made irresponsible choices.

One of the many problems with this bill is that it doesn't have any safeguards to prevent the very people who profited from risky behavior and irresponsible choices from further benefiting at taxpayer expense. The text of the underlying legislation will allow for a partial payback of the cramdown amount if the house is sold within 4 years of the modification. The manager's amendment barely changes the language already in the bill by extending by 1 year and 10 percent the possible partial recapture.

If a mortgagee sells his or her home 6 years after going through a cramdown at a profit, he or she can pocket all of the difference. Mr. Chairman, no one should be able to profit off of a bankruptcy proceeding. Bankruptcy should not be an opportunity to game the system. Hence my amendment.

The amendment would prevent this from happening by simply saying that if a homeowner who has had a mortgage modified in a bankruptcy proceeding sells the home at a profit, the lender--the individuals originally at risk for the money--may recapture the amount of principal lost in the modification or cramdown.

By putting lenders in a position of hedging against cramdown losses, this legislation will raise interest rates for the very individual whose tax dollars are paying all of these government bailouts. Some suggest that the cramdown may raise interest rates as much as 2 percentage points. The 92 percent of homeowners who are working to pay off their mortgages should not be forced to subsidize the mistakes of irresponsible borrowing or lending. By restoring the lender the money that is owed them, we will mitigate the amount to which the industry will need to raise interest rates on responsible homeowners.

This bill is yet another ``Joe the plumber'' moment here in this Congress, providing for the redistribution of wealth from responsible, accountable taxpayers to borrowers and lenders who will not be held accountable.

President Obama has spoken repeatedly of the importance of fairness and personal responsibility. This amendment is an important step in that direction.

I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment, a responsible and simple amendment, and reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the time remaining?

I am pleased to yield to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) 1 minute.

I will continue to reserve.

I don't; do you?

Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. What it says is that if a bank loans an individual $150,000 to purchase a home, and that is subject to a bankruptcy provision and a cramdown, and a judge says that principal will only be $100,000, and that individual who owns the home then sells it at a future date, more than 5 years, for somewhere between $100,000 and $150,000, then that amount of money goes to the lender, the individuals that were individually at risk for the money, loaned the money. If it was over $150,000, then the old homeowner is able to pocket that profit appropriately.

It's a very simple provision. It's a provision, an amendment of fairness, of simplicity. It doesn't gut the bill. In fact, what it does is actually makes the system fair and responsible and rewards responsible activity.

I urge my colleagues to support a commonsense, responsible amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when the government is going to unprecedented lengths to stabilize the banking system, this legislation--the underlying legislation--is shortsighted, untimely, unfair, and counterproductive. While some might see cramdown as a quick fix, in reality, this legislation will have a costly impact on generations to come.

Ranking Member Smith of the Judiciary Committee sent a thoughtful letter to the administration, raising concerns that this bill will lead to significant taxpayer liability for Federal mortgage guaranties by redistributing wealth from responsible taxpayers.

The letter that Ranking Member Smith sent to the administration raised concerns about the underlying bill leading to significant taxpayer liability for Federal mortgage guaranties by redistributing wealth from responsible taxpayers to irresponsible borrowers and lenders by the hoarding by banks of hundreds of billions of dollars in capital while undermining the efforts that had been undertaken by the government in September to stabilize the financial markets.

Finally, additional constriction in the home lending market: Markets are very stressed right now. The homeownership market is leading the way. There is more uncertainty than confidence. Many in America are having real financial problems, and we understand that. This bill only increases that uncertainty. If any Member truly desires fairness in the system of homeownership, then this motion to recommit will give them that assurance.

The underlying bill leaves the door open to reward irresponsible actors, and our motion to recommit ensures that that doesn't happen. It would prohibit taxpayer assistance to any borrowers who misrepresented or lied about their income on their mortgage applications. It would prohibit taxpayer assistance to any lender who failed to follow proper underwriting standards. It would prohibit taxpayer funds from being used as incentives to lenders to rework loans for irresponsible borrowers, in essence, bribes from the taxpayer to pay mortgages. It would prohibit taxpayer funds from

being used unless the President submits a new plan that provides equitable treatment of all mortgages.

His current plan does not do that. Contrary to the words from President Obama, his plan rewards irresponsible behavior and continues a reckless course.

What we're asking for instead is a plan that's fair to everyone, a plan that provides equitable treatment for everyone. All homeowners are struggling right now, and this plan in the underlying bill rewards bad behavior.

The key aspects of the Obama administration's housing bailout proposal rewards irresponsible borrowers and lenders at the expense of the more than 90 percent of American families still making their mortgage payments on time. This is fundamentally unfair, and the American people know it.

Mr. Speaker, our motion to recommit will ensure that unscrupulous and irresponsible actors will not be bailed out by the overwhelming majority of working families that have lived responsibly and within their means.

I urge adoption of the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, we have talked a lot these past few weeks about the state of the economy and the challenges that Americans are facing. Certainly they are remarkable challenges that we face all across this Nation. The stock market was again down today.

So we look for solutions. The American people are demanding solutions on behalf of those folks that they sent to Washington, and rightly so. The ``solution'' I guess one could call it of the Obama administration is the budget that he proposed last week, and I would like to point out a few items on that budget.

The deficits from that budget will be $1.75 trillion in this year, 12.3 percent of our gross domestic product, more than triple the previous year. A solution? I don't think so.

How about national debt. This budget that the President proposed doubles the national debt in just 8 years. Do the American people think that is a solution? I don't think so.

Interest. Beginning in 2012, the interest that we pay on the debt will be $1 billion a day, Madam Speaker. $1 billion a day. That is not a solution.

Taxes. You have heard my colleagues discuss, Madam Speaker, that this budget raises taxes by $1.4 trillion, and it is on everybody, not just those that the President says can easily afford it.

And how about spending? Well, $3.9 trillion in 2009, 27 percent of our gross domestic product, a record level, the highest level since World War II. Solutions? I don't think so.

But, Madam Speaker, the good news is that there are solutions out there. They are wonderful solutions. Those of us who are members of the Republican Study Committee put on the table H.R. 476, the Economic Recovery Act, something that we believe would be a powerful solution that would allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money, decrease some of the incredible roadblocks in the face of businesses so that they can create jobs, and finally begin to decrease the amount of spending at the Federal level.

Other big thinkers across this Nation are providing solutions as well. One of them is the group American Solutions headed by former Speaker of this House, Newt Gingrich.

They recently came out with a proposal ``12 American Solutions for Jobs and Prosperity,'' talking about the Washington solutions currently being produced by this administration being more money for more government, more power for more politicians, more debt and more bureaucrats. That is not what will lead to real job growth and prosperity. Instead, there are 12 specific solutions that I would like to share with the House of Representatives.

First, payroll tax stimulus. A new tax credit to offset 50 percent of the payroll tax would immediately inject money into small businesses and allow for job creation.

Second, real middle income tax relief, proposing to decrease the marginal rate of 25 percent to 15 percent so that 9 out of 10 American workers have a flat tax of 15 percent. Real money in the pockets of real Americans. Real solutions.

Third, reduce the business tax rate.

Did you know, Madam Speaker, that Mexico and Sweden and Poland and Ireland and Hungary all have lower business taxes than the United States? If you're a business trying to decide where to put your company, you'd go somewhere else other than the United States if you were taking into account business tax rates.

The proposal is to decrease our business tax rate to 12.5 percent; equal Ireland's, instead of the current 35 percent that we have.

Fourth, homeowners assistance. Provide tax credit incentives for responsible home buyers so they can stay in their homes.

Fifth, control spending so we can move to a balanced budget.

Madam Speaker, did you know that the budget that the President put on the table last week never gets to a balanced budget? Never, never. Red numbers as far as the eye can see. We must have a balanced budget.

Sixth, no State aid without protection from fraud; making certain that the State governments ensure that there's no fraud and no theft of the hard-earned taxpayer money that they receive from the Federal Government.

Seventh, more American energy now. We absolutely must utilize American resources while we're conserving and while we're finding that new technology that will carry us through this century.

Eighth, abolish taxes on capital gain. We ought to match China and Singapore, yes, Madam Speaker, China and Singapore and lower the taxes, abolish the taxes on capital gains. You talk about a job creation. My goodness gracious.

Ninth, protect our right to vote in the workplace. This majority is going to steal that right away with the secret ballot destruction act that they are proposing to put on the floor. We believe that it's imperative that workers have the right to a secret ballot when talking about forming a union.

Tenth, replace Sarbanes-Oxley.

Eleventh, abolish the death tax once and for all.

And, twelfth, invest in energy and transportation infrastructure. Real solutions for the American people.

I urge my colleagues to take a look at those kinds of solutions that will actually get the economy rolling and create jobs.

12 American Solutions for Jobs & Prosperity

Washington solutions of more money for more government,

more power for politicians, more debt, and more bureaucrats

will not lead to real growth in jobs and prosperity. We need

a clear and decisive alternative that creates jobs and

rewards work, saving, and investment.

1. Payroll Tax Stimulus. With a temporary new tax credit to

offset 50% of the payroll tax, every small business would

have more money, and all Americans would take home more of

what they earn.

2. Real Middle-Income Tax Relief. Reduce the marginal tax

rate of 25% down to 15%, in effect establishing a flat-rate

tax of 15% for close to 9 out of 10 American workers.

3. Reduce the Business Tax Rate. Match Ireland's rate of

12.5% to keep more jobs in America.

4. Homeowner's Assistance. Provide tax credit incentives to

responsible home buyers so they can keep their homes.

5. Control Spending So We Can Move to a Balanced Budget.

This begins with eliminating Congressional earmarks and

wasteful pork-barrel spending.

6. No State Aid Without Protection From Fraud. Require

state governments to adopt anti-fraud and anti-theft policies

before giving them more money.

7. More American Energy Now. Explore for more American oil

and gas and invest in affordable energy for the future,

including clean coal, ethanol, nuclear power and renewable

fuels.

8. Abolish Taxes on Capital Gains. Match China, Singapore

and many other competitors. More investment in America means

more jobs in America.

9. Protect Our Right to Vote in the Workplace. We must

protect a worker's right to decide by secret ballot whether

to join a union. Forced unionism will kill jobs at a time

when we can't afford to lose them.

10. Replace Sarbanes-Oxley. This failed law is crippling

entrepreneurial startups. Replace it with affordable rules

that help create jobs, not destroy them.

11. Abolish the Death Tax. Americans should work for their

families, not for Washington.

12. Invest in Energy and Transportation Infrastructure.

This includes a new, expanded electric power grid and a 21st

century air traffic control system that will reduce delays in

air travel and save passengers, employees and airlines

billions of dollars per year.

I appreciate my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, you really can't be serious. You can't be serious. This would be humorous if it wasn't so sad. Got this at 11 o'clock last night, over 1,000 pages. What's in it? Have you read it? We found $30 million for mice. Got $30 million for mice. You can't be serious. What a joke. $30 million for mice. Does that create jobs?

Imagine what we could do with $30 million, Madam Speaker. Imagine what we could do with $1 trillion, Madam Speaker, if we worked together for real solutions.

We understand that people are hurting, but this majority is only interested in paying off and buying political friends like $2 billion for ACORN and $300 million for golf carts for bureaucrats. What a joke.

But the American people aren't laughing. This bill is selfish because it robs from future generations. It's irresponsible because it won't work. What a joke. The American people aren't laughing.

I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the House passed a unanimous motion to instruct which directed the conferees to make the text of this report available for 48 hours before being considered.

Under House rules, what is the effect of a motion to instruct?

A further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Then a unanimous motion to instruct adopted by this House is not binding at all and, therefore, is of no consequence; is that correct?

A further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Under House rules, isn't it true that a conference report cannot be made in order and considered on the floor unless it has been available for 3 calendar days?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order under rule XXII, clause 8 whereby the conference report shall not be in order and will be considered as read unless it has been available for 3 calendar days.

Mr. Speaker, a further inquiry then.

Is there an opportunity under the rules to allow for a reading of the over 1,000-page bill that is being considered currently?

A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

As the ruling of the Chair, as the ruling of the Speaker, it is my understanding then, in having this bill of over 1,000 pages made available to the Members of the House after 11 or 12 o'clock last night, that this is to have been considered read even though it is physically impossible for any Member to have read this bill; is that correct?

I thank the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this non-stimulus package because it is selfish and irresponsible.

It is selfish--because it will burden future generations for years to come with unbelievable debt; trillions of dollars stolen from our children and grandchildren.

It is irresponsible--because it won't work! It will not stimulate the economy. It will not create jobs. It has been shown to be misguided by over 300 prominent economists, including three Nobel Prize winners.

In addition, the process has been an affront to all Americans. Less than 15 hours to read a bill over 1000 pages in length. Less than 2 hours of debate on the floor of the House on the most expensive spending bill in the history of mankind!

This is simply wrong.

Attached are three articles from papers today revealing the folly of this process and product.

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2009]

Despite Pledges, Package Has Some Pork

(By Dan Eggen and Ellen Nakashima)

The compromise stimulus bill adopted by House and Senate

negotiators this week is not free of spending that benefits

specific communities, industries or groups, despite vows by

President Obama that the legislation would be kept clear of

pet projects, according to lawmakers, legislative aides and

anti-tax groups.

The deal provides $8 billion for high-speed rail projects,

for example, including money that could benefit a

controversial proposal for a magnetic-levitation rail line

between Disneyland, in California, and Las Vegas, a project

favored by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). The

311-mph train could make the trip from Sin City to

Tomorrowland in less than two hours, according to backers.

A new alliance of battery companies won $2 billion in

grants and loans in the stimulus package to jump-start the

domestic lithium

ion industry. Filipino veterans, most of whom do not live in

the United States, will get $200 million in long-awaited

compensation for service in World War II.

The nation's small shipyards also made out well, with $100

million in grant money--a tenfold increase in funding from

last year, when the federal Maritime Administration launched

the program to benefit yards in places such as Ketchikan,

Alaska, and Bayou La Bate, Ala.

None of the items in the sprawling $789 billion package are

traditional earmarks--funding for a project inserted by a

lawmaker bypassing the normal budgeting process--according to

the White House and Democratic leaders. Republicans also

killed or reduced a number of projects they considered

objectionable, such as $200 million to re-sod the Mall in

Washington and money for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker.

But many Republicans, anti-tax advocates and other critics

argue that the final version of the bill is still larded with

wasteful spending and dubious initiatives that will do little

to create jobs or spur financial markets. The legislation's

sheer size and complexity set off a lobbying spectacle over

the past few weeks, as diverse interests including

pharmaceutical companies, cement firms and manufacturers of

energy-saving light bulbs converged on Washington to elbow

for their share.

``You have a moving vehicle, and people are trying to pile

on and influence it in any way they can,'' said David

Merritt, a health policy adviser to the presidential campaign

of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who is now a project director

with Newt Gingrich's Center for Health Transformation.

Stimulus advocates say the GOP complaints are overheated

and generally focus on projects that Republicans dislike for

ideological reasons. Chad Stone, chief economist at the

liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,

defended the bill. ``The overwhelming bulk of what is in the

package is effective and well-designed stimulus,'' he said.

Money for high-speed rail ballooned during the stimulus

debate, from nothing in the House bill to $2 billion in the

Senate version and finally $8 billion in the conference

report, which was put together by Reid and other Democratic

leaders.

Reid spokesman Jon Summers said in a statement that the

transportation secretary ``will have complete flexibility as

to which program he uses to allocate the funds,'' but he

acknowledged that ``the proposed Los Angeles-Las Vegas rail

project would be eligible.'' Summers said the rail funding

``was a major priority for President Obama, and Sen. Reid as

a conferee supported it.''

One of the biggest targets of GOP complaints was a measure

in the Senate version of the bill that did not name a

recipient but would have provided $2 billion for ``one or

more near zero emissions power plant(s).'' Sen. Tom Coburn

(R-Okla.) and other Republicans say the provision was clearly

directed at reviving the FutureGen Alliance project, a

proposed ``clean coal'' plant in Illinois.

Coburn called the item the ``largest earmark in American

history,'' but in the end he was able to claim only a partial

victory, as the conference bill still contains $1 billion

that could be spent on FutureGen.

Another $800 million is set aside for other carbon-capture

projects, and a clause allows the money to go to projects

that use petroleum coke instead of coal. That would probably

benefit a company called Hydrogen Energy, which is jointly

owned by British Petroleum and the multinational mining

company Rio Tinto and has plans to build a power plant in

California.

A provision introduced by freshman Rep. Larry Kissell (D-

N.C.), a former textile industry employee, will require the

Transportation Security Administration to purchase uniforms

manufactured in the United States; most TSA clothing is

currently assembled in Mexico and Honduras from U.S.-made

fabric. The cost of the requirement is unclear--the agency

spends about $3 million on 12,000 new uniforms each year--but

labor and trade groups argue that it will create 21,000 U.S.

jobs.

``We view this as a very inexpensive way to create jobs and

also stabilize jobs in place,'' said Lloyd Wood of the

American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago, the House adopted unanimously a motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 1 that stipulated that the text of the language of the non-stimulus bill must be available for 48 hours prior to the conferees signing off on the bill.

Can the Speaker apprise the House as to the availability of that text at this point?

Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, will the House know the timing for the vote to be scheduled on H.R. 1 and whether or not this text will be available for the 48 hours stipulated in the motion to instruct unanimously adopted by the House?

So the Speaker is not aware of whether or not that text will be available 48 hours prior to the vote?

Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, we weren't able to hear on this side what the gentleman asked unanimous consent for.

Further reserving, Madam Speaker, I would just point out that the ratio on the floor of the House is approximately 59 percent majority party, 41 percent minority party. However, in committees, many committees, that ratio is not adhered to.

We on the minority side have asked the Speaker to make certain that the committees reflect the percentages on the floor of the House. It was impossible to discern from the names read, but we would reiterate our concern to the Speaker regarding the percentages on committees reflecting majority and minority party.

I withdraw my objection.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am interested in the comment just made by the gentleman from Northern Virginia, Mr. Connolly. If the gentleman would take a question, I'd be pleased to yield to him for an answer.

Mr. Connolly, would you be interested in taking a question? I was interested in your comments, because you said, Mr. Connolly from Northern Virginia----

Mr. Chair, the gentleman said these are the worst economic times, and this will stimulate infrastructure. I was wondering if the gentleman was aware that only 7 percent, or $26 billion of the $274 billion in infrastructure money, will be spent by the end of this budget year. And adding the interest, this stimulus, which will exceed $1.1 trillion, will cost each and every American $3,300 in this economy.

Does the gentleman think that that is a wise idea? I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask the gentleman to tell the House if he believes that in this worst economy that it's appropriate to put in place a policy that makes it so that each and every American is liable for $3,300 more; $3,300 more for each and every single American. Is that an appropriate policy to be put in place at this time, I would ask the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. That is indeed the appropriate question. And that is why you hear individuals on our side of the aisle fighting on behalf of the American taxpayer, fighting on behalf of American jobs, fighting on behalf of appropriate policy that will in fact stimulate the economy.

We all want our economy to turn around. The question really isn't is this too much or too big, although I believe it to be. The question is, Will it work, and, What else is in this bill?

I want to highlight an item that is buried in this bill. The Comparative Effectiveness Research Council. $1.1 billion for this board. In the language, it states, regarding health care, ``Those items, procedures and interventions that are most effective to prevent, control, and treat health conditions will be utilized, while those no longer found to be effective and, in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed.''

Mr. Chairman, this is the beginning and the foundation of nationalized health care.

I thank the gentleman. In fact, the Secretary of Health and Human Services said in his book that this body would have recommendations that may not have teeth because all Federal health programs would have to abide by them. But Congress would go back and further the board's recommendations. It could, for example, link the tax exclusion for health insurance to insurance companies that comply with the board's recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, this is indeed the foundation of rationing of American health care for each and every American. Not only will there be no stimulus in this bill, there will be major policy changes to health care; nationalized health care on its way, courtesy of the majority party.

Madam Speaker, we all commend the President- elect for his vision of hope and of bipartisanship. It was with that same spirit of bipartisanship that the original SCHIP bill was adopted in the mid-1990s when Republicans and Democrats recognized together the need for assisting children in low-income families by providing access to health insurance. Remember? Probably not, because it was done quietly and proudly together. That's in stark contrast to now. With overbearing partisanship from the majority's cramming this highly charged bill through today and by ignoring vital problems, this bill will throw 2.4 million kids off private, personal health insurance into government-run bureaucratic medicine.

You talk about immoral. This bill requires over 20 million new smokers, Madam Speaker--new smokers--in order to pay for it. How very cynical. That's a problem, because there were so many positive alternatives.

I introduced with over 20 of my colleagues More Children, More Choices that would have provided up to $42,000 of coverage for the original children, premium assistance of up to $64,000 and then State flexibility beyond that.

Bipartisan rhetoric is hollow if it is not followed with bipartisan action. This bill does not do that. It betrays the spirit of the President-elect, and it betrays all Americans.

I call on the Speaker to begin an open and positive process, respecting all Members and respecting all Americans.

I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for his stellar leadership on this issue.

Well, Mr. Chairman, here we are, another $350 billion, $350 billion. Now, I don't want to overstate the obvious, but Mr. Chairman, that's money that we don't have.

In addition to that, the process points that have been made I think are incredibly important. We haven't had any appropriate committee work. We've had a discussion, but there hasn't been the hearings devoted specifically to this bill. There hasn't been a markup. We haven't had the opportunity in committee to amend this bill, to have Member input. Members haven't had the opportunity to provide input into the development of the legislation. The mere fact that there are 70 amendments filed with the Rules Committee, 50 of them from Democrats, clearly demonstrates that Members on both sides of the aisle have concerns about this legislation and ideas that they would like to share.

We've seen bailout after bailout after bailout, yet our constituents have felt no relief. We cannot, in good conscience, allow the government to dig deeper into their pockets and spend their money without giving their elected Representatives the opportunity to be heard.

Fundamentally, Mr. Chairman, we're talking about examining a vital role. What's the vital issue that says a lot about what we believe our government role ought to be? We're being asked to entrust Treasury with the authority to spend an additional $350 billion, a huge sum of money, and allowing them to take on additional risk to the taxpayers by pursuing modifications that have not yet proven to be a wise investment.

Now, we can all agree that the oversight of the initial TARP program has been wanting, there's no doubt about that; that's evidenced by the fact that Treasury completely shifted the original purpose of the program without consultation or consequence. Treasury has failed to answer basic questions, they have struggled to track the billions of taxpayer dollars, and they seem to have no way to measure the success of this program.

When Secretary Paulson initially approached Congress with an urgent request for funding and broad authority to stabilize the economy, a representative from the Treasury admitted that they were arbitrarily picking a number. In fact, when we asked a senior member at the Treasury Department how did they arrive at $700 billion, do you know what they said, Mr. Chairman? They said, ``We needed a really big number.'' Well, that's not terribly encouraging as to how to arrive at the amount of taxpayer money that they are putting at risk.

There have been no indications that the last tranche of funding is needed, indeed, to further stabilize the economy. There have been no emergency meetings to explain why this money is necessary and how it would be used effectively to justify this release. In fact, just a few days ago Mr. Kashkari described our financial system as ``fundamentally more stable'' than when we began.

Ultimately we have seen, through the failures of the TARP program and the Hope for Homeowners Program, that the government isn't the solution to all of our problems. Again, we've seen bailout after bailout, but there doesn't yet seem to be any relief for constituents and taxpayers. It's because of the hasty passage of the TARP program in the first place that we're now in the position to consider sweeping changes to the program.

The regular democratic process in order would ensure that all Members of Congress can make their voice heard on this very important issue. To say that there isn't time to have a markup is not only disingenuous, Mr. Chairman, it simply is not true. We should take the time necessary to ensure that we are truly acting in the best interests of the American people. Perhaps if we had taken the time to allow for markup and evaluation initially, we would not be in the situation that we find ourselves now.

Rather than entrenching our government with $350 billion of additional debt, I think it's time that we start considering positive solutions that embrace American values, American principles, and American solutions, none of which appear in the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, it's a new Congress and, yes, it's a new day. But what we're debating isn't that new. It's, in fact, a recycled campaign promise to a favored special interest, and a sad reminder of the path this majority continues to take this country.

As most folks already know, equal pay for equal work is the law of the land and it has been since the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Generally, businesses do a tremendous job paying employees fairly, regardless of gender.

But the bill before the House today treats wage discrimination as if it were systematic. And in the midst of economic challenges, we're failing to address the real challenges affecting Americans' wages and the purchasing power of their paychecks.

If this measure becomes law, power will be turned over to bureaucrats and trial lawyers to interject, distort and oversee how wages are determined through lawsuits and through regulations.

It means less incentive, Mr. Speaker, less incentive for employers to offer a variety of working situations like flex time or more limited travel, because doing so may put an employer at risk of being sued; hardly a wise action on their part.

In turn, current and prospective workers will suffer through lower wages, slower job creation or simply fewer opportunities to meet individual worker needs.

All of this leads, Mr. Speaker, to this motion to recommit. One of the distinctive changes being made today to the Equal Pay Act is the inclusion of unlimited compensatory and punitive damages in a lawsuit. As Members already know, compensatory damages redress wrongful conduct and punitive damages are to deter future wrongful conduct.

But under the Equal Pay Act, an employee does not need to show discriminatory intent in order to prevail. As some have correctly described this bill, it's a boondoggle for trial lawyers. They'll be able to collect unlimited damages, even, Mr. Speaker, even when a disparity is not intended. This serves no legitimate purpose and turns the Equal Pay Act into a lottery. That's why this motion is a simple, commonsense change that caps reasonable, reasonable attorney's fees at $2,000 per hour. Now, surely we can agree on that.

By limiting attorney's fees, it is the intent that lawyers would take cases based on actual discrimination and merit and prevent lawsuit abuse. Today's litigation system, unfortunately does little to restrain the filing of lawsuits. It's why lawsuits can result in millions of dollars in lawyers' fees, yet plaintiffs get pennies on the dollar. It's why tort costs consume approximately 2 percent of our Gross Domestic Product, billions of dollars. It's why 10 percent of every dollar spent on health

care is attributed to the cost of liability and defensive medicine, hundreds of billions of dollars.

This cap on attorneys' fees will ensure that victims of discrimination are protected with appropriate incentives. Without a cap, this bill will have a detrimental effect on labor markets. Increasing lawsuits and unlimited damages will discourage hiring and may further segregate employment preferences for one gender in favor of another.

On this side of the aisle Republicans understand that fair-minded business folks want to make an honest living without favoring political friends or bureaucrats impeding job creation or dictating how a business should be run.

Let's adopt this motion to recommit. It's a new Congress and a new day, but let's not make a first act an old, recycled campaign promise to political friends.

I urge adoption of the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, here we find ourselves at the end of the first week of this new session of the 111th Congress. There is a lot of talk and has been a lot of talk since the election about bipartisanship. There has been a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle about bipartisanship, and that is important. I am a strong supporter of bipartisanship, and everybody talks about it. Bipartisan discussions, however, require bipartisan action. If action in a bipartisan way doesn't follow those discussions, then credibility is denied.

Now, I firmly understand and appreciate that elections have consequences, and the election of this past November resulted in a House, the United States House of Representatives, with a membership ratio of 59 percent on the Democrat side and 41 percent on the Republican side. So on the floor of this House, that is the ratio, and it is reflected in votes even this week.

Nobody would argue, I don't believe, Madam Speaker, that every single Member, every single Member of this House is important. We all represent virtually the same number of people, and it is pivotal that each and every Member be given the appropriate and equal opportunity to be involved in the process, because that is what gives credibility to representative government.

Now, as you and I both know, Madam Speaker, and as our colleagues know, the bulk of the congressional work is done in committees. That is where the critical issues are debated, that is where the hard work is done, that is where the issues are tossed back and forth and where solutions are hammered out.

Now, when voices are silenced, either by not being able to speak in committee for various problems with rules or when individuals are not even allowed to sit in committees, then it does a disservice to each and every American. We are better when we are tussling with those ideas, when we are working as hard as we can to come up with the appropriate solution for our Nation. We are not better when we are just talking about politics.

Again, in reviewing the ratios on the House floor, they are 59 percent Democrat, 41 percent Republican. Most Americans, if you asked them, would say that is what ought to be reflected in the committees, because that is where that hard work is done, that is where those issues are hammered out. I agree those ratios should be reflected in committee. If they aren't, then America is cheated and democracy is cheapened. The committee ratios are incredibly important because they determine the work product that occurs in this House. So, again, Madam Speaker, the House of Representatives, 59 percent Democrat, 41 percent Republican.

Now, when we look at committee ratios that have just come out this week, it appears that on some of the most pivotal committees where issues like taxes and financial services and health care are going to be decided, that ratio has not held. The ratio appears to be closer to 63 percent Democrat, 37 percent Republican. This is a significant decrease of a significant number of seats, and it disenfranchises many Americans across this Nation. It is a matter of fairness, Madam Speaker. It is a matter of fairness. The American people may not care about the specific processes here, but they do care about fairness.

So I call on the Speaker, I call on the majority leader, I call on the majority party, to make certain that the committee numbers, the numbers, the ratios of Democrats to Republicans in our committees, reflect the appropriate ratio that is reflected on the floor of the House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, it is a matter of fairness.