Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I ask unanimous consent for a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Government can't give until it takes. There is no such thing as a free lunch. You know, we have 10.2 percent unemployment right now. This bill is going to cost about 5.5 million jobs. It's going to cost $730 billion in new taxes and $1.2 trillion for the program over the next decade. We can't afford that at this time with unemployment being at the rate that it is. We face a $1.4 trillion deficit this year alone, and you're going to add $1.2 trillion to that and a $730 billion tax increase with 10.2 percent unemployment? You're going to cost jobs. And the American people want jobs right now, first and foremost. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. And then deal with some of these things in a more responsible way.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I was afraid you were going to leave, Mr. Chairman, before I got to talk to you. I always like to address you when I am down in the well. You made a comment about my colleague, Mr. Kingston, when he said something about our bill being so much smaller. You said, I think it was 10 times bigger because it did 10 times more. It does do a lot more. It spends a lot more. It is 1,990 pages--now don't walk away, I want you to hear this--and each word, each word in the bill is $2.25 million. Each word, not each page out of 1,990 pages. Each word. And it is going to cost not $1 trillion but about $1.3 trillion. And it is going to cause rationing of health care. And it is going to cause a big cut of Medicare and Medicare Advantage. I see you moving. You are moving toward the door. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I love you, but this is not the best bill that I have ever seen. In fact, I think it is a bill--well, he is leaving now. He is going out the door. So, Mr. Chairman, I will just tell you, I would like to take issue with that. I would like to just say one more thing before you leave, because I want to talk about Ronald Reagan for a minute. When you did your dissertation--hold it. When you did your dissertation, you didn't mention Ronald Reagan and what he did and when he said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' Now you can go. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I'm sorry. Oh well, he is gone now anyhow. Mr. Speaker, Madam Ranking Member, Ronald Reagan forced Gorbachev and the Soviet Union to spend money they didn't have, like we are doing right now with that health care bill, spend money they didn't have to build T-55 tanks and weapons to keep up with us in the Cold War, and he forced that country, that Soviet Union, and all of the countries involved, to fall apart. And he said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' And I thought at the time, that's a great speech, Mr. President, but it will never happen. And I went to Namibia to monitor the election in Namibia with former Senator Edwin Muskie about a year and a half later, and we were going to a German beer garden for lunch before the election took place. I walked in, and everybody was holding steins, and I thought it was a big birthday party or wedding party. And I said, What's going on? And this guy with tears rolling down his cheeks, a German fellow, said, Haven't you heard? The Berlin Wall is coming down. I got tears in my eyes and said, I'll be darned; he got it done. Ronald Reagan is one of the greatest Presidents this country has ever had. I'm serious. I really mean that. He did whatever it took to deal with the Soviet Union, and he won. But not only that, Ronald Reagan said if we ever move toward government control of health care, it would be a strong move toward socialist control of everybody in this country. I'm paraphrasing him, but he actually said that. When Ronald Reagan came in, instead of moving toward more government control over our lives, he said instead of raising taxes and creating more government, we are going to cut taxes and give people more disposable income and we are going to give businesses more money so they can expand. And what happened, we ended up with the longest period of economic recovery that I can remember and probably in our history. So the Obama administration comes in and they take over the car industry, the financial industry, the banking industry. They want to take over the energy industry, and now they want to take over 18 percent of our entire society's economy, and that is health care. It is going to be destruction of much of what we believe in and the way we live in this country. We don't need socialism in America, and that is what it is. And if you say that is a pretty strong word, go to the dictionary and look and see what socialism is. It is government control over people's lives. It is government regulation over everything. And this health care bill is an absolute disaster. Seniors are going to see rationing of health care first, and then others will. They will see the cuts in Medicare and Medicare Advantage, $500 billion. They are going to see all kinds of problems that they don't realize right now. I just hope, I just hope that the people of this country who appeared on the mall yesterday by the thousands will continue to fight, Mr. Speaker, will continue to fight to stop this bill before it gets passed into law. Because it is going to change everybody's life, and it is going to mortgage the future of our kids and our grandkids. Inflation, higher taxes, all of the things that we don't want.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have great respect for the majority leader. I just want to correct a couple of things that he said. He said this is the worst economy in the last three-quarters of a century, and I would like to bring to his attention that in the Jimmy Carter administration we had 12 percent unemployment, which is worse than now. We had 14 percent inflation. When Ronald Reagan came in, Mr. Volcker had to raise the interest rates, or did raise the interest rates, to 21.5 percent. What happened was the economy took another huge nosedive because of the terrible inflation and economic problems that were created during the Carter administration, which was not three- quarters of a century ago; it was just a mere 20-some years ago. The other thing I would like to say is that while we are doing the right thing by passing this bill, and I complimented my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for the extension of the home building credit for first-time homebuyers and adding to it the tax credit for second-time homebuyers--and I think those are great steps in the right direction, and I will support this bill--the things that they are doing on the other side of the aisle with the stimulus bill, $1 trillion, with the health care bill that they are going to try to ram through here Saturday that's going to cost $1 to $3 trillion that we don't have, when there is a better way to do that, really troubles me. I would hope my colleagues would start thinking about what Ronald Reagan did because the deficits were so high and inflation was so high, and that is cut taxes. When you cut taxes, you stimulate economic growth and you sell more products and people go back to work. That creates economic expansion.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding. One of the things that has been a real drag on the economy, Mr. Speaker, has been the housing industry, and the tax credit that we've given first-time homebuyers, according to the Realtors and the homebuilders with whom I've talked, has been a real plus. That is one of the few things that we've done around here that has helped the economy and helped create some jobs. Now, in this bill, we're not only extending the first-time homebuyer credit, which I think is going to help the economy, but we're also going to say to people that already own homes, we're going to give you a $6,500 tax credit if you choose to move up and buy another house. That's been one of the shortcomings that we've had over the last few months, because people that want to get another home feel like with the economy being the way it is right now, they don't want to move. But if you encourage them with a $6,500 tax credit--a tax credit. We like tax cuts and tax credits. If we give them a $6,500 tax credit, I guarantee you there is going to be a lot of people that will move up into more homes, newer homes, and it will really help economic growth in this country. So I just want to congratulate the sponsors, even on the Democrat side, for putting this in the bill. I really think this is a plus. I don't compliment my colleagues too much over there, but the $8,000 tax credit that is being extended for first-time homebuyers is good, and the $6,500 tax credit for people that are going to buy a home, a second home or a third home, as they get rid of their first one, I really think this is going to be a plus for the economy. So even though I disagree with my colleagues 95 percent of the time, this is one time they have put something good in a bill.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I won't give my normal 20-minute speech, but I would just like to say that Chris Smith has been a leader on the right-to-life issue as long as I have been in Congress. He and Henry Hyde were the stalwarts that were always fighting for the unborn, and I am very happy to lend my support to their efforts. I would just like to say that in addition to the language that's in the bill that's going to allow the taxpayer to pay for abortions, this bill is really an abomination. The bill that is going to be before us Saturday costs $2.25 million per word and the bill is over 2,000 pages long. It's going to cost $1.3 or $1.4 trillion and maybe more than that. It's an absolute disaster waiting to happen. It's going to cause rationing; it's going to cause seniors to lose Medicare Advantage; it's going to cost $500 billion out of Medicare and Medicare Advantage. This is a disaster. And when I hear the President say that the doctors want this, my wife's a doctor. He says the AMA wants it. Doctors across this country don't want it. He says that the seniors want it because of AARP. Seniors don't want it. AARP is getting 61 percent of their money from kickbacks from insurance companies and commissions, and they are going to get more if Medicare Advantage goes down the tubes because they will sell more Medigap insurance. There are a lot of problems with this bill, but one of the most important things to me and to Chris and all those who are here tonight is the right-to-life issue. For that reason alone we should defeat this, but there are a lot of other problems with it as well.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, if I were talking to America, I would say, This is Nancy Pelosi's answer to health care. It's going to cost $2.25 million per word, and we don't even have the manager's amendment yet, which is probably going to add another 600 or 700 pages to this. This is going to cut Medicare and Medicare Advantage by about, oh, $460 or $470 billion. Seniors are really going to feel it. It's going to end up rationing health care, maybe for everybody, but certainly for seniors. The taxes are going to go through the roof, and nobody's read this turkey. Nobody. They'll tell you they have. We've got a reading room right now; we're going to go through it. But even when we read this, we still don't have the manager's amendment. We don't need this rush to judgment. We need to get it right. We need to take our time and get a real bill that's going to help the American people, not something that's going to cost an arm and a leg.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Israel has been our friend forever. They have been attacked again and again and again. So what did they do? Ariel Sharon tried to reach out in a peaceful way to give Gaza back to the Palestinians. And what happened? Hamas goes in there and starts launching missile after missile after missile at innocent people, blowing them up, trying to kill them. They want to destroy Israel, as does Iran. So what happens? The Human Rights Council of the United Nations 27 times has issued decisions against Israel, and the Goldstone Report is just another in a long line. This is something that we should not tolerate. There shouldn't be one vote, not one vote in this place against Israel. And the people who are making these comments on the other side of the aisle really bother me, because Israel has been such a great friend of ours and they have been trying to reach peace over there forever. And, instead, they keep getting rocket attack after rocket attack, and then they are criticized for human rights problems because they defend themselves. If we launched missiles into Michigan, I guarantee you, Michigan would be really ticked off at us and would want to stop it and would do everything they could to stop it. We ought to support Israel.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, although unemployment, now at 9.8 percent, is expected to keep rising, and consumer confidence is down, the latest Federal Reserve report on economic activity shows some small signs that the recession may finally be starting to bottom out. In particular, I am encouraged that we are starting to see indications that a rebound in the housing sector may be developing. A few weeks ago, for example, the Commerce Department said new-home building rose for the third time in four months during September, and, the National Association of Realtors announced that demand for previously-owned homes surged in September. In late October, the Case-Shiller home-price indexes showed that U.S. home prices logged their third monthly increase in August. The indexes showed prices in 10 major metropolitan areas rose 1.3 percent from July. In 20 major metropolitan areas, home prices were up 1.2 percent from the previous month. However, if a housing rebound is starting, it is still very fragile. For example, applications for home building permits--a key gauge of future construction--fell in September by the largest amount in five months. And, according to figures recently released by the Commerce Department, sales of new homes dropped unexpectedly in September; the first such decline since March. The foreclosure crisis all but erased the gains we have made in increasing homeownership rates in the last 20 years. The financial gains families thought they had achieved through increases in home equity also disappeared, as now roughly 20 percent of homeowners owe more on their homes than they are worth. Nevertheless, homeownership remains the single most important wealth- building tool available to families in this country. In fact, housing experts are saying that now is the time to buy. A sustained rebound in housing is therefore absolutely vital to Federal, State and local efforts to spark a broader economic recovery. Regrettably, I have spoken to a number of mortgage brokers in Indiana and they tell me that many first-time homebuyers, who could otherwise buy a home, are finding themselves locked out of the housing market by the very rules and regulations we put into place to protect consumers from the so-called predatory lending practices that created the sub- prime mortgage mess in the first place. I am not suggesting that we should return to the unchecked lending of the last decade, where someone could put no money down, show no proof of income or employment and walk away with a million dollar mortgage. But I am suggesting that we need to be vigilant for circumstances where--either through legislative or regulatory action--the Federal government may have inadvertently swung the pendulum too far in the direction of restricting access to the mortgage market in the name of consumer protection. There are two letters I received from mortgage brokers in Indiana that point to one potential example. The issue relates to variable rate pricing of mortgage insurance for Federal mortgage loans. These letters show these two mortgage agents both believe that the Federal Housing Administration's shift in policy from charging a flat- rate for mortgage insurance to charging a variable rate based on a person's credit score, has unfairly excluded some qualified buyers from the dream of home ownership. I am not a mortgage expert; Madam Speaker, so I will defer to the experts as to whether the shift from flat-rate pricing to variable rate pricing is truly preventing would be homeowners from buying a home; but I would like to cite for the record a 2007 report done by the nonpartisan General Accountability Office regarding the proposed changes to the Federal Housing Administration's lending standards, including the shift to variable rate pricing of mortgage insurance premiums. The report reads, in part: ``. . . our analysis of data for FHA's home purchase borrowers in 2005 showed that, under FHA's risk-based pricing proposal, about 43 percent of those borrowers would have paid the same or less than they actually paid, 37 percent would have paid more, and 20 percent would not have qualified for FHA insurance.'' In other words, GAO's analysis, based on my understanding of the report, seems to suggest that variable rate premiums, based on perceived risk, send little extra money into the mortgage insurance trust fund to protect the funds from increased defaults but deny 20 percent of applicants FHA mortgage insurance--and by extension a mortgage. If GAO's analysis is correct, and I have no reason to doubt GAO's findings, it would seem to support the arguments offered by the mortgage brokers from Indiana I cited earlier. In that case, Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleagues on the Finance Committee to give all due consideration to investigating the policy of variable rate pricing, in order to ensure that truly qualified borrowers are not being unfairly pushed out of the housing market. All Star Mortgage Company, August 19, 2009. Congressman Dan Burton, Rayburn H.O.B., Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Burton: I am writing this letter as a follow up in regards to our meeting last week. The American consumer that desires to purchase a new home or refinance their existing home is at a distinct disadvantage considering Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's unfair increased risk based pricing and mandatory delivery fees. These excessive fees and higher down payments are stifling the real estate market. They are overly burdensome to consumers, even those with perfect payment histories. This is not only stalling the housing recovery, but also inhibiting the overall economy, as many industries are housing related. This unfair practice is excluding many well-qualified borrowers from the dream of home ownership. It would be my hope that Congress would call for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to revisit their current policy of charging higher fees and requiring larger down payments to certain qualified borrowers, than they would charge an equally qualified borrower based solely upon credit score without regard to the borrower's actual credit repayment history. Sincerely, Greg Evans, President.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, this is the Pelosi health care bill: 1,990 pages. Nobody in this place has even come close to reading it. In addition to that, it costs $2.25 million per word. That's per word. There are almost 3,500 ``shalls'' in there, and a ``shall'' is a mandate that Congress do something. Nobody has read this thing. It's going to cost all this money. Members of Congress can exempt themselves from being involved in the public option. Every time you go to a town hall meeting, the American people say, Are you guys going to be included? Well, this bill says you don't have to be included if you're a Member of Congress because we're more important than the guy on the street. You know, this is just a terrible, terrible bill; and the people of this country don't want it passed. I've had five town hall meetings, and the people overwhelmingly are opposed to this thing. They want us to solve the problems of health care. They want us to do it in a responsible way, but they certainly don't want this thing, and this doesn't even include the manager's amendment. This is a bad bill, and it should be defeated.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, continuing on from my 1-minute I gave earlier, this bill, the Pelosi bill, the Pelosi health care bill that the Democrats are embracing is almost 2,000 pages long. It's going to cost $2.25 million for each word, and that does not include the manager's amendment, which we have not yet seen. I imagine it's going to come down probably sometime tomorrow. As I said before, Members of Congress don't have to enroll in this public option which is in the bill. I hope everybody in America, if they happen to be paying attention--I know I can't talk to them, but if I were talking to them I would say, Hey, ask your Congressman why he is voting for a bill that's going to exempt him and make sure he can join a private health care insurance plan when there is a public option in here that he should be joining just like everybody else has to. This bill is not going to cost under a trillion dollars as the Speaker has said. If you put the doc fix in there, it's going to cost another $250 billion. So we are looking at something between 1.2 and 1.3 trillion at a time when we are suffering economically in this country. Unemployment is close to 10 percent. The deficit this year, the deficit this year is already 1.4 trillion, almost three times just what it was last year, and we are going to add this new bill, which is going to cost another 1.2 to 1.3 trillion dollars. The American people simply don't want it. Let's go into some of the other things that are in the bill, the Pelosi health care bill. First of all, there is a surtax on small business people. Now, at a time when we have unemployment that's almost 10 percent, this is going to drive additional jobs out of the country offshore or they are going to have to cut back some of these businesses that stay here in America and let people go, which means there will be more unemployment. There is an employer mandate that's still applied to small businesses. Small businesses that have a payroll as low as $ $500,000 a year are going to be hit with a tax. There is a new medical device tax. In Indiana, we have some companies that make medical devices to help people, prosthetic devices, wheelchairs and things like that. There's a new medical tax that's going to be levied on these kinds of devices of 2.5 percent, and that's going to be passed on to people who are suffering from medical problems that need these medical devices. We call that a wheelchair tax that's in this bill. There's going to be new taxes on health savings accounts. The Pelosi bill eliminates the nontaxable reimbursements of over-the-counter medication from HSAs, HRAs, and FSAs. There is a new payroll tax, and the Pelosi bill creates a new voluntary payroll tax to fund new long- term care programs requiring mandatory spending, also known as a new entitlement. Abortions are authorized in a break from the Hyde amendment and other longstanding pro-life policies. The bill includes the Capps amendment to authorize government funding of abortions through the public option. It also establishes an accounting gimmick to justify subsidizing private plans that cover abortion. Next, Members of Congress, as I said, are exempt. They say that they may--not have to--enroll in the public option. At the same time it says ``may'' in there, there are 3,425 times in the bill it says you must, shall do something, and ``shall'' means it's a mandatory. There are mandatory things in here to the tune of 3,425 times. Doctors reimbursement levels are up in the air. They've got those budget gimmicks that I talked about, which removes the doctor fix, the medical doctor fix of 250 billion, which takes this up to between $1.2 and $1.3 trillion. It reduces affordability credits and instead expands Medicaid. The States are going to love that. They are going to shovel a lot of this onto the States who are already suffering, and they are going to have to raise taxes. The Pelosi bill reduces the size of affordability credits for patients to purchase the insurance in the exchange and, instead, expands eligibility for Medicaid to up to 150 percent of the Federal poverty level, placing more Americans on entitlement programs at a cost to both the Federal and the State governments. As I said most States are in the red, and they are not going to like this. Ask any Governor; he will tell you. This also significantly changes the Medicare part D prescription drug program. The Pelosi bill requires the Secretary of HHS to negotiate drug prices for the prescription drug program. There are also several provisions in the bill that will likely increase seniors' premiums as identified by CBO, including the bill that would force seniors, force seniors, to pay at least an additional 20 percent more for their Medicare prescription drug coverage. That's part D. These things the American people need to know. This is not a good bill. There is a better way, a better way.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for taking this time tonight for our colleague, Mr. McHugh. John is not only a nice guy, he really is a hard worker. I think he has earned his place in the administration with the Secretary of the Army position. When I was chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, he was a subcommittee chairman that dealt with the postal service. He did an outstanding job. It was a very thorny issue, solving a lot of the problems that we had with the private sector and the postal service, and it was John who got the job done. It took several years, but I've never seen anybody work harder than he did. I would just like to say as I depart tonight that we miss you, John. You were a heck of a Congressman, and I know you're going to do a great job as Secretary of the Army. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, sometimes I get so angry when I hear some of the things that are coming out of the Congress, I can hardly believe it, especially when we are talking about misinformation. I would never impugn the integrity of my colleagues, but I have to tell you, it really bothers me when people like the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the United States Senate give inaccurate information out and cite it as fact when in fact it isn't true. It's not true at all. For instance, the Speaker of the House said, I'm very pleased that Democrat leaders will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years. She went on to say that she welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers and their obscene profits. I am not here to defend everything that the insurance industry does. Obviously there are a lot of things that we need to do to help solve the problems of health care. But misleading the American people by giving false information isn't the answer. Last year, the health insurance industry made a profit of about 2 percent, way down the list as far as corporate America is concerned. Over the past several years, the profit margin made by the health insurance industry runs around 5 to 6 percent, way down to the bottom of where corporate America ranks as far as making profits are concerned. Yet the Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the House said that they're making obscene profits, and they're doing that to try to demonize the industry so they can ram through a public option that the American people really don't want. They don't want government coming between them and their doctor; and the way to start getting people to jump on the bandwagon is to give them misinformation. Obviously the cost of health care has gone up. Obviously health care premiums have gone up. And yet they say, well, the reason for that is because the health industry is making these huge profits, obscene profits. Two percent? Two percent? It is not true. It is just not true that they are making obscene profits. Now, we need to do something to solve the problem of health care. We need to lower the cost of health insurance. We need to come up with alternatives, such as medical savings accounts like my colleague just talked about here. We need to be able to buy insurance across State lines. There is a whole host of things we need to do. But misleading the public is not the answer. That is not the only thing that really bothers me. The administration and the leadership in the House and Senate continues to try to do everything they can to dissuade people from believing the truth and believing what is really not true, to shut off debate, to shut off the First Amendment rights of people in this country. For instance, right now, they tried to push through a gag order on Medicare Advantage companies. Humana was sending out to their policyholders information about what was going to happen if the public option passed. And what happened? There was a gag order requested by the Finance chairman of the Senate, requested by the Finance chairman of the Senate, so they couldn't get that information out. Well, the gag order was removed, but the fact of the matter is they tried to stop the people from getting the facts, and that is just wrong. It is wrong. It is not up to the quality that we should expect of our legislators. Nevertheless, they tried to do that. Now the administration is trying to put the hammer on the Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is the backbone of the free enterprise system in this country, in part, at least. The business and industry people of this country look to the Chamber of Commerce to give guidance to the government wherever necessary so they can work together with the government to come up with ways to make sure that the free enterprise system continues to work. Because the Chamber of Commerce does not agree with the public option, does not agree with cap-and-trade and some other things, the administration is saying, oh, my gosh, they are bad. They are the demons. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Can you believe that? I can't. How far is the administration willing to go? How far is the Speaker of the House willing to go? How far is the majority leader of the Senate willing to go in misleading the American people by giving false information out? I think it is just dead wrong. Then they are talking about doing something about the Fairness Doctrine, to shut down conservative talk radio. An attempted boycott of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck; Congressional action to take away the anti-trust exemption from insurance companies; A Gag Order on Medicare Advantage companies; Reports in Politico about how the White House is seeking to limit the voice of the United States Chamber of Commerce; Efforts by the Federal Election Commission to resurrect the so-called fairness doctrine to shut down conservative talk radio; and The President himself saying he was going to keep a list of bondholders who didn't agree to the government takeover of GM or Chrysler. My time may have expired, but I will be back, because we need to tell the American people the truth, the truth. Madam Speaker, I include the following for the Record. [From The American Spectator, Feb. 18, 2009] Obama's Enemies List (By Mark Hyman) After the Democratic convention, Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer warned TV stations against airing a TV ad that was embarrassing to Barack Obama. The commercial focused on the longtime relationship between Obama and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Bauer sent letters to the Justice Department imploring the agency to pursue criminal action against those behind the ads. It was not lost on anyone at that time that Bauer was considered a candidate to be the next U.S. Attorney-General. A team of Obama campaign operatives, joined by major news outlets, descended on Wasilla, Alaska immediately after Governor Sarah Palin was introduced as Senator John McCain's running mate. This was immediately followed by patently false reports claiming Palin imposed book bans, joined a fringe political party, charged rape victims for emergency room treatment and cut funding for special needs children. In late August, the Obama campaign emailed an ``Obama Action Wire'' to thousands of supporters and liberal activists exhorting them to harass the offices of Chicago's WGN radio by flooding the station with angry phone calls and emails. Activists screamed insults to call-in screeners. The radio station's offense was that a long-time, respected radio host had the temerity to interview Ethics and Public Policy Center watchdog Stanley Kurtz. Kurtz had uncovered university records that documented a much closer relationship between Obama and Ayers than the presidential candidate had previously disclosed. A few weeks later, state prosecutors and top sheriffs in Missouri who were prominent Obama supporters responded to a chilling Obama campaign request. They styled themselves as a ``truth squad'' and threatened to prosecute anyone including media outlets that printed or broadcasted material they deemed to be inaccurate about the Illinois Senator. Obama contributors in the Justice Department's Civil Rights section (headed by $2,000 Obama donor and former ACLU attorney Mark Kappelhof) urged preemptive prosecution of individuals the Obama campaign believed might disrupt the November election. A cited example of anticipated disruption was to send mailings of a non-violent nature addressing voting issues unfavorable to Obama. In October, a question from a middle-class voter resulted in an answer from Obama indicating the Democratic nominee was in favor of ``spread[ing] the wealth around.'' This voter became the symbol of middle-class America and Obama's response the touchstone of his neo-Marxist policies. Immediately thereafter, Democratic Ohio state officials scoured government data bases and confidential records in an effort to find embarrassing information on ``Joe the Plumber'' (e.g., he is divorced) that quickly found its way into the press. In the final days of the campaign, three newspapers that had endorsed McCain were booted from the Obama campaign bus. The New York Post, Dallas Morning News, and Washington Times were unceremoniously shown the door only days after their papers' endorsements appeared. Obama campaign officials claimed the move was to make room for more important media outlets: Jet and Ebony entertainment magazines. Both publications were publishing fawning coverage of Obama. Those heartened by the hope that a President Obama would be more tolerant of critics and criticism than a candidate Obama had their expectations dashed. In only his third full day as the 44th president Obama personally went on the offensive against a media personality. On January 23rd, Obama warned Congressional Republicans against listening to Rush Limbaugh. The man who offered to sit down with Holocaust denier and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without any preconditions whatsoever views an American radio talk show host as a dangerous threat. In precedent-setting action, Obama moved his director of political affairs, a highly partisan post, from the Old Executive Office Building into the West Wing. Political operative Patrick Gaspard was given White House access not experienced by his predecessors. Obama official Shauna Daly, a non-lawyer and career opposition researcher described as a ``partisan dirt-digger,'' was assigned to the White House counsel office. The move signals not only a new low in partisan activities, but suggests the office assignment may be intended to hide Daly's political activities under the guise of the counsel's attorney-client privileges. What America witnessed before the election and mere hours after Obama was sworn into office is just a sampling of what Americans can likely expect throughout an Obama presidency. One cannot help but reach the conclusion an Obama Enemies List is already being compiled and free speech restrictions are being considered. Fortunately for Obama he has no shortage of Congressional foot soldiers to help in his cause to muzzle critics and silence news outlets that refuse to adhere to Democratic talking points that are faxed directly into the network newscast teleprompters. On Election Day, Senator Chuck Schumer likened conservative talk radio to pornography and argued it should be regulated. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsed speech restrictions more than once during the election season. Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and John Kerry have also advocated various limits to political speech. Senator Debbie Stabenow assured a liberal radio talk show host that regulating conservative speech is imminent. House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman is reportedly working on speech restrictions with acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps. Imagine the gross violations against political speech that may very well occur when there are no checks and balances from a sycophantic Congress and there is complicity from the national news gatekeepers. The public may be very surprised at the lengths the Obama Administration may pursue to silence critics. Moreover, the self-anointed Praetorian Guard of the First Amendment will conveniently develop a case of amnesia regarding on which side of the debate they fall when it comes to press freedoms. Do not expect to see the New York Times editorialize against Obama and the Congress when it comes to protecting free speech rights aside from its own and that of like-minded, liberally-biased press outlets. The Clinton White House had its own enemies list and engaged in dirty practices that clearly broke the law. Clinton enemies audited by the IRS included Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers, White House Travel Officer Director Billy Dale and the independent watchdog group, Judicial Watch, just to name a few. Early in Clinton's first term, staffers improperly squirreled away more than 400 FBI files on prominent Republicans. This give the Clintons access to confidential information on key Republicans they viewed as political threats. Just weeks after the Monica Lewinsky broke in early 1998, then-Deputy Attorney General (and current Attorney General) Eric Holder engineered a federal grand jury investigation of The American Spectator. The magazine had long been a very successful critic of both Clintons, having broken several stories embarrassing for the President and First Lady. Fourteen months later, the federal prosecutor dropped the probe without filing any criminal charges. The probe may have achieved its purpose as it nearly bankrupted the magazine. Much has been made by the political left of Richard Nixon's infamous enemies list. The reality is while there was a Nixon's enemies list most of the names were those who did not receive presidential Christmas cards or White House reception invitations. This was a hardship that even the most vulnerable in American society could easily withstand. The heavy-handed actions against Obama critics and opponents that occurred before he had government institutions firmly under his control should have had public interest watchdog groups up in arms. Because so many of such groups are ideologically aligned with Obama may explain why there was not even a peep. Conservative and balanced news outlets have the disturbing habit of holding accountable liberal public interest organizations that engage in dishonest or deceptive practices that the major news organizations just so happen to overlook. How soon and how far the Obama Administration will extend its attacks against its critics and the political opposition may become evident in the days ahead. Spared any serious scrutiny by most news outlets during his very brief career in public office, Barack Obama has displayed an exceptionally thin skin when he has come under a microscope or when he has suffered political and public relations setbacks.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. You know, I get a big kick, Madam Speaker, out of my colleague from Virginia when he comes down and starts talking about that we're not for clean energy and we're not for solving the problems of the environment when the Democrat Party will not do anything to allow us to drill in the ANWR, offshore on the Continental Shelf, and use natural gas, which is a clean-burning fuel. They won't allow nuclear energy in this country. They think that the nuclear energy problem is bigger than the environmental problem, when 75 percent of the energy created in France is nuclear energy in a very safe way. So I get a big kick out of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle complaining about how we're not for clean energy and helping clean up the environment when they won't do a darn thing to move in that direction by using natural gas, drilling for it when we have a 400- to 500-year supply, and actually going ahead with nuclear development in this country. Nuclear energy is the answer. Clean- burning natural gas is the answer, but they won't go along with it, and yet they come down here and complain day after day after day.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest when our whip and the majority leader were talking a while ago about how they would like to work with us so we can reach some kind of agreement on the public option plan, the government plan. It brought to mind when President Obama came to our caucus, our conference, early on in his administration. He indicated he wanted to work with us and he wanted to have our input. He came with great fanfare, and the media was there saying here is this man, he wants openness, and he wants to work with the Republicans. This is the kind of President we need. He smiled, he shook our hands, he left the room and then wouldn't talk to us anymore. We have had absolutely no input whatsoever into this health care plan, and yet the facade has been created that we have. And they blame us because things haven't happened. It's because their own caucus can't get together on a plan. The American people know that there is chicanery going on behind closed doors. And they promised us we would be able to participate in the planning for health care reform. Yeah. That was a lot of baloney then, and it's a lot of baloney now.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration, led by its Council of Economic Advisors, indicated that if we spent $1 trillion with the stimulus bill, that we would create 3.5 million new jobs. Well, here it is, what, 8, 9 months later, we've spent a great deal of the stimulus money, and instead of creating 3.5 million new jobs we've lost 3 million jobs. That's a 6.5 million job swing. Yesterday, Dr. Christina Romer, the Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, said that the economic stimulus package, $1 trillion--and remember, we're $1.4 trillion in the hole this year-- that the economic stimulus package at $1 trillion wasn't going to work anymore for the next several months and we should expect the economy to continue to drift downward, with unemployment reaching 10 percent. The reason I bring this up is because 49 out of the 50 States have lost jobs while we spent $1 trillion to create the jobs. Now, just stop and think about that. We're throwing money at this situation as rapidly as possible, the government is getting its nose into every aspect of our economy, moving toward a European socialist- type economy, and the economy continues to drift downward. And why is that? Because we're taking more and more money and spending it that we don't have, number one. And number two, they're going to tax us to death at a time when we're suffering economic calamity in this country. What should we be doing? Well, Ronald Reagan came into office back in 1980 when Jimmy Carter had 12 percent unemployment--worse than now--and 14 percent inflation--worse than now--with a misery index of 26 percent. And they said you had to raise taxes because we had such problems, we had to have more money. Ronald Reagan said, well, I think we ought to cut taxes. And so they cut taxes across the board, and he was criticized severely for it. They said, well, there is going to be a shortfall in money coming into the Treasury. We were bringing in $500 billion a year in taxes at the time, and 4 years later we were bringing in $1.3 trillion. Do you know why? Because when you cut taxes, you give people more disposable income, business has more money to invest. And so business invests, people buy more products because they have more money, because of that they produce more products, more jobs are created, and the economy expands. It makes common sense; if you have more money, you're going to be able to spend more money. And so what happened was we had the longest period of economic expansion in the history of this country because we had a President that could see what really needed to be done--let the free enterprise system work and let people have more of their money to spend. Cut government spending and cut government taxes. Well, Reagan did the job. So what are we doing today? We've got a government that thinks they should control everything, and they're moving toward a socialist economy very similar to what you see in France and England and other parts of the world that are really suffering and continue to suffer through economic chaos. All I can say, if I were talking to the President, is, Mr. President, get real. Wake up. Forget this socialist nonsense. Take a look at the history book and look at what Ronald Reagan did. And if you would do that, and instead of raising taxes cut taxes, you would stimulate economic growth, put people back to work, and get this economy heading in the right direction. I don't know if the President pays attention to what we're saying around here, Mr. Speaker, but if he does pay attention, I hope he'll listen and look at the history books and check out what Ronald Reagan did.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Hopefully, in the not so distant future, we will see fair elections in your former native land of Cuba. With that, let me just say I have heard in my years here in the Congress a lot of very thorough and eloquent expressions of concern about what's going on in foreign policy and foreign lands, but the young gentleman from Illinois just covered about everything about as thoroughly as you possibly can. The one thing that I think I might add is that there are those who say the elections should be postponed and that there are reasons for that. But, according to what I have been able to learn from our research is that the Supreme Court of Honduras rendered a decision after careful study, and they said that what was done was constitutional, it was within the law, and they upheld that decision, and they have said that the elections should go forth, and they are now in control of the election process, and I believe that it should go forth. For the United States of America and our State Department and our very young and new President, whom I feel probably does not have the expertise that he requires to make these kinds of decisions, although I am sure that he would like to see his position supported, I think that we should support the Honduran people, support a free and fair election, and let our State Department know that the Members of the Congress here in Congress feel very strongly that they have made a miscalculation and a misdiagnosis of what the situation is or should be down in Honduras. They should change their mind and come back and support the constitutional elective process in Honduras and let the elections go forth with our support. The United States of America should support the free election process in Honduras and our State Department should share that view, and that's why tonight you have a number of Congressmen here on the floor of the House who are saying to the administration and to the State Department, You have made a mistake. As the young gentleman from Illinois said, this has been researched very thoroughly by our legal authorities and experts here in the Congress of the United States, and they have concluded that the only thing that was done that was not correct was forcing the former President out of the country. But it did not say anything that we would contradict the decision that was made by the administration that showed that there was some unconstitutional things done and supported by the previous President. The Supreme Court has rendered that decision and they said the election should go forth, and we should support that decision. If I were talking to our Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, or the President, I would say that the administration and the State Department should support that position. I really appreciate you and your brother and the rest of the people that are here on the floor tonight, I really appreciate you staying so late. It's a quarter till 12. The people of this country, who I hope might be paying attention, will realize we feel this is extremely important for stability in our hemisphere, in our front yard, and we feel very strongly that the administration and the State Department should review this and come out in very strong support of the elective process which should be taking place very shortly.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise today to salute the Vision of Children Foundation. The Vision of Children Foundation is an independent, not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to the funding of innovative clinical and translational research into vision disorders and creating effective therapies. The Foundation supports scientists at top universities and academic medical centers worldwide who are involved in the most advanced and promising research. According to the World Health Organization, globally more than 161 million people are visually impaired, including 1.4 million blind children below age 15. In the United States alone, over 1 million children suffer from vision impairment, a loss of vision that makes it hard or impossible to perform daily tasks without specialized adaptation, and which cannot be corrected to a ``normal'' level. These children face technological and socially-imposed obstacles that make it difficult to succeed in life. The challenges of living with visual impairment are all too real for Sam and Vivian Hardage, founders of the Vision of Children Foundation. Their son, Chase, now 20 years old, was diagnosed with ocular albinism (OA) as an infant. OA is an inherited disorder in which the eyes suffer from deficient amount of melanin and pigment, resulting in reduced visual acuity, or Nystagmus, and sensitivity to sunlight. The Hardages were told that there was no cure, and that their son would never be able to play sports or live a normal life. Although Chase's original diagnosis was dire, the reality is that all children with visual impairments have different visual acuities and developmental potential. Many of these individuals, such as Chase, have learned to compensate for their disability and have functional and productive lives. The Hardages were also stunned to find that no one was doing research into understanding OA, much less treating it. Hereditary vision disorders such as OA, retinitis pigmentosa, and Ushers syndrome belonged to a group of diseases that were underrepresented and under-funded. It was clear that if there was any hope for finding a cure, funding was needed. In 1990, the Hardages established the Vision of Children Foundation (VOC), with a mission to cure hereditary childhood blindness and vision disorders, and to improve the quality of life of visually impaired individuals and their families. It is the only international, non-profit foundation that funds genetic vision research into ocular albinism and connects affected families all over the world. Until there is a cure, the VOC works hard to provide educational support and services. Families of the visually impaired often feel isolated and confused, and need support to face day-to-day life. The VOC believes communication between families, educators, healthcare professionals, and researchers who care for these children is critical, and the VOC does all that it can to facilitate the process. The Foundation maintains a worldwide Family Network that provides information and support via constant communication, a biannual newsletter, and an informative Web site. Joining the Family Network enables parents to contact other families who face similar challenges in their geographic region to offer support, and share experiences and local resources and programs. Hundreds of families around the world belong to the VOC Family Network. The VOC strives to enable thousands of children to have a clear image of the world around them. The foundation continues to gather and share information and tools available to ease the daily challenges that the visually impaired face. For example, VOC developed a computer monitor system designed to accommodate students and adults with low vision. This system works to alleviate the stress and strain that individuals with low vision face when using computer technology. The Foundation donates monitor systems to schools and individuals nationwide. VOC also partners with book publishers to provide educational books to eye clinics, schools, libraries, doctors' offices, and families, such as the illustrated storybook, ``All Children Have Different Eyes.'' These books help to raise awareness, reduce emotional stress, develop social competencies, improve academic performance, and increase confidence in low vision children. These efforts to provide support, education and needed assistive resources to children diagnosed with OA have enabled Chase and many others like him to have a more normal and functional life. Chase played varsity football on a championship team and was his high school's first CIF wrestling champion in 28 years. Today, he is a sophomore studying business at Southern Methodist University. To foster scientific communication and collaboration, VOC hosts a biennial World Symposium on Ocular Albinism and genetic vision disorders. In this forum, the Foundation brings together top vision and genetic eye researchers from around the globe to present and discuss the latest discoveries and research efforts involving OA and related genetic conditions. This year's World Symposium theme: ``Understanding the Pathway-- Discovering a Cure'' was reflected in each of the presentations. The symposium was highly successful, with researchers agreeing to openly discuss their latest discoveries and research efforts. Updated results from the successful recent human gene therapy trials provide continued hope for a cure. One of the most important outcomes of the symposium resulted in the formation of an informal, web-based forum for attendees to continue the collaborative relationships that were formed. The Vision of Children Foundation is a leader in fostering these kinds of relationships and helping move science forward. For eighteen years, the Vision of Children Foundation has been a driving force in the worldwide quest for a cure for genetically caused childhood blindness. Progress and problems are discussed on a regular basis as VOC researchers gather for an invitation only Symposium sponsored by the Vision of Children Foundation. In October 2006, Dr. James Bainbridge of Moorfields Eye Hospital in London attended VOC's European Symposium and described his lab's plan for a human gene therapy trial to cure Leber's Congenital Amaurosis. In March 2008, his team achieved the world's first successful gene therapy trial on a human. Their success was quickly followed by the University of Florida and Children's Hospital in Philadelphia, successfully restoring the vision of nine young adults who were nearly blind. These young people can now see and some can even read lines on an eye chart. All nine patients had the treatment in one eye and all have volunteered to have their other eye treated. I am told that the medical community is equating this discovery to the first heart transplant. The Vision of Children Foundation is one of the largest sources of non-governmental funding in the world for genetically caused childhood blindness research. The urgent mission of the Vision of Children Foundation is to drive the research that will provide preventions, treatments and cures for children affected by ocular albinism and the entire spectrum of hereditary childhood blindness and vision disorders. The Foundation has invested millions of dollars to support scientific research of diseases of the retina, which cause blindness. I commend the steadfast support of and determination of the Vision of Children Foundation to eradicating genetically caused vision disorders and blindness in children.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor and privilege of co-chairing the Congressional Indonesia Caucus with my good friend, Congressman Wexler. Accordingly, I want to take this moment to express my heartfelt condolences to the citizens of Indonesia, the President, and the Indonesian government in the aftermath of the devastating earthquakes that struck the West Sumatra region this past month. On September 30, 2009, a 7.6 magnitude earthquake that originated northwest of the city of Padang (population: 900,000) led to the loss of 800 lives. Countless more remain missing and are presumed dead while thousands have been displaced from their homes that were either destroyed or remain unsafe as ongoing tremors continue to bring uncertainty to the area. The quakes have devastated the region, destroying over 83,700 houses, 200 public buildings, 285 schools, and have also caused extensive damage to an additional 100,000 buildings including hotels, mosques, shops, and hospitals, and approximately twenty miles of roads. Lying near the intersection of shifting tectonic plates, Indonesia is prone to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Such devastation is yet another tragedy to strike the region, which is still recovering from the 2004 earthquake born from this very same fault line that resulted in the Indian Ocean tsunami and the loss of over 230,000 lives. As a result, I am very pleased to join my colleagues today in passing House Resolution 810 expressing our condolences to the Indonesian people for the devastating earthquake and loss of life in their Sumatra region. I would also like to commend the courage and perseverance of the Indonesian government and people as they work tirelessly with humanitarian organizations in distributing aid and mobilizing relief efforts. All the while, strong aftershocks continue to rock the region and create hazardous conditions for both residents and rescue workers. There is still much to be done, yet the Indonesian government and countless other humanitarian and private groups continue to provide emergency assistance to those in need. The U.S. also shows our support as we reaffirm our commitment by releasing millions in aid and contributing to the widespread international response. We continue to regard Indonesia as an important ally, recognizing its recent democratic transition and transformation into the world's third largest democracy. In addition, hosting the world's largest Muslim majority, the people of Indonesia demonstrate that Islam and democracy are not mutually exclusive and can successfully work in tandem. Thus, we look forward to fostering future cooperation between the United States and Indonesia in the areas of trade, national security, and cultural awareness and appreciation. The Indonesian people have seen tremendous change in the last decade, and they once again continue to persevere through tragedy. It is my hope that our nations will only continue to grow in our commitment to one another and to freedom, justice, and democracy. I would like to thank Congressman Berman and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for helping to move this important resolution to the floor. And, again I extend my heartfelt condolences to the Indonesian people and the family and friends of those who are suffering greatly as a result of this disaster.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I appreciated what my colleague just said about the banks, and one of the things that I think we ought to focus on in addition to that is that we are not energy independent and we're not allowed the drill off the Continental Shelf or in the ANWR in Alaska or do other exploration for a number of reasons, not the least of which is, quote-unquote, environmental. But at the same time we won't allow offshore drilling here, we just gave Brazil $2 billion so they can drill off their shores. It just doesn't make any sense to me. We ought to be spending that money here at home exploring for oil so we can move towards energy independence. We have a 400- or 500-year supply of natural gas and we have plenty of oil if we just could go get it, and we can do it in an environmentally safe way. Now the reason I bring that up is because one of the big problems we face is we get 35 to 40 percent of our oil from the Middle East, and one of the big problems facing the United States and the world right now is Iran. Iran has been developing a nuclear program, a nuclear weapons program for some time, and our position in the United States now, under the new administration, is to try to work with them, to talk with them to stop them with their nuclear development program. And if they don't, we're going to try to get a sanctions bill passed. Now, we have a bill sponsored by the chairman of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Berman, that has over 300 cosponsors--I happen to be one of them--and we believe we ought to bring that bill to the floor as quickly as possible to try to put pressure on Iran to stop the development of the nuclear weapons program. But the administration, I think, has suggested we should wait. They were trying to bring China and Russia on board, and China and Russia are not going to be on board. So we should do it by ourselves and we should do it expeditiously. Let me tell you why I think it's so important. If Iran continues down this path, Israel--whom Iran has said they want to destroy--will have no choice but to defend itself. They cannot let Iran develop a nuclear bomb and a delivery system. If they do that, they will be able to destroy Israel and millions of Jews in Israel in a very short period of time. It will be another Holocaust. So what will happen? If they get too far down the path, if we don't put pressure on them to stop--and they don't stop--I believe Israel will have no choice but to attack Iran. And if they attack Iran, that could end up in being a major conflagration in the entire Persian Gulf area. Now, why is that important to us? We get 35 to 40 percent of our energy from the Persian Gulf area. If that goes up in smoke, we will lose 35 to 40 percent of the energy that we have in this country because we're not energy independent. The lights that we have, the gasoline in our cars, the fuel we use to heat our houses, everything that needs energy will suffer, and we will have severe economic problems if this problem isn't dealt with before a tragedy occurs over there. This really bothers me. We tried to work with North Korea some time ago during the Clinton administration. We even had an agreement with them that they would stop their nuclear development program if we gave them some things, and we did. And what did they do? They lied and they went ahead with their program, and they are a nuclear power. They're using missiles that would be intercontinental in scope, testing them over the sea of Japan right now. And they've done that a number of times. So we have to worry about them. We have to worry about North Korea and what they're going to do next. Can you imagine what it will be like once Iran develops a nuclear weapons program? They are committed to destroying Israel. They are committed to forcing their view of religion and religious beliefs on much of the rest of the world, and it could be a real problem for us. They don't like America very much either. And so we have a myriad of problems facing us if we don't get on with putting as much pressure as possible on Iran and doing it right now. As we speak, they're developing their nuclear weapons program. They said they're going to let U.N. nuclear experts come in and police the area and see what they're doing. I don't believe that. I believe they will let us see one or two spots, but they're going to go on with their nuclear development program. We must put pressure on them now. We must put pressure on them immediately, because if we don't, we're toying with a major problem, a major economic problem for America as well as a possible holocaust in that part of the world in the very near future.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I was reading the Roll Call newspaper today, and on the front page it says, ``New Economic Plan Weighed, But `Stimulus' Label Shunned.'' It says, ``Democrats are scrambling to define a new plan to boost the economy as unemployment hurtles toward double digits, after months of insisting that talk of another stimulus package was premature.'' Just don't call the as-yet-unwritten new proposal ``stimulus.'' Shakespeare said a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. They're talking about another stimulus bill. And everybody in this country knows that the $787 billion stimulus, and with interest it's over $1 trillion, did not work. The President said that unemployment would not go over 8 percent. It's over 9.5 percent right now. And the Democrats are scared to death it's going to go to 10 percent, so they are coming up with another plan, stimulus, to get the economy moving so there won't be any more unemployment. It won't work. It won't work just taking government money and throwing it at the problem. It creates more deficits, it's going to cause more inflation down the road, and it's going to cost higher taxes, but it's not going to create jobs. The thing that creates jobs is giving Americans more disposable income in their paychecks. The thing that creates jobs is for businessmen and industry people to have more money so they can buy more equipment and more plants so they can produce more products that people can buy. And then the employees, because they have more money because their taxes have been lowered, can buy it. That's what Ronald Reagan knew. Ronald Reagan cut taxes when he came in. We were in a very bad economic time back in the early eighties. A lot of people don't remember that, but they were very bad coming out of the Carter administration. So he came in and they said, You've got to raise taxes. You've got to throw money at it. And he said he thought we ought to do just the opposite. We ought to give people some of their money back by lowering taxes. We ought to give business and industry some of their money back so they can invest more, and that would create a rising tide that would raise all boats. And you know what? It did. And it created the longest period of economic expansion in the history of this country. Now, today the President wants to solve the problem by taking taxpayers' money, raising taxes, coming out with new programs that are spending billions of dollars and then throwing money at it. It will not work. If they come up with another stimulus package and they throw all of this money at it that we don't have, we will have to print more and we will have inflation because of it, and that will raise taxes. Then the unemployment rate will continue to rise because people won't have disposable income to spend. And many of them will be losing their jobs because businesspeople will be cutting back and laying people off or going offshore. The fact of the matter is raising taxes right now, throwing more taxpayers' money that we don't have at the problem, will not solve it. The thing that will solve it, if I were talking to the President--and I hope maybe someday he will be listening--is, Mr. President, cut taxes on the individual, cut taxes on business and industry. Give us more disposable income and people will buy products. And when they buy products, we will create products. And when we create products, we will create jobs. That is the answer. Ronald Reagan knew it, but President Obama doesn't, but maybe he will get the message before long. Where we are heading right now is toward a socialist economy, a government-run socialist economy like the Europeans are doing. It hasn't worked there; it won't work here. Mr. Obama, Mr. President--if I were talking to him, I hope he will listen--cut taxes. Do what Ronald Reagan did and you will solve the problem.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I ran into one of my constituents last week, a fellow named Jim Byers, and he said, You know, if you guys could balance the budget, I'll bet you could reach an agreement on health care. And he said, Why don't you talk to your Democrat colleagues about giving a guarantee that they'll balance the budget in a reasonable length of time? And if they'll do that then you'll probably be able to work out the health care differences that you have. And so I got today the figures on the Baucus bill coming out of the Senate, $487 billion in new taxes, and probably a couple of trillion dollars over the next 10 years. So I'd just like to say to my colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle, let's get together and figure out a way to balance the budget. And if we can do that, then we could solve the problem of health care. All of us who are privileged to serve in this Chamber are deeply involved in the nationwide debate on health care. Currently, the Democrat Majority in Congress is trying to craft a single health insurance reform bill from the bits and pieces of four competing alternatives not to mention President Obama's ``plan'' which has never been put on paper. At the moment we do not know what, if anything, the House of Representatives will vote on. I have made my views clear. I have said over and over on this Floor and in my town hall meetings that I will not support, and I will strongly work to defeat the House Democrats' government take-over. Here are some straightforward reasons why I oppose the bill: Health care costs will go up for the government and everyone else. As many as 2 out of 3 Americans will lose their current health coverage and be forced into the government-run plan. Raising taxes on small businesses is the wrong solution for an economy in a recession. The new government run plan will lead to fewer choices and rationing. I support health care reform that would expand opportunities for small businesses to band together to purchase high-quality health care for their employees at more affordable prices, and medical liability reform legislation to eliminate expensive defensive medicine. Unfortunately these proposals have been blocked. If either of these two proposals were law today, we would be starting at a very different place with health reform. What the House Democrats are proposing goes far beyond fixing the problems we all know need to be addressed. The House bill is a complete upheaval of our current system. That is why the bill lacks bipartisan support. As the Democrats in Congress choose to focus the debate about health care reform on creating a government run health plan, they are ignoring another important issue that directly relates to health care reform. That is the issue of balancing the budget, which has not been given much attention in this debate by the Democrat Majority. This has not gone unnoticed in my Congressional District. Earlier this week, one of my constituents named Jim Byers stopped me to talk about what we are doing here in Congress to balance the budget. Sadly, I did not have an answer for him. For now, it looks as if this Congress has decided to take the issue of balancing the budget off the table. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday said that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 totaled about $1.4 trillion, a $950 billion increase over the shortfall posted in fiscal year 2008. The deficit now represents 9.9 percent of the gross domestic product. While revenues were down nearly $420 billion (17%) below receipts in fiscal year 2008, outlays increased by over $530 billion (18%), in fiscal year 2009. About $245 billion of the spending increase resulted from outlays for TARP. Since the fall of 2008, Congress has spent: TARP--Original Cost: $700 Billion. Democrat Stimulus: Base Cost = $787 billion; Stimulus: Cost with Interest = $1.1 trillion. FY 2009 Omnibus: Total Spending: $410 billion. FY 2009 Defense Supplemental: $105.9 Billion. State Children's Health Insurance (SCHIP) Reauthorization: $73.3 Billion. This time around, the Majority is trying to ram through a health care reform bill that--by some estimates will cost upwards of $1 trillion over the next 10 years. How does this level of spending square with the goal of balancing the budget? It can't be done, unless of course, we are prepared to raise taxes or cut Medicare to the tune of $500 billion. I agree with Mr. Byers. We have to start taking concrete steps to balance the budget. I sincerely believe that if the Democrats commit to balancing the budget then a bipartisan agreement on health care reform can be achieved. If not, and they continue to walk down the path of dismantling our Nation's current health insurance system without any regard to the Federal budget and future deficits, I will fight them every step of the way. We need to start talking about the other half of the health care debate--the budget. If we move forward on health care reform without any solid commitment to balancing the budget we are most certainly doomed to a future of uncontrollable deficits.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, we all support our troops. I don't think anybody doubts that. So why are we adding a hate crimes amendment to this bill? Why are we doing social engineering on the backs of our troops on a defense bill? I think it is being done for political purposes. I think that there are people on the other side that want to put Republicans in a political trick bag in the next election, and I think that is very unfortunate. We should be worrying about the defense of this Nation and the men and women fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq today. We should not be doing social engineering on this bill. It is just wrong. I think it is being done for political purposes. I just say to my colleagues on the other side who are doing it, shame on you.