Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Well, first of all, I want to thank the Rules Committee for making this amendment in order, and I don't think it's controversial. I hope my colleague agrees with that. Back in the summer of 2007, Amtrak was trying to get more passengers on their luxury line, and so they decided that they would give people a $100 coupon to get free alcohol on the trip. It was a way to try to encourage ridership. Well, unfortunately, that didn't work, and 1 year later the GrandLuxe line on Amtrak shut down, and they no longer have used the $100 incentive by giving people $100 worth of alcohol to ride the train. And so what my amendment does is--very simply says that that will not be included in any future Amtrak legislation, that we will no longer be giving free alcohol as an incentive for people to ride the train. And I might add, with all of the rail accidents we've had recently, it's probably a darn good idea. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Well, thank you very much. You know, I learned one thing a long time ago, Mr. Chairman. When you've got everything going the right way, you shut up. So with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I've been in this House for a long time and I've served with a number of Presidents. I've served with a number of Democrat and Republican Speakers. I've served with colleagues that are very good friends of mine that are Democrats and Republicans, and I've never had a problem getting along with them. And even though we have strong differences with my Democrat colleagues, at least I felt they were fair most of the time. In fact, they always tried to be fair. And I've talked to the majority leader about problems. We've talked to a lot of the Members that are chairmen of committees about problems, and they've been very fair in most cases. But I have never, ever seen anything like this. This is a chart that shows the Democrats' health care plan. We've been talking about it tonight. Kevin Brady worked this up, and it's very, very accurate. It shows all of the committees or agencies that are going to be created that the American people are going to have to go through to get health care. There are 31 new Federal agencies, commissions and mandates that will come between the patient and their doctor. Now, we have had problems dealing with the post office. The post office has had their stamps going up because they're not making the profit that they should. We have problems with HHS. We have problems with the automobile industry now that's now called Obama Motors. We have all kinds of problems right now because government cannot handle the things that the private sector can. Now, we do need to improve health care. We need to make some changes that will be positive, and the Republicans have a plan to do that, but to say that that is something that we should not show the American people is really tragic. It is censorship. The American people have a right to know. We're their elected representatives. I represent almost 700,000 people in Indiana, and a lot of them are calling, asking what this new health care plan's going to do to them, and we wanted to send this out to those people so that they could see with their own eyes what they're going to have to go through to get health care, how much it's going to cost and how long it will take. But they're saying, the Democrats are saying we cannot send this out to our constituents. That is just wrong. It's censorship. And in all years I've been in this body, I've never seen anything like this. There have been a lot of differences with the Speakers of the Democrats in the past, but there's never, ever been anything like this. And I'd say to the Speaker if she were here tonight, ``Change this, Madam Speaker. This is something that even you should never tolerate, the censorship of a Member of Congress from telling his constituents what's really going on around here, especially when their health care is concerned.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I can't believe it. The Democrats have 70-some more Members in this Chamber than we do, and yet they're afraid to let the American people know what's in their health plan. This thing, I call it a thing, has 31 new Federal agencies, commissions and mandates in it, and that's between the doctor and their patient. And the American people have a right to know these things, and they're saying we can't put it on our Web site. We can't mail it to our constituents. We can't tell them about it. That is censorship. They shouldn't have to worry. With 70-some more votes than we have, they ought to be able to do anything they want to in this House. But even Democrats don't like this plan. That's why they can't get it out of the House and can't even get it out of committee right now. The American people have a right to know. Censorship should never happen in the House of Representatives, the people's House, and I'd say to the Speaker, let's get with it. The American people should see what they're going to get if they pass your plan.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. There's been an awful lot of misinformation about the Democrat health care proposal, Mr. Speaker, and so I would like to take just a couple of minutes tonight to talk to my colleagues about what's really happening and what will happen if this bill becomes law. According to the Lewin Group, there will be 114 million Americans who could lose their current coverage under the bill according to this organization. 4.7 million is the number of the jobs that could be lost as a result of taxes on businesses that cannot afford to provide health care insurance coverage according to a model developed by the Council of Economic Advisors; $818 billion in total new taxes on individuals who cannot afford health care coverage and employers who cannot afford to provide coverage that meet the Federal bureaucrat standards; $1.28 trillion in new Federal spending in the next 10 years, but some believe it will be as much as $3 trillion. And then there are 33 entitlement programs the bill creates, expands, or extends in an increase from where we are right now. This is the organizational chart of the health care plan the Democrats are proposing. The white spots are new agencies that will be created or will be added to the plan, and it's going to be a real maze for Americans to go through in order to get health care. It will result, in my opinion, in most people's opinions who study this, in rationing of health care and additional cost to the taxpayers of this country to the tune of between $1 trillion and $3 trillion over a decade. Now, I just want to quote some of the things that have been said by our leaders over the past few days about this plan. Yesterday, President Obama, when he was talking about this, said that this bill will not add to the deficit. He said: I will not sign a bill that adds to the deficit. Period. That is a direct quote from the President yesterday. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the House bill, this bill, will add $239 billion to the deficit. So either the Congressional Budget Office or the President is wrong because it is going to add to the deficit, according to CBO. Representative Charlie Rangel, one of my good friends here in the Congress, was commenting on President Obama and Speaker Pelosi by saying he thought they were moving too fast. He was overheard to say yesterday or day before yesterday: No one wants to tell the Speaker that she's moving too fast and they darn sure don't want to tell the President. He was on his way to a closed door meeting about this because there is an awful lot of concern about this bill, even among Democrats. Speaker Pelosi, in a front page interview in USA Today, said: Many Members think that there's more to be squeezed from the hospitals, the pharmaceutical companies and the docs. Squeeze them. And I hope all of those institutions are listening. Joe Biden, the Vice President, said: We're going to go bankrupt as a Nation, he warned at an event in Virginia last week. He continued: People, when I say that, look at me and say, What are you talking about, Joe? You're telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt? And he says, yes, we do have to spend more money to keep from going bankrupt. Now that's something that is new to me. I have never heard that you can spend your way out of bankruptcy. And the White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, told the New York Times that Obama intends to use tonight's press conference, that is going to happen this evening, as a ``6-month report card,'' and he is going to talk to the American people about ``how we've rescued the economy from the worst recession'' and that we're moving forward with our legislative agenda. Now if they've rescued us from the worst recession, I'd like to know how we're going to explain to the American people that we are very rapidly approaching 10 percent unemployment when just a month or so ago they said it wouldn't go above 8 percent, and how when they said they weren't going to spend us into the red anymore, and we're looking at trillions of dollars of additional spending. So tonight I hope everybody watches the President and listens to him. But I hope they ask themselves, are things better today than they were 6 months ago, when you took office, or are they worse? Because he's going to tell you everything is coming up roses.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, this chart is not a spaghetti dinner. It may look like it, but it's the Democrats' health care plan. If you were a person out in the hinterlands, looking at this, you would think, How in the world am I going to get health care coverage for me and for my family if I have to go through all of that? It's going to cost trillions of dollars--trillions. In addition to that, there are going to be jobs created, 4.7 million jobs in China and in India, and their energy bill, cap-and-trade, is going to create 2.5 million new jobs in India and in China because it's going to drive jobs offshore because the small businesspeople will not be able to afford to pay all of these bills and taxes that the government is creating right now. The Democrats need to do something. They need to cut taxes and help the small businessman make a profit and create new jobs. If they do that, we will have jobs, but right now, we don't know where the jobs are. Unemployment was supposed to cap at 8 percent. In Indiana, it's close to 10 percent. It's going to go to 12, 14, 15 percent if they don't change and change now.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the President over the past few days has been telling the American people, Trust me. This health care plan we're talking about is going to be a great thing for America. It's not going to cost Americans a lot of money. It's going to provide better quality of care, and nobody will be left out. So I decided to go through what the President has promised on other occasions just to see if he deviates from his plans when it's more convenient for him. For instance, let's just go through some of the things he has promised. He said Americans and the Members of Congress would get 5 days to read bills that were going to affect the American people. We've had bills that we didn't get until 3 a.m. in the morning that were 1,100- pages long, and we had to vote on them that very same day. There's no way to read 1,100 pages of legalese and have them understood in just a few hours. He said no lobbyists would be in his administration. There are lobbyists, a number of them, in his administration. He said no taxes on those making under $250,000. That's not true. We've already levied taxes on people making under $250,000. He said no earmarks and no pork-barrel projects. In the omnibus spending bill which he signed recently, there were 8,000 pork-barrel projects in that bill. He said there was going to be openness in the health care debate. There has been not a great deal of openness, and a lot of it has been conducted behind closed doors. He said the people were going to see almost every aspect of it because he was going to have roundtable discussions throughout the entire debate. He said he was going to cull spending and there would be no new taxes on people under $250,000. This is the highest amount of spending since World War II. There's been $1.4 trillion in new taxes. He said he was going to cut each budget of each cabinet by a hundred million dollars. That has not yet been accomplished. He said he was going to try to block and oversee the problems with the TARP plan, that $700 billion. He said there would be no Big Government, but there's been a takeover of the auto industry, the financial industry, the energy industry, the health care industry, and it's the largest budget in history that he proposes. He said that he would allow people to withdraw from their 401(k) accounts without any penalty if they were unemployed and having a difficult time. That was not in the stimulus bill. He said there would be a $3,000 tax credit for every person hired by business. That was not in the stimulus bill. And then, of course, we come to the health care plan. He said this plan is going to be very good for America, and I want all of my colleagues to take a good look at this plan of the Democrats' health care proposal which the President supports. All of the white spots are new agencies that are going to be making determinations about people's health care. It looks more like a roadmap that's been messed up. You can't figure it out. You have to go from here over to there to get health care, and it's going to cost a great deal of money. In fact, the plan is supposed to cost, we believe, between 1 and 3 trillion dollars, that's 1 and 3 trillion dollars that we don't have that's going to have to be raised through tax increases and fees, and this is going to be part of it. They're going to end up taxing everybody for this health care plan. And finally, this is going to result in about 4.7 million jobs lost, because when small business in America has to pay for this conglomeration of health care, they're going to have to cut back on employment of their employees, and a lot of those jobs will probably go overseas. This is a terrible thing for America right now. And the reason I bring all of the things up that the President has promised, he's promising the American people a very good health plan. Trust him, everything is going to be fine. There is nothing to worry about. And yet it's going to cost so much money, it's going to cost rationing of health care, and it's going to cost everybody in this country and the future generations a great deal of money that we don't have. And I think that is a heck of a legacy to leave to our young children and our posterity. I want to end by reading what was in the Wall Street Journal on the front page: Congress' chief budget scorekeeper casts a new cloud over Democrats' efforts to overhaul the Nation's health care system, telling lawmakers Thursday that the main proposals being considered would fail to contain costs. They say it will, but this article and this man says it will not. It will not contain costs, one of the primary goals, and could actually worsen the problem of radically escalating medical spending. I hope everybody in the House is paying attention to this.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, Monday July 20, 2009 marked the 35th anniversary of the day in 1974 that Turkey intervened to stop an ethnic cleansing campaign against Turkish Cypriots by militant Greek Cypriots. And as usual, a number of my colleagues have come to the floor of this Chamber over the last few days and weeks to lament the so-called ``invasion'' of Cyprus by Turkey. For many years I have taken to the Floor to no avail to respectfully ask my colleagues to lay aside the inflammatory rhetoric and stop throwing barbs at the Turkish Cypriots and Turkey in an attempt to lay all the blame for this complicated issue at their doorstep. This year my call takes on an even more urgent ring. All of us in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, want to see peace and prosperity come to all the people of Cyprus. We may be closer to peace on Cyprus today then at any time since 2004 when the U.N. plan for a settlement (the Annan Plan) won the support of Turkish Cypriots--by a clear majority of 65%--but failed to win the support of Greek Cypriots--who led by their leadership rejected it by even a larger majority of 76%. By continuing to distort the facts though we are potentially undermining our good faith efforts to see this conflict resolved. Since the rejection of the Annan Plan, the Greek Cypriot side has been trying to argue that the plan ``did not meet the interests of the country'' and that ``it did not provide for guarantees to ensure the complete implementation of commitments under the plan''. However, the fact is that impartial European Union diplomats, closely associated with the reconciliation effort, have said publicly and very undiplomatically, that the Greek Cypriot people had been ``lied to'' by the Greek Cypriot government as to the details of the Annan plan. As public servants I think the members of this House understand that no compromise worth its salt ever fully meets all of the demands of either side, nor could it do so or it wouldn't be much of a compromise. The fact is that the Annan Plan was a carefully balanced compromise that certainly from the Turkish Cypriot perspective represented immense sacrifices on the part of the Turkish Cypriots, on such key issues as land, resettlement, property and security. The Greek government and several former Greek government leaders fully supported the plan and the Turkish government was also pivotal in encouraging the Turkish Cypriots to approve the plan. In the end, the only people who were not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to bring peace to this troubled island were the Greek Cypriots. This is a critically important point to reiterate Madam Speaker; when offered the chance to vote for peace which side rejected peace, Turkish or Greek? The answer is Greek. To their credit, Turkish Cypriots continue to seek a settlement to the issue. This is testament to their hope for the future; and the latest round of direct negotiations between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots began in September 2008. These talks following a joint statement issued on May 23, 2008 where the two leaders reaffirmed their commitment to a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation with political equality, as defined by relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The statement adds ``This partnership will have a Federal Government with a single international personality, as well as a Turkish Cypriot Constituent State and a Greek Cypriot Constituent State, which will be of equal status.'' As recently as June 2009 Turkish Cypriot President Talat declared his support to ``find a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem as soon as possible and make Cyprus a full-fledged member of the European Union as a unified Cyprus. That is our main target and the ongoing negotiations I hope will lead to an ultimate solution.'' Are negotiations proceeding as rapidly and as smoothly as everyone would like; no, but progress is being made. And it is important to remember that the Cyprus conflict is more complex and convoluted then portrayed by many of my colleagues. This conflict did not start in 1974 as many people want to believe. Instead, the origins of the conflict can be traced back to the Greek Cypriot drive for Union with Greece (Enosis), a movement with roots in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire. Even the more modern history of the conflict, stems from the 1950s and 1960s rather then 1974. The fact is that when the Island of Cyprus gained its independence from Great Britain in 1960, the Republic's constitution specifically defined a power-sharing arrangement which required a Greek Cypriot president and a Turkish Cypriot vice-president, each elected by their constituency. The fact is that in 1963 Greek Cypriot President Makarios proposed sweeping constitutional modifications which heavily favored the Greek Cypriot community. The changes removed most of the checks and balances which had been built into the constitution to ensure the safety and equal status of the Turkish Cypriots. The inevitable result was a serious deterioration of relations between the two parties which came to a head in December 1963 when armed Greek Cypriots attacked and killed many Turkish Cypriots who were unable to escape. The armed conflict quickly spread with the Turkish Cypriots eventually being forced to withdraw into enclaves to defend themselves. For the next ten years, the campaign of the Greek Cypriots cost the Turkish Cypriots many lives and untold suffering, as well as their equal partnership status in the Cyprus government. Former United States Undersecretary of State, George Ball, who, among others, was actively dealing with the crisis at the time, remarked in his memoirs entitled The Past Has Another Pattern, that Makarios has turned: ``This beautiful little island into his private abattoir'' (P. 341). Ball went on to say that: ``Makarios'' central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on happily massacring the Turkish Cypriots'' (p. 345). The fact is that in 1974, Archbishop of Cyprus Makarios--the Greek Cypriot leader at the time--escalated the crisis by embracing Enosis, or Union with Greece, as his election platform. Although Makarios won reelection he also created a power struggle between the military junta in control of mainland Greece and himself for the control over the Island. That power struggle culminated in a coup which forced Makarios to flee Cyprus and renewed ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots. In his address to the UN Security Council on July 19, 1974, Makarios himself described the coup as ``a clear attack from the outside and a flagrant violation of the independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus''. The fact is that in the face of a bloody coup that not only threatened the independence of Cyprus but also resulted in renewed massacres of Turkish Cypriots, Turkey, which was treaty-bound to act as a Guarantor State, was compelled to undertake action on July 20, 1974. And the fact is that as a result of this legitimate and timely action, Turkish Cypriots were saved from imminent destruction, bloodshed among the Greek Cypriots was ended and the independence of Cyprus was protected. The fact is that the Turkish intervention was legitimate and was internationally confirmed by, among others, the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe (CACE). CACE resolution 573, dated July 29, 1974, clearly states, ``Turkey exercised its right of intervention in accordance with Article IV of the Guarantee Treaty of 1960.'' The fact is that Greek Cypriots, having already forestalled UN efforts to resolve the Cyprus issue--and been inexplicably rewarded for it through EU membership--may not truly feel under pressure to seek a just solution as the status quo benefits Greek Cypriots significantly more than Turkish Cypriots. Madam Speaker, facts are stubborn things; and as the facts in this case clearly show, the crisis on Cyprus is significantly more complex than the ``blame Turkey'' special interest groups would like people to believe. The facts also show it seems to me that if either side has an incentive to drag its feet at the negotiations; and I'm not suggesting necessarily that either side does, but if one side did, it would be the Greek Cypriots. It's time for the ``blame Turkey'' groups here in the United States to end the `blame game' and redirect their misspent energies towards the real work of reshaping Cyprus into a Cyprus that respects human rights and the fundamental freedoms for all Cypriots. And it's time for the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots to demonstrate political will and negotiate in good faith for the future of all Cypriots.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I want my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to listen to what happens when you have socialized medicine. This is a Canadian story I'm going to tell you about. In fact, there is more than one. This is from Shona Holmes. She is a Canadian. She says that after suffering from crushing headaches and vision problems, she was diagnosed with a brain tumor 4 years ago. She was told if it wasn't removed, she could go blind or even die. American doctors at the Mayo Clinic said to me, you have a brain tumor pressing on your optic chasm, and it needs to come out immediately. Holmes was told by her doctor in Canada that she had to wait 4 months before she could see an endocrinologist and 6 months for a neurologist. She is a Canadian, and she says that the doctors at the Mayo Clinic where she turned to got to her right away because they couldn't get to her fast enough in Canada. She ended up having to pay about $100,000 because they couldn't take care of the problem in Canada, as that health care system was supposed to do. She and her husband were forced to put a second mortgage on their home and borrow money from family and friends. Here is another story: a prime example is the Kingston General Hospital in Ontario where they have staggering delays. Senator McConnell in the other body claims that on average there is a 340-day wait for knee replacements and a 196-day wait for hip replacements. The chief of staff of that hospital says, In our Canada health care system, we are looking at what we have to do to prioritize patients. They are on somebody's waiting list if they have a problem. They have to wait. Another Canadian, Rick Hession, has a heart condition that could cause a stroke. But he has a 3-month or more wait for an operation to correct it. Socialized medicine, government-controlled health care, does not work. It costs a lot of money, you have to wait, and they ration care. This is the program that the Democrats are promising. And all of these white areas are new agencies of government that you're going to have to go through to get your health care. It is going to cost between $1 trillion and $3 trillion over the next decade. That is money we don't have, money we are going to have to print or borrow. It is going to cause inflation. So we not only have a health care problem we are going to create that will be much worse than anything we face today, something that is going to be equivalent to what they are doing in Canada and England, which does not provide care for those people, but it rations care and it costs through the nose. The American people need to know these facts. And my colleagues on the Democrat side are trying to rush this through before the August recess so the American people won't know what all this means. I think it is a tragedy. We need more time so the American people can realize what they are going to have to experience if we get a socialized, Canadian-style health care program.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, there have been some real tragedies because of the way the economy, in general, has been handled and how the automobile industry, in particular, has been handled. I received a letter from a lady named Jane Denney from Wabash, Indiana, in my district. She talks about how her family has owned an automobile dealership for the last 75 years. Her husband was the head of all the mechanical work there. He was a service manager. And General Motors was sending all kinds of equipment there and all kinds of supplies, urging and almost mandating that they buy that. They also mandated that they consider buying a Pontiac dealership there, which they did buy. Then, after they bought the Pontiac dealership and bought all this equipment, General Motors contacted them and said they were going to do away with their dealership, and they did not indicate in any way that they would make restitution for the expenses that these people had to bear. They owe money for the dealership. They owe money for the supplies. They owe money for all of this, and the rug has just been jerked out from under them. That is an American tragedy, something that should not happen. And the way this government and this administration has handled this and the way the auto companies have handled this is a real tragedy. Dear Mr. Burton: Thank you for speaking out for the auto dealerships today. My husband's family recently were told they would be closing after 75 years. My husband is the service manager and GM keeps sending him essential tools which he must pay for and cannot send back for new cars they will not send him. They have parts they had to stock but GM won't buy back. In recent years they bought the local Pontiac dealership because GM wanted they to. Now they owe for it and won't be paid by GM for the franchise. I am a teacher and also feel the ISTA was treated unfairly. I cannot believe this is happening in the USA. I am glad I voted for you and appreciate your speaking out for us. I feel so powerless again all that is happening. God bless you.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the amendment. We really need to move toward using natural gas. It is a clean- burning fuel, and we have a huge supply of it in this country. In fact, down in Louisiana just recently, they discovered probably one of the biggest finds of natural gas in the whole world. As I said, it is a clean-burning fuel, and we need to transition from our dependency on foreign oil. If we continue at the pace we're heading right now, over the next 10 years, we will see a transfer of $10 trillion of our money to countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and many of those are not friends of ours. So this is a great step in the right direction. I want to congratulate Mr. Boren on the amendment. You're doing good work.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, this is not a roadmap. This is the Democrats' new health care plan, all of these white things. Can you believe that? I was just talking to my colleague over there, Mr. Poe from Texas. All of these white things are new agencies of government, new agencies of government that we're going to have to pay for in order to take care of the health of the Nation. Now, this thing is going to cost between $1 and $3 trillion over the next 10 years, and I doubt seriously if anybody who is writing this 1,200-page bill, or whatever it is, knows what this stuff does. It's just crazy. Look at all of these agencies. Look at the minefields that people have to go through to get to their doctors down there at the end to take care of their health care needs. Other countries that have used this kind of an approach ration health care for senior citizens. They ration health care for people who have certain kinds of diseases. They have to wait months and months and months for MRIs and for other things that we would get very rapidly here in the United States because we have the highest quality of health care in the world, and so we are going to create a government bureaucracy. I hope my colleagues back in their offices are looking at this, because most of them haven't seen this. We are creating a government bureaucracy that looks worse than any Federal highway system like in California. I mean you can't even find your way around this thing, but that's not the worst of it. Since last October, this is how much money we've spent: $700 billion on the TARP program, which includes $54 billion for the auto bailout, which we really didn't need to do because they filed for bankruptcy anyhow, so that $54 billion was wasted. Who cares. That's just taxpayers' money. Then we had $1.1 trillion, including interest, for the stimulus package, which is not working, because they said that was going to keep unemployment below 8 percent. Now it is 9.5 and is going up like a rocket, so that didn't work. That's $1.1 trillion. On the omnibus spending bill, we had $410 billion. The defense supplemental was $106 billion. Now, there may have been some necessity for that. The SCHIP bill was $73 billion. The cap-and-trade is going to cost every family in this country between $1,000 and $3,000 a year in additional expenses for turning on their lights or for putting gasoline in their cars or for getting gas to heat their homes. Then there's this health care bill, which will be $1 trillion to $3 trillion, and I'll tell you: It is going to be a lot more than that. Let me tell you a little story, my colleagues who may be paying attention. When I was a state senator, the Federal Government came into Indiana and said, If you don't take the Medicaid bill, we're going to withdraw $2.5 million in Federal highway funds. They were blackmailing the State of Indiana into taking the Medicaid program by saying that we were going to lose $2.5 million if we didn't take it. I went up to the Senate floor, and I said, Hey, it's going to cost us 10 times this amount of money if we do take Medicaid. I said it would cost about $25 million. Do you know how much that costs now? Between $1 billion and $2 billion a year. I was so far off it isn't funny. This thing right here is not going to cost $1 trillion to $3 trillion. It's going to cost trillions more than that. It's going to reduce the quality of health care. It's going to cause the rationing of health care, and it's going to ruin the system of health care we have in this country. It's just a tragedy that this is happening. This administration is moving as rapidly as they can toward a socialistic form of government, and everybody in this country ought to know it. They are trying to control and are controlling the investment business, the banking business, the automobile business; with cap-and- trade, they're controlling the energy business; and now the health care business. This is really a tragic time for America, and I hope everybody in this country who may be paying attention will really take a close look at this and will call their Congressman if they are paying attention. I know I can't address them, Mr. Speaker, but if I were addressing the American people, I would say, Contact your Congressman and tell him you don't want this mess passed into law. It is going to jeopardize the quality of your health care here in America.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the people of this country want to know how we're going to pay for this health care plan that the Democrat majority is going to put forth. Last week, on ``Fox News Sunday,'' Mr. Wallace asked this question of Congressman Hoyer, the majority leader, he said, How are you going to pay for it specifically? What taxes are you willing to raise, and are you going to tax health care benefits? And Mr. Hoyer said, ``Well, I'm not going to go into--that's a proposal on the table in the Senate, not in the House, as you know. The pay-fors are going to be tough. Nobody wants to pay for what we're buying. And very frankly, our financial status in America has gone down.'' In other words, he didn't want to tell how the American people were going to have to pay for that program. And then the President of the United States, at his town meeting last week, said, Now, one-third of it we're going to pay for by increased revenues--that's increased taxes--and the cost will be between $1 trillion and $3 trillion, probably closer to $3 trillion. So he's saying they're going to have to raise at least $1 trillion in new taxes. And then he went on to say about two-thirds of it would come from reallocating money that's currently in the system. Now, where in the world are they going to get $2 trillion out of other programs to pay for the extra two-thirds? The people of this country are being hoodwinked. This health care program they're talking about, this socialized medicine, is going to cost an arm, a leg, a lot of taxes, and inflation because they're going to spend money we do not have.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the people of this country many times get so frustrated because they think that we here in Congress don't hear them, we don't listen to them. I have a couple of letters here I would like to read into the Record--at least part of them--so that my colleagues in the House can get some flavor for what the people in mid-America are thinking right now. This letter is from a lady named Emmaline P. Henn in Huntington, Indiana. And she says: ``Dear Congressman Burton, it was great to hear you and speak with you at Huntington's Lincoln Day Dinner, but we want to stress the things we said then. We do have confidence in you''-- which I really appreciate. She says: ``We are appalled by what is happening in Washington. Now in our 80s, we have seen many administrations; none has been as frightening as this one. In less than 6 months, President Obama and his team have drawn the U.S. Government deep into private business. The government's business is governing, not business. ``There is no doubt the President and his team have taken us far on the road to socialism, so far that we fear there may be no return. Their spending is out of this world, and it will not save the economy. ``In the long run, bailouts don't work. The health care issue, the credit card issue, the card check issue, and more, are taking us far from free enterprise and are causing many citizens to give up on self- reliance and responsibility in favor of relying on the government. There is little incentive for talented people to innovate, work hard, and create business. What a terrible lesson. ``We pray you fight for this movement. At the same time, we pray you will support keeping the United States safe in every way you possibly can.'' You can hear the frustration in this lady by the way her letter sounds. But then there is another one here from a General Motors dealer in Wabash, Indiana. And I will just read part of this letter because I think it really--I want to put the whole thing in the Record, but I want to read part of it because it tells you the frustration that small business people have in this country. It is from David and Kay Dorais. And she says: ``My husband, David Dorais, and I are the owners and operators of Dorais Chevrolet in Wabash, Indiana. This business was started over 60 years ago by my husband's grandfather, Gus Dorais. ``Gus was the first All American in football from Notre Dame University. He came to Wabash, Indiana, from Detroit. He began a Chevrolet dealership operating under the philosophy of `give back to the community that has given so much to you.' This is the philosophy we have strived to operate under. ``We have always been extremely loyal to General Motors and to our community. Small business is what helped to build this great country of ours, and loyalty is what makes all of us successful. We have always given back whenever asked, often times without being asked. We have always paid taxes. We have always voted. We have always made contributions. We've always participated in the programs that General Motors asked us to participate in.'' And then they go on to say that they had an attorney that was talking to them about the way they're being treated by the government and by General Motors, which is now controlled by the government--Government Motors now, no longer General Motors. And they say: ``We are now no longer to be a part of the `new General Motors.' We are no longer good enough, even though we were part of the faction that helped to support them for years. ``Yesterday I listened to an attorney representing auto dealers speak. He is the first person I have heard make any sense in this mess. He asked, where are your elected representatives? Where are the elected officials that you donated to? Where are the elected officials that you voted for? He further added that these people never hesitated to ask for your help, but where are they now? The most important question asked was, why are you allowing them to turn their backs on you?'' And I would just like to say, if I were talking to my colleagues in the House, my friends in the Senate, or if I were talking to the President, I would say, it's time for us to pay attention to these people. Instead of putting everything under government control, instead of trying to bail out everything by printing money that we don't have, we ought to be cutting taxes like they did under Ronald Reagan. We cut taxes across the board when we had terrible problems back in the early eighties. We had 14 percent inflation, we had 12 percent unemployment--worse than we have right now, and when Reagan came in, instead of throwing money at everything what he did was said, we're going to give people some of their money back, we're going to cut their taxes. We're going to cut business taxes because if we do that, they will have more income and more money to spend on expanding our economy to buy products, to produce new products. And he did that. And because of that, we had one of the longest periods of economic expansion in this country's history. You compare that to what we're seeing today where businesses are being driven out of business. This business has been there for 60 years, and they're going out of business because we're trying to solve the problems by letting government solve everything. Sixty-one percent of General Motors is going to be run by the unions now, and we've spent $57 billion bailing these companies out when we could have done it the way Ronald Reagan did. I want to end by just saying I feel real frustration when I get these letters from my constituents, and I hope my colleagues are paying attention and the people at the White House are paying attention, because instead of printing more money and throwing more money and putting more government control in charge of everything, we ought to be giving the American people the right to have some of their money back so they can expand this economy, because government sure isn't doing it. June 3, 2008. Congressman Dan Burton, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Burton: My husband, David Dorais, and I are the owners and operators of Dorais Chevrolet in Wabash, Indiana. This business was started over 60 years ago by my husband's grandfather, Gus Dorais. Gus Dorais was the first All American in football from Notre Dame University. He came to Wabash, Indiana from Detroit. He began a Chevrolet dealership operating under the philosophy of ``give back to the community that has given so much to you''. This is the philosophy we have strived to operate under. We have always been extremely loyal to General Motors and to our community. Small business is what helped to build this great country of ours and loyalty is what makes all of us successful. We have always given back whenever asked, often times without being asked. We have always paid taxes. We have always voted. We have always made contributions. We have always participated in the programs that General Motors asked us to participate in. We have even participated in extra programs that General Motors did not request, such as an advertisement group. My husband served as an officer in this group for years. We employ many people, who also help to keep our community alive. We pay our employees a fair and honest wage and we provide insurance to them. We feel we have done everything that an American citizen should do. We have been voted Small Business of the Year in our community, the only auto dealer to receive this award. May 15th, 2009 we received a letter from General Motors that stated they will not be renewing our contract with them. Our American Dream became our American Nightmare. The Automotive Task Force (none of which drive American cars) handed down their decree. We are now no longer to be a part of the ``New General Motors''. We are no longer ``good enough'', even though we are a part of the faction that helped to support them for years. Yesterday I listened to the attorney representing auto dealers speak. He is the first person I have heard make any sense in this mess. He asked, where are your elected representatives? Where are the elected officials that you donated to? Where are the elected officials that you voted for? He further added that these people never hesitated to ask for your help, but where are they now. The most important question asked was, ``Why are you allowing them to turn their backs on you? These are the people that wanted your support to put them in their present position. It is a position that is to help the people. Where are they and why are you not furious that they are turning their backs on you''. It did give me reason to think. Politicians run on the premise of helping the people. Yet, when you are actually needed, where are you? Has a political office simply become a place to sit and receive a check? Are campaign promises simply empty words used to become elected. During the last election it was all about the Middle Class, all about small business, it was all about keeping business alive, it was all about keeping people employed. What happened? Was it all simply political rhetoric, business as usual. As previously stated, we are a small business. We do believe in helping and giving back. We believe in helping and supporting those around us. We have even managed to keep doing this in these difficult economic times. We are a small business in Wabash, Indiana that does give back in every way possible. We are a small business in which the owners do not take huge paychecks in order to give back to a community that we are loyal to. We received the Small Business Award because of our loyalty. It is our hope that this is not a word that has been forgotten in government. No, we are not as profitable as we once were. Yet these are difficult times and they will pass. Given the opportunity, we will again be profitable--even more profitable than in the past. It is our hope that you will look at this Small Business of the Year in Wabash, Indiana. Look at the contributions we make to the people who live here. It is our hope that you have not turned your back on us. Sincerely, David and Kay Dorais.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank my colleague for yielding. You know, I think the American people would like to see us debate the issues that they're very concerned about on this floor, and there are many of these issues we're not going to be able to debate because of this closed rule. I'd just like to cite a couple of amendments that I introduced that I think the American people, many of them, would really like to hear debated. One of them was a sense of Congress bill or amendment that would expand the economic sanctions against Iran. Iran is a terrorist state developing nuclear weapons. A sense of Congress resolution saying we should put severe economic standards on them, sanctions on them, and get our allies to do it, is something that should have been debated and passed, because I think Americans are concerned about this terrorist state and they want us to stop their nuclear program and to put pressure on them. Another amendment would have prohibited funds from being used to establish diplomatic or commercial ties in or with Iran until these changes are made, until they stop their nuclear development program, which threatens the Middle East oil supplies, our energy supplies, and the whole world. Finally, we had one that dealt with putting pressure on terrorist organizations until they recognize Israel's right to exist. I think all of us support Israel and we want to make sure Israel's right to exist is guaranteed. So why wouldn't we want to have an amendment on the floor which said that the organizations that are trying to destroy Israel should be put under extreme pressure to make sure that they recognize Israel's right to exist? Finally, one of the things that really concerns me is the United Nations is going to spend almost $900,000 in legal fees for Benon Sevan. He is the man who ran the Oil-for-Food program, and it was a corrupt program. He was working with Saddam Hussein. The man has fled the country. He has been charged with bribery and wire fraud, and the U.S. Federal and State prosecutors are looking for this guy, and they're using our taxpayer dollars to defend him, to help him with his legal fees. What I said in this amendment is we should withhold the amount of money that would go for his legal fees from our commitment to the United Nations, and I think the American people would agree with that. So I can't understand why the chairman and the members of the Rules Committee didn't make these in order. I hope in the future they will be a little more openminded about this, because the American people want these issues debated in the people's House.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, we have heard of the problems with the rule, but that's not the thing that really bothers me. What bothers me is how much money we're spending. Since last October, this is what we've spent: $700 billion for TARP; $70.3 billion for CHIP; $1.16 trillion, that includes the interest, for the stimulus bill; $625 billion, which includes interest, for the omnibus bill; $125 billion for the war supplemental. The American people are struggling right now because of the economy, and we're spending money like it's going out of style. This bill that we're talking about right now under this rule is going to have a $2.4 billion increase over last year. That's 12 percent. And if you compare that to fiscal year 2008, the budget that the programs under this bill operated under until passage of the omnibus in February, it's $4.8 billion more, or a 27 percent increase. And then they've also added $7.9 billion of emergency designated spending during the current fiscal year. Where in the world are we going to get this money? The American people are starting to realize that there is going to be very high inflation down the road because we can't pay for this stuff, so they're printing this money down at the Treasury Department. And when you print more money and it's chasing the same amount of goods and services, you're going to have inflation, and it's going to be high inflation. We had it in the early eighties when it was 14 percent, and they had to raise interest rates to 21 percent to stop the inflationary trend. And that is what's going to happen again if we don't get control of the spending. This is the wrong approach. We need to cut spending instead of keep blowing this money.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, due to mechanical difficulties involving my flight back to Washington, DC from Indianapolis, I was unable to be on the House Floor for roll call votes 478 and 479. Had I been present I would have voted aye on Roll Call vote 478-- Directing the Architect of the Capitol to place a marker in Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center which acknowledges the role that slave labor played in the construction of the United States Capitol; and nay on Roll Call vote 479--To create a new Federal grant program to facilitate an iron working training program for Native Americans.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and military service of Major Earl G. Anderson, Jr. who was recently named the 2009 Aviator of the Year at the Indianapolis Air Show. Born in Rockford, Illinois in 1920, twenty-two-year old Earl Anderson, Jr. enlisted in the United States Army Air Corps in April of 1942 leaving behind his wife Geraldine to serve his country in its time of need. By September 1943, Aviation Cadet Anderson had completed his State-side training and was assigned to the United States 15th Air Force flying The Consolidated B-24 Liberator bomber over Europe. The B- 24 was an American heavy bomber that still holds the record as the most produced U.S. military aircraft. Between December 1943 and June 1944 Major Anderson flew fifty-one successful combat missions against enemy targets before being shot down. He spent the remainder of the war as a Prisoner of War (POW) in a camp outside Munich, Germany. For his heroic and courageous flying, Major Earl Anderson, Jr. was awarded by order of the President of the United States the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal with 6 clusters, and the Distinguished Unit Badge with one cluster. Earl's prison camp was eventually liberated by allied troops in 1945 and after debriefing Earl was sent back to the United States to spend some time on furlough before returning to duty. Major Anderson continued serving both on active duty and as a member of the Reserves until he was Honorably Discharged in 1961. Fortunately for all Hoosiers, Earl's passion for aviation stayed with him after he left the service and he's been an active part of Indiana's aviation community for many years. Earl and his wife Geraldine (Gerrie) have been married for 67 years. They have two daughters, Marilyn and Barbara, and five grandchildren. I ask all of my colleagues to join me now to thank Major Earl Anderson, Jr. for his service and his sacrifices for our country, and to congratulate him on being named the 2009 Indiana Aviator of the Year.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, if this energy tax passes, the estimated job loss or my district is an average of 3,702 jobs per year from 2012 through 2035. If this bill passes it will mean financial ruin for thousands of my constituents. 5th CD Gross State Product Loss for 2012: $361.7 million 5th CD Gross State Product Loss on average from 2012-2035: $720.1 million 5th CD Personal Income Loss in 2012: $458.7 million 5th CD Personal Income Loss on average from 2012-2035: $265.7 million 5th CD Non-farm Job Loss in 2012: 4,552 5th CD Non-farm Job Loss on average from 2012-2035: 3,702 the consequences of cap and tax Over 1,200 pages long, H.R. 2454 contains four sections outlining mandates for renewable energy, mandates for energy efficiency, a cap- and-tax proposal, and a ``transitioning'' section focused on forestalling expected job loss. higher Energy Prices Every consumer will pay for this both directly and indirectly. Independent researchers, CBO, and the President all agree that this cost will be passed to consumers. every provision in the bill either increases the cost of energy directly or tried to keep it from increasing too much. Example: new federal renewable electricity standard that would likely cause electricity prices to spike. This is the ultimate regressive consumption tax to the tune of nearly $3,000 per year according to the Heritage Foundation. The costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 are estimated to be $71,493. fewer jobs Yesterday in the Rose Garden, President Obama said that Cap-and-Trade was a ``jobs bill.'' Yet many studies reports rampant job loss through the year 2035. A national energy tax would undoubtedly outsource millions of manufacturing jobs to countries such as China and India. According to the independent Charles River Associates International, H.R. 2454 would result in a ``net reduction in U.S. employment of 2.3 million to 2.7 million jobs each year of the policy through 2030,'' even after the ``creation'' of new green jobs. Green Jobs Are a Proven Failure: According to a recent study that reviewed the impact of ``green jobs'' in Spain, the U.S. can expect 2.2 jobs to be destroyed for every 1 renewable job financed by the government. Only 1 in 10 of the jobs actually created through green investment is permanent, and since 2000, Spain has spent 753,778 U.S. dollars to create each ``green job,'' including subsidies of more than $1,319,783 per wind industry job. government mandates and intervention This includes new federal mandates on everything from outdoor light bulbs and table lamps to water dispensers, commercial hot food cabinets, and Jacuzzis. Establishes a myriad of new federal agencies intertwined between at least 21 established agencies with the mission of reallocating trillions of taxpayer dollars. According the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the bill will impose 397 new federal regulations that require traditional agency rulemakings. The bill transfers wealth from rural areas to cities. States like California, Washington, and New Jersey would receive more emission credits than they need, enabling them to sell surplus credits to smaller facilities in states like Ohio that receive maybe half of the credits they need--making the rich, richer, and the poor, poorer. The bill would also increase the demand for electricity (to fuel plug-in vehicles via new hybrid incentives) at the same time as the other portions of the bill cause consumer electricity costs to spike. Although the bill includes ``free'' allowances for some sectors, economists agree that even if 100 percent of the industry's emissions were initially covered by free allocations, the bill's declining carbon cap will force higher and higher costs onto the American public. According to the Heritage Foundation, by 2035 this legislation would: Reduce aggregate gross GDP by $9.4 trillion; Raise electricity rates 90 percent; Raise gasoline prices by 58 percent; Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent; and Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 26 percent, or $28,728 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation. Furthermore, a recent poll shows that 78 percent of individuals questioned said that a $50 increase in monthly utility bills would be a hardship. 58 percent of respondents say that they are unwilling to pay any more than they currently pay for electricity to combat climate change. To that end, one-half of those polled oppose enacting a carbon tax to fund energy research (up from 31 percent in 2007). In addition, the bill: Creates a Derivatives Market for Companies like AIG: Companies like AIG and ENRON will be participating in a new derivatives market that is much more volatile than housing or natural gas. This new unregulated derivatives market will be more perilous for companies like these than the traditional ones that got them into trouble in the first place. In addition, since the created artificial market contains no transparency, it is more likely to attract traders intent on imposing Ponzi schemes in the same spirit of Bernie Madoff and swindle thousands of Americans. Devastates Rural America: Rural households spend 58% more on fuel than urban residents as a percentage of their income. The Heritage Foundation estimates farm income will drop by $50 billion by 2035. Concedes to the Competition: Currently, China accounts for 85% of global growth in coal each year and is the world's largest annual emitter of greenhouse gases. China's energy usage rose by 7.2% last year and they are building approximately two coal fired power plants per week to keep up with demand. Recently, at a U.N. conference, the Chinese government's advisory panel on climate change asserted that the cap and tax targets were too low by stating Given that, it is natural for China to have some increase in its emissions, so it is not possible for China in that context to accept a binding or compulsory target. In addition, India will not agree to any cap on their total energy production, and many believe India will double their coal-fired- capacity by 2030. Discriminates Against Developing Nations: The bill creates a new program under USAID to provide U.S. foreign aid to developing countries for their efforts to adapt to climate change. Essentially, the bill is sending taxpayer funds to encourage third world nations to not develop carbon emitting energy sources keeping them at a competitive disadvantage from developed nations for even more decades to come. Establishes an Unrealistic Renewable Energy Standard (RES): ``Cap and tax'' does not take into account the fact that additional hydropower, nuclear and advanced fossil coal power plants cannot be deployed quickly enough to meet expected growth in electricity demand while also dramatically reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Since renewable technology accounts for a small percentage of energy demand, consumers can expect not only higher rates, but more transmission problems during peak hours of demand. Additionally, the bill preempts at least 23 state renewable electricity standards. Includes Davis-Bacon: ``Cap and tax'' expands Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements to many provisions of the bill. This policy has been shown to increase public construction costs by anywhere from 5 to 38 percent above projected costs for the same project in the private sector. Groups Scoring as a Key Vote: 60 Plus Association, Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform (double-rating), Citizens Against Government Waste, Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, Independent Petroleum Association of America, National Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National Cattleman Beef Association, National Federation of Independent Businesses, National Taxpayers Union, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council).

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in supporting the ``Student Internet Safety Act of 2009'' (H.R. 780), which the House of Representatives passed on June 16, 2009. H.R. 780 amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to allow local educational agencies that receive Title II (teacher grants) funds and Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities funds, to develop and implement programs promoting safe Internet use by students (i.e. how to prevent online stalking and promoting parental involvement). My colleague from Florida, Representative Adam Putnam is the author of H.R. 780. I commend Representative Putnam in crafting thoughtful and much needed legislation to provide schools with the ability to teach children about the potential dangers associated with the Internet. Congressman Putnam said that ``We teach our children how to look both ways before crossing the street; we also need to teach them the safety rules for the `information superhighway.' '' I could not agree more and that is why I was pleased that the House Leadership scheduled a vote on H.R. 780. I have been a champion for parental rights and for the protection of children from violent and sexually explicit material for decades. I was one of the leading proponents of the ``Parental Choice in Television Act'' and the ``Children's Protection from Violent Programming Act'' which lead to the enactment of the V-chip provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, (Public Law 104-104). Because of those efforts, today the V-chip is in practically every television in America and it has proven to be a very successful tool, in conjunction with the television rating system, for parents who want to protect their kids from violent or sexually explicit material on television. Today, however, the problem is not television but the Internet and that is why H.R. 780 is so important. It will provide another avenue for children to learn about Internet safety. There are things parents can do to help to keep their kids safe on the Internet. For example the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children recommends that: Parents choose search engines carefully. Some are specifically designed for kids, and others offer kid-safe options. Parents tell kids when they come across any material making them feel scared, uncomfortable, or confused to immediately tell them or another trusted adult. Parents help kids find information online. By searching the Internet together parents can help them find reliable sources of information and distinguish fact from fiction. Parents talk with their Internet service providers (ISPs) as many offer filters to prevent kids from accessing inappropriate sites. As a consumer parents have a right to choose an ISP with the services meeting their family's needs. There are more tips on safe Internet usage as well as tips on how kids can use e-mail and social networking sites safely on the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's website at www.missingkids.com. And if a child has ever been sent inappropriate material by someone he or she met online or ever inadvertently encountered inappropriate material, a report of these types of incidents can be filed at www.CyberTipline.com or by calling 1-800-THE- LOST.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, the 4th of July is a holiday that we hold very near and dear because it deals with our independence and our desire for freedom and liberty, and we celebrate that with a great deal of awe. What bothers me right now is that this administration, in my opinion, is violating the sanctity of that day by inviting Iranian diplomats to our embassies around the world to help us celebrate the 4th of July. Let's just look at what Iran's doing. Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons; Ahmadinejad is still calling for the destruction of Israel; Iran is still pursuing long-range missiles; Iran is working to destabilize Iraq and killing American soldiers; Iran is still a state sponsor of terror; Iran continues to supply Hezbollah and Hamas, terrorist organizations. Now the Iranian regime has turned on its own citizens and killed many of them in the streets. It is unthinkable, at a time when we are celebrating freedom and independence in this country, the 4th of July, that we're going to invite into our embassies people who support this kind of terrorism. It makes no sense. And if I were talking to the President, I would say, Mr. President, rescind that invitation. Rescind that invitation.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Mollohan is well- intentioned. I believe he is an honorable man. But my concern is that there could be a change of attitude by some in the White House. I appreciate that the White House has reconsidered and reversed their decision on taking control of the census, but unless we pass this amendment, there is nothing to prevent the White House from reversing itself once more, and that concerns me. I am encouraged because the Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Locke, has expressed his intention to not cede control of the 2010 census to the White House during his confirmation hearings. But, nevertheless, to make sure that Congress retains its right to control the census and the $300 billion that will be disseminated as a result of the census, I think we need to make it very clear by passing this amendment that it is up to the Congress and not the White House to make this determination. With that, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule preprinted in the Congressional Record at the desk.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very straightforward. It simply says that ``none of the funds made available in this act may be used to relocate the Office of the Census or employees from the Department of Commerce to the jurisdiction of the Executive Office of the President.'' In February of this year, after Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican, was nominated by President Obama to be the Secretary of Commerce, the White House announced that control of the Census Bureau and the 2010 census would be removed from the Commerce Department and placed in the hands of the White House staff. Senator Gregg eventually withdrew his name from consideration, in part because of his concerns about taking control of the next census out of the hands of the Commerce Department and putting it into the hands of political operatives at the White House. Contrary to Democratic claims, there was no historical precedent for placing the census under the control of political operatives on the White House staff. According to former Census Bureau Director Bruce Chapman, who directed the Census Bureau from 1981 to 1983 under President Reagan, he said, ``The White House and its congressional allies are wrong in asserting that the Census in the past has reported directly to the President through his staff. Directors of the Bureau often brief Presidents and their staffs, but as a former director under President Reagan, I don't know of any cases where the conduct of the Bureau was directly under the White House supervision; that includes President Clinton in 2000, Bush 41 in 1990, and Carter in 1980.'' The Obama administration has since backtracked and attempted to downplay its role regarding the census. And to his credit, the current Secretary of Commerce, Gary Locke, has expressed his intention to not cede control of the 2010 census to the White House during his confirmation hearings. The U.S. Constitution, article I, section 2, clause 3, as modified by section 2 of the 14th Amendment, requires a population census every 10 years to serve as the basis for reapportioning seats in the House of Representatives. The Constitution stipulates that the enumeration is to be conducted ``in such manner as they [Congress] shall by law direct.'' Congress, through title 13 of the U.S. Code, has delegated this responsibility to the Secretary of Commerce and, within the Department of Commerce, to the Bureau of the Census. Let me be very clear on this point: The Constitution stipulates that Congress shall direct how the census is to be conducted and Congress delegated this responsibility to the Bureau of the Census, not the Office of the White House Chief of Staff. The United States census should remain independent of politics. It should not be directed by political operatives working out of the White House. Such a move is especially troubling considering the census at the time was considering entering into a national partnership with ACORN, an organization ripe with internal corruption and that was responsible for multiple instances of vote fraud in the 2008 presidential election. Asking an organization like ACORN to help recruit the 1.4 million temporary workers that will go door-to-door is akin to inviting the fox into the henhouse. An estimated $300 billion in Federal funds are distributed annually on the basis of the census data, according to the Census officials. This is very important, because all the people in this country are affected by this money. The Census Bureau is staffed by experienced and talented professionals who are leaders in the field of statistics. In order to produce a fair, accurate and trustworthy count during the 2010 census, the Census Bureau needs to remain an agency free from political or partisan interference. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, the national health care program that is advertised by the administration, they estimate it will cost $1 trillion just to insure one-third of the uninsured in this country. So it is going to cost $3 trillion if you add all of those people to the health care rolls, money that we just don't have. The thing that bothers me is ABC News over the next week is going to be advertising a 2-hour infomercial that is going to take place by the President at the White House in the next week. They are doing this at the White House. ABC is actually moving into the White House to advertise this for the President. You know, the President is on television every single day, and it is pretty obvious that CBS, NBC and CNN are all very supportive of the President. They are advocating everything he is talking about. But ABC is going overboard. They are absolutely flipping by going to the White House and supporting and advertising for the President's program. I think this is just dead wrong. It is okay to be supportive of the President, but I don't think ABC should become Obama news.