Dan Burton

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. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the majority leader, and he is very eloquent at the microphone, but he forgot to mention a couple of things that, I think, the American people would like to know. For instance, 80 percent of this bill is helping the troops, but this is a war supplemental; 100 percent should be helping our troops. In addition to that, he did not mention that this is a 22 percent reduction from what was in the supplemental last year, so we're actually cutting funding to the troops by 22 percent over what we did last year, and we're just expanding our operation into Afghanistan. So I think that the people ought to really get the whole picture. The whole picture is that this is a war supplemental, and it's being cut over what we spent last year for the same type of legislation. Now, he mentioned the International Monetary Fund, the $5 billion for that. This is a war supplemental. This is not an IMF bill. It's going to create $108 billion in additional loaning capability by the IMF. A few of the countries that will benefit from this with Special Drawing Rights are people who are not our friends--like Venezuela, Mr. Chavez down there; like Iran, a terrorist state; Yemen; Syria; Zimbabwe; and Burma. So I would just like to say--and I would never admonish the majority leader, because he is a great man, and I really like him--let's get all of the facts out there and not just part of them.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for his answer. I will just end by saying, I really hope this stays in the bill. I can't think of anything that's more important as far as stabilizing Central and South America than free trade agreements. We've been fighting for a free trade agreement with Panama and Colombia for a long, long time; and if we're going to make sure that we slow down the illegal immigration that's coming from Central and South America, we've got to do things to stabilize that entire region, not only from a drug standpoint, but also from the illegal immigration standpoint. So I really hope that my colleague--and I'm sure Mr. Wolf will--I really hope my colleagues will do everything they can to make sure that this stays in the piece of legislation.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I have great respect for my colleague, Mr. Mollohan, and undoubtedly he is going to be one of the conferees. I would like to ask him a question. What I would like to know is, when you go to conference, you and I both know that there's a lot of give-and-take. And if you really feel strongly about an amendment, you fight for it. So I'd just like to ask you this question: Because the Colombia Free Trade Agreement is so important, will you use every bit of your fiber and being to fight for this in conference?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Will you answer the question? Will you do everything you can to keep it in the bill?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I guess the biggest problem I have with this bill is that we've been talking about cutting spending and about controlling the budget. So far this year, in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, the TARP bill, we've spent $700 billion. In the Children's Health Reauthorization Act, the State Children's Health Insurance, we've spent $73.3 billion. In the America Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus, we've spent $1.16 trillion. In the February '09 consolidated appropriation, the omnibus bill, we've spent $625 billion. Now, I understand the necessity of this bill, but it's 11.6 percent higher than, I think, the same bill last year. The thing that really bothers me is that, I think, you have 80-some pages of earmarks, of pork bill projects, whatever you want to call them, at a time when we're suffering severely economically and at a time when we're spending way, way more money than the American people can afford. We're spending so much money that they're actually, I think, running the printing presses over at Treasury day and night. I can't understand why we're allowing all of these earmarks, many of which have nothing to do with Commerce, Justice and Science. So I would just like to say that I think this is something that we ought to take a hard look at when we get into the amendments. I wish that we didn't have this kind of a tremendous amount of additional expenses, and I sure wish we didn't have all of these earmarks. If there is one thing the American people are very concerned about right now it is all of these additional projects, especially at a time when they're suffering at home. People can't afford their houses. They can't afford to take care of their kids' educational needs. There are so many problems the American people have. The unemployment rate is at--what?--9 percent nationally. Here we are with all of these earmarks, and we're spending all of this money that they don't have and that, certainly, the government doesn't have. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the Record a June 16, 2009, document on general funding levels. To: Congressman Dan Burton From: Legislative Staff Date: June 16, 2009 Subject: Talking points General Funding levels: The bill provides $6.7 billion (11.6 percent more than FY 2009 for programs funded under the CJS Appropriations bill. Agencies funded through the bill received approximately $16 billion in supplemental appropriations outside the normal FY 2009 appropriations process, the vast majority of which came from the ``stimulus'' bill. H.R. 2847 would provide $13.85 billion for the Department of Commerce, which is an increase of $4.57 billion, or 49 percent, over FY 2009. The majority of the increase for Commerce is due to a $4.2 billion increase in spending for the Census Bureau. The bill provides $27.74 billion for the Department of Justice, DOJ, which is an increase of $1.65 billion, or 6.3 percent, above FY 2009. Funding for science agencies is $25.1 billion, an increase of $868 million, or 3.5 percent, above FY 2009. Spending for other related agencies is $956 million, which is $83 million, or 9.5 percent, above FY 2009. Conservative Concerns About the bill: Earmarks: The Report accompanying H.R. 2847 contains $386 million in funding for approximately 1,100 earmarks, listed on 80, non-searchable pages. Earmarks in the bill range from: $180,000 for ``Training the Next Generation Weather Forecasters'' at San Jose State University; $1 million for a forensics laboratory in South Carolina; $100,000 for Tennis, Sports, Literacy and Education Program in New York City Competitive Bidding Ban: The bill prohibits the Bureau of Prisons from using any funds to enter into a public/private contract under the OMB Circular A-76, which requires private contractors to compete for Federal money to ensure that the U.S. receives maximum value for tax dollars. Matching Funds Waived: The appropriation grants the Attorney General, AG, authority to waive a legislatively mandated requirement that Federal grants for prisoner reentry programs under the Second Chance Act be matched by State or local funds.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just say that we've been fighting this issue for a long, long time. One of the biggest problems that we've had is drugs coming into the United States from Central and South America. And President Uribe of Colombia has been one of our best friends and allies down there. He has stabilized that country, and one of the things that he really needs is a Free Trade Agreement to help further stabilize his country. I think it's extremely important that Mr. Mollohan, or whoever else is on the conference committee, realize the gravity of this situation. And Mr. Mollohan well knows that when you go to conference, and you're sitting across the table from your Democrat counterparts, if you are willing to really hang tough on an amendment, many times you can get that accepted, especially when you start compromising on other issues that may be in the bill. So I asked the question of Mr. Mollohan, will you fight for this in conference, and he reluctantly skirted the issue just a little bit. So since this amendment has been accepted by Mr. Mollohan, it seems to me that it should be pretty well guaranteed that he is going to do everything he can to keep it in the bill when it goes to conference committee. And if that is not the case, then, you know, this might appear to be--I would never accuse my colleague of being insincere--but it might appear to be a facade. So if you accept this, Mr. Mollohan, I would just like to ask you one more time: Will you do everything you can to keep this in the bill?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Sure.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, this last weekend, I met with several auto dealers in my district, and it was very interesting to find out really what all of them are going through right now. The Chrysler and General Motors companies are closing hundreds and hundreds of automobile dealerships across the country, and after talking to these dealers, I can't figure out why. It isn't costing the automobile companies anything. They sell the cars to the dealers and the dealers sell those to the consumer. And the dealers pay for those cars. In addition, the dealers pay for the advertising, the dealers pay for the plant and equipment, their dealerships, the buildings. They pay the mechanics. They pay the sales people. So the car company, all they do is make the car and sell it to the dealer. And so why are they closing all of these dealerships? It seems to me, as you reduce your sales force across the country, you're going to reduce the amount of cars that are sold to the consumer. It just doesn't make any sense to me. But let me tell you some of the things that these dealers are going through right now. One dealer told me that--it's a Chrysler dealer--he had a Dodge dealership. And Chrysler asked him a couple of years ago to buy another dealership that wasn't doing as well, and they asked him to not only buy the property but to upgrade the equipment and upgrade the property and upgrade the showroom. So he put $3 million into buying a property and upgrading the showroom in the mechanics area, the garage area. And after he did it, just recently, right after he got it done, had invested $3 million, they closed him down. They closed him down. He lost $3 million after they asked him, the company asked him, to invest that money in purchasing and upgrading this other store. Now, that's terrible. He put $3 million in it as the company requested, and then they cut the legs off from under him and he loses $3 million. I talked to a Chevrolet dealer who was negotiating with a GMC dealer across the street. The GMC dealer and the Chevrolet dealer were right across the street from one other, and General Motors said, Why don't the two of you combine? And so the two companies were negotiating with one another on who would buy the other out, and it was a $3 million to $5 million purchase. Well, they couldn't reach agreement before the deal with General Motors took place, and they were going to close a whole bunch of dealerships. So what they did is they decided to close the dealership of the Chevrolet dealership down even though he was very profitable. And what that means, simply, is the GMC dealer across the street is going to get this Chevrolet dealership that would have sold for $3 million to $5 million to him for nothing. And so this dealer is going out of business, and it's going to cost him $3 million to $5 million because they closed his dealership. He sold as many cars as they asked him to sell, he was up to snuff on his payments and everything else that was requested by the company, and they knocked the legs out from under him as well, and it cost him $3 million to $5 million. There was a GM dealer that came to me at this meeting the other day, and he had eight dealerships, and they closed one of them down. It's going to cost him several million dollars. But he can't complain publicly because GM is going to be closing other dealerships down in the future, and he's afraid if he says anything they will close some of his other dealerships down and cost him more money. You know, I just don't understand this. We have the government, the car czars, if you will, now taking control of the entire auto industry. They're forcing the executives of the companies out of office and replacing them with handpicked people by our government through the car czar and the Auto Task Force. So the government is taking over the auto industry and closing these dealerships, putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work, closing thousands of dealerships across the country, and actually hurting the American auto industry's ability to sell cars when they're in competition with car companies around the world. It just doesn't make any sense to me. So, once again, here we have the government taking over an industry, socializing the auto industry, and really killing an awful lot of the people who work in it--not to mention the restaurants and the stores that surround these car dealerships who have been in business as well, and it's going to cost them jobs. Government control of the private sector just destroys the private sector. And they want to now take over our health care industry. They're taking over the banks. They want to take over the energy industry with cap-and-trade, which is going to cost every family in this country $3,000 to $4,000 more per year for energy. We don't need socialism in this country. We certainly don't need it. And here's an example, the car industry, of what happens when government takes over.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me congratulate our chairman on crafting a bill that, in large part, is very good. It increases aid to Pakistan by triple in some areas, and I think it's very positive. It deals with economic and humanitarian assistance that will help Pakistan build schools, roads and hospitals, and it will help Pakistan's economic infrastructure. All of that is good. I know that the President and the administration support that as well. But unfortunately--here comes the ``but'' part--unfortunately, the chairman and our Democrat colleagues decided to load this bill up with ill-conceived provisions to micromanage U.S. security assistance to Pakistan, as the ranking member just said. This is not just my opinion. The Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gates, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mr. Mullen, wrote the Armed Services Committee last month. Here is what they said: ``The degree of conditionality and limitations on security assistance to Pakistan'' in H.R. 1886 ``severely constrains the flexibility necessary for the executive branch and the Department of Defense given the fluid and dynamic environment that exists in Pakistan.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. All I can say, if you read the bill and you listen to the debate and listen to even what Senator Kerry says, with whom I don't agree with very much, you see that there is too much micromanaging in this bill. This is a war over there, and we should be supporting our ally in every way possible so the Taliban isn't victorious.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just say to my colleague that there is an unnecessary limitation relating to Pakistan's F-16 program that could be dealt with by nonlegislative means, which you're dealing with that in this bill. It shows that there is no trust: a limitation on State Department-funded assistance unless Pakistan meets certain conditions relating to nonproliferation, counterterrorism, and other issues.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I will in a minute. Do you remember last night when I asked you to yield? But that's okay. I will yield to you in a minute just to show you what kind of a guy I am. Anyhow, this is a very difficult time over there. I would like to say to my chairman, if he could see this--Mr. Chairman, I hope that you can see this. It's very important that we look at the situation on the ground in Pakistan right now. The green area is the area that the government controls. The brown area is the area that the Taliban controls. The tan area is where there is a strong Taliban presence. The yellow is where there are federally supported tribal areas. Of course, up here in the north is the blue North-West Frontier Province. If we lose this, if we lose this here, you've got a heck of a problem in Afghanistan. That's the entire border with Afghanistan. If you lose that, then the President's goal to stabilize and to win the war in Afghanistan is going to go right down the tubes, and this micromanaging that you're doing in this bill is not going to be helpful. Now, in the past, I have not agreed with Senator Kerry. In fact, I can't remember ever agreeing with Senator Kerry. But just to let you know that there is some bipartisan opposition, I want to read to you what he said. Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, the author of similar Senate legislation, Senate bill 962, said, it's ``overly restrictive'' and ``counterproductive.'' ``It sends a message in the Pakistani body politic that the people of Pakistan say, `Well . . . we're just doing their (U.S.) bidding, we're their lackeys, we're not in control.' '' I think that's counter to the kind of message that we want to send to Pakistan right now. This is a very difficult time. This is not just a debate between the chairman and the ranking member and me. This is war and peace. It's the survivability of Pakistan as an independent country. It's winning or losing the war in Afghanistan. And we have to remember that Pakistan is a nuclear power. If the Taliban is successful in this area, not only will Afghanistan go down the tubes, but in likelihood, they will have control of some nuclear weapons. I know we've got precautions that are being taken to stop that. But in the event this takes place and we lose control of those nuclear weapons, we've got a real possible conflagration for the whole area in that part of the world. So I would like to say to the chairman, and I hope in conference committee this is changed, that this micromanaging that you're doing to try the tell the Pakistani Government how to conduct its military operations in Pakistan, that that is limited or stopped.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I don't understand you.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, in the past couple of weeks, two of our colleagues, Frank Wolf of Virginia, a Republican, and Jim Cooper of Tennessee, a Democrat, sent this booklet around to all of the Members. We get a lot of correspondence and a lot of books and leaflets; but I would just like to say to my colleagues tonight, I hope you read this. It doesn't take very long, but it's extremely important because it deals with not only today but with our future and our kids' future and our posterity. What it talks about is the debt that we have in this country and where we're going. In the last 10 years, we've gone from $5.5 trillion in debt to over $11 trillion in debt, and the debt is escalating at a very rapid rate. In fact, right now the projected deficit in the future is up to $56 trillion. The reason for expected expenditures is for the programs that have been proposed and have been passed into law by this body and the other body. Right now explicit liabilities include publicly held debt, military and civilian pensions, and retiree health benefits, plus other things, that's $12.2 trillion; $1.3 trillion is for Federal insurance loan guarantees, leases and so forth; and then the big one, $42.9 trillion, is Medicare hospital insurance, which is $12.7 trillion; Medicare outpatient, $15.7 trillion; Medicare prescription drugs, $7.9 trillion; and Social Security, $6.6 trillion, for a total of $56.4 trillion. And that does not include what's going on today. We're going into debt right now at about $1 to $2 trillion a year, and it's going to continue like that because of the programs we're talking about. Over the past few months since this new administration has taken office, we have seen proposed a socialized medicine approach to health, a national health care program. Lord only knows how much that's going to cost, but it's going to be in the billions and billions and probably the trillions of dollars. Much of that will be added to the national debt because we don't have that money. The auto industry--there's been bailouts of the auto industry, and it hasn't really worked. They still had to file chapter 11, and over $50 billion went to the auto industry. The banking and financial institutions. There was a big bailout of those in the TARP bill, I believe it was. And then the energy bill that they're talking about, the cap-and-trade, is going to cost a tremendous amount of money to the taxpayers not only from the tax money we get here, but also what they are going to have to spend in their homes for higher electric bills and everything else in the future. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, this is something my colleagues really ought to read. It talks about our future, our kids' futures and our grandkids' futures. If we continue down the path we're on, there's no doubt in my mind that this country will go bankrupt, and we'll go the way of great civilizations that we have seen in the past, like Rome. There's just no question about it in my mind. Right now the debt that's held by China, Japan, England and other countries is out of sight. They don't want to buy our debt anymore because the value of the dollar has been plummeting because we're printing so much money. Right now we're talking about printing trillions of dollars more because they won't buy our debt, and we don't have that money. When that printing press gets out of control like it is right now, down the road we're going to see very high inflation, very high taxes and an economy that's unsustainable. So I hope my colleagues will read this. The book is called State of the Union's Finances: A Citizen's Guide, put out by my good friends Frank Wolf and Jim Cooper, and it is from the Pete Peterson Foundation. It's on your desk. I hope all of you will read it.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 2009 recipients of the coveted Ellis Island Medal of Honor. Presented annually by the National Ethnic Coalition (NECO), the Ellis Island Medal of Honor pays tribute to our Nation's immigrant heritage, as well as individual achievement. The medals are awarded to U.S. citizens from various ethnic backgrounds who exemplify outstanding qualities in both their personal and professional lives, while continuing to preserve the richness of their particular heritage. Since NECO's founding in 1986, more than 2,000 American citizens have received Ellis Island Medals of Honor, including six American Presidents, several United States Senators, Congressmen, Nobel Laureates, outstanding athletes, artists, clergy, and military leaders. As we all know, citizens of the United States can trace their ancestry to many nations. The richness and diversity of American life makes us unique among the Nations of the world and is in many ways the key to why America is the most innovative country in the world. The Ellis Island Medals of Honor not only celebrate select individuals but also the pluralism and democracy that enabled our ancestors to celebrate their cultural identities while still embracing the American way of life. This medal is not about money, but about people who really seized the opportunities this great country has to offer and who used those opportunities to not only better their own lives but make a difference in the lives of those around them. By honoring these outstanding individuals, we honor all who share their origins and we acknowledge the contributions they and other groups have made to America. I commend NECO and its Board of Directors headed by my good friend, Nasser J. Kazeminy, for honoring these truly outstanding individuals for their tireless efforts to foster dialogue and build bridges between different ethnic groups, as well as promote unity and a sense of common purpose in our Nation. Madam Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing the good works of NECO, and congratulating all of the 2009 recipients of the Ellis Island Medals of Honor. I also ask unanimous consent that the names of this year's recipients be placed into the Congressional Record following my statement. Gen. John P. Abizaid, USA (Ret), Hon. Eduardo Aguirre, Imam Shamsi Ali, Dr. Kaveh Alizadeh, Robert V. Allegrini, Hon. Victor G. Atiyeh, Archbishop Vicken N. Aykazian, Sir Julian Bachynsky, Ralph M. Bahna, George S. Barrett, Edward J. Bergman, Hamid Biglari, Carolyn A. Blashek, Paul F. Boulos, PhD, Lt.Gen. Ted F. BowIds, USAF, CAPT Patrick C. Burns, USN, Dr. Samia E. Burton, Otto B. Candies, John J. Casey, Ali Cayir, Sant Singh Chatwal, Dr. Walter. R. Chitwood, Jr., Joseph Ilhawn Cho, Edward T. Cloonan, Duane E. Collins, David F. D'Alessandro, Shiv C. Dass, Kiran R. Desai, Robert D. Donno, Rayna Dubose, Emilio Estefan, Jr., Charles Fazzino, Sean T. Flanagan, John S. Gonsalves, James B. Hayes, CAPT Gregory P. Hitchen, USCG, W. Andrew Hodge, MD, Forough B. Hosseini, Susan Pien Hsu, PhD, Taffy A. Jowdy, James M. Kalustian, Rabbi Alvin Kass, Fred Kavli, Lisa Kazor, Kevin A. Kistler, Carol N. Lambos, Esq., BG James B. Laster, USMC, Leon Y. Lee, Oh Young Lee, Sandra Lee, Francine A. LeFrak, Nooshin Malakzad, Bishop Gregory J. Mansour, George D. Martin, Hon. Grace Meng, Thomas L. Mills, Esq., Joseph H. Moglia, Dr. Reza Momeni, Dr. Uma Mysorekar, Tavit 0. Najarian, ScD, John F. Nickoll, Michael K. O'Malley, Rev. Timothy O'Neill, George Pagoumian, Young J. Paik, Hon. Mary Mitzi Purdue, Moises Perez-Martinez, Natale A. Picco, Jr. John Podesta, Linda Ann Pope, William A. Pope, David M. Puckett, Phil T. Pulaski, Hon. Bijan Rafiekian, Maj. Dan Rooney, USAF, Gaetano G. Scavone, Salman T. Sesi, Esq., Dr. Jatin P. Shah, Liu Tee Shuh, Brian J. Smith, Col. Stephen Smith, USA, Steven N. Stein, Carol K. Strauss, Chester A. Szarejko, Oscar S. Tatosian, Joseph J. Thoams, DDS, William H. Tilley, Lenny Tilman, Lana Todorovich, Chiling Tong, Pauline A. Turley, Anthony M. Valletta, Kathleen Waldron, PhD, Kevin M. Wall, The Venerable Lama Pema Wangdak, Jeffrey N. Watanabe, Esq., Gary E. Weksler, Sally Tsui Wong- Avery

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. And then, of course, it has a sexual orientation amount of language in it which would require the tracking of discrimination related to sexual orientation for actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity violations. And then, finally, it increases the U.N. spending by so much and the contributions we would have to give by 32 percent over the 2009 levels. This is not a good part of the bill. We would like to support the bill, but unfortunately, there is too much junk in it, Mr. Chairman. I wish we didn't have to say ``no'' to this.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I will.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The gentleman won't yield for one question?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Well, if my chairman would yield for just one question.