Jo Ann Emerson

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Madam Chair, parliamentary inquiry.

Mrs. EMERSON. Is it not correct that I would have the right to close?

Mrs. EMERSON. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mrs. EMERSON. Number one, my colleague tried to make a comparison between car insurance and health insurance. First of all, auto insurance, if you will, deals with liability and the harm that you may do to others. Health insurance has to do with a liability to yourself. It's totally different. And I don't believe that any State actually requires comprehensive insurance. The bottom line is, we do not want the IRS implementing now regulations that may be overturned perhaps in the near future in the courts. At the end of the day, we do not know what the courts are going to say about the constitutionality of an individual mandate. And as such, it seems irresponsible for the Internal Revenue Service, when it has so many demands on its time and on its employees, to implement something that we don't know whether or not it's actually going to become the law of the land. So with that, I believe very strongly that the IRS should not be spending those moneys in FY 2011, and we will deal with 2012 at the time when it comes up. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. I want to echo the words of all of our colleagues in opposition to this bill. Let me talk a little bit about two things that in my bill, the Financial Services bill, that would be drastically impacted. Number one, an additional 5.5 percent cut totaling $1.02 billion would actually reduce assistance to small businesses but would hurt agencies that protect American citizens from deceptive business practices and fraud. In addition to that, it would result in dangerous cuts to the Treasury Department's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, funding for enforcement of Iran sanctions, judicial security and drug task forces. I realize it's a well intentioned effort, but it goes too far. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make one comment. I wanted to thank Mr. Clyburn for raising this issue, and I wanted to thank Mr. Rehberg for agreeing to work with him. Out of the 28 counties that I represent in southern Missouri, 14 of those 28 are persistent poverty counties. And the gentleman is absolutely correct when he says that for a lot of those communities it is very, very difficult to find the means by which you can get people to help write grants for you, for example, and other things. So I think this is an important issue on which we can all work together. I am so pleased Mr. Clyburn raised it, and I really just wanted to thank Mr. Rehberg for his generosity in working with us. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. EMERSON. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. I would like to say that there is an account in our financial services bill for repair and restoration at the White House, and the funding for that is $495,000, or 20 percent less than the fiscal year 2010 levels. And these requested funds would provide for an alternate electric feed, which we understand is because the power there fails occasionally, computer system upgrades, a plumbing system survey to begin addressing their leaky plumbing. However, the language of Mr. Neugebauer's amendment doesn't just strike funding in this account. This amendment actually states that none of the funds made available by this act may be used for repair, alteration or improvement of the executive residence at the White House. And this is really a sweeping prohibition because it prohibits all repairs at the White House. So what happens if a pipe bursts? What happens if there is a hole in the drywall or the plaster? What if there's an electrical fire or a broken window? What if a safety or security issue needs to be addressed? And I dare say that most people, most everybody, even if they were tightening their belts, they would still have to deal with those emergency issues. And at the end of the day, the White House is the most visited residence in the country. It's an office, it's a museum, and it's a home. And regardless of who occupies the White House, the building needs to be maintained. We have already reduced the account that pays for repairs and alterations by 20 percent. Do we really, really want to prohibit all repairs and all alterations at the White House, which is our house? I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Texas has no other speakers, let me say one thing--that this amendment doesn't specify the account being reduced. It cuts all repairs and alterations. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), my brother.

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, do I have any time remaining?

Mrs. EMERSON. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Having voted for the NHTSA Act, I want to say that the intent of this database was to provide consumers with information on dangerous products. Some people have compared the database to the one operated by the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration. However, the two are very different because NHTSA's database requires much more information about the actual product and is therefore much more reliable. From a government perspective, we should be concerned that there will be inaccurate information on a ``.gov'' Web site. And at the end of the day, the most important factor is this: If the database isn't accurate or reliable, it is going to be totally useless for consumers looking to avoid unreliable or dangerous products. It has already cost $29 million. And I say, if you're going to set up a database, do it right. We, as a Congress, have a duty to fund things that are in the best interests of the American people, and the CPSC database is not. It should not go live next month with inaccurate information. I strongly support this amendment.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Georgia.

Mrs. EMERSON. The gentleman raises an absolutely critical issue that there are examples of all over the country. We are more than willing to work with you on a continuing basis. You may be happy to note that we have cut $1.7 billion from the public buildings fund in this continuing resolution. But we've got a lot more work to do. And as we prepare the FY 2012 spending bill, I think that we'll find more examples. It's very critical to save every penny we can. I just want to thank you so much for your dedication to finding all the waste that we have in the Federal budget.

Mrs. EMERSON. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. EMERSON. I rise in support of the Cole amendment because I think political candidates should rely on private donations rather than tax dollars for their political campaigns. And I might mention to my very dear friend, Mr. Serrano, that I think that the President of the United States today showed the best example of people all around the country of every financial means contributing to his campaign. Friends of my children did $5 a month or offered $10. I mean, that was the most incredible show of involvement that I've seen in my life. And so to say that it would be against this precedent, I think, is just not fair. I also think that this amendment adds to the good work done by Mr. Cole and our leader's office, with the YouCut bill, H.R. 359. And according to the CBO, this amendment will actually save $38 million. And $38 million is $38 million. And quite frankly, we're looking to save as many tax dollars as possible. So, Mr. Chair, I would strongly support this amendment.

Mrs. EMERSON. I rise in support of this amendment. As the chair of the subcommittee that has oversight over FCC from the appropriations standpoint, I feel very strongly that in spite of what my friend on the other side of the aisle said with regard to the authorizers doing their work because they are doing a good job, but the fact of the matter is, as usual, the regulators have swept in again and without authority, or at least moving well past authority that Congress provides to agencies, and particularly to this agency, they have run in with a sweeping regulation that if we don't do something today about it, they will put small businesses like Boycom in my district, which is a family-owned business, husband and wife who own a small company, who will be devastated by this regulation. The fact is that it is our responsibility to legislate, and the regulators should follow the legislation that we write and we pass and get signed into law, not create it on their own. Certainly this is very, very important for us as appropriators. As a result of the FCC overstepping its bounds, we have to get involved. So I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. I yield back.

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.