Mark Kirk

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, the stock market has rendered a bipartisan verdict on the policies of this Congress. From the year end to the inauguration, it fell 5 percent. From Secretary Geithner's speech to the budget, it fell 12 percent. From the budget to today, it fell another 11 percent. We are now suffering from the fastest market decline ever, faster than even under Presidents Hoover or Roosevelt. The market has fallen in part because it has learned more about this Congress--record borrowing, rigged union elections, 9,000 earmarks, and nationalizing health care. I think it's time to look at new policies to help stocks, like suspending the mark-to-market rule that triggers bank runs and restarting the uptick rule to undercut the short sellers. Today, I will introduce the Stock Market Recovery Act with these two key reforms. We are digging an economic hole, and it's time to get out, and these reforms will help.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, the stock market's loss over the last six weeks suggests that the policies of this Congress are magnifying the depths of this recession, not aiding its recovery. Let's look at recent events: 1. Stocks are now traded in a bear market that declined 20 percent since the President's inauguration. This decline is faster than any other President since the First World War. The decline is steeper than Presidents Hoover or Roosevelt experienced. In fact, by this point in the Roosevelt administration, the market showed gains. 2. The market decline accelerated as the Congress and President promulgated their policies: a. From the year's-end to the inauguration, the market fell 5 percent. b. From inauguration to Secretary Geithner's speech, the market rose 2.5 percent in anticipation of good economic policies. c. From Secretary Geithner's speech to the budget release, the market fell 12 percent. d. From the budget release to March 6, the market fell another 11.2 percent. As details of congressional legislation and the Administration's plans were published, the market accelerated its fall. A number of ``recession-proof'' industries lost value after the President released his budget. Oil prices rose nearly 4 percent, but the value of American energy companies fell by the following amounts up to 20 percent. In other words, Americans are paying higher gas prices while the American companies that hire our people for this sector expect to see lower returns on capital. This is not a good trend and sends a strong market signal to serve the U.S. market (where prices are higher) from offshore facilities (where costs are lower). Congress should consider more than just spending and borrowing from abroad. Key policies that would make stocks more attractive include: Suspending the Mark-to-Market rule that makes banks look less valuable than they actually are. Reinstating the Uptick rule so that short sellers do not have an advantage in driving down the value of stocks. Today, I am introducing the ``Stock Market Recovery Act of 2009,'' mandating the SEC to implement these reforms. I am confident this will be a first step continuing the 4 percent rise we have seen today.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, it is increasingly clear that the stock market is voting against many of the policies put forward by this Congress. With stocks falling to 12-year lows, we have to reexamine the policies that we are pursuing here and ask are they not helping and potentially actually hurting our future? In past years losses in the stock market hurt Americans indirectly. Most people in the middle class did not own stock or rely on it for their retirements. But today after the rise of the individual retirement accounts and the investor middle class, losses in the market directly affect the income and especially the retirement savings of many Americans. Now, in this Congress we have embraced a high-spending, high- borrowing, high-tax future for the American economy. As the details of our plans became clear, America's long-term investments rapidly declined in value. If the losses sustained in recent days continue, then the market DOW increase would actually fall to zero by this summer. In my judgment, it's time to reassess, in a truly bipartisan way, the legislation that we need to improve our policies towards the long-term future of our economy, towards investors and especially equities on the stock market. Recently, I joined Congressman Gary Ackerman, Democrat from New York, to back legislation that would reimpose the uptick rule and suspend the current application of the mark-to-market rule. These two reforms, and a ban on issuing insurance to buyers who have no insurable interest in property, would do a great deal to reassuring our markets. These reforms would not directly confront the policies of President Obama or his current vision; they would actually add to his policies, and they would quickly act to reassure markets, right now on a downward asset spiral that is crippling both credit and equity markets. On the mark-to-market rule, look at what a typical transaction looks like today. We know that 90 percent of mortgages are being paid on time and in full. But any collection of mortgages right now, if bunched together, will have a market value of zero; even though 90 percent of the mortgages are paid; even though for the 10 percent of homes where mortgages are not paid, the mortgage owner would be able to foreclose on the property, taking control of land and potentially a house or buildings that do have a value. The current mark-to-market rule is generating the wrong answer, that these assets actually do not have zero value. But because the mark-to-market rule forces accountants to place a zero value on these assets, there is a downward spiral in banking and financial equities that is ruining our long-term retirement savings. We faced this problem in the past. President Roosevelt, when he faced this problem actually five times worse than the one we face today, put forward the Home Owners' Loan Corporation that looked at this problem in which half of all mortgages, not 10 percent, were in trouble. And what he said was this, through the Home Owners' Corporation: We would look at a more bureaucratic formula of the rental value of a property, of its underlying salvage value, or of a value of other properties that did have a market in recent days in which we looked at the sales over a longer period of time. The answer that was generated by the Home Owners' Loan Corporation showed that the asset actually did have a value and stopped the downward spiral of the market. Right now we need to impose a formula well understood in the 1930s that would generate the correct answer, that a collection of mortgages, 90 percent of which are paid, do not have zero value and therefore should suspend the mark-to-market rule to prevent the attack on equities today. Likewise, with the mark-to-market rule generating the wrong answer, calling assets which actually have a value being valueless, we should reimpose the uptick rule to prevent the sustained negative attack on equities that are going on, driving a number of public companies who have substantial values into bankruptcy. Lastly, we should look very carefully at credit default swaps, engineered and put forward most strongly by AIG. We need to prevent anybody from buying insurance on an underlying asset of which they have no interest whatsoever. Next week I will introduce the Stock Market Recovery Act. It will include these reforms to stop this downward spiral. We have spent enough. We have added $2 trillion in debt. Now we need these commonsense, bipartisan reforms to send a different signal to the stock market.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, today I join my colleague from Illinois, Ms. Bean, in introducing legislation to enhance the innovative health care resource sharing underway between the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense in North Chicago, Illinois. Ten years ago the VA was trying to close the North Chicago VA hospital, claiming it was underutilized and that veterans could easily commute 40 or 50 miles into Chicago for treatment. At the same time, the Navy was planning to close its 40-year-old hospital at Great Lakes that had earned a reputation for being ``30 stories tall with 30 patients.'' Even though there were four brand-new, unused inpatient wards at the VA hospital a quarter-mile away, the federal government was preparing to spend $180 million to replace an outdated military hospital and close a VA hospital with an increasing number of patients. This simply made no sense. In 2001 I began urging the Navy and the VA to examine ways they can coordinate their efforts and share resources in North Chicago. After four years of intense work, and thanks in large part to the efforts of then-Navy Secretary Gordon England and then-Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs Leo McKay, the two departments in 2005 agreed not only to share resources, but to fully integrate the two facilities. Last year, they announced that the joint facility would be named for a local hero, Captain Jim Lovell, hero of Apollo XIII. This bold plan is now recognized as the model for future collaboration between the VA and DOD, and integration is well underway. They have already merged inpatient care, mental health, surgery and the emergency room. When the new facility opens in the summer of 2010, Navy and VA will fully integrate the two organizations by combining clinical and administrative operations. In order to fully integrate the two institutions, though, a few statutory changes are required. This legislation would give the Defense Department and the VA the authority needed to open an integrated federal health care facility in 2010. The bill authorizes the departments to transfer property and personnel as needed and in a manner consistent with existing law governing transfers of civilian federal employees between agencies. Our bill also extends the VA/DOD Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund until 2020 from its current expiration date of 2010. The daily operations at Lovell Hospital will be so integrated that it will be difficult to determine whose resources produced the care given, whether VA or DoD. This account is funded by both the VA and DOD, and both departments agree that it is the most appropriate mechanism to fund the joint facility and give its leadership the greatest flexibility to operate in a combined manner. Finally, our legislation designates Lovell Hospital as a military treatment facility, a technical designation needed to prevent military retirees under the TRICARE system from being forced to make costly co- payments when they receive care at the joint facility. Given that the inpatient, surgical, mental health, and emergency services are already combined, thousands of TRICARE beneficiaries in northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin are already subject to co-pays that should not come out of their pocket. The vision for Lovell Hospital is to provide care for active duty sailors, DOD beneficiaries, and veterans side-by-side in one fully integrated facility. The integration has been so successful, we need to update current law to recognize that Lovell Hospital serves both veterans and Navy personnel.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Jim Moran worked to save tours of the Capitol, and Congressman Loebsack and I have now authored a bipartisan letter to the Architect of the Capitol urging him to restore the rights of Members and staff to offer tours to our constituents. The red coats of the CVC do not own the Capitol. Members of Congress do not own the Capitol. The American people bought and paid for it, but the CVC red coats now block Americans from seeing the Capitol with their Congressmen or staff. We are headed to a train wreck when CVC red coats turn away thousands of American families from the Capitol over spring break. They say, sure, we'll handle your constituents, no problem. Actually, they're going to block the access of the American people to the Capitol. Now, a recent Facebook posting by a CVC red coat reflected a stunning arrogance that should not be tolerated towards American citizens. I urge Members to sign the bipartisan Loebsack-Kirk letter to ensure that your constituents can see the Capitol when they want, with their Member of Congress, and not be blocked by the CVC red coats.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, today, the Senate will consider the $412 billion omnibus appropriation bill in the same month as the Fiscal Responsibility Summit. The legislation contains 9,000 earmarks, including 12 potentially criminal earmarks. It is the spending for the clients of Paul Magliochetti & Associates, a lobbying firm raided by the FBI 3 months ago. We expect indictments soon. But the leaders of this House approved those 12 potentially criminal earmarks, and they are separate budget items now, totaling over $8 million of the taxpayers' funds. The Politico reported that the Speaker is concerned about the vetting process used by the Appropriations Committee. The concern is well- placed, and now the Senate should delete funding for these 12 potentially criminal PMA earmarks.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, as the lead Republican sponsor I am pleased to rise in support of the Captive Primate Safety Act. This legislation, supported by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, the Humane Society of the United States, and the Jane Goodall Institute, among others, would protect public health and safety and enhance animal welfare by preventing people from keeping nonhuman primates as pets. On February 16, 2009, Travis, a 200-pound chimpanzee, attacked a 55- year-old woman in Connecticut. Travis, a popular figure in his home town who appeared in television commercials and posed for photographs, inflicted such massive injuries on the victim that she now awaits a face transplant. This gruesome incident highlights the fact that keeping a primate for a pet is both dangerous to the owner and inhumane to the animal. Over the past decade, roughly 100 people have been injured by primates, many of whom are children. Acts of neglect have also occurred in my home state of Illinois. In October 2008, Chicago police seized a ring-tailed lemur that was reportedly found with no food, little water, and standing in his own waste. Although nonhuman primates are our closest living relatives, because they have unique needs and can be dangerous, they should not be kept as pets. With an estimated 15,000 primates in private hands, federal legislation is needed to reinforce this fact. This legislation would amend the Lacey Act by adding nonhuman primates to the list of ``prohibited wildlife species,'' declaring it illegal for any individual person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any prohibited wildlife species. The bill exempts zoos, universities, and wildlife sanctuaries. Having passed in the 110th Congress overwhelmingly, I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me again in passing this needed and timely legislation.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I am proud to join my good friend Congressman Chris Carney as an original cosponsor of the Congressional Medal of Honor Commemorative Coin Act of 2009. This bipartisan legislation will assist the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation in raising the funds it needs to promote heroism and selflessness among our nation's youth--qualities which the Medal of Honor embodies. First authorized by Congress in 1861, the Congressional Medal of Honor is our nation's highest award for valor in action against an enemy force. It is a symbol of how ordinary Americans can risk their lives and go above and beyond the call of duty in defense of our great nation. Since its inception, fewer than 3,500 Medals of Honor have been awarded to members of the United States Armed Forces--approximately half during the Civil War. Today, there are only 111 living recipients. These select few exemplify the values of our great nation through their incredible acts of bravery and commitment to our country. As the first U.S. Representative-reservist to be deployed to an imminent danger area since World War II, I know first hand the sacrifices and challenges our men and women in armed forces face. It was an honor to serve with uniformed Americans in Afghanistan and it is in their honor that I join Mr. Carney in introducing this legislation today.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. We will have to borrow an additional $150 billion a week, the Bureau of Public Debt reports, to support this spending. Now, the number of lenders to the United States Government used to total 45; they are now less than 17. And our top lender is China, its government and central bank, that just announced that its lending to the United States will drop from $450 billion last year to just $150 billion this year. Now, they've already lent us $1 trillion, and they're worried that we can't repay. Would you blame them? So I would hope, at a minimum, that when the conference meets on this legislation we delete the criminal earmarks, the 12 PMA earmarks, in conference. These leaders from PMA are likely going to jail, and their work should go unrewarded from our Treasury.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, as a Republican moderate, I rise in support of the rule, but against the bill that it governs. This rule would deny a pay raise to the Congress, and since Americans are not getting a raise, neither should we. But the ominous appropriations bill underlying this legislation is not responsible. It contains 9,000 earmarks, with no irony in the very same week as the Fiscal Responsibility Summit. The earmarks in support of projects come from Republicans and Democrats, but none of them face the time that we see. Earmarks, remember, are sole-source Federal grants given without competition, many for clients of entities who paid lobbyists to reach into our Treasury. Now, one set of earmarks in this legislation deserves particular scrutiny. The bill contains no less than a dozen earmarks for the clients of Paul Magliochetti and Associates, known as PMA. Agents from the FBI raided PMA 3 months ago, and yet I have seen, coming from Illinois, the signs of a Federal criminal investigation and know what they look like. And the signs are all there now that the Justice Department is moving to soon indict the leaders of PMA, but stunningly, this House is ready to approve no less than 12 PMA client earmarks in this bill, reaching into the taxpayers' Treasury for $8.7 million. It is simply not responsible to allow a soon to be criminally indicted lobbying firm to win funding--all borrowed money--in this bill. This bill also dramatically accelerates spending by the Federal Government. We have approved a $1 trillion stimulus bill; this is a $410 billion omnibus appropriation; and then we will take up a supplemental appropriation bill--all borrowed money. The legislation contains no analysis of the borrowing required to support this spending. The Bureau of the Public Debt reports that we will have to borrow $150 billion a week to support this spending.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, the House will vote on the $410 billion ``ominous'' appropriations bill this week. The bill's text was finished weeks ago but kept secret from the American people, and now we know why. The legislation contains 9,000 earmarks to be approved, ironically, the same week as we had a fiscal responsibility summit. Last night, my staff and I stayed up to read this bill, longer than the stimulus. We found no less than 12 earmarks for clients of a lobbying firm that was raided by the FBI 3 months ago. The leaders of Paul Magliochetti and Associates will likely go to jail, but their earmarks from this criminal enterprise are in this legislation, totaling over $8 million of the taxpayers' money, all approved by the leaders of this House. This is irresponsible spending by a criminal enterprise to the detriment of this Congress.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, then they came for the Baha'is. The Baha'i Faith is the youngest of the world's independent monotheistic religions. Founded in Iran in 1844, it now claims more than 5 million adherents in 236 countries and territories. Gathering worshipers from nearly every national, ethnic and religious background, the Baha'is preach tolerance, diversity and equality. To an Islamic dictatorship that denies its people basic political and human rights, this religion founded in Iran on the tenets of religious tolerance remains an anathema to the Supreme Leader. And the world is standing by as Iran's state-sponsored persecution of its Baha'i minority nears its final stages. In 2006, Iran's Armed Forces Command Headquarters ordered the Ministry of Information, the Revolutionary Guard, and the Police Force to identify members of the Baha'i Faith in Iran and monitor their activities. In that same year, we saw the largest roundup of Baha'is since the 1980s. The Iranian Interior Ministry ordered provincial officials to ``cautiously and carefully monitor and manage'' all Baha'i social activities. The Central Security Office of Iran's Ministry of Science, Research and Technology ordered 81 Iranian universities to expel any student discovered to be a Baha'i. In 2007, the situation worsened. More than two-thirds of the Baha'is enrolled in universities were expelled once identified as Baha'is. Police entered Baha'i homes and businesses to collect details on family members. Twenty-live industries were ordered to deny licenses to Baha'is. Employers were pressured to fire Baha'i employees and banks were instructed to refuse loans to Baha'i-owned businesses. Baha'i cemeteries were destroyed. In November 2007, three Baha'i youths were detained for educating underprivileged children. The following month, the Iranian Parliament published a draft Islamic penal code, requiring the death penalty for all ``apostates''--a term applied to Baha'is and any convert away from Islam. On May 14. 2008, seven members of Iran's national Baha'i coordinating group were arrested. This is reminiscent of the mass disappearance and assumed murder of all the members of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Iran in August, 1980. On August 1, 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H. Res. 1008, condemning the persecution of Baha'is in Iran and calling for the immediate release of all Baha'is imprisoned solely on the basis of their religion. Our bipartisan voice bought the Baha'i leadership some time--but it appears only 6 months. This week, the Government of Iran charged the seven Baha'i leaders with ``espionage for Israel, insulting religious sanctities and propaganda against the Islamic republic.'' Deputy Tehran Prosecutor Hassan Haddad declared, ``The charges against seven defendants in the case of the illegal Baha'i group were examined . . . and the case will be sent to the revolutionary court next week.'' It is time for the international community to act. Today, along with my colleagues Jim McGovern and Brad Sherman, I am introducing a bipartisan resolution calling on the Government of Iran to immediately release the seven Baha'i leaders and all others imprisoned solely the basis of their religion. I urge President Obama and Secretary Clinton, in concert with the international community, to publicly condemn Iran's persecution of its religious minorities and demand the release of these seven community leaders.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. I might just ask the leadership why we're debating this resolution, taking time away from serious debate on the hidden stimulus bill. Why, as the economy tanks, congressional leaders are voting to borrow $2 trillion, but we're debating National Engineers Week and a football resolution. Now I watched the game and it was a good game, but it's not our core mission. We should be debating the $2 billion appropriation for, ``neighborhood stabilization'' available to organizations currently under criminal scrutiny like ACORN, a new wellness fund or a government medical effectiveness board now with powers to override decisions of you and your doctor. When we take up resolutions like this, it's because we are trying to distract Members and the American people from knowing what they cannot read in the stimulus bill. We can debate the Super Bowl, but you know, the results are not in doubt. What we ought to be debating is should we borrow $2 trillion on behalf of the American people and does anyone have that cash. We debate Engineer Week instead of asking the Fed when you ``monetize'' debt, doesn't that really mean you're printing money? It's resolutions like this that weaken the reputation of the U.S. House.

Mr. KIRK. It's resolutions like this that weaken the image of this Congress as a serious legislative body. Let's take another look at resolutions like these for what they really are, distractions so that we do not see what is currently happening behind closed doors on the stimulus bill, the growing debt of our country, and decisions by Federal officials to begin printing money.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, today I rise to celebrate the 200th birthday of our sixteenth president Abraham Lincoln. We celebrate his accomplishments, not only because he helped create our party but most of all we covet his ability to unite us. As a member who proudly represents the 10th district of Illinois, today we can stand tall and proudly say we are from the Land of Lincoln. It was Abraham Lincoln who so famously said, ``Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.'' As tough as it is, our parents faced worse. The Depression, World War II, the Cold War. Americans defeated the British Empire and won the Civil War--all tougher times than these. History teaches us that each generation is tested. This is ours. If we can learn anything from Lincoln it is that we must never lose hope--for we have faced great adversity in the past and emerged the stronger. As we look to the future and better days, we must not forget the heroes of our past. Abraham Lincoln failed in business, lost his Senate race, and saved the Union. As we all face setbacks, his life is an example encouraging us to get up from setbacks and work to win even against long odds.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Spending under this legislation totals over $800 billion, requiring the Bureau of the Debt, we project, to attempt to borrow $2.1 trillion to finance this legislation. And this legislation isn't the only big spending bill we will consider. Shortly, we will consider a $410 billion omnibus appropriation reportedly containing 4,000 earmarks, followed by a $100 billion supplemental. I was just at the Bureau of the Public Debt today watching the Federal Government go $32 billion in debt, one of three public auctions. We have an enormous requirement for borrowing money, five times more than in the history of the United States, totaling $76,000 per taxpayer if this legislation passes. We have seen other sovereign debt issues fail. Recently, the government of Germany failed to auction its debt because so much was being offered. Under this legislation, and with other legislation that is pending on the omnibus and on the supplemental, the Bureau of the Debt will be forced to auction $150 billion per week of the United States going into debt. We have never seen so much debt auctioned before, and this is not coordinated with other governments. Other governments, like the Government of China, the Government of the United Kingdom, France all have their own stimulus packages going into debt $1.2 trillion themselves. The question: With all of these governments borrowing over $3 trillion, who has the money to pay this? Now we know our kids are going to pay for this long term, but who is going to pay for this next week? And the answer is: maybe debt markets, maybe not. We have never seen the United States go this far into debt this quickly. It took 40 Presidents, from President Washington to President Reagan, to build up $1 trillion in debt. The previous President doubled our debt to $6 trillion. But now, we are going $2.6 trillion more into debt in a month. In a month. Can we auction this much debt this quickly? It is a question that should be asked and answered before we pass this legislation.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, the American people should know the $800 billion stimulus bill is not the only spending bill coming. In 2 weeks, we will consider a $410 billion omnibus with 4,000 earmarks in it, followed by a $100 billion supplemental. Americans should know that these three spending bills will trigger a need to borrow $2.6 trillion in just the next few months. That's five times more than the United States has ever borrowed. Each taxpayer now owes $56,000 on this debt, and after these bills pass, you will owe $76,000 each. The cost of this debt will rip the cost of a college education from each family. Last week I was the first Member of Congress to bother even to visit the Bureau of Debt. They will attempt to borrow $2.6 trillion over the next few months to try to pay for these three spending bills.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, in the past year, shareholders in American companies have seen the value of their holdings drop by 30 percent. Congress is taking action to stimulate our economy, and reviewing options to strengthen oversight of the capital markets that keep our economy going. We must not forget the small investor. Middle class families have watched their nest eggs shrink and their home values drop. Their shaken confidence impacts consumer spending and the future growth of our nation's economy. Some middle class Americans nearing retirement may need to work additional years to earn back their stock losses. With continuing economic uncertainty, we must bring relief to middle class families while boosting investor confidence in an uncertain stock market. Today, I am introducing the Middle Class Investor Relief Act, increasing the maximum annual capital loss a taxpayer can take from $3,000 to $20,000. Current tax law is asymmetrical with regard to taxing capital gains and writing off capital losses. Long-term gains are taxed at 15 percent while capital loss write-offs are capped at $3,000 per year. An individual who lost more than $3,000 in the stock market could take years to rebuild his or her holdings. The Middle Class Investor Relief Act will correct the asymmetry of current tax law and help middle class Americans recover losses and rebuild their portfolios.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I have now successfully amended this bill twice. The first Kirk amendment blocked stimulus funds from going through Governor Blagojevich's hand. The second Kirk amendment deleted funding for $200 million to resod the National Mall. Now the Mall plan collapsed last year after the Park Service received 13,000 objections, including the ACLU, that objected to the plan's restrictions on protest space. I also objected to the need to turn the reflecting pool into an ice- skating rink, for an expensive contemplation area and new water-taxi service the taxpayers would pay for but no one would use. It's surprising the Appropriations Committee even approved this funding. Unfortunately, congressional leaders have rejected my amendment allowing bipartisan oversight over the $825 billion of spending in this bill. This bill claims to set up a transparency board and an advisory committee, but all of the members will work for the White House. Congressional leaders rejected any oversight by anyone who does not report directly to the President.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. The economy is hurting and we should act. A stimulus bill that backed improving highways and airports would blunt the recession. If you look at the stimulus bill the Appropriations Committee approved, you would find 11 appropriations totaling $65 billion that would put 2 million Americans to work, but the bill spends hundreds of millions more. It spends more money than the entire GDP of Australia. Of the 151 appropriations, only 34 even have claims of reporting jobs. The bill claims to save 3.7 million jobs, but does so at a cost of $222,000 each. Private sector jobs only cost $50,000 each. The bill quotes one economist, Mark Zandi, six times, but doesn't mention the Congressional Budget Office. CBO reports that only $26 billion of this trillion dollar bill can be spent in 2009. CBO says over $70 billion of the spending will not be spent during the entire 4 years of the Obama administration. And one last thing, there is no mention of the $2 trillion congressional leaders plan to borrow or how our kids will pay it back.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, today Representative Steve Cohen and I introduced the Horse Transportation Safety Act of 2009. In Wadsworth, IL, on Saturday, October 27, 2007, a double decker cattle truck carrying 59 Belgian draft horses overturned when the driver ran a red light and hit another vehicle. Residents at the scene could hear the animals kicking and screaming, panicked by their inability to escape. Eight horses died on the scene while another ten had to be euthanized. After the crash, Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States said, ``What a gory mess we saw recently in Illinois. It must never happen again . . .'' It is time that we heed these words by putting an end to using double decker trucks to transport horses. This legislation, endorsed by the Humane Society, Animal Welfare Institute, Hooved Animal Rescue and Protection Society, and the Communication Alliance to Network Thoroughbred Ex-Racehorses would take steps toward preventing this disaster from occurring again. This bill prohibits the interstate transport of horses in a motor vehicle containing two or more levels stacked on top of one another as well as creates civil penalties between $100 and $500 for each horse involved. In my own State of Illinois, the State General Assembly has already moved forward and passed similar legislation. I urge my colleagues to become a cosponsor of this bipartisan commonsense legislation.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I am proud to introduce this bill to award Dr. Joseph B. Kirsner the Congressional Gold Medal for his outstanding work in the medical field of gastroenterology. The son of Russian immigrants, Kirsner overcame adversity as a young man and graduated from Tufts University School of Medicine at the top of his class. He went on to earn his medical degree at the University of Chicago. While training in Chicago, he became an expert in gastroenterology and helped to make the University of Chicago the premier center for research and therapy of inflammatory bowel disease. His leadership and research led to unprecedented medical advances in the field of gastroenterology, enhancing the lives of people across the world. Despite his devotion to his research, Kirsner was compelled to join the armed forces in World War earning a third Battle Star in the battle of the Philippines before serving under General Douglas MacArthur in Japan. Following the war, Kirsner became a full Professor of Medicine at the University of Chicago. During his time as a Professor, he published over 700 papers and 15 books, and gave over 25 named lectureships. He has served as a leader on a number of boards and foundations, such as the National Institutes of Health, the American Gastroenterological Association and the Chicago Medical Society. Despite all of his world-renowned successes, he continues to provide personal care to patients from across the country. Dr. Kirsner, a World War II veteran and devoted civil servant to the field of medicine, has lived his life in service to others, deserving of national recognition for his honorable contribution to our country.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing the Kidney Disease Education Benefits Act. As co-Chairman of the Congressional Kidney Caucus, I am proud to join with my fellow Kidney Caucus co-Chairman, Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) to introduce this important initiative. Each year, some 80,000 people are diagnosed with End-Stage Renal Disease. This stage of kidney disease occurs when the kidneys function at less than 10 percent and, as a result, are no longer able to maintain life. Patients with kidney disease require regular kidney dialysis treatments or a transplant to survive. Medicare pays for most renal patients at the cost of $20 billion a year, nearly 7 percent of all Medicare expenditures, despite the fact that the kidney disease population represents just 1.1 percent of all Medicare patients. Complications associated with kidney disease are common, but can be reduced if appropriate education is provided prior to the onset of renal failure. There are a number of steps chronic kidney disease patients can take to reduce renal failure and better prepare themselves for dialysis, including making lifestyle changes, learning about renal replacement options, and seeking a compatible kidney donor. Medicare, however, does not provide coverage for education on nutrition, treatment options, venous access, or transplant coordination until after the patient has experienced kidney failure and is already undergoing dialysis. To remedy this situation, we are introducing the Kidney Disease Education Benefits Act of 2009 to make counseling available to patients before they begin dialysis. This is a top National Kidney Foundation legislative priority. Our bill would provide reimbursement for an estimated $10 million per year for up to six educational sessions for Medicare patients. These sessions would be offered one year prior to kidney failure to help prevent renal failure, better prepare these patients for dialysis, and save Medicare costs that can be associated with complications resulting from renal failure. Kidney disease cannot be reversed, but, with appropriate education, its effects can be slowed, improving the quality of life for renal patients and reducing costs to taxpayers. I would like to thank Congressman McDermott for joining me in the fight against kidney disease. I look forward to working with him and my other colleagues on this important initiative.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, with a President to inaugurate and a troubled economy we can overlook the sacrifice of our troops in Afghanistan. This conflict, overshadowed by Iraq, is often called the Forgotten War. Last month I became the first Member of the House to serve in an Imminent Danger Area since 1942. Now, Members of this House have served in all of America's wars, from the Revolution through World War II. But the Defense Department's policy of 1943 blocked reservist Congressmen from serving in Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Kosovo or Iraq. Senator and Colonel Lindsay Graham broke through this barrier 2 years ago, and I became the first Member of this House to also serve since World War II. While our country has moved from a draftee military to an all- volunteer force, I think it's still important for as many Americans as possible to share the burden of our troops. Our military is the strongest when it pulls into its ranks Americans from all races, creeds and colors and especially all walks of life. It is important for Members of this House, where the Constitution places the power to declare war, to also serve alongside our troops. I voted for the deployment of troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, and was honored then to be one of the first to join them in Afghanistan. As a Naval Reserve Intelligence Officer, I deployed to Southern Afghanistan in support of NATO's International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF at the headquarters of Regional Command South. I served in the command of a Dutch Major General, Mart de Kruif, and on the staff of his American Deputy for Stabilization, Brigadier General John Nicholson of the U.S. Army. I can report to the House that the morale of our troops in Afghanistan is high. Americans that I joined feel that this is the right mission in the right place. Just because this effort is 10 times harder than we first thought, it remains the place where we can best support the safety of the American people. Our headquarters was located at Kandahar Airfield, known as KAF. We located just a few miles from Tarnak Farms, where Osama bin Laden had trained many al Qaeda operatives. A few miles further down the road was the palace of Mullah Omar, the murderous former dictator of the Taliban. We face some real challenges in Afghanistan. Our mission has now stretched for 7 years, and can wear thin with the Afghan people. As we look at Senator Barack Obama becoming our Commander-in-Chief, it's important that we review what we have accomplished in Afghanistan, its differences from the Iraq mission and what remains to be done. First, it's important to note that Afghanistan is not Iraq, and almost every comparison between the two leads to people making errors with regard to our policy in Afghanistan. While both countries are predominantly Muslim, with over 25 million people, there is where the similarities end. Iraq is a country that has always had a strong central government. Afghanistan has always had a certain amount of lawlessness, even during the Soviet dictatorship. Iraq has an oil industry and a middle class. Afghanistan has neither. Iraq was a mission carried out by America and Britain, nearly alone, with few allies helping. Afghanistan is home to a NATO mission where a very large majority of the troops come from outside America. Finally, the insurgency in Iraq was sustained by dictatorships in Syria and Iran. In Afghanistan, the principal sustainment in income of the Taliban is now heroin, generating billions in profit. Our troops have accomplished a great deal already in Afghanistan. We destroyed al Qaeda's training bases, and then deposed the Taliban dictatorship that protected them. We organized elections, and then protected a new democratically elected government under Hamid Karzai. These missions were no small feat in a country that has proven to be the graveyard of the Soviet military and that has seen no elections for three generations. Since 2006, the mission in Afghanistan has stalled as the Taliban has morphed into a new and deadly force. The tenets of Islam are generally anti-narcotic. The Taliban first eradicated poppy and heroin production, but now has changed its practice. Once the Taliban no longer had easy access to bin Laden or to Saudi charity money, they went into the heroin business big time. Today, they are more accurately described as the narco-Taliban, backed by at least $500 million in annual drug profits. Some of Afghanistan's wealthiest warlords are Taliban leaders who produce heroin to support jihad and terror against the elected Government of Afghanistan and of the nations of the West. The narco-Taliban are not evenly distributed across Afghanistan. They are concentrated in the heroin heartland of the Helmand River valley and in the nearby city of Kandahar. There is a growing misperception that the war in Afghanistan is fiercest near Pakistan's border. While that may have been true last year, the key to fighting this year is along the heroin river of Helmand in southern Afghanistan. The Afghan Government and NATO are fighting pitched battles in the strategic rear of NATO where support and funding for the Taliban are actually the greatest. Our effort there has been expensive both in blood and in treasure. In my area, the U.S. has lost over 80 soldiers, but the Canadians have lost over 90 and the British over 110. I cannot emphasize enough the dedication and professionalism and commitment of our troops and especially of our NATO allies. I, personally, served with British Royal Marine Commandos, with Canadian troops, with Dutch armor officers and enlisted, with Danish armor officers and enlisted, and with Romanian infantry. Along with our service men and women from the Army, the Marines, the Air Force, and the Navy, I found these troops from the West to be young, idealistic and some of the most dedicated people I've ever served with. In short, I worked with heroes whom I admire a great deal. When I deployed to Afghanistan, I thought I might serve as a Fobbit. A ``Fobbit'' is a person who works on a Forward Operating Base, or a FOB, who never leaves its border, who simply shuttles between the chow hall, the office, the gym, and the rack. Thanks to my command, I was not a Fobbit. I spent a great deal of my time outside the wire in Kandahar, in Geresk, in Lashkar Gah, and in Qalat. This experience gave me a much greater understanding of the opportunities that we share with NATO and with the Afghan Government. With all of this effort, we should ask the question: What is at stake in Afghanistan? Should we pull out? Should we stay put or should we double down? In my view, what is at stake is that the safety of American families is at risk especially if you live in the target cities of New York, Washington or Chicago. These are the cities most emphasized by al Qaeda and the Taliban. The dream of many Talib and foreign fighters is to depose the democratically elected government of Afghanistan and then move jihad back into the cities of Europe and the United States. Most of the NATO troops whom I met remember not just 9/11, which they watched on TV, but also the Madrid Metro attack, the London bus bombings, and the murder of intellectuals in Amsterdam. They believe as I do, which is the best way to face the Talib is in Afghanistan with Afghan allies who know how to fight them best. Should we keep the mission in Afghanistan as it is today? If we do that, we risk a bloody stalemate that would definitely protect the capital of the Afghan Government in Kabul but would surrender much of the territory of the country to the Talib. The Talib is also wearing our allies thin, especially in Canada and in the Netherlands, and it would strain our alliance. The Taliban now attacks young girls, who dare to go to school, with acid in their faces, and it has assassinated Afghanistan's only female police officer because she was a woman. We know who they are. They are brutal dictators who want to set society back to the 13th century. As Americans, we cannot go back to the 13th century. Our culture and our country don't even go back that far. Most Afghans support our values of reform, of rights for women, of the vote, and especially of modernity. But simply to protect their families, many in Afghanistan want to be with the winning side, and right now, many families in Afghanistan don't know who the winning side will be--the Afghan Government and NATO or the Taliban. Should we double down? NATO allies clearly believe that we should double down, but they are waiting for a call from our new President. Our best allies--the U.K., Spain, France, and several other NATO countries--are already planning to add their troop commitment to Afghanistan. Other close allies of the United States, especially Canada and the Netherlands, need to be asked before making the painful decision for themselves to hang in there. Most expect that the U.S. will be part of a 60,000 troop commitment to Afghanistan, one-third being Americans, who will then move to attack the heroin production heartland that sustains the Taliban. If this happens, we can expect some tough days ahead. Hard fighting and casualties would ensue. The Taliban cannot survive without the heroin income that comes from this region. If we succeed, we will rip the financial engine out from the Taliban, securing a future for central Asia that does not include terror. In the end, we should ask this key question: What is our exit strategy? Currently, the Afghan police and army are much, much smaller than their counterparts in Iraq, a country that has an equal number of people. We need to double the size of Afghanistan's police and army so that they can take this mission from NATO and so that we can wind up our own effort. It will take at least 2 or 3 years to accomplish this objective, which is why our NATO mission is needed now. I want to thank the men and women with whom I served. Our Dutch allies sent us General de Kruif, and our British allies sent us Brigadier General Hook of the Royal Marine Commandos, both of whom I served with closely. I also want to thank the men with whom I most closely worked: Majors Will Daniel and Fred Tanner of the U.S. Army. I also want to thank them for their dedication. I think about them here from the floor each and every day. I especially want to thank my boss, Brigadier General John Nicholson, of the U.S. Army. I count myself lucky that, at this later stage in my life, I have served briefly with such an inspirational leader. To the mothers and fathers of this country, I would say that, if your sons or daughters serve in southern Afghanistan, they will work under one of the most able military leaders whom I have ever met. As we leave Iraq, it is likely that Afghanistan will no longer be the forgotten war. Members of this House should take note that our troops have already accomplished a great deal there, but more remains to be done. For my part, I am honored to have served there, and I will be on this House floor the voice of the troops, of the Americans whom we have stationed in the land far above the Khyber Pass. I yield back the balance of my time.