Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it was the assumption of the body here that all the earmarks that were contained in the Senate bill would be taken care of in the reconciliation bill. If it is true that they are not all taken into consideration for, do the earmark rules then apply to the rest of the bill?

Mr. TIAHRT. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to. It was the impression given the Members and the people of the United States that the reconciliation bill would take care of all the earmarks in the Senate bill. However, we now know that there are earmarks in the Senate bill that are not being taken care of. So do not the House rules on earmarks apply to the remainder of the Senate bill?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I am asking for an inquiry on the House rules. Do the House rules apply or not?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, is it not the purpose of your role to make sure that the rules of the House are incorporated into our discussions?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, clarification of the point of order.

Mr. TIAHRT. Is it my understanding that you said that the rules will apply to the Senate bill on earmarks that were not covered by the reconciliation bill?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health care bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of not only the people of the great State of Kansas but also on behalf of the millions of Americans whose wishes are not being represented by their own Representatives. Kansans, over two-thirds of Americans, and I are strongly opposed to the Senate bill and the Reconciliation bill, both of which represent a massive government takeover of health care. I cannot and will not support this government takeover of our health care system that will restrict choice, ration care, increase the cost of health care, greatly increase government spending, cut Medicare spending, bankrupt States, lead to the destruction of the world's best medical care, and kill jobs during one of the worst economic periods in our Nation's history. In order to get to the Capitol today, everyone in this body had to pass the tens of thousands of Americans from all walks of life who came by plane, train and automobile, at their own expense, to petition their government not to impose government run health care on them. I spent the weekend speaking with many of these patriotic Americans, many of whom were turned away by their own Representatives on the other side of the aisle. I was struck not only by their personal stories (from the great-grandmother with a bad knee who came from Pennsylvania and navigated the Metro for the first time to the small business owner from Wisconsin who has never gotten involved in politics but bought a ticket to come out here because he felt this was so important) but also by their determination. The media may have made the prospects for killing the bill look grim, but they were not going to let that happen without a fight. The group was diverse but almost everyone with whom I spoke mentioned the same concerns with the bill: government power grab, deficit spending, increased taxes, rationing of care, taxpayer funded abortions, and especially the restriction of freedom. If government can take over one-sixth of the Nation's economy over the will of the people, they asked, what separates us from Venezuela and socialized nations? Power grab We have a one party town; the Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House. They are taking advantage of this situation to centralize power in their hands so that they may control every aspect of our lives including what cars we can drive, how we educate our children, now our health care options. Believe me, the American people are opposed to this, as indicated in rock bottom approval ratings for Congress and even the President, who less than a year ago had the highest approval ratings seen in a long time. Patients benefit when their doctors make the decisions as to their health care needs, not bureaucrats sitting in an office building in Washington, DC. The federal government should not intrude in this sacred relationship. The most famous line of the physician's Hippocratic Oath is ``I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.'' Under government-run health care, Washington will override their judgment and it will be government bureaucrats, not doctors, who prescribe regimens. It's not just the bureaucrats at HHS that Americans will have to worry about, this bill also greatly expands the power of the IRS and hands them the authority to harass and even fine American families and job creators for their health care choice. Despite repeated inquiries, no one has been able to tell me just how many new bureaucrats will be added to the federal payroll to implement government-run health care. The unfunded mandates on the States to provide health insurance options and oversee the private sector, at a time when they are in dire financial straits, are confounding. Access Today over 20 percent of physicians in Kansas already no longer accept new Medicare patients because they will be forced into bankruptcy trying to care for them with the grossly inadequate government reimbursements. Now the new administration wants to compound this loss of accessible health care professionals with a loss of access to health care treatment. In response, 46 percent of family physicians indicated that they would leave the medical profession due to a government takeover of health care. Cost This bill will cost well over the $1.2 trillion that CBO has scored. That score conveniently does not include the cost of the ``doc fix,'' the Medicare prescription drug donut hole fix, the Pell Grant expansion inexplicably included in the bill, or many other provisions of the bill. As if the health provisions weren't enough, the Democrats have used this bill as a vehicle to pass education and energy provisions that will increase deficit spending by billions and kill even more jobs. How are they paying for this? By cutting other areas of our bloated federal government? No, they are paying for this on the backs of American families and job creators. There is $569.2 billion in new taxes included in this bill. Much of that burden will be shouldered by the middle class and small businesses. Rationed Care My biggest concern with the Democrat proposals is the intended rationing of health care. The Obama administration has already begun to set the framework for rationed care with comparative effectiveness research. This is a very dangerous road to travel down. Freedom We pride ourselves on being the home of the free but this bill will reduce the United States to the level of every socialized nation in the world. If this bill is signed into law, Americans will not have the freedom to choose their doctor, their course of treatment, or their health plan. The federal government has no authority to force Americans to buy health insurance or to mandate what benefits employers can and cannot provide employees. In addition this bill begins to destroy Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). HSAs are what we should be promoting as a way to expand choice, give patients more control over their medical spending, and reduce health care costs. Prevent innovation Just this week I met with NTH Director Francis Collins. We spent the better part of an hour talking about all of the exciting advances in medicine, especially in the area of individualized medicine. It was not lost on me that the treatments and cures we were discussing will never come to fruition under a government-run health care system that rations care and stifles innovation. Seniors This bill is a bad deal for our seniors. It expressly cuts $523 billion from Medicare and doesn't even fix the Medicare prescription drug donut hole until 2020. The rationing of care will also disproportionately affect seniors who, for obvious reasons, are the largest consumers of health care. Pro-Life Concerns Finally, the bills before us include abortions paid for with federal dollars and do not include conscience protection for medical providers. This is in blatant disregard of the House vote just 4 months ago. More importantly, it is in blatant disregard of the whopping two-thirds of Americans who oppose using federal dollars to pay for abortions. Even those individuals and organizations who strongly support government-run health care, such as the Catholic Church, do not want such programs to pay for abortions or euthanasia. I want health care reform and am saddened that this process has become so political that we won't see the much needed modernization that will ensure Americans have access to the best health care for decades to come. I am saddened that states like my home state of Kansas are forced to take drastic action to try to protect their citizens from being affected by Washington's takeover of health care. Republicans have offered better solutions and principles that should be included in any health care reform. Those principles should: let Americans who like their health coverage keep it, give all Americans the freedom to choose the health plan that best meets their needs; ensure that medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors, not government bureaucrats; and improve Americans' lives through effective prevention, wellness, and disease management programs, while developing new treatments and cures for life-threatening diseases. CBO has declared that the Republican health care plan would lower health care costs by at least 10 percent. This is the approach the American people want to see passed by Congress, not the destructive bill that is instead before us. Our constituents have spoken loudly and clearly and it is our duty as their representatives to listen to them, not ignore them and use the sacred Speaker's gavel to impose personal political goals upon them. Therefore, with every breath in my body, on behalf of my constituents, I scream ``heck no'' and vote ``nay.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker,

Mr. TIAHRT. Is it true that in the course of comfortable debate that we not question another Member's motives?

Mr. TIAHRT. Is it against the House rules to question another Member's motives?

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the Speaker.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TIAHRT. The concern was for veterans that were under the age of 65 and have 20 years of service or more, that the health care bill statutes that were determining what was acceptable as the stand-alone insurance committee----

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman. It was that the folks who were on TRICARE under the age of 65 and retired would get moved out of TRICARE into the government-determined plan.

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from Colorado. Madam Speaker, I was just on the steps of the Capitol speaking to a Cold War veteran who served this country admirably and then went to serve the Fire Department in the State of Mississippi. He has driven all the way from Mississippi to Washington, D.C., because he is concerned that the health care bill that's going to be passed is going to increase the debt for his grandchildren and his children. He had other lists of concerns that he had, but primarily he was concerned about the debt. We know for a fact that since October 1, the beginning of this fiscal year, we have overspent by $655 billion. This is money we do not have that we've gone ahead and spent. We've borrowed this money and applied it to programs that I don't believe we needed. So he's concerned that, looking at this health care bill and the current projections, the total cost outlays over the next 10 years is $1.2 trillion, money, again, that we don't have, and so we're going to have to borrow from somewhere. And that takes into consideration that there's only 6 years of health care benefits that are going to be applied in the first 10 years and 10 years of higher taxes. So he's very concerned about the direction. If you go on to the next 10 years, it's going to be over $1.5 trillion that we will have to borrow for the health care bill that we are about to vote on tomorrow. He's concerned about that as well. Where's the money going to come from? The gentleman from New Jersey was very concerned about us overlooking something that may have been or may not have been in the bill. The concern that the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee had is that under the way the bill is currently written, that people who are on TRICARE would be forced into the government exchange, and so he corrected that earlier today. Now it wasn't me that came up with that solution. I was aware of the problem, but even the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the Democrat Chairman Ike Skelton from Missouri, was concerned, so we had the legislative change. What else is hidden in this bill? Now we have the bill, and yet we're not going to know the entire contents as far as what the American public is concerned about or what they will know. So if you look at the Senate bill that's going to be passed, fortunately, it's not going to be deemed to be passed with a rule. And I think that's a tremendous victory for the American people. Yesterday the American people were very upset that we were going to deem the Senate bill passed. Today 50,000 people showed up to protest it. Calls came in. You couldn't even call into our switchboard, 202- 224-3121 was blocked because of all the calls coming in, and their voices were heard. So tomorrow we're going to get a separate vote on the Senate bill. The people of America spoke out. They didn't want it to be deemed to be law. They wanted a separate vote. Now they want us to vote against it. There is a whole bunch of people standing out here on the east side of the Capitol near the steps. They are protesting the health care bill. What they're saying is, Kill the bill. They're chanting it over and over and over again. Are we going to listen to their voices? Are we going to listen to what they're saying? What they know of what's in the Senate bill and the reconciliation bill they don't like. So tomorrow we hope that we can explain to them what's in the bill. Then they'll make an informed decision, and hopefully they will encourage their Members of Congress to vote against the bill.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, this is National Ag Week, and I want to express my support and appreciation for our Nation's farmers and ranchers, especially those from my home State of Kansas. Kansas farmers produce more than 350 million bushels of wheat, 200 million bushels of sorghum, and nearly 500 million bushels of corn, generating more than $5 billion annually for our economy. Our ranchers produced more than 6.3 billion head of cattle this year. Each farmer feeds more than 130 people. It is their hard work that has ensured America a safe, low-cost feed supply. Now, I learned about agriculture on the seat of a tractor, not a committee, and I know firsthand just how hard farmers work. Too many people here in Washington have no clue how the policies they pass affect farm life, often making things more difficult for farmers and ranchers. Congress and bureaucracies need to freeze regulations and let the agricultural community do their job of feeding the world. We need to have the EPA step back from the regulations of everything from dust to cow gas. We need to eliminate the death tax so family farms can stay in the family. And please, let us restore the focus of the farm bill on the family farm and not on the cities. So tonight, Mr. Speaker, as you sit down to dinner, remember to thank a farmer for making your meal possible.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in opposition to H. Con. Res. 248, The Afghanistan War Powers Resolution. This resolution calls for a premature withdrawal of our forces from Afghanistan, putting our service men and women and our Nation at risk. Make no mistake, we are in the midst of a very important war. We did not seek the Global War on Terror, but it is one we cannot abandon. On September 11, 2001, we were attacked in the most horrifying way. 2,973 innocent people were killed. Nine buildings were destroyed. The Pentagon was hit and but for the bravery of the passengers of United Flight #93, our Capitol would have been destroyed as well. This war, however, did not begin or end on that fateful day. Muslim extremists have been at war with America for years, but few people took notice until 2001. In 1983, terrorists launched a suicide truck-bomb attack against the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 242 Americans. In 1993, Islamic terrorists attacked the World Trade Center building in New York City, killing six people and injuring 1,000 more. In 1998, Al-Qaeda bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, leaving 300 dead and injuring over 5,000 people. In 2000, the U.S. Navy Destroyer USS Cole was attacked by followers of Usama bin Laden, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39. In May 2001, just over three months before the attacks of September 11, the Muslim terrorist group Abu Sayyaf kidnapped 16 people including Kansas missionaries Martin and Gracia Burnham. While some escaped, four hostages were killed including Martin. Fortunately, Gracia survived this terrifying ordeal and is now living in Rose Hill, Kansas. On September 11, Americans awoke to the reality that we could no longer ignore the growing threat of Muslim extremists. We had a choice: either wait for the next attack, or take the fight to the terrorists. The American people and Congress were unified in answering that we would fight terrorists before they reach American soil. Today, the United States remains engaged in a global war against Muslim extremists. In order to protect our country, we must ensure that terrorists are not given safe haven in any nation. Most of the planning of training for the September 11, 2001 attacks took place in Afghanistan and terrorists continue to exploit vulnerabilities in Afghanistan today. Our troops have made tremendous progress in securing Afghanistan, but there is much more to do. Afghanistan needs our help to root out terrorists and ensure that terrorists no longer use their country to launch terrorist attacks around the world. We are not naive as to the cost of this war. Over 1,000 brave Americans have been killed in Afghanistan over the past eight years, and we mourn each one. Billions of dollars have been spent on this protracted effort. This has been a long and costly war, but it is not in vain. The cost of this war does not negate the importance of this war. Afghanistan is the central front in the war against terror. Walking away from Afghanistan will not bring peace and security to our people. We have seen firsthand what happens when Afghanistan is a safe haven for terrorists. The consequences are too great for us to simply wait for the enemy to strike. The question is not does this war exist? Though some are in denial, we are at war even if we do not want to be. Rather, the question is where will the battle be fought? In opposing this resolution, I vote to have that battle where every American carries a gun and wears body armor, not on the streets of Wichita. We can not leave Afghanistan until the job is done. We owe it to the Marines killed in Lebanon, the sailors of the USS Cole, those murdered at the east African embassies, Martin and Gracia Burnham, all those who lost their lives on September 11, and to the troops who have died defending our freedom and security on the battlefields of the Global War on Terror. We must stay strong and finish the task at hand. I look forward to the day when our troops come home in victory, and when our people can live in peace and security--free from the fear of a terrorist attack. But today is not that day. Today we must redouble our efforts to bring security to Afghanistan, which, in turn, will bring us one step closer to that day. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, the Democrat claims that the Obama health care bill will reduce the debt and help balance the budget, but reviewing those calculations shows that they're going to collect higher taxes for 10 years and provide health care for only 6 years. Imagine that. Isn't that a little misleading? Four years of health care taxes with no health care. Imagine if you wanted to buy a house and you had to make 4 years of payments before you could move in, and then finally when you moved in, you found out you had rationed use of the property. You couldn't choose where to park your car, like in the garage. You had to drive blocks away down to a public parking lot and then wait in line for a stall. Ten years of taxes, 6 years of benefits, followed by rationed care. You wouldn't buy a house under those terms, and Congress shouldn't pass a health care bill under those terms either. We can do better. We can have health care reform that lowers costs by addressing preexisting conditions, by lowering defensive medicine costs, by having commonsense tort reform. The Republican alternative lowers the price of health care by 10 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's what this Congress ought to pass. I deem back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I was unable to make the vote on H.R. 2847 due to the untimely death and funeral of one of my staffers' father. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``Nay.'' If there is one thing the American people agree upon it's that major changes are necessary in order to dig ourselves out of this spending quagmire. The American people want us to reform our spending practices so that our economy can be prosperous once again. The irony of this ``Jobs'' bill is that it includes a net tax revenue increase of $14.3 billion, which will force employers to cut jobs in order to pay more money to the federal government. Strangely, the Democrats attempt to give a tax break to small businesses on one hand but then take away with the other. This legislation also includes another short-term extension of the highway authorization. Instead of continuing with short-term extensions of transportation funding, Congress needs to enact a meaningful, 6-year surface transportation funding bill. Today, I introduced the Keeping American Businesses Competitive Act. This legislation would lower the top business tax rate from 35 percent to 22 percent. The United States currently has the second highest corporate tax rate of any industrialized nation, putting American workers and businesses at a huge competitive disadvantage. Rather than the Democrat ``solution'' of increasing taxes to address job loss, lowering the corporate tax rate will actually put people back to work. According to the Milken Institute, lowering the rate to 22 percent would ``create an additional 350,000 manufacturing jobs and increase total employment by 2.13 million.'' If this Congress is serious about getting Americans back to work, it should focus its efforts on proven, free-market principles that will level the playing field for our businesses to compete and keep capital and jobs here in the U.S. For the above reasons, I oppose this bill.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wholeheartedly support the naming of the United States Post Office Building located at 9727 Antioch Road in Overland Park, Kansas, as the ``Congresswoman Jan Meyers Post Office Building.'' Congresswoman Meyers represented the 3rd District of Kansas in the United States House of Representatives from January 3, 1985 until January 3, 1997. I had the honor of serving with Mrs. Meyers in the 104th Congress, her last two years in Congress. It truly was an honor to learn from her. The state of Kansas is a better place for her tireless service. Born Janice Lenore Crilly on July 20, 1928 in Lincoln, Nebraska, Mrs. Meyers was raised in Superior, Nebraska. She attended William Woods College in Missouri and the University of Nebraska, earning an Associate Fine Arts degree and a B.A. in communications, respectively. She then married Louis ``Dutch'' Meyers in 1953, eventually having two children, Valerie and Philip. Jan Meyers became active in politics in 1966 on the campaign of Edward Lawrence ``Larry'' Winn, Jr. for the U.S. House of Representatives. She later went on to become a district co-chairwoman for Senator Bob Dole's first U.S. Senate campaign. Mrs. Meyers went into public service herself as a city councilwoman in the city of Overland Park, from 1967-1972. She left the city council in 1972 when she was elected to the State Senate. Congresswoman Meyers then served in the State Senate until her election to the United States House of Representatives in 1984. Congresswoman Meyers became the Chairwoman of the House Committee on Small Business in the 104th Congress, becoming just the 4th Republican woman to become the chair of a full committee. As a staunch fiscal conservative, she was dedicated to empowering the small business owners of America by introducing legislation to protect their interests and lower taxes to help them expand. Kansas is strong because of our small businesses and Congresswoman Meyers made them stronger. She believed that government works best when it facilitates, rather than restricts private business, as I do. Congresswoman Meyers did not run for reelection to the 105th Congress in order to spend more time with her family. She said ``There are other things in life I want to do, and being a Member of Congress, if you take the job seriously, simply does not leave time.'' During her time in Congress, the Congresswoman was fond of saying ``Listen to your conscience and your constituents--both. Most of the time they'll agree.'' This is truly the best way to represent your constituents and has been my goal during my time in this body. I would like to thank Jan Meyers for acting as a mentor to me in my freshman year and for her dedicated service to Kansas. This legislation is a fitting tribute to an honorable woman and a respected member of this distinguished body. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, on January 19, I missed three rollcall votes numbered 6, 7, and 8 due to being unavoidably detained. Rollcall No. 6 was a vote on congratulating the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine for its 150 years of commitment to advancing science. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.'' Rollcall No. 7 was a vote on congratulating the Penn State women's volleyball team on winning the 2009 NCAA Division I National Championship. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.'' Rollcall No. 8 was a vote on commending the University of Virginia men's soccer team for winning the 2009 Division I NCAA National Championship. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, the base bill of H.R. 3326, the FY2010 Defense Appropriations bill, effectively meets the needs of our men and women in uniform. Although not perfect, H.R. 3326 takes important steps to invest in the people and equipment of the United States Armed Forces. Sadly, Democrat leadership has once again decided to use this vital and non-partisan piece of legislation to enact controversial measures, such as bringing terrorists to U.S. soil. The United States military is the strongest in the world due to our people, training and equipment. I am happy to say that each of those is strongly supported in this legislation. Our military men and women are patriots and the world's finest soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. Congress has a moral obligation to offer them our thanks and unwavering support. Although we can never fully repay their sacrifice and commitment, H.R. 3326 at least provides a pay raise. The bill provides a 3.4 percent pay raise for all servicemembers, which is 0.5% higher than that proposed by the Obama administration. Our military and their families deserve the world's finest medical care. H.R. 3326 makes a $30 billion investment to care for sick and wounded servicemembers and their families. This includes $370 million for medical research and $120 million for Traumatic Brain Injury and psychological health research. The legislation also provides $500 million for family advocacy programs that support military families. With so many servicemen and women deployed overseas, our military families are under particular strain. Whether at Fort Riley or McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas families need this extra assistance when their loved ones are deployed. The bill makes the right investments to ensure they are protected and supported. Given the diverse roles our military performs--from safeguarding nuclear weapons to fighting terrorists in the jungles of the Philippines--rigorous training is essential to ensure our troops are ready for action and come home safely when the job is done. To achieve this objective, H.R. 3326 provides $154 billion for operations and maintenance accounts. During the 1990s, our nation had a ``hollow military''--filled with people and equipment, but lacking the necessary training and readiness to be successful. We must never allow this to occur again. Ensuring that our military has the finest equipment available is essential, and H.R. 3326 makes some necessary investments. With funding for the Next Generation Aerial Refueling Aircraft replacement, the Navy's Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft, and additional C-17 aircraft, among many other programs, our troops will have the most advanced equipment to effectively carry out the will of this nation and return home safely. These programs also create high-paying Kansas jobs that we so desperately need. While this legislation makes the right investments in our fighting men and women and their families, it also includes a dangerous provision for our nation: allowing terrorists detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay to be brought to the United States. Terrorists do not belong in the streets or prisons of America. Following the dangerous decision to house unrepentant terrorists in the Midwest, this legislation does nothing to restrict the president's obsession with closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and bringing terrorists to the United States. We have the most secure, state-of-the-art detention and interrogation facility in the world at Guantanamo Bay. That is where the terrorists should remain. They should never be brought to the United States. Although Democrats continue to play politics with this spending bill, I cannot do the same. Our men and women in uniform deserve the resources to carry out the will of this nation, and this bill provides those. Therefore, I intend to vote for H.R. 3326 and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from California. Madam Speaker, 10 months ago we stood here and told you the stimulus bill would not help the economy recover. We told you it would not work because the $787 billion plus interest would only grow the size of government. You can't grow the economy from the government down. You have to grow it from the ground up. By any standard, we were right. Now we have news accounts of how the money was spent, mostly on government workers writing more government regulations. Then there was the news about the pay raises for Head Start teachers and the buyouts for university professors and unemployment is double digits. It's 10 percent. Today on the floor we have the ``son of the stimulus'' bill. It's another $154 billion of failed economic policies that will only prolong the economic pain. This bill includes another $750 million for green jobs on top of the previous bill's $750 million. So far, no green jobs have been created. The ``son of the stimulus'' adds $23 billion to State and local governments on top of the $53 billion in the stimulus bill. You can't isolate State and local governments from the recession. If you do, they will do nothing to help with the recovery. History tells us what works. When we have the opportunity in America, new ideas come into the marketplace and the economy will grow. When the economy grows, the Federal revenue grows without raising taxes. Here is how you create opportunity: stop spending, stop borrowing. You can't grow the economy from the government down. Freeze regulations, audit every one of them and only keep the ones where the benefit exceeds the cost. Keep taxes low. When you do, people save. They invest; they spend. All of that's good for the economy. Lower health care costs, not by taking over with the government, but by addressing defensive medicine, by addressing tort reform and by incorporating free market principles and then become energy independent. That alone would solve your unemployment problem. Now, it's true that providing the opportunity for the economy to grow does not pay back the government unions for all they have done for you in the last election. Government unions should be pleased with this bill, but the American taxpayers should not. They should be angry. For those that are unemployed workers, well, we are sorry, because this bill will not do anything for the unemployment rate. It's a failed economic policy that only pays back those who invested in the last election for the majority party. Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation and, instead, do something that will help the economy recover by providing opportunity for the unemployed workers.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 976 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''