Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, this rule is to amend a reconciliation bill that is amending a bill that no longer exists. The bill has been signed into law. Therefore, the references in the reconciliation bill are no longer accurate. Is it possible for us to wait until the bill that has been signed into law has been codified so we can have accurate references in the reconciliation bill? Otherwise wouldn't the House be voting on an inaccurate piece of legislation?

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I believe this bill will be inaccurate. The reconciliation bill is inaccurate in its current form, and the rule should be withdrawn until proper references can be made because an inaccurate bill will be voted upon.

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, once again, doesn't it require that the legislation presented to the floor of the House has to be accurate in order for us to vote on it?

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Is it not true that when a bill becomes law it is no longer a bill; therefore, when we amend a nonexisting bill, we cannot vote on an accurate piece of legislation? Is it not in the rules of the House that we have to vote on accurate legislation?

Mr. TIAHRT. I'm not trying to debate; I'm simply trying to understand the rules. My question was not answered on the parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, is it within the rules for the majority manager to withdraw a rule at this stage in the debate?

Mr. TIAHRT. Is it also true that since the legislation that will be amended is inaccurate and does not have correct references to existing law, that we should not have a vote on it, that the rule should be withdrawn?

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, since the bill that is being amended no longer exists, the references are inaccurate. How can we possibly have a vote on an inaccurate bill?

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this rule should be withdrawn. The Senate bill is now law, and it's the greatest intrusion into our private lives that we have seen under this Congress. It's going to hurt our economy, it's going to cost us jobs. Plus, there are special provisions within the bill that's been signed into law that should have been corrected in the reconciliation bill, but this rule fails to address those corrections that need to be taken. The Louisiana purchase is still law today. It should have been corrected. The University of Connecticut hospital that received the earmark should have been corrected by this underlying legislation. The Hawaiian disproportionate share hospital program is exempt from cuts. Other States aren't. Tennessee is also exempt from the DSH. The frontier funding in counties in some rural areas is exempt and other rural areas are not. Montana received special benefits for asbestos, those workers who were exposed to asbestos. What about the other 49 States? Connecticut and Michigan have got a handful of hospitals that are going to get higher Medicare payments because of the legislation, and this rule fails to address it and change the underlying bill so that we can correct these improper measures. So I would request that we withdraw the rule and get a proper bill before us.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt that unemployment remains a problem; but the majority, for some reason, thinks we need to borrow another $600 million to subsidize summer jobs for kids. But, you know, there's a lot of money already available. Out of the $1.2 billion provided for youth jobs in the so-called Recovery Act, $366 million is still unspent. There's another $924 million in annual appropriations that will be available in about 1 week from now. Additionally, for each of the last two program years, there's approximately $250 million appropriated for youth employment that has not been spent and been carried forward. So when you add all that up, it's $1.5 billion that's available today already for youth programs in the summer. Why on God's green Earth would we borrow another $600 million from the Chinese?

Mr. TIAHRT. I have limited time, Mr. Chairman. If you'll be brief.

Mr. TIAHRT. I would welcome to have your question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TIAHRT. Well, Mr. Chairman, we overspent so far this year $655 billion.

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the Chairman. And I would argue that of the $655 billion that we've already had to borrow, you're taking some of that money and applying it to this program so, again, borrowing money from the Chinese.

Mr. TIAHRT. Well, I guess I'm entitled to my new math today. I would like to make the point that these summer jobs, or these temporary youth jobs that are paid for by tax dollars don't create permanent jobs. Wichita State University did a study of what we received with the stimulus money; and of the $6.2 million that was received, 600 employers temporarily hired 1,593 youth for summer jobs. Out of that, only 62 jobs were permanent, or 3.8 percent. So if you look at what's happened through the stimulus, since the stimulus business was passed, we've lost 3.9 million private sector jobs. We have created jobs in the Federal Government, 63,000 jobs, another 230,000 jobs at the State and local level. How are we going to pay for those jobs in the future? We've created permanent government jobs and lost private sector jobs. A little math--that's not new math, but proven math--says that for every government employee, it takes 10 private sector jobs to pay enough Federal taxes to cover the cost of that employee. So what we should be talking about is not temporary jobs in the summer for youth, but permanent jobs, real jobs. And in fact, we need 3 million jobs just to cover the new government jobs that we've created. We can create those jobs through tax relief for employers. We can do it by freezing regulations and forcing the existing regulations through a simple formula where the benefit exceeds the cost. And we need tort reform, and we need to become energy independent.

Mr. TIAHRT. The point I want to make about creating a strong economy to pay for these new government jobs at the Federal and State level, we have to do things to provide opportunity in our economy. The way you do that is you enhance the process of hiring people. Capital is always a coward and only goes where it's welcome. Lowering taxes for people who invest in jobs will attract capital into our economy. Second, we need to freeze our current regulations and force all the regulations that we have on the books today through a simple formula: B has to be greater than C. That means that the benefit has to exceed the cost of implementation. If we would do that, we would lower the cost of creating things in America, of making things in America, and we have to make things. The third thing I would argue is we need to have tort reform. I favor a loser-pay system like they have in the United Kingdom. And, fourth, I would like to say if we became energy independent, we would solve our unemployment problem. Only one State in the entire United States last year had increased employment. That State was North Dakota, and it was because they found oil under private property. Had it been under public lands, we could not have extracted the oil. But because it was private lands, we created jobs. I recommend we oppose this bill.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the chairwoman of the Rules Committee just said that if the language in the Senate bill that was referred to by the gentleman from California is going to be changed, would that not mean that the Senate bill would have to go back to the Senate for further action in that body? Mr. Speaker, in order to keep the American public informed, let me restate this so that you can understand. Is it true that if the actions to overcome the Cornhusker compromise, the Louisiana purchase and those special provisions that have been designated in the Senate bill are changed, as was assured by the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, then would not that bill have to go back to the Senate for further action?

Mr. TIAHRT. Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I am asking a question that if a bill is changed, does it not have to go back to the other body for further action, because the gentlewoman from New York has assured the gentleman from California that his concerns about specific sections that were used to get specific votes is going to be changed by the manager's amendment. Would that not then change the underlying Senate bill, which would then have to go back to the other body for further action? Is that not true?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused, then. Perhaps you could, in a parliamentary inquiry, explain to me that if a bill is changed once it comes from the other body, does it not have to return to that body for further action?

Mr. TIAHRT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Was not the gentleman from California yielded another 10 seconds, and he did not get to use it?