Oppose The Second Chance Act

Floor Speech

OPPOSE THE SECOND CHANCE ACT -- (House of Representatives - May 16, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, and I am so pleased to be joined by three gentlemen from Texas, if you will, two judges and a physician. And we are all part of the Republican Study Committee and are certainly committed to carrying forth the conservative values that we appreciate here in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed hearing the conversation and listening to the conversation and discussion between my two colleagues as they have talked about this law that is a fairness issue, and I think so many people do look at it and say, my goodness, $350 million for those that are in prison, and as the gentleman said, rewarding illegal behavior.

And that is something that people are very sensitive to right now, especially in light of the impact that illegal immigration has made on so many of our communities, the cost to those communities and the concern with our citizens that there are some here in this body that would like to consider amnesty and reward those that have broken the rule of law.

I also enjoyed the conversation about health care and that being provided to those that have been imprisoned. I've been visiting with my Realtors from Tennessee, yesterday and today. They've been on the Hill. The number one issue for them is small business health plans and access to affordable health care. And these are people that really do such a great job in working to improve the quality of life and work with our communities. And they are struggling with providing health care for their employees. They are struggling with providing health care for their families and insurance.

And then when you hear about those that are imprisoned, as they leave having grants for health care provisions, you know, there's just something not right about that. There is something that is a little bit inappropriate about them having access to that when hardworking, middle-class families are struggling with that issue.

We have got so many things to talk about. We have had such an interesting day here. We have had some procedural moves, as Mr. Gohmert mentioned. There is a rule that the majority was trying to change. It dealt with germaneness. This is a rule that has been on the books since 1822, part of our House rules, part of the decorum and conduct of the House. And for expedience, for convenience, this is something that they were choosing to try to change, very unfortunate, and the kind of change the American people certainly did not vote for. They want to see the rules of the House and of this great institution respected, and it's been unfortunate.

I have been greatly disappointed, and as my constituents, I've heard from three or four of them during the day that have said what's going on. And it's been with great disappointment that I've explained to them that for power, the sake of power, we saw the majority trying to eliminate a rule that has been a part of the order of this House since 1822. And we hope that they will push that aside and decide that they are going to abide by the rules of the House as they have been laid forth and have worked well for centuries, if you will.

I think also we could touch today on the fact that today marks 100 days since President Bush sent the request over for supplemental spending for our troops. It has been 100 days of inaction or putting forward bills that they knew were going to be vetoed, of political grandstanding, and I find that to be unfortunate. And it is with regret that we have to admit that that is a tactic and a mode of operation that the majority has decided to take.

They have had time to pass D.C. having the right to vote. They've had time to pass bills that would recognize schools. They've had time to name post offices. They've passed bills on global warming. They've passed legislation to
protect wild horses, but there hasn't been time to craft a bill to get money to our troops in the field.

It is a matter of priorities, Mr. Speaker, and how unfortunate that the frivolous nature of some of the legislation that has come before us, that has consumed the time of this body, would be placed as a priority above the legislation to get funding to our troops in the field. And our soldiers are running out of cash. This effort is running out of cash, and we are in a global war on terror, and it is imperative that we get that money where it needs to be to those troops.

But that has not been the priority of the majority. They chose to bring forward a supplemental bill that they knew was going to be vetoed because it had an additional $24 billion worth of pork barrel spending. So then they decided to rework it and break it into two supplementals so that the California salmon could get their money and you could get Ag money and you could get Katrina relief money. You could get all this spending and not put it through regular order, but let's get that money to that California salmon out there. We've already had

Tuna-gate; so now let's go throw some more money in here for this.

And how very unfortunate to that put into a wartime supplemental. This is a wartime supplemental. Our primary responsibility is keeping our Nation safe, keeping it secure, making certain that when you get in that car to get those children to the bus stop, to go to school, when they go to that school, you know that they are safe, that you're not going to have a group of terrorists like the Ft. Dix six come show up at the shopping mall or at the college baseball game and try to destroy our citizens. People want that type security, and it is unfortunate that that has not been a priority.

I tell you, I look at what is happening before us and some of the things that have been passed by this body, naming the post offices and recognizing schools and horse legislation and some of those things, and you'd think maybe the Democrats have an insecurity agenda. Maybe that is their agenda for this session, this 110th Congress.

And then as we look at the supplemental, which was supposed to be passed and out of the way before we started on DOD appropriations for next year, and that is what has been before us today, we also are in the midst of looking at the budget which contains a $392.5 billion tax increase over 5-years, the single largest tax increase in American history, $392.5 billion. You would see your marginal rates increase. You would see the cap gains rate increase. Child tax credit would be cut in half. Tennessee and Texas are two States that enjoy sales tax deductibility because we're wonderful States without a State income tax. That would go away. $392.5 billion tax increase over 5 years, single largest tax increase in history. It would cost $2,611 per taxpayer in my State of Tennessee. That is the amount of increase that we are looking at.

And quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, my constituents know that government is overspent and taxpayers are overtaxed and they are tired of it. They also know that government does not have a revenue problem. It is a spending problem that government has, and my constituents also believe that if 10 percent is good enough for God on Sunday, then it ought to be good enough for the government. And they believe that we should learn to live within our means.

They are tired of working hard, getting their paycheck, looking at that pay stub and realizing that the Federal Government has first right of refusal to their paycheck because before that worker ever gets that paycheck deposited in his account, the Federal Government has put his hand into that wallet and has extracted every dollar they want out of that paycheck. Social Security comes out, your Medicare comes out, all your taxes come out. There you go. There you go, Mr. Speaker. The Federal Government has first right of refusal on your paycheck, and that is something that it is time that we should be changing.

We have so many things that are budget issues, and I want to circle back around to the health care issue that comes back to us every time we look at the budget, every time we look at DOD, Department of Defense, health care comes to the forefront. And we're so fortunate at our Energy and Commerce Committee that we have some physicians who serve on that committee with us, who are articulate and well-versed in health care and what it is, what we need to do in order to be certain that this Nation stays healthy, individuals stay healthy but that our health care delivery systems stay healthy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I appreciate this so much. How interesting that something that would yield a $3.8 billion savings has been overlooked and left on the table. But I think that what we see from this, and what the takeaway for us is, that we have an innovative idea, and as the physician from Texas said, our States are great labs for finding things that work. They do such a great job looking at needed reforms, whether they are educational reforms or health care reforms, and finding things that work.

You take a program like the liability reforms in Texas that have reduced insurance rates by over 22 percent, and then you run that out on a national basis and you say, okay, over 5 years, we can save $3.8 billion, not to include it, when you know it's a concept that works, not to bring it forward for discussion from the House, so that you can elevate the awareness of this.

Look for a pilot project for this if you need be, if you need further evidence and some qualified data to work from. But to be able to say, all right, we are just not going to do this because we like the status quo, we like the way the status quo is, and we are not interested in something that will be new, different, or maybe save some money.

We would rather be spending money and spending they are, to the tune of the single largest tax increase in history that the liberal majority and the liberal

leadership in this House is bringing forward in their budget, $392.5 billion over a period of 5 years.

It has been a pleasure to stand with my colleagues tonight and to talk a little bit about our budget, to talk about some of the gamesmanship, if you will, that has taken place as the majority has tried to change a rule that has been on the books since 1822, lack of respect for the traditions of the institution.

We also would recognize with sorrow the fact that this is the 100th day since President Bush said, our men and women in uniform need additional funds. It is an imperative that we get the funds to them, and still no bill in sight. We have a Memorial Day break coming up upon us. I think it's unfortunate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It has been so interesting to me, and the gentleman mentioned Fort Hood and Killeen, Texas and his constituents there. Fort Campbell is in my district in Montgomery County, Tennessee, and to see these men and women, and to hear their stories and to see their need, as I have worked with that post since coming to Congress and working to meet their needs, one of the lessons to me has been, and I think this should be one of the lessons learned for all of us who are Members in Congress, when you cut funding to programs like the military, then there is a price to pay for that. And we are constitutionally charged and directed to provide for the common defense and the security of this Nation.

One of the things that happened during the Clinton Presidency, in order to generate a surplus, was cutting the military funding and cutting the intelligence funding. And we have heard, 4 years. This is not anecdotal, it is something that is fact and something that was bragged about, actually, a little bit in the late 1990s, was not putting that money into R&D, not researching the next generation of tanks or choppers or fighters or artillery or armor, because the Cold War was over and there wasn't a big threat. So let's cut that funding, and then let's put that money into something else.

And the same thing happened with intelligence, as the gentleman was saying. There was money that was cut back from that and put into social programs and domestic programs and not put into keeping that intelligence network strong and viable. And it takes about 5 years for one of our intelligence agents to develop an asset that is a reliable asset for information to protect our country. And I hope this is a lesson learned.

When we look at what happened to our country on September 11th, that is the date our Nation stopped responding to acts of terrorism as civil disobedience and started responding to acts of terrorism as an act of war, September 11th. We had been attacked for 2 decades prior to that, but that day was the day it changed. And as we looked at that and realized that on September 11, 2001, we were not under a George Bush budget, we were still under a Bill Clinton budget, and the Bush budget was kicking in about the 1st of October.

We have to realize that what you had were many years where our military had been telling us, we are pulling down on all of our resources, our reserve resources, we are pulling these down; and we need to be replenishing, we need to be careful where we are. I think that is a lesson, and I hope it is a lesson that we realize, that when you put something in place, you have to maintain it. When you build for the common defense, you need to maintain that in order to be able to stay strong.

I yield to the gentleman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source