To extend the authorities of the Andean Trade Preference Act until February 29, 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I express my appreciation to my very good friend from Sacramento, Ms. Matsui.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the rule. I know that this is a rule that follows the 200-year tradition that we have had of appropriations bills as privileged resolutions. They have the ability to come to the floor without a rule at all, but if items are protected in the bill, they have to provide waivers from the Rules Committee, and that is what has been followed here. We did this when the Republicans were in the majority and the Democrats are following suit here.

But there are a number of concerns that have come to the forefront. To me, the most important concern, Mr. Speaker, is one that I raised upstairs in the Rules Committee last night.

The Committee on Ways and Means had put into place a very important program in September of 2006 which deals with an issue that is near and dear to every single American who pays taxes. That issue is ensuring that every single American pays their taxes. I don't like paying taxes. But I do it.

Mr. Speaker, I don't like the fact that there are people out there who don't pay their taxes when they are supposed to do it. The challenge of collecting taxes is a very, very important concern of, as I said, every American who does pay their taxes. Collecting taxes is a very important thing, too. Making sure that people do comply with the law is, I believe, an imperative that we need to do all we can to enforce.

Unfortunately, this appropriations bill that we are bringing forward is one that actually eliminates a program that has been extraordinarily effective. It is a program, Mr. Speaker, that has been utilized now by the Federal Government and by 40 of the 50 States. What does it consist of? Simply contracting with private collection agencies, PCAs, to ensure that people who are deadbeats, who are not paying their taxes, actually pay their taxes.

Mr. Speaker, this issue does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee. I see Mr. Rangel here and other members of the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. McCrery sent a letter to us in the Rules Committee saying that he believed that this rule should not allow protection for a point of order to be made against the provision about which I am speaking.

So, Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly about the need for us to make sure that the Ways and Means Committee can have the jurisdiction, and, frankly, keep in place this collection process. So far, $19.4 million has been collected from people who have not paid their taxes by these private collection agencies, and the projection is that over the next 10 years in excess of $1.5 billion will be collected by the Federal Government from these people who have been deadbeats and have not paid their taxes. So I think it is very unfortunate that this bill proceeds with this, and the fact that this rule does not provide us with an opportunity to address that has led me to oppose it.

I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is going to be an effort to defeat the previous question, and if that is done, our colleague from Nebraska Mr. Terry is going to offer an amendment to the rule that would make in order a provision that would allow for the rejection of the cost-of-living adjustment.

I know there is a lot of talk around here about that issue, so we are going to be having a vote on that. Our colleague from Nebraska, as I said, Mr. Terry will in fact be the author of that amendment if we did defeat the previous question on this issue.

Having said that, I do want to say there are a number of items in this bill that I think are very good and important. I am particularly proud of having worked for a number of years on the issue of financial literacy training for students and for adults as well.

We see this proliferation of advertising, Mr. Speaker, that continues to come down from a wide range of entities, and it can be confusing. Unfortunately, there are many young people today who really don't have the grasp of the financial instruments that are options to them out there. For that reason, I believe that something in this bill that is very good is the effort to focus on the increase of financial literacy training.

Mr. Speaker, I want to praise my colleagues, especially Mr. Regula, who has taken on this responsibility here as the ranking member of the subcommittee, and Mr. Serrano, who is chairing the subcommittee. I praise them for working together in a bipartisan way on some other items that are very important.

As I said, I believe that interdicting illicit drugs is a very important issue. This drug trafficking issue was a topic of discussion in the last debate that we had on the Andean Trade Preference Act that we are going to be voting on later this evening, and I believe that there are, again, many, many other items that are included in this bill that are good and decent and appropriate measures.

But I just am very, very concerned about this issue, as I said, Mr. Speaker, of this notion of people abusing the tax provisions and not, in fact, paying their fair share of taxes. So I feel strongly that taking advantage of these private collection agencies is, in fact, the right thing to do. I know there is concern voiced about that, because people don't like being harassed. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? If they are not paying their fair share of taxes, I believe steps should be taken to try and get them to do that. So this is going to lead me to oppose the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Greensboro, North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my very good friend from Omaha, Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my very good friend from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record extraneous material, including the amendment to be offered by Mr. Terry if, in fact, we do defeat the previous question.

If I may inquire of my friend from Sacramento, how many more speakers do you have remaining?

I have no further speakers, but I understand there is some amendment here to the rule that you want to talk about, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am just a little confused about this amendment. I know that the Budget Act calls for us to have completed our appropriations work in the House by the 4th of July, and the promise that was made by the Democratic majority was that all of the appropriations bills would be done by the 4th of July break. I will say that I am a little confused.

I would be happy to yield to my friend as to what this proposed amendment would, in fact, entail.

Mr. Speaker, again, I remember there was a promise made that the work on House appropriations bills would be completed by the July 4 break. It sounds to me as if there is an attempt being made to really go beyond and not comply with that promise that was made. There seems to be some kind of requirement here that we amend the rule to make this happen.

I would be happy to yield to my colleague or to the gentleman from Florida, my Rules Committee colleague.

Reclaiming my time, I would say last year there was not a commitment that was made that we would complete all of our appropriations work by the July 4th break.

I would be happy to further yield.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, and I would be happy to further yield to my friend, I would say that we have been going through the appropriations process. We are in the minority. There is a new majority. A promise was made to the American people that work on the appropriations process would be completed by the July 4th break. I am just a little confused here as to how it is that we got to this point.

This is now an amendment to the rule that is being propounded, and I would just like to say that I think by virtue of doing this we are simply, Mr. Speaker, underscoring the fact that the work has not been completed. If a finger of blame is being pointed, I guess at our side, we have delayed the process of completing the appropriations work, all I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that this was a commitment that was made at the beginning of the 110th Congress. And obviously, with the explanation just provided by my friend from Sacramento, this has not happened.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to my friend, Mr. Obey.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the distinguished Chair of the Appropriations Committee for his explanation.

I will say, however, what we have done is we have followed the standard appropriations process. In fact, as we look at the rules that have been passed out so far through the appropriations process, in the last Congress, we made in order every single amendment that was proposed to the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, and as the gentleman knows, only three of 23 amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee when it came to the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee bill were made in order which did in fact limit the debate.

All I would say, Mr. Speaker, is my friend from Sacramento has come forward and said she is going to offer an amendment to the rule. I am concerned about it, the fact that it was not included in the rule and it has just come to our attention.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would say to my very good friend from Wisconsin, welcome to the challenge of governing, as he knows very, very well.

The fact of the matter is there was, in fact, at the beginning of this Congress, a statement made. And what has been proposed by my colleague from Sacramento is an amendment to the rule to deal with the Budget Act. All of a sudden, we are going to just waive the responsibility here to deal with this question, and I just think that the procedure around which we are now taking this action on this amendment underscores that our colleagues are having a little bit of difficulty governing.

Let me just say that I am opposed to this rule for a number of reasons. I would like to restate the concern that I raised earlier.

I had a chance to speak with our colleague from New York, the distinguished Chair, of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel. I told him of a letter that was sent to the Rules Committee from Mr. McCrery which raised concern over the fact that there are people out there who are completely abrogating their responsibility to pay their fair share of taxes. They are not complying with the law. And in September of 2006, private collection agencies were enlisted by the Federal Government to begin the collection of taxes from deadbeats who are not paying their taxes.

Mr. Speaker, 40 other States, 40 other States have enlisted private collection agencies, and they have been successful, and at the Federal level, we have, as of March of this year, seen $19.47 million collected so far, and the projection is that under these private collection agencies in the next decade, we will see between $1.5 billion and $2.2 billion in taxes that are owed to the Federal Government paid.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, if we pass this rule, we are undermining the ability of the Ways and Means Committee to take on its responsibility for this issue. So I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule so, in fact, we will have an opportunity to do the right thing when it comes to this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 517 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 517 provides for consideration of H.R. 2829, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for 2008 under an open rule.

Under this rule, all Members of the House are afforded the opportunity to offer any amendment that is germane and otherwise complies with House rules. In fact, I want to point out to Members that this is the sixth appropriations bill this year to be considered under an open rule.

In November, the American people demanded a change in direction in Washington and a change in priorities. The past 6 months have been an important down payment on our commitment to change. This new Congress must continue to restore our focus on a domestic agenda that helps all Americans.

To that end, today the House takes up the seventh of its annual Appropriation bills where we will continue this progress in taking America in a new direction.

I applaud Chairman Serrano, Ranking Member Regula, and the committee for developing a bill that reflects this needed change in priorities and for doing so through a strong, bipartisan process.

This bill aims to spur job creation and make the economy work for everyone by restoring cuts to small business loans, strengthening consumer protections and rejecting a proposal to reduce capital and financial services to underserved communities through CDFI.

In addition, the funding in the underlying bill will help our citizens to vote through upgrades to voting machines and voter registration databases. It ensures a fair tax system by enforcing the Tax Code for everyone, not just those who play by the rules. By focusing on basic priorities like these, we can help restore the American people's faith in our government again.

The programs funded by this bill demonstrate our commitment to serving all Americans, regardless of economic or social background. The $21.4 billion bill includes: $66.8 million for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to protect the public from injury or death from more than 15,000 types of consumer products;

$247.7 million for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate sub- prime lending, ID theft, and other deceptive practices;

$908 million for the Securities and Exchange Commission to enhance securities law enforcement;

$313 million for the Federal Communications Commissions to oversee the changing telecom environment, ensure the continued livelihood of Universal Service Fund and prepare for the transition to digital television;

$139.8 million to combat terrorist financing;

$5.9 billion for the Federal Courts, including $830.5 million for defender services, because every American should

have access to quality legal representation.

The bill also includes $582 million for the Small Business Administration to help small businesses prosper. Of this, $100 million is for Small Business Development Centers, or SBDCs, which is the highest ever funding level for this program. These centers provide management assistance to current and prospective small business owners. In addition, they support existing businesses and assist start-ups with high-quality, no-cost counseling and affordable training programs.

This support for our small businesses helps invigorate local economies by helping the very small businesses that are firmly rooted in our communities both succeed and grow. There are now 63 main SBDCs, at least one in every State, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands, with a network of more than 1,100 service locations.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill made in order under this open rule is a well-crafted piece of legislation. I appreciate that the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee worked together to produce such a product. The bill ensures taxpayer fairness, protects the right to vote, and funds programs critical to supporting our Nation's small businesses.

I urge all Members to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief comment regarding the Members' COLA which, as Members know, is provided for not in this bill but directly through the Treasury Department based on a predetermined formula.

When we had a debate last year, Members on our side of the aisle objected to the rule on the grounds that Members should not receive a cost of living increase until average Americans did through an increase in the minimum wage.

I am happy to report that the Democrats kept their promise. No COLA was permitted in the long-term funding that Democrats passed earlier this year to resolve last year's appropriations gridlock. As a result of the new majority's leadership, we passed the first increase in the minimum wage in almost 10 years. It goes into effect on July 24, just less than a month from now.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers. Do you have additional speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I will be offering an amendment that adds a new section to the rule that allows the House to consider a current resolution providing for the adjournment of the House and Senate during the month of July.

I wanted to apprise the gentleman from California regarding that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is necessary because of a technical provision in section 309 of the Congressional Budget Act that prevents the House from considering any adjournment resolution for a period longer than 3 days unless all of the annual appropriations bills have been passed by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment on the Members' COLA once again, that the Members' COLA was calculated by a predetermined automatic formula. This legislation does not address Members' COLA. Changes to Members' COLA formula should be addressed in authorizing legislation from the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. Speaker, the American people expect and deserve the best services their government can offer and their tax dollars pay for. This $21.4 billion bipartisan bill provides significant support to our small businesses, helps guarantee our citizens' right to vote, and works to close the tax gap. It is a good bill. I believe through simple measures such as these, we can restore our citizens' faith that the government can, and is, working for them again.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Matsui

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the rule at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment adds a new section to the rule that allows the House to consider concurrent resolutions providing for the adjournment of the House and Senate during the month of July.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California for yielding me the time.

I have to say that I stand here in opposition to this bill, and I am one that generally supports fair trade liberalization efforts. I believe that when properly structured, trade agreements can benefit all parties involved. But, Mr. Speaker, the Andean Trade Preference Act is not a trade agreement. This is an agreement to give access to the U.S. market in return for reduced drug production by certain Andean countries. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. This is an agreement to give access to the U.S. market in return for reduced drug production by certain Andean countries.

The original idea may have been a noble one, and it probably still is, but the Act has proven to be a failure, and as a result, American asparagus growers have paid the price. In practice, the Andean Trade Preference Act has resulted in higher South American drug production and a steep loss of acreage and processing of asparagus in the United States, as reflected by this chart where in the last 16 years the amount of acreage has been reduced by 50 percent.

A recent International Trade Commission report found that asparagus was the domestic commodity most negatively affected by the Act. Unlike other sectors, American asparagus growers were not provided a transition period before tariffs on Peruvian imports were unilaterally eliminated. Since implementation of the Andean Trade Preference Act of 1991, imports of Peruvian asparagus have increased by more than 20 times. These duty-free imports have decimated U.S. asparagus growers and closed domestic asparagus processing plants in my district.

Now, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if you are not from an asparagus production area in this country, you may be thinking this trade-off is worth it because it results in less drug production. The unfortunate reality is that this Act is a failure in that regard too. The latest studies confirm that cocaine production in the Andean countries is actually higher today than when the Andean Trade Preference Act was adopted in 1991.

In other words, we have exported jobs from rural America to these Andean countries and we are still seeing narcotics production going up. Nevertheless, we are here asking American farmers to sacrifice their livelihoods to perpetuate a wholly unrelated and unsuccessful anti- narcotics strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I also regret that we are considering an extension of this flawed policy under a process that denies Members the opportunity to amend the bill, the text of which was not even available until a couple of hours ago. This is being rushed to the floor with no time to debate or offer amendments. The markup of this bill in Ways and Means was cancelled. The bill has not gone through the Rules Committee. The House should have an opportunity to have a full and fair debate on this Act, which has a profound negative effect on my constituents.

So I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.

I will insert into the Record an article from the Seattle Times that more fully points out the dilemma that asparagus growers have suffered, and,

also, I will insert into the Record an article from the New York Times regarding the plight of asparagus growers as a result of this Act.

[From the Seattle Times, Jan. 2, 2007]

New Hope for Asparagus Growers

Washington asparagus growers might get a break in the new

Democrat-controlled Congress.

They sure need it.

The industry has been decimated by a U.S. drug policy

designed to encourage Peruvian coca-leaf growers to switch to

asparagus. Passed in 1990 and since renewed, the Andean Trade

Preferences and Drugs Eradication Act permits certain

products from Peru and Colombia, including asparagus, to be

imported to the United States tariff-free.

The act was set to expire Dec. 31, but Congress approved a

six-month extension to make time to negotiate a proposed

free-trade agreement.

We believe world markets should be more open and barriers

to trade should be lowered. But this trade preferences act,

when it comes to asparagus, is a one-sided deal that does

only harm to the U.S. industry while failing miserably at its

stated intent of reducing drug production.

The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy Web

site currently notes that the Peruvian coca acreage, mostly

in the highlands, is the highest it has been in eight years.

Meanwhile, the small country has become a powerhouse in

asparagus production along its Pacific Coast lowlands.

Peruvian asparagus production has multiplied 18-fold. The

industry has developed a vigorous market and attracted

sizable capital investment.

Meanwhile, the Washington industry is a shadow of its

former self. Acreage has been cut by 71 percent to just 9,000

acres. In 2005, Seneca closed the world's largest cannery in

Dayton, Columbia County, and shipped its state-of-the-art

equipment to--no surprise--Peru. So did Del Monte, when it

closed its Toppenish plant.

Is it any wonder the U.S. asparagus industry hopes the

preferences act will be allowed to lapse in June?

That's not to say the Washington Asparagus Commission has

its head in the sand over the global economy. In particular,

the commission is willing to support a proposed free-trade

agreement with provisions common to other free-trade

agreements.

The industry wants the tariff re-imposed on Peruvian

asparagus but only during the U.S. growing season--roughly

April through June in Washington--and then phased out over a

period of years. The tariff on U.S. production would diminish

also.

That would be a long, overdue solution for an industry

decimated by a drug-reduction policy that failed miserably.

Mr. Speaker, as we proceed, it should be clear. We're talking now about the Andean Trade Preference Act, and we're not talking about the free trade agreements that have been discussed here.

In my view, whether one supports or opposes any of those free trade agreements, it would be counterproductive for someone to vote against extension of the ATPA for 8 months.

This relates, as mentioned, to the four nations. The original ATPA was passed in 1991, and it was expanded and

extended through a voice vote in the year 2001.

I think it should be emphasized that, basically, our trade relationship with these four nations is more complementary than it is competitive. That's a crucial issue. And if you exclude oil and oil products, our trade balance, our relationship, is essentially balanced in the range of 10- to $11 billion that we export and they export, if you exclude oil, which is not covered by the ATPA.

The Andean countries are a steadily growing market for U.S. goods, and that meant there was an increase, a rather substantial one, in 2005 over 2004.

Let me touch briefly on issues that have been discussed regarding the ATPA. First, apparel. The Andean Trade Preference Act requires the use of U.S. yarns in fabrics, so it isn't a one-way street. And it's somewhat technical, but if you include, if you look at the source of the fabric, essentially the U.S. has made clear that we're not going to be left out in the cold.

In terms of crops, whether they're fruit or vegetable crops, the trade is far more seasonal. In that sense, the trade is far more complementary than it is competitive. And so it's been of mutual interest to have this Andean Trade Preference Act. And that's why it was passed originally with broad support. It was extended with broad support. There was controversy last time because it was tied to TPA, and it essentially gave different treatment to Bolivia and Ecuador that this bill does not do.

So it's also, I think, because of the complementariness of this agreement that it has had broad support in this country, and that's true in good parts of the management ranks as well as the labor ranks.

There's been reference here to drugs, and that's been a mixed picture. But I think there is evidence that the ATPA, which was originally passed as part of a drug eradication strategy, has had some positive impact in several countries, much less so I think in Colombia than in Bolivia and Peru.

If this is not renewed, I think it would be mutually disadvantageous. I think, because of the mutuality of this agreement, the way it's worked out, that we should pass it.

And I close by emphasizing we're talking today about the renewal, or I should say the extension, of the ATPA for 8 months. We're not talking about free trade agreements. I strongly urge approval of this 8-month extension.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the honorable gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who chairs the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, a distinguished colleague, indeed, Mr. Kind from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to a very valued Member of this body, and we came to this institution together, Ms. Kaptur of Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I want to be clear; we're voting on the Andean Trade Preference Act, we are not voting on FTAs. We are not voting for a bridge to other agreements, we're voting on the merits of the extension of this Trade Preference Act.

It has basically worked. On this side, we're opposed to one-way trade agreements. This has been a two-way passage for those countries and for this country.

Our trade, if you include oil not covered by the Trade Preference Act, has essentially been in balance. We should extend this on its own merits.

In terms of asparagus, if you look at the facts, it shows that these agreements are basically complementary and not competitive.

I urge support of this extension, as I said, on its own merits, not because anyone is trying to use this as a path to anything else.

Vote ``yes'' on this. Be clear. This has been a two-way street, which this side of the aisle has insisted on as a basic part of American trade policy, and we will continue to do that, building upon it with a new model of trade.

I urge a strong vote for this extension.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And I was listening to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee talking about people not following the rules, people that are avoiding their income taxes. Quite honestly, I want to bring a point up tonight that is about not obeying the rules. So I rise in opposition to this rule.

We spent a lot of time a few weeks ago talking about earmarks. Fortunately, we were successful in eliminating the secret slush funds of earmarks being reined in. So this is one of the ways we worked on controlling spending in an environment right now where the Democrats have already passed legislation that would increase spending by $50 billion this year, $20 billion in this current appropriations cycle.

But when we were talking about earmark reform, we really were only talking about 1 percent of our spending. If we are going to win the battle on spending, we have to focus on more than just earmarks.

One of the things that is very important is that we have a process in Congress. We say we are going to authorize programs, and then we say we are going to take time out and then fund them in the appropriations process. Tonight we are going to take up this bill, and it is called an appropriations bill. That is how we spend the money.

But one of the things we said in the House rules is a project or program has to be authorized before it can be appropriated. But you know what the very first thing that we do is? We say, oh, Congress is not going to play by the rules during this appropriations process. We are going to fund projects that aren't even authorized.

The American people understand the term ``authorization.'' Many of you have a credit card or a checking account. On your checking account, you have authorized signatures. On your credit card, you have authorized users. Unfortunately for the American people tonight, we are talking about using a credit card, because we are spending more money than we have.

One of the things that is an alarming number to me is it was recently reported that Congress is going to appropriate over $100 billion of unauthorized expenses. I don't think the people back in America, the people certainly back in the 19th District of Texas, think Congress ought to be spending $100 billion on programs that aren't even authorized.

Here are just a few examples of those. Tonight in this bill, for example, there is $23 billion worth of spending that is, what? Not authorized. Some of those projects are $100 million for a Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. That program was last authorized in 1998.

There is $315 million for the Election Assistance Commission. That authorization expired in 2005.

A lot of people say Congress may be just too busy to authorize these new programs. Well, you know what, if we are too busy to look at whether these current programs are relevant, whether they are efficient, or whether we should be doing them, then we are probably too busy. But by the way, we haven't been too busy to authorize just in 6 months over $600 billion in new programs.

So what we are spending money tonight on is projects that we didn't take the time to evaluate whether these projects are worthwhile and worthy of spending the American taxpayers' money on. And in the meantime, we have been very busy passing brand new programs to the tune of $228 billion, which is why this Democratic leadership is going to hand the American people a gift of the largest tax increase in American history.

If we are serious about leaving more money in the American taxpayers' pockets so that those families can pay for health care and gasoline and other things that are essential to those families, we are going to have to leave more money in their pockets, and we certainly can't do that by runaway spending. Spending money on projects that we haven't reviewed to determine whether those programs are worthwhile, relevant today, and whether some efficiencies could accrue in some of those programs and could be combined, and that we could do it better and spend less money.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of letting the American people have more of their money and against a rule that is going to appropriate money that we haven't even authorized.