Polar Bear Protection Act of 2007

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The W.A. Young & Sons Foundry and Machine Shop is truly an American treasure. This remarkably well-preserved shop is an example of the once-common, shaft-driven job shop which played an important role in maintaining and repairing the machines that built early industrial America.

This rare industrial facility contains machining and foundry equipment dating back to the mid-to-late 1800s. When the shop doors were shuttered more than four decades ago, everything, the tools, drills, nails, presses, lathes, wooden molds and patterns were left behind, creating a priceless time capsule from the turn of the century.

The machine shop and foundry are still able to operate, but the structure of the facility has severely deteriorated and is in desperate need of repair and restoration in order to preserve the

facility and the historic equipment within. And I would assume that's why it hasn't been open; they're waiting to do the repairs.

The W.A. Young & Sons Foundry and Machine Shop is documented by the National Park Service Historic American Engineering Record and listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

I would also point out to my colleagues that in approaching this task, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and I, and our staffs collectively, reviewed all of these projects. There were 10 requests for every project that was put in the bill. And when we added it up, at the end of the day, it is four-tenths of 1 percent. Now, that is still significant, but I think it's important for us to realize that we are dramatically reducing the number of overall earmarks in this bill, a much greater reduction than when the other party was in charge. From 1994 to 2006, it went from approximately 1,000 earmarks up to 13,000 earmarks; 13,000 earmarks. We have cut this back dramatically. I think we've done a good job.

I was hoping that the gentleman would be here today to praise us, saying you have met the standard that the administration said. You cut the 50 percent that Pelosi said you were going to cut. I was hoping the gentleman would be here saying, ``Well done,'' and yet we have another amendment.

So, I'm in opposition to this. I think we should keep moving. We have other legislation to do. I know a lot of people in this body want to get home on Friday, so I hope we can move expeditiously.

I appreciate the gentleman's even-handedness in making selections, though I didn't notice that he had a reduction of the President's request.

And again, I want to point out to the gentleman, you know, remember, the power of the purse is one of Congress' most important powers. And I think we should be very careful when we start undermining that important legislative tool that separates us from the executive branch.

So, this is Mr. Murtha's project from Pennsylvania, a very senior member of the Appropriations Committee. I urge all of my Members to support Mr. Murtha's project and to oppose the Flake amendment.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Will the gentleman yield?

I can get you his phone number.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I would be glad to yield to the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would also point out to the gentleman that the precedent on this Save America's Treasures has been to split the money 50/50; 50 percent would go to the administration and they would then make decisions on a competitive basis. The other 50 percent would be earmarked by the Members of Congress.

I think that process works well. Congress has the right to do this under the power of the purse. This is one of our most important constitutional rights. There is nothing wrong with it. The Supreme Court has never questioned it. It is part of our constitutional history.

I just want to also join my friend from Kansas and say that I support this project. I urge that the Flake amendment be rejected and that we support this project. It has been carefully vetted. I think we could have straightened out the name of the title here and helped ourselves, but that is a lesson learned for next year.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to my good friend from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments and his interest in addressing the threat posed by invasive species to our natural resources. I will certainly work with the gentleman to help address this pressing need as we go through this process.

I know how important this invasive species issue is. Out in my area we have a major problem with Spartina, and we have had to fight it in the Willapa Bay area and Grays Harbor area. So I am very sympathetic to this. Also with the Fish and Wildlife Service, I guess there is an interagency group that is working on invasive species. So let's look at existing programs, and we will try our best to find a way to help the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's project. We have looked at this carefully. As we understand it, it deals with the historic facade, and this is an important project. I think it is a very modest amount of money, which has to be matched by the locals. They are putting up a huge amount of additional money so there won't be any problem with that.

I congratulate the gentleman on his project and urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of the gentleman's projects and congratulate him on the hard work that he has demonstrated and his very comprehensive knowledge of this project. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Flake amendment.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I just would like to ask the gentleman from California, does he have an estimate of what the cost of doing this would be?

It may have been in the governor's study or one of the other studies that have been done.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

As I understand it, some of the cost estimates that have come in, this would be up to $10 billion. I think one of the reasons why the committee took the action it did take was because of this great big $10 billion bill and not having any kind of a plan for how that would be financed.

But I am sensitive to what the gentleman has said in terms of the importance of this. We will take this very seriously, and we will look and see what the Senate does and we will continue to work with our friend from California who is a valued Member of the House.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's obvious sincerity and passion, and we will continue to look at this.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Indiana for a statement.

I would like to say to the gentleman that I believe the committee has, in essence, enacted the spirit of your amendment. We have reduced the Smithsonian's budget by $35 million. The salaries and expenses level has come down to where it was in 2007. And we didn't do this as a punitive measure, we did this to send a very strong message, as the gentleman has in his very eloquent floor statement, and that message is we want the Smithsonian Board of Regents to reform the Smithsonian.

We all respect and admire and love the institution ourselves. We want to, and I personally hope we can in conference restore funding after they have made the appropriate changes that the committee has talked to them about. I think that is happening as we speak.

I have had a chance to talk to a number of the regents and Members of the House who serve as regents, and I am confident that they are on the right track. We hope by the time we get to conference, we will all be satisfied that they have reached the goal of reforming and changing so that the House and the other body can feel confident in funding them at the appropriate level.

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

I want to commend the gentleman for his very thorough and comprehensive statement, and I want to join him in support of this project.

As the gentleman said, this project was authorized, signed by President Reagan, a very conservative President. This is historic activity that has been very productive. And so I urge that the project be supported and that the amendment by the gentleman from Arizona be defeated.

Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania. But as was mentioned by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, there are four congressional districts involved in this. I don't know if people from the other districts, I guess they didn't request it or else it would be listed because we've tried to list it where there were multiple names involved.

Mr. Murtha is a former member of this subcommittee and this project has been funded for many years. When your party was in the majority, there were a number of years in which this project was funded. The previous chairman, Mr. Taylor, and others have been supportive of this project.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I'll be very brief.

The point I would make is that we only funded one out of 10 requests. So there was a lot of judgment made by both sides of the aisle working together to pick those projects that had a history, that were authorized in many cases. So I think there was a very careful vetting of this process. There are a lot of Members who are mad at me because they didn't get their project. This one met the test and was funded.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

I thank the gentleman for his amendment. The gentleman has discussed this amendment with all of us. The bill includes an increase of $11.8 million, as you have mentioned, above the President's request for EPA enforcement. That is enough money to bring the EPA's enforcement level back to levels that we saw earlier in this decade. The majority has no objection and accepts the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Am going to be brief here. This would be a devastating cut on this bill. I want to say something to the gentleman. These bills do have consequences.

Over the last 7 years, since this administration took power, the Interior Department's budget has been cut in real terms by 16 percent. The EPA's budget has been cut in real terms by 29 percent, and the Forest Service budget has been cut in real terms, taking fire out, by 35 percent. This is one of the few bills that has been devastated by this administration, and it's a regrettable fact.

All our bill does is stop this downward trend in our national parks, our downward trend in our national wildlife refuges, and our downward trend in enforcement and clean water and clean air in the environmental protection area, and the reduction in personnel, not covering fixed costs until Mr. Kempthorne came in, and he is only covering the fixed costs for the Interior Department. This is a devastating cut that would reverse all the good work in this bill.

I just think it's totally irresponsible, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this. We need the money for the firefighters, there is a huge fire out there in Lake Tahoe right now. We need to get this bill passed.

This kind of across-the-board meat-ax approach will not be successful, I predict. I just tell the gentleman that his amendment goes way too far and would have devastating consequences. It would undermine the President's Centennial Challenge that Mr. Kempthorne has worked so hard to create.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.

And I will say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) we are, I have already explained, Mr. Obey's already explained why this amendment is not going to be passed by the House today, because it's too big a cut. And I would just say, again, and I want to say this to every Member: This administration has cut the Interior Department budget over the last 6 to 7 years by 16 percent.

It has cut EPA by 29 percent. It has cut the Forest Service by 35 percent. It is devastating these agencies, and this amendment would add to that devastation.

What we are doing is adding 4.3 percent to try to turn the corner, to try to bring these agencies back. And we are not laying back here. We are just waiting to move on to more important business.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague on the committee, a distinguished member from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Yes, we have speakers. How many speakers do you have?

I am not going to yield you any time; so you might go ahead and start.

Mr. Chairman, again, the former ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Conte, when he was here in the House of Representatives, used to say that this is the ``meat-ax approach.'' An across-the-board amendment doesn't make any selectivity between the national parks and other issues. It's just an across-the-board cut.

Again, I must say that the reason we object on this particular bill is because over the last 7 years the administration has cut the Interior Department by 16 percent in real terms. And the cut for EPA is 29 percent and that cuts the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. I mean, it's hard to believe that this administration wanted to cut the Clean Water Revolving Fund by $670 million. How do you do that and go to bed at night and actually get sleep? I mean, it's shocking to me, these cuts.

The Forest Service funds all the programs for taking care of our multiple-use Forest Service land. More recreation is provided by the Forest Service than actually the Park Service, and they cut that by 35 percent since 2001.

This is a crisis. These agencies are headed down a devastating path, not having enough staff to do their work. The refuges didn't have enough staff. The Park Service didn't have enough staff. Every one of these agencies were losing people year after year because their fixed costs weren't covered. So this was a crisis situation.

I think everything we've done in this budget is totally responsible. And I reject the idea of any across-the-board meat-ax approach, using the language of the former ranking member, Mr. Conte from Massachusetts. And I just hope that we can move on here and get to the rest of these amendments.

There are a lot of people on the other side who told me they would like to go home on Friday morning, they would like to see us get done on Thursday night. So I don't want anybody to think that we're not in opposition to all these things. I just want them to know that we're trying to work on a bipartisan basis to get the job of this committee done as quickly as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the committee (Mr. Israel).

And I would just add, if the gentlemen are so confident of their position, why don't we just have a vote on this and move along and get the committee's work done.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the subcommittee (Mr. Olver).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

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

Mr. Chairman, again I want to say to my colleagues, the reason we have to make this increase in the Interior appropriations budget is because over the last 6 or 7 years the budgets for these agencies have been reduced dramatically. The Interior Department has been cut by 16 percent. We have lost rangers at every national park in the Nation. The summer workers have been cut back. The services there are not as good as they used to be.

This was a crisis. The National Parks Conservation Association had a pamphlet, ``The Endangered Ranger.'' Here it was, our national parks, our national treasure, in decline.

I am no extremist. I am a moderate in this House, and I always have been. But this was a true crisis. And what we had to do was stop this decline, this downward trend of our national wildlife refuges, our national parks, and we put a little extra money in to get it turned up, so we could hire a few more people, so we could cover the fixed costs of the rangers and the people running these wildlife refuges.

That is why we had to do this. It was a crisis. And it is going to take us a number of years to get back. We only increased this budget by 4.3 percent. With a 16-percent cut, it would take 4 years to get back to where we were in 2001. With EPA, it would take about 7 years to get back to where we were. And with a 35-percent cut in the Forest Service, it would take about 8 years to get back. So we have a long ways to go, and I don't want to have any downward direction here.

I do say to the gentleman from Georgia that he is right, the 1 percent could be taken anywhere, and that might mean that all of the projects of interest to the Members would be eliminated by the administration. Now, I hope they wouldn't do that. I hope they wouldn't fall into that trap. But that is one possibility.

So, again, I resent the gentleman from Georgia even suggesting that we aren't over here fighting against your amendments. We just looked at the

Record last night and how the votes went, and we thought maybe some of the Members would like to get home on Thursday.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I can guarantee I think that this amendment will be treated properly by the membership.

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

This amendment would cut a total of $138 million from environmental conservation and Native American programs. It makes no choice based on need or merit of the program, but it cuts 0.5 percent in this bill. This is not merely an accounting change on a table. Cutting $138 million from the bill will have very serious consequences.

All of us have been listening on television about the big wild fire at Lake Tahoe. This bill would reduce overall funding for firefighting by $14 million at a time when we are facing what is potentially one of the worst fire seasons in history. It cuts 125 firefighters, shuts down firefighter stations, and significantly reduces air tanker support. It would decimate preparedness efforts by failing to provide critical support for initial attacks, and could allow as many as 80 more wildfires to escalate. This would lead to larger, more damaging and much more expensive fires, costing in excess of $20 million to extinguish.

This amendment halts hazardous fuel reduction projects without which there is little hope for reducing long-term fire costs and harmful impacts.

In our national parks, it cuts overall National Park Service funding by $13 million, includes a $6 million reduction below the President's request for the basic operational cost of the 391 units of the national park system.

It drastically impacts the President's proposal to hire 3,000 seasonal and 600 full-time park ranger positions.

For Native American programs, it rejects $29 million for programs that have received bipartisan support. By cutting $16 million out of Indian health care programs, this proposal would deny service to thousands of Native Americans.

It takes 4 percent out of the already struggling Indian education programs leaving even more Indian children without adequate education programs.

For the Environmental Protection Agency, it reduces a total of $40 million for EPA. Funding for efforts to help local communities with repairs to their aging water and wastewater infrastructure, would be reduced by almost $10 million from fiscal year 2007 enacted levels. This would mean that many communities would not receive the financial assistance they need to repair and improve water and sewer infrastructure.

Despite the fact that 76 million Americans live within 4 miles of a toxic waste site, the amendment cuts almost $8 million from programs to clean up the Nation's most toxic and hazardous waste sites. It reduces the amount for restoration and protection of America's great water bodies, including the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Puget Sound, and others. It would especially jeopardize the cleanup of toxic sediments in the lakes, and community efforts across this Nation to protect 28 estuaries.

For the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the cuts here would be $7 million for an agency which has already lost 600 staff positions since 2004. And means that many of our wildlife refuges today have no staff whatsoever because of the devastating cuts that have been imposed over the last 7 years.

It would perpetuate staffing shortfall trends and reduce public service by taking funding out of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Forest Service. This amendment reduces funding for the non-fire portion of the Forest Service by $13 million. Forces up to 100 employee layoffs and closures of more than 10 campgrounds while reducing fire improvement activities on several thousand acres.

It diminishes cooperative land conservation and forestry actions which serve thousands of nonindustrial private forest landowners.

It freezes research efforts and compels the closure of at least four labs.

So these are, I think, very substantial and important reductions that would adversely affect this bill. I have a great regard for the gentlelady. As much as I enjoy and appreciate her, I can't accept this amendment. I want her to know it is nothing personal, it is just that we have to do the job.

We are in a recovery mode here. That is what I tried to explain. The gentleman who talked about the $16 billion, it wasn't $16 billion, it was a 16 percent reduction in the funding for the Department of the Interior. This has had a devastating impact. We also had a 29 percent reduction in EPA and a 35 percent reduction in the Forest Service budget. All of these budgets have been hit hard. Only the Department of Labor has been hit worse.

What we are trying to do is stop this downward trend in the personnel in these agencies. The Park Service budget, 80 to 90 percent of the budget are for people. That is why we are so concerned about this. Without the people, the American people when they go to the parks are not going to have the kind of experience that they should have. That's why we have tried to stop this.

The Secretary of the Interior, he got it. I told him, I said you cannot succeed, Mr. Secretary, unless you get 100 percent of fixed costs covered in your budget for the Park Service, for the Fish and Wildlife Service, for the Bureau of Land Management, the Mineral Management Agency, and he did that. But we have to recover over a period of time.

Unfortunately, to make further reductions will take us longer before we can restore the services at our national parks, and restore service at our national wildlife refuges. This is a very well put-together bill. I just regret that these cuts are being offered. I think this bill should be accepted as it is. We have to go to conference, obviously we know that. So I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment.

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

I may have one more speaker. I think I have the right to close, don't I?

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I thank the Chair for recognition.

This amendment says, ``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for W.A. Young & Sons Foundry, Greene County, Pennsylvania.''

The three-sentence certification letter for this project states that the purpose for this funding is to restore the machine shop at the foundry to its original likeness.

Once again, it's important to note that the certification letters that we get from the Appropriations Committee are not the request letters that Members give to the Appropriations Committee to request their earmark. So we really don't know all that much about what the earmarks are for, other than a three-sentence or a four-sentence certification letter. So I would have hoped to have had more information, but we were unable to get from the Appropriations Committee the actual request letters. So we are at a bit of a loss to find out what the earmark is really for, but we did our best to do a little research.

The W.A. Foundry is a factory that opened in 1900 and closed in 1965. The Web site that we found claimed that the W.A. Young & Sons Foundry is a prime example of America's industrial heritage. My question for the sponsor of the earmark would be: What factory in the United States would not be a prime example of America's industrial heritage? That's the problem that I think we have with a lot of these earmarks, particularly those that are to promote tourism or industry. How do you choose winners and losers in this game? How do we say, well, hey, this old factory is deserving of renovation, is deserving to draw tourists and is deserving of taxpayer dollars, while that one down the road is not? It seems to me a rather arbitrary decision based on one, perhaps, powerful Member of Congress who is able to slip in a provision to get an earmark. It doesn't seem to be very fair to other Members or to the taxpayers as a whole.

Furthermore, if any of our constituents who may want to take their families on a tour of America's industrial heritage, for any of them, for wanting to, they may have a hard time getting to see the W.A. Young & Sons Foundry. It's only open for the public 2 days a year, just 2 days a year. $150,000 to the taxpayer for 2 days a year open to the public. Other than that, you will have to get a private tour.

I simply don't understand why we are spending taxpayer money to promote tourism, why we choose one group over another, why we are picking winners and losers here. That's what I would ask the sponsor of the earmark if the sponsor of the earmark is here. I don't believe that he is, but I would be glad to hear some answers to these questions.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm glad to learn that. That will make it much better. It's much better to have more of a colloquy.

I would have liked to have had a colloquy with the sponsor of the earmark, but the sponsor of the earmark is not here. It makes it difficult to know exactly what this is for.

Yes, I would.

Maybe that's safer.

What I would like to ask, for example, I mention that this foundry is only open 2 days a year. It has been open for private tours for quite a while for a number of years. There is no indication with this earmark, certainly because we don't get the request letter, we only get the certification letter, that it will be open for any more than that.

And I don't know about you, but it's a tough sell. I can tell you, I have five kids. It would be tough to say, Do you want to go to Disneyland or W.A. Young & Sons Foundry?

I can see why anybody would want an earmark to renovate something or to promote tourism in a particular area, but virtually every district in the country would like that as well. How do we decide this one is worthy and this one is not? Just because we have a Member who is a powerful member of the Appropriations Committee or not. We shouldn't be doing it this way.

The gentleman made a good point, that the President has his own earmarks. The administration does earmark funds, but it's typically with accounts that we've given them. We say, here's an amount of money and for this program. For example, there is the Save America's Treasures account that the President, or the administration through a competitive grant process, decides this site is worthy of historic preservation or worthy of receiving funds. What we're doing with earmarking frequently is circumventing that process and saying, I don't think they're going to do it right, so I'm just going to earmark my own project and get that funding for my own project. That's no way to do business. If we don't like the way the administration is doing something, that's what the oversight process is about, and we should go back in and stipulate and mandate.

I have mentioned many times, particularly with Homeland Security grants, there are projects in my own district that I think are a waste of Federal taxpayer dollars or not an appropriate use of Federal taxpayer dollars, and I would like to go in. And I will, through this process, if I can, seek to strike some of the President's own requests. We should be doing that. But we shouldn't say because they do it and because they misuse Federal taxpayer dollars that we should as well. That's not what our power of the purse should be about.

So that's why we're here today, to say what is an appropriate use of Federal taxpayer dollars. Is it appropriate, in this case, and we can talk about what the Republicans did versus what the Democrats did. You won't find me defending what Republicans did in terms of ramping up earmarks. We went from some 1,400 to 14,000 over a decade, and it's a pox on our House. It's part of the reason I think we lost in November. I hope the minority, now majority learn a lesson from us.

I am glad to see the number of earmarks and the whole dollar value come down, but it should come down much lower. We not only need to change the level of spending, but the type of spending as well. And with earmarking, it was way out of control. It's still out of control with this legislation, in my view.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the Chairman.

This amendment would prohibit funding from going to the Columbus Firefighters Union, which is an AFL-CIO-affiliated union.

The certification letter for this project is quite vague. Remember that

these are not request letters, so we don't know a lot about these earmarks. These are only certifications that are made, usually three or four sentences long. The certification letter says that the earmark money is for the Columbus Firefighters Hall. The letter also states that the entity to receive this funding is the Columbus Firefighters Union. The earmark list accompanying the bill calls the project ``Firefighters Hall.''

According to the certification, the funding would be used to renovate and expand the Toledo & Ohio Railway Depot. Suffice to say, this information wasn't much to go on to learn about the earmark, so I had my staff e-mail the Appropriations Committee for further details, which they did provide.

The committee informed us that the Toledo and Ohio Central Railway station at 379 West Broad Street in Columbus, Ohio is the largest remaining 19th century railroad palace in central Ohio. Today it serves as local headquarters for the Volunteers of America, a national organization with a variety of charitable and service programs.

The committee also stated that the depot has been adapted to serve the modern needs of the Volunteers of America, while also preserving much of the 100-year-old architecture. The decorative ``grand lobby'' may be rented for parties, receptions and meetings.

It's a little unclear whether this is to renovate an old building. It seems to me there are already tenants in the building. And one of the tenants in the building I believe will be, or the entity that is receiving the earmark to renovate is the AFL-CIO-affiliated Firefighters Union Local 67.

Again, this is a question of there are a lot of firefighters halls around the country, there are a lot of buildings that need to be renovated. We give the administration money under programs to allocate on a competitive basis to do historic preservation. This, seems to me, is circumventing that process again. And again, why is it proper to say that this one is worthy of funding and this one isn't?

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

If the gentlewoman will respond, I have a question. The earmark states that it is for Firefighter's Hall in Columbus, but the certification letter says the money is to go to the firefighters' union. Why does the union get the money?

Is there another firefighters' museum in Columbus?

Let me just say, again, the gentlewoman mentioned that we have this program for historic preservation, the Saving America's Treasures, and that it is tough to get on the list for that. As I understand it, grants are given out and those grants are announced in late summer. If you receive one of those grants, then you are named an historic site or an official recipient. You can also make a contribution. If you are a local entity looking to have your own facility designated, you can make a contribution to Save America's Treasures and earmark that for the project that you want it to go to. There are other ways to receive recognition.

It just seems to me that it would be more appropriate for the local entities to bear responsibility for this and not the Federal Government.

That is understood. There are a lot of State and local governments everywhere, I would submit, that would like to have this kind of participation. But we simply can't do it. We simply cannot fund every project out there. So it seems to me that if we are going to have a project, or we are going to have an account that we set up with the Federal agency, we allow that to take its course.

If we don't like the way it is run, it is our obligation as Members of Congress to stipulate that it should be done differently. But we shouldn't go in and circumvent that process and say, all right, I am going to earmark these projects because I fear that they might not receive designation or they might not be chosen by this Federal agency. If we don't like how that is set up, let's change that process. But let's not move in, as Members of Congress, and designate specific funds.

I have a lot of respect for the gentlewoman from Ohio and count her as a friend. I am not questioning anything here but the wisdom of using Federal taxpayer money to do this type of thing.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent any funding in the bill from going to the Philadelphia Art Museum for their exterior facade work. The Philadelphia Art Museum is receiving $100,000 in taxpayer funds in this bill.

The certification letter submitted to the Appropriations Committee in this project is a little vague again. It simply states that the money is to be used for a comprehensive exterior renovation and preservation project of the main building historic facade. I should note again the certification letters that we get as Members tell us a lot less than the actual request letters do. That certainly is the case here.

When my staff looked at the museum Web site, it is clear that the museum has plans for expansion by creating a ``skylit galleria, a spacious gallery extending along Pennsylvania Avenue in Philadelphia.''

The skylit galleria would be some 35 feet high, 200 feet long, and join the lobby and new cafe. The Web site says that with its terrazzo floor and tilted corbelled wall, this new space connects the old building to the new extension along the length of the preexisting north exterior facade.

I understand the main building is historic. But the question is, if the certification letter says it is for the historic facade and you are talking about flooring and other things, it seems to me that the money is going to the new extension.

Again, I would simply make the same point here that I have made before. There are a lot of worthy projects. Certainly renovation and historic preservation is a good thing and a lot of good people contribute their own money to it, as they should. But the question is, should Federal taxpayer dollars be used in this way, particularly given the financial situation we are in as a Federal Government.

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

If the gentleman would explain, I am still a little confused. The earmark states it is for Philadelphia Art Museum exterior facade, but then we are talking about an extension or expansion as well. Is this for the historic facade or for an expansion?

So not to the new expansion.

I thank the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit any of the funds in the bill from going to the Payne Art Gallery at Moravian College at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The certification letter submitted by the Member sponsoring the project stated the money would go to the restoration and preservation of the Payne Art Gallery at the college. The funding would be used for exterior restoration, rehabilitation, and conservation of Payne Gallery.

Payne Art Gallery is a small art gallery at a college. The college underwent a renovation in 2001 to achieve Smithsonian exhibit standards. It currently hosts about five to six exhibits a year. This small art gallery is to receive $150,000 in Federal funding from the U.S. taxpayer.

Again, I would simply ask, there are a lot of small colleges around the country, hundreds of them, thousands of them. Many have art galleries. Where do we say this is worthy and this is not? Why are we using U.S. Federal taxpayer dollars for this purpose when we are in the fix that we are in financially?

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

Mr. Chairman, I will simply make the point, this sounds like a great gallery, a lot of history, certainly something that tourism and other things can pay for, that can carry its own load locally. Why do we need the Federal Government to be involved, that is my question.

Given the priorities and the situation we are in with the Federal Government, the last time I checked we were some $8 trillion in debt, why are we doing this? Where does it end? When do we say enough is enough?

We can't afford to fund projects like this around the country that have a local program that can support it. We simply can't go on doing this. That is the point that I would like to make.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent funding from going to the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission in Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania. This is one of the most expensive earmarks in the bill. The commission is to receive an earmark of $1.2 million. The Web site for this commission states that the southwestern region of Pennsylvania was hard hit when a lot of manufacturing jobs left the region. The Web site also states that it was a ``tough transition for hundreds of steelworkers, coal miners, railroaders and other workers who now find themselves without a job.'' I certainly, and any Member in this body, can sympathize with in their own district.

But the Web site goes on to say that ``An idea emerged that the very industries that were struggling in the 1980's had transformed America once before. Could the proud history of southwestern Pennsylvania once again lead America through the next economic transition? With that, the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission was born.''

A bill creating the Southwestern Pennsylvania Industrial Heritage Route, or Path to Progress National Heritage Area, was approved in Congress in 1988. The heritage area is managed by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission. If this is confusing to listeners, it is to all of us.

The Commission's Web site states that the law created the new heritage area to ``make it possible for millions of Federal dollars to flow into southwestern Pennsylvania.'' No doubt.

All of these funds are to be managed by the Commission.

The Commission's Web site states the Commission has ``created organizations, corporations, alliances, confederations, authorities, commissions, councils, and new businesses.'' No doubt.

The site goes on to explain that the committee ``spent money, borrowed money, loaned money, earned money, granted money, and accepted money.'' Nobody doubts that either.

The Web site explains that the Commission legislative mandate was renewed by Congress and it was to begin transferring its responsibilities to a public foundation.

I quote, ``several entities were created by the commission to achieve this--the Allegheny Heritage Development Corporation which then evolved in the Westsylvania Heritage Corporation and the Progress Fund, which would serve as a Community Development Financial Institution, providing gap and equity financing to an increasing number of tourism-oriented businesses.''

I should note that I have added language in this amendment to prevent Federal funding from going to the other two nonprofit entities that were created by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Commission.

My point in offering this amendment is to highlight the concept of earmark incubators, or entities created by Members of Congress through the legislative process that exist for the sole purpose of receiving more earmarks.

In this case, the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission seems to be just that, an earmark incubator. It has spawned at least two other nonprofit entities, each with the sole purpose of fostering economic growth and tourism development in southwestern Pennsylvania with Federal taxpayer dollars.

It is no surprise that the CEO of the Westsylvania Heritage Corporation is also the executive director of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission. He is also a former Interior Department employee of 32 years.

Keeping track of all these entities that have been created based on this one national heritage area almost boggles the mind. The point of this amendment is to prevent funding from going to one entity, you have to go after all three.

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

How much time is remaining?

I thank the chairman.

If the gentleman will indulge me, I am still confused, maybe even further now. Looking at the list, it says here, Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission, $1.2 million, and the sponsor is Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania. Who is the sponsor?

Thank you.

Reclaiming my time, I don't doubt that it was funded in the previous Congress. The question is with economic development. It is said that this helps promote tourism. It helps development. No doubt. You cannot spend money without creating economic activity by its very nature. But if we take economic development as the criteria, what project anywhere in the country is not worthy of that? And why is this project and all of these entities created, and I quote again from their own Web site. The commission Web site says: ``This organization created organizations, corporations, alliances, confederations, authorities, commissions, councils, new businesses,'' many of which are also eligible for earmark funding.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a real test here. We all campaign every 2 years, and we put out campaign literature. We go speak at town halls and other events. And I would venture to guess that not one person in this body said, Reelect me because we need to spend more on Interior appropriations. We need to spend more. We need to spend 4 percent more than we did last year. I am going to go back to Washington and spend $1.2 billion more than we did last year.

I venture that nobody said that. Virtually everybody said we need to rein in spending. We need to promote fiscal responsibility.

I am the first to concede we didn't do a good job of it over here. For the past several years we have grown government far too big. That is part of the reason we are now in the minority. But the majority comes now and says, don't lecture us, we are going to increase that spending.

This bill spends $1.2 billion more than last year. Last year spent too much. This year spends too much too much again.

So, please, we know we did wrong. That is why we are in the minority. But when you are in the majority now, let's exercise some fiscal discipline. There are plenty of areas that can receive cuts. We have outlined several of them over the past several hours with amendments.

Museum funding, part of the reason the gentleman from New Mexico mentioned that we have a backlog at the National Parks, he is right. But yet in the authorizing committee, we have created several more National Heritage Areas and earmarked a lot more money for them. There are earmarks in this bill for National Heritage Areas. That is money that will come out of the National Parks budget. They will tell you if you spend money here on this new area, this National Heritage Area, you can't spend money maintaining the parks that we already have. Many of us have fought to stop that. We have said don't keep creating these National Heritage Areas. Yet with the new majority, we are creating them at a faster rate than we ever have.

I would say, let's promote fiscal discipline. Let's pass this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would just say, I have three amendments that have not been voted on yet, so I invite the gentleman to support them.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I thank the Chair and the Members who are present here.

This is the fourth time I've offered this amendment to an appropriations bill. I don't do it to be a pain in the neck. In fact, I appreciate the work of the chairman, I appreciate the work of the ranking member, and I appreciate the work of the committee and staff. I know they look at these line items, look at these programs, go through and do the hard work that all committees do. I appreciate all that work. I simply bring the amendment forward because I believe government is too big and that government spends too much.

This amendment doesn't cut spending. This amendment, like the previous ones I have offered, simply says we're going to hold the line. We're going to spend the same amount we spent in the last fiscal year. Nothing more than that. That's all the amendment does. It allows the committee who understands these programs, who does the work and puts this bill together, to go back and look and figure out where those cuts should happen using their expertise that they've developed in this committee to do that. It simply says, it's not too much to ask government to do what millions of families have to do across this country, live on last year's spending levels, live on last year's budget.

It is important we do this, in my judgment, for two reasons. Again I have articulated these each time I've brought this amendment forward for the body to consider. The first is there are financial problems, financial concerns, some would even say crisis looming for America if we don't get a handle on the spending. $3 trillion budget. This bill increases spending by over a billion dollars in this one area. The more we run up deficits, the more that leads to debt, the more that leads to less saving, the more that leads to less economic growth, the tougher it makes it in the future to deal with the economic crisis that is in fact coming.

Again, you don't have to take my word for it. All kinds of experts have talked about this, whether it's entitlement programs, discretionary spending, it's government spending and there are problems looming if we don't begin to get a handle on the spending levels that we appropriate. There is no better place to start than right now, saying, let's just do what we did last year. Let's just hold the line on spending.

The second reason that this is so important: whenever you start to spend and spend and spend and have these kinds of things take place, it inevitably leads to greater taxes. I've often heard the phrase tax-and- spend politicians. It's actually more appropriate to say spend and tax. Spending drives the equation. The more you spend, that leads to taxes in the future. If you went out and asked the American people, Mr. Chairman, is government too big or too small, my guess is the vast majority of Americans would say it's too big.

Think about this: government spends on average $23,000 per household. We've got a $3 trillion annual budget that we spend on. Many of those things are appropriate, but overall if you ask the American people is government too big or too small, they would say it's too big. If you asked them the same question, are Americans overtaxed or undertaxed, my guess is the vast majority of Americans would say we're overtaxed. In fact, a typical family, 50 cents of every dollar they spend goes to some level of government in the form of taxes. It's not too much to ask government to hold the line on spending, to live on what we did last year, to live on the same amount.

That's what this amendment does. I bring it forward, not to be a pain to the committee, I appreciate their work, but simply to point out it's time we get a handle on spending if we are going to be able to let or help America have the economic growth that we need to see happen in this country in the future.

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

Mr. Chairman, before recognizing the gentlelady from Tennessee, I would just point out this, we always hear this, devastating cut. This not a cut. This is simply saying we are going to spend what we spent last year.

In fact, last week we had this big debate on the legislative branch bill and on other appropriations bills, and the majority party was pointing to the President's request. What we spent last year is actually more than what the President requested in this budget.

Devastating cut, I mean, we always hear, it's interesting, politicians who spend the tax dollars of families and individual taxpayers across this country, always say the sky is going to fall if we can't get more of your money and spend it on things we think are important.

All we're saying is you know what, it's not too much to ask that government do what families do all the time, and that is spend on last year's level.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, the majority party has yielded all their time back?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining on the Republican side?

I yield as much time he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the Republican leader, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire the amount of time we have left.

Before yielding to the gentleman from Georgia, I would just point out, I love the majority party's logic: because the Republicans spent too much, we're going to spend more. How does that help the American family? It just makes no sense to me.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just want to know which is it? We just heard from the distinguished chairman from Washington that Republicans spent too much; so we are going to spend more. We heard about

the spending by the Republicans. And we just heard from the other gentleman that we cut, cut, cut. I want to know which is it?

All I know is this, what is in the bill, and in the bill it says this: The Commission on Climate Change, $50 million of taxpayer money for this new Commission. National Park Service, a $199 million increase, 10.8 percent above last year. The National Endowment for the Arts, a 29 percent increase. We heard a debate about this yesterday, an agency that many Americans find offensive using their tax dollars: $160 million, a 29 percent increase. National Endowment for the Humanities, $19 million, an increase of 13 percent.

Which is it? Did we cut all the time or did we spend too much? I want to know which it is.

What I do know is that in the bill, there are all kinds of excessive spending. That is why we just want to say hold the line, let's keep it where it is right now.

And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me this time, and for bringing this fine amendment forward and for her work on fiscal responsibility in her time here in the United States Congress.

I want to make a couple of quick points here. First, the list that the chairman just went through, he kept using the term ``cut.'' Let's be clear to the American people in particular that the gentlelady's amendment is not a cut, it is an increase of 4 percent. What the gentleman was referring to was the spending levels at 4.5 percent which the bill contains within it. All she is saying is let's increase 4 percent instead of 4.5 percent. Again, only in government-speak, only in Washington can that be termed a cut. She is not cutting at all. She is just saying let's not increase it quite as much.

A couple of other things we have heard in the course of the debate this afternoon which I think has been healthy. The chairman indicated that he wants to move on, we need to limit debate and get out of here. Look, 40 minutes on three amendments, 2 hours total on debate, on the most fundamental question, the most fundamental issue the United States Congress deals with: How we spend the taxpayers' money. So 2 hours debate on what level that should be is not too much debate. Frankly, we should have more on this fundamental question.

The other point that the majority party makes is, and again, I find this logic fascinating. Republicans spent too much, so we are going to spend even more. It is amazing that is the logic that the other size entails and brings forward in each of these appropriations bills.

Talking about the spending contained within this bill, let me just cite a couple of things.

The Commission on Climate Change, a brand new commission, $50 million on the Commission on Climate Change, adaptation and mitigation, a new, additional study on global warming, as if we haven't had enough studies on that already. So $50 million on that.

The National Park Service, $199 million increase, 10.8 percent above last year.

National Endowment for the Humanities, $19 million increase, 13 percent above last year.

Environmental Protection Agency, the Agency that the gentleman said that if it didn't get the right amount of funding, people would lose sleep over, $361 million, or a 4.7 percent increase above last year.

And of course, my favorite, and I am sure the favorite of the American taxpayer, National Endowment for the Arts, a $35 million increase, 29 percent above last year.

There is all kinds of additional government contained in this legislation. I am reminded of the old statement by our third President, Thomas Jefferson. He said: ``When government fears the people, there is liberty. When people fear the government, there is tyranny.'' Now keep that statement in mind and ask yourself the question: If next week when we are back home on break and you are at some friend's business and someone walks up to the

door and knocks on the door and the individual identifies himself, I'm Mr. Smith and I am from the EPA, the Agency that gets a 4.7-percent increase in this bill. If you are that individual who owns that business, is your first response, oh, joy, one of my government's servants is about here to help me today.

That is what this debate is about, and 2 hours debate on the most fundamental question that the United States Congress deals with, how we spend taxpayer dollars, is not too much debate.

We should debate this long and hard and we should support the amendment of the gentlewoman from Colorado. It simply slows down the rate of government growth, slows down that government that Jefferson warned us about in his statement. I certainly support the gentlelady's amendment, and thank her for bringing it forward.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership on this issue and for bringing important distinctions to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question, though, of the body, and it's curious what's going on here. The chairman of the subcommittee yielded back his time, didn't even want to engage.

Can you hear it, Mr. Chairman? That's silence. That's silence on the part of the majority party because they aren't even interested in defending the spending that is in their bill.

Before I came to Congress, I was a physician. I knew that I needed to listen to patients in order to make the right diagnosis.

Well, the right diagnosis, Mr. Chairman, here, is that Washington doesn't have a revenue problem; it's got a spending problem. And the ways that the Democrats are moving forward with their spending spree of 2007 are very frightening, as the gentleman before me spoke.

There are a couple of ways to pay for it. One, you can charge it. And so they've increased the debt ceiling. They've increased the debt ceiling to over $9 trillion for the first time ever in the history of this Nation.

The other way you can pay for it is to tax folks. Mandatory withholding, tax increases. And already we've seen the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation adopted by this majority party.

Mr. Chairman, if that were my record, I wouldn't want to talk about it either. I wouldn't want to talk about it either.

So I want to commend my friend from Ohio who is standing tall for fiscal responsibility. It's clear that there's a distinction between the majority party and the minority party. And the minority party says, the Republicans say, we believe in fiscal responsibility. We believe that we can hold the line on spending to holding it to where it was last year.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment. This amendment is what became affectionately known as the Hefley amendment. Mr. Hefley was a former Member of the House and offered a 1 percent decrease in the reduction of the increase on appropriations bills routinely. And he no longer serves with us; so many of us believe that it is an appropriate way to try to bring about some kind of fiscal restraint and fiscal responsibility here in the United States Congress.

I think it is important to look at the big picture, and the big picture is that we always have to remind ourselves whose money this is. And there is a sense in this Chamber and in Washington that this money is the government's money, that the government somehow makes it and discovers it and that it ought to just spend it willy-nilly.

Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, this isn't the government's money; it is the people's money. This money comes to Washington through the hard work of the American taxpayer. And it is imperative that we remember that because only when we remember that will we have that touchstone to make certain we spend it responsibly.

What are the big numbers here that we are talking about in the Interior, Environment Appropriations bill? Last year, fiscal year 2007, this bill appropriated $26.4 billion. This year the proposal is to spend $27.6 billion. That is an increase of $1.2 billion, an increase of 9.5 percent, an increase three times the rate of inflation.

This amendment would decrease that increase by 1 percent. It would decrease that increase by $276 million. It would trim one penny out of every dollar spent in this appropriations bill. It is the kind of thing that American families all across our Nation do when they find themselves in times when they are spending more than they are taking in, which is what the Federal Government is doing, spending more than we are taking in.

This is a responsible amendment. It starts us down that road of being fiscally responsible. It tells the American people that we care about their budget and in caring about their budget, we will be responsible with the Federal budget. It will begin to restore some of that trust that the American people have lost in Washington's ability to restrain spending.

So I offer this amendment in good faith. I believe it is an appropriate way to begin the process of gaining back fiscal responsibility here in Washington. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of my good friend from Washington if he has any speakers on this amendment?

I have got more than my 20 minutes will be able to fill.

Mr. Chairman, the silence persists. The silence persists on the majority side because they are loathe to defend the spending that is going on here in Washington. Mr. Chairman, I find that particularly offensive to the American people. This is not government's money. It is the American taxpayers' money. It is incumbent upon the party that is proposing to spend billions and billions of dollars to increase the debt ceiling in this Nation over $9 trillion for the first time, to ignore the entitlement spending, to ignore $50 trillion in liability. This is the majority party that is silent, silent when it comes to this kind of spending.

So I would urge my colleagues to reconsider their desire not to defend their spending.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my good friend from California (Mr. Campbell), who is a leader on fiscal responsibility here in the House.

I appreciate the attempt at defending the remarkable increased spending on the part of the majority party. To describe this amendment as a devastating cut is curious. Only in Washington is a decrease in the increase a cut.

It's important that the American people appreciate that the proposal of the majority party is to spend in this bill $27.6 billion. This amendment, if enacted would provide for the spending of $27.4 billion, hardly, Mr. Chairman, a devastating cut.

I would also ask my good friend from Washington to simply read the amendment. It talks about an across-the-board cut. The amendment states that ``appropriations made by this Act are hereby reduced in the amount of $276 million.'' That's not an across-the-board cut. That's a 1 percent reduction in the total allocation in this bill. So it is disingenuous of my good friend to make those kinds of comments.

I would also say that he says that we need to move quickly. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that any time we spend defending the American taxpayer is time well spent.

And then they talk about priorities. Mr. Chairman, the correct priority we have is defending the American taxpayer.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the Chair of the Republican Study Committee and the champion of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time available on each side?

Mr. Chairman, given the discrepancy in the times, to equalize the time, I will reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), a champion for fiscal responsibility and fiscal reform in Washington.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side, if I may?

I thank the Chair.

I just would point out to my good friend from Ohio that no specific programs are identified in this decrease in the increase. So to identify specific programs is a spurious argument, truly.

I would also say that this points out fundamentally the difference between the two parties. We believe fundamentally that individuals spend their money more wisely than the government. It is clear that the majority party does not believe that. They believe that they spend the taxpayer money much more wisely. We just think that is a fundamental difference.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), on this appropriate amendment of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.

As I listened to the arguments, what arguments that are presented, from the majority Democrats, I hear some things that don't quite ring true. They talk a lot about their pay-as-you-go rules and that their great fiscal accomplishment of this Congress is that they are going to pay for spending as you go. Yet this bill increases spending by $1.2 billion, and it is not paid for. There is no $1.2 billion cut somewhere else. They are simply going to increase the deficit by $1.2 billion more because they have decided they want to spend it.

They say that they are not raising taxes. But yet their budget increases spending every single year for 5 years and then miraculously says they are going to balance the budget. How do they do that? Because they did have in their budget the largest tax increase in American history.

You just heard them recently just decry the former deficits. Oh, my gosh, Republicans drove up these deficits. And, in fact, we did. And we agree that that was not the right thing to do. So what is their response? Make the deficits bigger. Take the spending that we had while we were in charge and increase it by more.

And then they have one other thing they continue to do which is to call something like this bill a ``cut.'' You heard the gentleman from Washington on the last proposal say that it was a devastating cut, when in fact all this does, as the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, is take what's already a 4.5 percent increase and reduce it.

Now, what I want to do is, since they're having a hard time understanding this, I want to put this up graphically so that maybe they will understand better.

Now, Mr. Chairman, here are 100 donkeys. I figured that donkeys were

something that Democrats would be able to relate to. So we have 100 donkeys here. Imagine that this is 100 donkeys of spending. Here's what this bill will do. There, Mr. Chairman, are 99 donkeys; 100 donkeys here, 99 donkeys there. Probably having a hard time, I would imagine, Mr. Chairman, people in the gallery are probably having a hard time telling the difference. That's because there isn't much difference. That's because it isn't a big cut, it isn't a big reduction. If you have a million-dollar program, all we're asking is for that program to get by on $90,000. If it's $100 million, we're asking them to get by on a mere $99 million. If it's a billion-dollar program, do you think that some government agencies can squeak by on $990 million rather than a billion?

But here's the big point: It doesn't look like a lot of difference in donkeys, but if we do that, if we spend the 99 instead of 100 on every single government program, we save $30 billion. That is real money. And this is how you save it: a little bit at a time. Ask a million-dollar program to get by on $990,000, ask a billion-dollar program to get by on 1 percent less. And when you do that with every single program in government, you save $30 billion a year. That, Mr. Chairman, is how we can get to a balanced budget without not only the largest tax increase in American history, without raising taxes on the hardworking people in America at all simply by asking government day by day, get by on 1 percent less. I think we can do it. I think we should vote for this amendment.

I thank the gentlelady from Colorado.

You know, we have heard a lot today from the majority party whenever we talk about this amendment, this bill, this spending, they want to bring up last year's bills, last year's spending. We acknowledge, last year's spending was too much. Last year's bills were too much. That's not what we're talking about. It's like the baseball team wanting to play last year's season again. Look what we did last year. Look what happened last year. No, we're in the middle of this year. We're in the middle of this season. It doesn't matter who won the World Series last year. It matters who's in first place this year. What matters is this year. How much are we going to spend this year? That's what we're voting on. How much are we going to increase the deficit this year? How much further are we going to raid the Social Security surplus this year? That's the question before us. And we think we ought to have the deficit increase a little less and that we should raid the Social Security surplus a little less and that we shouldn't set up a situation where you're going to raise taxes on all of the American people.

The previous amendment, I showed a couple of charts. The previous amendment was to reduce spending by 1 percent. I tried to point out to the majority that it's like this. Here are 100 donkeys, something they can understand. If we reduce that by 1 percent, we have 99 donkeys. Not that big a difference in donkeys. And so we proposed an amendment last time, which the majority party defeated on voice vote, will undoubtedly defeat later, that said, let's just get by on 99 donkeys, money, instead of 100 donkeys, money. Well, they said they couldn't do it.

So the gentlelady from Colorado offers an alternative, which is get by on 99\1/2\ donkeys. If I had a half donkey, I would stick it up there. You can pick whichever end of the donkey you want, but put another half a donkey on that chart. And so we're saying rather than 100 donkeys, get by with 99\1/2\. It's just saying if you have a million-dollar program, we said, well, get by on 999,000. They're saying, no. Okay. How about $999,500? If you have a $100 million program, we're saying can you get by on $99 million. They said, no. We're saying, okay, how about $99\1/2\ million.

That's what this argument is about. Just asking for a half a percent, each government agency, each government program to deal with a half a percent less. People at home make these kinds of decisions with way bigger percentages than that all the time, Mr. Chairman. And if we do it, if we reduce it by 1 percent, we would save $30 billion if we did every program every year. If it's a half a percent, it's still $15 billion. That is real money, Mr. Chairman. Real money no matter how you cut it. And that is the way we can balance this budget without raising taxes.

There, Mr. Chairman, is the big difference between the majority Democratic Party and the Republican Party. We're saying, get by on 99 donkeys or 99\1/2\ donkeys instead of 100. Tell government bureaucrats that we can balance this budget without raising taxes. They, however, want to give the bureaucrats 100 donkeys of spending every time and raise taxes on the American people to make up the difference. That's what we're talking about here. That's the difference in this debate. That's the difference between these parties.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge all Members to vote to make government bureaucrats deal with a tiny bit less and let people save and keep their own money.