Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, this week, it is still uncertain as to whether we are going to have an opportunity to vote on a health care proposal before we go home for the August recess. And I would just suggest, Madam Speaker, that what we do is ensure that we have absolute transparency, the capability of every Member to look at whatever bill comes to this floor--we have been told that the bill may be in excess of 1,000 pages--that we have an opportunity to have a full debate and full amendments to be debated on the floor.

And why do I say this? Because many people would say that would be what is to be expected. Unfortunately, over the last several months, we have had an experience in this House in which we have had major pieces of legislation brought to this floor, in some cases the bill itself with very little notice, in other cases huge 300-page amendments being dropped on us at the last minute.

We have had some suggest that it is unnecessary for Members of Congress to read the bill or have their staffs read the bill or understand the parts of the bill; rather, we are told, ``just trust us.'' Well, I remember Ronald Reagan's very important admonition, which was ``trust, but verify.''

If we are being asked to alter approximately 18 percent of the entire United States economy, if we are being asked to change in fundamental ways the delivery of health care to the men, women and children of this country, if we are being told that what we are going to do is going to inalterably change Medicare and Medicaid, if we are being told that what we are embarking on this week is to fundamentally change the manner in which men, women and children of this country receive their health care, if we are to be told that we must make a decision this week as to what the relationship between the doctor and the patient ought to be, if we are being told that we will have to make choices as to whether or not the government shall insert itself between the doctor and the patient, if we are being told that the President believes that there are doctors--the generalization was most doctors would require a tonsillectomy for a young person rather than continue treatment of a cheaper kind to take care of sore throats, if we are being told that we have to review the entire health care system of the United States, compare it to Canada, compare it to England, compare it to France, compare it to Sweden, compare it to the ideal, if we are being told that this week we have to make the decision as to whether or not the program we put forward will have government decide whether a 100-year- old woman who is in extraordinarily good health but needs a pacemaker ought to instead be told by the government that merely she should take a pain pill--as the President suggested on television not too long ago--then maybe we owe it to the American people to give ourselves sufficient time. Rather than have some sort of artificial deadline, maybe we ought to take the time to go back to our districts and present the arguments to our constituents and at least give them an opportunity to tell us in our town hall meetings, tell us in our tele-town halls, tell us in our meetings with various groups as to what they think ought to be done.

Why would we have a rush to judgment here, other than the fact that we have an August recess, other than the fact that the President said that we must pass it by a date certain? Shouldn't we take the time to do the work that the American people expect us of, particularly when it deals with something so precious, so personal, so important as their health?

And so I hope that, rather than meet some artificial deadline, we will take the time to allow the American people to see the bill in all of its glory, to see its good points and its bad points, to see whether we ought to change it, alter it in any way, and then come back and make a decision here for the American people. There are very few issues that are as fundamentally important as this issue. Let's make sure we do it right.

Mr. Speaker, in the debate that we've had over health care, we Republicans have attempted to try and communicate our concerns to the American people. We have developed a simple chart that explains the bureaucratic morass that will exist between you, the individual--the patient--and your doctor, but we've been told we can't send this out because the majority party objects to it.

First of all, they said they didn't know whether it was true. Secondly, they said we didn't somehow substantiate everything. Thirdly, they don't like ``House Democrats' health plan'' here. So they suggested that maybe we should put on some sort of disclaimer, so I've come up with a disclaimer. We've tried to figure out what will work:

``The Democratic Party assumes no responsibility for providing this information to the American people.'' Maybe they don't like that. ``The majority party assumes no responsibility for providing this information to the American people.'' ``The House Democrats assume no responsibility.'' Finally, maybe this is what we ought to put up here, Mr. Speaker: ``The President and the House Democrats assume no responsibility for providing this information to the American people because they know, if the American people knew this is what would happen to them and that this is what would be put between them and their doctors, they wouldn't support it.''

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I am pleased to rise in support of the bill that will pave the way for the Law Library at the Library of Congress to more fully serve this community, the legal community, academia and the public. The Law Library has one of the greatest collections of legal documents in the world, unparalleled in its breadth and depth.

The collection is so significant and diverse that following removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, as was suggested by my colleague from California, the Afghani people turned to the Library of Congress' archives to find a copy of the laws and Constitution of their country, Afghanistan.

Not much more than a year ago, in May 2008, a good friend and colleague of ours, the late Representative Bill Orton of Utah, appeared before the House Appropriations Committee and delivered compelling testimony toward the importance of properly funding this Law Library. It is, therefore, fitting that it is in his honor that we move this bill forward today.

Among Bill Orton's arguments for passionate support of the Law Library, perhaps two are most salient: the manner in which the current budgetary scheme forces the Library of Congress to balance the various departments against one another and the pressing need for an avenue to facilitate and dedicate private support for this Law Library. The American Bar Association, in a letter this month to the House of Representatives, echoed Bill Orton's testimony, explaining that the spreading of budgetary shortfalls has led at times to the neglect of particular portions of collections. For example, the ABA highlights the fact that the Law Library's loose leaf subscriptions are months out of date.

At the time of his testimony, Bill Orton appeared as a representative of the American Bar Association, which is dedicated and committed to specifically address the maintenance, accessibility and relevance of the Law Library. When pressed as to whether the legal community would pitch in as a partner in financially supporting the Law Library, his response was emphatically, Yes.

With the passage of this bill, we enable our partners in the legal community to fulfill that commitment, and we give them an avenue through which that can be done.

More personally, this bill serves as a tribute to our late colleague, Bill Orton. During his service in this body, he was a passionate advocate for the law library and its many resources. He recognized the value of the careful stewardship of the law library's institutional mission. And so I hope that with our vote today, we will move that much closer to seeing the goal of Bill Orton realized.

I urge my colleagues, therefore, to join me in supporting the memory of Bill Orton, the mission of the law library, and this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 1752, which will vest in the Committee on House Administration the authority to evaluate and implement best practices to improve efficiency in our payroll process.

The House Inspector General has reported that it may be of benefit to the House to transition to a bimonthly pay cycle with a lag time. Preliminary financial assessments suggest that after incurring up-front transition costs, this change may reduce overpayments over time and reduce errors by more easily distributing the burden of incorporating payment changes into the system.

If the distinguished gentlelady from California would enter into a colloquy on the subject of exactly how this authority is to be exercised, I would like to stress that the legislation before the House simply grants the Committee on House Administration the authority to change the pay cycle and does not in and of itself authorize any changes. As the gentlelady is aware, any change to our current operating status with regard to payroll would have a large impact on the daily lives of House staff. It is thus important that the committee granting this authority will act cautiously and only after soliciting and evaluating the feedback of the House community.

I understand on the majority side that you would be willing to work with us to ensure that the opinions of House staff are gathered and considered prior to any potential change in the pay cycle.

I appreciate that very much.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would urge support for this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

I rise in support of this bill, the TRAC bill, which will encourage States to adopt measures toward the modernization of election systems.

The legitimacy of our election systems is based on the public trust that properly cast ballots are counted, and in the case of absentee ballots, reach their appropriate destination. Any time an election system fails to include properly cast ballots there is cause for concern as to the legitimacy of the outcome.

Long gone should be the days when dog-eared absentee ballots are relegated to dark and dusty corners of election offices with voters never having the certainty that their vote counted. By instituting a tracking system, States can further ensure the security of their absentee ballots. Some have said this is really promoting uniform postal progress information for election shipments. Moreover, an absentee ballot tracking system will enable voters to act as guardians of their own vote, providing them the ability to call attention to ballots that fail to reach their destination.

An important aspect of this bill beyond the benefits of a ballot tracking system is that it is a voluntary, incentive-driven program. Whereas each State approaches its election process from a unique background and context, this voluntary program empowers the States to modernize their election systems in a manner appropriate to their particular challenges. The Committee on House Administration has held several hearings over the past year dealing with challenges to the administration of reliable and credible elections. Through the testimony of many qualified witnesses, we have come to realize that one particular subset of voters who are particularly vulnerable to those challenges is overseas military voters. My colleague on the committee, Mr. McCarthy, has introduced a piece of legislation which will help remedy that disservice to our men and women in uniform. And just as we take up this bill today, I am hopeful that we will soon see Mr. McCarthy's bill brought before this body for a vote.

It simply isn't acceptable for ballots to disappear, some might say, like wandering puppies. We owe our uniformed servicemembers better than that.

Madam Speaker, I urge support for this measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Franking Commission for this body. The purpose of the Franking Commission essentially is to make sure that government resources are not used in a way that would look like it's campaign purposes; that is, we are very careful about how many times you use the personal pronoun ``I,'' how many times you can have your picture in a newsletter. But never in the history of this House have these rules been used to censor Members from articulating a point of view on an issue that is before this House.

This chart has been introduced into the record, the official record of consideration of the health bill before the Ways and Means Committee, and yet we have been told by the majority, we've been told that it's been taken above the level of those of us on the Franking Commission. We've been told that we cannot use this. Why? Because they disagree with our opinions expressed herein.

I didn't know that one of the obligations of the minority was to accept censorship because the majority does not want our efforts to get in their way of passing a health bill that takes control of health away from people and puts it in the government.

Mr. Speaker, when I served in this House the first time around, the Cold War was still ongoing, and there was a term that often appeared in the press. It was called Samizdat, S-a-m-i-z-d-a-t. That word was used to describe communications which conveyed the opinions of people disfavored by an oppressive regime. It was the personally published commentary among peoples who felt they were oppressed in Communist countries. Why? Because their opinions were not allowed to be expressed in the official press.

Today, we have a situation in this House in which Mr. Herger, Mr. Lamar Smith, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Olson, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Roskam, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Conaway, and Mr. Price thus far have been refused by the majority permission to express their points of view with respect to one of the most critical issues facing our country, that of reforming our health care system.

One of the most distinguished Members of this body, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Kevin Brady from Texas, in working with the Republican economic staff of the Joint Economic Committee, came up with this chart, outlining what we believe to be the bureaucratic nightmare contained in the majority's proposal for health care.

Now, the majority disagrees with our interpretation of the facts, and that's part of politics. That's part of this body, but the majority has now said we will not allow you in the minority to use any official communications mechanisms to share your views of the impact of this legislation on your constituents.

Now, why does this seem strange?

Well, it just happens that, in 1993, we were faced with what later became known as HillaryCare, an attempt by the Clinton administration to take over health care by the Federal Government. At that time, Republicans also came up with a flowchart that showed the bureaucratic morass that would result from that proposal. I have with me a copy of the permission from the franking commission at that time that this be allowed. The only difference I can see between the two charts is that one is in black and white and that one is in color.

What has happened in the interim? Well, HillaryCare was defeated. The President said we can't stand to defeat his particular proposal, that they somehow have all of the answers.

Now, some people may say, ``Well, what is it that the franking commission is supposed to do? What are your rules?'' The rules have been established essentially to make sure that Members do not abuse the right of communication by turning their publications into campaign pieces, so we limit the number of pictures one can have there, the number of references that can be made to the Member, himself or herself.

To give you an example of what we on the Republican side have approved, I have a newsletter that has gone out by one of the Members on the Democratic side in which the claim was made that the stimulus package has helped create and save 3.5 million Americans jobs. I think that's absurd; I think that is a point of argument, but I don't believe that we ought to stop a Member of Congress from the Democratic side from making that assertion to his constituents.

I have another one with me that was approved in which a Democratic Member has claimed that 3.5 million jobs nationwide have been created-- 215,000 jobs in New York and 7,200 jobs in her particular district.

Then I have a copy of a letter that was approved last year from the Speaker, herself, in which she says that the New Direction Congress-- that's how she defines it--also fought to increase compensation for our troops in the face of opposition from the Bush administration. It then goes on to criticize the President even though he signed it.

We disagree with the characterizations that were in Speaker Pelosi's

letter, but we didn't think it was our purpose to censor her. Let's get rid of censorship and allow the American people to hear the facts as they are argued on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 131, directing the Architect of the

Capitol to engrave our National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance in the Capitol Visitor Center.

These two statements of historical significance speak to the culture and development of our nation as a people united by a core set of philosophical maxims. This resolution stands as a tribute to the work of our founding fathers, a legacy that this body has been entrusted to maintain.

Abraham Lincoln argued that the Constitution could not be read properly without reference to the Declaration of Independence whereby the origin of our individual rights is identified as God. The Declaration refers to those unalienable rights as endowed by God, or ``their Creator'' with a capital ``C,'' specifying that those rights do not exist except by the grace of God.

This concept, of individual rights as given by God, is the very foundation upon which our Constitution stands. It was revolutionary at the time because it defines the worth of an individual apart from and prior to the state. To refuse to recognize God as the origin of our unalienable rights is to refuse the very basis by which one's worth is established.

Removing God as the basis by which we define and recognize our individual rights removes a constancy within our constitutional order, subjecting the definition of those rights to an ever changing and inconsistent standard of public opinion and momentary context. It is the very fact that these rights are endowed by our Creator that makes them unalienable--a truth we as a nation must never forget.

Furthermore, acknowledgement of God and His tenets has been an integral part of our national story, since its inception. Those assenting to the Declaration understood it as an appeal ``to the Supreme Judge of the world for rectitude of our intentions.''

Moreover, George Washington, in his farewell address, observed, ``Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness--these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.''

When Patrick Henry advocated revolution in his famous ``give me liberty or give me death'' speech before the Virginia House of Burgesses, he declared, ``Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.'' Continuing, ``[We] shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.''

Madam Speaker, the reliance upon and foundational belief in God is deeply interwoven into the fabric of this nation's beginning and growth. So much so that, to omit an appeal to Providence in the retelling of our history would be a profound disservice to that history.

In the short period that the Capitol Visitor Center has been open it has attracted over one million visitors, with many more to come. The historical offering of the CVC will be augmented by this resolution, ensuring that the philosophy which provided the Cornerstone for our great nation will endure in words, and as many of us in this body aspire, hopefully in deed as well.

I urge the support of my colleagues for this resolution and look forward to its swift passage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. When I returned to this House Chamber in 2005, it was obvious to me that we were spending too much money on the Federal level. It was obvious to me that Uncle Sam needed a diet at that time. But at this time, it is even worse. We need what I would call a budgetary gastrointestinal bypass. And instead, what do you bring to the floor? You bring us cosmetic surgery. You give us a fiscal facelift. It looks good, but there is nothing behind the mask.

All you have to do is look at the figures. Since my friend from South Carolina has been chairman, he has been allowed to be called ``chairman,'' since his colleagues on the Democratic side have been allowed to be called ``chairmen,'' ``chairwomen,'' ``chairpersons,'' in other words, since they have been in charge of this place, what has happened with the spending in this place? It has gotten worse. You complained about overspending, and then you came in and you saw the patient and you put the patient on a diet of milkshakes.

We are in real trouble today, and everybody knows it. Now what did we do last week? We decided the fiscal situation in this country was so bad we needed to have a new program for wild horses at a cost of $700 million. Seven hundred million dollars. Millions of more acres were closed up for that purpose, but $700 million dropped on the laps of the American taxpayer. And this week you're trying to sell us a story that somehow you're concerned about overspending. The American people really are a little bit sharper than that. They understand that when you complain about overspending, and yet in the first opportunity you have to have your President in the White House to control both Houses, we pass the magic trillion-dollar mark. Yes, we had in the very same week for the first time in our dictionary ``earmarks'' listed as a word that is now conventional language. In that same week, we set the record $1 trillion deficit in a single fiscal year.

So after a while, you can keep looking back, you can keep pointing to the mirror, you can keep saying, Look at what those guys did. But at some point in time, you have to use an old expression, ``You've got to man up.'' You've got to actually say you're responsible for the actions taking place right now, and those actions have given us the largest deficit in the history of the world.

We are going to double all of the debt that we have garnered from George Washington to George W. Bush in 5 years, and we're going to triple it in 10 years. I know that's not the intent of the gentleman from South Carolina, for whom I have great respect. I know it's a heavy burden he has to try and carry this Democratic proposal and the administration's proposal. And I understand he would rather not be in this position. But he finds himself in this position, Mr. Speaker, and all I can say to my good friend on the other side of the aisle is, I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry you have to do this.

Mr. Speaker, last night I had a telephone town hall with constituents in my district. As I made the call, I informed them that we were going to discuss any subject they wanted, but I wanted to concentrate on health care. As a result, I had one of the largest responses I ever had. Thousands of people got on the line. Most times, there were no less than 1,400 people on the line. I didn't choose them by party. I didn't choose them by income. I didn't choose them by occupation. It was random, calling people in my district.

The response was overwhelming, overwhelmingly negative with respect to the plans they hear about that are coming from the White House, the Senate and the House. Why were they negative? They were negative because the people in my district were concerned about whether or not the government was going to dominate health care in this country, and those who were satisfied with their plans--even though they had some imperfections, even though they had some desire to have them improved, but by and large had made choices with respect to their plans--wondered whether their freedom of choice would be taken away by the government plan presented by the President and by the leadership in both the Senate and the House. It was interesting, they also were very concerned about the cost. When they hear the word $1 trillion, they begin to think that this particular plan has real problems. As we discussed the various aspects of it, they referred me to the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office's report that disappointed the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate because the report suggested that this program cannot pay for itself, that we're talking about at least $1 trillion to be imposed on the American people.

The dialogue that I had with my constituents was very lively. They were also concerned about the fact that we have Medicare and Medicaid-- as we call it in California, Medi-Cal--that is on an unsustainable path to bankruptcy. This has been pointed out by the director of CBO as well as many others outside the halls of Congress and outside the Federal Government. So the American people are trying to tell us that they are concerned that we have an unsustainable program already that we have not faced up to; and on top of that, we're going to impose this new national health plan. It was interesting because the President and the Democratic leadership have said that, look, the public option is just that. It's not going to destroy the private sector. Yet constituents in my district were very, very clear as to their understanding of the necessary impact of this program. They also were concerned about the promises made in this plan. I guess you could sum it up in these words: First entitlement and then rationing. When government takes over a program like medical care, and when it promises everything, and when you see the track record with respect to Medicare and Medicaid, you understand that at some point in time, we're going to hit the fiscal wall, and government's only ability to control cost at that point in time--if you look historically at other government-centered health programs around the world--is through rationing.

You can look at it in Canada. You can look at it in Great Britain. You can look at it in every country around the world. And frankly, I do not want--and my constituents told me last night they do not want the imposition of a government bureaucrat between them, as patients, and their doctors.

Interestingly, last night in one of our committees marking up that case, that question was posed: Could we say in the plan that there would not be the intervention of a government bureaucrat to dictate to your doctor as to what your health care should be? That specific amendment was voted down almost on a party-line vote. Every Democrat on the committee, save one, voted against that prohibition; and every Republican voted for it. In other words, it

was crystal clear. The amendment presented last night before that committee was: In this plan, can we at least promise the American people there will not be intervention by a Federal bureaucrat to dictate the care you will receive or not receive from your doctor? That specific public policy prohibition was voted down.

If you believe that health care delivered by the Federal Government is superior to what you get now, go to your local DMV and see if you'd like them making the decision with respect to your medical care.

Mr. Speaker, trouble, oh, we got trouble right here in Capital City. With a capital T, and it rhymes with B and that stands for Broke. Right here in Capital City, right here, we've gotta figure out a way to help the Americans we're about to choke.

You've got trouble right here in Capital City. With a capital T, and that rhymes with D and that stands for debt. Right here in Capital City we've got trouble. Remember the millions, the billions, the trillions. And don't you forget, we've got trouble. We're in terrible, terrible trouble. The game of some 256 Members is a devil's bet. Oh, yes, we've got trouble, trouble. Trouble with a T. It rhymes with D, and it stands for Democrat.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I rise today to submit the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development, and Related Agencies FY10 Appropriations Act.

The following earmarks were requested by my office and are listed for funding in this bill:

State Route 99 Interchange Improvement Project, CA

Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren

Bill Number: FY10 Transportation, HUD Appropriations

Account: FHA--Transportation and Community & System Preservation

Requesting Agency: City of Galt

Requesting Agency Address: 495 Industrial Drive, Galt, CA 95632

Amount: $500,000

Funding this project will provide for the reconstruction of the Central Galt (C Street)/SR 99 Interchange, which is critical to relieve congestion, improve regional transportation mobility, and ultimately alleviate a deficit in adequate emergency services access.

This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds by elevating the ingress and egress of a major trade corridor to standards of safety commensurate with the impacts to the effected community.

International Drive Extension/Folsom South Canal Bridge, CA

Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren

Bill Number: FY10 Transportation, HUD Appropriations

Account: FHA--Surface Transportation Priorities

Requesting Agency: City of Rancho Cordova

Requesting Agency Address: 2729 Prospect Park Dr., Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

Amount: $500,000

The International Drive Extension and Folsom South Canal Bridge project will construct a new six-lane extension of International Drive from Kilgore Road to Sunrise Boulevard. The waterway creates a barrier that cuts the City in half from north to south.

This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds by facilitating the crossing of a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation waterway which bisects the City of Rancho Cordova, allowing emergency service access across this present barrier.

ADA Infrastructure Improvements

Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren

Bill Number: FY10 Transportation, HUD Appropriations

Account: Housing and Urban Development (HUD)--Economic Development Initiatives (EDI)

Requesting Agency: City of Citrus Heights

Requesting Agency Address: 6237 Fountain Square Drive, Citrus Heights, CA 95621

Amount: $450,000

Disability access is limited in several identified locations throughout the City of Citrus Heights, and the City has been and continues to be the subject of lawsuits from advocates in the disability rights community. This funding will cover the cost of new ADA-compliant infrastructure. Citrus Heights is nearly 100% built-out, extinguishing the stream of development fees which might normally provide for this infrastructure improvement.

This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds by providing for the elevation of city facilities to meet the requirements of ADA compliance.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I rise today to submit the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies FY10 Appropriations Act.

The following earmarks were requested by my office and are listed for funding in this bill:

Aerospace Museum of California Foundation, Inc., McClellan, CA for maintenance of collections

Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren

Bill Number: FY10 Labor, HHS, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations

Account: Institute of Museum and Library Services--Museums and Libraries

Requesting Agency: Aerospace Museum of California Foundation, Inc.

Requesting Agency Address: 3200 Freedom Park Drive, McClellan, CA 95652

Amount: $930,000

This project will provide for the repair of seven aircraft, six of which belong to the Federal Government. There are 150 retired military people that are volunteering their time to repair the aircraft. The volunteer contribution is equal to $620,512.

This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds as it provides for the maintenance of property of the U.S. Government, partnering with volunteer contribution to deliver a maintained educational resource, expounding the importance and history of our aeronautical endeavors.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the rule. You know, there's an expression around here: When we need filler on this floor to keep Members here for whatever reason, we bring up the dogs and the cats. Well, I guess we couldn't find one so we bring up the horses and the burros today.

Somehow, those who may never have seen a mustang, who may never have ridden a horse that has a mustang heritage, are the experts on this floor telling us what we ought to do. They're the experts that tell us when government does something, it's not going to cost us anything.

I'm sort of reminded of ``Bidenomics.'' That's the new word used to describe the statements of the Vice President of the United States on economics.

He told a group yesterday, the AARP, that we have to spend more money. The Federal Government has to spend more money, the Vice President said, or else we're going to go bankrupt.

Now, let's understand what he said. Unless we spend more Federal money, we're going to go bankrupt. We've got news for the Vice President. We're already bankrupt. Bankrupt means you're taking in less than you're putting out.

And we just had a magnificent accomplishment in this administration this week. For the first time in the history of this Nation, we now have in a single year a deficit of $1 trillion. Not a billion with a B, but a trillion with a T. This is extraordinary.

Yet, we have the gentleman from Massachusetts, my friend, coming up and telling us once again: Don't worry; this bill we're bringing up here won't cost us any money.

We heard just a couple of months ago, or maybe it was a month ago, the President of the United States said, Pass my stimulus package and I guarantee you we won't have unemployment above 8 or 8.5 percent--8 percent, he said. I'm sorry. I want to make sure we're accurate here about what the President said.

He assured the American people that this stimulus package would stimulate the economy, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has just cited some statistics about all the jobs being created in North Carolina. I'm sure he's looking at the list now so he can get up and tell me how many jobs are being created in my home State of California. I'll be happy to debate that toe to toe any time. We're losing jobs in the State of California. They're losing jobs in this Nation. If the gentleman--well, I don't want to refer to the gentleman.

Let me put it this way. We have funny math here. The statistics that we have, the official statistics show that we are losing jobs at an alarming rate. We have an unemployment rate at the highest we've had in, I think, 26 years; yet we hear from the other side, Hooray for the stimulus package. It's creating jobs. And they will cite you State by State by State.

This is the only place I know where you can add up--well, you have a total number of losses of jobs, but they come to the floor and they will tell you how many jobs they're creating in each State. It's the only place I know where I guess you add up all those additions, but the net result is a subtraction.

I'd be happy to yield.

If I might just respond to that, perhaps that's the reason why they're keeping us here. The Democratic leadership doesn't want us to go home and hear from the folks at home because somehow they want us to continue with that notion that we know best. Because we know best here. We realize that in this difficult issue of dealing with wild horses, mustangs, and burros, in our greater wisdom, we have decided that there's no reason to have representation on the Board that's going to control this by the Native Americans. Why would we think the Native Americans would have any interest in this, or any knowledge in this, when those of us in Washington inside the beltway have superior knowledge.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

If the gentleman would allow me to reclaim my time, let me just underscore this. The gentleman mentioned the Constitution. The Constitution gives to the House of Representatives and the United States Senate the single greatest power that we have, which is the power of the purse. The power of the purse means the spending policy, the spending authority of the Federal Government resides in this body and that across the Rotunda. And when we're denied the opportunity to offer amendments, we're denied the opportunity to be able to represent our constituents as to how their money ought to be spent or how their money ought not to be spent, and that is the essential issue that we ought to talk about here.

We have been sent here by our constituents to represent them, and the most powerful tool that we've been given under the Constitution, the power of the purse, is being denied individual Members. This goes against a tradition that's over 200 years in this House, and we're doing it for the purposes of expediency, which is the very argument undercut by the fact that we're taking time here to deal with the question of horses and burros in the West.

Now horses and burros in the West are important. I want to tell you that. I am from the West. We understand it's important. But it certainly is not as important as the appropriations process. And the essential question in a democracy of what right do we have to take money involuntarily from people--that is the tax--if we then are not going to exercise our responsibility to represent them in the decisions as to how those tax dollars will be spent?

I thank the gentlelady for the time.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to sit here on the floor and listen to my colleagues from the other side describe their health care bill. It's going to solve everything. The only thing they haven't said is it's going to have a solution for cancer overnight and every other disease known to man.

And I thought, where have we heard this kind of promise before? How far back do we have to go? And then I realized it was the stimulus package. We were told we had to vote for the stimulus package on the President's timeline, and they guaranteed us unemployment wouldn't go above 8 or 8.5 percent. They guaranteed us all these jobs would be created. They guaranteed us that government solution.

Well, we've seen what's happened, and now we're hearing the same thing on health care. Well, just remember what the President said when he was in Michigan recently and someone asked him a question about their 100-year-old mother who received a pacemaker. He asked, Under your system, what would happen? And the President's response was, Well, boy, that's a tough question; you might just have to give her pain pills.

That sounds like rationing to me. I'm not sure I want the Federal Government to tell me I should take a pain pill when I need some surgery.