Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I rise in opposition to the previous question.

With over 1.3 million votes cast and counting, the YouCut movement continues to give people across America a

voice to help put a stop to Washington's never-ending shopping spree.

House Republicans have already offered $120 billion in commonsense spending reductions. Yet week in and week out, the majority has astoundingly voted against the will of the people.

Proposed by Congressman Mac Thornberry of Texas, this week's YouCut winner highlights the latest example of egregious government waste.

Despite the fact that only 16 percent of Amtrak passengers choose sleeper class fare, which includes a turndown service and private entertainment, taxpayers are on the hook for more than twice as much for these passengers compared to those who ride in coach.

During these increasingly tough economic times, is it really fair to ask taxpayers to subsidize turndown service and pre-paid movies? The American people have emphatically said ``no.''

Just days ago, Madam Speaker, four House Democrats bucked their party's leadership to form a working group they say is devoted to cutting wasteful spending. As my House Republican colleagues and I have said since YouCut's launch, tackling our staggering national debt is not a partisan calling. It's an American calling because our country is at a crossroads.

It is only logical then, Madam Speaker, that the new Democratic group would support the elimination of first class Amtrak subsidies and save taxpayers up to $1.2 billion over the next decade. I urge them, as well as all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to join us in voting to bring this week's YouCut to the floor for a vote.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman for that and would ask him if he could respond to some reports about several measures, perhaps, and the possibility of these measures coming to the floor next week, if he could give the House an update.

One would be the oil spill response legislation that's coming out of the Resources Committee, Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee; the small business taxpayer fund bill in the Senate; the FAA authorization bill from the Senate; the 9/11 compensation bill; and the Education and Labor OSHA bill relating to mining, if the gentleman could give us an update on those measures.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman, and, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if the Members should be prepared for a possible Saturday session next week.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader announced two appropriations bills for

floor consideration next week. I'd note, Mr. Speaker, that the fiscal year ends just over 2 months from now, and yet we're only now just beginning consideration of the first of 12 appropriations bills that fund the entire Federal discretionary budget. But I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, if he could tell us whether to expect those bills coming up for consideration on the floor under an open rule.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman whether he could commit to the House that he would continue to advocate for an open rule. I know the gentleman has always been and joins me in wanting full and open debate in the House, whether it will be his position that these appropriations bills would come to the floor on an open rule.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Turning to the issue of the troop funding bill, Mr. Speaker, the Senate sent the House the troop funding bill supplemental about 2 months ago, and it appears that that body will be sending us back the exact same version of the bill next week. I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is that his understanding of the bill, and is it his understanding that that is the bill that we can expect the House to be voting on?

I yield.

Mr. Speaker, that was going to be my question: When faced with the reality that the Senate will send us back the version that it did so 2 months ago, if faced with that, will the House be taking that bill up and then funding our troops before we adjourn for the recess in August?

I yield.

I am reminded by my counsel, Mr. Speaker, that, as the gentleman would probably agree, the Senate is nothing but predictable.

Mr. Speaker, as we are discussing the schedule for next week, I would like to announce the ninth YouCut vote which will take place on the House floor next week. Over 1.4 million votes have been cast to date at the Republican youcut.house.gov site.

I would say to the gentleman, four of your Members announced a series of proposed cuts this week. While the gentleman did not mention them in his schedule for next week, I would note that we have included one of their proposals in our five YouCut options for next week. The proposal offered by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Adler, would terminate the Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit, saving $1.1 billion.

The additional options for the public to vote on this week under the YouCut program include the elimination of duplicative Federal PE programs, saving $790 million; the refocusing of the National Park Service on administering Federal parks, saving $238 million of taxpayer money; the termination of funding for the DOD Innovative Readiness Training program at a $200 million savings; and the prohibition of the use of taxpayer funds for political campaigns in foreign countries, savings of $23 million.

And so with that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the gentleman's consideration, perhaps if not at our suggestion, the suggestion of his colleagues on his side of the aisle, that perhaps maybe we should endeavor to have a vote on the floor about actually cutting spending.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would note that we are making some progress here if we are going to avoid pointing fingers and casting blame as to why we are where we are, in the spirit of trying to move forward together and addressing the real challenges that our constituents and the people of this country are facing.

I welcome the gentleman's desire to look for ways to cut spending. I would

just reiterate that there are four individuals on his side of the aisle, Mr. Adler of New Jersey being one, having proposed a savings of $1.1 billion that will be part of the YouCut activities over the Web this week. Mr. Speaker, if that is the winning proposal, then the gentleman will have an opportunity to join us in putting that measure to a vote. So I look forward to that next week, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I thank the gentleman for his time.

Mr. Speaker, last week a bitter feud erupted in Washington, and it wasn't your typical partisan spat between liberals and conservatives, or even Democrats and Republicans. The fight was between the White House and American businesses.

Since when, Mr. Speaker, has it been acceptable for American employers and the White House to be on opposing teams? How can we expect American businesses of all sizes to get the economy back on track when they have become so frustrated by the ideological and anti- competitive agenda coming out of Washington?

To fend off criticism from business groups, including the NFIB, the White House has embarked on a summer PR campaign in an attempt to show that they are not, in fact, anti-business. But even the best PR operations aren't outfitted with time machines.

Over the past 18 months, stimulus, cap-and-trade, health care and FinReg have contributed to a perfect storm of uncertainty and debt, forcing American businesses to hunker down and hoard capital, rather than hire more workers.

Mr. Speaker, American businessmen and women aren't just a part of our economy or some constituency to be dealt with. They are our economy.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

Madam Speaker, given the schedule the gentleman just announced, I would ask the majority leader whether he expects the House to be in session next Friday.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman just explained that we do only have 2 more weeks left in the month of July for legislative business. I would ask the gentleman if he could

expand upon the schedule for those 2 weeks and what we might expect for those following weeks.

Madam Speaker, I would ask if those appropriations bills coming to the floor will be brought up under an open rule.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman mentioned the troop funding in his schedule for next week. I know originally the goal was to fund our troops by Memorial Day. That didn't happen. Then it became the goal of July 4th, and that didn't happen. I know that the gentleman and I are both committed to getting this critical funding for our men and women in uniform, and I would just suggest to the gentleman it is probably the most direct route to getting our mutual goal accomplished of getting this bill across the floor, that perhaps he and the majority ought to consider taking up the Senate-passed legislation and send it right to the President.

I can say, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman that the Senate bill does have 218 votes on this House floor, and would ask if the supplemental is coming to the House floor next week, whether that is his intention, to go ahead, take this route, expedite it, so our troops can get the money they need.

I yield.

I know the gentleman is in receipt of the same information that I am about the urgency now being communicated to us for the need for that money to be delivered. I would say, Madam Speaker, I probably have a little different view as to the intentions of the Senate to try and deliver on stripping out the House amendments that were attached to the supplemental bill, and would say, again, to the gentleman, House Republicans stand ready to vote in an expeditious way on the Senate-passed bill in its original form, and I look forward to being able to deliver that.

I yield.

Madam Speaker, as we're discussing the schedule for next week, I believe it's important to announce the eighth YouCut vote that will take place on the House floor next week. Over 1.3 million votes have been cast on YouCut to date at the RepublicanWhip.House.Gov/YouCut Web Site. We will vote sometime mid-week on one of five proposals selected by the people of America. The first would be to eliminate mandatory GPO bill printing, which is a $35 million savings. Another would be to eliminate Senator Dodd's health care clinic earmark in the Obama Care health care bill, estimated to save another $100 million. Next would be, Madam Speaker, an effort to prohibit subsidies for long- distance ``first class'' sleeper train tickets, estimated at a cost savings of $1.2 billion. Another, Madam Speaker, could be to reform the Energy Star program effort, which requires companies to pay for the cost of the program, saving the taxpayers $655 million.

Another could be, depending on the vote and the will of the American people, an effort to prevent LIHEAP payments to fraudulent claims, an estimated savings of hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayer.

Madam Speaker, I would say the gentleman's party has been extolling the virtues of cutting $7 billion from the President's $1.12 trillion FY11 budget, $7 billion. And I would say to the gentleman--I know we've had a lot of discussion about YouCut and the amount of money that we are attempting to cut from the Federal deficit through our program, and, in fact, at this point that total is now reaching $130 billion. I know that many in his party have been dismissive of this program, saying that that's not real money in Washington. And I will just point out to the gentleman, if individuals on his side of the aisle think that $7 billion reaches a significant milestone, I would say as well, $130 billion of proposed cuts would do just as well, if not better.

So, Madam Speaker, I would like to, at this point, take a quick moment to congratulate someone who works together with our staff tirelessly behind the scenes, someone on the staff of the majority leader, Austin Burnes, who got a moment to get away from the floor prior to the recess to attend his own wedding. We wish the gentleman great success and best wishes in his nuptials.

I yield.

Well, I am told and hopeful as well there will be many more nuptials on your staff, I would say to the gentleman.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask Members to join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question. For the past couple of years, the American people have been forced to make some extremely difficult budgeting decisions. Because when times are tough and your back is up against the wall, you have no choice but to rein in your expenditures and pare down your debts.

This vote today on the previous question, the reason why we're standing in opposition, is because Republicans would like to see us include in this rule the opportunity to vote on this week's winning YouCut proposal. This proposal would prohibit funding for the droves of puzzling and flamboyant signs attributing various projects to last year's stimulus bill. Often visible along highways, these signs do not provide any meaningful information and do not create any jobs. They are the public face of an administration PR campaign that taxpayers are unwittingly financing. While the precise cost of these signs is unknown, press reports peg it in the tens of millions of dollars.

The painful sacrifice borne by families and small businesses are hugely disconnected from the status quo here in Washington. Inside this Chamber of Congress, the excessive, untargeted, and ineffective spending binge that gives us the failed stimulus is alive and kicking. But now, Madam Speaker, the American people are fed up. Across the country, from big cities to quiet suburbs to rural towns, Americans of all backgrounds are demanding that Washington stop the wasteful spending.

Today, here in this body we will hold the seventh YouCut vote--and the American people will once again be able to see which Member of Congress hears their plea and gets the message. This week's proposal, by Representative Schock of Illinois, would require agencies to report on the amount already spent on the signs. And it would recapture those funds by reducing the agencies' administrative expenses by that same amount.

Madam Speaker, America is at a crossroads. The Federal Government needs to stop spending our country out of prosperity and into a quicksand of unsustainable debt. We need to change the culture in Washington and tip the balance in the direction of savings. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to bring this week's YouCut proposal to a vote before the full House.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this question of the previous question because today we should be voting and will be voting on the sixth YouCut proposal. And well over 1 million Americans have sent a clear message to Washington: Stop the wasteful spending.

I say, Mr. Speaker, to the American people, Republicans hear you. And today I hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will listen as well and join us. This week's YouCut proposal addresses one of the most egregious yet underreported sources of government waste. Taxpayers are on the hook for the salaries and benefits of Federal workers who simultaneously work for their public employee unions to the tune of $120 million per year. By the way, these are the same unions that spend millions on political activities and lobbying, often for causes that hamper economic growth and private-sector job creation.

Specifically, Mr. Speaker, the National Labor Relations Board union billed the taxpayers for an average of 12.18 hours for each of its 1,104 employees. Since each hour costs $42, taxpayers are paying each worker $700 per year on official union duties.

America is at a crossroads. We are not under any illusions. This cut alone may not erase the deficit overnight. But this cut is a reflection of the symptom of the virus that has put our country's economy on life support. Only by

finally drawing a firm line on wasteful spending can we begin to kill the virus and preserve American prosperity for generations to come.

I rise in opposition to this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, the flow of credit and capital throughout the financial system is the building block of American prosperity. It has enabled entrepreneurs to pursue their ideas. It has enabled people to balance their budgets, to achieve a better standard of living. But when businesses and families cannot access capital from banks, consumers don't spend, small businesses hunker down, and investment dries up. The economy simply can't grow jobs.

This legislation is a clear attack on capital formation in America. It purports to prevent the next financial crisis, but it does so by vastly expanding the power of the same regulators who failed to stop the last one.

Dodd-Frank is the product of a tired and discredited philosophy. It's the notion that you can solve a problem by reflexively piling vast new layers of bureaucracy, regulatory costs, and taxes on it. And who'll pay the price? It won't merely be the big banks who the bill's supporters rail against. Smaller, less-leveraged community banks will have a more difficult time surviving the regulatory costs. And most alarming, costs will be passed on to consumers and businesses in the form of higher prices for credit. We know this because last year's Credit Card Act is already having just that effect.

Before it was passed, Republicans warned that more government expansion and more Washington proscription would create additional costs borne by the consumer. It was common sense, and sure enough, we were right. In response to that legislation, lending rates were reset higher as credit became less available. Meanwhile, free checking accounts are becoming a relic of the past for all but the wealthiest bank customers.

Republicans agree that the financial system needs a shake-up to bring transparency and stability. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not accomplish this goal. It's bad for private business. It's bad for families, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' before we do any more damage.

I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the previous question motion and in support of the latest YouCut spending reduction sent to the floor directly from the American people. This week's proposal, sponsored by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), will restore $15 billion to the American taxpayer by stopping new IRS funding for the purpose of hiring employees to enforce a controversial individual mandate under the Democratic majority's health care overhaul.

To the Democratic majority, who has worked tirelessly to discredit the YouCut movement, Madam Speaker, I continue to urge them to join us. But I would also like to give a wake-up call. This week we received the one millionth vote, an amazing milestone that

reflects the discomfort from coast to coast about Washington's runaway spending spree.

Sadly, my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to ignore the will of the people and their desire to see us act with the same responsibility with their money that they do around their own kitchen tables.

America is at a crossroads. Our message to the Democratic leadership is crystal clear: Stop ignoring the American people. Stop spending money we don't have. Stop ruining the next generation's future. It is time for us to come together to cut wasteful spending now. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

I thank the gentlelady from Florida, and I commend her leadership as well as the gentleman from California in accomplishing this momentous feat of bringing this conference report to the floor, Mr. Speaker. I rise in favor of this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill famously said ``the price of greatness is responsibility.'' With each passing day, the ruling regime in Iran defiantly moves one step closer to acquiring nuclear weapons, a prospect that everyone knows would have fatal and irreparable consequences across the globe.

As the free world's unparalleled moral, economic, and military power, we have a responsibility to provide strong leadership to head off the Iranian threat. It is time to see the Iranian regime not for what we wish it was, but for how it really is.

Seventeen months of engagement has yielded us just one U.N. resolution, defanged by countries such as Russia and China. But it has yielded Tehran 18 critical months to ramp up uranium enrichment.

Today this House will vote on the most sweeping and biting set of sanctions that Iran has yet to face. By penalizing international companies and banks that enrich the Iranian regime and thus enable its nuclear program, this legislation represents our strongest hope yet to bring peaceful resolution to this crisis.

Mr. Speaker, Congress and the administration must resolve to do all we can to cut off Iran's economic lifeline.

Once this legislation moves past Congress, the ball is in the White House's court. The ability to hold international companies accountable rests with the President. I urge him to sign the bill and immediately implement these tough sanctions.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this conference report.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today in recognition of my constituent, Katie Schools, who is serving as an ``intern for a day'' here on Capitol Hill.

Katie first realized her passion for public service and our Nation's democratic process in 2003, when she met with staff members from my office and the office of Senator John Warner. With the steady support and encouragement of her parents, Susan and Chris Schools, Katie has developed a deep interest in politics and she has made a lasting impact in my office.

Katie Schools impresses all who meet her with her perseverance and her passion for serving her community in the face of adversity. Born on October 25, 2000 in Henrico County, VA, Katie was diagnosed at the age of one with a tumor which was located in the middle of her brain. Today, Katie bravely continues to battle this disease. While receiving radiation therapy at St. Jude's Children's Hospital, Katie volunteered to be interviewed in 2007 for the St. Jude's Kids Radiothon by K95 Country Cares to share her story. This radiothon occurs every February and benefits the children of St. Jude's and Katie has continued to participate in two more radiothons to help raise support and awareness for the work of St. Jude's.

In addition to her many other interests, Katie is also developing her promising skills as an artist. Her art work has been displayed in the Bone Marrow Transplant unit in the Chili's Care Center at St. Jude's and in 2008, Katie was recognized as the youngest artist to create an ornament for the White House Christmas tree. Katie has also proudly served as a Girl Scout for the past four years, recently attaining the rank of Jr. Girl Scout.

Madam Speaker and my colleagues in the House, please join me in recognizing Katie Schools and commending her for being such a tremendous example of courage and grace to all who have the benefit of knowing her.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the YouCut program continues to pick up steam across the country as the American people reject the spend now-pay later philosophy that has long dominated Washington.

This week's YouCut winner was developed by my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz). It would amend Federal law to allow for the expedited sale of wasteful and unaffordable Federal properties, saving taxpayers up to $15 billion. President Obama, himself, in a directive released the day after Mr. Chaffetz's YouCut proposal was unveiled, indicated his support for selling unneeded properties.

Today, my colleagues on our side of the aisle join together and call upon the House to support this easy, straightforward way to reduce spending.

Let us remember then-Senator Obama's 2006 words of support for removing barriers to the disposal of excess Federal property. He said, Regardless of what side of the aisle we sit on, we all agree we are in dire financial straits, and we need to manage our assets in the most cost-effective way possible to close the gap.

Mr. Speaker, America is at a crossroads. It is time for us all to act together in a bipartisan fashion to stop the runaway spending and to get our fiscal house in order. I urge the body to defeat the motion of the previous question so that we can actually begin to change the culture here in Washington against the runaway spending.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purposes of announcing next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, in addition to next week's schedule, can the gentlemen tell us what he expects to consider on the floor between now and the July 4 recess beyond next week?

I thank the gentleman.

I specifically, Mr. Speaker, want to thank the gentleman for his efforts on behalf of trying to get a resolution out of the conference committee on the Iran sanctions bill--again, as he says, Mr. Speaker, something that he and I have worked on for some time now. I thank him for his commitment to that and working on that.

I would also ask the gentleman if any of the reports that I have heard about a possible resolution having to do with the flotilla, in terms of the actions that occurred, that Israel undertook to defend itself in interdicting the ship on the alleged mission of aid that it was claiming to be on, and whether we can expect any resolution along those lines in support of our ally Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his continued commitment and share with him the commitment to strengthen the alliance between ourselves in the United States and Israel in the continuing struggle that all of us have in terms of pushing back against the terrorist threat, state sponsors of terror and their proxies in the Middle East, and as they pose the existential threats to our ally Israel as well as U.S. interests in the region. So I look forward to working with him on that.

Mr. Speaker, I would go back to the gentleman's statements with regards to financial regulation and a conference report. I know there has been a lot of indication, especially on the part of Chairman Frank, about the willingness to be open and make sure that C-SPAN cameras are there so the public can understand and have access.

I was somewhat alarmed, though, with the statements made by the chairman, as reported in the press, when he said, ``Some negotiations will take place more publicly than others,'' and just wanted the gentleman to assure us that there will be no negotiations ongoing without having the light of cameras on and/or at least a fair hearing among Members of both parties.

I thank the gentleman for that.

In that spirit, Mr. Speaker, of wanting to try to work together in a civil manner and to try to get the work of the people done, the gentleman mentioned the war supplemental for scheduling perhaps next week. And obviously we continue to be concerned, Mr. Speaker, on the part of our Members, their constituents, about the involvement, openness of discussion, debate around the issue of the spending in the supplemental bill to fund our troops.

And this is actually, Mr. Speaker, a bill we can work on together. And the gentleman indicates that that bill may be coming to the floor. And I would ask the gentleman should we expect that bill to go through the appropriations committee before it comes to the floor to allow for that open input, that collaboration to result in a better bill

that would reflect the will of the American people?

And I yield.

I thank the gentleman for that, Mr. Speaker, and I would indicate that having spoken with the appropriators that Mr. Lewis has not heard from Mr. Obey on that, and we will wait to hear, and I am sure he's anxiously awaiting.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the gentleman about the budget and what we can expect as far as the budget having now been in June, there having been no budget, and can we expect a markup in the Budget Committee prior to our leaving for the July 4 recess?

I yield.

I thank the gentleman for that. And he knows where I stand on that issue and where our side is continuing to want to see a budget, just like most of the American people are having to do every day is come up with a budget of how they can make their businesses work and their families make it through the month. So I appreciate that spirit with which the gentleman offers that.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that I read an article in Roll Call this week that had to do with these colloquies that somehow indicated that the gentleman and I were unable to come to the floor and to ``play nice together.'' I will say I know the gentleman doesn't take any of this personally, nor do I, because I enjoy coming to the floor to debate substance and policy in these colloquies, something that, frankly, is not done often enough in this House, but as it relates to the priorities that the majority has as reflected through its scheduling abilities.

And in fact, again, Mr. Speaker, this House doesn't do nearly enough of this kind of exchange of opinion to ferret out how we can come to some agreement.

So I know that the gentleman shares in that spirit as we engage, specifically as that article points to, over our differences, our differences about the priority of cutting spending now. And I know the gentleman does know, as I value, the opportunities to work with him on issues as we have just discussed having to do with the promotion of the U.S. security in the Middle East as it plays out through our ally Israel. I enjoy the working relationship that we have had on that issue; the issue around the Iran sanctions resolution, as well as he knows. As well we've worked together well on the issue of Puerto Rico statehood. So there is that history.

But I would say again there are going to be times where we do disagree. And there is, frankly, some disagreement that our side has with what the majority does in terms of scheduling, and that is its priorities on cutting spending.

We have become very frustrated that we have no other vehicle to speak out as to the priorities of the majority other than our response to the scheduling. And these colloquies are focused on priorities the majority has as far as how it schedules this floor.

We have become very frustrated as well, Mr. Speaker, that every time we begin even to hint at a desire to bring spending cuts to the floor, that somehow we need a lecture on the last couple decades as to what's happened in this country from a fiscal standpoint. As the gentleman knows, I'm the first one to offer up some contrition. Yes, our side is to blame as much as the other side for bringing us to this point.

But none of that has anything to do with scheduling for the next week or the week thereafter. And what my aim is, and hopefully the gentleman knows, in engaging in these discussions is to say, please allow us to bring up some of the issues that the American people want us to do, which is to stop the spending now.

And as the gentleman knows, we have launched on the Republican side of the aisle a program called YouCut, and frankly we have seen some bipartisan support of programs under YouCut. We have seen the administration take on an announcement today a proposal in YouCut to sell excess Federal property.

We want this to be a bipartisan issue. And as the gentleman has reminded me, as he said in the article, this is a colloquy based on scheduling.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the minority, the Republicans in this House, intend on bringing to the House floor another YouCut vote next week. And it will be one of five options that the public will be voting on and has begun already. And we are well over 700,000 votes in YouCut on a 3-week period. And, Mr. Speaker, I think that indicates some real intensity behind the public wanting this House to finally stop spending now.

So we will, Mr. Speaker, be bringing to the floor a vote either on the attempt to sell excess Federal property, which is a $15 billion savings; a provision to terminate a Federal bike and walking program, that's another $1.8 billion; terminate a Federal truck

parking program, $62.5 million; terminate a funding for private bus companies, $120 million; or a proposal to terminate the Ready to Learn TV program at $270 million of savings.

And I would say, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman the purpose of our bringing these to the floor is, first of all, to reflect the will of the American people to cut now, to go forward, to admit we are in a real tough situation fiscally in this country. We're at a crossroads. We've got to start changing the culture here in Washington.

So I would say to the gentleman that is the purpose as well as, Mr. Speaker, we have no other alternative unless the majority would schedule actual spending cuts for this debate and vote on the House floor.

I would also say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, these votes will occur, and we will proffer these each week. This will begin to amass a record on which Member supports spending cuts now and which doesn't. We have already demonstrated a commitment on this side of the aisle, as well as some on the gentleman's side of the aisle, to cut $85 billion over the last three votes in YouCut and will continue to do that each week.

And I would hope that the gentleman could join us in reflecting the priorities that our constituents are asking us to put forward, and that is to get the Federal deficit under control.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I would thank the gentleman for his time and will yield to him for a response.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I would say I hear the gentleman, that he thinks that contrition is not enough. I hear the gentleman who says that he and his side is to blame as well, and I think enough is enough about going backwards.

The gentleman's heard me before on the floor in this colloquy quote Winston Churchill when he said, Of this I am quite sure, that if we open a quarrel between the past and present, we shall find that we have lost our future. And I would say to the gentleman in the spirit of that quote, let's go forward. Both of us can differ on policy, but it seems that the gentleman is more interested in settling a score to have this side of the aisle admit that somehow our policies were failing.

I have said here--I think most of my colleagues on this side of the aisle would say--spending was too high. The gentleman indicates that we voted on $2 trillion of spending while we were in the majority over the last several years.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman for that correction, and would say that with that $2 trillion figure out there, we could also look to see how much spending is going on now, and the national debt has increased by $4 trillion since the Democratic Party took control of this Congress, and we've added $4.8 billion in debt per day under this President. So there is no side immune to blame for more spending, which is why we continue to plead that let's work together now. Let's not kick the can down the road.

The gentleman continues to say that the YouCut proposals are too small, though worthy, too small to even fix any problem. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. We are about trying to change the culture here in Washington. The gentleman shares with me concern about the life our kids, their kids and theirs will have in this country given

the actions we are taking and those we're not on the floor of this House.

So I thank the gentleman, again, for his willingness to engage in these substantive discussions. We need more of these debates on substance in the workings of this House, and I appreciate, again, his time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, recently, we found out that the national debt has surpassed $13 trillion. That means that each American owes approximately $42,000. I align myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Texas in applauding the gentleman from Colorado and Massachusetts in bringing this bill to the floor that actually does save taxpayer dollars for the American people. I also want to recognize the leadership of Ms. Capito from West Virginia, whose bill this originally was.

Here's an idea, Madam Speaker. Rather than simply talking about how shocking our dangerous level of national debt is, why don't we actually do something about it today. America is at a crossroads, and the choices we make today will determine the kind of country we will be.

The Republican Economic Recovery Working Group launched the YouCut program to change the culture in Washington, and it's clear from news reports, Madam Speaker, that it's starting to do so. We saw the White House just last week ask each government agency to cut 5 percent from their budgets. While we applaud their intentions, House Republicans are offering a way to cut spending--not tomorrow, not next week, but right now--with YouCut.

There is no doubt that our debt situation is reaching a crisis point that demands a united, bipartisan effort to solve it. I'll be the first to raise my hand to say that Republicans have played our part in contributing to the problems in the past. But for those Americans out there struggling to pay their mortgages, does it really matter to them whose fault it was?

I come to the floor today, Madam Speaker, to urge my Democratic colleagues to join us in supporting this week's winning YouCut proposal to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which received 45 percent of the vote on YouCut. Scott Garrett and Jeb Hensarling's proposal would save $30 billion in taxpayer money over the next decade.

The two government-sponsored enterprises have racked up a taxpayer- funded tab of $145 billion and counting. According to the Congressional Budget Office, if we don't reform Fannie and Freddie, that price tag will only rise. There's no doubt that reforming Fannie and Freddie will be a challenging task, but taking on this kind of challenge is why our constituents gave us the privilege of serving in this House in the first place.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor those who have answered the call of duty for their country and made the ultimate sacrifice. I would like to call on everyone to reflect this Memorial Day on those service members who have sacrificed their lives for this country and the family members who were left behind.

I would like to honor my constituent, Nathan Huffman, USMC Sgt. Ret., and other Marine Reservists from the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines Infantry Regiment and fellow Corpsmen, who served their country honorably from March 2005 to October 2005 in Al Anbar Province during Operation Iraqi Freedom. This Memorial Day, Sgt. Huffman has organized a Memorial Day Ultra Marathon in honor of their 48 fallen Marines and Corpsmen who perished during their service in Iraq, and the many other service members who have given their lives while serving our country.

Sgt. Huffman will depart the Virginia War Memorial in Richmond, Virginia along with many of his fellow Marines, Corpsmen, friends, and supporters and run day and night to cover the over 100-mile journey which will end at the U.S. Marine Corps War Memorial. The purpose of this ultra marathon from Richmond to Washington, D.C. is to commemorate the core values of Memorial Day and honor the fallen. In the words of Staff Sergeant Joseph Goodrich on his reflection of Memorial Day, ``I started looking at all of the headstones with flags in front of them. I started thinking about who they were, how they lived, how they died and what they did for me . . . I swore to myself that I would not let them down. They sacrificed, and gave to me something I could never repay; freedom.'' Sgt. Goodrich was killed in Iraq on July 10, 2005.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of the many courageous men and women who have given their lives in the service of our great Nation, and their widows, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters who are left behind. They have not given their lives in vain--rather they have offered their valor and dedication to a grateful Nation. Sgt. Huffman and his fellow runners have heard and answered a second call of duty to remind our Nation to never forget the fallen, the wounded, and loved ones who have lost their heroes. Please join me in recognizing their efforts and those of our brave troops and let us never forget their sacrifices.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to thank the students and teachers of Monacan High School in Chesterfield County, Virginia, for collecting and shipping much needed school supplies for students in Afghanistan.

Jessica M. Heising, an English teacher at Monacan High, organized Project 186 with the purpose of collecting 186 backpacks and school supplies for each student in an all-girls school in the Paktika province of Afghanistan. The project was successful, and the supplies will improve the learning outcomes of the 186 students.

I commend the teachers, students, faculty, and families who gave of their time and talents to influence the lives of students in Afghanistan for good.