Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commemorate the Javits- Wagner 0'Day program (JWOD) on the service they provide to thousands of individuals.

The JWOD program is the single largest source of employment for individuals who are blind or have severe disabilities. This program employs more than 45,000 people. The JWOD program trains persons with disabilities to acquire job skills that will be resourceful in their everyday lives. With these skills and training, a participant in this program can receive wages and benefits thereby gaining a greater independence and quality of life.

In my district in Georgia, there is a JWOD program named Happy Hour that exemplifies the good work that this organization is built upon. Happy Hour employs 170 disabled individuals and gives them an opportunity to contribute to their communities. Executive Director Steve Smith leads an office of 90-100 hard working staffers along with many volunteers who are all dedicated to ensuring each person reaches a common goal.

Happy Hour has a working relationship with Robins Air Force Base. Through this relationship Happy Hour participants are able to help the government and save tax payers money. A few of the projects that help Robins Air Force Base is Robin's Recycling, respiratory cleaning and repair, tool de numbering, and air craft hardware sorting. Though they may seem minor, without Happy Hour, workers who do these tasks at Robins AFB would have a much harder time operating.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commemorate the Javits-Wagner O'Day program (JWOD) on the service they provide to thousands of individuals.

The JWOD program is the single largest source of employment for individuals who are blind or have severe disabilities. This program employs more than 45,000 people. The JWOD program trains persons with disabilities to acquire job skills that will be resourceful in their everyday lives. With these skills and training, a participant in this program can receive wages and benefits thereby gaining a greater independence and quality of life.

In my district in Georgia, there is a JWOD program named Happy Hour that exemplifies the good work that this organization is built upon. Happy Hour employs 170 disabled individuals and gives them an opportunity to contribute to their communities. Executive Director Steve Smith and Community Relations Manager Bob Wilbanks lead an office of 90-100 hard working staffers along with many volunteers who are all dedicated to ensuring each person reaches a common goal.

Happy Hour has a working relationship with Robins Air Force Base. Through this relationship Happy Hour participants are able to help the government and save taxpayers money. A few of the projects that help Robins Air Force Base is Robin's Recycling, respiratory cleaning and repair, tool die numbering, and aircraft sorting. Though they may seem minor, without Happy Hour, workers who do these tasks at Robins AFB would have a much harder time operating.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday when Democrat leader Howard Dean said that the war in Iraq is unwinnable and Senate Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry said that American soldiers in the dark of the night are terrorizing Iraqi women and children, I scratch my head in absolute disgust and disappointment. The party of Scoop Jackson has apparently been now completely hijacked by Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore.

I went to Iraq last week, and I wish that Mr. Dean and Mr. Kerry would go to Iraq and talk directly to our soldiers. Here is what I found, and incidentally, I went with a bipartisan group, three Democrats, three Republicans. We found troop morale high, a great deal of enthusiasm for the mission. No equipment shortages. From tissue to toilet paper, our troops are well equipped. We found that they were very engaged in the mission and that the Iraqi security forces each day were getting more and more of the territory under their control.

We found enthusiasm for the December 15 election, 228 different political parties already offering candidates. A lot of progress is being made. Everything is completely different than the pessimism and the continuous criticism and the Vietnam-era radicalism expressed by Mr. Kerry and Mr. Dean. I would invite those two to go over there and see for themselves before they send such discouraging signals to our troops in action.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I must say, Scoop Jackson must be spinning in his grave. The late Democrat Senate leader would be shocked to see his party has now been taken over by Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan and the radical extremists on the left who do not like George Bush so much that now they are going to put danger to our troops by siding with the terrorists that it is time for an immediate pullout.

I plan to vote ``no'' on the Democrat resolution for immediate pullout. I think it is irresponsible, and it definitely sends the wrong message to our troops.

I represent the 3rd Infantry Division. I am proud to represent the 3rd Infantry Division. I know many of these soldiers. I have dealt with them. I have gone to their funerals. I have gone to their services, and I would like to quote what the leading General said, General Webster, yesterday, who is in charge of the 3rd Infantry, the troops on the ground, and I am proud to say is a friend of mine, and I am proud to say is an extremely thoughtful and patriotic, brave American. General Webster said, in response to the Democrat call for immediate withdrawal, ``Setting a date would mean that the 221 soldiers I've lost this year, that their lives would have been lost in vain.''

He continued to say that Iraq's armed factions would likely take a cue from a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal to lie low, gathering their strength and laying plans for renewed conflict as soon as Americans leave. In fact, the Democrat Party now seems to be taking their cue from France: Lose, leave and wait.

The Democrats seem to want to cut and run and dishonor the sacrifices of those who are doing such a great job already. The President has said, and as much as the Democrats hate sometimes, it appears, the President's policies, he said, ``Our strategy is to clear, hold, and build.''

What have we done is we have rounded up 116 al Qaeda rulers. A number of tips from the indigenous folks on the ground have risen from 442 in February

to 3,341 today. That is cooperation by the Iraqis themselves. We have trained 210,000 Iraqi security forces, and we have more than 20 operating bases that are ready that they are doing a good job of. We have rebuilt 3,404 schools, 304 water and sewer treatment facilities, 257 fire/police stations, and 149 health services. This is progress.

Mr. Speaker, they just overwhelmingly passed a resolution adopting a new Constitution October 15, and in December, they are going to have their own elections for their own government. That is progress. Do not cut and run. Stand firm with our troops.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Many people have said tonight, this is not the Murtha resolution. I agree. It is not the Murtha resolution. Unfortunately, it is my friend Jack Murtha's headline. In fact, Al-Jazeera today was what our troops, our constituents in Iraq woke up to today saying that a leading Member of Congress has called for the immediate withdrawal. That is what Al- Jazeera said. That is why sometimes the media that gets in the way injects itself and it brings down the morale of our troops. That is why I am going to vote ``no'' on this resolution tonight, because I think it is important to send them another message and a very clear message that we do not support immediate withdrawal.

My friend, General Webster, who leads the Third Infantry Division over there, spoke very strongly about it. He said, ``Setting a date would mean the 221 soldiers I've lost this year, that their lives will have been lost in vain. I think it's a recipe for disaster. Setting a date is a loser.'' General Webster is a soldier, not a politician. I think he would appreciate tomorrow morning reading in the paper that Congress clearly rejected an immediate withdrawal.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say back during the spring we went through our annual budget process. The Budget Committee has testimony from all sectors of society and the government who are affected by the budget. It is a good debate.

In the final analysis, that budget came to the floor and after weeks and months of discussion and arm twisting, it passed by a vote of 214- 212. I may be wrong on this, I do not think any of the Democrats voted for it. Most of the Democrats, I would say, are very consistent saying we should be spending more money and, therefore, they voted against it. But there are other Democrats who are saying look at the deficit, look at this, look at that. Boy, these Republicans are spending too much. There is clearly a mixed signal here, and clearly some dissension in the Democratic ranks.

But when you pass a budget in the spring and it is passed by this body and the other body, then the subcommittees of Appropriations have to follow that budget. That is what this does. Sometimes making these decisions is very, very tough.

This bill actually eliminates 29 lower-priority programs. One of the programs I am a supporter of, the National Youth Sports Program, I like that program. They operated in Savannah. But when you look at the context of some of the other programs and you realize this is run by the NCAA, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, and they are the same people who put on the Rose Bowl, the Rose Bowl alone generates $30 million in revenue. Perhaps they can replace the $18 million that Congress is putting into it right now. There are ways to keep these programs alive even though the Federal Government is not picking up the tab for them.

It is my hope on these 29 programs that are terminated, that the local, the State level will step in, the private sector will step in; and a lot of what they are doing are duplicated in other programs. I have to say that these are very important.

I have to say also, Mr. Speaker, that I had a lot of local programs that were eliminated. These are programs which I have worked very hard on over the years to try to get into this budget. Those were the earmarks: Memorial Hospital in Savannah, Georgia; St. Joseph's Hospital in Savannah, Georgia; a project for the city of Moultrie; the Warner Robbins Aviation Museum; the Civil Rights Museum in Savannah, Georgia; and Brunswick Hospital. These were a lot of good programs that I personally hoped to get in, things that were within the budget that were doable. And yet in the end because of the legislative process, all earmarks had to be eliminated.

I was not happy about that, but I understand. In the bigger picture of things, you have to do what the body can pass, what there are votes for.

In this case, where did the money go? It went to community health clinics. It goes to Medicare modernization and medical research.

Incidentally, we talk about the NIH. The funding for the NIH has doubled under Republican leadership under a commitment made by the former Speaker, Mr. Gingrich. I have to say, I am a little disappointed in what we have gotten for our money. I have not seen a plethora of medical solutions and new devices and vaccines and all kinds of other research that I had hoped doubling the NIH budget would give us. Nonetheless, NIH still gets an increase under this bill.

The bill also restores community service block grants. Lots of things like the Job Corps program are funded in this bill. Despite its tightness in some areas, Mr. Regula has worked with the committee to put on what I think is a solidly balanced bill and face the economic realities of today with today's budget.

Mr. Speaker, I want to show you a picture of a place I think all of us know. It is Disneyland, the Magic Kingdom, the Magic Castle where fantasy is real. And we go down and we all pretend to be boys and girls for the day.

Well, here is another place where fantasy becomes reality. It is our office building, the United States Capitol. Only here can you call a 7 percent increase a cut. And what are the lap dogs, I mean, the blue dogs barking about? What I am saying is, when you increase the budget 7 percent----

My point is that we can all live in the fantasyland of Disneyworld or the United States Capitol, and when a bill that is increasing Medicaid goes up $66 billion and people can call it a cut because they did not get their way, that it did not go up 7.3 percent, it only goes up 7 percent. You can find any excuse to vote no, and I guess in the fantasyland of Washington, D.C., you can call that a cut. But the reality is, all these posters and easels that are out in the halls of the Rayburn, the Longworth and the Cannon building are just fantasy. Here is a chance to actually reduce spending and you are barking at it and saying no.

Mr. Speaker, I come from agriculture country in southeast Georgia, and it is always remarkable to me that 2 percent of our population feeds not just 100 percent of the American population but a great deal of people all around the world. In fact, one thing that is even more interesting is that our ag production outpaces our ag consumption. We have more food than we can eat because our farm supply is so strong. Very vital of course to have food, but it is also vital in our society to have energy and fuel for our cars. Yet the world demand and the world supply are almost even. And the gentleman knows from the gulf coast what

havoc Katrina played not only on the 90,000 square miles of the gulf coast, but when it comes to energy and gasoline supply, indeed all of America. In fact there was a world disruption because of that.

In the United States, we consume over 20 million barrels of crude oil a day, nearly 25 percent of the consumption for the entire globe; and yet the United States only has about 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. Worse than that, we import from countries about 60 percent, and these countries are not always our friends. A lot of it comes from the Middle East: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait. We have got some from South America, Venezuela. We all remember last week what Hugo Chavez of Venezuela did to the President when he was down there to give him a warm welcome.

Because energy is a national security risk, I have introduced today, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and a number of Republicans and a number of Democrats, the Fuel Choice American Security Act of 2005. And what this bill does is it seeks to get us off Middle East oil by the year 2015. We will not be free from importing oil from around the world; but when it comes to the Middle East, we will be able to say, We can buy from you, but we do not have to buy from you.

Our bill does a number of things. Number one, it sets a goal. It says that by the year 2015 we will have reduced our oil consumption 2.5 million barrels a day. That is a 10 percent reduction and that would get us free from the Middle East.

It also requires that the General Accounting Office scores energy- related bills that we consider on the floor of Congress, and it gives Members of Congress a clear idea does this bill make you more dependent on foreign oil or less dependent; and does it move you closer to that goal of energy or fuel independence by 2015, or does it move it further away.

Secondly, what this bill does is it provides incentives to automobile manufacturers and to consumers to buy more and produce more energy- efficient automobiles. We double the tax credit for the purchasing of hybrids. We encourage automobile manufacturers to use light materials in the manufacturing of their cars. We put money, or incentives into municipalities to move towards the plug-in flexible fuel fleets when it comes to automobile taxicabs and so forth.

We give incentives to gasoline companies so that they will switch pumps so that when a consumer pulls in, they can have their choice of fuels for their automobiles. We also say that when you purchase tires you ought to know how many miles per gallon those tires should help you get. People do not even realize it, but if you inflate your tires right, you get more miles per gallon. And our consumers do not know that.

The third thing our bill does is it increases energy choice by investing more money into biomass, and that could be any kind of biomass there is. It also takes the import tax off of ethanol from other countries. In Brazil today, 40 percent of the cars run on ethanol. In America, only 3 percent do. Brazil actually has surplus ethanol. We have a goal, we call it E 10 by 10. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) is one of the champions of it. It says 10 percent of the gasoline will have ethanol in it by the year 2010. We are in agreement with that.

But the domestic production of ethanol through the corn supply alone will not get us there. We need to have corn, we need to have sugar, we need to have pine needles. We need to have whatever can get us that ethanol supply. But in the mean time, why are we taxing a source of energy from a country like Brazil? What we need to do is take that export tax off there, and that is what our bill does.

And finally, we ask the Federal Government to audit their agencies to figure out what can you do to save gasoline. One example, I will close with this, Mr. Speaker. Think about Saturday mail delivery. We pay 100 percent of the fuel cost to deliver 30 percent of the mail that we do on Monday through Friday. In this day of e-mail, do we really need Saturday mail delivery anymore?

Those are just some of the things the bill does, Mr. Speaker. It does move us towards energy independence by the year 2015, which is what we need. And I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) for letting me get in front of him.

Madam Speaker, I was listening to some of this hysteria and rhetoric from the Democrat Party, and I wonder sometimes if they actually believe what their speech writers apparently give them. Obviously, they do not read it before they start giving the speech because they know food stamps are going up $250 million. It is not a cut. Medicaid is going up $66 billion. That is not a cut. Medicaid goes up 7 percent instead of 7.3 percent. That is what you need to be saying; we think it should be going up more than you guys, but admit, as we all know, Medicaid is going up 7 percent, $66 billion.

Yet in Washington, D.C., just like Disney World, there is a lot of fantasy around us. And the fantasy is that if you do not get the increase that you want, you can go out and have the New York Times and Washington Post say, yes, he is right, that is a cut because they are not going up 7.3 percent, they are going up 7 percent. We have a plan to reform government and create savings. Yesterday, the Democrat Party announced they would have no agenda for 2005. Well, surprise, surprise. It is only November. But when is the Democrat Party going to announce its alternative? I will ask that question. I hope somebody will answer.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I find it a great irony and some goodness that I can get some time from my friend.

I was sitting in my office and I did not know, frankly, that Muftiah was old enough to retire, take on another job, or leave the nest here, or whatever she is doing, but as somebody who has personally benefited from her expertise and wisdom, as I have had the honor to sit in the Chair, I can say we could not have laymen go up there and hold the gavel without somebody like Muftiah at our right arm telling us sometimes what to say and what not to say. I am sure she never would sit down when I had the gavel because she was nervous something would go awry.

The other thing that is important, when school kids and visitors come to the House Chamber, I often point to the picture of George Washington and the fact that you can still see the sword painted out of his hand. I explain to school kids the reason the sword was painted out of his hand in his portrait in the House Chamber is that we philosophically believe that our debate here, our spirited debate, sometimes our acrimonious debate, sometimes our bitter debate, is still better than the alternative, and that alternative is civil war or civil disruption, as we see around the world.

I believe that all of our Parliamentarians aid that in that sometimes we get out of line, Democrats or Republicans, in the spirit of the moment, in the emotion of the moment, and we say something that we regret saying; and it is at that time when all eyes turn to a nonpartisan, objective third party who can say everybody sit down, a little calmness here, let us get through this maze of parliamentary mystery and then get back on the course of civil discussion.

I want to say, Muftiah, thank you for being part of that team and thank you for everything that you are doing. Your job is a profound one, and it is one that should be studied in every civics class in every school at every level of education in America.

And I want to say to my friend from the west coast who does not always vote green when I vote red and vice versa, we always agree that this is the place where we can come and have good, open debate thanks to people like Muftiah and the Parliamentarians.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important that if Members look at the deficit reduction package that we are looking at, it is a reform package that creates savings as opposed to the typical tax-and-spend tactics of the other party, and reform is what most of us, Democrat or Republican, have come to Washington to do.

How many times do people running for Congress go to the local Rotary Club and say we have got to run government more like a business, we have got to end the duplications and the bureaucracy, we have to cut the red tape? And yet here is an opportunity to have some great bipartisan reforms, and all we are doing is getting criticism. And

it is the same old broken record we hear from the Democrats that this is all about cuts.

I was here when we did welfare reform, and the same people were saying that we are pushing people out in the streets, even though welfare reform has been a success, and incidentally, was signed into law by President Clinton. But when a person in today's world thinks about what companies are doing great, they think about Verizon or UPS or Starbucks or Coca-Cola or McDonald's, and they think there are a lot of things going on in the private sector. And they turn around and think what do we have in the Federal Government? FEMA, the IRS, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the United States Postal Service, and then the local motor vehicle department.

One can go into McDonald's and order food for a busload of teenagers coming back from a homecoming football game and get the food faster than they can going into the post office and getting a book of stamps. And I think it is relevant for people to realize we should not accept second best, third best, and fourth best from the United States Government. This package takes a step in that reform, and it does so by creating a lot of savings for us.

I am an agriculture guy, and I think it is really important to talk about the food stamp portion. We hear time and time again, oh, the agriculture budget is too much and you guys should do something about it. Well, 60 percent of the budget is actually for food stamps. Food stamps have increased from $17.7 billion in 2001 to $35 billion today, $35 billion.

$250 million more next year than we are spending this year on food stamps, Mr. Speaker. And yet only in Washington, DC, only in that fantasy world that competes with Disneyland when it comes to creating make-believe, would people call it a cut. Because what we want to do is look at the increase, and we have determined that we can reduce one-half of 1 percent of the total food stamp budget, about one- half of 1 percent. Food stamps will still increase $250 million, and yet people can go down to the floor of the House with a straight face and say that is a cut. I do not know how they do it.

If I am giving my child an allowance of $10 and I am going to increase it to $15, but he wants $16, I still have not cut his allowance. I cannot get away with that back in Savannah, Georgia, but somehow the Democrat Party can do that with a straight face in Washington.

If nothing else, you have to admire their nerve.

Yes. The irony is that under President Clinton's signed welfare reform plan, originally you had to be in the United States of America 10 years before you were eligible to receive food stamps. That was later reduced to 5 years. And what we are saying is, you know what? That got real expensive. Let us just change it to 7 years. Yet, people are screaming bloody murder, and it is the same folks who say we have to do something about our illegal immigration and our immigration laws in general.

But remember, when you come to the United States of America and you become a citizen, noncitizens, you actually have to sign a waiver saying that you would not get public assistance benefits, you would not become a ward of the State. We are saying okay, listen, at least keep your word for 7 years. Yet, there again, we hear all the hysteria and rhetoric, which makes people just feel less belief in the government. As the gentleman said, people just pick and choose their own facts here. That is not allowed in the real world.

In the nanny state, the liberal Democrats envision that the United States has to have Big Government sitting by your cradle when you are born and taking you to your grave when you die 75 years later or whatever. In their nanny-state vision, they are convinced that we have to pay for every step of your progress along the way.

One of the things they are screaming about now is nobody will be able to go to college because the Federal Government will not be able to step in and pay for your tuition. Well, the Federal Government does have assistance for people who deserve a college education and who have worked hard for it. But in the food chain, lenders make a minimum of 9.5 percent loaning you the money. Now, most people right now are not getting 9.5 percent on their investments.

What we are saying is, we are going to cut out that minimum of 9.5 percent that the lenders are getting on college education loans. Yet, again, we hear from the other side that that is a cut. I have trouble following them. I like fiction, I like crazy movies of fantasy, but they go beyond the page of what is real.

The gentleman from Indiana has talked about this being a first step. I think controlling spending, fiscal responsibility is almost like daily exercise and daily diet. It cannot just be a vote once a year. It needs to be a daily exercise.

There are all kinds of things that we can talk about in our multitrillion-dollar budget. Zero-based budgeting. As an appropriator I can tell you when agencies come in to us, all they talk about is the new spending. They do not ever go back to why did we originally need the money. And I will give you an example.

We had a series of forest fires out West. When I was on the Interior Appropriations bill, we spent money to help react to fight the forest fires. And the next year, no fires, so we tried to take the money out of the budget. No fires, no fire money. But guess what? That was called a cut because people decided, oh, no. You are not going to go back to zero base on us.

I think we should look at a Grace-type commission, an outside, a BRAC-type commission that could look at the Federal agencies and figure out which ones of them can be eliminated, where are the duplications and so forth. I think we should talk seriously about ending earmarks or at least reducing earmarks for the coming year to offset the cost of Katrina and Iraq. And then after we pass this, I believe we should go back and look at a half percent or a 1 percent or a 2 percent across- the-board decrease, because all of this has to be done year after year. Because that Federal budget, when all the good taxpayers are home sleeping at night, it continues to grow and it gets out of hand.

And I just wanted to say we are hearing lots and lots of crying. And I am going to close with this because I know you have the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentlewoman from Tennessee here, but if you just think about it this way, that Medicaid, through all this screaming and yelling that we are hearing from the other side, will still grow next year by $66 billion; that is, if we get to reduce it by 0.03 percent, it will still grow by $66 billion. It is not a cut.

It is not going to do all the things that most conservatives would like done, but as Mr. Pence said, this is a

step in the right direction. And I thank the gentleman from Texas for your time and your leadership on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a friend of mine and a fellow Georgian who had the great honor of giving our opening prayer today. The Reverend Griffin Lotson is a man of great character and has served as our Guest Chaplain.

Reverend Lotson has been a pastor of Sams Memorial Church of God in Christ in Crescent, Georgia, for 18 years. During that time he has also served as executive director of Sams Memorial Community Economic Development, a nonprofit organization dedicated to affording low-income citizens the opportunity to realize the American dream of purchasing a home.

Reverend Lotson and Sams Memorial have been able to partner with the Federal, State and local governments to develop a multimillion-dollar housing development in Georgia. Through his hard work, families who never imagined they would be able to afford a home for their children are now achieving that dream.

His success has earned him many awards. Reverend Lotson was voted 2005 Citizen of the Year by the Rotary Club of McIntosh County and was a national award winner of the 2005 Rural Leader of America, just to name a few.

Reverend Lotson has been blessed in his personal life as well as in his ministry. He and his beautiful wife of 28 years, Carolyn, have three children, all of whom have bravely served this country as members of the Navy and the United States Air Force.

Mr. Speaker, through his hard work and dedication, and through the gospel of Jesus Christ, Griffin Lotson has earned the respect and admiration of the members of his church, his community and his State. It is an honor to have him with us today.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to say that while I cannot stand filling up my car at $3 a gallon, like anybody else, there is one good thing about it, and that is that there are a lot of people out there thinking, well, what alternatives are there to fossil fuel energy? What other ways can we get fossil fuel out of the ground? What other ways can we buy it from other countries? We do not really like being 58 percent dependent on the Middle East for fossil fuels.

So, at $3 a gallon, people have almost daily reminders: What can we come up with? Hydrogen-powered cars such as the type General Motors is working on, and they had it last week at the Capitol. They will be really up and running probably in 5 to 10 years. Very exciting.

Ethanol. In Brazil, 40 percent of the cars run on ethanol. In America, only 3 percent do. There are fuel cells, there is even nuclear power. There are all kinds of things, new types of electrical cars that we need to be putting money into.

The Republican Congress has put money and tax credits towards research and development so that our universities, our labs, our start- up enterprises can come up with alternative fuel sources, and I am proud that we are moving in the right direction, but we need to do it faster.

Mr. Speaker, ``Together We Can Do Better.'' That is the new motto of the Democrat Party. Well, you can judge the future by their past, and let us see how they did in the past.

Social Security, take an issue. What was their solution? Still waiting. No solution. Hello Democrat Party, put it on the board. You did not like our solution? What is your better solution?

Taxes? You do not like tax cuts. The government knows how to spend your money better than you do. And when tax revenues went up $94 billion because of our tax cuts creating new jobs, what did the Democrats have to say? We just do not like tax cuts.

Fiscal responsibility. Now they have a chance. We know in the Committee on Appropriations they have offered $61 billion in spending increases in the last 3 years. Now is their chance to show ``we did not mean it.'' They can do better.

9/11, what was their response? Whining and pining and hand-wringing, saying, Why do they hate us? That is what we must find out.

Iraq, well, let us turn Iraq over to Cindy Sheehan. She should run our foreign policy.

Together we can do better? I think they ought to look at ``together we can be bitter, bitter and angry.''