Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 9 of rule XVII, I offer a privileged motion.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, is it true that, on page H4754, there is a statement that this bill contains no congressional earmarks, tariff benefits or tax benefits?

I thank the Chair, and I will examine the Record.

The Congressional Record today makes a statement, ``H.R. 2206, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e) or 9(f) of rule XXI.''

I am just trying to reconcile. I am a bit confused because there is a press release today, and I would ask and would gladly yield time to the chairman if he can explain, there was a press release from a Democrat office today saying so-and-so inserts funds in emergency supplemental appropriations bill for critical flood mitigation projects. It goes on to say so-and-so today announced that $8,665,000 is included in the House emergency supplemental appropriation bill to fund flood mitigation projects in New York necessitated by the recent nor'easter.

That seems an awful lot like an earmark to me, if a Member actually does a victory lap afterwards and says that Member actually inserted in the bill.

I yield to the chairman to respond or explain.

I thank you.

The problem that we have pointed out over and over is that the earmark rules that have been adopted allow the majority simply to state in the Record that there are no earmarks, regardless of whether that is true or not. In this case, clearly it is not.

Yet when the time is right to challenge, when a point of order can be lodged against consideration of the bill, the minority or anybody who wants to challenge in the majority or minority is without recourse. So clearly this needs to be addressed. Clearly this bill does have earmarks.

I would appeal to the majority to please tighten up the rules so we can actually have an honest debate.

Madam Chairman, I thank Mr. Schiff for yielding, and I appreciate working with him on this important amendment and on this issue for a long time.

Madam Chairman, this amendment would reiterate that FISA is the exclusive means by which domestic electronic surveillance can be conducted for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information.

As has been stated before, we have, on the Judiciary Committee, for years been asking the administration what can we not do within FISA, do we need to change FISA in order to be able to conduct surveillance we need within FISA. We have never been given compelling information or evidence why we can't do what we need to do within FISA. As Mr. Schiff mentioned, if we do need to change FISA to update it again, as it has been changed and updated multiple times, then we should do it. However, we simply can't say FISA is insufficient; so go around it, and we don't want to know what goes on outside of it. Go ahead with the Terrorist Surveillance Program. We will have no congressional oversight. That is simply unacceptable. If we do need to change FISA, if we do need to modernize it, let's modernize it again, again, and again. But let's make sure that Congress maintains its prerogative to regulate the surveillance that goes on to make sure that it is done with civil liberties in mind. That is what this amendment seeks to do, and I am pleased to work with Mr. Schiff on it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just have to say from the outset that I have been amazed, like the gentleman from Georgia who mentioned a while ago, you would think if you were listening to this debate at home that the only research, the only science research going on in this country is funded by government, and it is simply not the case, gratefully. In fact, just a fraction of the research going on in the scientific field is funded by government. The private sector funds it gratefully.

And unfortunately, one can make the case and the case is often made persuasively that as we increase government funding in this area, it displaces private sector funding because companies can then rely on government rather than their own R&D budgets.

There is also something called opportunity cost. Whenever you hear the word ``investment'' in terms of government funding, you have to be a little skeptical. You have to say what is the opportunity cost? If you had left this money in the private sector, would it have produced more? You will never know that. But we do know the private sector tends to do things a lot more efficiently than government does.

Let me speak to this amendment. This amendment would strike a new pilot project created in this bill. Keep in mind, people will say we cannot cut this bill or whatever else. This is a new program that I am seeking to strike here.

This pilot project would award one-year grants to individuals to assist them in improving research proposals that were previously submitted to the National Science Foundation but were not selected for funding. In other words, if you submit an application, it is not approved for funding, the government will give you money to improve the application so it might be approved next year.

The man that comes on television, running around in this crazy suit, Matthew Lesko I think is his name, comes to mind here. Are we going to fund like Matthew Lesko? Are we simply saying, all right, here is more money to help you get government money? Are there not sufficient programs within the National Science Foundation that we

should be funding, that we have extra money to actually fund people who did not get the grants to help them improve their proposals that they might get a grant next year?

I understand the defense will say, or those defending these grants that this pilot project is intended to help younger scientists who may be losing out on NSF grants because they do not know how to prepare proposals compared to more seasoned researchers or scientists. The answer does not lie in more Federal dollars to help them prepare grant proposals. If there are problems in terms of more tenured scientists getting these proposals, then perhaps we ought to look at the application process and procedures and tweak those or change those rather than say let us spend money and take money out of the National Science Foundation budget and give it to people who were rejected in their funding.

This is a tight budget environment. I need not remind the majority that we are in a deficit situation. I would support across-the-board cuts everywhere in government, but boy, to say that we have got to increase the budget here 25 percent over 3 years is a bit steep, and then to create a new program like this one and to say we are going to give money to those who are not getting the programs, and one more thing before I yield back.

I have heard from the other side, those defending the current budget and arguing against proposals to actually cut specific programs, that we have a peer review process and that research grants should only be given out that way. I am glad to hear that because my guess is when we come 3 months from now or 2 months from now to the appropriations process, in the SSJC budget, there will be earmarks from that side of the aisle, from this side of the aisle, to fund specific research grants, some of whom were turned down during the peer review process. So this notion that you have got to have peer review and that we do not have the knowledge, I will confess that, but then why in the world are we earmarking like we are?

The earmarks are specifically to say I know better than the folks at NSF or folks over here because I am going to give it to my university or somebody who may have lost out on a grant, and so the notion that, hey, you know, you guys do not know what you are talking about when you are trying to cut spending, leave it to the experts, we do not leave it to the experts. The Congress does not leave it to the experts. If we trusted the experts, we would not be earmarking like we are.

But, again, back to the specific amendment, this is a new program, a new program to take money from the existing budget of NSF that we have all heard is so important that we have to have for research, and giving it to people who did not get their projects approved, did not get a contract, did not get research dollars to help them prepare research dollars.

This reminds me actually of many of the earmarks that you will see in the given months. Many of those are given to people to prepare grants to receive more money.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First, let me point out I have the utmost respect for my friend from Washington. We have worked together on many issues. First, he mentioned that the private sector groups are in support of this legislation and the National Science Foundation. I have no doubt. It doesn't surprise me at all. But I would submit that that's akin to the government saying we are in a position now to fund free lunches for everyone out there, and you can do it on the government's dime.

I would say that virtually every company in America would say that's a great idea. Now we don't have to fund that. We don't have to subsidize it for our employees. We can keep the profits, invest them elsewhere. If private companies don't have to expend that money in their R&D budgets, they would like not to. But that was a point I made, that this often supplants money that would be invested in the private sector, probably more efficiently if overall government spending is any guide.

To the amendment in specific, the gentleman from Georgia said it well. With all the high-priority items in the National Science Foundation budget, to take money out of that and to give it to those who didn't present a successful proposal would seem to me not the highest-priority use of money.

Remember, this is a new program. I am not cutting a program that exists. This is a new pilot project. I just don't think this is a road that we want to go down. I started to mention, before my time ran out before, we have seen this in other fields, in other earmark fields, where people are funding business consortiums. Many of the earmarks in this body go to business consortiums to help them draft grant proposals to get other earmarks or to get grants from government or to lobby to get earmarks. It's simply not a road that we want to go down as a Congress, I would submit.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 7: Strike section 6.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for putting together such a great alternative budget.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the budget resolution being considered today, and I do urge support for the minority substitute budget.

Totaling nearly $3 trillion, the 2008 budget, as introduced, is the largest in history, and it fails on many levels.

First, it fails to provide significant entitlement reform. Second, it fails to provide fiscal restraint on discretionary spending. And finally, it fails in reducing the physical burden on taxpayers.

The 2008 budget, as introduced, also fails to provide a blueprint for reining in our bloated farm programs. I want to talk about that for a minute.

This budget is consistent with CBO's March baseline and provides funding for reauthorization of current farm bill programs. But it also allows for up to $20 billion in so-called ``reserve spending'' over 5 years. Even with select commodity prices as high as they are, allowing for farm programs to continue at their current funding level is a tough pill to swallow.

Even though an estimated allocation is included in the budget, under the current farm programs, the actual amount of spending will depend on future commodity prices. Should crop prices fall, as they did after the 1996 farm bill, we will see dramatic increases in farm payments, spending that we have not accounted for or that we have otherwise offset for.

According to the CRS, the 1996 farm bill was expected to cost $37 billion over 7 years, but with farm prices falling dramatically, the Federal Government actually spent nearly $90 billion. This could happen again. With the volatility inherent in current farm program spending, taxpayers should not be saddled with an additional $20 billion over 5 years in so-called reserve spending.

While at this point this reserve spending requires offsets, there is no way to ensure that that requirement will actually stick in the outyears.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the minority substitute, which includes fiscal restraint and an unprecedented level of transparency. The substitute budget includes about $300 billion worth of savings in entitlement reforms and balances the budget in 5 years without increasing taxes.

With 77 million baby boomers set to retire, pushing the total cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid from today's 8.4 percent of GDP to 18.9 percent of GDP in 2050, we literally cannot afford to do nothing. The substitute budget also does not provide the additional reserve spending for agriculture programs.

Finally, the substitute budget includes a requirement that earmarks be included in the text of appropriation bills. This is a measure that I have championed for a while, and I should point out in the last Congress I had good bipartisan support. Many Democrats supported this legislation. They are not today. I think it should be noted, if it was good last year, it's good this year as well.

I urge support for the substitute budget.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike funding in the bill for the TSA puppy breeding program, the increase that is slated to take place in section 203 of the underlying bill.

The Transportation Security Administration, or TSA, has a puppy program that puts government in the role of being the breeder of bomb- sniffing dogs. This is clearly a role for the private sector.

There are literally hundreds, or thousands perhaps, private contractors that perform this function. It seems laughable to me that the Federal Government needs to be in the business of breeding dogs for any purpose.

Some will defend the role of bomb-sniffing dogs. I don't question the importance of the work that these animals do. It is important. It is needed. It is certainly necessary.

What I am questioning is whether or not the Federal Government ought to be in the business of breeding dogs. This is something that the private sector does a lot more effectively.

I would ask any American who has been to the airport, any airport at any time recently, if they believe that the TSA is so efficient in what they do that they have somehow found new efficiencies in dog breeding and that this is something that they ought to be spending their time doing. I would venture to say, no, that they ought to spend their time in doing the tasks that they have been given and not expanding their reach further into this business.

How much this will cost the average American taxpayer is unclear. In the bill it simply says ``such sums as may be necessary.'' I think that we should, if there is a figure, it ought to be there rather than a simple ``such sums as may be necessary.'' We have no idea how expensive this program may become.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time and look forward to hearing the justification for this program.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the discussion on this. As I said, nobody is questioning, certainly not me, the need to have bomb- sniffing dogs. The FAA has had programs since 1972. Those programs have continued.

But in 1999 the FAA, and as later taken up by the TSA, got into the business of dog breeding. All this amendment says is, don't go any further.

I have yet to hear a justification why the Federal Government needs to be in the business of dog breeding.

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Reclaiming my time, I have here a list of many, many companies that perform this function already that offer canine support services in the private sector.

I still don't know why the Federal Government is in the business. I haven't heard justification, and I don't think we can take it at face value. I will bet if you go to the private contractors here they would say there is enough. There are plenty of people in the private sector that are doing this.

Why is the Federal Government competing with the private sector? Why are we in the business?

I can guarantee you that TSA hasn't found efficiencies that people in the private sector already know.

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. Chairman, I simply have a hard time believing that there aren't sufficient private sector contractors out there. And if the Federal Government needs to set some standards and say we will only take dogs or companies that are licensed this way or that way, they can do that. But to get in the business of competing is simply wrong.

I would urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike section 107 of the underlying bill. This section authorizes $87 million for a new Homeland Security grant program for private bus companies.

I and some of my colleagues have expressed concern about what we see as Homeland Security grant waste. It is everywhere in the country. It is in my district. It is in virtually every district across the country.

I pointed out in a recent meeting that in my own district there is some Homeland Security funding going to things like synchronization of street lights. It shouldn't come from the Federal Government. It needs to be done, should be done, by local governments. In this case, this is activity that should be done by the private companies themselves.

We have seen Homeland Security grants in recent years go to protect mushroom festivals, lawn mower races, investigations into bingo halls, and puppet show performances. There seems to be no end to the waste. Yet now we are going to authorize a new Homeland Security grant program to go to private bus operators like the Hampton Jitney?

For those who have not ridden on the Hampton Jitney, it is a private bus service that brings wealthy East Side Manhattanites to their beach homes in the Hamptons. The Hampton Jitney and other private bus companies such as Greyhound and Peter Pan Bus Lines have received Homeland Security grant dollars under the Intercity Bus Security Grant program in 2005.

This is corporate welfare, pure and simple. These are for-profit enterprises that should not be underwritten by the taxpayer.

This amendment to eliminate this wasteful spending is supported by an array of taxpayer groups across the country. I would urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me point out that in 2005 I mentioned there is already an Intercity Bus Security Grant award program. Under this program, since 2005, Academy Express LLC has received $267,279; Greyhound Lines has received $5,471,365; Trans-Bridge Lines, $466,611.

How do you decide which private sector business gets the grant and which ones don't? What about a group like, as I mentioned, the Hampton Jitney? It is hardly a model of an intercity where it is just taking people that can't afford to ride the bus. It goes to the Hamptons. Yet we are subsidizing that.

Here is another one. It is called the Hampton Luxury Liner. This is another one that would qualify, that would be eligible to receive grants under this program. They advertise complimentary snacks, complimentary beverage, a feature movie. The latest periodicals, newspapers, and magazines are handed out to those patrons who ride those bus lines, yet they will be eligible to receive grants, taxpayer money, to subsidize their business.

Why are we doing this kind of corporate welfare? Where are those who stand against corporate welfare? When are they going to stand up and say, enough is enough, we shouldn't be doing this? We are wasting too much money in the Homeland Security program that should be actually spent in threat-based programs where there are real, actual threats, instead of simply spread around by formula or favor around the country.

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

Mr. Chairman, I applaud the talk about cleaning up the extravagant spending in the past. I applaud it. I just don't see it. I just wish that you would say, all right, this was a scandal.

We gave out millions and millions of dollars to private bus companies and others. Yet how are we going to fix it? We are going to create a new authorized program, a new one on top of this.

Instead of saying, let's go in and find the waste, fraud, and abuse that was there before, we are not doing that. We are adding a new program.

What this amendment does is simply strikes funding for the new authorization so we don't do more. If we do need these expenditures that are risk-based, then let's take out the formula funding that we are already doing.

If you are in the majority and you have the power to do it, please don't blame those in the past. I have no brief for what we did before. I didn't vote for the creation of the Department. But if there is waste and abuse, let's take care of it. Let's not add to it. And that is what we are seeking to do with this amendment. Don't go any further.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying we are already spending millions and millions, tens of millions of dollars on programs to make sure that bus travel and other modes of transportation travel are safe. Let's not add another program so that the Hampton Jitney and other private sector businesses can continue to receive this kind of corporate welfare. We can't keep doing this. We have a massive deficit and a huge debt. When are we going to say, let's stop authorizing new programs like this?

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

Mr. Chairman, I will just finish. I will say again, let's not authorize a new program when we concede that there is considerable waste in the current program.

To say that we simply can't address what is in the past, these programs are continuing forward. Let's simply say, let's take from this formula, the money that is distributed by formula and favor, and apply it toward the real risks out there, rather than creating new authorization for new spending on programs that can be taken care of elsewhere.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The Acting Chairman. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Lynch

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, is it true that House Rule XXI, clause 9(d) defines an earmark as report language included primarily at the request of a Member recommending a specific amount of spending authority for an entity or targeted to a specific State, locality, or congressional district?

Mr. Speaker, does the language in the committee report directing $35 million to risk mitigation project at NASA's Stennis facility constitute an earmark, as defined in rule XXI, clause 9(d)?

So I can understand this, if the chairman of the committee simply says there are no earmarks, then the Chair is obligated to say there are no earmarks for the purpose of the rule?

Is it accurate to say that a Member could request an earmark through the chairman of the committee and have that earmark funded, and then the report come to the floor claiming that there are no earmarks in fact in the bill?

Mr. Speaker, we have passed some good rules with regard to earmark reform and transparency, but we have found a way around them already, because when a report comes to the floor the rule states that it has to state if there is an earmark there, which Member requested it, and what it is for. Yet here we have something that is clearly an earmark for the Stennis facility and not an emergency by any definition. And my office actually called NASA, called the administration, asked was this requested. No, it wasn't; the request came from Congress. Clearly, an earmark request.

Yet the report comes to the floor; and because it says there are no earmarks, we have to take it for the purpose of the rule that there are no earmarks.

I am just wondering if this is how the appropriations cycle is going to go this year? Do the earmark rules mean anything? Or simply, can we get around them this way? What is to stop every Member from going to the chairman and saying, I have a request for this for my district. Will you simply put it in the overall request? Therefore, my name won't be attached to it.

We need to clean up these rules. If the chairman of the Appropriations Committee would clarify this, I would be most appreciative.

Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably absent from the Chamber on March 19 during rollcall votes 157, 158, and 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 157, ``nay'' on rollcall 158, and ``nay'' on rollcall 159.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate two outstanding high school choirs from my district, the Chandler High School Chorale and the Highland High School Concert Choir. These groups were selected by competitive audition out of dozens of high schools across the country to perform on March 19, 2007, at New York's famed Carnegie Hall.

The Chandler High School Chorale from Chandler, Arizona, has already distinguished itself as one of the top high school choirs in the Nation. Led by Dean Anderson, the chorale has performed across the country and around the world over the past two decades. This is the choir's second performance in the Carnegie Hall National High School Choral Festival, a singular achievement in the festival's history.

The Highland High School Concert Choir of Gilbert, Arizona, has also secured a spot in the festival. Led by Rita Scholz, the concert choir has performed in the Arizona ACDA conference, the Arizona Music Educators Association Conference, and the 1998 MENC National Convention. The Highland High School choral music program consists of 170 students in five performing ensembles, presenting four concerts on campus per year, as well as other performances around the country.

I am honored to have two of the four schools in the Nation chosen from my district.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the resolution before us. I wish I could do so with the type of certainty that seems to motivate many of my colleagues on the issue. But such resolute certainty escapes me. I do not have a military background. In fact, few of us debating this resolution do.

But each of us can find generals or former generals who will support virtually every option we wish to put on the table. In the end, as legislators, we are left with our own council. Hopefully, such council is informed by briefings, hearings, meetings, and visits to the region.

But we cannot and should not try to place ourselves in the position of Commander in Chief. Our system of government wisely gives that role to the Chief Executive.

This is not to say, however, that we should not be having this discussion. Some have said that simply debating this resolution emboldens our enemies. Perhaps they are right, but we would not suspend due process in this country because it might embolden criminals. It is a price we are willing to pay.

Likewise, debating the merits of war is what democratic nations do. My own thoughts on the situation in Iraq are as follows: I have little confidence that a surge in troop levels will change the situation in Iraq in any substantive fashion. It seems clear that the violence in Iraq is increasingly sectarian, and inserting more troops in this atmosphere is unlikely to improve matters very much.

Without a more sincere commitment to step up to the plate from the Iraqi Government, we are unlikely to make significant progress. But when all is said and done, we have a Commander in Chief whom we have authorized to go to war.

Inserting ourselves as legislators into the chain of command by passing a resolution, nonbinding though it may be, that questions the President's decision to conduct a mission that is clearly already under way strikes me as folly.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and putting together this Special Order. And I just have a minute, but I would like to submit a statement for the Record and to point out how important it is.

I am glad so many are making the distinction between tax relief and spending, overall government spending. You simply can't assume that spending money on a teapot museum ought to be treated the same as leaving money in people's pockets. You simply can't equate them the same. You can't score them the same. Whenever we have tax relief, we have increased revenue. As the gentleman from Texas correctly pointed out, those are the facts, and it has happened again and again and again.

So I am glad that so many are saying that tonight, and, again, I will submit a statement for the Record.

I applaud the President's commitment to balancing the budget by 2012 without raising taxes. I also support the attention given to cutting entitlement growth. Mandatory entitlement spending eats up 50 percent of the almost $3 trillion budget and is growing at an alarming rate.

However, I am concerned that Members will erode these savings by proposing to increase entitlement programs and, in order to adhere

to the new PAYGO rules, claim that the increases will be offset by eliminating some of the important tax relief Congress has passed over the last 5 years.

This rationale assumes that a tax cut is simply a straight-out loss of revenue for the Federal Government. This is why it is extremely important to consider how tax cuts have actually affected revenues over the last couple of years.

For example, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the cost of the 2003 and 2004 tax cuts would equal $296 billion in lost revenues for fiscal years 2003 to 2005.

However, tax revenues actually finished fiscal year 2005 at $124 billion above the adjusted baseline, meaning that 42 percent of the projected revenue loss had been recouped. That number still continues to grow each year.

It is irresponsible to assume that by eliminating tax relief the government will see an increase in revenues. I believe the opposite is true.

We must take into account the increased capital that tax relief produces, which translates into more investments and savings, more jobs, and, ultimately, more income tax revenues.

This is why I will soon reintroduce my bill to require the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation to include dynamic scores in their analysis of all revenue bills, and encourage my colleagues to cosponsor it.

We cannot continue to make policy decisions based on predictions that simply do not take into consideration fundamental economic principles that have been proven time and again.

Madam Speaker, I stand in opposition to H.R. 6. This bill is fatally flawed, both because of the provisions that it contains and also the process that brought it to the floor.

Simply put: Congress performs best when the process of Authorization, Appropriation, and Oversight is followed through the regular order.

This bill seeks to both Authorize and Appropriate at the same time by short-cutting the authority of the Budget Committee and directing spending.

In addition, this new language was brought to the floor without the benefit of review by any Committees, and even before the Resources Committee has been organized.

Finally, this bill seeks to create a slush fund for spending on non- specific programs with no enforcement mechanism to ensure that funds are spent appropriately.

We are not talking about an insignificant amount; rather, CBO estimates that these provisions will raise $14 billion dollars in federal revenue--$14 billion that should be returned to the Treasury for deficit reduction, if raised at all.

Beyond the argument of oil and gas tax incentives, sanctity of contracts, or renewable resources, I simply cannot support a bill that displays such a disregard for the legislative process and handle taxpayer dollars with such irresponsibility.

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting debate today. We have heard on the other side: Today is the day I am going to vote to give the American worker a raise. Would that we all had that kind of power. Unfortunately, with this, we can dictate that. Unfortunately, somebody else has to pay that wage.

It is simply not right to inject ourselves into the free market in that way. Yes, it would be nice if everyone could make a larger wage.

The problem is, the price of everything is elastic. When the price goes

up, the demand goes down. Those are the irrefutable laws of the free market. To think that we can simply go in and dictate and change things that way is wrong.

Less than a month ago I was in Cuba. Now, in Cuba, a janitor makes the same as a doctor. Some might say that is a good thing until you realize that they both make about $20 a month. It is not good when government controls the price and wage and controls the economy.

I am not suggesting that we are anywhere close to that, but supposing that we can inject ourselves and have this week wage controls, a little later this week, price controls in the form of negotiating with companies what drugs are going to cost, is simply the wrong direction to go.

I would urge everyone here to reject the notion that we as Members of Congress should inject ourselves into the free market in that manner.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And first I want to compliment the Democrats for earmark reform that is stronger than the Republicans did. Democrats in this way had more guts than we did to tackle earmark reform in a meaningful way, and I compliment them for that. And let me just note, though, with regard to earmarks something that was said a little earlier. It was said that we can't save money by eliminating earmarks. That is simply not true. It was not true when it was said on this side of the aisle last year, and it is not true when it is said from that side of the aisle today.

It is like saying, and the best analogy that I think of is if you go to McDonald's and you order a combo meal and you are sitting there and you say, I am going to save money by not eating the French fries I just ordered, you are correct, you can't. That is the same analogy that is being made on that side. Once you get to the appropriation process, once the 302(a)s and 302(b)s are already set, that is right, you are not going to save money. But you can save money by not ordering the combo meal, by saying, We are going to be spending, we spent last year $3 billion in earmarks in this bill, let's lower our allocation and let's spend less.

So this notion that we can't save money by deciding not to spend money on a teapot museum or the Wisconsin procurement initiative is simply not right.

But I appreciate, and again I want to compliment, the Democrats for doing stronger earmark reform than we did.

Let me make a few comments about PAYGO. If you are going to do PAYGO, I would argue do it whole hog. Let's apply it to mandatory spending; let's apply it to automatic adjustments that come up in the appropriation process every year. This PAYGO reform is incomplete, and it may simply lead to tax increases because you will say the only way we can make this mandatory adjustment is to increase taxes. So the PAYGO restrictions, it is disappointing that they aren't stronger. I would support PAYGO on spending. There is a difference between saying you can keep your own money or we are going to spend your money. And that ought to be made plain in PAYGO.