Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the chance to address the Chamber tonight and be with my freshmen colleagues who have fought the good fight on spending. We have heard a lot about spending and taxes.

I gave a speech last week back in the Fourth Congressional District in the great town of Findlay, Ohio. And I said at the start of that speech, I said 1 year in Congress has confirmed what I suspected: with the exception of the military, with the exception of our good men and women who wear our uniform, with that exception, the rest of the

Federal Government doesn't do anything well.

And I asked the audience, tell me how the Department of Commerce improves your family's life. Tell me how the Department of Labor improves your small business. Tell me how the Federal Department of Education improves life in our schools. How does it really help our teachers, our school board members? Most importantly, how does it help our children in our schools across this country? And of course the answer was nobody knew. Nobody knew what all this big government does.

In fact, today there was a story in our Columbus, Ohio paper. It is a Cox News Service story written by Marilyn Geewax, and the headline is: ``Federal Finances a Mess.'' And the date line says:

``Washington. The Federal Government finances are in such a disarray that the Nation's budget watchdog said yesterday that he was unable to sign off on the books. Comptroller David Walker said the Treasury Department's annual report wouldn't be acceptable in the private sector.''

In quotes, he said this in his speech at the National Press Club: ``If the Federal Government were a private corporation and the same report came out this morning, our stock would be dropping, and there would be talk about whether the company's management and directors needed a major shakeup.'' That is what our comptroller had to say about the Federal Government.

And yet what did the majority do this first year in Congress? They tried to tie the hands of our troops, that one area of the Federal Government that does a great job. And in the rest of the government, they increased spending, as my colleague from California pointed out, over $20 billion. $20 billions in increased spending for the Federal Government that, we all know, according to the Comptroller, is a mess. And it is important we recognize that.

And I am proud to be associated with these members of the freshmen class who have spent so much time this year trying to get a handle on Federal spending and bring it back into line, because we recognize a few facts, just a few numbers. And my colleague from California and the previous speakers have pointed this out as well. We have a $9 trillion national debt. Each citizen, each American citizen's share of that national debt is $30,200. And here is the real concern: when you have out-of-control spending like this, it inevitably leads to higher taxes. And we have already heard from our good friend from Tennessee who talked about the tax burden currently facing families. We heard from the from Minnesota about the tax burden that the AMT is going to impose on over 20 million Americans.

If we don't get a handle on spending, there is going to be real consequences on this country, and here is why it is so critical. If we want to make sure that we promise to our retirement systems, if we want to make sure we leave our children a debt-free Nation, and if we want to make sure we can compete and win in the international marketplace, then we have to begin to control spending. And that is why, as my colleague from California pointed out, I was proud to work with our class this summer, and we offered a series of amendments that would do just that.

It was interesting, during those debates, when we got up and spoke about why it was important to hold the line on spending and begin to save taxpayers' dollars, begin to allow families to keep more of their money, it was interesting during that debate, the other side said: We can't do that. We have got to increase spending. We have got to increase spending, in some cases two and three and four times the rate of inflation, because if we don't, the world is going to end, the sky is going to fall. Everything terrible is going to happen. And yet, you know what has happened, as has been pointed out already this evening? We didn't pass those spending bills, as the law requires, by September 30.

So since that time, over the past 10 weeks, we have been functioning under what we call a continuing resolution, which is a fancy way of saying we are living on last year's budget, exactly what the amendments we proposed were going to do. We are living on last year's budget. And do you know what? The government is running. The sky hasn't fallen.

And my argument is, if we can do it for 10 weeks, we can probably do it for 10 months, and we can probably do it for a whole year and save my taxpayers, as my friend has pointed out, over $20 billion.

When you think about the size of government, there is a great line that Thomas Jefferson had. He said: When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

Now, with that statement in mind, ask yourself a question. If sometime tomorrow you get a knock at your door and you go and you answer your door, and the gentleman standing there identifies himself and says, Hello. I am Mr. Smith and I am with the IRS, is your first response, Oh, joy. One of my public servants is here to help me today? Of course not.

We all understand government is too big and we need to reduce it. And the reason we need to reduce it is because we understand one fundamental fact: moms and dads can spend the money better than we can. Moms and dads can do a better job than the bureaucrats in this Federal Government that the headline even says is a mess can do when it comes to spending their money.

Think about that typical family out there. One of the reasons America is the greatest Nation in history is because moms and dads have been willing to sacrifice so that the next generation, so that their kids can have life a little better than they did.

If we don't get a handle on spending, it is going to be tough to continue that great tradition that has helped make America the best. The same comptroller who was cited in this article that is in today's papers, the same comptroller had this statement to say: ``We are failing in our most important stewardship responsibilities. We have a duty to pass on a country better positioned to deal with the challenges of the future than the one we were given.''

That is our challenge. That is what this class is about. We want to make sure that we get a handle on spending so we can do what is right stewardshipwise and pass on to our children and our grandchildren the same great America that we inherited. That is what made America great, and that is what we have to do as we move forward.

It starts by getting a handle on spending so we can keep taxes low and we can compete in this international marketplace.

I thank the gentleman from California. His leadership continues here in the United States Congress, and I am proud to be associated with that in our freshman class.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. You're exactly right. We always hear this line, tax and spend politicians. It's actually the opposite. It's spend and tax. Spending drives the equation. And when Congresses spend and governments spend so much, they do just what our friend from Tennessee described, they take money away from families and spend it on earmarks, spend it on this big government that as we've already figured out tonight is a mess according to Comptroller of the Treasury. So you're exactly right.

And what the Democratic majority has proposed this year in their budget to satisfy all their spending is the repeal of the tax cuts that were put into place in 2001 and 2003, tax cuts that give a child tax credit to children and dependents, great concept for families. Tax cuts that lowered the income tax rates, those are going to go up. The child tax credit is going to go away, the death tax is going to up and the dividend tax is going to go up, in addition to a whole other list of taxes they've also unveiled.

So the reason it's so critical to control spending is because high spending inevitably leads to higher taxes. And when you tax and tax and spend and spend, you take money away from, as our friend from Tennessee has pointed out, the typical family out there, the moms and dad who want to invest.

Think about the typical family that was described by our friend from Tennessee. Typical family, they get up every day, they go to work. They go to church on Sunday. They take their kid to soccer practice, they take the kid to Little League. They're putting money away for college education. All those things, and yet you have a Congress who spends things on like, as you pointed out earlier, Congressman McCarthy, a monument to themselves in their district. Think about that. A sitting Member of Congress who uses taxpayer money to name a facility after himself while he is a sitting, while he's in Congress. Unprecedented. And yet that's what we saw with this Congress. And it's all driven because they want to spend and spend and spend. They think they can spend your tax dollars better than you as a family, you as an individual taxpayer can spend it.

So again I appreciate this chance to talk about these things this evening. More importantly, I appreciate the opportunity, as our friend from Tennessee has pointed out, to fight for those things that I think really matter to families and work with my colleagues in our freshman class. And I yield back.

Will the gentleman yield? I just wanted to bring up a point. I represent in the Fourth Congressional District we have Airstream, some of the finest trailers in the world that people use to go camping. It's a wonderful, wonderful product. And you talk about the CAFE standards in this bill which would arbitrarily, some government- mandated standard that fleets would have to meet. It's tough. It's difficult to pull an Airstream with a Volkswagen. I mean, you need something bigger. And that's why we have to approach this. We all want to do things, but we've got to approach it in a reasonable way when we're thinking about the impact it's going to have on our economy, and as you point out on our districts and on our ag community as well. So I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I thank the ranking member.

Madam Chair, I rise today to express my opposition to the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Far from actually protecting new workers, this legislation will add confusion and contradictions to title VII's existing protections. We have already heard from speakers who talked about the ``perceived'' sexual orientation language in this bill. And it would violate the traditional bases used to determine protected status, those being an immutable characteristic, a history of economic disenfranchisement and political powerlessness. All of the protected classes that currently exist in title VII meet these standards, while those individuals this legislation seeks to protect do not. The current title VII protections are sufficient to protect our Nation's citizens. Expansion would only lead to confusion and more litigation. The previous Republican speaker talked about this. He talked about the contradiction that exists between sexual rights and religious rights. If this legislation is approved, it will certainly be challenged in court and produce a clash with religious freedom and expression.

And then, finally, two other things I would like to address. ENDA, I believe, has the potential to severely hurt business. Not only will the religious exemption fail to cover nondenominational religious elementary schools, high schools and colleges, but it may, in fact, force employers to violate their personal convictions and hire individuals that they determine may not be in the best interests of their business. Business owners with religious convictions should be free to apply those convictions to their hiring practices.

And I guess I would just close by saying, most importantly in my mind, this legislation, I believe, would undermine the institution of marriage and thereby undermine that key institution in our culture, which I believe in the end ultimately determines the strength of our entire society, and that being the family institution. You think about one of the reasons America is so great is because moms and dads and families sacrifice for the next generation. I believe this legislation has the real potential to undermine the importance of families in our culture and in our society and in our country.

For those reasons, Madam Chair, I would oppose the legislation. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to mourn the passing of seven of this Nation's young students. On the morning of October 28, 2007, a fire quickly swept through the beach house in Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina, where they were spending a weekend.

Six of the seven were students at the University of South Carolina. The seventh attended Clemson. All were filled with much promise.

With this in mind, I express my deepest condolences to the friends and families of the seven. Rest assured that you are in all of our thoughts and prayers.

I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the entire community of Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina, for its response to this tragedy. From the very onset of the flames, local citizens rushed to alert and assist

emergency responders. These responders then worked bravely to rescue those trapped inside, aid the injured, and extinguish the fire.

Unfortunately, the blaze was too powerful and claimed seven young lives. However, without the adept response of all involved, the tragic toll of this blaze would have surely been higher. It is with all this in mind that I would like to take this opportunity to commend those involved in the response. Our sincere gratitude goes out to all of you.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of this resolution. Obviously, as a result of these devastating floods this summer, we had eight counties that were declared disaster counties in our State, 4\1/2\ of those counties I had the privilege of representing. The other 3\1/2\ counties were represented by our late friend, Congressman Paul Gillmor.

I want to commend Congressman Gillmor's staff for the help of Paul, of course, when he was with us, and then his staff for the great assistance they provided our office and others as we worked through this.

I also just want to take a moment to thank those local leaders, both our police, our fire, our EMS people, our local public officials and our State public officials who did just an outstanding job and also commend our Federal officials. FEMA was there in Ohio, the leaders were there, Director Paulison, as well as Mr. Preston with the SBA, and then they have been in Ohio for several months serving families and individuals and local governments who were devastated by these floods.

The thing, I guess, that really stands out for me, in the midst of this devastation, it was so neat to see how communities come together, how people work together and all kinds of acts of kindness from family member to family member and from neighbor to neighbor and community to community. It was amazing to see what takes place when devastation hits an area.

The resolution just expresses our commendation for those individuals, those local officials, those families, those people in west central and north central Ohio who did such an outstanding job dealing with the devastation that took place.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Let me, too, just thank Congressman Lynch and Congresswoman Kaptur. Congresswoman Kaptur has been right at the front of looking at this in a comprehensive way, and we appreciate that. She talked about our mayors both in Findlay and Shelby, Ohio, who have done so much work and who are looking at this overall approach.

Also, we talked about our local officials. I don't know if we mentioned our two U.S. Senators who have been very helpful in this effort as well, looking at this in a broad way.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, like the Speaker, growing up a Big Red Machine fan, I still remember those teams with Johnny Bench, Joe Morgan, Tony Perez, in sixth grade, watching that series.

I rise to recognize the most recent achievements of the Boston Red Sox and commend their victory in the 2007 Major League Baseball World Series. In the last few years, the Red Sox have distinguished themselves as one of the most dominant teams in baseball. Of course, this was not always the case.

After winning their fifth World Series in 1918, their regular season successes were often met by postseason disappointment. Those were the old Red Sox.

In this century, we have the new Red Sox, the team that entered the 2004 playoffs as a wild card and then proceeded to mount one of the most memorable comebacks in baseball history down three games to zero against their arch rival, the New York Yankees.

They came back to win the American League Championship Series and ultimately went on to break the Curse of the Bambino, winning the 2004 World Series in four straight games against the St. Louis Cardinals. In 2007, after winning the American League East Division, the Red Sox again faced adversity in the American League Championship Series down 3-1 to that other great team in Ohio, the Cleveland Indians. They persevered, winning three games in a row to once again represent the American League in the World Series.

The Red Sox went on to win this series again in four games, sweeping the red-hot Colorado Rockies behind the leadership of Manager Terry Francona. The 2007 Red Sox did it all. I congratulate them and their team and the entire Red Sox community.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

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

Madam Speaker, a ceremony in Columbus next week will mark the induction of 20 distinguished Ohioans into the Ohio Veterans Hall of Fame. I am honored to commend to the House one of these inductees: Dr. Terry L. Maris of Hardin County.

Dr. Maris is an Army Special Operations veteran who served two combat tours in Vietnam. A Purple Heart recipient, he was awarded the Bronze Star, the Army Commendation Medal with Valor Device, the Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Gold Star, and numerous other decorations for his valorous service.

Following his distinguished Army career, Dr. Maris put the leadership skills he honed in Vietnam to good use in the private sector, where he has compiled an admirable record in the fields of business research and teaching. As Dean of the College of Business at Ohio Northern University for 15 years, he oversaw the implementation of new instructional methods and cutting-edge teaching technologies to ensure that his students would best be prepared to succeed. He continues to serve as Executive Director of the Center for Cuban Business Studies, which he created to help people across the hemisphere lay the groundwork for relations with Cuba after the Castro regime.

Madam Speaker, selection for the Hall of Fame is a high honor accorded to only 20 Ohioans per year. To be considered for induction, individuals must not only serve the Nation honorably in the military, but also reflect the high value of service to others in their post- military careers.

In a letter recommending Dr. Maris for inclusion in the Hall, American Veterans Institute President Mike Jackson called him a ``quiet hero'' who has dedicated himself to educating future generations for the betterment of people everywhere. I am pleased to join in the accolades for Dr. Maris and his inestimable record

of service to our Nation as he is inducted into the Ohio Veterans Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for putting this hour together. I thank my friend from California too for his focus on keeping taxes low, which the gentleman from Georgia made the right point: Whose money is it? Does it belong to the families of this country or does it belong to government?

The families of America know that they can spend their money better than government. They can invest it in their kids, their grandkids, their goals, their dreams, their ideas, their principles. They can do it better than government can. American families know that taxes are too high. Think about the typical family, the typical family in this country. When you factor in local, State and Federal taxes, all those taxes that my friend from California went through that you pay in just a typical day, when you factor that in, the typical American family spends 50 percent of their income, 50 percent of what they make, what they bring in, that they can invest in their kids, their grandkids, their future, they have to give to some level of government.

As the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, when you think about what has happened this year in this Congress, we had a budget bill passed that doesn't extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that have helped our economy, that have helped families have a growing economy, the tax increases in there that result in huge, huge taxes in the future on American families. We had an energy bill that raises taxes on domestic energy companies. We had a

farm bill, a farm bill, one of the most bipartisan pieces of legislation that typically moves through the Congress, had a tax increase in it.

We had the SCHIP bill that the gentleman spoke on earlier in this hour which had a tax increase in it. And just this day on the floor we had a Trade Adjustment Assistance Act that also had a tax increase in it. And, as my good friend from Georgia pointed out, we now have what is appropriately called the mother of all tax increases coming, which will raise $3.5 trillion, $3.5 trillion on American families across this country.

It begs the question: Why do politicians want to raise taxes? It is real simple. Because politicians like to spend money. You always hear ``tax-and-spend politicians.'' It is actually the opposite. It is spend-and-tax. Spending always drives the equation.

That is why this summer my good friend and I and several other members of the Republican Party offered a series of amendments which said let's hold the line on spending. Let's do what families have had to do from time to time, what business owners, as my friend from California pointed out, have to do from time to time, what individual taxpayers have to do from time to time. Let's just spend what we spent last year.

After all, if you ask the typical American, do you think government spends a lot of money? Do you think maybe there is just a little bit of waste in the Federal Government? And everyone knows instinctively, of course there is. So we said, let's just spend what we spent last year.

You know what? Right now we are operating in a continuing resolution, which is a fancy way of saying we are living on last year's budget, even though the Congress was supposed to have budgets in place by September 30 and start a new budget. So we are living on last year's spending.

When we argued these amendments this fall, that is what we wanted to do, the other side told us, oh, the sky is going to fall, the world is going to end, all kinds of things are going to happen. You know what? For 4 weeks now we have been doing just what we offered in those amendments, living on last year's budget. And, guess what? Kids are going to school. The government is still running. Nothing terrible has really happened. If we can do it for 4 weeks, we can do it for 4 months, we can do it for the next year.

Here is why this is critical. If we don't begin to get a handle on spending, it hurts us in our economic position around the world. And right now Americans understand this as well. The market is so competitive, we have got to keep taxes low, keep spending under control so our economy can grow.

There was a point in the past, there was a point in the past coming out of World War II where America was uniquely situated; it didn't really matter if elected officials, if politicians did some dumb things. But now it matters. Now the competition is so stiff we have got to get public policy right.

Just think of some of the numbers we have to deal with today. We have 300 million people in this country. We are competing with the Chinese, who have 1.3 billion. It is critical that we do things right so we can remain the economic superpower, because here is the way the world works.

The economic superpower is also the military and diplomatic superpower. Right now there is one country that fits that definition, that is the United States of America, and that is a good thing. The American people recognize instinctively that the world is safer and better when America leads. If in the future that is some other country, that is a scary thought. We want America to lead.

I kind of joke when I say I think the only folks who don't get that concept is the editorial page of the New York Times. But Americans understand that the world is better. I love what Cal Thomas said. He was talking one time about how sometimes the national media doesn't see things the same way that a typical American family does. He had a line when he was talking about the New York Times. He said, ``I get up every morning and I read my Bible and the New York Times so I can see what each side is up to.'' There is certainly some truth in that statement.

It is important for America to lead. The way America can lead economically is to keep taxes low, keep spending under control, and, if we do that, American families, American business owners can create those jobs and make our economy grow so that we have a prosperous future, just like America has always had, and that will allow America to continue to be the greatest country in the world.

So I thank the gentleman for his time tonight and for his focus. He is so right on target. And my good friend from California as well.

Madam Speaker, I am honored today to join in the tributes to the life and career of former Ohio Congressman Charles Vanik, who passed away in August at age 94.

Born in Cleveland in 1913, Charles Vanik recognized the call to service long before his 26-year House career began. After earning his law degree, he was elected to the Cleveland City Council and the Ohio State Senate--all before the age of 30. His career in elective office was interrupted by World War II, where he served in both the Atlantic and Pacific theatres as a member of the Naval Reserve. Following the war, he held a judgeship in Cleveland prior to his election to Congress in 1954.

As my colleagues have noted in prior Floor tributes to Congressman Vanik, his congressional legacy was defined by his many contributions to human rights around the world--especially through what came to be known as the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. This measure, which passed with broad bipartisan support, requires the United States to gauge the human rights records of foreign nations when assessing potential trade deals. As a result of Jackson-Vanik, the Soviet Union was compelled to allow more than two million people of faith to escape the religious persecution they faced under this cruel regime. The Amendment made Charles Vanik a target of scorn from the Soviet-controlled media-- something he wore as a badge of honor.

Throughout his career, Congressman Vanik well served the people of his district and fought for freedom around the world. I offer his family and loved ones my condolences at their loss.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I recognize the staff of Wilson Hospice in Sidney, Ohio, as they mark 20 years of service to the region.

As part of Wilson Memorial Hospital in Sidney, Wilson Hospice provides invaluable care to the people of Shelby, Auglaize, Champaign, Darke, Logan, and Miami Counties. The hospice's professional and volunteer caregivers take great pride in helping those with terminal and other challenging illnesses in the final stages of their lives.

Wilson Hospice offers a wide range of assistance, from in-home care to aid in nursing facilities and other assisted-care centers in the region. Hospice staffers tailor care to each patient's needs, working in concert with families and doctors to provide pain management, spiritual and emotional care, and whatever other support is required. Because catastrophic illnesses frequently come with significant financial burden that harms quality of life, no one in need is ever turned away from Wilson based on an inability to pay.

The hospice excels in the outstanding grief support services it provides to families--including a phenomenal program targeted at teens and children, who often have the most difficult times dealing with the loss of a loved one. For more than a year after a loved one's death, family members may receive personal and group counseling and support services through the hospice. Those who have participated in these programs never forget the commitment and compassion of the many caregivers who help them cope with their losses.

Madam Speaker, Wilson Hospice will celebrate its 20th anniversary with an event this Monday, October 22. I look forward to attending and joining people throughout the region in applauding the dedicated staff of the hospice for all they do to provide comfort and peace to patients and their families.

Madam Speaker, due to weather-related travel delays, I was absent from the House floor during Tuesday's rollcall votes on House Resolution 32 and H.R. 400.

Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of both measures.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of the chairman of the committee and the ranking member. The motion to recommit that we

have in front of us is an insurance policy. It will guarantee that no funds in the bill go to lobbyists or lobbying activities. This motion, in other words, is a step towards breaking that link between legislation and lobbyists.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3246, as we have heard from the language here on the floor today, is intended to aid the economic and infrastructure development in economically distressed regions of the country. Taxpayer dollars should be used for that purpose, and that purpose only.

The motion does two things: first, it prevents any of the funds authorized by this bill from being used to lobby or retain a lobbyist for the purposes of influencing a Federal, State or local government entity or officer. Second, the motion prohibits funds to pay for expenses related to the membership of an individual or entity in an organization or association.

Mr. Speaker, the majority promised in its opening-day rules package, section 202 of H. Res. 6, to end the K Street Project. This motion to recommit is policy that all Members should support. In fact, when this same language was offered to H.R. 569, the Water Quality Investment Act, it was approved by a 425-0 vote. That same act came out of this same committee, and the full House in unanimous fashion supported this same language.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is an opportunity to improve the bill by adding explicit language to make sure that taxpayer dollars are used for their intended purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

I want to thank the Chair of the committee and Congressman Cooper and Congressman Towns for all their work and our ranking member of the committee on the bill. But, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It is unfortunate in a bill that has been worked on by both sides so well that we have an amendment now that I think is going to be somewhat divisive. But I believe the amendment may arise from the U.S. Attorney's investigation that consumed so much of our time earlier in this session, particularly the time on

the Judiciary Committee. That investigation showed no wrongdoing in the dismissal of U.S. Attorneys and no undermining of the institutions of the Department of Justice.

As time drags on, though, people wonder, why did we spend so much time on this issue? Maybe the majority feels the need to show some results. Perhaps that is why we have this amendment before us today. But the U.S. Attorney's investigation did not show any need to realign the responsibilities of the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of the Inspector General. It certainly did not show that OIG should swallow up OPR, which would be the effective result of the amendment before us this afternoon. On the contrary, these offices have quietly gone about their investigative activities and we have seen no great difficulties arise from the exercise of their duties.

But apart from the U.S. Attorney's investigation, the amendment clearly is unwise for other reasons. Both OPR and OIG are needed in their current structure. OPR was established to ensure that the Department of Justice's thousands of attorneys follow all applicable professional rules of conduct. OIG performs an equally critical but very different function of pursuing investigations into general criminal wrongdoing and general administrative misconduct by the Department.

This important distinction calls for two different offices to work on these two issues. As conferees underscored when Congress created the Office of Inspector General in the 1980s: ``The conferees do not intend that the IG should render judgments on the exercise of prosecutorial or litigative discretion in a particular case or controversy. Unless a unique set of circumstances dictate otherwise, the conferees intend that reviews of such prosecutorial or other litigative discretion in a particular case or controversy is an appropriate role for, and may be delegated by, the Attorney General.''

The Attorney General has delegated that authority to OPR. No basis exists to question this policy today. Unlike OIG, OPR is staffed and led entirely by career lawyers. Political background cannot be considered when appointing anyone to a position in the Office of Professional Responsibility. Thousands of current and former Department lawyers can attest that OPR's independence is undisputed and that the Office of Professional Responsibility has never allowed the manner in which it investigates or the results it reaches to be influenced by any political appointee in the Department. Any Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General being investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility is automatically recused from participating in the matter. The most recent example of this is the U.S. Attorney's investigation itself.

I only scratch the surface of the reasons to preserve OPR as it is. As anyone with substantial experience knows, this office can be relied upon to make the hard calls and find attorney misconduct when it has occurred, enabling the Department of Justice to take the proper disciplinary action.

I would call the House's attention again to the need for legislation to address serious crime issues. Republicans have introduced those bills but they continue to languish. Responsible citizens don't want to hear that their loved ones or their neighbors were hurt or killed because the majority in Congress could not bear to solve the Nation's problems with the opposing party's solutions or to turn away from the hunt for political victims.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a brave young soldier and one of America's fallen heroes, Army Specialist Christian M. Neff.

Chris attended middle and high school in the Shawnee District before graduating from the Apollo Career Center in Lima, Ohio. He's remembered by many as a quiet man, but one with the ability to make people smile; someone who earned people's respect and led by example.

Christian Neff died on Wednesday, September 19 in Iraq while serving America in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Age 19, he is survived by a loving family and friends in Allen County and beyond.

In reading of Christian's life and speaking with his mother, I was touched by the dramatic impact he had on the lives of so many.

A young man of deep faith, Chris stood up and volunteered to serve his country. He fought to promote freedom. He gave his life in defense of his family, his community, his State and his Nation. For this, each and every American owes him and his family a great debt of gratitude.

Christian will be deeply missed. But the strength of his character and the courage he demonstrated through his service will live on.

Let me thank the gentleman from California for putting this together. I appreciate the chance to be with you and some of my colleagues from the freshman class.

I particularly want to reference the tone that the gentlewoman from Minnesota brought to the discussion this evening. She talked about the optimistic can-do spirit that has always been a part of this country and that is alive and well today. Frankly, we are going to need that spirit when we confront the challenges that we face.

I call it the David attitude. You may remember the old story from Scripture. When the Israelites were camped against the Philistines, and every day the Philistine giant would walk out and issue the challenge. He would ask: Who will fight Goliath?

The Israelites' response was: He is so big, we can never defeat him. But David's response was: He is so big, I can't miss.

That is the attitude we need to confront the challenges we face. You think about the challenges that America faces today, unprecedented in our Nation's history.

First, we have the terrorist threat as real and serious as it gets. We have this debate in our culture over whose set of values are going to win. There is a core set of principles, a traditional set of American values that made this Nation special. We should not be afraid to defend and protect and promote those principles and values.

But the challenge I want to focus on tonight is fiscal discipline. This is so, so important. Many of us have been back home over the last 6 weeks talking to all kinds of folks across our congressional districts. Many times what I do when I am speaking in front of a group, I say, you all may find this a surprise, but the Federal Government spends a lot of money. Everyone starts to laugh. And I say, they spend a heck of a lot of money.

The Federal Government spends $23,000 per household per year. We have an $8 trillion national debt. We have spending that is out of control. If we don't get a handle on that, what we are going to do to future generations is going to be difficult and it is going to make it tough for us as a Nation to continue to be number one economically.

I like to remind folks that the way the world works today, the economic superpower is also the leader in the military area. The economic superpower is the military superpower. Right now that is the United States of America, and I believe the world is safer because of that fact. We want America to lead diplomatically, we want America to lead militarily, and we want America to lead economically. It is important we do that. When America leads, the world is a safer and better place. And we want to make sure that continues.

In order for that to continue, we have to get spending under control. Over the course of the budget process, the budget that the majority party brought forward would in essence raise taxes over the next several years over $200 billion. When they look at scaling back the good tax cuts that were put in place back in 2001 and 2003, that have helped our economy respond to some of the hardships we faced after the 9/11 attacks and the recession that followed, we need to make sure that we get spending under control.

We always hear about tax-and-spend elected officials, tax-and-spend politicians. In fact, I would argue it is the opposite. It is spend and tax. Spending always drives the equation. We have to get spending under control.

In the appropriations process that we went through this summer, 12 different spending bills that finance the government over the course of the fiscal year, of those 12 bills, nine are nondefense. To those nine bills we offered a series of amendments that would have held spending at last year's level. It wouldn't have been a cut. It would have simply said to the government, the government that already spends $23,000 per household, it would have simply said: We want the government to spend what we spent last year. After all, all kinds of families have to do that, and all kinds of taxpayers have to do that, and all kinds of businesses have to do it from time to time. Why can't the Federal Government do the same thing?

Yet we heard from the majority party we can't do that. If we would simply spend what we spent last year, the sky would fall. The world would end. We have to have more of the taxpayers' money. That is the argument we heard. But it was not a cut; it was simply level spending. If we would have been able to do that, we would have saved taxpayers $20 billion and helped to begin to put us on a path to deal with the financial problems that will come if we continue to deficit spend.

Don't take my word for it. A former governor on the Federal Reserve Board, Dr. Edward Gramlich, said this: ``Budget deficits lead to less economic growth and a lower level of economic activity than would otherwise be the case.''

Mr. Walker, the comptroller general said, ``Today, we are failing in one of our most important stewardship duties: our duty to pass on a country better positioned to deal with the challenges of the future than the one we were given.''

One of our fundamental challenges as people elected to public office is to make sure that the next generation has it better than we did. If you think about what has really allowed America to grow and prosper, we are the greatest country in the world for all kinds of reasons and all kinds of policies that we have, but in the end it is that parents have been willing to sacrifice so that their kids can have life a little better than they did. That kind of philosophy should be present in how we run the United States Congress and how we run government and how we spend taxpayer dollars.

Unfortunately, those amendments weren't passed and we were not able to save over $20 billion to help to begin to put us on a path towards greater fiscal responsibility. It is important that we do that, and it is important that we do it for the future of Americans. But we are going to get there.

The gentlewoman from Minnesota is right; Americans always figure out a way to address the obstacles and hurdles that are in front of us, and we will figure out a way to do this. We just need to keep talking about it and stay diligent. If we do that, we will put our country on the path that it needs to be fiscally so we continue to be that leader economically, militarily and diplomatically.

I appreciate what the gentleman from California is doing in helping to lead our freshman class and thank him for a chance to be a part of this hour this evening.

I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio because he is right. Many people talk about the tax and spend, but really it is the spending that drives it. Just from last year, with the bills that were passed on this floor with the largest tax increase in American history, they increased spending by 9 percent. A lot of people ask out there: What was the spending on? How did you go about doing it? I think that is what we are going to talk about tonight.

Before I get to our next speaker, I just want to show a couple of little slides here about where we are going. First, you see the promise that was made, that the gentleman from Illinois talked about, what Speaker Pelosi had said: ``Democrats are ready to lead, prepared to govern, and determined to make you proud.''

Today, we sit at an 11 percent approval rating of this new majority. That is the lowest in the history that they have ever taken the poll. Lower than in the years of Watergate. Lower than when we had to ration gasoline during the years of President Jimmy Carter. Lower than in 1994 when the public decided after 40 years they wanted to change the majority here and put the Republicans in charge. It is now at the lowest level.

Why? And why is that spending taking place? I want to tell you an example, and I actually saw this on the news the other day, and I credit the news, Mr. Speaker, and CBS doing a story on this. What are we spending our money on? You sit around that table and you decide where you put your money away and where you go to save. Let me tell you a little story. It happened right here on this floor.

I was sitting down here and I was watching, and one of those spending bills, the Health and Human Services, there was $2 million put in. You say was it put in for education? Was it put in to make America greater? It was put in by a Member, Mr. Speaker, to name a library after himself. Two million dollars was spent. What did it say within here that it needed to be? You needed $2 million for the new Rangel Conference Center, a well-furnished office for Charles Rangel and the Charles Rangel Library. In the brochure, when you look at this library for a college that the library is not even there yet, it will say it will be as nice as President Clinton and as nice as President Jimmy Carter. Well, those libraries were funded by private funds. Those people were Presidents.

Now, what do you say? Maybe this is something that every chairman of Ways and Means would do. It just so happens the Member that served and represented Kern County, where I represent, was chairman of Ways and Means just a year ago. What did he do with his papers? He didn't name a library after himself. He took his papers to the junior college, Bakersfield Junior College, and gave them to them, where the kids can go and look and read.

Well, you know what happened? Just like Mr. Jordan had said, there were many amendments on this floor, many amendments by this freshman Republican class that said we want to get spending under control. There was an amendment by a Congressman from California, John Campbell, Mr. Speaker, that wanted to take that $2 million out. He thought that wasn't the best way to go about it. Much as the Congressman from Illinois said, earmarks. This is what an earmark is all about.

Well, just behold, the Congressman that had put this in, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rangel, came to this floor. He said he was proud of this. One of the Congressmen asked him: ``Well, if it's going to name it after yourself, should we name one after ourselves?'' He said: ``No, they don't deserve it. They haven't been here long enough.''

Mr. Speaker, this is the monument to me, but it is the monument to me paid by taxpayers. It is a monument to me, where not even the college asked to name it after him. He asked to name it after himself.

I am proud to tell you that all 13 freshmen Republicans voted for the amendment to strike out this earmark, to stop this type of activity. This is why we ran, this is what we said we would do, and this is not what the Democrats in the majority party said they would do when they were in control.

This is what has got to stop. This is why spending is 9.3 percent higher, and it's paid by taxpayers' money. I don't think the Members across this country wanted this to take place, I don't believe this person was the President of the United States, and I think individuals that are chairmen of Ways and Means ought to look for the path of what Congressman Bill Thomas did when he was chairman of Ways and Means, he gave his papers to a junior college. He didn't put $2 millions in to have nice furniture and an office and a librarian, to be as nice as the presidential libraries are.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we have some more Members with us tonight. We have an individual from Tennessee, the First District of Tennessee. He served in the legislature back there. You may recognize him. He is on the floor quite often talking about bringing America back, finding solutions here.

I yield to Congressman David Davis.

Madam Speaker, I take tremendous pride in recognizing the staff and volunteers of Samaritan House, a shelter for homeless and abused women in Lima, OH.

The seeds of Samaritan House were sown more than two decades ago, when Pastor Doneta Warren opened her home to an abused woman and her children. Word of this selfless Christian act spread quickly to others in need, who came to Pastor Warren to see if she might also have room for them. Recognizing that the area lacked a permanent place where those in abusive relationships could seek help, Pastor Warren worked with the Catholic Diocese of Toledo to found Samaritan House on the site of a former convent.

Since its founding, Samaritan House has assisted more than 10,000 women and children in times of need, providing food and shelter, job training services, recovery support programs, and other needed help. A staff of nine dedicated professionals works round the clock to provide this assistance, working with a 15-member board of directors to ensure that the House's mission and outreach activities are best carried out.

Madam Speaker, Samaritan House is marking its 20th anniversary with a fundraising dinner and silent auction this Wednesday. On behalf of the Fourth Congressional District of Ohio, I congratulate everyone who has worked and volunteered to make Samaritan House successful through the years. The people of Allen County and the entire region can take great pride in this life-changing facility.