Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the dean of our delegation.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues from Ohio in expressing great shock and sadness at the passing of our friend and neighbor Congressman Paul Gillmor.

As previous speakers have mentioned, Congressman Gillmor was in our district last week with the flooding. I had the opportunity to just visit with him yesterday, as Congressman Tiberi mentioned as well, at the airport before we flew down here. You just can't believe this has happened.

Paul was a husband and a father. He was a proud Republican, an Air Force veteran, as others mentioned, with Vietnam era service, and a long time congressional leader on international leaders.

Prior to his distinguished service in Congress, he made his mark in the Ohio legislature with an impressive 22-year career in the Ohio Senate, and as Congresswoman Pryce mentioned, three terms as senate president.

I had the unique opportunity to work with Paul on issues that affected our part of Ohio. I counted on him as a staunch ally in promoting the workers and the mission at Lima's Joint Systems Manufacturing Center, our tank plant in Lima, Ohio.

We also shared in challenging times, including the tragic Bluffton University bus crash earlier this year, and more recently, as I mentioned, the flooding that took place and devastated many areas of both of our districts.

I served with Paul's wife, Karen, in the general assembly, although she was on the senate side and I was on the house side, and got to know their family a little bit over the years. Our family's prayers are with her and the entire Gillmor family as they attempt to find peace in the midst of this tragedy.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, government spends too much money. Ask any American family, is government so lean, so efficient, has it tightened its belt so much that it just can't cut anymore, it has to spend what this bill purports to spend and wants to spend? And if you ask a typical American family that, you're going to get an overwhelmingly, No, government is too big; it spends too much.

And if you don't believe the American people and American families, look at the numbers. We have a $3 trillion budget we're dealing with here. We have an $8 trillion national debt. The government spends $23,000 per American household. We have an entitlement crisis that everybody knows is going to happen here in the next 10 to 15 years when you think about what we face in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. And then this bill grows, over last year's spending level, 2\1/2\ times the rate of inflation, 5.9 percent increase over last year, $1 billion increase in spending over what we did last year.

My amendment is real simple. Frankly, it's the same amendment I've offered, now this is the ninth time. All non-defense related appropriations bills we have offered this amendment to, and the amendment is real simple. It says we're not going to cut anything; we're just going to spend what we spent last year. A pretty modest first step in beginning to get a handle on the spending that is out of control with the Federal Government.

Because one thing I know for certain, I've said this several times, but it's so true in my time in public life. We always hear about tax and spend politicians. The truth is, it's spend and tax. Spending always drives the equation. More and more spending inevitably leads to higher taxes and more taxes. In fact, we've seen that from this body over the last several weeks, tax increases on American families, American business owners, tax increases that hurt those families, hurt our businesses, and ultimately hurt our economy.

This is a simple amendment which says, let's spend what we spent last year; after all, all kinds of families, all kinds of taxpayers, all kinds of business owners have had to do that time and time again. It's not too much to ask the Federal Government that has a $3 trillion budget, an $8 trillion debt, and spends $23,000 per household, it is not too much to ask the Federal Government to do the same thing.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the Chair of the subcommittee and her work. But, frankly, the other side has got to get a new playbook. Every time we do this, they talk about devastating cuts and how it's going to ruin this, the sky is going to fall, the world is going to end, everything's going to go to, you know. They always use that. It's not even a cut. We're going to spend what we spent last year.

And just let me ask the question of the American people: Do you think, instead of spending $18.8 billion, do you think government can get along with spending $17.7 billion? We made it last year on that; didn't seem to be too much to ask before. We always hear it is a devastating cut when it's not even a cut.

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the amount of time that we have remaining on each side.

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

Before yielding to my friend from Georgia, let me say this: the lady used the term ``take away.'' For the umpteenth time, we're not taking away anything. We want to spend what we spent last year. The reason we don't want to increase spending is because everybody knows, the American people know this, when you increase spending and spend and spend and spend, it leads to tax and tax and tax. And that's what hurts those same families the gentlelady was talking about.

When you take more of their money, money that they could invest in their kids, pay for their kids' education, pay for that vacation they want to take as a family, all kinds of things they want to spend it on, when you take that away from them, that's what really taking away from families is all about. That's what we want to stop.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the ranking member, my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), for the remainder of our time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I was absent from the House Floor during today's rollcall vote on ordering the previous question on House Resolution 594.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Offered By: Mr. Jordan

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Jordan

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have offered this amendment for the eighth time.

Let me just help set a framework before I talk specifically about the amendment. Today we have approximately a $200 billion annual budget deficit. We have an $8 trillion national debt. We have a budget that we have been debating over the last several weeks and will complete the spending process of that next week, but we have a budget of $3 trillion annual budget.

We have an entitlement spending crisis looming, when we think about what's going to happen in the next 10 to 15 years relative to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. We have got a crisis that we have to begin to deal with.

Today, today the Federal Government spends approximately $23,000 per household. Now, with that as a frame work, I think it's fair to ask, is government too big or too small? If you ask that question of the average American family, my guess is when they think about those facts, $200 billion deficit, $3 trillion annual budget, $8 trillion national debt and an entitlement crisis that is looming, and a Federal Government that spends $23,000 per American household, if you asked the average American family if government is too big, my guess is they would probably say yes.

All this amendment does is begin to take that first step, that modest first step into getting our spending under control.

It says this: instead of in this appropriation bill, instead of spending $53.5 billion, let's just spend $52 billion, which happens to be the amount that we spent last year. So it's not a cut, as our friends on the other side will most assuredly say when it's their turn to speak. It's not a cut; it's simply level funding, holding the line on spending. It's a 3 percent reduction from what's in the bill, simply going to spend what we did last year.

That's not too much to ask when you think about the context we find ourselves in today in the United States of America. Here is why it's important, and I have said this every single time.

Again, every time I bring this amendment, I always articulate to the Chair of the subcommittee and the ranking member and the Chair and ranking member of the full committee that, you know, I don't do this to be a pain.

I really believe we have to begin to focus on reducing spending. I appreciate the work that the Appropriations Committee does. I appreciate the work of the subcommittee. But if we don't begin to get a handle on spending, we are going to have problems economically in the future.

The way it works is spending inevitably leads to more taxes. The American family is already overtaxed. That's why it's important. We start to get a handle on spending, so we can reduce the tax burden that the families across this country face.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as the gentleman would like to consume to the Chair of the Republican Study Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Chairman, just a couple of things. I want to pick up on what the gentleman from Texas was talking about, families, and a lady from a family from our district, Theresa from West Liberty, Ohio, a small town in Ohio, said, when talking about spending, talking about taxes, talking about the growth of government, talking about the fact we've got an $8 trillion national debt, a $3 trillion budget, the government spends $23,000 per household, and all we're asking for in this legislation, all we've been asking for in each of these amendments, is to fund government at the same level we did last year, which all kinds of families have to do just like this family in West Liberty, Ohio.

``We're in the middle class, and we're the ones the tax hikes hit the hardest. We're trying to put our kids through college. Can't government live within their means?''

I mean, pretty straightforward. It's amazing how the American people get it. If you ask the American people in this framework, all this spending, all this debt, all this deficit, is it too much to ask to say, you know what, Government, just spend what you did before. And the playbook from the other side never changes. As the gentleman from Texas articulated, we want to spend what we spent last year in this appropriations bill. Not a cut. We want to spend what we did last year. Yet the other side will say, if we do that, the sky's going to fall, the world's going to end, everything will be terrible. Oh my goodness, we won't have cops on the street.

That's just baloney. We want to spend exactly what we spent last year, because if we don't, the ramifications, the consequences for future generations, as the gentleman from Texas pointed out, are huge. And it starts with the entitlement programs that everybody knows, Republicans and Democrats know, everybody knows those are going to be problems in the future.

That's all this amendment does. It's not Draconian cuts. It's not devastating. It's not the end of the world. It's not the sky is falling. It's saying, you know what, instead of spending $53.5 billion, which is what this legislation wants to do, let's spend $52 billion, exactly what we spent last year.

Mr. Chairman, that doesn't seem to be too much to ask when we're thinking about the context we find ourselves in, and, frankly, when we're thinking about the competition we face today in the international marketplace.

As the gentleman from Texas pointed out, our Comptroller has pointed out the problems we face. It's critical that we begin to get a handle on that. That's why we bring the amendment forward, that's why it makes common sense, and that's why I urge a ``yes'' vote.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Can I inquire, Mr. Chairman, how much time our side has remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Chairman, I know we have just 30 seconds, and the gentleman from New York will close.

Again, it's a straightforward amendment. It's not a cut. It's level funding. All kinds of families have to do it every single year across this country. Again, I don't think it's too much to ask for government to do the same, particularly when you look at the facts and the financial situation that we're facing.

With that, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I was at the White House this afternoon with several of my colleagues to brief the President on our recent trip to Iraq. As a result, I was absent from the House Floor during a series of rollcall votes.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcalls 734, 735, 736, 737, 738, 739, 740, 741, and 742.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

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

Madam Speaker, I was returning from an official delegation trip to Iraq yesterday, and was therefore absent from the Floor during the four rollcall votes that took place on Monday night.

Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H.R. 404 (the Federal Customer Service Enhancement Act), H. Res. 553 (Mourning the Passing of Lady Bird Johnson), and H. Res. 519 (Honoring the Life and Accomplishments of Tom Lea). I would have voted against ordering the previous question on H. Res. 558 (the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3074).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I thank the chairman.

The amendment before you would reduce the appropriations in the bill by $3.2 billion, as was just read by the Clerk.

Even though the majority party will call this a ``cut in spending,'' this is not a cut. This is simply returning the level of spending in this appropriations bill to last year's level. It is level funding, spending the same dollar amount we spent last year. Again, as I have articulated on this floor several times in the appropriations process on other pieces of legislation, it is exactly what all kinds of families across this country have to do.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the work of the committee. I don't bring this amendment because I don't appreciate the work that the committee does; I bring it because our country and our government do face a real financial challenge in the future. If we don't begin to get a handle on the spending that this Congress does and that our government does, we are going to have real problems.

The best way to begin to start that, when you think about the challenges and problems that loom in front of us, with entitlements, with Social Security, with Medicaid, with Medicare, the way to start that process, to get a handle on the fiscal crisis that is looming, is to start right here and say, you know what? It is probably not too much to ask for the Congress and for the Government of the United States to spend the same amount that they spent last year. That is why I bring this amendment forward.

I would also point out this: Inevitably, when you continue to increase spending and increase spending and increase spending, it always leads to greater taxes. People talk all the time about tax-and- spend politicians. In truth it is just the opposite. It is spend and tax. Spending drives the equation, and that is why we have to focus on spending if we don't want to raise taxes on the American people, which we surely don't want to do.

Yet the other party is talking about doing exactly that. All you have to do is look at recent press clippings where they talked about raising the tobacco tax to deal with the SCHIP program. They have talked about raising taxes on the top marginal bracket to begin to address the AMT. Both are bad ideas for families, bad ideas for our economy, and not the direction we want to proceed.

Again, I bring this amendment forward because I think it is something that we have to begin to focus on as we look at the financial situation that is just around the corner for this country. All kinds of families, all kinds of taxpayers, all kinds of business owners have to live on last year's spending. It is not too much to ask our government to do the same. It is not to much to ask that our government do exactly what families all across this country have to do.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), the Republican Conference Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, does the gentleman from New York have any additional speakers on the amendment?

Mr. Chairman, is he intending to close with a 17\1/2\ minute speech?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Sali), a friend and freshman colleague.

Mr. Chairman, because the Democrats are so mesmerized by our presentation, we will continue. It is the first time I have known them to be speechless, but we will continue, and so I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, just a few comments before we use the remaining few minutes of our time as well.

Think about this. The ranking member of the Budget Committee pointed out the facts, what's in this bill, the numbers, the budget, and what's going on. But it's always important to come back and focus on how that translates into the lives of the American people and American families.

I think it's important just to remember and think about the typical family across this country. They go to work each day. They go to church on Sunday. They make their house payment. They make their car payment. Maybe they're paying their kids' private school. They're saving for college. They may be saving for a family vacation. They don't get an automatic 7 percent, in this particular bill $3.2 billion, increase. They don't get that. They have to budget. They have to learn to live on less many times.

And that's all this amendment says is, you know what, let's just spend exactly what we spent last year, because if we don't. And we keep on this spending train that we're on, there will be tax increases. And then that family I just described, it's going to be tougher for them to pay for that vacation, pay for their kids' school, pay for the shoes for soccer practice and Little League and pay for all those things that families have to pay for. That's why this is important.

It begins to put us on the path to deal with the problems that are certainly going to be there if we don't start getting a handle on spending. That's why I bring the amendment forward. That's what all our speakers have talked about, because it's that important that we begin to do the right thing here.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

The question from the Chair was do we have additional speakers. My response was no.

Is the gentleman from New York the only speaker?

Then I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Jordan

Amendment No. 28: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Jordan

Amendment No. 24: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Jordan

Amendment No. 7: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Offered By: Mr. Jordan

Amendment No. 27: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following new section:

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, one of the previous speakers from the majority party talked about how this legislation in front of us has reduced the number of earmarks. I believe his quote was there are 41 programs that have been eliminated from last year's appropriation bill. Nevertheless, this bill increases spending $10.8 billion more than the President requested, 7.7 percent more than the President requested. It is $7 billion, or a 4.6 percent, increase over last year's appropriation.

So my amendment is real straightforward. It says we are not going to go back to the President, we are not going to cut it, using the term ``cut'' to the President's requested level, we are going to go back to last year's funding level, a level funding amendment, a hold-the-line amendment, whatever you want to call it. It is certainly not a cut, although that has typically been the argument made by the other side of the aisle.

This is the sixth amendment I have offered in the appropriations process. Each one has been the same, to hold the line on spending. I don't do it to be a pain in the rear to the committee or to the ranking member. I appreciate the work of the committee and our ranking member and those involved on this committee in bringing this bill forward.

I do it because we have a spending problem. We have a spending problem in this Congress and in this government, and there is going to come a day

when we are going to have to deal with it. There is no better time to start than now, and no better place to start than to say let's just hold the line because here is what happens every single time government continues to spend and spend and spend. It inevitably leads to higher taxes, higher taxes that hurt our economy, higher taxes that hurt our standing in the international marketplace. But most importantly, higher taxes that hurt families out there trying to do the things for their kids and their grandkids so they can experience the American dream.

If you don't believe me that spending is going to lead to higher taxes, all you have to do is look at yesterday's Roll Call where there is a story. In fact, we just had the distinguished chairman from the Ways and Means Committee down here defending an earmark in his district, but he is talked about and the article talks about the tobacco tax that they are looking to put on the American people to fund increased spending.

The old line, it's tax and spend, tax and spend politicians; it's actually the opposite, it's spend and tax, spend and tax. Spending drives the equation, and that is why we need to begin to get a handle on spending. That's what this amendment does.

In the course of offering these amendments over the last several weeks, we have consistently heard two arguments from the majority party. The first is the old devastating cut argument, that somehow if we just spend what we spent last year, that will somehow be terrible and the sky will fall and the world will end and everything will go to chaos. I find that hard to believe in light of the fact that countless number of American families have to do that all the time, live on last year's budget. But somehow, government never seems to be able to do that.

The other line that we have heard, and I find this one somewhat amazing, but the line is how dare Republicans talk about holding the line on spending because you increased spending over the last several years as well. I am fascinated by that argument because the argument, when you boil it down, is this: Because Republicans spent too much, we are going to spend more.

So I fail to see the logic in those two arguments. What I do understand is this, Mr. Chairman. Government spends too much. Families know how to budget. We should be able to do the same thing. Families don't just get an automatic 4.6 percent increase in their budget. We should look to hold the line on spending. That is what this amendment does. It will help set us on the path of fiscal discipline so we can begin to deal with the big problems that I referenced earlier that are going to be out there with entitlement spending, and begin to get a handle on our budget so that our economy can continue to grow and prosper.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the Republican leader, friend and gentleman from Ohio, for 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, before yielding to my friend and gentleman from Arizona, let me just respond to one thing real quickly.

The chairman of the Appropriations Committee talked earlier about all the new spending, and the other side has a definition for success for them is more spending. Our side actually believes the definition of success should be success.

And I always look at education. I came from the general assembly in Ohio, and one of the things you focus on so much in the general assembly budget process is primary and secondary education. And if you look at what's happened, and this is for every State, but I can just give you the numbers on Ohio.

We have 612 public schools in Ohio. In 1977 we had 2 million K-12 kids. Today we have 1.8 million. So we've had 200,000 less kids in K-12 public school, 612 districts in our State. Over that 30 years, 200,000 less kids. Dollars spent per pupil, dollars spent per aggregate, dollars spent for facilities, dollars spent any way you want to define dollars spent adjusted for inflation is a tremendous increase.

So you have got 200,000 less kids. So you've got the graph going this way. The economists have always got these graphs. Graph coming down on number of students, graph going up adjusted for inflation, and what are the results? It's a straight line. So you spent a boatload more money on 200,000 less kids to get the exact same result. So more money may mean more learning in some places, but to make the blanket statement more money means more education, more money means more learning is simply not true, and the facts are on our side.

So we define success as actually being success, not giving more money and hoping that good things are going to happen, and if they don't, you know what we're going to do, give them more money next time. We don't define it that way. We say if kids are really learning, that should be success, not the fact that we've given them more money.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member from New York.

Could I inquire, Mr. Chairman, how much time we have on our side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the gentleman, my friend from Ohio, how does increasing spending 4.6 percent over last year's bill, how does that help address the $3 trillion debt problem that I admit, I wasn't here, I admit that's a real problem.

I would be happy to yield. I asked you a question.

Reclaiming my time, I would argue that every dollar we let the American taxpayer keep gets earned and returned to the economy, and that's what ultimately allows us to deal with the $3 trillion in debt. That's why we are offering the amendment that we bring forward.

It has too worked. The deficits are coming down right now because of the tax cuts that were put in place earlier this decade. We have seen that happen right now.

Yes, sometimes facts are a strange thing. The Federal Government does not have a revenue problem.

Revenues increased by 14.5 percent in 2005, 11.6 percent in 2006, and are projected to grow an additional $167 billion, or 7 percent this year, because we let the American family keep more of their money, spend it on the things they want to spend it, instead of saying to them, you know what, we are going to increase spending 4.6 percent in this bill and $20 some billion in this appropriation process that we have done.

I think our time is done.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.