Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have put my notes away. I understand.

Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for his work and the chairman for yielding time and the ranking member as well.

Look, this amendment is real simple. It recognizes a fundamental fact: Parents make better decisions than government does. And even though a few parents in some situations make poor decisions about the well-being of their children, in the vast majority of cases they make infinitely better decisions than the government, bureaucrats and politicians ever make.

That is why this is good public policy and why I support the amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Jordan of Ohio

Amendment No. 6: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during today's rollcall vote on ordering the previous question on the rule, H. Res. 533, for H.R. 2956.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I thank the Chair.

And let me, as I did yesterday when I offered a similar amendment to the appropriations bill we dealt with then, let me start by thanking the chairman and the ranking member and the committee for their work. I have the utmost respect particularly for the ranking member. I have respect for the chairman as well, but particularly the ranking member, who comes from the great Buckeye State. I appreciate his service over the years to Ohio, not just in northern Ohio, but to our entire State.

I bring before the body again an amendment. This is the fifth time. And as I said yesterday, I don't do this to be a pain in the neck, I do it because I think government spends too much money.

In this particular bill, the increase over fiscal year 2007 spending levels to what's in front of us today and dominating our debate is a $2 billion increase. And so my amendment would simply say, let's not increase the budget by $2 billion in this appropriations bill. Let's simply do what all kinds of families are doing across this country, let's spend last year's level. Let's live within last year's budget as all kinds of taxpayers, all kinds of families, all kinds of business owners are having to do across this country. It's not too much to ask government to do the same.

Here is why it's important. It's important because there is a growing financial crisis coming for this country, which is the entitlement programs, which we're not even talking about today. Whether it's entitlement programs or discretionary spending, which we are focused on today, we've got to get a handle on spending. There is no better place to start than today and say, you know what, let's live with what we lived on last year.

The other reason it's critical that we do this, and this is just as sure as the sun is going to come up tomorrow, whenever you spend and spend and spend, it inevitably leads to tax and tax and tax. I've said every single time I've presented this amendment, and it's every bit as true today, that it's not tax and spend, it's spend and tax. Spending drives the equation. If we can hold the line on spending, we can keep taxes low on American families, on American taxpayers and on American

business owners. That's why this amendment is so important.

Let me just point to a couple of specific things. The bill in front of us today increases spending 9 percent over last year's budget. Now again, there are some great things in this bill. And as I said earlier, I commend the chairman and the ranking member for the work they've done and the committee's work as well, but I want to point out some of the things that taxpayer dollars are going to be spent on.

First, the text of the bill weakens an existing provision in current law that prohibits funds from being used for any needle exchange program in the District of Columbia. Taxpayers might want to know that their dollars are going to be spent for something like that. The text of the bill weakens the existing provision in current law that prohibits Federal funds from being used for the District of Columbia Domestic Partner law, something taxpayers I know in the Fourth District in Ohio, but probably all across this country, would like to know.

And then the third one, and I will just point out, the IRS, that wonderful agency that so many Americans and so many taxpayers love, is going to get a $550 million increase over last year's budget, 5 percent over last year's budget. I said yesterday on the floor, in the course of our debate, that when you get all this additional government, all this new government, all this new spending, it reminds me of a statement from one of our great presidents, our third President, Mr. Jefferson. Mr. Jefferson said, ``When government fears the people, there is a liberty. When people fear the government, there is tyranny.''

Now, with that statement in mind, just ask yourself the simple question: American taxpayers can ask themselves a simple question; if next week when we're home someone knocks at our door and we answer the door and they identify themselves as, hello, I'm Mr. Smith and I'm from the IRS, is your first response, oh, joy, one of my government servants is here to help me today? I mean, that's what American taxpayers are in store for. That very agency that they have not the fondest respect for is going to get a 5 percent increase in this bill.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's too much to ask for government to live on last year's budget. That's what this amendment does.

I appreciate, again, the work that the committee has done, but I think it's certainly within reason to say we can keep spending where it was last year again, like all kinds of families are having to do across this country.

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

Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the distinguished ranking member, just let me say a couple of things in response to the chairman. We certainly care about the Chair, but, Mr. Chairman, we care about the American taxpayers as well.

Tax cuts go to taxpayers, not the rich. Tax cuts go to taxpayers. But we have had to debate this every single time we have brought these series of amendments forward when you talk about cutting the bills, drastic cuts, the-sky-is-going-to-fall cuts. All we are saying is, let's spend what we spent last year.

Now, only in Washington when you spend the same amount of money that you spent last year is that called a cut. Only in Washington. Back in Ohio, back in Urbana, back in Lima, back in Findlay, no one would call that a cut. They would say, you know what? The government is getting by on what they did last year. That is probably something they should do, when they're talking about a $3 trillion budget that they spend each year.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee.

No, not at all, Mr. Ryan. The amendment would spend exactly what we spent last year.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), the Republican Conference Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a leader on fiscal discipline.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just reiterate what the previous speaker said. Look, we heard the term ``devastating cut.'' As the gentleman from Texas indicated, we want to level-fund. We don't want to give a $550 million increase to the IRS. We want to level-fund the IRS and other agencies contained in this bill. It is not too much to ask government to do the same thing that taxpayers and families do all the time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I thank the Chair and the Members who are present here.

This is the fourth time I've offered this amendment to an appropriations bill. I don't do it to be a pain in the neck. In fact, I appreciate the work of the chairman, I appreciate the work of the ranking member, and I appreciate the work of the committee and staff. I know they look at these line items, look at these programs, go through and do the hard work that all committees do. I appreciate all that work. I simply bring the amendment forward because I believe government is too big and that government spends too much.

This amendment doesn't cut spending. This amendment, like the previous ones I have offered, simply says we're going to hold the line. We're going to spend the same amount we spent in the last fiscal year. Nothing more than that. That's all the amendment does. It allows the committee who understands these programs, who does the work and puts this bill together, to go back and look and figure out where those cuts should happen using their expertise that they've developed in this committee to do that. It simply says, it's not too much to ask government to do what millions of families have to do across this country, live on last year's spending levels, live on last year's budget.

It is important we do this, in my judgment, for two reasons. Again I have articulated these each time I've brought this amendment forward for the body to consider. The first is there are financial problems, financial concerns, some would even say crisis looming for America if we don't get a handle on the spending. $3 trillion budget. This bill increases spending by over a billion dollars in this one area. The more we run up deficits, the more that leads to debt, the more that leads to less saving, the more that leads to less economic growth, the tougher it makes it in the future to deal with the economic crisis that is in fact coming.

Again, you don't have to take my word for it. All kinds of experts have talked about this, whether it's entitlement programs, discretionary spending, it's government spending and there are problems looming if we don't begin to get a handle on the spending levels that we appropriate. There is no better place to start than right now, saying, let's just do what we did last year. Let's just hold the line on spending.

The second reason that this is so important: whenever you start to spend and spend and spend and have these kinds of things take place, it inevitably leads to greater taxes. I've often heard the phrase tax-and- spend politicians. It's actually more appropriate to say spend and tax. Spending drives the equation. The more you spend, that leads to taxes in the future. If you went out and asked the American people, Mr. Chairman, is government too big or too small, my guess is the vast majority of Americans would say it's too big.

Think about this: government spends on average $23,000 per household. We've got a $3 trillion annual budget that we spend on. Many of those things are appropriate, but overall if you ask the American people is government too big or too small, they would say it's too big. If you asked them the same question, are Americans overtaxed or undertaxed, my guess is the vast majority of Americans would say we're overtaxed. In fact, a typical family, 50 cents of every dollar they spend goes to some level of government in the form of taxes. It's not too much to ask government to hold the line on spending, to live on what we did last year, to live on the same amount.

That's what this amendment does. I bring it forward, not to be a pain to the committee, I appreciate their work, but simply to point out it's time we get a handle on spending if we are going to be able to let or help America have the economic growth that we need to see happen in this country in the future.

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

Mr. Chairman, before recognizing the gentlelady from Tennessee, I would just point out this, we always hear this, devastating cut. This not a cut. This is simply saying we are going to spend what we spent last year.

In fact, last week we had this big debate on the legislative branch bill and on other appropriations bills, and the majority party was pointing to the President's request. What we spent last year is actually more than what the President requested in this budget.

Devastating cut, I mean, we always hear, it's interesting, politicians who spend the tax dollars of families and individual taxpayers across this country, always say the sky is going to fall if we can't get more of your money and spend it on things we think are important.

All we're saying is you know what, it's not too much to ask that government do what families do all the time, and that is spend on last year's level.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, the majority party has yielded all their time back?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining on the Republican side?

I yield as much time he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the Republican leader, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire the amount of time we have left.

Before yielding to the gentleman from Georgia, I would just point out, I love the majority party's logic: because the Republicans spent too much, we're going to spend more. How does that help the American family? It just makes no sense to me.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just want to know which is it? We just heard from the distinguished chairman from Washington that Republicans spent too much; so we are going to spend more. We heard about

the spending by the Republicans. And we just heard from the other gentleman that we cut, cut, cut. I want to know which is it?

All I know is this, what is in the bill, and in the bill it says this: The Commission on Climate Change, $50 million of taxpayer money for this new Commission. National Park Service, a $199 million increase, 10.8 percent above last year. The National Endowment for the Arts, a 29 percent increase. We heard a debate about this yesterday, an agency that many Americans find offensive using their tax dollars: $160 million, a 29 percent increase. National Endowment for the Humanities, $19 million, an increase of 13 percent.

Which is it? Did we cut all the time or did we spend too much? I want to know which it is.

What I do know is that in the bill, there are all kinds of excessive spending. That is why we just want to say hold the line, let's keep it where it is right now.

And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me this time, and for bringing this fine amendment forward and for her work on fiscal responsibility in her time here in the United States Congress.

I want to make a couple of quick points here. First, the list that the chairman just went through, he kept using the term ``cut.'' Let's be clear to the American people in particular that the gentlelady's amendment is not a cut, it is an increase of 4 percent. What the gentleman was referring to was the spending levels at 4.5 percent which the bill contains within it. All she is saying is let's increase 4 percent instead of 4.5 percent. Again, only in government-speak, only in Washington can that be termed a cut. She is not cutting at all. She is just saying let's not increase it quite as much.

A couple of other things we have heard in the course of the debate this afternoon which I think has been healthy. The chairman indicated that he wants to move on, we need to limit debate and get out of here. Look, 40 minutes on three amendments, 2 hours total on debate, on the most fundamental question, the most fundamental issue the United States Congress deals with: How we spend the taxpayers' money. So 2 hours debate on what level that should be is not too much debate. Frankly, we should have more on this fundamental question.

The other point that the majority party makes is, and again, I find this logic fascinating. Republicans spent too much, so we are going to spend even more. It is amazing that is the logic that the other size entails and brings forward in each of these appropriations bills.

Talking about the spending contained within this bill, let me just cite a couple of things.

The Commission on Climate Change, a brand new commission, $50 million on the Commission on Climate Change, adaptation and mitigation, a new, additional study on global warming, as if we haven't had enough studies on that already. So $50 million on that.

The National Park Service, $199 million increase, 10.8 percent above last year.

National Endowment for the Humanities, $19 million increase, 13 percent above last year.

Environmental Protection Agency, the Agency that the gentleman said that if it didn't get the right amount of funding, people would lose sleep over, $361 million, or a 4.7 percent increase above last year.

And of course, my favorite, and I am sure the favorite of the American taxpayer, National Endowment for the Arts, a $35 million increase, 29 percent above last year.

There is all kinds of additional government contained in this legislation. I am reminded of the old statement by our third President, Thomas Jefferson. He said: ``When government fears the people, there is liberty. When people fear the government, there is tyranny.'' Now keep that statement in mind and ask yourself the question: If next week when we are back home on break and you are at some friend's business and someone walks up to the

door and knocks on the door and the individual identifies himself, I'm Mr. Smith and I am from the EPA, the Agency that gets a 4.7-percent increase in this bill. If you are that individual who owns that business, is your first response, oh, joy, one of my government's servants is about here to help me today.

That is what this debate is about, and 2 hours debate on the most fundamental question that the United States Congress deals with, how we spend taxpayer dollars, is not too much debate.

We should debate this long and hard and we should support the amendment of the gentlewoman from Colorado. It simply slows down the rate of government growth, slows down that government that Jefferson warned us about in his statement. I certainly support the gentlelady's amendment, and thank her for bringing it forward.

Offered By Mr. Jordan

Amendment No. 31: At the end of bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Madam Speaker, I am honored to pay special tribute to the outstanding women of the Lima Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. The chapter marked its 100th anniversary with a special reception on June 3, 2007.

Chartered on April 10, 1907, the Lima Chapter has served the people of Lima in countless ways through the years. From their work in support of servicemembers and veterans to their committed work with the youth of Allen County, Ohio, the women of the Lima DAR have compiled a long and distinguished record of service in times of war and peace.

Fifty-two women have served the Lima Chapter as Regent, starting with Mrs. Clara Paine Ohler. The chapter's membership through the years has included women from all walks of life who have distinguished themselves in numerous ways through their service.

The Lima DAR is especially noted for its work in local schools to promote civic education, reflecting the group's love of country and its high regard for the gift of freedom that we all enjoy. They are true examples of the DAR's high calling to ``cherish, maintain, and extend the institutions of American freedom.''

Madam Speaker, I invite all of my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the Lima Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Our Nation is better served through their hard work and diligence. We wish them all the best at their centennial celebration.

Offered By: Mr. Jordan of Ohio

Amendment No. 22: Page 111, after line 17, insert the

following:

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I thank the Chair.

I want to thank the Chair of the committee and the ranking member for their good work and the committee's work. I know for the Chair in particular, I want to congratulate her on the first bill coming through her subcommittee, a very important subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. So I appreciate the fine work done there and the oversight of the visitors center. The passion with which the ranking member spoke about Emancipation Hall I thought was right on target. So I appreciate the work done.

This amendment, just like the amendment I offered last night to the Foreign Operations bill, simply says this: instead of increasing spending by 4 percent, let's hold the line. I articulated reasons last night in the long debate that this body had over why that is appropriate, why that makes sense. Because there is in fact a crisis looming for this country if we don't get control of the spending here in the United States Congress, in the United States Senate and the United States Government.

It is important that we recognize that. I articulated last night too, don't take my word for it. Yesterday's Washington Post talked about this growing problem that is coming in the very near future, and it is important we understand that.

I won't go through all the arguments again here, because I know we have had a long debate and people want to get on their way and get back to their district.

I will just say this: ever-increasing spending inevitably leads to ever-increasing taxes. The American families, the American people are overtaxed because our government spends too much. It has been a problem for both parties. We need to get it under control.

Millions of families, millions of families across this country are going to live on last year's budget. It is not too much to ask the United States Government, in particular the United States Congress, to do the same.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the distinguished ranking member of the committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

I will be brief and just point out this: we heard some of the terrible things that are going to happen if we keep the spending at the same level we had last year.

The American people need to understand this, Madam Chair: $3.1 billion is what this bill spends. My amendment would say $3 billion, $3 billion to run the United States Congress. You ask American families that, they would probably say, you know, that is probably enough. They can probably get by on $3 billion versus $3.1 billion. That is all this does. As the gentleman from Texas pointed out, in the course of the appropriation bills we have been dealing with, this is fairly fiscally responsible. But $3 billion is enough to run the United States Congress.

That is all this amendment would do, keep us where we are right now. Things are working fine now. Why can't we do that in the future?

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and the Congressman from Michigan for their work on this amendment and their longstanding commitment to protecting human life.

This is about two fundamental issues that have been talked about here on the floor. First, taxpayer dollars shouldn't go to organizations, whether those dollars are cash or in-kind, shouldn't go to organizations that perform or promote the taking of innocent human life. Second, it recognizes the more fundamental principle, life is precious, life is sacred, and government's fundamental responsibility is to protect the weak from the strong, to protect those innocent individuals whose lives are being taken.

This is good public policy. We should keep it in place. It's consistent, frankly, with our heritage and with our history. I always like to remind folks of what the founders said when they talked about that fundamental document that started this great experience we call America: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It's interesting to note the order the founders placed the rights they chose to mention. Can you pursue happiness, your goals and dreams, if you first don't have liberty? And do you ever have true liberty, true freedom, if government does not protect your most fundamental right, your right to live?

This amendment is consistent with the founders' vision, it's good policy, and we should adopt it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, I don't pretend to know exactly how the billions of dollars in the Foreign Operations bill should be exactly split up and allocated, that's the work of the committee. And I appreciate the work of the Chair, the ranking member and those Members of the Congress who are part of that important committee.

What I do understand is this: Government spends too much money. In fact, if you would talk to the American people, go out and poll the American people, talk to the families across this country and ask the simple question, does government spend too little or does government spend too much, is government too small or is government too big, does government take too much of your money in taxes, my guess is the vast majority of Americans across this country would say government is too big, takes way too much of my money and spends way too much.

This amendment simply says this: We're not going to cut anything. We're just going to say it's appropriate for government to live on last year's level, just like all kinds of individuals, all kinds of families, all kinds of businesses across this country have to do.

Specifically it would do this: It would reduce the total appropriations in the bill by $2.9 billion, taking it right back, keeping it right where it is at last year's spending level, while providing discretion for the administration to avoid any reductions in funding for the State of Israel. In simple terms it says this: We understand that special bond that the United States has with the State of Israel, and we're going to protect that; but we also understand government spends too much money, and it's appropriate that we say enough is enough, we have to hold the line on spending.

And here's why it's critical: There is a financial crisis around the corner waiting for the United States, the people of this great country. Read Pete Peterson's book, ``Running on Empty,'' talking about the entitlement problems, what's happening with us, if we don't get spending under control, what it's going to mean to our economy in the future.

Read today's Washington Post, front page of the business section, the entitlement column has pictures of the six leading Presidential candidates, three from each party. It says, ``Stumping for Attention to Deficit Disorder.'' It talks about this very problem.

There is a financial crisis around the corner that we have to deal with. It's important we start now by simply saying let's hold the line.

Second big thing why this is so important. Spending inevitably leads to tax increases. Spend, spend, spend leads to tax, tax, tax. The American people are overtaxed, we don't want to tax them anymore. In fact, we need to lower taxes so we can compete in the international marketplace we're in right now.

We've got to deal with the financial situation that confronts us. We've got to hold taxes down. That's why it's important for us to start here and simply say we're going to hold the line on spending. Millions of families, millions of individuals, millions of businesses across this country are doing that very thing. It's not too much to ask the United States Congress to do the same thing.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from the great State of Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Chairman, I will just say I appreciate the gentleman's speech and his passion, even though it had nothing to do with the subject at hand.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Yes, the Campbell amendment. Number 14.

I thank the Chair, and I also want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member. I have great respect for their work, particularly the ranking member, who is a friend, colleague and actually neighbor of mine. I appreciate his work over the years here in the United States Congress.

This amendment is pretty simple. It takes spending levels in the bill back to the fiscal 2007 year levels; represents a $1.3 billion savings to taxpayers and families across the country.

Mr. Chairman, government spends too much. And I said ``government.'' I didn't say Republicans or Democrats. Both parties need to work on this area when it comes to public policy.

But today the Federal Government spends $23,000 per household. Excessive spending hurts America. Deficits hurt America, and a rising national debt hurts America.

You don't have to take my word for it. Our staff went through and we looked at the Budget Chairman, Mr. Spratt's committee, some notes from their committee hearings on the budget. And I want to just quote from Dr. Edward Gramlich, former Governor of the Federal Reserve Board. He said this: ``Deficits represent negative public saving, which tends to drive down national saving. Lower national savings means a smaller stock of capital for the future, which reduces the productivity and wages of future workers. Budget deficits lead to less economic growth and a lower level of economic activity than would otherwise be the case.''

Excessive spending leads to deficits, leads to lower economic growth. Excessive spending leads to tax increases, all bad for our growing economy, all bad for American families.

And it's particularly, I think, important to recognize why this is so crucial that we get a handle on it as we think about the marketplace we find ourselves in today, the changing international market.

Just a couple of numbers. Four weeks ago the Wall Street Journal reported that China's economic growth rate, annual growth rate, is 10.4 percent. Now, think about this: one billion, 300 million people in China with a growth rate of 10.4 percent. That's what we're competing against.

There was a point in the past where elected officials could maybe enact policies that weren't in our best interest or weren't good for our economic growth. But now, because of the fact that the competition is so stiff, it's important that public policymakers get it right. Keep taxes low, keep spending under control.

In the end, Mr. Chairman, it's not just about deficits and the national debt and GDP. It's about people because, in the end, it's people who pay taxes. It's people who have to deal with this debt and the deficits that we're causing by spending at these levels.

I want to also quote from the same document from Chairman Spratt's committee, from the Comptroller General, Mr. Walker. He said, ``Deficits matter for the world we leave our children and our grandchildren.'' Mr. Walker said this, and I quote, ``Today we are failing in one of our most important stewardship responsibilities, our duty to pass on a country better positioned to deal with the challenges of the future than the one we were given.'' And that's so true.

This amendment is real simple. It's going to allow families and people across this country to keep more of their money to spend on their goals, their dreams. And it's simply taking us back to last year's fiscal level.

There are all kind of families, all kinds of individuals across this country who are living on last year's budget. A simple, across-the- board amendment that says we're going to do what so many American families have to do all the time, and we're going to live within our means.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the minority whip from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

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 Ohio will be postponed.

Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Wynn

Offered By: Mr. Jordan

Amendment No. 26: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

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

Mr. Chairman, the folks on our side, we certainly care about the security of the United States, we care about the security of the homeland, but we also care about how the tax dollars of American families are spent.

The previous speaker talked about the right to vote on earmarks and how some of those people are going to vote for these earmarks. But it's not just about the right to vote on earmarks. It's about the right of American families and American citizens to see what those earmarks are that their elected officials may vote for or against.

I guess I look at this in this light, to paraphrase the line from the movie, ``show me the earmarks.'' Show me the earmarks. Because when you see the earmarks, then you are going to see where the money is going. That's what the American people want to know. We have talked about the term transparency a lot in this debate, because the reason it's so important is the lack of transparency inevitably leads to more spending.

That's just the way it works. We have got to know what's going on. If we don't, more spending is going to occur. If you don't take my word for it, look at the numbers. This bill increases spending 13.6 percent. It's spending that always drives. Spending is the problem. We hear the term, the old cliche with politicians, tax-and-spend politicians. It's really the opposite. It's really the opposite. It's spend-and-tax politicians. Spending drives the equation.

If you think about this, the spending contained in this bill, in the budget we passed that was passed a few weeks back, that spending inevitably will lead to higher taxes. Every single good tax cut that has been put in place over the last 6 years, under the Democrat spending plan, is going to go up, money that would be in the pockets of families to spend on their kids, their goals, their dreams, things that their kids care about, things that their family cares about, their business to reinvest it there. All those things that they would like to spend their money on, those taxes will go up, take money from the hardworking family of this country and give it to government. That's what we are talking about.

That's why we are talking about some of these issues. We want you to show me the earmarks, show us what's there so we can see where ultimately the spending will go and the American people, more importantly, can ultimately see that.

I am reminded of a debate that I had back in my days of the State House. There was a tax increase that was moving through our assembly, I was opposed to it, and I remember a reporter coming up to me and saying Jordan, you are so opposed to this tax increase, you think it's so bad for families and taxpayers across the State of Ohio, he said. But where's the outcry? Where are those families storming the State House to talk about this huge tax increase that you are fighting against?

I said, you know, they're too busy working to pay those taxes to storm the State House. That's the truth. We have got to remember the families out there who have been working hard, making their businesses succeed, making their families reach their goals and dreams they've set. We have got to remember those as we go through this debate.

I would be happy to yield to my colleague from North Carolina who is, I know, the sponsor of the second amendment.

I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Like H.R. 3, which we considered earlier this year, and H.R. 810, S. 5 would use taxpayer funds to destroy human life.

Some of my colleagues claim that embryonic stem cell research is essential to finding cures to a range of diseases. This could not be further from the truth. On top of the fact that embryo-derived treatments have been fraught with problems, including the widespread occurrence of tumor formation, there is now a host of increasingly more successful alternative treatments that offer tangible results to suffering Americans and their families.

Research has demonstrated that various forms of adult stem cell materials, umbilical cord blood and amniotic fluid are an excellent source of pluripotent stem cells. These materials have yielded highly successful, groundbreaking treatments for Brain Cancer, Breast Cancer, various forms of Lymphoma and Leukemia, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease, spinal cord injury, Sickle Cell Anemia and Krabbe Disease. Treatments employing umbilical cord blood have been particularly successful and the list goes on and on. Just recently, a new study by American and Brazilian researchers published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) demonstrated the use of stem cells taken from 13 patient's own bodies to reverse the symptoms of Juvenile Diabetes. These patients have been able to live so far without insulin- some as long as three years. Just this morning, the Associated Press reported a new report from three independent teams of scientists that have been able to produce the practical equivalent of embryonic stem cells in mice without destroying any embryos. Thus far, ethical forms of stem cell research have yielded treatments for over 73 different diseases while well-funded embryonic research has thus far only yielded tumors.

Mr. Speaker, every time my colleagues in the house trumpet the necessity of destroying embryos, scientific studies come along to prove them wrong on point after point. Rather than forcing taxpayers to fund the destruction of human life, we should be putting our resources into the types of ethical research that are rapidly providing the treatments that Americans so greatly desire.

Madam Speaker, I am honored today to pay special tribute to the outstanding women of the Lima Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. The chapter marked its 100th anniversary with a special reception on June 3, 2007.

Chartered on April 10, 1907, the Lima Chapter has served the people of Lima in countless ways through the years. From their work in support of servicemembers and veterans to their committed work with the youth of Allen County, Ohio, the women of the Lima DAR have compiled a long and distinguished record of service in times of war and peace.

Fifty-two women have served the Lima Chapter as Regent, starting with Mrs. Clara Paine Ohler. The chapter's membership through the years has included women from all walks of life who have distinguished themselves in numerous ways through their service.

The Lima DAR is especially noted for its work in local schools to promote civic education, reflecting the group's love of country and its high regard for the gift of freedom that we all enjoy. They are true examples of the DAR's high calling to cherish, maintain, and extend the institutions of American freedom.

Madam Speaker, I invite all of my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the Lima Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Our nation is better served through their hard work and diligence. We wish them all the best at their centennial celebration.