Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, 9 years ago, this House passed this ban on Internet taxes. It has been in place for 9 years. During that time, we have seen tremendous growth, economic growth, come from the Internet and also tremendous opportunity for people to access information that before they could not access over that 9 years.

During this time, e-mail, which once cost everyone something, now costs most people nothing. Instant messages now exist which are generally entirely free. There are all kinds of Web sites that allow people to access information for free that prior to the evolution and growth of the Internet they would have to pay to get that information. Now you have a number of municipalities and organizations looking at free WiFi, meaning that is even free access to the Internet.

In the face of all of this, all of these market pressures lowering the cost of people accessing this information and adding to the economic growth that comes from the Internet, the last thing that government should be doing is imposing their cost on it, their cost meaning ``taxes.''

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to support this legislation, although I firmly believe, as the previous speakers have said, that this ban should have been made permanent.

I don't think we are going to learn anything in the next 4 years that we didn't learn in the last 9 years, that the Internet is a tremendous engine for economic growth and an opportunity for information transfer available to people of all demographics all across the country. We do not want to retard its growth. We do not want to slow its growth by imposing taxes from government. We haven't done it in the next 9 years, and this bill make sure we don't

do it for the next 4 years. I hope we don't ever do it.

I thank the gentlelady from Florida for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Washington for his support and supportive words about this bill. And most of all, I thank my coauthor in this effort, Mr. Berman, my friend and fellow Californian, for his involvement and effort in this bill and this important action.

And I think it is an important action, Mr. Speaker, because, as the three previous speakers have mentioned, it's not like the world is devoid of problems in human rights. It's not like there are not repressive regimes in various places around the world. There is a place for the United Nations to be talking about this, to be dealing with this, to be trying to help this situation; but, unfortunately, this Human Rights Council, which was supposed to be that, is clearly not that.

Now, when this Human Rights Council was formed in 2006 to replace, as Mr. Berman pointed out, the discredited U.N. Commission on Human Rights, the then-U.N. General Assembly president, Jan Eliasson, said that the council would be ``principled, effective and fair.'' And during its establishment, the U.N. General Assembly went on to say that this council would be responsible for ``promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind, and in a fair and equal manner.''

Mr. Speaker, I applaud those words. I applaud the basis upon which this council was established. But the facts show that in the year of its existence, it has not followed this directive. As was pointed out, the first three special sessions out of the first nine sessions they had condemned Israel for their possible human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territories and Lebanon. The fourth one was a noncondemnatory expression of concern regarding the situation in Darfur.

Now, what about Belarus? What about China? What about Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, anywhere else in the world? They have not even had a session to discuss them, not to mention have a mild condemnation or a full condemnation, but multiple condemnations of Israel, and they have now placed Israel on the permanent schedule. Now, that is not a good thing. That means that every meeting they have, they will be discussing what human rights violations are in Israel. But as Mr. Berman pointed out, is Uzbekistan even on the calendar? No. Any of these other places even on the calendar? No.

Let's look at some of the members of the Human Rights Council now. Some of the members include Algeria, China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Now, I'm very disappointed that, as it has happened, a group that started out with such a noble cause and noble effort seems to have a complete lack of reasoned objectivity with their obvious inherent discrimination against Israel. And it appears they have become a refuge for human rights abusers to hang out and thereby avoid scrutiny or condemnation of their own actions.

Just this morning, the President was in New York speaking before the United Nations; and amongst the comments that he made was the following: ``Yet the American people are disappointed by the failures of the Human Rights Council. This body has been silent on repression by regimes from Havana to Caracas to Pyongyang and Tehran, while focusing its criticism successively on Israel. To be credible on human rights in the world, the United Nations must reform its own Human Rights Council.''

Mr. Speaker, that's what this bill hopes to begin the process of doing. This Human Rights Council is a sham. It is not accomplishing what it was set out to do, yet the objective for which it was put in place still exists, the need still exists. The United Nations needs a real Human Rights Council, not a cover for those who would abuse human rights.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mano James Torta. Mr. Torta was tragically killed on March 30, 2007, when he was hit by a drunk-driver while crossing the street in front of his apartment building. Mr. Torta was on the way to meet his wife, Lorraine, for dinner.

Madam Speaker, my thoughts and prayers go out to Lorraine, and the rest of the Torta family, including his son James and his two daughters, Kimberly and Christine, Christine's husband Peter and their daughter, his granddaughter, Caitlin. At the same time, I wanted to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues some comments written about Mr. Torta by his son.

For those of you who were not fortunate enough to know my

father well, it may be difficult for you to understand what

kind of man my father was--as my father was not like other

men.

My father, first and foremost, was a man filled with love.

He loved my mother--completely, honestly, selflessly--for

more than thirty-five years. I cannot even begin to describe

the depth and beauty of their love. Many men, on their

passing, are described as ``devoted husbands''--but I cannot

imagine a man more devoted to his wife. His love for her--and

hers for him--was a love that transcends words. He lived for

her--truly, truly--lived for her. How many husbands can make

such a claim? He lived to make her smile, to make her laugh,

to make her happy. She was more than his wife--she was his

heart, his love, his life. She was everything to him. There

are so many stories that I could tell you--beautiful stories

about my mom and dad that would make you believe, really

believe--in ``true love.'' For their's was the truest of

love, and they spent their lives devoting themselves to each

other. But instead of telling you a story, I want to give you

an image--a simple image, for their's was a simple love. I

want you to imagine my father and mother sitting at their

kitchen table, taking tea together, talking and laughing

about what had happened on that particular day. Then my

father would smile wide and say that he had a surprise for

her--for he was always surprising her with some sort of

treat--and he would go to some nook in a cabinet and bring

out some mint milano cookies that he had bought earlier in

the day and hidden away so that, at this moment, he could

make her even happier than she was. That was their love, the

kind of love that showed itself in every minute of every day,

the simple and pure kind of love--sitting together, laughing,

sharing, wanting only each other's company. After thirty-five

years their love was something more than what they shared--it

was who they were. How many people are blessed with such

wondrous simplicity? And how can I even begin to tell you how

much my father loved his family?

My father would often tell me how proud he was to have me

as a son--but I was even more proud to have him as my father.

I like to tell stories about him to my students--how he

worked for thirty-five years at a post office to support his

family, working long hours and sometimes more than one job to

send all three of his children to college and to make sure

than they all had the opportunities in life that he never

had. I would tell them about how he would try to give me the

last dollar he had in his wallet, how he would always make

time for us to talk or play catch in the backyard even when

he was exhausted from a long night at work, how he gave

everything he had to his family. But again, words cannot tell

the story of my father's love for his family. If only you

could have seen how gently he picked us up when we fell down

and scraped our knees, how securely he held us in his arms

when we cried, how he held our hands when we were sick. It is

often said that you never know what you have until it is

gone, but my sisters and I knew how lucky we were. It was

impossible not to know what a good father my dad was. We

depended so much on him and he never, never, let us down. He

always wanted to give us more, help us more, and spend more

time with us. We would give anything to spend more time with

him now.

My sisters would tell you that no matter how much we loved

him, he loved us more. Listening to my sisters remember him,

hearing my mom mourn--I've come to understand that he taught

us about many things, but the most important thing he taught

us about was love. He showed us that love was not to be spent

on material things, but to be given to people who are close

to you. He taught us that love, above all other things, was

of paramount importance in this life--that without love we

have nothing. And he didn't just say these things; he lived

his life inspired by these ideals.

My father wrote me a letter seven years ago, a letter I

have carried around in my wallet ever since. In the letter he

wrote--with touching simplicity and sincerity--to tell me how

much he loved me, how proud he was of me, and how he hoped

that I would follow my heart and make all my dreams come

true. I didn't need to carry it around--I mean, I never

needed any reminder of how he felt--but I whenever I touched

the folded up paper, no matter where I was or what I was

doing, I felt as though everything was going to be okay. And

that's how he made all of us feel--warm and loved and safe. I

was not surprised when, on Friday night, my mom showed me a

note he had written her--also folded up and tucked into her

purse. He had that effect on all of us.

My father had so many things to look forward to--he was

going to retire this summer after 35 years of service and

travel around the world with my mom. He was going to watch

his lovely granddaughter Caitlin grow up. He was finally

going to get a chance-after all those years of struggling and

working--to take a deep breath and relax. No man has ever

deserved to enjoy the fruits of life after retirement more

than he. Yet there he was, crossing the street, on the cusp

of a whole new chapter in life--and he was taken from this

world . . . not by illness or old age, but by cruel, cruel

chance. His death was a senseless tragedy--proof of what an

unfair and senseless world this can be--but today I beg you

instead to remember how he lived his life . . . for his

kindness, grace, and generosity should be an example to us

all. He would not want us to harden our hearts and spend this

time burning with anger at the enormity of this tragedy.

Instead remember what a wonderful, beautiful man he was,

the kind of man who gave so much and took so little.

Remember how a man who had seen so much and worked so hard

somehow managed to keep his heart so pure, and his soul so

gentle. For who here ever knew a man as gentle as he?

Yesterday I said that my dad was lucky to have met his

granddaughter Caitlin--for she was born only 14 months ago--

and my sister Kim corrected me and said that Caitlin was

lucky to have met him. And that is the truth of it--we all

were lucky to have known him. He was the best of men . . .

the very best. He will be missed more than anyone can

possibly imagine.

Again, my thoughts and prayers go out to the Torta family.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is an earmark ostensibly for a ``Paint Shield for Protecting People Against Microbial Threats'' for $2 million. Apparently this $2 million will be going to the Sherwin-Williams paint company in Cleveland, Ohio.

I actually have a couple of questions either for the sponsor of the earmark or for the chairman of the committee.

I guess my first question would be, and I am happy to yield to whomever would like to answer it, is this something that military leadership has asked for?

If I may inquire further, Mr. Chairman, you said you are sure the military, so you are not aware if, in fact, the military has asked for this kind of technology? I guess the answer to that is no.

The next question I would have is what investigations have been done to determine that this technology could actually even be effective.

Then I am sure if the gentleman goes over every single one, he can answer the questions, what investigations, what research has been done to determine that this technology is effective and is worth $2 million of taxpayers' funds?

If you investigate every earmark, I have a couple of other questions. Sherwin-Williams is not the only maker of paint in the country. How did we know, and what was determined that Sherwin-Williams was the best or the right supplier, if you assume that the military asked for it and the technology was effective?

I thank you. Again, my question was, I am sure, they are obviously a well-known qualified paint company. By the way, I don't represent any paint companies, to my knowledge, none whatsoever.

So my question is, how do we know they are the best for this particular product?

I guess I would follow it up with how do we know, if we even knew that, how do we know that $2 million is the right amount. Was there some investigation, some research done to determine that $2 million was the right amount?

Let me ask, though, but then why is it, if they are competitively bid, that this one is going to Sherwin- Williams paint company?

Well, I think Sherwin-Williams thinks there is, by the way.

Then the final question I would have for the gentleman would be if this $2 million goes to Sherwin-Williams to develop this product, and they, in fact, develop it, will the taxpayers own that product? Is that then a product, a license, something that the taxpayers own?

So the taxpayers will not have to pay for the use of that product in the future.

What evidence of that is there, if I may ask? What do the taxpayers get for this $2 million as evidence of their ownership of this product or technology?

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this particular earmark is for a swimmer detection sonar network for $1.5 million. The company developing this technology is in New Hampshire.

Interestingly, there are about three other companies that do a similar technology or do something intended to do the same thing, which is detect people swimming in the water up towards a ship, at least three others that we have determined, and one of which is currently being used by the Coast Guard that doesn't use sonar but already is in place and in effect.

Mr. Chairman, I could ask the same series of questions of the chairman of the committee on this earmark that I did on the last. I won't do that, because the point of this, frankly, is not that this particular earmark is particularly egregious, nor, frankly, that the previous one that I brought up was particularly egregious.

I believe that there are literally hundreds of earmarks like these offered by many members in this Defense Appropriations Committee.

The reason I am bringing these forward is because of a personal experience I had when a defense contractor came to me in my first few months in office and came forward with an earmark, and I asked these questions.

I said, does the military want this, or, have you developed something you want me to give you $2 million of the taxpayers' money for something the military doesn't want?

Then I said how do I know that your technology will work? How do I know that this $2 million is effective in curing or dealing with the situation that you claim you want it to be? Then I said how do I know you are the right supplier? It's great that you are in my district, that's wonderful, I think that's fine you have those jobs, but how do I know the best supplier is not in Pennsylvania? How do I know the best supplier is not in Connecticut? How do I know you're the right company to do this?

Then I said, even if I did, how do I know that $3 million is the right price? How do I know that it doesn't cost you $50,000 to develop this thing, and you are making $2,950,000 off the American taxpayer. Then if you do, is the American taxpayer going to get this product for free, because if we pay for it, we should.

That is the point of what I am doing here. When you look at all of these earmarks, those five questions, in my view, should be asked on every single earmark that goes to a private company that is in this defense bill or, frankly, any other bill.

If the answer to all five of these questions is not yes, I don't care if it's a company in my district, or the chairman's district or anybody's district, we should not be using taxpayers' funds for it.

I will tell you that I told that defense supplier and every defense supplier in my district that I met with, no. Because they could not give me a yes answer to all five of those questions.

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

May I inquire how much time I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, I understand, but there are a number, there are at least three, and I am not on the committee, and I didn't do exhaustive research, there are three others of these currently in use and currently in development. The Coast Guard, at least, apparently, believes that their system is better than this system.

So my question is, for this sort of earmark, are we going to fund, if there were a company, and all 435 of our districts that was interested in developing this thing, should we give them all $1.5 million and see who wins?

I just don't think that this earmark, or, as I have said, hundreds of others out of the 1,300 that are in this bill, really meet the scrutiny when we are using taxpayer money and giving it to private companies to develop this stuff without the proper scrutiny in terms of this technology, did the military ask for it, is it effective, is it the right supplier, is it the right price and what do the taxpayers own when they are done paying for it.

I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

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

Offered By: Mr. Campbell of California

Amendment No. 17: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Campbell of California

Amendment No. 18: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Campbell of California

Amendment No. 17: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Campbell of California

Amendment No. 18: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Delaware for yielding.

I rise today to congratulate the University of California, Irvine, men's volleyball team for winning the 2007 NCAA Division I Men's Volleyball National Championship, as was mentioned, on May 5, 2007. I am very proud of the Anteater volleyball team, who won the school's first men's volleyball national championship after finishing this 2006/ 2007 season with the most wins in the Nation.

I would like to especially honor the leadership of Coach John Speraw and the talent and effort of each athlete who performed all season long to win this championship.

I am proud today to celebrate the accomplishments of this team that represents a tradition of excellence at the University of California, Irvine. But, you know, it is not a very long tradition of excellence, because the University of California, Irvine, was only established in 1965. But already in just over 40 years, the school has grown accustomed to receiving accolades in both academics and in sports as well. So I would like to also extend my congratulations to Chancellor Michael Drake, who is continuing this, albeit short, but continuing tradition at UCI of excellence in both sports and in academic fields, particularly in the fields of science and technology.

So I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing this achievement and supporting H. Res. 511.

Madam Speaker, on July 23, 2007, I missed rollcall votes 687-690. Regrettably, my flight from California to Washington, DC was cancelled and I had to take a flight that got me here after votes. Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes'' on votes 687, 688, and 689, and ``no'' on vote 690.

Rollcall vote 687: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended H.R. 404, Federal Customer Service Enhancement Act;

Rollcall vote 688: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, H. Res. 553, Mourning the passing of Lady Bird Johnson;

Rollcall vote 689: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, H. Res. 519, Honoring the life and accomplishments of Tom Lea on the 100th anniversary of his birth;

Rollcall vote 690: On Ordering the Previous Question, H. Res. 558, Providing for consideration of H.R. 3074, the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies, FY 2008.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in listening to all this discussion, I have to think that the taxpayers of America have to wonder what's going on here, that in this bill there has been a proposal to say, well, we'll let these government agencies spend 100 cents on the dollar, 100 percent of everything they had last year. Oh, it's terrible, we can't do that.

Then there was one at 102 percent of what they had last year. No, we can't do that. Then there is one at 102.5 percent of what they had last year. No, it's terrible. They can't do that.

So here's one more try. What this does is reduce the increase in spending by .05 percent. That is 5/100 of a percent. That leaves them with a whole lot of money and a lot more of an increase, almost the same increase they had last year.

Now, I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the people of America can't understand why people on other side of the aisle, the majority Democrats, would have a problem with this. I can't understand it either.

I think perhaps they don't understand what this is. Now, this amendment would save the taxpayers $27 million. Now, that's real money, $27 million, by which the deficit will not increase. We have a deficit, and we are robbing the Social Security surplus. It's $27 million we would save the taxpayer.

I have five explanations, five examples I would like to give here to perhaps help my friends on the other side of the aisle understand just what this proposal is to see if there is anything, anything at all that they believe is possible to reduce spending. Is there any waste in government?

Is there anything government can do for only 103 percent of what they had last year? First of all, this does take the spending increase from 3.5 percent to basically 3.45 percent, basically the change in the interest. That's number one.

Number two, it still increases spending in these Departments by $1.574 billion over last year, $1.574 billion more.

Let me give a third example. This is a $100 bill. This represents how much the government is spending on these programs now. Here's three more dollars and five cents. This bill represents this bill as it's currently written, the $100 they had last year, three more and five more cents. Here, Mr. Chairman, is how much the government would have to get if this amendment were to pass, $100, $3, but not the 5 cents; 5 cents on $103. Somehow this is going to greatly damage programs and what we are doing.

Let me give a fourth example. The gentleman from Ohio mentioned in the last debate a particular function that he said would have 245 agents under their bill as proposed. If this amendment were to pass, how many agents would there be? Well, there would still be 245 agents, but you would have to tell one of those agents that they would only work a 7-hour day instead of an 8-hour day. That is the significance of this bill.

Now my final example, if we look at the entirety of this blue donkey as a complete government program as proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, we have seen a proposal already to have 99 percent.

Now, when you look at them, you may say, well, gosh, they look almost the same. That's because they are almost the same. I don't know if you or others can see the change we made, but what we did was we tried to reduce about 1 percent of the total donkey surface area up in the air, but, no, that's been rejected.

So we said let's make it 99.5 percent of what you want to spend, still an increase over the last year, but of what you want to spend a little more here. There is still not much difference, I think, to most people, but, no, can't do that.

So on the last bill I proposed a quarter of a percent cut. Quarter percent. Could you get by on quarter of a percent less of an increase than what's been proposed? That was ``no'' also.

Now we are trying again, 5/100 of 1 percent. Let me try to do that graphically here. I do have a blue marking pen, 99.95 percent of the increase that you want, you can hardly tell the difference. But if we do this on every bill, every bit of spending over the government, we will eventually start to save money.

This is the way it works. The average American taxpayer understands that, that if I put away $10 a week, $10 a month, eventually I will have quite a bit of money. But I have to have the discipline to do it. That's what we are trying to say here.

We have a deficit. We are robbing the Social Security surplus. One thing that is not in dispute is that we are heading for a fiscal train wreck. Within 30 years, Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid alone will eat up 100 percent of the taxes currently received. What are we going to do? Are we going to double or triple taxes, or are we going to reform those systems, reform government and start now?

Yes, it's 30 years from now, but if we don't start on it now, the problem will be closer and bigger and closer and bigger. We see that if the other side is not willing to do this, what will they do, other than increase taxes?

Now, we see tax increases going on now. We have seen a budget that includes either the largest or the second largest tax increase in American history, and right now we are seeing tax increases proposed by the Democrat majority on minority groups, on smokers, they are a small minority group. Then just this evening we will probably have one on foreign companies who are setting up businesses and creating jobs in America.

Now the other side I know says, oh, no, that's not a tax increase. I would like to read you a letter here. This is a letter from Bart Gordon, who is a Congressman from the Sixth District of Tennessee, a Democrat, to the chairman of Ways and Means, and he says: ``Concerns have been raised by Bridgestone America, a company with facilities in my district, about the impact the proposed Farm Bill offset would have on them. Bridgestone is concerned that the 30 percent withholding tax imposed by the proposal would have a broad and negative impact on its legitimate international business operations.

``I understand the importance of ensuring that multi-national companies are not able to abuse tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes, but we must also be careful not to punish legitimate business practices and discourage foreign companies from insourcing operations in the United States. Concerns have also been raised about the effect this withholding tax will have on our international treaties.''

That, Mr. Chairman, is a Democrat, not a Republican, talking about this tax, this withholding tax. It's a potential impact on jobs in America and the potential impact on trade agreements we have with other countries that will affect the ability of American companies to do business overseas.

Now, it's quite a contrast, because that's what they are proposing. The majority keeps proposing tax increase after tax increase after tax increase, and they will start on minority groups, and they will move to everyone, because they can't get it done without everyone. All we're asking here, all we're asking here is 5/100 of a percent, one nickel on $100, a slightly less increase so we can begin the process of spending less, not taxing more.

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

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

May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, as to how much time is remaining on both sides?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Chairman, will my colleague yield?

Just to answer your question.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

I just wanted to clarify that my colleagues' arguments from California were very fine arguments, except they don't apply to this amendment. This amendment does make a 0.0005 or 5 basis points, one- five-hundredths of a percent reduction in the growth of each program equally across the board. So it is 5 cents on $100 of everything.

I appreciate the argument. It is clear that our friends on the other side of the aisle believe that government cannot survive on this, but they believe that all kinds of people, companies, entities can survive on a whole lot less than that with the taxes they want to increase. It is a very clear distinction, Mr. Chairman, between 5 cents on $100 across the board on every program, which I think would be fine, versus all of the various tax proposals, increase proposals, that you have both on various minorities, like smokers and foreign companies, and in your budget on basically every taxpayer in America.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Campbell of California

Amendment No. 37: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is this strikes an earmark, $200,000, for the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Let me explain, Mr. Chairman. I know that the gentlewoman from Nevada, who is here, and I believe the gentleman from Nevada also are supportive of this. What this amendment is not about is about the merits of this particular academy, as I understand it is a charter school, or whether it is a good school or not.

I received a call yesterday from the director of the Andre Agassi Foundation, who has provided a lot of the funding for this school, inviting me to come to the school in August and to see what they are doing and take a tour. And that is very nice and very flattering, but that actually isn't the point. I am sure it is a very fine school. I am sure it is doing lots of great work. But my understanding is that this school is at least half, if not more than that, funded by charitable donations, including from Mr. Agassi and from one of the Las Vegas casinos and lots of other people.

What I raise this about is whether we should be using earmarks to give out like this to what are essentially charitable works. Now, I am sure there are many other good schools in Nevada. There are many in my area. I am sure there are fine museums. I am sure there are fine research facilities. I am sure there are all kinds of different things that we can spend Federal money on.

But I don't think that when the taxpayers pay their taxes that they intend that part of it is a repository for us, as Members of Congress, any of us as Members of Congress, to delve into that money and go out and say this is a charitable organization which I find worthy in my district and here is the taxpayers' money for that from me. Because it is not from me. It is not from the Member of Congress. It is the taxpayers' money. And I think we are better off leaving the taxpayers with their own money so they can give it to whatever charitable organizations, schools, museums, historical developments, research, that they feel they should. And I just don't feel that it is our right, as Members of Congress, to hand this money out, no matter how beneficial or how worthy the cause is, to hand this out to various charities in our districts, because it is not our money, and act as though it is something that we did.

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

Mr. Chairman, you know, I don't disagree, and I'm not in a position to disagree with anything about this school said by either the lady from Nevada or the gentleman from Nevada. Again, let me reiterate, that is not my point.

My point is that there are probably many other schools that are worthy. There are probably all kinds of health considerations that are worthy. There are probably museums that are worthy. There are all kinds of things that are worthy. But the Federal Government does not traditionally fund charter schools. Schools are inherently local and State, and I think should be, and hopefully will continue to be. It's not a Federal school. And so I just don't think that it is right or appropriate that any of us pick something and essentially say this is where we're going to use the taxpayers' funds in a charitable endeavor.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate a $2 million earmark for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York, New York.

Currently, Mr. Chairman, the City College of New York does not have a Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service. The Web site shows there are 16 centers of study, none of which bear Mr. Rangel's name. So ostensibly this $2 million is going to be creating the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service.

Currently, according to the Web site, it appears that most everything dealing with public service careers at the City College of New York currently goes through the Colin Powell Center for Policy Studies, which was founded by a charitable grant in 1997.

Now, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rangel provided to me yesterday a brochure here on the Center for Public Service in New York. And this has a lot of stuff in it, admittedly, it mentions many things. But there are a few things in it I thought were troubling, because amongst the things that it says this center will have are, quote, ``a well-furnished office for Congressman Rangel.'' Second, ``the Rangel Library to house its Rangel archives.'' And it goes on to say, quote, ``The Rangel archivist librarian will organize, index and preserve for posterity all documents, photographs and memorabilia relating to Congressman Rangel's career.''

House rules, and House rule XXI, clause 6 says, and I quote, ``It shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint resolution, amendment or conference report that provides for the designation or redesignation of a public work in honor of an individual then serving as a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner or Senator.'' In other words, the rule says that we don't name public works after ourselves while we are in Congress.

Now, it's my understanding from the Parliamentarian that this amendment does not violate the letter of that rule. I would argue, and argue to my friends in the majority, that it would violate the spirit. I really do not think this is a road we want to go down, where we, as Members, have the ability to create and name things after ourselves using public funds while we are in office. If you think about that, there are five colleges or universities in my district. I'm sure if I went to one of them, any of them, with $2 million and said, Let's have the John Campbell School of Fiscal Responsibility, I'm sure they would at least listen to that. But I don't think that would be right and I don't think that would be good and I don't think that would be proper. And I don't believe that this earmark is either.

So, I would request that my friends on the majority side and on the minority side consider, before you knee-jerk oppose this amendment, consider what this is opening up for this House. And do you really want to open up that we're going to have earmarks to name things after ourselves?

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

Will the gentleman yield?

You said that this is not starting this, but it does not exist today; is that correct, sir?

And so, you don't agree with me, or see any problem with us, as Members, sending taxpayer funds in the creation of things named after ourselves while we're still here?

If the gentleman would yield, is there, then, a number of years in which someone can have been in Congress in which you are then allowed to name something after yourself?

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

I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In conclusion, it includes an office, et cetera. I just don't believe that we should use the power and authority we have while in office to use taxpayer funds to create monuments to ourselves or to participate in the creation of a monument to ourselves. That is just not something that I believe we should be doing.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I would like to point out to the gentleman that under his logic that $141 million proposed in here is actually a cut, because it is a cut from $150 million. It is a $9 million cut from $150 million. Why aren't we spending $150 million?

You see, you only can measure from what-- --

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, first of all, I am happy to stand up here and identify myself with, as the majority party says, ``the fringe.'' You know, you may have noticed recently that the approval ratings for this Congress are not

very good. In fact, I think the latest I saw was that only 17 percent of Americans believe that this Congress is doing a good or a fair job. So I guess that being on the fringe of this Congress is meaning that we agree and associate ourselves with 83 percent of the American people. I would tell my friends on the majority that I am very happy to be on the fringe in Washington but on the mainstream outside of Washington.

And the mainstream outside of Washington wants to keep their own money to spend it on what they want. And they believe, Madam Chairman, even if the other side doesn't, Americans believe, and they are right, that government wastes some of their tax money. And what this proposed amendment does is it would increase spending on this bill by 4.6 percent instead of 4.8 percent. It is a reduction over what is proposed by a quarter of a percent. A quarter of a percent. It still provides an increase of $6.6 billion over last year.

So under this amendment if there is a government program that is scheduled to get a million dollars, it would instead have to struggle through on $997,500.

Madam Chairman, I would ask you, I understand that it appears that the Members of the majority party believe that life as we know it will end if that million-dollar government program must exist on $997,500, but I don't think that the majority of Americans feel that.

Let me point out again that first of all this amendment is not a cut because one equals one. Two is more than one even if you want three. So this amendment still enables a gigantic $6.6 billion increase in spending on this bill. But what it would do is it would put $379 million back in taxpayers' pockets, back towards deficit reduction. So it is not a cut.

The other thing that is amazing to me in this whole debate and discussion is there seems to be a direct correlation on the majority side between how much you spend on something and the outcome you are going to get. If that were the case, you could take every school in America, line them up by how much money is spent per student and you should see a direct correlation with the outcomes with how those students succeed out of school.

Well, there are many situations where there are schools spending $3,000 to $4,000 a student significantly outperforming schools spending 10, 12, $15,000 per student in the same place.

Why if there were a direct correlation between how much you spend on something and the outcome, then wouldn't Paris Hilton be the most well- adjusted kid on the planet; and I think perhaps she is not.

So does anybody out there believe that in this gigantic bill of billions and billions of dollars, that there is not one-quarter of a percent of waste, that is not one-quarter of a percent less that any given agency could do without than they have now?

Now I know that my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to have a very difficult time understanding what it means to save the taxpayers a little money, what it means to ask government to be a little more efficient, so I would like to explain it to you graphically, if I may.

This, Madam Chairman, represents 100 percent of a government program. I have used a donkey because I feel that is something that the majority party has some familiarity with. This represents 100 percent of a government spending program.

Let's look and see what we have seen so far. There was an amendment to reduce this program which has already been increased by 1 percent, so there is 99 percent of a government spending program.

Madam Chairman, I would suggest perhaps people in the gallery and people at home may not even be able to tell much of a difference. But the majority party rejected that.

The amendment from the lady from Colorado was a half a percent reduction, so here is 99\1/2\ percent of a government spending program. Looks to me like that donkey is pretty much intact. I think it could probably survive. But that was rejected just a moment ago by the majority party.

So here is one last chance, one more chance. I would ask my Democratic colleagues: Can this government program survive like that with 99.75 percent of its spending? You know what, I think the American people will look at this and say yeah, they can. You know what that means, it means that $379 million back in the American people's pockets and back to reduce this deficit and hopefully leading us towards no longer stealing the Social Security surplus. I don't think they see much difference here, but they will see a difference at home.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Thank you. You know, the question before us is $11.8 million, as I mentioned to you before, is a cut from $12.5 million. So the question I would ask you back is, well, why is it not $12.5 million?

Thank you for yielding. You know, I was trying to do the math on the previous one. I guess the question before us is this: can the program you described before, because I'm a little behind on my math here, that was $11.8 million, can it survive on $11.78 million? Is that going to mean the end of the world as we know it? Is that going to mean that this program is devastated? Are you telling me that there is not a quarter of a percent that any agency or any program in government can find that they can do their job as well?

I guess that means that you have proposed a cut in that program if it's already below where it was. So I guess you had proposed a cut in that program. So I would ask you, I guess, if you cut that program, you must have some reason that you believe that it should be cut.

If you already established it as a cut below last year's level, then yes, it is. But I would ask the gentleman that, is the gentleman proposing to increase the deficit, which, with this amendment, the deficit would go down and taxpayers would have more money?

Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Republican whip, Mr. Blunt, the gentleman from Missouri.

Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each side, I suppose, has remaining?

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Madam Chair, just one comment for my colleague from California, let me just say that I completely agree with you that the Pentagon is not immune from waste, fraud and abuse, nor is the Defense budget, nor is any part of the Federal Government. I agree with you on that point.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

How much time do I have remaining, Madam Chairman?

Madam Chairman, I stand here as a member of this fringe that is happy to associate with the 83 percent of Americans who think this Congress is doing a poor job.

We have got a lot of talk about cuts, but there is one thing that's clear. There is an increase in this bill as written. There is an increase of $6.6 billion in the deficit over what there would be if this bill held spending flat. That is an increase in raiding the Social Security surplus, and that will lead to the many tax increases that your side is currently proposing both in your budget and in other bills floating around in both this Chamber and the other. Those are increases there. This bill will not stop those increases, but just a little bit of a time, a quarter of a percent, it will help to slow the growth.

I would ask for everyone's support on this bill.

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

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I will just add one thing as I have been listening to the general debate here.

It seems that quite often on this floor, particularly on the other side of the aisle, that we measure how much we care about something by how much money we spend on it. If that was the measure of everything, Paris Hilton would be the most well-adjusted kid on the planet.

It is not just how much we spend, but it is whether it is effective. It is whether it is duplicative, as we are alleging in the case of this program. It is whether it is getting the job done.

It doesn't do any good for anybody to spend money that is duplicative or that isn't effective or that wastes a lot of money along the way. That is not good for anybody. So whether it is this program, frankly, or any others, we should, in this House and on this floor, realize that we are stewards of the taxpayers' money, not just spenders of the taxpayers' money, and we should ensure that it is being well spent, not just totally spent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.