Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let's stipulate here that there are and have been instances, plenty of instances, in which executive compensation has been excessive for the return given to shareholders.

I have spent my entire life investing, and there have been times when I have seen excessive executive compensation, and return for the company wasn't there. And it made me mad, and I wasn't happy about it. Let's stipulate to that.

Let's also understand there is a difference between that and when an executive gets high pay for a very excellent result. Pay for executives has been increasing, as it has for sports stars, as it has for people in the music business, authors, actors and investors.

Chairman Bernanke of the Federal Reserve, when he spoke before our committee and when he has spoken before other committees, has been quoted as saying this is, to a degree, because of the effective technology of being able to take the talents of these various people and make them more valuable because it spreads across the world much quicker.

But let's take that aside and stipulate that there have been instances, plenty of instances, where executive compensation has not been commensurate with the results. But there are a lot of other things that are more injurious to shareholders. There are other highly compensated individuals as well who have been overpaid for their jobs or for whatever they have done.

There have been union contracts that have been out of line. Let's take Ford Motor Company right now. People are objecting to the current compensation package of the new chairman of Ford Motor Company; but no one is suggesting that that pay package is going to bring Ford Motor Company under. People are not happy because they say Ford Motor Company isn't making money, and the chairman is getting too much pay, but no one is suggesting that is going to take the company

under. But what most observers say will take the company under is all of the retiree pay that they have due to union contracts that were inadvisable that were done some time ago. That may take the company under.

There could be acquisitions. There could be legal settlements. There could be just poor management. All of those things can actually take a company under, whereas executive compensation that is excessive, although maddening, won't drive a company down.

This bill does absolutely nothing to deal with any of those other problems. Why not? If we are worried about shareholders and care about shareholders and their ability to influence a company, then why don't we give them the right to influence the company on something that actually might bring the company down.

Some people on the other side mentioned several instances, and I can't recall them all right now, but where a company is doing poorly and an executive received very high pay. I agree with you; bad, I don't like it. I didn't like it. But what ought to upset the shareholders more is not the pay; it is the poor performance. And this doesn't do anything to help shareholders with that.

We should give shareholders more rights. I agree with that, through the board. Otherwise, why not let shareholders vote on other highly compensated individuals, on union contracts, on acquisitions, on legal settlements, on the marketing budget, on all kinds of others things that might have something to do with affecting the company's pay?

I believe this is a statement, not a solution.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.

You saw an amendment in committee which you voted against and voted down. You will see that amendment again this evening that gives shareholders rights through the board, not just on executive compensation, if they are unhappy with the management for any reason, to work through the board and change the board, give them more rights to change the board rather than do this sort of thing.

Mr. Chairman, you will have your own time shortly, the gentleman from New York.

Did I say New York? I am sorry. The gentleman from Massachusetts.

I thank the chairman so much for that clarification.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is a statement, it is not a solution. It deals with one thing which is annoying and can be bad, but is not a major, it is not that major an issue relative to all the other things that can deal with corporate governance and bringing corporations down.

Will the gentleman yield?

The amendment I wished to offer would simply have required that there be a majority.

It was ruled not germane.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as has been mentioned in the debate tonight, we had a substantive hearing on this subject, and there were six witnesses at that hearing. The witnesses were split as to the substance of the bill that is before us. Four of them liked the bill, supported it, and two of them opposed the bill. However, there was one thing on which there was unanimity with the witnesses. All six witnesses agree that a better solution, a better proposal, would be to allow to have shareholders, or to require companies to require a majority vote before seating a shareholder on the board.

All six witnesses preferred that to this very prescriptive executive compensation proposal. Because, as we discussed earlier, that would actually give shareholders more rights, through the board, to express their displeasure with a company for excessive executive compensation or simply executive operations that they don't like: for a poor performance, for a bad union contract, for whatever they wanted to express their displeasure more effectively by voting against people who were proposed to be on the board. Because if a majority vote is required to put anyone on the board, it's going to take a lot more votes to get people on there than would have happened under the current system.

What this amendment does is, this amendment says that a company will not be required to have an advisory vote on executive compensation if they, instead, require a majority vote, a majority of those voting, to seat a director on the board. That is simply all this would do.

Now, therefore, companies, if they didn't really like the executive compensation proposal, they could go for a majority vote instead, if they felt that was better for them. And as I stated before, I and people all over the spectrum believe that is a better solution.

Interestingly enough, the Business Roundtable believes that is a better solution, and I have a letter here from the Teamsters Union from March 13, 2007, bragging about how FedEx recently adopted a majority vote by law and how important this was for the management of that company. So it is clear that on all sides of this the people believe that majority votes to seat someone on the board of directors is a more effective way to deal with this issue.

Now, let me anticipate some things that my friend, I will get your State right this time, from Massachusetts will say. I have heard the argument that this proposal is too intrusive, that it is more intrusive than the basic bill that is before us. I would argue that it is not, because it actually gives the corporations a choice. They can either accept the vote on executive compensation that is before them, or if they wish to go the route of majority voting for directors, they can do that instead.

I have also heard the gentleman argue that my proposal here is not intrusive enough because it does not require a majority vote of directors for all corporations at all times.

I will tell you that if the author of this bill, the chairman of the committee, wished to amend this bill or pull this bill back, or whatever would be the correct parliamentary procedure, to replace this with a requirement for a majority vote of directors, I would support him on that.

However, with the bill that is before us, this is the only germane solution that can be offered to give shareholders the opportunity to have a majority vote for directors, which will really give them more voice, instead of this silly advisory vote thing, which is so narrowly focused on just one thing that shareholders may have a problem with, rather than the greater issues of governance of corporations.

Thank you. I will assure the gentleman that I will do that.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that the gentleman withdraw the bill that is before us. If you believe that it is a better solution, I believe you do, then let's withdraw the bill.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.

Just to respond to the gentleman from Massachusetts' comments, I will introduce such a bill, as we have discussed, and I am happy to work with the chairman on that.

But what is before us right now is this amendment and this bill, which I wish you would withdraw so we could work on the other; but, apparently, you are not going to do that.

And since you are not, what we have before us is this bill right now and this amendment right now. You said it is only half democracy. Well, what we have before us is zero democracy. This amendment is at least half democracy. Maybe it is not full democracy, as you say, but it is better than none. That is what this amendment is.

I would caution Members on the other side, if you oppose this amendment, you are opposing majority voting for the opportunity to have in this bill a large incentive for companies to put majority voting for directors. If you vote ``no'' on this, you will be voting ``no'' on that opportunity in this bill. Let's understand that is where we are. In the future, I will be happy to work with the chairman on other things.

The gentleman from Massachusetts may have heard others say it is toothless and ineffective. I didn't say it was toothless and ineffective. In fact, I think it creates problems when companies have to hire somebody quickly and that sort of thing. I didn't say it was toothless and ineffective. I said it was silly. I did say it was silly because it only targets one element of shareholder displeasure with a company, which is an element, and although it can be very irritating, amongst many, many elements that are out there, is the least likely to actually destroy shareholder value, and that is what shareholders are interested in, is shareholder value.

So I didn't say it was toothless and ineffective. I said that I think it is the wrong solution to the problem that is before us.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Campbell of California

Amendment No. 2: Page 4, line 13, strike ``Any proxy'' and

insert ``Subject to paragraph (3), any proxy''.

Page 5, line 6, strike ``In any proxy'' and insert

``Subject to paragraph (3), in any proxy''.

Page 6, line 13, strike the close quotation marks and

following period and after such line insert the following:

``(3) Majority-elected board exemption.--The shareholder

vote requirements of this subsection shall not apply with

respect to any issuer that requires the members of its board

of directors to be elected by a majority of the votes cast in

a shareholder election of such board.''.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

You know, I would like to give some credit to my colleague from California, the author of this particular budget. It raises taxes; it raises taxes a whole, whole bunch.

But the lady from California, my colleague, stood up here and admitted

that. She said, yeah, we're raising taxes in this budget. That's what we're doing.

Raising taxes is a legitimate policy decision. It is something, Madam Chair, that people can make a decision to do. And in all three Democratic budgets, the authors have made the decision to raise taxes. They have made the decision to raise taxes. But in this budget, the people behind this are standing up here and are proud about it. We admit it, we're proud of it, and that's what we're doing. They are standing behind that policy decision to raise taxes. They are raising taxes on almost everyone, and they are proud to do that.

I think it is not a particularly good policy decision, but it is a legitimate one. They are raising taxes in all three of these budgets anywhere from $3,000 per taxpayer to $7,500 per taxpayer per year. It is a legitimate policy decision. I think it happens to be not a particularly good one, but at least they are standing up and saying, that's what we want to do, and that's what we're going to do, and that's how we're going to raise the budget.

Democrats have put together these three budgets that are raising taxes. Be proud that you are raising taxes if that's what you want to do, because that's what you're doing. Be proud of it. Stand behind it. Don't pretend like you're not doing it.

I thank the gentleman from Hawaii.

Madam Speaker, I do claim the time in opposition. However, I do think the arguments relative to the bill were made last night.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, you know, I am a little stunned by this debate tonight, by what's being said by the other side. I am hearing a lot of stuff about how this budget balances the budget, but also about how it doesn't raise taxes. The gentleman from Georgia said, and I believe I wrote it down correctly, that it ``does not raise taxes one single penny.''

Well, this budget either doesn't raise taxes, or it doesn't balance the budget. But it absolutely mathematically cannot do both. It will not and cannot mathematically do both.

This budget includes every penny of tax increases, in the dollars, in the revenue dollars, every penny, which will tax my constituents and the people of California $3,331 each per taxpayer per year. Now, your numbers, the numbers of their budget, includes every bit of cutting the child care tax credit, eliminating the marriage penalty deduction, raising rates at every income bracket, raising the capital gains tax, raising the dividends tax, raising the death tax, raising all of those taxes. Every penny of that is included.

That is how their budget balances. Without it, it doesn't balance. Without it, it has a deficit in the fifth year of somewhere close to $100 billion, which is just a little less than the deficit that we have now.

Now, we didn't write this budget. This is their budget. I will give them the benefit of the doubt, and, presume, that perhaps they would like to have a budget that doesn't raise taxes, or perhaps they would like to have a budget that balances.

But they have increased spending in this budget, which is the reason we have the deficit today. It is not because taxes are too low, it is because spending is too high.

So, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, choose. You are either raising taxes, or you are not balancing the budget, but you mathematically cannot do both. It is your budget, it is your decision. You tell us which one you are going to do.

Announcement By the Acting Chairman

Mr. Chairman, they should tell the American people which one they are going to do, because they either are increasing taxes or not balancing the budget. They mathematically cannot do both.

Mr. Chairman, the budget, the way it is written, is, absolutely is, and assumes every penny of the largest tax increase in American history, and that is something the people of this country cannot afford.

Madam Speaker, tonight, and the next 60 minutes, we are going to talk a little bit about one of the major issues that will be on the floor here in the House of Representatives as people vote later this week, and that will be the budget of the United States Government for the next fiscal year, the fiscal year that begins later this year. It's called the 2008 fiscal year budget.

There will be several budgets offered; but if history is any guide, the one that is most likely to pass is the one that is being offered by the majority party, or the majority Democrats, in this case.

That budget is a travesty. Tonight, we are going to show you why, why that is not the budget that should pass, why that is not the budget that should govern the United States taxpayers' money over the next year. This budget that we will see later this week proposed by the Democrat majority has the largest tax increase in American history. Let me say that again: this budget you will see the Democrats propose this week has the largest tax increase in American history. It has no reform of any of the entitlements.

If we are going to save Medicare, we are going to save Social Security for future generations, as we will explain to you later, they are unsustainable. They have to be reformed. They have no reform whatsoever.

They do not save or preserve the Social Security surplus. You know, people pay Social Security taxes. When they do, they presume that money goes to pay for Social Security. Makes sense. That is why it's called a Social Security tax.

But, no, every year, a portion of that money is used to pay various other priorities of the Federal Government. The budget that the Democrats will propose this year for the next 5 years will not change that one little bit. Yes, this budget, Democrat budget later this week, is full of empty promises except one, to give you the largest tax increase in American history.

Now, let's bore into a few of these things. Let's look into a little bit of this in detail. In order to do that I have a few charts here. I don't want to have anyone have some flashback to Ross Perot, I know he had charts, so I have charts too. I have charts to show you what's happening.

This first one shows there is a misconception there, particularly on the Democratic side of the aisle, in spite of all the statistics, that somehow the deficit that we are in today was caused by the tax relief that was enacted back in 2003, that somehow allowing people at home to keep more of their own money to spend on their priorities, rather than Washington's priorities, that somehow allowing people to do that caused the deficit that we have today. It's absolutely not true.

If you look at this chart, you will see that total Federal revenues declined until 2003, when the tax relief was enacted, and they have risen and are now up somewhere around 46 percent. Since then, the Federal Government has 46 percent more revenue, 46 percent more money than it did in 2003.

I would ask the average American taxpayer at home, do you have 46 percent more money, more revenue, more income than you had in 2003? If you don't, you should understand, the Democrats believe that the 46 percent increase for the Federal Government wasn't enough, and that whatever you got, it was too much. Because they want to take some of what you have and put it right here in Washington, right here in the midst of the Federal Government.

So the tax relief did not cause the deficit, actually caused an increase in revenue. Spending caused the deficit, too much spending, something the budget, the Democrats are proposing the majority party does, is more. Their

proposal over the next 5 years is to spend more and more and more, yet raise your taxes to do it. So they are taking the thing that is reducing the deficit and getting rid of it, and taking the problem that has created the deficit spending and giving you more of it. Let me show you a few more things why these tax reductions actually resulted in more revenue.

They stimulate the economy. When you have more money, what do you do with it? You save it, you invest it. You spend it, you create jobs, you do all kinds of good things with it. That is why after the tax relief was enacted in 2003, we created more jobs, lots more jobs, every single month, not a single month without more jobs created in this country since the tax relief was enacted.

What else did the tax relief do? It also increased gross domestic product. That is basically the size of the total economy. If you look, after 2003, it's not so good, but after 2003, gross domestic product has increased dramatically every single quarter. So many charts, they are falling down. The chart fell down and so did the unemployment rate after the enactment of the tax decreases. Again, here they go. Unemployment up close to 6.5 percent, and where is it now? Down around 4.5 percent.

These things are not coincidences. These good things that happened to the economy did not suddenly hit just when the tax relief went into effect by coincidence. No. The tax relief left billions and billions of dollars in the American public's hands and in the American taxpayers' hands so they could use it for their purposes and help the economy grow. That is what we should be doing more of, not less of.

But the proposed Democratic budget does a lot less of that. Let's talk for a second about how much less. This proposed budget has the greatest increase in taxes in American history.

Now, I could tell average taxpayers, people at home, how much is that? Oh, it's $392.5 billion a year. What does that mean? They don't know what that means. But let me tell you and bring it home a little better. It means $3,035 for the average tax return in America per year, per year, folks.

As people sit at home and they watch this, imagine the Democrats' budget is saying to you, $3,000 per year, you have to pay more here to Washington so they can spend it on more of their priorities.

We often hear, gee, in Washington, the spenders like to say, the tax and spenders like to say, oh, we need to do this, and we have to get the money. Where are we going to find the money if we don't raise taxes?

Well, I would say this, where is the average American going to find that money? Do you think they just will say, $3,000 a year, oh, that is no problem. That is just about $250 a month. That is nothing. I have got lots of that. That is no problem, we are happy to do that.

I don't think so. I think that would cause a tremendous impact on the average American family, a tremendous impact on their budget, and not a good one if it would have the reverse of all these effects. It would start to drive unemployment up. It would start to drive job growth down. It would start to the drive the economy down. We need to stop this budget that will appear here on the floor this week.

Now, I would like to introduce the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett). Mr. Barrett, before you begin speaking, I would like to point out to you, because I have these figures broken down by State, that the average South Carolinian under the Democrats' tax proposal would pay $2,482.66 more tax per year. So you might tell me, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, how do you think the average taxpayer in South Carolina is going to pay for that?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I don't think it is a very good deal at all. What are they going to get for that? I think that is part of the question here. What exactly are they going to get for that?

Are they going to get some of the spending like we just saw passed in the bill last week, you know, maybe some things to help shrimp and peanuts and a few things like that? Is that the sort of stuff they are going to get? Are they going to get a bunch of earmarks? What are they going to get? I don't think they are going to get very much.

I yield back to the gentleman from South Carolina. Do you see much that your South Carolinian constituents will get for their $2,500 a year?

Will the gentleman yield?

Can you explain that to me again?

Wait a minute. A reserve fund? I mean, a reserve fund to me is something where I put some money aside. You are telling me that they are saying they are setting up a reserve fund, the Democrats are, with zero money it.

I yield back to the gentleman.

Will the gentleman yield one more minute?

Let me just ask you one more question, and then we will go on.

The gentleman from South Carolina, so narrow it down. There will be a Republican alternative to the Democratic budget here that everyone on this floor will vote on this week. What are the major differences? I mean, could you lay out for me and for Madam Speaker and for anyone watching what are those differences?

And I yield.

Thank you, Mr. Barrett from South Carolina.

Now, Madam Speaker, so you don't think that we are just trying to do rhyming people here, we go from Mr. Barrett of South Carolina to Mr. Garrett of New Jersey. But before I yield to Mr. Garrett from New Jersey, you know, I am from California, and California taxpayers, under the Democrats' proposal, would pay $3,331.09 more per taxpayer in California.

Now, I thought that was a lot. I thought that was a lot. It is one of the higher numbers on the page. But it is not as much as New Jersey. Taxpayers in New Jersey would pay $3,779.88 more in taxes under the Democrats proposal than they do now. And that is an average, again, per tax return filed per year. Almost $4,000.

I am glancing here and I think, Mr. Garrett, there is only one other State that is going to pay, have more of an increase and that is Connecticut than New Jersey. So I am curious, Scott Garrett from New Jersey, what exactly do you think and what will people in New Jersey think and how will they deal with $4,000 a year more taxes?

I yield to the gentleman.

Will the gentleman yield?

I was going to say, one thing that you can do here in Washington is print money. The average family can't. If the Democrats were to pass this budget and give them that $4,000 or $3,800 tax increase in New Jersey, your citizens in New Jersey can't print money like the Federal Government to just run a deficit, can they?

I yield back to the gentleman.

Will the gentleman yield? $3,779.98 for the entire State of New Jersey.

I yield back.

I think this discussion we are having right now gets to the core of the difference between what Democrats in Washington, how they look at things and how we Republicans in Washington look at things. They look at it from the sense of, well, if we don't raise these taxes, how is the government going to spend more money on this or spend more money on that, or how are they going to get to take that? Because that is what it amounts to. When you tax everybody else, you come here, the 435 of us, plus the 100 people in the other body, get to spend the money on the stuff they want to spend it on.

And so how can we spend that money if we don't do this?

You and I, Mr. Garrett, look at it from the standpoint of families, of taxpayers, of people. What are they not going to be able to do in New Jersey with that almost $350 a month? I mean, that is a nice car payment. That is substantial child care. That is a chunk of a house payment. It is a lot of different things to a lot of people. And we look at everything from the sense of the family, the taxpayer. They come first and the government comes second. That is not the way the Democrats in this town look at it, is it?

I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is a matter of it is your money. When you earn it, when people earn the money, it is their money. It is not the government's money. It is their money and the government takes some of it for necessary operation to run government. But it is not like it is all the government's money and the government allows you to keep some. That is not the way we look at it.

I yield back to the gentleman

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) so much for his comments and his hard work on these efforts and on these proposals to recognize that it is your money first, taxpayers. It is your money first. It is not the government's first that they let you keep some of. It is your money, and you should keep all of it except for the minimum amount necessary to properly run the government.

Now let us talk about a few more things on these taxes. Some of the rhetoric that people may hear from the majority party here is that this tax relief in 2003, 2001, this just gave tax cuts to the rich. We hear that over and over: ``tax cuts to the rich.'' Well, as Mr. Garrett pointed out, a $70,000-a-year family of four in New Jersey is probably not rich, and they would be paying $1,500 or whatever the amount was that you said.

Let us look at some of this. Now, these are numbers in billions of dollars, Mr. Speaker; so they can't relate to per person. This is the total Democrat proposed tax increase. This orange slice stands for the people who save money because of the 10 percent income tax bracket. Now, the 10 percent income tax bracket is the lowest tax bracket that exists. It is at $15,000 of income for a married couple. So this amount of this tax is going to people with roughly a taxable income of about $15,000. That is rich? I don't think so.

Look at this slice right here, this red slice. This is people who get the child tax credit and the marriage penalty credit, these benefits which the Democrats have proposed to raise, to cut in half the child tax credit and to eliminate what was put in place sometime ago so that people don't get a penalty, don't pay more tax if two people both earn income get married. Under the old law, a lot of them pay more tax. Now a lot fewer of them pay more tax. This would get rid of that. Both of these phase out over a certain income level. So all of these are geared only for people at lower income levels.

Let us look at this chunk. This is the death tax, which can affect all kinds of people, whether it is the person who is deceased or whether it is one of the many beneficiaries of someone who is deceased. And we know how the death tax has been destructive for family farms, family businesses, people wanting to pass their home that maybe has been in the family for generations, maybe only for a short period of time, but they want their children to have it, and they can't because the death tax got in the way.

We are scheduled to have the death tax continue to decline. But the Democrat budget has proposed to put it way back into full force and effect with a rate, I believe, of up to 55 percent.

And then look at this chunk, the biggest chunk of all the marginal rates. That means seniors with dividends and capital gains income and people at all other schedules in the different tax brackets within the Tax Code. These tax increases affect everyone, not just the supposed rich.

And let us look at what this would do to certain tax rates: the 35 percent tax rate would go to 39.6. A capital gains tax rate of 15 would go to 20. The estate tax would go from 0 to 55 percent. The child tax credit, from $1,000 to $500. And the very lowest tax bracket starting at taxable income, technically, of 0 would go from 10 to 15 percent. So, again, tax increases on everybody all across the board.

We talked a lot about taxes tonight. But as I said when we started this conversation, the reason we have a deficit is not because we lowered taxes. Lowering taxes stimulated the economy, created more revenue for the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, the reason we have a deficit is because we spend too much. And here is a chart showing how spending drives the long-term problems:

Here is our spending today, roughly 20 percent of the economy; so already the Federal Government is spending about $1 out of $5 that exists in the economy. But if we leave things alone, if we allow spending to go forward and grow as it is in law now and if we just left all these things alone, it will go by 2049, you see here, up to nearly double that, nearly 40 percent of the economy. So $4 out of every $10 in the economy would be government spending.

Now, what this chart doesn't show is in countries where they have done this sort of thing before. The private part of the economy contracts. It doesn't have money for investment. It doesn't have money for growth. If government takes 3,331 more dollars out of each taxpayer in California, as the Democrats have proposed to do to spend on some of this stuff, they don't have that money to save. They don't have that money to invest. They don't have that money to buy things that help stimulate the economy. The government has it. The government doesn't save it. The government doesn't invest it. The government just spends it. And as we know, in a lot of cases not particularly wisely. So that is what happens if we leave spending alone. That is why we have a deficit.

Even with the Democrats' proposed tax cuts, which is the orange line here, Mr. Speaker, you see it isn't going to work. The spending increases much faster than even after those tax increases.

So I say to the people who have put together the majority budget, what do you plan to do here? Are we ever going to deal with this rapid exponential growth in spending? Or are you planning to raise these taxes further? Is the $3,331 per taxpayer in California just the beginning? Are we looking over a 10- or 15-year period of time at twice that? Three times that? Four times that? The sort of thing it would take to get anywhere near this spending level?

Chairman Bernanke is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. And the Federal Reserve, I think there is pretty general unanimity on both sides of the aisle, as well as with the economists, that the Federal Reserve has done a pretty good job of managing our economy for some time, interest rates and inflation; and they tend to know what could set this economy off course and what could keep it on course. And I think they deserve a lot of credit for keeping the economy on course, not just over the last 3 or 4 years but over the last 15 or 20 years.

But Chairman Bernanke said just earlier this year that ``without early and meaningful action to address entitlements, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened with future generations bearing much of the cost.''

What does he mean by that? When he talks about entitlements, he is talking about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, things like that that the government does. And he said if we don't deal with it early and meaningfully, if we don't take early and meaningful action to deal with the growth in these retirements, that the economy is in trouble.

Now, the Democrat budget that will be on this floor later this week, let's see, it is a 5-year budget. What reform of entitlements does it include? Oh, yes. Zero. None. Not one change. Nothing in the entitlements over the next 5 years. Is that early reform? I don't think so. Is that meaningful reform? Well, if zero is meaningful, then maybe; but I don't think it is meaningful reform.

So let us look at what happens if we don't reform. Again, here is revenue, this black line. That is income coming into the Federal Government, roughly the same tax rates that we have today. But look at what happens to spending. It goes from a little more than we are taking in right now to nearly double. Nearly double if we don't reform. That is why Chairman Bernanke said, Mr. Speaker, that we need early and meaningful reform or this economy is in trouble, as he said, with future generations bearing much of the cost.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of discussion about children around here and what is good for children and how we are going to help children. Let me tell you something I know is not good for children, and that is sending them this kind of price tag for us, for our Medicare, our Social Security, our Medicaid over the next 15, 20 years, and asking them to pay double, at least, the tax rates, the tax burden, that we pay because we didn't act.

We know this is coming. This is not a Republican chart. This is not a Democratic chart. This is prepared by

the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget. Any number of nonpartisan government agencies agree. All the experts agree. On the Budget Committee that Mr. Garrett and Mr. Barrett and I sit on, every single expert who came in said that this entitlement spending, this planned growth in spending, is a disaster, a budget disaster, that we can see. It is a train coming down the track right into our eyes. But we are not blinded. It is not like we can't see it, Mr. Speaker. It is right here. We can see it. It is right here on this chart. We know it is coming, and we know the only way to deal with it is to reform these things.

So where are they? Where are those reforms? What will people do if that top tax rate rises?

Let me pull out one of these other charts. Just think about it. Doubling taxes. I realize it is quite a few years off, but if we don't deal with it now, we will get there. What does that mean? I guess that means the 39 percent rate would go almost 80 percent. That capital gains would have to go to 40. The estate tax, I guess you just take it all, which has happened in some countries before. The child tax credit, you probably get rid of it. And the lowest tax bracket would probably need to go up to 20 or 25 percent.

Those obviously aren't exact figures or anything like that, Mr. Speaker, but just to give a sense of what we are talking about here if we don't do something, if we don't change these processes and change this. Because if you look at this chart again, the reason we can see the train coming is, if we do nothing, absolutely nothing, to change Social Security, that is this one, Medicare and Medicaid is this one, interest on the debt is that one. If we did nothing to change existing law, it is not like you have to do more, that we have to take action to spend this money. This is the money that will get spent if we do nothing, if we leave it alone under existing law. That is why we have to take action, and it is for the kids.

Our kids can't bear this burden. People have said that if we allow this to happen that my children will be the first generation of Americans to have a lower standing of living than their parents. We have never had that happen in this country, and we should never let it happen in this country. The only way it is going to happen is if we shirk our responsibility today, because, gosh, it is 15 years off, let's deal with it later.

This isn't about destroying Social Security. This is about saving Social Security. Because you really can't pay for this. There isn't enough money in the economy. So we have to reform it. We have to change the way it works to save it.

That is why Republican budgets will say we should save the Social Security system. We shouldn't spend it. That is why it is part of the American Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, which a group of us Republicans introduced a few weeks ago, where we said if you pay money for your retirement it should only be spent on your retirement. It shouldn't be spent on something else.

This isn't about destroying Medicare or wrecking Medicare, as you will probably hear demagoguery on the other side. It is about saving it. It won't continue this way. There isn't enough money. We have to save it, and to save it we must reform it.

You will see proposals, you will see reform, but not in the Democratic budget that we see today. And that is what is so disappointing, Mr. Speaker. We can't ignore it. We shouldn't ignore it. It is right there. It is right before us.

Our children will look back at this time in the future as to what we did with their inheritance. And I don't mean about the death tax necessarily. I mean the inheritance of optimism that is so much a part of the American ethos, the optimism that the average American can always do better, that anyone can lift themselves up, that they can move things forward.

Instead, this is saying, no, we have to take more of your money. We have to move things backwards. You may not be able to have the same things that your parents had because we need more of your money for a failed and inefficient system.

That is not the America my parents left me, it is not the America that I want to leave my children, but it is the America that this Democratic budget is heading us towards.

Mr. Speaker, we do not need the largest tax increase in American history. We need to let people keep more of their money, not less. Families will not struggle because government doesn't spend enough. Families will struggle when government spends too much and takes too much of their money.

Mr. Speaker, we need a solvent Social Security system, a solvent retirement system, not one that takes the money that that is taken out of people's paycheck for their retirement and spends it on other things and not one that is unsustainable, that won't exist 20 or 30 years from now.

Mr. Speaker, we need a Medicare system, a healthcare system, where people control their own healthcare, where people control their own destiny, not where the government is telling them what to do and telling them how to do it and using one of the most inefficient methods and high cost to do so. We have to reform that, or it won't exist in the future.

Yes, this Democratic budget is full of empty promises. You will hear about them over the next few days and weeks. You will hear that they promise to spend more money on this and spend more money on that and spend more money on the other thing, and in some cases they are definitely planning to do that. What they are not telling you is where they are getting it, and they are getting it right out of your pocket.

In some cases, they are going to say we are going to spend more money on this and spend more money on that and grow this program and grow that program; and, as Mr. Barrett from South Carolina said earlier, they don't actually have the money in the budget to do it. They are just telling you, oh, yeah, we are going to do it. But we will find the money later.

Well, you can be sure where they are going to get that money, probably the place they get the other money, right out of the American taxpayer. It is the only place to go, unless you cut spending somewhere else, which we are very happy to talk about, very willing to do. That is always something you do in budgets, you set those priorities.

Yes, it is a budget filled with empty promises, except one, the largest tax increase in American history.

Mr. Speaker, American taxpayers deserve better, and I hope that we will defeat this budget later this week.

I thank the lady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, for yielding and all of your great, great hard work on this and all kinds of other issues on behalf of the taxpayers, because that is what this is about, Mr. Speaker, this is about the taxpayers, American Taxpayers Bill of Rights. It is about American taxpayers having in law rights that they should have by right.

You know, Congressman Ryan from Wisconsin today said, and I am going to paraphrase some of what he said, that Congress should have constraints so that the people can have more freedom.

If you look at what has happened here, in 34 out of the last 38 years, this Congress has spent more money than it took in. It ran a deficit 34 out of the last 38 years. This year will be another one. That will be 35 out of 39 years. Clearly something is structurally wrong.

What the American Taxpayers' Bill of Rights will do is put some structure and make this structurally right. Let's just run through one more time what those four rights are that are going to restore fiscal responsibility here in Washington, the fiscal responsibility that the people watching at home already have.

First of all, you have the right to know that your government will not spend money faster than your ability to pay for it. What does that mean? Well, Mr. Speaker, that means that if taxpayers' incomes go up by 3 percent in a given year and the government's spending goes up by 7, you won't be able to pay for it. If you get a 3 percent raise and the government spends 7 percent more money, the only thing they can do is increase taxes so much that they take 100 percent of that raise and then some. So the government gets to spend more while you hardworking taxpayers at home actually have less money to spend.

That is unsustainable. That can't continue. And so we propose that there be a limit on the spending of government, that from year to year it can't increase spending faster than your income increases.

Second, you have the right to know when you pay taxes for Social Security that they are used for Social Security. That doesn't seem like that strange a concept. Your Social Security taxes are supposed to go to Social Security. When you pay for a driver's license at the DMV, that is supposed to go to provide your driver's license. When you pay a fee on a boat or something, that is supposed to go for boating. It makes sense that when you pay a tax for something it goes for that. But that isn't what has been happening with Social Security. Those taxes have been lumped in with everything else and used for whatever, and that is just wrong. So it should be used only for Social Security.

Third, you have the right to a Tax Code that you can understand and that is fair and that is simple. Now, I am actually a CPA, Mr. Speaker, and I have a Master's in taxation. I used to prepare tax returns for a living, that is because it is not an easy thing to do, but it should be. So what we have proposed is that the Tax Code, the current labyrinth, this Byzantine Tax Code that we have, these sunset; that means it ends, it quits, we repeal it as of January 3, 2011. That would give us 4 years, Mr. Speaker, if you include this year, in which to come up with an alternative, an alternative that is fair and simple and understandable.

You know, taxes are supposed to raise the necessary revenue to fund the government's necessary operations with the least interference with commerce. I think you could argue that the Tax Code that we have today raises more revenue than what the government needs to do, what the government should do--not what it is doing, but what it should do--but it does it with a tremendous interference with commerce. So we would propose to sunset the Tax Code.

And the fourth right in the American Taxpayers' Bill of Rights is the right to have a government that balances its budget the way that people at home balance their budgets every year.

Now, as I started out in this comment, 34 of the last 38 years, this government has been unable to balance its books. Can you imagine if people at home, average American taxpayers, went 34 out of 38 years spending more money that you had, spending more money than your income? You wouldn't have lasted very long, and the government shouldn't have lasted very long either. So we propose a constitutional amendment to balance the budget and to provide that you can't raise taxes without a two-thirds vote of this body and of the Senate.

Now, a lot of people out here talk balanced budgets. I bet if you asked the 435 Members of Congress if they were in favor of a balanced budget, that 435 people would say, ``yes,'' they are. Well, that is great because we have had statutory balanced budgets, we have this scheme today that the majority party has put, called PAYGO, which is a complete sham, but it is supposed to be an argument that it is somehow a balanced budget. Well, you know what? If we really want a balanced budget, a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget will absolutely do it.

So now let's ask those 435 Members of this body, okay, you say you want a balanced budget. Well, then you ought to support a constitutional amendment to do it because that is the way it will really get done.

Four rights, four simple rights in the American Taxpayers' Bill of Rights that, put together and enacted into law and the Constitution, will put the constraints around Congress to keep spending under control so that the freedom of the taxpayers is enhanced.

I yield back to the lady from Tennessee.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of 2nd Lieutenant Mark J. Daily--an honorable citizen and hero in our nation's War on Terrorism.

Lieutenant Daily grew up in Irvine, California, and graduated from Woodbridge High School in 2001. He was known among family and friends as having an amazing breadth of knowledge, a strong desire to serve, and a wonderful sense of humor.

In 2005, Lieutenant Daily graduated from the University of California at Los Angeles as a Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) cadet with a bachelor's degree in political science. His ability and work ethic was further exemplified that year when he was named as both the ROTC outstanding cadet and a Distinguished Military Graduate, the highest honor one can receive in the ROTC.

As a member of the United States Army's 4th Brigade Combat Team, he was stationed in Iraq's northern city of Mosul. Tragically, on January 15, 2007, Lieutenant Daily made the ultimate sacrifice when he was killed conducting operations in the city.

Lieutenant Daily is survived by his wife, Snejana; his parents, John and Linda; his sisters, Christine and Nicole; and his brother, Eric. He valued their love, and they miss him terribly now. On his webpage, Lieutenant Daily listed his interests as ``family, peace, and progress.'' And it is in the value that he placed on these three things that we see the quality of his character.

The night before he left for Iraq, Lieutenant Daily wrote an online weblog to friends and family entitled ``Why I Joined.'' In the post, he articulately stated the importance of fostering a stable democratic government in Iraq, and the harsh consequences of failure. He called upon all Americans to challenge themselves, to not just enjoy the blessings of liberty, but to act upon them.

In the wake of his death, Lieutenant Daily's web log was widely distributed in newspapers and on the internet. These words have served as an inspiration and encouragement to many. It is clear he felt passionately about what he was doing and why he was doing it. What better way to remember his heart for service and commitment to progress than by reflecting on his own words. Mr. Speaker, the following web log entry was posted on his website on October 29, 2006:

Why I Joined

This question has been asked of me so many times in so many

different contexts

that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for

joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more

accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After

all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on

Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now,

after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.

Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal

Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by

Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own

ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational

militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the

greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they

happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state

of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest

transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has

experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks

to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this

transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and

genocide. And I am now in the center of this.

Is this why I joined?

Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in

overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new

state based upon political representation and individual

rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view

the conflict around one-word explanations such as ``oil'' or

``terrorism,'' favoring the one which best serves their

political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who

knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at

times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq.

If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to

volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind

obedience then consider me the exception (though there are

countless like me).

I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many

modern day ``humanists'' who claim to possess a genuine

concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact

quite content to allow their fellow ``global citizens'' to

suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and

conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked

why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or

the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers

would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing

women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint

cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty

(how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to

defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of

America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat

to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace

and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because

civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances

with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic

for the environment. My fellow ``humanists'' and I would

relish contently in our self righteous declaration of

opposition against all military campaigns against

dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to

taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many

still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the

members of Rage against the Machine and Green Day. Others

would point to America's historical support of Saddam

Hussein, citing it as hypocritical that we would now vilify

him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to

ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly

identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled

and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with

Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the

Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with

Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the

ultimate argument against America's moral crusade.

And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all

political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is

these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent

people from ever taking any kind of effective action against

men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as

disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray

may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have

accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old

soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college

campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the

universal legitimacy of representative government and

individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting

lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is

less about how clean your actions are and more about how

pure your intentions are.

So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to

read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered

under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of

philosophical advancement and communication that we use to

develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless

human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the

regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted

for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the

President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq.

Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up

our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal

regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.

I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of

the oppressed was over, and I joined.

In digesting this posting, please remember that America's

commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed

before the current administration and would exist into our

future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember

that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion

centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most

cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a

responsibility to one another and that Americans will always

have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the

obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen

the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed

population in converting their torn society into a plural,

democratic one is dangerous and difficult business,

especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally

every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the

end of this reading, let it at least include ``Good Luck.''--

Lt. Mark J. Daily, United States Army.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

You are right. A big problem, big issues, and this resolution doesn't address them.

What does it do? It basically says that the military leaders have a suggestion that we have reinforcements that they believe may improve the situation, help us get a victory in Iraq. Now, they can't guarantee that. The President can't guarantee it. Nobody can guarantee it. But what does this say? It says we are not going to do that. Okay, fine. But what are you going to do instead?

This resolution, by rejecting the only plan on the table, basically is saying stay the course, keep the status quo.

I don't think the status quo has been working. I think we know we have to make some changes in strategy and whatever. We have to make something work. But this basically says we will take the only plan that is out there and reject it. We won't do it.

So my question would be what do you do instead? What do you do to ensure that we don't have a genocide in Iraq on the scale of what is going on in Darfur? If you don't want to do this plan, what do you do to ensure that terrorism does not grow and flourish in Iraq and that then they come to attack us on our soil again, which they haven't done for 5 years? What do you do to protect our troops?

I think these are a lot of questions that we have, Mr. Hoekstra, which is why just saying no to the only plan that is on the table won't do it. It is kind of like a football game: the coach and quarterback call a play, and they are in there, and then someone runs into huddle and says, No, we are not going to run this play.

What play are we going to call?

We don't have a play.

So the quarterback gets under the center. The center snaps the ball, and nobody goes anywhere. Nobody knows what to do because there is no play, there is no plan. That will fail.

This simple status quo resolution is not the solution.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this first moment to recognize my colleague from Iowa (Mr. King).

Thank you, Mr. King.

We are talking about the budget this evening, and a number of things about the budget. The problem out there: We have a deficit. The problem is not that people are taxed too little; it is the government is spending too much.

I didn't just make that up. I didn't come up with that now. I am paraphrasing the words of President Ronald Reagan and comments he made several decades ago. But it is every bit as true today as it was then. The reason that we have a deficit, the issues with our government budget, are not that people

are taxed too little; it is that government spends too much.

Why, as a matter of fact, since 2003, revenues to the Federal Government, income to the Federal Government, have increased by 46 percent, assuming that this year it continues at the rate that the increases have begun this year, 46 percent since 2003.

Let me put that in a way maybe that folks listening can understand even more clearly. If you are making $50,000 a year in 2003, in order for your income to keep up with what the Federal Government's income has been, you would have to be making over $72,000 today, not bad. I bet most of you out there listening, if you were making $50,000 back in 2003, would be pretty happy if you had gotten raises to be at $72,000 or $73,000 today. But that is where the Federal Government is.

But what's interesting is, that is not because taxes were increased. That 46 percent increase in revenue is because taxes were decreased, because there were tax cuts in 2003.

Because there were tax cuts in 2003, a whole bunch of good things happened: More people are working. The unemployment rate is down. Business investment is up. Gross domestic product is up, and millions and millions of new jobs have been created. All that since these tax cuts that are so demagoged by the other side. Now, the people who spoke in the hour before me here were talking about tax cuts for the rich, and I think they said super billionaires or something like that.

Let us talk about what these tax reductions were. One of them was a reduction in the tax on capital gains and dividends. Let's see. Over 50 percent of Americans now own stocks or have been investing in the stock market. So I guess over 50 percent of Americans must be hyper billionaires because capital gains and dividends tax cuts saved them money.

Almost 70 percent of Americans own homes. When you sell your home at some point, you might be subject to a capital gains tax. I guess almost over 70 percent of Americans are hyper billionaires or the super rich.

Or perhaps the marriage penalty reduction, which saved money for every married taxpayer. I guess that means everyone who is married is a hyper billionaire type of rich.

Not true, but what is particularly interesting is that these tax reductions, these tax rate reductions, saved Americans at all income levels money, and it resulted in the economy growing, which is why you have had this 46 percent increase in revenue.

But even with that 46 percent increase in revenue, we still have a deficit, because we are spending too much. Now, the other side does have a tax that they don't like, which is interesting. It is the alternative minimum tax.

Now, I stand before you as a Member of Congress, yes, but also as a certified public accountant and an individual with a master's in business taxation. So I do have a little bit of knowledge in the area of taxation. The alternative minimum tax is pretty complicated. But basically you figure your tax on a regular tax, and then there is another tax, and you pay whichever one is greater.

The alternative minimum tax only kicks in if it results in more tax than the regular tax. The reason that would happen is because you pay a high rate. By definition, if you are not in one of the highest tax brackets, the alternative minimum tax cannot apply to you.

If you were to compare the capital gains tax, alternative minimum tax, and look at which one is more for the rich, it would certainly be the alternative minimum tax. Yet you just heard the Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle just say that the capital gains, the dividends, all these tax reductions that were in 2003 are terrible and are hurting the economy, and they are hurting people, and they are only for the super billionaires. But, yes, they insist on doing something to get rid of the alternative minimum tax, which, by definition, can only hit people in the highest tax brackets, can only create more tax for them.

You can't have it both ways, Democrats, you cannot have it both ways. If eliminating or reducing the alternative minimum tax is good policy, then so is reducing the tax on capital gains and on dividends and on the marriage penalty and all the other rate reductions that we did back in 2003.

Now, the President released a budget this week. The budget he released balances in 5 years without raising taxes. The other side of the aisle, the majority here spent the last 2 days saying how terrible it is. I am trying to figure out what is so bad. Is balancing the budget in 5 years bad? I would rather balance it in 2; I would rather balance it in 1, sure.

I don't think balancing the budget in 5 years is that bad of an objective, and it balances it without raising taxes. Ah, that is really the part they don't like, balancing the budget without raising taxes. They don't want that to happen because they want to raise taxes, because a 46 percent income growth since 2003 is not good enough, because increases in jobs, increases in the economy, increases in gross domestic product, that is not good enough, because they want to spend more, more and more and more. They want to tax, and they want to spend.

The new Democrats are the same as the old Democrats. You are seeing it on this floor, in this hall, today, this week and this month. Unfortunately, I am afraid you are going to see it in the months going forward.

So what is the problem with balancing the budget without tax increases? That is what we want to do. That is what the President wants to do. But, unfortunately it is not what the other side wants to do.

Let me take a moment, and if I may, and yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King). Would you like to speak on some of these matters for a few moments?

Mr. King, one second, before you leave, figures, we talk about the progress we have made on this budget so far. The 12-month budget deficit, the last 12 months, is $188 billion. Remember, some time ago, we were talking about nearly half a trillion dollars. That $188 billion is down 38 percent as a rolling 12-month budget deficit from what it was a year ago.

For 22 straight months now, the budget deficit has declined by about 18 percent, year on year. There is a lot of progress happening on this budget deficit because of the growth in the economy, because of those tax cuts, and because we, the prior couple of budgets, were beginning to start to control spending. It is something we haven't done, well, frankly, a lot, lately. But we are starting to in the last couple of years. Isn't that right, Mr. King?

Mr. Speaker, we all understand how much we would rather have the private markets than us making decisions, than some nameless, faceless bureaucrat somewhere close to where we are all sitting right now, someone here in Washington. Someone who fully understands that is my colleague who will be speaking next, Dr. Price from the State of Georgia. Dr. Price.

Thank you, Dr. Price.

It is as though the people on the other side, the Democrats, the facts of what is going on in the economy, what is going on in the budget, what tax cuts do, what they do not do, it just does not fit with what they want to do, which is tax more and spend more.

You know, I could put all of you here, keep you in this room where there is no windows, and tell you tomorrow morning that the sun did not rise. Now, you would have no proof that the sun did not rise, but it is very likely that it, in fact, did rise. And the fact that I keep you in this room and do not let you see it does not mean that the sun did not rise.

That is what they are doing. And we are trying to open the windows so people can see, no, you know what, the sun did rise this morning. Tax cuts do stimulate the economy. The budget is moving towards balance. But the problem is spending.

Well, we do have other speakers. The next one is from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

I thank very much the gentleman from Georgia for his remarks, with which I can fully associate. But there are people who have been in Congress less time than I have, and one of them will be our next speaker here, Mr. Davis, the gentleman from Tennessee. I would like you to yield time to Mr. Davis from Tennessee, one of our freshmen.

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. And, you know, we don't have a rainforest in Iowa right now. But if the budget passed by the Democrats in this House, when was it, last week, were to become law, then we will have a rainforest in Iowa, and it will be built with $50 million of your money. That is you people watching. It will be tax money taken from you to pay to build a rainforest in Iowa.

Now, Democrats have only been in charge for a little longer than 30 days, and already they have made it easier to raise taxes. They raise taxes on domestic oil and gas producers. I mean, I totally don't get that when here we are trying to become less reliant on foreign oil, and we have gas prices where they are, and they are going to tax domestic oil and gas producers. And, of course, when they tax them, they spend the money on an entirely new program, and then on top of that then they pass this budget which allows this rainforest in Iowa to go through and spends another $10 billion, which increases the deficit not reduces it.

But I don't need to explain any of this to our next speaker, the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn). I would like to yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee.

As you say, one of the great differences between us and them, we talked about it being your money, their money, the People's money, the taxpayers' money. Your money, watching on television, they talk about it like it is their money, like it is the government's money.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. Wow, what a shock. The other side says they are tax cuts for the rich, and they are not, unless making under $50,000 makes you rich.

Now if we can go to the other side of the country, I yield to a great defender of taxpayers and taxpayers' rights, Mr. Jeff Flake, the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona.

And now from the great desert Southwest to the South, I yield to Dr. Gingrey, the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia. And I would just like to say to everyone who is watching and listening, you have been listening for the last hour to members of the Republican Study Committee. You will be hearing a lot from us because we want to watch out for your money and your interests, not the government and the government's interests.

To close things I would like to yield to another new Member of Congress, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

I thank the gentleman very much.

This is a press release. It doesn't matter what press release it is, it is just a press release. Which means, it says something, argues a position on an issue, and it is on a piece of paper, but it doesn't actually do anything. It just talks about things.

What is before us, this bill, is like a press release. It makes an argument, it is on a piece of paper, but doesn't really do anything.

I heard everyone on the other side of the aisle here talk about how people can't afford to pay for college. Well, this bill doesn't help people pay for college. It claims to help them reduce their interest rate once they are college graduates, after they are out of college, but it certainly doesn't help you pay for college while you are there.

I have also heard the argument that it cuts the rate for student loans in half, and in fact it does: For 6 months, 5 years from now. For 6 months, 5 years from now, it cuts the rate in half, but the rest of the time the rate is either the same as it is now or somewhere in between those two. So let's not say that it cuts it in half.

And, to its credit, the bill is cost neutral. Now, cost neutral, it doesn't cost the government anything because although it cuts interest rates to some degree, it also raises or reduces subsidies on fees. So it is like I give you a dollar with less interest rate and then I take that dollar out of your other pocket with less fees. If it doesn't cost anything, net, how is it supposed to help someone, net, pay for the program? And because, perhaps, some of the loan providers could choose to absorb some of these fees if they did that, then it would likely result in less student loans. You know, this is not a bill, it is a press release.

Now, it is an issue we ought to be dealing with, because college tuition, I have two kids in college, has gone up four times the rate of inflation. But this is not the solution. This is merely talk and press and not substance.

Mr. Speaker, I spent 25 years in the retail car business, so I have done my share of negotiating. There is a golden rule of negotiating to buy something that if you want to get the best price, you have to be willing to say, No, I won't buy it.

So if the government negotiates and says, No, I won't buy it, when they say no, which they will say a lot or have to say a lot to get a good price, then that means that seniors will be denied various drugs, and that is what has happened in the VA.

If they take the other course and decide they are not going to say no, then they are not negotiating; they are price setting. And when they set prices, they will either be too low and people won't get what they need, or they will be too high and we will be wasting money.

Mr. Speaker, this is a solution that won't work to a problem that does not exist.

Mr. Speaker, two plus two does not equal six, but if I were to assume that it did, I could take care of the budget. Easy.

PAYGO assumes that when you increase taxes, revenue goes up, and when you lower tax rates, revenue goes down. But history shows that that is not what happens, because there are economic factors, and people change behavior.

Since the tax cut-rate cuts of 2003, revenue has been up every year, and in 2 of the last 3 years has been up by double digits.

Two plus two does not equal six. PAYGO does not equal fiscal responsibility. What PAYGO does equal is tax increases that will hurt the economy and will not raise revenue and will not help the deficit.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 48 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, November 15, 2006, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, born on April 24th, 1921 in Hawthorne, California, Theodore (``Ted'') Ralph Williams was delivered into a family divided by divorce and early hardships. Fortunately, the happiest years of his youth were spent with his mother, step-father and siblings on a 35-acre citrus nursery and farm which skirted the eastern border of the giant Irvine Ranch in Orange County, California. It was on the farm where Williams developed the strong work ethic and key survival skills which have served him so well over the course of his life.

Following the death of his beloved step-father in 1935 and his family's ensuing financial challenges, Ted Williams left Tustin High School during his senior year and enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. On January 18, 1940, he was sworn in as a ``Boot Marine'' and immediately deployed to the Philippine Islands where he was stationed in the Manila area near Clark Field, Cavite and Mariveles, part of the 4th Marine Regiment and home port to the 16th Naval District Fleet. Less than a year later, on December 7th, 1942, the United States was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. The very next day, the Japanese attacked the Philippines; and Williams found himself cut-off from the rest of the world.

Alone, hungry and wounded, Williams and his military comrades waged a brave three-month fight against the enemy yet, ultimately, were forced to join a massive surrender--and the infamous Bataan Death March. For a week, more than 75,000 American prisoners marched 160 kilometers in the searing April heat toward primitive prison camps. Along the way, Williams and his fellow soldiers were aided by Filipino civilians, mostly women and children, who heroically provided water and food to the survivors of the march. Ultimately however, more than 10,000 soldiers died at the hands of the enemy through torture, disease, starvation and murder. Surviving the march yet in failing health, Williams was eventually sent to The Zero Ward at Bilibid, a dilapidated prison functioning as a crude hospital. There he recovered from amebic dysentery only to suffer a host of new injuries brought-on by harsh prison labor that lasted for nearly two years.

In June 1944, he was sent to a prison camp in the north at Cabanatuan where he was assigned to the torturous runway construction crew. A month later, Williams was shipped via prisoner boat transport (known as Hell Ships) to Camp 17 in Kyushu, Japan, where he served as a slave laborer in a coal mine, followed by time served at Camp 1 in Fukuoka, Japan. On August 25th, 1945, just weeks after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Williams and his fellow POWs were released by their captors.

Discharged from the Marine Corps in 1946, Williams returned to Orange County and married Dolores Wallace, whom he later divorced. After a series of odd jobs, Williams built a steady career with Sears in Southern California. In 1972, he moved to Santa Ana, where he met and married Lillian May Phipps, his travel companion and fellow adventurer. It was Lillian who brought Williams back to the Philippines to retrace his POW experiences, a trip Williams has since made 21 times. In February of 1979, Williams underwent open heart surgery and, as part of his physical and emotional recovery, began work on ``Rogues of Bataan,'' an autobiographical account of the Bataan Death March. Just one year later, Lillian died from liver cancer.

Inspired by his late wife's kind and generous heart, Williams embarked on a series of charitable efforts including the funding of an orphanage in Mexico and the founding of TERI, Inc. (Training, Education and Research Institute) in Oceanside, CA, a private nonprofit agency providing residential care, education, job training, employment, and other programs and services for people with all sorts of developmental disabilities and special needs. Upon a return trip to the Philippines with other survivors of the Bataan Death March, Williams spearheaded the effort to build, equip and staff an elementary school on the Philippine Island of Corregidor. During this period in his life, Williams returned to his writing and completed ``Rogues of Bataan,'' which was first published in 1999 and has since been re-released with all proceeds benefiting TERI, Inc. In 2003, Williams embarked on the creation of the Corregidor School Fund which has since built and furnished the Llamas Memorial Institute in Mariveles, Bataan, Philippines, an educational library which was officially dedicated on July 4, 2006. In recognition of his charitable works, community service and humanitarian efforts to the Filipino people, Ted Williams was placed on the prestigious ``Perpetual Honor Roll'' for the Order of the Knights of Rizal (as chartered by the Philippine government) on March 16, 2006. Now, at age 85 and in failing health, Ted Williams is worthy of his own special recognition by the United States of America. This native son of Southern California is a true American Hero, a passionate patriot and a caring and humble community servant.