Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, there are a whole bunch of things in this bill I think are awful. I don't like funds, government funds to buy foreclosed properties. I don't like having a fee that might increase the interest rates that people pay for loans. I don't like creating a slush fund that will probably largely go to some political organizations. And I do not like helping irresponsible lenders that don't deserve to get any help.

However, I am going to support this bill today. I am going to support it because we are in a position where we cannot afford to not have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the marketplace.

If you think the economy is tough now, watch what would happen if we took 50 percent of our lending capacity out of this marketplace today.

We can argue about whether Fannie and Freddie should be as they are constructed today, and I don't think they should be. We should have an argument about how they should be constructed in the future. We should have a debate about that. But they are as they are now, and the guarantee from the Federal Government is implicit, and this bill will make it explicit, and I think that is, very unfortunately, something we are going to have to do.

The bill also does provide some lending support out there. There are people out there who did get in a problem that was not of their own making and who do deserve some help and some support. Unfortunately, we will be supporting a lot of people who don't deserve, but at least it will get to people who do deserve support as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, I stand before you reluctantly supporting the bill, but supporting it because we cannot afford at this time to see the housing market slip further and further into a problem. Although this has a number of things which won't help at all, it does have some things which I think are necessary.

Yes, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Yes.

I thank my colleague and friend from Washington for yielding.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the original intent of why we allow gambling on Indian reservations was so that we could give some economic opportunity to full-blooded Indians on their native tribal lands in very remote areas in which hardly any economic opportunity existed.

So what do we have now? Now we see various Indian tribes that have already achieved tremendous economic benefits that are now wanting to put casinos in urban and suburban areas that are long distances from their native tribal lands and where there is a lot of economic opportunity, and to fill those, not even helping any of the people in their tribe who are back on the reservation.

With a bill like this, we have strayed a long ways from the original intent of Indian gambling. Now, this bill is about two tribes specifically in Michigan. I am from California, but yet this trend, this movement, is not limited to just Michigan. Throughout the country, you see groups either trying to create new tribes in urban areas in order to locate gambling operations or, like these in Michigan, to extend from a remote area and set up new gambling in a new metropolitan area. All of this has nothing to do with the original intent of the Indian gambling laws.

If communities like Detroit, or anywhere, wish to have gambling, they don't need this House; they don't need this Congress; they don't need the Indian gambling laws to do it. Through their State and local communities, they can allow people to gamble. They can set up various gambling operations, if they want, within their community and within their State. That's up to them. But let us not all here in this House, in this Congress, set a trend. Let's not set a precedent. Let's not use Indian tribes in order to dot the urban and suburban areas of this country with monopoly gambling operations.

Mr. Speaker, shh, there's a secret. I have a secret. It's a secret that the leadership in this House doesn't want the people to know; but I'm going to tell you anyway. This Nation, this Federal Government, is in a historic fiscal crisis right now.

It was announced earlier this week that the deficit for this fiscal year which we are in is projected now to reach $470 billion. Now, Mr. Speaker, for most people when you talk like this, these numbers are so huge they sound arcane. What does that mean.

Well, it is half a trillion dollars which I think most people know is a lot of money. Let me put it in perspective.

If we reach that level by the end of September, this will be by far the largest single year deficit in American history. Let me repeat that. We are currently in a year in which we will likely reach the largest deficit in 1 year in U.S. history.

But it doesn't seem to stop there because also this week the Appropriations Committee released their spending request for the next fiscal year, for fiscal year 2009. And they requested to spend 7.7 percent more than this year; 7.7 percent more. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the appropriations request is made up of 12 separate bills, 12 separate areas of the government. They propose an increase in spending in all 12. They are not proposing to keep the same or reduce spending anywhere in spite of the largest deficit in American history.

And because of the economic doldrums that we are currently in, revenue right now is basically flat. It is not rising very much. And entitlement spending, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, is going up by nearly 6 percent a year all by itself automatically if we don't do anything over the next 5 years.

So you don't have to be a rocket scientist to say okay, if revenues are staying the same and we are increasing some spending by 7.7 percent and the rest by nearly 6, the deficit is going to go up. So with the way things are projected, we could have a deficit of $600 billion, maybe $700 billion next year. And what are we doing about it in this House, well, we are just trying to make it worse.

Yesterday in a very broad, bipartisan vote, there was a vote to spend an additional $261 billion over the next 2 years, much of which is not included in the numbers that I just gave you. So $261 billion more. Deeper debt, bigger deficits.

Now some of the things that were included in that bill yesterday are priorities. One of them was continuing to support the troops in Iraq. I personally support that. But we have to make choices. There have to be priorities. We can't spend on everything. We should support the troops in completing their mission in Iraq, but we should cut something else so we are not making the taxpayer be the loser on all of this.

It seems like every week in this place, in fact I believe every week here we have either added a new program, new spending or a new entitlement. And hardly ever do we reduce the spending on something else to pay for it.

Now we are spending well over $3 trillion a year in the Federal Government. You would think that some of that $3 trillion is not something that we absolutely need. And we need to be reducing those things and setting priorities. If this is more important than this, then we spend on this and don't spend on this because we can't spend on it all.

But unfortunately what is happening around here is all right, I have my spending program, and another Member has their spending program, and so what's the compromise? I know, let's spend both. I get to spend what I want to spend and you get to spend what you want to spend, and those are the compromises we have been reaching in this place recently. Great deal. Politicians win; special interests win; taxpayer loses.

Mr. Speaker, this has got to stop. We have to stop the spending, and when we set priorities on things that we want to spend money on, we have to cut something else.

You know, the last thing I have here is: Are we going to have the highest tax rate in the world? Senator Obama recently proposed to lift the cap now on Social Security and Medicare taxes for incomes above $250,000 and repeal all of the tax cuts that were put in place in this century in 2001 and 2003. If both of those things Senator Obama has approved become law, the highest tax rate in the United States will be 54.9 percent. It will be the fourth highest tax rate in the industrialized world. We will be exceeded only by France, Sweden and Denmark. Oh, and by the way, all three of those countries are currently moving to reduce their tax rates because they see what that kind of tax burden will do, is doing to their economy and to brain drain from their countries.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that people will not keep this a secret but will tell everybody.

I thank my friend, Mr. Westmoreland from Georgia, and you are equally a friend of the taxpayer and a Georgia bulldog in terms of fighting for taxpayers and consumers and for Americans to be more free rather than less free in the future. Thank you for yielding.

I stand here in front of this chart which says that gasoline is $4.09, which is the national average. As my friend indicated, I'm from California. I can tell you that this last weekend when I was home I paid $4.91 for premium unleaded.

In California, where we have even more restrictions on refineries and fuel and gasoline than you do nationally, our price is even higher than it is nationally, so we're headed for $5-a-gallon gasoline in California.

The one thing that's not very well known is it's not going to stop there. Natural gas price has gone up as well. The price of natural gas is now about 50 percent higher than it was just about 6 months ago. Now, in my home State of California, about 95 percent of our heating comes from natural gas and about 50 percent of our electricity comes from natural gas. So my constituents are already being shocked at the gas pump; but come this summer, they're about to be shocked with their electric bill. And come this winter, they will be shocked with their natural gas heating bill.

All these energy prices are going up. They're impacting consumers, and they're impacting businesses. I can't tell you how many business owners I have talked to that are being squeezed by the price of fuel in the costs of their products, whether it's a pizza place that delivers, or whether it is a delivery place that has delivery trucks. It doesn't matter what it is, whatever you get, it got to you because somebody brought it. And when somebody brought it, they used some kind of fuel to do that, and the price of that fuel is up. And those businesses can't pass that price on right now because the economy is so weak. And so if they pass that cost on, consumers won't pay it and their volume will go down and down, so businesses are being squeezed.

I talked to an owner of a company the other day who has a lot of his employees--we have long commutes, often, in California--and the price of their commute has gotten so high that he's probably going to see if--which, again, is often restricted by State law--the company can go to a 4-day work week or maybe even a 3-day work week in order to reduce the huge costs that his employees have commuting 50, 60, 70 miles to and from work every day. So this is impacting everybody. It's the biggest issue I hear about when I go home.

And so what are we doing? What is this Democratic-led Congress leading us to do? I mean, it's affecting homes, it's affecting businesses, jobs, employment, the economy, everything. And what are we doing here? Nothing. This Democratic-led Congress is doing absolutely nothing on the biggest issue that is facing America today.

A week or so ago we did pass a resolution, though, commemorating the end of the Revolutionary War 225 years ago. Now, that's great. I mean, I'm glad we had an American Revolution, I'm glad we won, I'm glad it ended. But I think we could be doing a little more productive things on the floor of this House with energy and with energy prices.

Now, the Democrats on the other side, they will have you saying, oh, well, we can't do this and we can't do that and we can't do the other. Let me tell you what I think and what we Republicans think we should do: Everything. There shouldn't be anything off the table, basically, in this discussion because of the crisis we're in and because of the magnitude of this situation.

Let me try and break it down into three areas of things that we ought to be doing. And the first is more production and supply and delivery of oil and natural gas. Now, you will hear Democrats say, oh, I heard Senator Obama the other day say, oh, that won't affect the price for 5 years; you won't get any of that oil out for 5 years. True, you won't get any of that oil out for 5 years, but markets are anticipatory. Part of the reason that gas prices are so high today is because of the markets anticipating increasing demand in India, in China, and in Brazil that will eat up more supply. If we send a strong message from this House of Representatives that we are going to do everything we can to produce more oil and gas from everywhere we can produce, the markets will react to that. Does that mean it will go back to where it was? No. And that's not the only thing we should do. But it is something we should do, and it should be one of the clubs we have in our bag that we use to bring these numbers down.

Second, we should be trying to develop all alternative forms of energy that are out there in order to reduce the demand on the fossil fuels. Now, the first thing we should be looking at is nuclear. Now, you look at France, Japan and Sweden. Sweden, arguably the most environmentally conscious country on Earth, and they get over 80 percent of their power from nuclear. What shocks me, Mr. Westmoreland, is that I hear the Democrats say all the time, well, we want to do more nuclear power if it is safe. You always hear the qualification, ``if it is safe.'' Oh, my gosh; you've got three big countries out there have 80 percent. You can go to Italy and a whole bunch of other countries where they're producing a significant amount of their energy from nuclear and no one has had problems.

To say ``it is safe,'' and everyone looks back at Three Mile Island, but that was 40 years ago almost, that would be like looking at a 40- year-old Altar computer and trying to assess whether you could run things with that computer today.

Nuclear technology has progressed every bit as much. And the nuclear technology that exists today is much more efficient and much safer than anything we had a long time ago. And we should be putting up nuclear plants as quick as we can and replacing those natural gas plants, replacing some of those others.

Liquefying coal is another thing we should be doing. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have more coal in the United States than any other country on Earth. And second, by the way, is China. And what are the Chinese doing? Developing their coal and using their coal as quickly as they can. And what are we doing? Nothing. And then we should be looking at other alternative fuels like methanol, ethanol, butanol, all these different possible fuels.

But let's talk about ethanol for a second. You've heard a lot about it. We hear a lot about the subsidies and making it from corn, but the best thing to make ethanol from is sugar. But in this country, we have a huge tariff, I believe it's 75 percent--I could be wrong on that, but I believe it's 75 percent on imported ethanol and imported sugar.

Fifty-four cents a gallon. Fifty-four cents a gallon--thank you, Mr. Westmoreland--tax on imported ethanol or imported sugar cane to make ethanol. Why? If we think this might be one of our future alternative fuels, why would we tax it more than we tax anything else? It makes no sense. So we should be developing all of those alternative fuels.

Wind and solar, them, too, although they will never be more than 1 or 2 or 3 percent, but we should be developing them as well, and hydrothermal.

And then the third leg of this stool is efficiency. Yes, we need to have more efficient cars. Yes, we need to have

more efficient homes. Yes, we should have more efficient production capacities in business. And yes, we should do all that, too. But we can't do it only on efficiency, we can't do it only on oil production, we can't do it only on alternatives, we need to do all three.

And what so disappoints me about the majority Democrats in this House is some of them want to do one of those, occasionally they want to do two, nobody wants to do all three on the Democratic side. But that's what we need to do.

This is a crisis; it's not going to go away soon. And the American people have the right to have us in this House react and give them the tools they need to get the price of energy down to help them lift this economy.

I thank you for the time, Mr. Westmoreland. I yield back to my friend from Georgia.

Okay. Then I will stand here until you get here so we don't have a blank blue screen. Thank you very much.

Thank you for that kind introduction, my colleague from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, we learned this week that 8 months into this fiscal year we now have a deficit of $317 billion. If you project that out for the rest of the fiscal year, we are looking at having a deficit of $476 billion. That would be the largest deficit of any year in the history of the country, and today we are making it worse yet again.

I understand that much of the spending, as you've just heard in this bill, are priorities for Members of this House, for citizens--frankly, many of them for this Member, but not every one of the well over $3 trillion that we're spending now in the Federal Government can be a priority that we cannot do without. We are going to have to start, when we add more spending, take some spending out of something else, offset it with reduced spending.

What we're talking about here are priorities. And if we look at what's happening ahead of us, the appropriations bill that we now see for the coming year increases spending by another 7.7 percent, while revenues are essentially flat. And that's $72 billion that would add to this deficit next year. And that doesn't include the entitlement programs, which increase at a dramatic rate every single year and which were actuarially bankrupt.

Where are we headed, Mr. Speaker? Are we headed for a $600 billion, $700 billion deficit? Do we care? Are we going to do anything about it?

Now, there are some on the other side of the aisle who would say, well, we'll raise taxes, and that's how we'll cover it. Well, I'm not even sure you can raise taxes enough. Taking aside the arguments of what that would do to a now struggling economy, what that would do to many people out there struggling either in their business, with the cost of energy, or personally with the cost of energy, but you, frankly, can't raise taxes enough to cover the massive deficits that we're having this year and that look to be getting even greater next year.

So I would say, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, to both the Democrat and Republican leadership, we need to stop spending without offsetting it by reducing spending somewhere else. And I hope that we'll start that now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Orange County Water District for its 75 years of exemplary service to the communities of Orange County, California.

Orange County Water District and its employees deserve special recognition for their exceptional effectiveness in protecting and providing an essential resource for 2.3 million customers in Orange County. They are to be acknowledged especially for the quality and efficiency of their systems and programs that are among the most innovative in the industry. Orange County Water District in its dedication to excellence in public service is a shining example of government that works.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express our deep appreciation and gratitude to Orange County Water District and congratulate them on their 75 years.

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate Edwards Lifesciences Corporation on their 50th anniversary. Edwards Lifesciences is a leader in cardiovascular disease treatments and I am proud to recognize them on this occasion.

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation traces its roots back to 1958, when Miles ``Lowell'' Edwards set out to build the first artificial heart. Throughout its 50-year history, the company has continued its legacy of heart valve innovation. Today, the company's line of tissue heart valves, provided under the Carpentier-Edwards brand name, have become the choice of surgeons worldwide due to their durability, performance and positive quality-of-life benefits for patients, making Edwards Lifesciences the world's number-one heart valve company.

From its success in replacement valve therapies, Edwards Lifesciences applied this experience to developing products for heart valve repair. Today, the company is one of the world's leading manufacturers of products for the surgical repair procedure--called annuloplasty--and its Carpentier-Edwards and Cosgrove-Edwards annuloplasty products are among the most sought-after by surgeons around the globe.

In addition to its heart valve therapies, the Edwards organization is credited with pioneering many other medical innovations, including the Swan-Ganz catheter, the first technology ever used for hemodynamic monitoring of critically ill patients, and the Fogarty line of embolectomy catheters, the first catheter-based technologies used to remove blood clots from the arms and legs.

In 2004, the Edwards Lifesciences Fund was established out of the company's commitment to strengthen its communities and to support advancements in cardiovascular disease awareness and knowledge. The fund has already awarded approximately $5 million in grants to 115 charitable organizations.

I am pleased the original vision of Lowell Edwards continues today. Edwards Lifesciences is a global company with revenues exceeding $1 billion and 5,600 employees strong, all dedicated to furthering Lowell Edwards' original vision to help clinicians, patients and their families work together as a united community fighting cardiovascular disease.

Madam Speaker I would like to congratulate Edwards Lifesciences on their 50 years.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the city of Laguna Niguel, located within the 48th Congressional District of California, for recently formalizing its Sister Cities Agreement with Al Qa'im, Iraq. This is the tenth Sister City relationship to be established between United States and Iraqi jurisdictions, and I see this as a clear sign to the people of Iraq that citizen volunteers within communities like Laguna Niguel stand beside them in their time of building a free and prosperous society.

The Sister City Program, administered by Sister Cities International, was initiated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower back in 1956 to encourage greater friendship and cultural understanding between the United States and other nations through direct personal contact. The partnership between Laguna Niguel and Al Qa'im will be for the purpose of exploring and implementing mutually beneficial programs in the areas of government and business information exchange, health, education, cultural arts, and sports.

As a preliminary first gesture, the city of Laguna Niguel's Military Support Committee sent hundreds of soccer balls, uniforms and pumps to Al Qa'im to help the Marines deployed there build relations with the local citizens. According to their commanding officer, the city played an extremely important role in assisting the Marines in accomplishing their mission.

This is just an early indicator of many great things to come as the activities of their mutual cooperation agreement unfold. Mayor Farhan Tekan Farhan of Al Qa'im was recently quoted in Marine Corps News, saying that ``this is a great occasion for Al Qa'im, and God willing, this relationship will prove to be a promising one.''

I especially want to thank the 1st Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, led by LTC Jason Bohm, for initiating the program with Laguna Niguel and Al Qa'im, and the recently deployed Task Force 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, Regimential Combat Team 5, led by LTC Peter B. Baumgarten, for facilitating the official signing for the Sister City Program. I look forward to hearing and telling more about many other good things to come from this innovative program over the months and years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, in 1948, the United Nations established the Nation of Israel so that a dispossessed and tyrannized people might have the opportunity to return to their historic homeland.

Now, 60 years later, what does Israel stand for in our world community of nations? It stands proudly as the first democracy in the Middle East and the first multiethnic society in the region to proclaim the rights of fundamental liberty for all of its inhabitants.

Israel's commitment to freedom is evidenced by the fact that over 20 percent of its citizens are Arab, but freedom of worship and freedom of speech is granted to all.

Congratulations to Israel and all Israelis on the first 60 years of the modern era. May Israelis enjoy at least another 600.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

You know, our friends on the other side of the aisle may not like and may have problems with our budget, but the one thing they can't say is that we are not doing what we say we are going to do. We have said that we are not going to raise taxes, and it doesn't. We said we will balance the budget in 5 years without raising taxes, and it in fact does that. We have said that entitlements are a big problem and that they will swamp this budget and the next generation with debt if we don't deal with them, and this budget begins to deal with it. They may not like that, but we are doing what we say.

And there is an old saying that says ``do what I say, not what I do.'' That is what somebody who intends to have their actions be different than their words says, ``do what I say, not what I do.''

Let's take a look at this Democratic budget, which I would argue is the ``listen to what I say, don't watch what I do budget.'' We have heard over the last year how PAYGO and all these other things were going to result in and lead towards a balanced budget and that is where they wanted to go. But yet this budget nearly doubles, actually more than doubles, the deficit from the last budget passed under Republican rule.

Our friends on the other side say that they want to eliminate the alternative minimum tax, at least they say for whatever they define as ``middle-class taxpayers.'' But yet in this budget, this budget counts on and continues the revenues from the alternative minimum tax at its current rate or higher for the entire 5 years of the budget.

Our Democratic friends have always talked about how they want a tax cut for the middle class. But yet as has been mentioned, this budget counts on all of the money, all of the tax increases that have been described. It counts on eliminating the marriage penalty credit and the child care credit; it counts on raising the tax rates all the way from the 10 percent rate to 35 percent, raising them all.

They talk about health care, that they want to cover everyone with health care, universal health care and all of that. Is any of that in this budget? No. There are no changes to anything like that in the budget. They were offered the opportunity to put that in the Budget Committee and they didn't do it.

They talk a lot about the death tax, that the death tax is strangling farmers and small businesses. And it is. And what does this budget do? It takes the death tax back up to the rates it was 10 years ago. It increases the death tax over where it is now.

Then there is the big issue of entitlement reform. All of the analyses, liberal, conservative, in the middle, everyone agrees if we don't reform Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, they will bankrupt this country. What do they do to reform those in the next 5 years in this budget? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Yes, my friends, Mr. Chairman, this is the ``listen to what I say, but don't pay attention to what I do'' budget. It is like the Wizard of Oz. Watch the smoke in the front, but don't pay attention to what the man behind the curtain is doing. This budget, if you look at it, is what the man behind the curtain is doing and really wants to do, but it is not what is right or what is good for America or for taxpayers.

I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard and we know this budget has the largest tax increase in American history and it also doubles the deficit from what the last Republican budget was. But somehow the majority seems to want to convince us all that this is good for America.

Well, in considering that, I'm reminded of this commercial I see on TV, this guy named Matthew Lesko. Have you seen it? He wears this funny suit with these symbols on it, and they film it right out here on the west side of the Capitol. And he clearly makes a great living. He publishes books to tell people how to get their hands on government money. He says in the commercial: ``Let Matthew Lesko be your guide to join the millions each year who get free money, grants, loans, giant contracts, and free assistance from the Federal Government.''

Here are some of his book titles: ``Free Money for Business''; ``Free Money for a Better Home''; ``Free Money to Pay Your Bills''; and, my personal favorite, ``Free Money to Quit Your Job.''

Now, the Democrats would have you believe that they're perpetuating with this budget the concept put forward in this commercial, that government money is free. But you know what? It's not. Because every dollar that the government sends out in free money to somebody is a dollar they took, this government took, from some American who earned it or that this government borrowed from some American who has yet to earn it but will have to pay it back, plus interest, in the future.

The majority in this budget has refused to set priorities and, instead, is just spending everybody's money on everything and demanding more and more of that money that they would like to think of as free. But we all know every single dollar will eventually come from us.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee very much for yielding on this important issue of the budget.

Now you know in the next couple of weeks we will vote on a budget here, Madam Speaker, in this House. And that budget will undoubtedly have a deficit somewhere over $400 billion. Let me say that again: we will vote on a budget in the next few weeks with a deficit of somewhere over $400 billion.

Now as Mrs. Blackburn indicated, these are big numbers and they're hard to relate to. I understand that. Until I was elected to Congress, they were pretty hard for me to relate to, too. When 9/11 happened, we had a big deficit. The economy dropped off, as you recall. We spent a lot of money going after al Qaeda and so forth at that time. But since then, we've had three straight years of declining deficits. It has been coming down. And in fact, this last year it looked like finally perhaps a balanced budget was in sight.

But now this year, this year for the first time in 4 years, the deficit's going to go up, and it is not just going to go up a little; it's almost certainly going to more than double, more than double this deficit. And that's just this year. But if we look at the future, it gets even worse. If we look here at what is going to happen, and if you just look at this, this shows what will happen to the deficit, to spending in this Government over time if we don't change where we are headed.

You see, the problem we have got is not that the American people are taxed too little. It's that this Congress spends too much. There were tax cuts back in 2003 and in 2001; but since 2003, the revenue of the Federal Government has risen almost 50 percent. Let me make sure people understand that. We reduced tax rates, but because economic activity was generated by that, revenue to the Federal Government actually went up, and it went up every year. But spending keeps going up faster than that, and that's what has got to stop.

And where is it going up? It's going up in just about every category. As we pile deficits on deficits, the interest we pay goes up. Defense spending is continuing to rise; other spending is continuing to rise. But we also have Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, three things which currently take up over 50 percent of the taxes that everyone pays, Madam Speaker.

If we leave them alone, if we don't reform them, if we don't change them, you will have to literally double tax rates on every single American in order to have Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and keep anything else like a military, like national parks, like anything else. Nearly double tax rates. That is unsustainable.

What are we doing in this budget to deal with that? Nothing. Not a single thing.

Now, this isn't just me saying this or just Republicans saying this. Every single analyst, liberal, conservative, right, left, Republican, Democrat

agrees that we're headed towards these numbers, that we are headed towards a situation that's unsustainable. Either Medicare goes away, Social Security goes away, Medicaid goes away, Defense Department, all military goes away, and pick two or three or four of those or we more than double taxes on the American people.

Now, we can wait. That's what we always seem to do, we just wait, let time go on a little bit, let the next generation deal with it, let the next Congress deal with it. But the longer we wait, the worse it gets.

And we're not making this hole any smaller right now. We're more than doubling the deficit. It will be proposed to more than double the deficit in what we're about to vote on in the next couple of weeks. So, we're actually making this chart much worse.

The problem is spending. You can't tax the American people enough to spend everything that all of this is, that all of this that we're headed for, that all everybody in this Congress seems to want to spend, so we've got to control the spending.

Now, I have a suggestion for that, Madam Speaker. Because if you look, since 1960, over the last, I think it's 48 years now, I believe this is right, it may be off by one, but since 1960, I believe we've had only 4 years in which there was a surplus, only 4 years in the last 48 in which the government did not spend more money than it took in. So, that shows you that deficits aren't new. And they're not assigned, frankly, to either party. There have been deficits under Republican Congresses, Democratic Congresses, Republican Presidents, Democratic Presidents, and every combination thereof. Deficits seem to be a fundamental problem with this institution.

Our Democratic colleagues came into power last year. And when they came in, they said these deficits are terrible, this debt we're putting on our children is terrible, we're going to solve these deficits. And what did they do? They set up a few rules which they've, within a year, decided they would waive and ignore, and now they're about to propose doubling last year's deficit. You see, the spending goes on.

And there are people out there now talking about socialized medicine. They're saying, gee, we have to cover everyone with some government plan on health insurance. Where is the money going to come from? Where is it going to come from? You can't pay now for Medicare and Medicaid. The people that are currently under government function programs, you don't have enough money to pay for them for the next 20 years, where are you going to get it to pay for everybody else?

Madam Speaker, that's why one of the suggestions that the lady from Tennessee and I have, and various other people, is that we're going to need a spending limit. You know, average Americans understand, Madam Speaker, that they should save for their retirement. Well, you know, it's tough sometimes because there's things you would like to spend, things maybe you need to spend money on now, and it will eat up all the money you have if you let it. So, you set up an external discipline, like a 401(k) or something, where money comes out of your paycheck so I don't have the opportunity to spend it and I'm saving for the future.

Congress can do the same thing as American taxpayers do, which is, set up an external discipline that keeps us from spending more money than is coming in. We need a spending limit. We need something that keeps Congress from spending money faster than the American taxpayer is earning it. Because, you see, if government grows faster than the income of the average American, the only way to get that money is to take more of the average American's money. And that means you're giving the average American less of their own money to spend on their priorities so that we here in Washington can spend more of their money on ours. And that's just wrong.

Spending in this place should not be allowed to grow faster than American's incomes. And we will make some proposals to put that kind of limit on this Congress so that the limits are here and Americans have limits and restrictions removed off of them so they can earn more money and keep it, because that's what everyone wants to do.

I yield back to the lady from Tennessee.

Sure. I appreciate the lady from Tennessee yielding for this.

Yes, we have had increased tax revenues every year. In fact, all but one year out of the last 4 years it has been double digits, in other words, 10 percent or more. That's pretty good. I think a lot of Americans out there would love to see their paycheck rise by 10 percent a year. Well, the Federal Government's paycheck has been rising by that amount over the last 4 years, but we've continued to spend money. And so now revenue is dropping off a little bit, the increases aren't quite as big as they were the last 4 years, but government spending has proposed to keep on trucking, keep on going up. And that's why you're going to see this deficit nearly double, probably more than double.

That's absolutely right. And again, as I pointed out, the Democrats who came into power, many of them campaigned and made a big deal about, their issues were, that they would, wanted a balanced budget, wanted to move towards a balanced budget, but now we're doubling the deficit.

That increased spending, and the fact that revenue has dropped off some. I mean, the growth in revenue has, in fact, dropped off, the economy is down, and so people are not making as much money and paying as much taxes. So, there is that, too.

But that's the point of all of this is that the government can't keep on spending; when times are good, increase spending a lot, and when times are bad, increase spending a lot, too. That's what we can't do. And that's what has gotten us in this mess, that's what has gotten us this big national debt, and that's what has gotten us into these deficits. And now we're having a little drop off in revenue. It's still probably going to increase, but just not at a 10 percent rate like it has before.

And so I'm looking to see, where is the proposal on the part of the majority party here to reduce spending so that we can try and, if we don't balance the budget this year, so that at least we don't double it, at least we try to control it a little bit, try and get it back on track towards balance. But that's not what we're seeing. That's not what we're seeing.

Sure. If you look at this little red line here, that's the taxes that people pay. That's the 30-year average tax revenue. And this isn't in dollar terms; this is in terms of a percent of the economy. So it's not like this year you're paying the same dollars in taxes that you would in 2080; it's that you're going to pay the same percentage of the overall economy in taxes.

So, if you look at that, that's the tax rates. And if you see right here, 2000-2010, we've been running deficits during all this period, but you still see that this line here is the total spending, it's a little bit over. And we don't like the deficits we have now. I mean, I've talked about it, people on the other side of the aisle talked about it. You don't like the deficits you've got now. Well, look at the difference between this red line and the spending now and what happens in 2030 or 2040 or 2050. It's huge. And when you get out here to 2060, you see that you have to just about double taxes to pay for everything at that point. And if you double taxes, people can't and won't make as much money because it will all be coming here and nobody will have money to invest. And so it's really worse. This chart, it's scary, but it almost actually makes it look better than it really is.

And so we really have to tackle some of these things. We really have to take this on because we say, 2050, that's a long time, I may be dead by then. Whatever. But that's not what in this House we're supposed to be thinking. We're not supposed to be thinking about us; we're supposed to be thinking about the American people now and in the future. And if we're going to be thinking about the American people now and in the future, it's going to be a whole lot tougher to deal with this problem in 2020 than it's going to be to deal with it in 2010. And that's why, Mrs. Blackburn, we should be dealing with this now, in the budget now. But nope, it's just kick the can down the road; accept that doubling of the budget deficit and just kick the can down the road. And I yield back.

And if the lady will yield for one last parting comment, as you look at this chart, if you look at this chart, because you will hear some people in the majority party talk about that the whole problem is the war in Iraq and it's defense spending. If you look at this chart over time, the width of this green defense bar doesn't change that much over time. Now, who knows what will happen, but projections are that defense spending as a percentage of the economy, which is historically not that high right now, but that it wouldn't change over time. The big problems, the ones that are small here and get really fat there, are if you take the two biggest. One is Medicare and the other is interest on the debt.

Interest on the debt gets big because we keep throwing deficit after deficit after deficit. The way to get that down is simple: Balance the budget, stop running deficits. But we haven't, as I mentioned, except for 4 years, I think over the last 40-something, we haven't had the will here to do that.

The other thing is Medicare. And what's so interesting is that that is government-paid-for medical insurance for older Americans, for seniors. But you have people out there now advocating that we should have Medicare for everyone, which you've got a problem with Medicare as it is, a huge problem in that it would almost take up all of your tax money by 2080, almost take up all your tax money all by itself.

So, I thank the lady from Tennessee very much and yield back.

Madam Speaker, on February 6, 2008, I missed rollcall votes 29-31. My flight from California to Washington, DC, did not get me back in time. Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes'' on all three votes.

Rollcall Vote 29: On Motion To Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 867, Commending the Houston Dynamo soccer team for winning the 2007 Major League Soccer Cup;

Rollcall Vote 30: On Motion To Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 942, Recognizing the significance of Black History Month; and

Rollcall Vote 31: On Motion To Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 943, Remembering the space shuttle Challenger disaster and honoring its crew members, who lost their lives on January 28, 1986.

I thank my friend from Louisiana for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will vote against this bill tonight. I hope you will vote against it because it's too late. The most important quarters are this quarter and next quarter, and the vast majority of this won't even take effect until after or at the end of the next quarter. I hope you will vote against it, because it may be political stimulus, but it is the wrong economic stimulus. We are in this problem because of a credit crunch leading to a capital crunch because, arguably, Americans bought, borrowed, and spent too much, and we are going to ask them to spend more.

I hope you will oppose it because it is wealth redistribution. People who pay

over 50 percent of the taxes in this country will get nothing, and roughly 30 percent of the benefit of this will go to people who pay no taxes at all.

I hope you will vote against this and oppose it because illegal aliens will get this in spite of the new language put in the bill. You see, we have lots of laws that say it is illegal for people to be here and do what they do anyway. The problem is we don't enforce those, and we can't enforce what is in here either. It will be another unenforceable law.

I hope you will oppose it because of the potential for fraud. When you give money for nothing, there is an ability for fraud. The GAO estimates that roughly one-third of all the earned income tax credits paid out are fraudulent. It will be the same here.

I hope you will oppose it because it encourages spending when what we need as a society is more saving and investment.

But if none of that mattered, if none of that mattered to you at all, I hope you will oppose it because it nearly doubles the deficit for this year. After 3 years of declining deficits, we're going to begin the other way. We are going to nearly double that deficit.

Buy a flat screen TV and save America. It's not a good policy. I urge you to vote ``no.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I guess this afternoon I am going to be a fairly lonely voice in opposition to this bipartisan agreement, and I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will listen as in the next 3 minutes I present to you five reasons why I think we should not be passing this bill.

First of all, it is not really going to be stimulative. Look at what caused the problem that we are in right now. This is a credit problem and a capital problem. We got into this arguably because people borrowed and spent too much money. So what are we going to do? We are going to send people a check and say, spend it. Go buy a flat screen TV and save America. I just don't think that is the proper stimulus or the right way to go about this.

Second, it is really wealth redistribution. People who pay well over 50 percent of the taxes in this country get nothing, zero, nada. But yet a substantial portion of this package will go to people who pay nothing in taxes. So we call it a tax rebate, but people are going to get a rebate who paid nothing, and people who paid most of the taxes will get nothing.

Third, it increases the deficit. We have had three years of decline in this deficit. We are finally seeing perhaps the end of these deficits. And now with this and everything going on, we are looking at increasing it for the first time in 4 years, maybe going back to a deficit as much as $400 billion, which gets us back almost to where we were before 9/11.

Fourth, I know that it says in there that nonresident aliens, meaning illegal aliens, are not supposed to get a check. However, this is a 2007 1040 form, and if you look at it, you can look around all over the place and see there is no box to check where it says I am a nonresident or illegal alien and therefore am not eligible to receive this check. This thing is ripe for fraud, because you send in a tax return paying no money and get a check. So there will be opportunities for fraud.

Finally, fifth, it goes against all of our long-term goals. We all sit in here on a bipartisan basis, particularly my friends on the Democratic side have talked about reducing the deficit and getting to a balanced budget. We have talked in this country that we don't save enough. We talked in this country that many times we need to invest more, as some of our friends in some of the emerging markets are doing.

We are sending completely the wrong message here, a message which is don't save, spend; a message for the government which is don't save, don't balance, but spend. We do need stimulus.

We should be providing stimulus that attacks the problem. If your leg hurts, don't do something to try and help your arm. Help your leg. Our leg hurts. The leg that hurts is credit and capital, and there is stimulus we could do that would enhance the availability of credit and encourage the movement and investment of capital. Unfortunately, this doesn't do that.