Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of a meaningful solution to the economic challenges facing our Nation. The House Republican economic recovery plan, for example, would have created 6.2 million new jobs, and would have provided critical tax breaks for the small businesses that are the engine of our economy.

Unfortunately, today the Senate passed a borrow-and-spend bill that is full of wasteful spending and fails to provide the immediate relief the American people demand.

According to Rasmussen Reports, 62 percent of Americans want more tax cuts and less government spending in an economic stimulus plan. Yet only one-third of the Senate's bill focuses on that much-needed tax relief.

Madam Speaker, I've been contacted by hundreds and hundreds of Minnesotans who understand the need for meaningful relief. These men and women are frustrated with ineffective legislation that favors the creation of new government programs over new jobs--and saddles our children and grandchildren with more debt and bigger government.

One of these Minnesotans owns a trucking company. And he reported that he's had the worst quarter and the worst months in the history of his company, which is a second-generation company. They're having to lay off truckers. It's hard times. He does not support the Senate stimulus package.

One of those Minnesotans is another employer, a small businessman, had over 150 employees. They've had no new orders for systems since this summer. They, too, were having to lay off employees.

We understand that there are people hurting, but neither of these Minnesotans favors this non-stimulus plan.

Madam Speaker, let's listen to these American people. Let's listen to the Minnesotans. They deserve a stimulus that works.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose, yet again, seriously flawed legislation. As you know, we passed this bill just 2 weeks ago, and it is before us once again.

Unfortunately, the flaws and the potential damage to our civil rights and our economy remain. The enthusiastic supporters of the Ledbetter Act continue to beat the drum, claiming we are simply voting on a straightforward bill to reverse a Supreme Court decision involving discrimination in the workplace. Despite the passage of time and continued requests by my colleagues and I in the minority party, however, they are no closer to telling the whole story.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us would reverse a court decision for the benefit of Lilly Ledbetter, but perhaps more significantly, it would dismantle the long-standing statute of limitations established by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And this is the reason that the Supreme Court ruled the way they did. They held that the statute of limitations is an important part of our society, of our government, of our way of doing business in this country, and we need to preserve that statute of limitations.

While I can understand the pain that Ms. Ledbetter felt, can you imagine as an employer trying to keep track of decisions going back 20 years and more and trying to defend those in a court? It is not practical, it's not fair.

This bill would set into motion unintended consequences that its supporters simply are not willing to acknowledge, including radically increasing the opportunity for frivolous and abusive litigation. This is, indeed, another boon for trial lawyers.

Further, this bill would also permit individuals to seek damages against employers for whom they never worked by allowing family members and others who were never directly subjected to discrimination to become plaintiffs even after the worker in question is deceased.

Just this weekend our new President said our economic troubles are worsening. We should heed his caution and recognize that in such a climate we cannot afford to enable endless litigation and potentially staggering recordkeeping requirements on employers. We are trying to get employers to create more jobs to hire more people.

We must also be wary of the devastating effect this bill could have on pensions by exposing employers to decades-old discrimination claims that they have little--or I would argue no--ability to defend. This legislation could risk the retirement security of many hardworking Americans.

Mr. Speaker, it's very clear that this legislation amounts to a significant change in our civil rights laws. And despite a delay, we have had no more debate or deliberation, leaving unanswered many relevant questions that deserve to be addressed through the normal legislative process.

My concerns and unanswered questions can only lead me to say that the Ledbetter bill makes for bad policy created through a poor legislative process.

I urge my colleagues again to vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose this seriously flawed legislation before us. Not only would it amount to a radical change to our civil rights laws, it has come to us without the benefit of the serious consideration and debate due such a significant policy shift.

The enthusiastic supporters of the Ledbetter Act want us to believe that we are simply voting on a straightforward bill to reverse a Supreme Court decision involving discrimination in the workplace.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, that isn't the whole story. While this bill would reverse a Supreme Court decision for the benefit of Lilly Ledbetter, it would also dismantle the longstanding statute of limitations established by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That statute of limitations was deemed to be critical in that Supreme Court decision.

In so doing, this bill would set into motion unintended consequences that its supporters simply are not willing to acknowledge, including radically increasing the opportunity for frivolous and abusive litigation and exposing employers to open-ended lawsuits indefinitely. Further, this bill would also permit individuals to seek damages against employers for whom they never worked by allowing family members and others who were never directly subjected to discrimination to become plaintiffs, even after the worker in question is deceased.

In the current economic climate, as the gentleman from California said, especially in this economic climate, we cannot afford to enable endless litigation and potentially staggering record keeping requirements on employers. We also should be wary of the devastating effect this bill would have on pensions by exposing employers to decade-old discrimination claims that they have little ability to defend. This legislation could risk the retirement security of millions of hard-working Americans.

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that this legislation amounts to a significant change in our civil rights laws. What is less clear are the answers to a number of relevant questions, many of which remain unanswered because of a complete disregard for the normal legislative process.

As you may know, not one legislative hearing was conducted on this bill in the last Congress. This bill has instead been brought to the floor in haste, completely bypassing any deliberation by me and my colleagues on the Committee on Education and Labor. Surely such a monumental change to our civil rights laws deserves more reflection.

My concerns and unanswered questions can only lead me to say that the Ledbetter bill makes for bad policy created through a poor legislative process. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent that we yield the remainder of our time to the ranking member on the Education and Labor Committee (Mr. McKeon) to control the time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, once again I find myself rising in opposition to ill- conceived legislation before Congress. Closely related to the Ledbetter bill we debated earlier today, the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act is yet another attempt to hamstring our Nation's businesses by limiting their ability to make hiring decisions based on the merits of their individual employees.

Despite the misleading title, this bill isn't about paycheck fairness. As my colleagues on the Education and Labor Committee know very well, multiple existing laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Civil Rights Act, already make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, and rightly so.

Rather than curbing discriminatory employment practices, as its supporters claim, this bill vastly expands the likelihood of discrimination lawsuits by making it easier and more lucrative for trial lawyers to bring such cases. In fact, a more apt name for this bill would be the Plaintiff Bar or Trial Lawyer Expansion Act, and I can understand why some of my colleagues who may have law schools in their districts or have the opportunity to perhaps build a new law school might, in fact, be in favor of this legislation.

This bill would allow discrimination claims to be made on very thin grounds and expose employers to unlimited claims made under the Equal Pay Act, far beyond what is available under any other civil rights law. The bill also exposes employers to unlimited punitive and compensatory damage awards, without requiring proof of intentional discrimination. It eliminates key employer defenses for pay disparities, and it prohibits employers from disciplining or discharging employees for publicly disclosing sensitive wage information.

Madam Speaker, we all can agree that wage discrimination is unconscionable. It is prohibited under Federal laws that are already strongly supported and aggressively enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor.

Congress should not be in the business of making employment decisions for individual businesses. In times of economic uncertainty, we should instead focus on improving conditions for individual workers and enabling our Nation's businesses, large and small, to continue to create jobs and drive our Nation's economy.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, for 5 weeks, all during the month of August and September, Republicans were on the floor of this House with the microphones off and the cameras off demanding a comprehensive all-of-the-above energy plan. We were demanding that we have open debate and

that we have a vote, the very thing that then-minority leader Nancy Pelosi demanded, saying that the minority party should have the right to present its alternatives, have a debate and have a vote. That's what we've been asking for for weeks and weeks and weeks.

We believe that we need a comprehensive all-of-the-above energy plan. This is not a comprehensive, all-of-the-above energy plan. This is not.

Just for example, in the American Energy Act, the Republican bill, we call for emission-free nuclear power. This is the one place in the world I can think of where the French actually have it right. They get 80 percent of their electrical power from nuclear energy.

We haven't built a new nuclear energy plant in this country in years, and we never will if we adopt this plan. We need a comprehensive all- of-the-above plan.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the anniversary of a tragedy still fresh in the minds of many Minnesotans.

Just 1 year ago today, thousands of men, women and families were on their way home from work and school when calamity struck. Without warning, the bridge that so many of us took for granted on our daily commutes failed, causing physical and emotional pain that lingers even today.

But this anniversary is not entirely solemn. Today we also recall the heroic actions of the men and women who came to the aid of those injured in the collapse.

The first emergency personnel on the scene responded without hesitation, risking their health and safety to rescue victims and provide medical care to the injured. In the weeks and months following the collapse, scores of ordinary people became extraordinary citizens by rushing to the aid of those in need.

Madam Speaker, on this somber occasion, as we remember the victims of this collapse and their families, we also celebrate the selfless service of the heroes who came to their rescue. Our thoughts and prayers remain with all who were affected.

Madam Speaker, day after day, we come to this floor to address the important issues facing our Nation. A quick review, however, of the last few weeks shows we have voted on new names for post offices and to congratulate our sports teams. But Congress has not taken any real steps to address the rapidly rising price of gasoline and ease American's pain at the pump. And apparently, House Democrats again are not going to let Members vote to ease that pain.

This month, I have been touring energy facilities in Minnesota's Second District that highlight a variety of new, clean and reliable sources of energy being produced right there in Minnesota. I visited a hydropower plant on the Mississippi River in Hastings, a nuclear power plant in Welch, an energy-from-waste in Red Wing, an oil refinery in Rosemont, a wind turbine in Northfield, and an electric-generating facility in Faribault.

Madam Speaker, I visited all of these energy producers to learn more and to illustrate that we need an ``all of the above'' energy plan and we need to enact it now. Congress should not adjourn for 5 weeks of vacation and politics without dealing with the number one issue in the minds of the American people, high energy prices.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1151, and I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Madam Speaker, I just want to extend my congratulations to Head Coach Pat Summitt, all the hardworking players, the fans and the University of Tennessee. I am very happy this evening to join my friends and colleagues, particularly the gentlemen from Tennessee who spoke so eloquently about their school and honoring this exceptional team and all of its accomplishments.

I ask my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I too rise today in support of House Resolution 1332, which recognizes the importance of connecting foster youth to the workplace. This resolution also encourages employers to employ former foster youth.

On any given day, Madam Speaker, there are more than 500,000 youth in foster care in the United States. Children are placed in foster care when their parents are no longer able to ensure their essential well- being. These children need stable loving care until they can either safely reunite with their families or cultivate other lasting relationships with nurturing adults.

Foster youth possess unique qualities and skills that make them ideal candidates for employment. But compared to youth nationally and youth from low-income families, they are less likely to be employed or employed regularly.

Foster youth experience challenges based on the instability in their home and school environments. Just over half of all foster youth complete high school. 30 percent continue to rely on public assistance into adulthood, and 25 percent will experience homelessness at one point in their lives.

Without positive intervention, youth who age out of foster care often have bouts of homelessness, criminal activity and incarceration. However, when afforded comprehensive support, the resilient foster youth population excels in the job market.

Foster youth who begin connecting to the workforce prior to release from foster care maintain the highest probability of employment. By addressing job readiness early in the transition to adulthood, employers are helping to shape the future trajectories of these youth.

This resolution encourages employers of all sectors, including Federal, State and local government agencies, to increase employment of the young men and women who have been discharged from foster care in the United States. By connecting foster youth to the workforce through internship programs, employers can assist in building the foundation for these youth to become successful members of the workforce and to build successful careers. That is why I stand in support of this resolution and ask for all my colleagues support.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers on this side, so I will just yield myself a moment, if I might, to say well done to my colleague from California, and to urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, many of us have been discussing the role God and faith have played in the development of our great Nation and how this foundation is ever present today in our Nation's capital.

Washington is replete with examples of how our founders viewed faith as an integral part of our culture. The subtle manner in which our faith history is portrayed in our monuments and landmarks underscores the fact that faith is a part of who we are. That these references often go unnoticed is simply a testament to the fact that faith in God has been inextricably woven into the fabric of our Nation. As a Nation and as a people, we believe in God.

The Washington Monument, a tribute to our first President, contains in its very cornerstone a copy of the Holy Bible, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution. The symbolism is simply profound. From the beginning of our founding, we have paid homage to the ideas of freedom and liberty under God. The presence of these sacred documents, housed together in what can be viewed as the metaphorical cornerstone of the United States, transcends the simplicity of separation of church and State, and reclaims for us the fact that our Nation was indeed founded with faith as our guiding light.

As a Member of Congress and a man of faith, I am encouraged by the presence of faith in our daily rituals. We here in this body, as we enter the Chamber of this House, we are greeted by the inscription, ``In God We Trust,'' inscribed above the Speaker's desk. We seek favor in His grace and pray His blessings upon our work each day, and we open with the Pledge of Allegiance, acknowledging ``one Nation under God.''

The universal nature of faith and the acknowledgment of our goals as a Nation of faith are often the unifying force that brings Republicans and Democrats together. Across the table, we bow our heads in prayer, and we readily accept the spirit of the Almighty working through us.

Throughout Washington, we can easily find examples of our Judeo- Christian roots. If we step across the street to the Supreme Court, we are presented with the image of Moses bearing the Ten Commandments, often considered the basis for much of modern law. Its presence within the halls of the Supreme Court recognizes the origins of our modern day laws and serves as a reminder that we are a Nation seeking justice in the eyes of God.

One of my favorite buildings is the Library of Congress. As you enter the Great Hall, you are greeted by two permanent displays. The first is the handwritten Giant Bible of Mainz. The second is the Gutenberg Bible, the first mass printed book. These Bibles are coupled with the inscribed scripture passage from Proverbs 4:7, ``Wisdom is the principle thing; therefore, get wisdom and with all thy getting, get understanding.''

Mr. Speaker, last week one of my constituents, a young high schoolgirl, came in and expressed her concern that she had heard there was an effort underway to remove God from these walls. And I told her I certainly prayed that was not the case, but I was concerned because we are about to open the new Capitol Visitor Center which, in many respects, is an extension and a reflection of the Capitol that it will be the entrance to, in many ways, in many respects, but not in its reference to God, as part of our founding.

Faith is the underpinning of this great Nation. Thomas Jefferson's words, seen in the Jefferson Memorial, remind us of the importance of that underpinning: ``God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a Nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?''

That, Mr. Speaker, is the question.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of workplace safety, but in opposition to H.R. 5522, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act. We all share, I believe, the common goal of working to protect employees from hazards in the workplace. The accident at the Imperial Sugar refinery in Georgia is a tragedy. It must be fully investigated. The Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has undertaken the investigation that, by law, must be completed within 6 months. The results of this investigation will help identify the cause of the Imperial Sugar accident.

I appreciate the concern about workers' safety, but as lawmakers, we have the responsibility to debate and enact laws that are reasonable. The bill before us today is an impulsive attempt to rush into action before OSHA can complete the investigation.

Under this bill, OSHA will be required to adopt an interim rule within 90 days of enactment and a final rule within 18 months. This accelerated time frame is not only unrealistic, but would also deny stakeholder input ranging from industry, to academia, to organized labor, and other groups who could provide important and insightful contributions. By undermining the process, this legislation could have negative consequences and actually undercut workers' safety.

In a letter to the committee dated April 8, 2008, the Department of Labor's Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, Edwin Foulke, states: ``The time constraints of this legislation would give OSHA no choice but to ignore other statutory and regulatory requirements for rulemaking under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, numerous executive orders, and Office of Management and Budget bulletins and guidelines.''

H.R. 5522 also disregards the preventive efforts that have been under way well before the tragic accident in Georgia. Last year, based on the recommendations by the Chemical Safety Board, OSHA initiated a National Emphasis Program that aims to identify any gaps that may exist among the standards that currently apply to workplaces with combustible dust. While OSHA's opinion has been dismissed by the other side, yesterday the President issued a veto threat, reiterating serious concerns with this hasty regulatory proposal.

Again, we should not rush to legislative action. Rather, we should take the time to thoroughly and thoughtfully review all the facts. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Madam Speaker, the Protect America Act expired on February 16. It has been almost a full month since the majority allowed this important element of our national security to lapse.

President Lincoln once told this Nation, ``A house divided against itself cannot stand.'' Madam Speaker, for this past month, Democratic leadership has needlessly attempted to divide this Congress on a national security matter. A bipartisan majority of this House wants to adopt the Senate version of the bill to restore our intelligence teams' ability to protect us, but we have been denied a chance to even vote on the Senate measure.

The leadership has kept this House divided, and for what reason? This morning the newspapers are full of reports that we are jeopardizing our national security in order to benefit the trial lawyers, who stand to gain billions of dollars in suits against the telecommunications companies. These are the companies that reportedly responded to pleas from our government for help, and now they are subject to potentially crippling lawsuits.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. The people of this great Nation expect bipartisan action, and the time is long overdue to come together.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its current form I am.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer this motion to recommit on H.R. 1424 with instructions forthwith, to substitute the Kline amendment for the underlying bill.

Last night the Rules Committee issued its 50th closed rule of this Congress and did not allow consideration of the Wilson-Kline-Camp substitute amendment. This motion to recommit gives us the opportunity to pass a mental health parity bill that has both bipartisan and bicameral support, and it does so immediately, allowing the House to approve a real mental health parity bill this very night.

My motion is a viable, commonsense alternative that, contrary to H.R. 1424, achieves real parity in the treatment of employer-sponsored coverage for mental and behavioral illnesses. The motion to recommit substitutes H.R. 1424 with the version similar to the mental health parity legislation S. 558 that passed the U.S. Senate last year under unanimous consent.

During the markup of H.R. 1424 before the Committee on Education and Labor, I offered a version of the compromise Senate bill as an amendment, believing that if Congress intends to move forward with mental health parity legislation, this compromise language is the most sensible alternative and our best chance of enacting legislation on this issue this year.

Unlike H.R. 1424, this motion is a product of over 2 years of bipartisan negotiations between mental health advocates, health care providers, and business groups representing virtually all sides in this debate. The motion accomplishes what it sets out to do. It

provides parity for mental health and substance abuse benefits. It provides parity while preserving the foundation of the ERISA benefit structure, protecting the ability of group health plans to medically manage their claims and providing plans with the flexibility to determine and administer on a voluntary basis the benefits provided to working men and women and their families. By steering clear of the benefit mandates and litigation traps contained in H.R. 1424, this motion makes it possible for employers to continue to provide high- quality affordable benefits, and it does so while responsibly offsetting the cost.

This motion to recommit includes an important provision that will save the American taxpayers billions of dollars by reducing the fraud in the Medicaid system by requiring all States to implement an electronic asset verification program within their Medicaid eligibility systems. Many States have balanced budget requirements and thus have limited dollars to allocate for the Medicaid programs. These new State- level Medicaid asset verification systems would ensure that Medicaid applicants are not intentionally hiding significant amounts of funds in undisclosed bank accounts in order to fraudulently enroll in a State's Medicaid program. This is a responsible way to pay for mental health parity benefits.

Finally, this motion to recommit includes language to clarify that the bill does not require a group health plan to cover abortion as a treatment. For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit and vote in favor of this commonsense alternative.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, al Qaeda and their terrorist allies are America's number one enemy. We all know that. They are constantly updating the way they communicate and dodge our intelligence networks. We should be doing nothing short of providing our intelligence officials with every tool necessary to always stay a step ahead of these radical extremists.

Admiral Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, when asked about the Protect America Act, said this, ``We must be able to continue effectively obtaining the information gained through this law if we are to stay ahead of terrorists who are determined to attack the United States.''

House Republicans have led the way in delivering 21st century intelligence collection to protect our citizens. The law now gives enforcement the tools and flexibility needed to quickly respond to terrorist threats because House Republicans acted to close a dangerous loophole in an outdated intelligence law. But the law is threatened today by the House Democrat majority who are more interested in getting it for partisan reasons than to provide this country and our allies abroad the protection necessary as we continue to fight terrorism.

A short-term extension is not enough. We need a permanent fix now.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, this is a huge topic that we are talking about tonight of tremendous personal importance to every American. My dear friend and colleague from South Carolina said that we want to talk a little bit tonight about budgeting and about things that are broken in Washington and about spending and all manner of things.

You know, when we budget, whether the President sends over a budget and then Congress works its will on that budget, we are assigning priorities on how we spend taxpayer money, how the government is going to spend that money, and that ought to be a deliberative process, and it is a deliberative process. But then we throw it out the window.

We have a couple of things that I wanted to touch on tonight which break the system. One of them is a subject that has been much in the news lately, and that is porkbarrel spending, earmarks. This is a system that is completely broken in Congress and in Washington, DC.

Spending for pet projects for Members of Congress has nothing to do with an orderly, reasoned system for setting priorities on how we set spending. Decisions are made not on the merits of a proposed project. No, not at all. Decisions are made based on how long a Member has been in Congress, perhaps what committee they are assigned to, perhaps what party they are in. It has nothing to do with the merits of the project.

So we spent last year over $15 billion, that is the entire yearly budget for the State of Minnesota, $15 billion on these pet projects, and done in a way that had nothing to do with an orderly system for assigning priorities on how we spend money.

I don't think I ought to be asking the people of the Second District of Minnesota to spend money on a project for the LA fashion district. I am sorry, I just don't think that is the right set of priorities. We ought to establish those priorities through the institutional system that is here in Congress. We don't do that. We award money based on an entirely arbitrary system.

My friend, our friend, my friend from South Carolina, Mr. Barrett, and others that are here with us tonight know that we have a friend, Congressman Jeff Flake from Arizona, and every time we have a spending bill he brings up six or eight or 10 or 12 examples of this porkbarrel spending and tries to shed some light on it and get a debate and give us a chance to vote on whether or not we think that is the right priority for how we spend taxpayer dollars. But do you know what? It is not a debate. It is not a debate. It is not going to have anything to do with the merits of the project.

Mr. Flake's amendments almost, I can only think of one exception, never pass. And why is that? Because the system is broken. Members of Congress don't want to vote against that earmark, because they are afraid that somebody will vote against their pet project. It is a broken system. We need to check it.

Is it a lot of money? Well, the entire annual budget for the State of Minnesota, we think that is a lot of money, and we ought to get that under control. And it is symptomatic of problems we have here.

Another problem that is symptomatic of a broken system is what happens after we go through the process of debating the budget, deciding on a budget, deciding on how much money we are going to spend for defense, for education, for transportation and roads, setting priorities in the way we should be setting priorities.

Then what happens? The system here in Washington, in Congress, says that we have to have a spending bill, an appropriations bill that dictates how much money we are going to spend in theory in keeping with that budget. But what happens? These bills come up. They are loaded down with this porkbarrel spending. We get to the end of the fiscal year here in Washington, which is the end of September, and we don't have these bills passed.

We get to the end of October, we get to the end of November, and suddenly there is pressure to get the spending bills passed, and the system that has been in place here for a long time is to do what? Take all of these spending bills and roll them up into one great big monstrous bill of spending which they call an omnibus. This omnibus ends up breaking every rule, every priority of spending. It is just one big, huge massive spending bill. That is part of what is broken in Washington.

Now, my friend Mr. Barrett is talking about entitlement spending, and I am sure we have colleagues here tonight that are going to talk about that and other issues that are trillions of dollars, but we can't even get the relatively small pieces right here.

I am very pleased to say that many people in my party, in the Republican Party, have stepped up and said we have had enough of this porkbarrel spending. We need to take serious action to stop this nonsense. Some of us have said we are not going to participate, me included, until it is fixed. Many of my colleagues have done the same thing, some of them here in this room tonight. But as a party we have taken the position that we need to fix this.

I was very pleased to see that one of our Democrat colleagues today was in the paper saying no more earmarks, because the system is broken, and we welcome that sort of bipartisan support and recognition of a system that is completely, absolutely broken and needs to be fixed.

I know it is symptomatic of some bigger problems. It is not huge money, but it is big enough money that we ought to step up and fix it. And then we ought to fix these other underlying problems like this gigantic omnibus mess, because the green line that my friend showed of this increased spending has got to be brought under control. Even in the wildest dreams of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they can't raise taxes enough to fix that. We have to get the spending part of this equation under control.

I believe, as I know Mr. Barrett does and some of our other colleagues here tonight, that keeping the tax burden low and allowing American families and businesses to spend money according to their priorities will keep this economy growing and tax revenues will continue to flow. We just have to get the spending side under control.

I thank my friend for yielding some time to me and letting me address a couple of the issues in this big picture that he has been trying to lay out for us tonight. I know we have other colleagues, so I yield back.