Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, another day, another vote on legislation that has no chance of becoming law. Everyone on this floor understands that this bill is destined to be vetoed, and we will sustain that veto if and when the time comes.

But, if nothing else, today's debate is at least an opportunity to educate people on the truth about stem cell research. Supporters of embryo-destroying stem cell research would have you believe that embryonic stem cell research is the only way to go. That just is not true. Not only are there ethical alternatives using adult stem cells but these ethical alternatives are proving to be more effective than the embryo-destroying methods promoted by the bill.

Adult stem cells can be derived from numerous places, including nasal tissue, bone marrow, fatty tissue, umbilical cord blood, even amniotic fluid. These adult stem cells have already produced dozens of laboratory successes and even a handful of FDA-approved therapies for humans. Meanwhile, embryonic stem cell research has yet to produce a single treatment or cure in humans.

You will hear a lot of talk on the other side about how we oppose stem cell research. That's simply not true. I am a supporter of stem cell research. I support the research that actually works, the kind that treats human embryos properly, not like laboratory rats. I support the kind of respect for human life at all stages of development. The kind of stem cell research that I support is adult stem cell research.

There is another thing worth clarifying in the debate. The bill under consideration today is not about legalizing embryonic stem cell research. It's already legal. It can be performed in America by anyone who wants to.

The bill we vote on today is about who is going to pay for it. This bill would have millions of Americans pay for a destructive research that they have fundamental moral objections to.

This bill is flawed. It was flawed the last time we voted on it. It's still flawed today.

I urge all of my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Mr. Sameh Khouzam. In 1998, Mr. Khouzam fled Egypt to the United States to escape persecution and torture at the hands of the Egyptian officials. Mr. Khouzam currently

works in my district and by all accounts is an upstanding, contributing member of the community.

In 2004, our courts gave him protection because they believed, ``it is more likely than not'' that he would be tortured should he return to Egypt. Even our State Department reports outline extensive torture in Egypt. Having personally heard stories of individuals who have suffered torture by Egyptian authorities, I firmly believe that the court has been right to prevent his deportation.

U.S. officials are now prepared to ignore the court's decision and deport Khouzam based on nothing more than ``assurances'' of no torture from known torturers.

Mr. Speaker, a former CIA officer stated this week on an Australian news program that sending someone like Khouzam back to Egypt is ``tantamount to condemning them to death.''

Our government has the ability to prevent his torture. Do not deport Mr. Khouzam.

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 2560. This bill is being marketed as a ban on human cloning. However, H.R. 2560 does nothing to prevent human cloning. In fact, the bill allows for unlimited cloning of human embryos but prevents women and doctors from trying to implant one of these embryos to initiate a pregnancy. In practice, this means that embryos will be cloned, used for experimentation, harvesting, research, then assigned a death sentence. So cloned embryos would be required by law to die. Not only does this bill allow the practice of cloning to move forward, it also mandates the killing of those human embryos.

The bill before us today is a ruse. It is not a ban on cloning. It is a permission to clone, and I hope no one here today will be confused about what we are being asked to do. The bill's supporters state that this would ban reproductive cloning, but this claim is highly misleading because the language does not restrict the actual act of human cloning by allowing for somatic cell nuclear transfer, a confusing and technical way of defining research cloning.

The bill before us is called the Human Cloning Prohibition Ban, and you might think that it does what it says instead of the opposite of what it says. If it did what it said, I would vote for it. Part of the problem we are having is the consequence of having had no committee process to determine what the bill actually does. We have had no hearings. We have had no markups. In fact, the bill was not even introduced until last night. And now the bill that nobody has seen is on the suspension calendar. Intentional or otherwise, this is another duplicity. The suspension calendar is for noncontroversial measures, like naming post offices, not for highly controversial legislation that is a wolf in Dolly the sheep's clothing.

This bill is bad policy, and so was the process by which it got here. How many times will we have this discussion? The week before Memorial Day we discussed a bill on Medicare payments that came to the House floor the same way. Yesterday, a resolution on how Congress will handle future ethics

matters was introduced on the same day that it was inserted in the suspension calendar with no committee hearings.

The Senate could be forgiven for concluding that the new majority promises for open government are still not being realized after 5 months.

The bill is opposed by the White House. In their statement of administration policy which came out, they said that this would ``prohibit human cloning for reproductive purposes but permit the creation of cloned embryos or development of human embryo farms for research which would require destruction of nascent human life.''

That is exactly what H.R. 2560 does. It crosses a new moral line by making it a criminal act to let the cloned embryos survive. To put it directly, this bill would create a class of living human beings that must be killed under the law.

Mr. Speaker, this is not progress. It is a disturbing step in the wrong direction. It should be rejected on this floor, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), a leader on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to a leader on this issue, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, let me just say in conclusion that, as we all know, Dolly the sheep was a cloned animal. Let me remind you that Dolly the sheep was the 277th try. There were 276 before her who were defective and deformed and died. In fact, the history of cloning is replete with defects, deformity and death; and as they seek to create little human embryos for the purposes of research and experimentation and harvesting and death, we should remember this fact.

The researcher in South Korea that failed to identify what he was doing, Dr. Hwang, and his team obtained 2,000 eggs from over 100 women that they paid for their cloning attempts.

Human cloning exploits women. It ushers in an era of eugenics. It embraces a utilitarian view of humans. It involves the creation of little human embryos for research experiments. And for these reasons and all the reasons that are stated, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the attached report describing the attacks by the brutal military dictatorship against the ethnic peoples of Burma. The situation facing the internally displaced is dire. The international community needs to step up its assistance to refugees and displaced persons. In addition, the international community must act immediately to stop the ethnic cleansing and other horrific acts by the dictatorship against the people of Burma.

Refugees International--Burma: Military Offensive Displacing Thousands

of Civilians

The worst Burmese military offensive in 10 years has

displaced at least 27,000 people in eastern Burma's Karen

State since November 2005. The displaced are civilians who

have been targeted by the army and are living in

exceptionally vulnerable conditions. An estimated three

million people have been forced to migrate in Burma as a

result of conflict, persecution, human rights abuses, and

repressive government measures that prevent people from

earning a livelihood. Instead of fulfilling its

responsibility to protect its citizens, the Government of

Burma, known as the State Peace and Development Council

(SPDC), is the biggest perpetrator of violations in the

country.

Ethnic groups, comprising one-third of Burma's 52 million

people, have borne the brunt of the government's repressive

policies. The pattern of the Burmese military or the Tatmadaw

has been to eliminate all opposition and take full control of

ethnic areas. As part of its strategy to curb the support of

ethnic insurgent armies, it targets civilians it perceives as

backers of the insurgent groups.

In the course of Tatmadaw operations at least 3,000

villages have been destroyed along the eastern Burma border

since 1996. Villagers have been forced to flee to hiding

sites in jungles, move to government-controlled relocation

sites, or travel to relatively more secure ceasefire

locations. Today Burma is estimated to have the worst

internal displacement crisis in Asia. More than 500,000

civilians are displaced in eastern Burma, with those in

hiding being the most vulnerable. People unable to care for

themselves

and their families have fled to Burma's neighboring countries

of Bangladesh, China, India, Malaysia and Thailand in search

of asylum. Burma's refugee crisis has a regional impact and

the number of refugees from the country is believed to be

more than one million.

As the military takes control of new territory in ethnic

areas, it initiates development projects and exploits natural

resources, which displace more civilians. The forced

migration of civilians is ongoing even in ethnic states, such

as Mon and Kachin, where political leaders have signed

ceasefire agreements with the central authorities. According

to a Burmese asylum seeker interviewed by Refugees

International in Thailand, ``The outside world thinks that

just because a cease fire has been signed between the Mon and

the SPDC, it is safe for us to live in Burma. But we continue

to face abuses on a daily basis. The military confiscated all

my orchards and my family could barely survive. We still

tried to stay but had to leave when the military tried to

recruit my teenage son.''

The Karen National Union, the indigenous political

leadership in Karen State, has not entered into a ceasefire

agreement with the SPDC and conflict and displacement are not

new phenomena there. However, the intensity and spread of the

Tatmadaw offensive in recent months are estimated to be the

worst in more than a decade. The attack is linked to the

military's attempt to consolidate its control over parts of

Karen State and the districts of Toungoo, Papun and

Nyaunglebin have been particularly hard-hit by the offensive.

According to a community-based organization assisting the

internally displaced, the recent attacks differ from previous

ones in that the military did not withdraw during the 2006

rainy season but continued to attack the same areas

repeatedly.

In order to protect themselves, Karen communities have been

trying to establish early warning systems. Villagers are

constantly on watch to be able to anticipate Tatmadaw attacks

and whenever possible, the Karen ethnic army has been warning

villagers ahead of an attack so they can go into hiding. At

present there remains a lack of an adequate number of

communication tools for advance warning.

The military has planted a large number of landmines in and

around villages so people are unable to go beyond a certain

area, and at the time of harvesting many do not have access

to their crops. In some parts of Karen State the army has set

rice fields on fire. According to the estimates of a

community-based organization assisting the internally

displaced, 25,000 people have lost their harvest for the

entire year, and in Lerdoh Township alone, 2,800 civilians

are believed to have been taken away from their villages and

fields by the Tatmadaw to relocation sites where they are

being forced to dig trenches and build fencing. Since 2006,

the military has also placed a prohibition on trading in some

areas of Karen State and prevented villagers from selling or

buying certain products around harvest time. After harvest

time, villagers are allowed to sell their products, but at

half the normal price and only to the military, contributing

to food insecurity.

Besides food, the displaced are in urgent need of shelter

and medicines. The displaced in Karen State are being

assisted largely through cross-border assistance, coming from

agencies based in Thailand, and a few community-based

organizations inside Burma. This aid is helping people cope

with their situation and preventing large numbers from

fleeing to Thailand as refugees. Although in recent years

donors have allocated more funds for aid to internally

displaced people, both for cross-border operations and those

inside Burma, the number of vulnerable people has gone up

significantly with the latest offensive in Karen State and it

is critical that donors respond accordingly.

In terms of medical assistance, Karen internally displaced

people are relying largely on traditional curative techniques

or on mobile teams, back pack health workers, and Karen

medical units who may be able to access them only after

navigating their way through heavily militarized territory.

Organizations based in Thailand and Burma that are

assisting the internally displaced from across the border and

inside the country have improved communications in recent

months, but there remains a need to strengthen information

sharing on the activities being undertaken by both sides.

Many of those displaced in the recent attacks in Karen

State who have been able to reach the Thai-Burma border are

living in settlements on the Burma side. One of these, the Ei

Tu Hta camp, set up in April 2006, is home to 3,000 persons

mostly from Toungoo district. Approximately 5,000 recently

displaced Karen have also crossed the border into Thailand.

Some of them have entered refugee camps, are recognized as

asylum seekers, and are awaiting approval from the Provincial

Admission Boards, the Thai Government's entities for

processing new arrivals. This has largely been the case in

Mae Hong Son Province. In Tak Province's Mae La camp,

however, none of the new arrivals are recognized and they are

living unofficially in the camp.

The Thai Government is concerned that recent efforts to

resettle Burmese refugees in third countries is drawing

recent arrivals to camps. The Governor of Tak Province has

announced that no food or accommodation would be made

available to new arrivals in the camps in that province.

Further, the Provincial Admission Boards are not fully

functional in each of the provinces, and there remains a void

for processing new arrivals in certain areas.

The Burmese internal displacement and refugee crises are

linked to the regime's policy of targeting civilians. All

regional and local initiatives to urge the SPDC to stop

attacking civilians and protect its people have failed. The

non-binding Security Council resolution introduced by the

U.S. in January 2007, which included a call to the SPDC to

cease attacks on the country's ethnic minorities, was vetoed

by China and Russia. Until such time that all members of the

UN Security Council acknowledge that the SPDC must be held

accountable, and develop a united approach to address the

government's failure to protect its people, the worst

internal displacement crisis in Asia will persist.

Refugees International, therefore, recommends that:

The Burmese military immediately halt all attacks on

civilians.

The UN Security Council members reach consensus on a

strategy to pressure the SPDC to stop its abuse of civilians

and hold it accountable for its failure to protect Burma's

people.

Donors support initiatives to assist internally displaced

people by agencies doing cross-border work and agencies

operating inside Burma, with funding directed to the most

vulnerable.

Donors support initiatives to enhance IDP protection

through early warning systems.

Agencies based inside Burma and organizations operating out

of Thailand continue to improve coordination and

collaboration through regular meetings and information

sharing forums.

The Government of Thailand allow new asylum seekers from

Burma official access to all camps and ensure that the

Provincial Admission Boards are functioning consistently so

the new arrivals can be processed.

Mr. Speaker, in an environment of unlimited demands and limited resources, our constituents expect us to make tough choices and set national priorities with their hard-earned tax dollars. The Democrats' Intelligence Authorization bill that we will vote on this week fails to do this.

Consider the priorities it sets. This bill makes deep cuts in the resources requested by the administration for important intelligence- gathering operations. Meanwhile, it also calls for the Director of National Intelligence to submit a National Intelligence Estimate to Congress on global warming.

In a post-9/11 environment, should we really be steering our intelligence community away from intelligence gathering so that they can start studying global warming?

Experts from the right and the left say that our ability to prevent another attack on America relies heavily on our intelligence capabilities.

Mr. Speaker, let's fully fund our intelligence community and not distract

it from fulfilling its core mission, to protect Americans from attack.

Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle is going to great lengths to make the case for retreat in Iraq. It seems they'll even ignore the facts if it helps their case.

For some time now, the other side has been saying that the war in Iraq is not part of the war on terror but a distraction from it.

Mr. Speaker, the latest video released by al Qaeda's number two operative clears that up. In this latest rant calling for our destruction, Ayman al Zawahiri calls the violence in Iraq a jihad. He optimistically states that the situation in Iraq ``is moving from the stage of defeat of the crusader invaders to the stage of consolidating a Mujahid Islamic Emirate.''

He goes on to proclaim that this victory for the terrorists will ``raise the banner of Jihad.''

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we are fighting al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. And if we are unwilling to defeat them there, where exactly will we do so?

Mr. Speaker, when we are honest about who we are fighting in Iraq, the implication becomes clear: We must win in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, as we debate our policy in Iraq, perhaps it's useful to consider a lesson from history.

In all the media coverage of the war supplemental debate, a shameful anniversary in our history slipped by, mostly unnoticed.

Last week marked the anniversary of Congress's decision to cut off military funding for our involvement in Southeast Asia. The result, as predicted, was genocide; 3 million innocent people slaughtered in Cambodia's killing fields.

Mr. Speaker, similar warnings exist today in Iraq. Observers from across the political spectrum say a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq could very likely result in a region-wide bloodbath. No one wants to see this, yet withdrawal is what many in this body are pushing for.

Mr. Speaker, before we act, let's remember the lesson of history. And we all want our troops to come home safely, but we need to win first and then come home. Defeat, surrender and genocide are not acceptable alternatives.

And Mr. Speaker, as a personal note, I'd like to say before I end, welcome to the world to little Joseph Thomas Offutt, a new grandson, namesake born earlier this week, 9 pounds, 14 ounces. You've brought great joy and happiness to our family. May you enjoy a long, good life.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who was alive at the time will always remember the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

With the Soviet bloc crumbling, the western world rejoiced as freedom spread to populations once thought hopelessly in the grip of Communist oppressors. There was reason to believe that the Soviets' brutal form of tyranny was over forever.

Unfortunately, recent actions seem to be giving new life to old Communist ghosts. Police squads crushing the Kremlin's dissenters, advocates of freedom and transparency silenced, cultural figures detained.

Mr. Speaker, the recent backsliding in Russia should be cause for alarm for all freedom loving people. As the Kremlin's power expands, freedom for the Russian people shrinks. This was wrong during the Cold War and it is wrong now.

It is time that the free nations of the world take a stand against this trend and start demanding more from Mr. Putin and Russia's leaders.

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

I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for yielding and for her principled leadership on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for his leadership on this and the preceding resolution, and for his leadership on the issue of human rights in general around the world.

Madam Speaker, with this resolution, we rightly honor one of humanity's great heroes. William Wilberforce was a man of integrity, a man of courage, a man of faith, and a man of principle. And he used these qualities, Madam Speaker, to forever change the world for the better. He is someone that each of us in this Chamber can relate to and draw inspiration from.

In a legislative body of 435 Members, it can be difficult to make progress on the issues we care about. Indeed, the odds sometimes appear insurmountable.

But the life and accomplishments of William Wilberforce are proof that individuals of character truly can change the world. Wilberforce was himself a member of an elected legislative body. He was first elected to the British Parliament more than 220 years ago.

In his day, the human slave trade dominated England's economy. As a result, the interests of the slave traders were firmly entrenched in the halls of Parliament. Arguments used to justify the sale and trade of human beings and the horrific injustices that occurred in that trade were commonplace in that day.

But William Wilberforce refused to accept these arguments. He knew that slavery was an unspeakable injustice, and he made it his object to end it. This conviction would lead him on a decades-long effort to end slavery in England. It was a journey full of setbacks and disappointments. Again and again, he introduced his bill in parliament to end the British slave trade. Again and again it was soundly defeated, and again and again he was ostracized by his peers. For years this went on, and the discouragement grew.

But all the while, Wilberforce's call to conscience was slowly winning over hearts and minds. His willingness to stand for what was right and fight what was wrong was being noticed by his colleagues. And after 20 years of perseverance, 20 years of unbending principle, 20 years of standing for justice in the face of daunting odds, Wilberforce at last tasted success.

On February 23, 1807, Parliament voted, and on March 25, the King signed the bill that outlawed the British slave trade, a move that was once thought impossible.

And 26 years later, Wilberforce was informed a few days before his death that the House of Commons had finally voted to abolish slavery altogether in the British Empire.

Madam Speaker, throughout this year, we celebrate the 200th anniversary of this tremendous accomplishment. And as part of this celebration, a number of efforts are underway to inform people of this often-forgotten hero of humanity and his colleagues who worked to end in slavery.

We could mention others, like John Newton, who has already been mentioned. John Newton was a former slave trader who wrote the hymn ``Amazing Grace,'' whose testimony before Parliament was so influential.

We could mention John Wesley, who a week before he died in 1791, wrote William Wilberforce about American slavery which he called ``the vilest form of slavery known to mankind.''

We could mention Wilberforce's direct influence on John Quincy Adams, and John Quincy Adams' direct influence on Abraham Lincoln. There are many people who could be mentioned, but this resolution before us today is part of the celebration of the life and accomplishments of William Wilberforce, and are certainly worthy of recognition.

Madam Speaker, I would submit this is not merely an effort to look back and give credit where credit is due, it is also a call to fight modern-day injustice.

Sadly, every generation must confront evil in its own time, and ours is no different. Around the world, thousands of people are deprived of their basic human rights every single day. Good men and women of this world have a moral duty to fight these modern-day injustices.

The U.S. State Department estimates that approximately 800,000 men, women and children are trafficked each year into slavery, into the sex industry, other slave-like labor conditions.

In South Asia, an entire class of people numbering in the millions are considered to be ``untouchable,'' and as a result, they are denied basic services and subjected to terrible living conditions. Horrible human rights abuses continue in places like Burma and Sudan and China and many others. These are just a few examples. The list could go on.

Madam Speaker, as we honor William Wilberforce, may we also be inspired today to educate ourselves and others about modern-day injustice, inspired to not turn a blind eye to millions of people worldwide who need our help; and inspired, Madam Speaker, to act.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the former chairman, current ranking member, of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health and a great champion of human rights today.

Madam Speaker, we have no additional speakers; therefore, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the American public deserves to have all the facts about the Democrats' $3 trillion budget resolution.

On the surface, it looks great, more money for program after program, all the while balancing the budget. If it sounds too good to be true, it's because it is.

This budget funds a wish list of spending with so-called reserve funds. On paper, these reserve funds appear to designate funding for billions of dollars in Federal spending. But the fact is they are empty, little more than a clever gimmick to help balance the books, a shell game.

In order to fund them, offsets would have to be found elsewhere or taxes would have to be raised. Since their plan doesn't include offsets, that leaves only one option, tax hikes.

In other words, the Democrats are asking Americans to tighten their belts so that Uncle Sam can loosen his. Congress has serious fiscal challenges to solve, but tax hikes and budget gimmicks are not the right answer.

Mr. Speaker, some Democrats like to boast about all the increased spending in their budget plan, but they are less eager to discuss how all this new spending is going to be paid for. That is because it is paid for with the largest tax increase in American history, nearly $400 billion over 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, while some Democrats on Capitol Hill may not understand the impact this tax hike would have, my constituents most certainly do. Several have written in to let me know how it would affect their families.

One woman said it would mean less money for vital health care costs. Another parent said it would hurt her ability to pay for after-school activities for her kids. Someone else said more money for Washington would mean less money for charitable causes. And one single parent told me it would mean, ``less food on our table.''

Mr. Speaker, the proposed tax increase would affect real families in real ways. Let's balance the budget by reining in spending, not by taking more money from hardworking American families.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Supreme Court decision to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion has been a long time coming. Opinion polls have long shown overwhelming opposition to this gruesome and horrific procedure, and in response, Congress acted to ban partial birth abortion, passing the ban two times during the Clinton administration only to have it vetoed by President Clinton both times. In 2003, Congress passed the ban again with bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate, and this time it was signed into law by President Bush.

Unable to win through the democratic process, proponents of abortion- on-demand took to the courts, and for years their efforts delayed a final decision, leaving unborn children without protection from this gruesome procedure.

Thankfully, yesterday's decision ends the uncertainty, and this ruling protects America's unborn children from a barbaric, grisly procedure that has no place in a civilized society.

Mr. Speaker, this is a win for the sanctity of human life and a win for American democracy.

Mr. Speaker, throughout this year we will celebrate the work to end one of humanity's worst acts of injustice. It was 200 years ago that William Wilberforce and his friends finally saw success in their attempt to end the British slave trade after 20 years of failed attempts.

To mark the anniversary of this tremendous accomplishment, a number of efforts are under way to inform people about this often forgotten hero of humanity. A wonderful movie about the life of Wilberforce entitled ``Amazing Grace'' has been released in theaters. Another documentary on his life and efforts, entitled ``The Better Hour,'' is expected to air on public television this fall.

I have introduced a resolution in this body honoring his life and accomplishments. Yesterday, a contest was announced for high school students challenging them to follow Wilberforce's example by pursuing efforts to end modern-day slavery trafficking in men, women and children, which still plagues the world.

All of these events remind us that individuals of character and integrity really can change the world by fighting to end injustice and exploitation. That truth inspired Wilberforce in his day, and it should continue to inspire us today.

Madam Speaker, in all my years of public service, I have never had a constituent tell me that they are taxed too little. Whether it is income taxes, property taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, car taxes or some other tax, Americans give plenty of money to the government.

But for House Democrats, it seems that is not enough. How else do you explain a budget resolution that proposes the largest tax increase in American history by letting all of the tax cuts expire?

Their budget plan will deliver a hard blow to working families in our vibrant economy. By bringing back the marriage penalty, 23 million taxpayers will see their tax bill go up. By cutting the child tax credit in half, 31 million taxpayers will pay an average of $850 more a year.

In all, House Democrats are asking hardworking Americans to fork over an extra $400 billion over 5 years.

Madam Speaker, the other side will try to sell this budget, but don't be fooled, this is tax-and-spend politics at its worst, and it should be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, this week politicians in Congress are trying to use our military troops as a bargaining chip for their own pork barrel and domestic projects. Some of these projects are designed to buy votes of wavering Members. The bill includes such things as $25 million for spinach subsidies, $74 million for peanut storage, $120 million for the shrimp industry, money for extra office space for the House of Representatives.

This bill ought to focus on our troops. Congress is telling the President you cannot fund body armor for our troops in combat until you give us more money for our pet projects and pork barrel. Those tactics are fiscally irresponsible and wrong. Let's pass a clean emergency spending bill.