Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of The ALS Registry Act of 2007, originally introduced in May by my colleague Representative Eliot Engel of New York and myself. As the bill comes to the floor, we have been joined by 275 bipartisan cosponsors in support of this important legislation.

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal, progressive, neurodegenerative disease affecting motor nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord. Approximately 5,600 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's Disease, each year. It is estimated that as many as 30,000 Americans have the disease. The average life expectancy for a person with ALS is two to five years from the time of diagnosis. There is no known cure for ALS.

The most important provision in our bill establishes a national ALS registry. There is currently no single national registry which collects and stores information on the prevalence and incidence of ALS in existence in the United States. The establishment of a national registry will help identify the occurrence and frequency of ALS and other motor neuron disorders and collect data which is badly needed for ALS research, disease management and the development of standards of care in order to significantly enhance the nation's efforts to find a treatment and cure for ALS.

A recent article from the New England Journal of Medicine stated that ``approximately 90 percent of the persons with ALS have the sporadic form, which may be caused by the interaction of multiple environmental factors and previously unknown genes.'' The purpose of creating a registry is to identify if there are any geographic, genetic or environmental groups of people that have been diagnosed with this terrible disease. This would then allow scientists a better opportunity to identify any relevant factors. This registry may sound simple on the surface, but it is actually a significant tool in determining the root causes of ALS, which would hopefully lead to diagnostic tests and screenings to see who is susceptible to the disease.

Although we know the debilitating effects of ALS, I am moved every year when I am visited by patients and their families in my Washington office. Despite the extremely challenging medical conditions faced by these patients, they make an extraordinary effort to travel to the Capitol and share their stories in the hope that we will soon find effective treatments and a potential cure so that no one like them will have to suffer in the future. The courage shown by ALS patients, as well as their families, is inspiring to me.

All diseases bring hardships on those afflicted, but ALS is particularly cruel in the quickness of the onset, the severity of the symptoms and the fatal nature of the condition. The provisions in our bill creating a nationwide registry for persons afflicted with ALS are important steps forward in strengthening the efforts to understand, treat and one day eradicate this terrible disease. I urge my colleagues to support the ALS Registry Act and I am proud to have worked on this very important effort with my friend Mr. Engel. I am also grateful that our committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, took up this legislation and advanced the bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this legislation and urge my colleagues to oppose it.

I am a strong supporter of economic development in rural America. That is why I have been pressing for reform of the Universal Service Fund to bring the benefits of broadband telecommunications to the rural areas of the country. I also strongly support the programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and our State Department of Agriculture that promote economic growth in Nebraska.

But, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this bill. The State of Nebraska already participates in the existing Northern Great Plains Commission and the North Central BioEconomic Consortium. I am told by Nebraska's Deputy Director of Agriculture that there are even more of these organizations in the Midwest dedicated to the same goals. H.R. 3246 would just add one more entity to this existing number of economic development groups now in place.

Even more troubling is the $1.25 billion price tag authorized by the bill and the creation of permanent regional commissions that will require millions of dollars in tax dollars for administrative expenses. We need to cut federal spending, not increase it.

Finally, the legislation also includes a provision requiring prevailing wages under the Davis-Bacon Act. For all of these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Madam Speaker, from September 4th through September 6th I was in Omaha recovering from a medical condition and was unable to travel back to the Capitol. I therefore missed 13 recorded votes. The votes I missed were rollcall vote 847 through rollcall vote 859.

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

I stand here today in support of this resolution, as does the full committee Chair, Joe Barton, and Ranking Member Nathan Deal, supporting efforts of this resolution, House Resolution 470, supporting the efforts to increase childhood cancer awareness, treatment and research.

The sponsor of this bill, Representative Deborah Pryce, is a true champion for childhood cancers. Cancer is a brutal disease and so pervasive we are all closely touched by it. It is that much more devastating to see a young child suffer from cancer. This resolution serves to increase knowledge and awareness of cancer among children and how we can encourage research and education into the disease.

Deborah Pryce is a committed mother and a dedicated and tireless advocate. Through this resolution, she is honoring not only the memory of her daughter, but also those of all children who have suffered from cancer. Childhood cancers affect the whole family: mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters.

I think it can be said that we all will greatly miss Representative Pryce after her retirement from the House at the end of this Congress. She's leaving a legacy both for her work for her constituents in Ohio, as well as for the leadership of the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3580, which passed the House last week, was highly technical and addressed a number of very complicated FDA policy and regulatory matters. I commend the bipartisan Members and the staff who worked so hard on the language that passed with such broad support in the House. Inevitably, when these complicated matters are addressed, some drafting and technical issues need to be revisited in a technical corrections bill.

In the case of the FDA Amendments of 2007, we were especially mindful that the funding had to be secured to prevent the layoff of FDA reviewers prior to September 30. Given the importance of that deadline to protecting the public health, it is inevitable drafting and workability issues may need to be revisited. The resolution simply corrects two omissions from the text that was approved last week.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 661, to which I was mistakenly added.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for this resolution recognizing the 60th Anniversary of the U.S. Air Force as an independent military service.

Offutt Air Force Base is home to the 55th Wing, the Fightin' Fifty- Fifth. Offutt's diverse missions and global responsibilities put it on the cutting edge of the new U.S. Air Force. There are approximately 12,000 military and Federal employees representing all branches of the military that serve on or near Offutt AFB, which is located near the Missouri River just south of Omaha and is a major presence in my congressional district.

Offut is also the home of STRATCOM, the global integrated force that is charged with the missions of space operations; information operations; integrated missile defense; global command and control; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; global strike; and strategic deterrence.

Mr. Speaker, the Fifty-Fifth Wing operates a variety of aircraft to conduct operations from Offutt AFB, Nebraska; Kadena AB, Japan; RAF Mildenhall, United Kingdom; Souda Bay Naval Support Activity, Crete; and other locations around the world. It is the largest wing in Air Combat Command and the second largest in the Air Force.

Air Combat Command is the principal provider of combat airpower that supports America's global national security strategy. It operates fighter, bomber, reconnaissance, battle-management and electronic- combat aircraft. It also provides command, control, communications, intelligence systems, and information operations in support of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, as the U.S. Air Force celebrates its 60th Anniversary, I want to join my colleagues in recognizing the many contributions it has made to the defense of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this conference report. I do so in spite of my past support for increases in Federal student loan programs and expanded access to college for all young people regardless of their economic status.

As a young student at the University of Nebraska and Creighton Law School, I had to rely on student loans and part-time jobs to cover my tuition, books, and living expenses. And I know that for many families that is also the only way their children can afford to meet the rising costs of a college education. That is what I have consistently voted for, increases in Pell grants and the reduction of interest rates from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. I am also a cosponsor of H.R. 722, a bill to increase the maximum Pell grant award to $4,810 for academic years 2008-2014.

There are three reasons why I have decided to vote against this bill. First, this Conference Report provides $22.3 billion in cuts to federal spending, over five years, but then at the same time spends roughly $21.57 billion in that same period time period which amounts to $752 million in deficit reduction. When H.R. 2669 passed in the House, it was estimated to cut spending by $20.38 billion, and spend $17.58 billion, leaving a remainder of $2.79 billion in deficit reduction. Unfortunately, much of the spending in the Conference Report goes towards five new entitlement programs and graduates of college rather than current students.

The second reason that I cannot support this legislation is that many of its provisions will drive private sector lending companies out of the market place, reducing the choices for student borrowers and eventually making the U.S. Department of Education the lending option of last resort. That is probably the intended purpose. A government agency replacing the free market.

In addition to reducing loan rates, it reduces the level of insurance that private lenders can use to off-set student loan defaults, and makes other cuts that will reduce incentives to remain in the student loan business.

It also eliminates the exceptional performer incentive program for good lenders who help students restructure their loan agreements if they are having trouble meeting their loan payments. Also, loan origination fees for lenders would be increased. All of these punitive provisions will reduce the number of private sector student loan firms thus reducing student loan choices for students. I also believe private capital working with the secondary markets creates more dollars to offer students than does the U.S. Department of Education.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, even though the conference report contains savings that pay for the many new entitlement programs created by the legislation, at the end of 5 years, the American taxpayers will be asked to pay the entire cost of these new programs. History tells us that once a Federal entitlement program is created, it will not die. We cannot afford to create another unchecked Federal entitlement spending program that will only contribute to the future inflation of college costs.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this conference report.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial amendment that encourages government buildings to use geothermal technology.

Geothermal technology is simple; when you dig down and use the energy within and beneath the Earth, you save energy. For example, in Nebraska, and all over, you can dig down 100 feet where the temperature is a consistent 60 degrees. So therefore, for example, at this time of year when it's in the 90s and high humidity, instead of cooling the air from 100 degrees to 72, you're

bringing it up from 60 degrees to 72. You save anywhere from 60 percent and as high as up to 80 percent, depending on the time of year, on energy costs to heat and cool and also to create hot water. This is the major use of energy within buildings, whether commercial or residential, and I think government should be the leader in this.

Simple amendment. I appreciate the help and encouragement I have received on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I can keep talking.

Reclaiming my time from the gentleman from Virginia, while the technology to implement geothermal, for example, a smaller building may increase the building cost by a mere $3,000 or $4,000, studies have shown that for commercial or residential buildings that they will recoup those costs within a matter of 3 years because of the energy savings by using the Earth's own energy to heat and cool.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the gentleman's acceptance of this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I think most of us as Republicans want to be able to provide health care access to low-income uninsured children, but that is not the issue or the bill that comes to the floor today. As we have heard from many of the speakers, it is to cover all children despite income levels and despite whether or not they are currently enrolled in a health insurance plan.

In fact, one of the Republican amendments that was denied in the Rules Committee and we cannot bring to the floor today is a measure that would say if you are currently enrolled in health insurance, you are not eligible to participate in SCHIP. That is denied, and that is just one piece of evidence that we are going to bring out today showing that this is an attack on private health insurance coverage and the attempt to nationalize health care.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to state that I believe that we should cover our low-income uninsured children, and I do believe we should make efforts to get them all in. If it was just that, we would be all in agreement. But that is not before us today. And I do believe that part of this attacks health insurance as we know it today.

Number one, they defund Medicare Advantage, which is where people can opt out of Medicare and actually go into a managed program by a health insurance company. So they defund that, attacking that.

Next is, for the first time, they are going to place a tax on health insurance policies, driving up the costs, so making it more unaffordable so more people drop out.

Then probably just as egregious as the other, an amendment that was denied, a Republican amendment, that says if there is a child that is eligible by the requirements but already insured can't drop that insurance or their insurer can't drop them, forcing them to go into the State-run free health insurance. That was denied.

So what we see here is a step-by-step process of making health insurance companies less effective and nationalizing health care.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I am actually going to speak on the amendment that was offered almost 10 minutes ago. I just want to express my appreciation to you, Chairman Peterson, for agreeing to this and working with us to make a good amendment even better by including switch grass and expanding it.

Certainly there is no doubt that ethanol is going to be a key ingredient in our recipe for energy independence. We have to do more research and development into cellulosic ethanol, of which sweet sorghum, which is pictured here in this graph, and switch grass, are going to be a key component. We can't do it all with ethanol from corn, so we need other products to develop the cellulosic, to add on top of that to be able to become less dependent on foreign oil. So we need to do the research.

This offers grants to universities that will compete. They have to show that they are competitive in this type of research to earn a $1 million grant to do this.

Our energy needs require us to speed up this process. Ethanol made from cellulosic materials, like sweet sorghum or switch grass, has nine times the amount of energy as regular ethanol. So that is another reason why we have to add this.

I want to compliment the ranking member and the chairman in putting together really a pretty good bill. Forty-eight hours ago I was telling all of our farm groups that I was very proud to support this type of legislation, especially because of the bioenergy issues in here. But, unfortunately, those of us that have said we will vote against tax increases have been put in a very tough position.

Madam Speaker, I rise to applaud today's passage of H. Res. 541 by unanimous consent to recognize the Marines of Company ``M,'' or ``Mike Company,'' on the occasion of their 25th annual reunion. I am proud that men in my home State of Nebraska served in this distinguished unit.

In fact, former Marine Commandant General Chuck Krulak and General Tom Draude served together in Vietnam in this unit. The U.S. Marine Corps told me that during General Krulak's tenure as CMC, he often took the opportunity in speeches to extol the heroism of fellow Marines from Mike Company--in particular Tom Draude, a former Commander of M/3/7 who was awarded the Silver Star for heroism in a 1966 action.

The Marines of Mike Company served honorably and heroically in the Vietnam war from July 1965 to October 1970. Their service in defense of freedom, liberty and political self determination for the South Vietnamese people earned the unit numerous citations and commendations for valor, including:

The Presidential Unit Citation Streamer with 2 Bronze Stars;

Navy Unit Commendation Streamer;

Meritorious Unit Commendation Streamer with 2 Bronze Stars;

National Defense Service Streamer;

Vietnam Service Streamer with 2 Silver Stars and 3 Bronze Stars;

Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm Streamer; and

The Vietnam Meritorious Unit Citation Civil Actions Streamer.

The Men of Mike Company were the subject of a 1968 documentary entitled ``A Face of War,'' which accurately portrayed the sights and sounds of Marines performing their duties in a combat zone. My constituent, retired Captain James Sackett, appeared in the film as part of the Mike Company ``Band of Brothers'' who displayed their courage under fire on behalf of all U.S. Marines.

The Marines of Mike Company, along with their loved ones, have held a reunion every year since 1983. They have formed the Mike 3/7 Vietnam Association to honor the memories of their fallen comrades; celebrate the lives of their surviving comrades; express profound appreciation to their families and loved ones; recognize the monumental sacrifices and achievements necessary for freedom; and to hold forth their contribution to the Marine Corps legacy of courage, patriotism and military excellence as an example to future generations.

Americans everywhere owe a debt of gratitude to the Marines of Mike Company for their selfless dedication to duty and their admirable display of courage under fire. The U.S. House of Representatives is proud to honor their sacrifices on the occasion of their 25th annual reunion.

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to talk about energy security. We have talked about energy independence, and I think that is a subset of energy security.

We have to look at the world in total, and we have to realize that we need to secure our own energy sources if we are going to secure the future of our country. Even as I look at probably the most immediate issue, the war with terrorists, their actions against us, but if we take that and look at the world in total, when I see the lowest common denominator, it's energy. It is a fight or a battle for energy.

Those who are going to be able to power themselves without relying on others will not only have more options and purer choices in foreign policy

matters, but the reality is in this new emerging global economy, those that cannot be economically hijacked by foreign countries are going to be the winners. I want to make sure that we have a policy in place that recognizes the need for independence so that we can secure our future.

Now this means that we have to do some things. I don't know how many of you out there remember high school economics. I remember Mr. Croft's lessons at Northwest High School, and basic supply and demand.

When we look at resolving our energy issues, and, by the way, a barrel of oil hit over $75 today, we have to look at both sides of the equation. That's what we tried to do in 2005, the energy bill that was signed by the President. We tried to increase the amount of supply of energy and, at the same time, looking at how to conserve or reduce the demand for energy in our country.

Now, overlaying this discussion about energy, supply and demand, is a new discussion amongst us about global warming. This is driving our discussions on energy today. I fear that we have become, how do I say this, but so spooked by global warming that we are willing to go to the extreme and hurt ourselves.

And I really believe that part of my role and the role of the minority party here is maybe to swing back to a more practical level as we talk about energy and global warming.

Now, what a lot of people don't know when we talk about global warming or the CO2 emissions, that is the gas that is depleting our ozone, the vast majority of that is created naturally, not by humans. Yes, human activity that I am going to talk about in a minute does contribute to that.

Now, as I understand, the major contributor and the most significant contributor to CO2 emissions is livestock. So, of course, some have joined hands with PETA to make sure that we eliminate all the cattle, pigs, chickens, and we should just become vegetarians.

The next is humans. Not by our activity of burning coal and the coal- generated electrical plant, but just ourselves and our existence, our exhaling. And, therefore, we should have mandated policies to control population, i.e., abortion, and reduce the number of people on Earth. That is one of the policies out there.

Now, the discussion that we are going to have here in the House in the next 2 weeks is going to be on what energy policies do we implement here to lower CO2 emissions and become energy independent. Well, the reality of it is, the policies that we are going to hear from the majority party will help to some small degree on the demand side and absolutely drive up or put more pressures, increased pressures, on supply, because they are going to eliminate some of our sources that we use for energy, make it more difficult and more costly to use and, therefore, create bigger demand. What happens when there is bigger demand? Prices go up.

So any of you out there that want to turn on a light, use your computer, heat or cool your homes, drive to work, under the policies that we are looking at adopting in this House over the next couple weeks, expect to pay more.

Now, this is why I think it is becoming so important here. I want to get back to our supply-and-demand lesson here. In this chart, the United States, because of our economic engine, our ingenuity, our intellectual properties that are being put into action, we are the largest consuming Nation. Now, look down here, we also rank number one in oil importation. We have to import to drive our economy, literally drive our economy, about 65 percent of our energy needs. Now, that is 12 billion barrels that we have to import.

When I think of energy, I have to separate it into two different issues. One is driving. About two-thirds of the oil that we import goes to refining into gasoline, to use in jet fuel and trucks to move goods from one place to another, as well as cars to get us to the grocery store, to get us back to work. If we are going to become independent, we have to look at a full array of fuels that we can generate here. That means biofuels to some extent. That means that we adopt policies on hybrid type of cars or other experimental cars that are out there. And, by the way, that does lower emissions. But remember, car emissions are pretty far down the list of what actually contributes to CO2 emissions and the ozone. We can then look at a lot of other technologies. I am a proponent of hydrogen, for example.

Now, let's look at the other side of generating electricity that powers our economy and is part of the equation. Most of our electrical generation, about 52 percent nationally, is from coal. In the policies adopted by various committees of this House and that are going to be brought to the floor in some capacity either in the next 2 weeks or maybe even September, they make it much more difficult to use coal. I mentioned, 52 percent of the electricity in this Nation is generated from coal. In my district, it is over 70 percent. It is the cheapest way to generate electricity. It is plentiful. We have something like a 500-year supply of coal to generate electricity in this country.

So I feel that instead of doing what the majority party wants to do and shut down coal-fired plants, crippling our ability to generate electricity; and, by the way, nuclear is bad, too. Remember that, no nuclear power? Let's make it as difficult. Let's not find ways to deal with the waste. And so if we shut down coal, make it more costly at least to do it, no nuclear, that means you have one area to really rely on in generating electricity, and that is natural gas. Oh, and by the way, our policies don't allow for any more domestic supply of natural gas and oil, so we are going to shift everything to natural gas to generate. We barely allow it to be imported. We can't drill any more for it within our own 48 continental United States or offshore any more than we are doing today.

I don't understand this energy policy that is going to be brought to us. It seems to me to be a negative energy policy. In fact, I think the only energy that is involved in this bill is perhaps if we burn the darn thing we could generate some power. But, as was just mentioned to me, that would result in CO2 emission, so we can't even do that.

Mr. Speaker and the American public, we need to become more engaged in this. We are on a path to cripple our economy. China is adding at least one new power plant a week based on coal. They have no problems using coal. I saw a statistic that was 2 years old, so it is probably much more significant now, but the Chinese were adding 120,000 cars per day. That is not even talking about India, whose economy is expanding at near double digits as well, and they are adding power in their cars.

The competition is extreme for oil. We need to recognize that. We need to expand it. That doesn't mean that we shut down our domestic fossil fuels. That means we add to it so that we become independent and secure our Nation's future.

At this time, I yield to my friend from Texas.

Your vision would include wind energy, solar energy?

So in one of the bills in one of our committees, it specifically makes it a criminal act to have a turbine that would contribute to the death of a migrating bird. Does that help or hinder the rollout of that alternative energy?

You mean, if an investor might go to jail because a bird flies into a turbine under one of the bills that may come to this floor in the next couple of weeks, that would hinder investment?

I appreciate your comments and putting more meat onto the bones here. And I'll mention that in my district, again, it's about 70 percent, almost 70 percent coal. We do have nuclear. We use natural gas only as a peaking, which is basically this time of year. It was 99 degrees at home today, and I'll guarantee you Omaha Public Power is running their peaking plant during the day so that people can run their air conditioners. And there's a lot of things that we could do on the conservation side, as you said, and we need to push those.

But at the same time, we seem to be adopting policies that restrict the supply. And I think even though the policies that are going to be proposed here don't necessarily further restrict than already have been natural gas, what they do is move more energy, or force more energy to electrical generation by natural gas without doing anything to increase the supply of that natural gas.

And the gentleman from Pennsylvania has come to the floor many times. He is one of the leaders in the House in discussion of what we need to do to increase supplies of natural gas, and how ridiculous it is that our prices in the United States are probably five times more than anywhere else in the rest of the world.

So I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Will the gentleman yield on that?

Dow Chemical has thousands of employees. They're just one of many petrochemicals that rely on natural gas. If the price of natural gas remains high or goes higher, where do they go? I yield back to you.

And all of those jobs go to those countries now.

Because of our natural gas policy.

I really appreciate your tutorial there. What is our supply in the United States of natural gas? We had the gentlewoman from Ohio that was down here that was talking about petroleum and how limited we may be at our peak here within the next 30 years. How about natural gas?

You mean we won't even be able to measure how much?

So just what we know, 50 to 100 years, and, by the way, I understand one of our largest pockets of natural gas that is in Wyoming was made into a Federal monument or a park, making it federally illegal to even drill there. So that is what happens when we find new pockets. We rule them off limits. That just astounds me that we have got that much. And when we are talking about securing our future, wanting to become independent, the other side and us are worried about global warming. And

this is a clean fuel. You have stressed it. It is a clean fuel, which is why the policies that we are seeing are moving electrical generations towards natural gas. It makes no sense to me that we won't increase supply at the same time.

We talked about jobs, that we are losing our manufacturing, our middle class. And what a lot of people don't understand is it is our energy policy that is driving those jobs offshore. Yes, there are some that are offshoring, taking maybe telephone answering jobs over to India. But our policies are driving a lot of our good manufacturing jobs away.

Then let's bring him up.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to my friend from New Mexico.

Well, I thank you for your input.

I just fear that the policies that we're looking at to adopt in this Nation are going to jeopardize our security, jeopardize our future. We need to look at a balance.

I appreciate you being here, and all of the others that came to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I rise not only in opposition to the rule, but respectfully request that my colleagues join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question.

I have drafted an amendment that would freeze our salaries for this year, much like we voted to do in the last year. We are not going to have the opportunity then to have a straight-up vote on that amendment during this appropriations bill. So our one opportunity to voice our opinion on the COLA, the cost-of-living increase, which is somewhere probably around 2.5 percent, I don't know the number itself, but that happens automatically unless we have a straight-up vote to suspend it, and we are going to be denied that opportunity. So I respectfully request that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle join me in voting against the previous question.

Now, let me state some of the reasons why I think it is important that we freeze our salaries again for next year.

First of all, I don't think we deserve it. Our approval rating with the American public is 14 percent, according to Gallup, the lowest in the history of polling. Obviously we are doing something wrong if the people have such little confidence in us.

I think there are a variety of reasons why the people have less confidence in us now than they even did last year, and I think one is because of maybe the viciousness and the partisanship is probably at an all-time record high. We have our political opponents that think we are down and want to put their heels on our throats and keep us that way, and I am not sure that is what the American people want.

But then let's look at effectiveness. In the major bills that have come through the House of Representatives, the congressional leadership, and I say that in toto, House and Senate, have gotten very few bills to the White House for signature. In fact, we have done a variety of resolutions and bills, many of them condemning what Republicans had done in the past. But out of 60 bills that have gone through the House in our first 6 months, since January 4, 2 have been signed into law, and that is it.

Now, if we were on a baseball team, and we hit 2 out of 60, or less than 1 percent, a .033 percentage, we would be sent down to Single A ball for such a pathetic percentage. So we are not performing well enough to deserve it.

Now, I do want to bring up one other aspect. Usually what happens with the cost-of-living increase is we have a token vote on the previous question, and there is an arrangement basically for the votes to be there to allow the previous question to go forward for the rule, with a gentleman's agreement that those who vote ``yes'' won't have to pay for it in the elections. But the reality of that is that is off the table.

This is just one of the many ads run against Republican incumbents who voted for the previous question last year. This is paid for by the Democrat Congressional Committee against Incumbents Who Vote for the Previous Question.

So I think it is important to warn everyone that comes here that is going to vote on the previous question, which is the vote for a congressional pay freeze for our next year's salaries, that if you are a Republican, DCCC is going to run ads against you, and since that agreement is off the table, if you are on my friend's side of the aisle over here, the Democrat side, the agreement is off also if you vote for it. Maybe the Republican National Congressional Committee will be running ads against you for voting for a pay raise, and maybe it is because we haven't made the Bush cuts permanent that will raise taxes on American families, or maybe it is just because of the lack of productivity in the House that protects our families. There are a variety of reasons.

But the reality is there is no such agreement left, folks. Vote against the previous question and protect yourself.