Floor Statements

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

Parliamentary Inquiry.

Could the Speaker tell me what the magic number was that rose in order to get a vote?

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate, and I haven't heard of any way that this is going to be paid for, the 130 something billion dollars over 10 years, except for 45 cent a pack increase in the tax on tobacco. So while I heard some Members over there talking about this is going to be a deterrent to people smoking, you better hope a bunch of people start smoking because you're going to have to sell a ton of cigarettes to come up with $132 billion. But then the closer you look at it, you find out that this is, again, smoke and mirrors from this majority in Congress.

What this is going to do in 2011 is actually cut doctors' pay 12 percent. Now, if anybody really believes in this room that we're going to cut doctors' pay by 10 or 12 percent, they're kidding themselves. This is another gimmick, more smoke and mirrors, more illusion for the people of this country.

The people of this country are smarter than that. When they recognize what this is, then I think that the majority is going to find out that they do not want the CHUMP bill passed.

Point of order.

Madam Chairman, do the rules of this House apply the same to every Member of the House?

A parliamentary inquiry.

Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairman.

Do the rules of this House apply to every Member equally?

Madam Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry. Is it not true that the chairman of Energy and Commerce came to the floor and never mentioned the amendment that was being discussed?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

The same parliamentary inquiry. Is it not true that when the gentleman that is chair of Energy and Commerce----

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry, a point of clarification.

Mr. Speaker, is it not true that if indeed this motion passed, that this bill could be reported back to the respective committee from which it was assigned and passed out, and that the bill could be reported back to the House tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to get a point of clarification from you. The parliamentary inquiry is, is it true that this bill could be reported back to the committee and reported back to this House on the next legislative day?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Is there any rule that would preclude a bill going back to committee and the committee reporting it back the next legislative day?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. I am not talking about any bill.

Mr. Speaker, is it true that this bill, this bill, if this motion passes to this bill and this bill is promptly reported back to the committee, is it possible under the rules of this House that this bill could be reported back to this House the next legislative day?

I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment.

It's interesting to hear about all the savings that the majority party, Mr. Chairman, claims that they have saved. I'm interested to get to the debate on the farm bill so we can hear of all the savings that's in it, and we will see how the next tax increase is going to be explained as some type of offset, or, as they have done so well this whole 110th Congress, is the smoke-and-mirror thing. They do a great job with it. I believe when people do a good job, they should be complimented. I've never seen an illusionist as good, especially convincing people that they are actually getting something accomplished.

If this Congress really wants to get something accomplished, we'll pass the amendment from Mr. Jordan, because it's real savings to the taxpayers of $1.6 billion. Now, in the scheme of things, and I never thought I would be up here long enough to say that that's a small amount of money compared to the amount of money that we spend in Congress, but it is a reasonable savings. And not only that, but it's an important first step, the first time in the 110th Congress, and really, I think, probably one of the first times up here that we've actually saved some money, and there's nothing wrong with that. And even though it's a small start, it's a good start.

This bill is $3.2 billion above last year, or a little over 3 percent more than it was last year. And while it's a modest increase, a 3 percent increase, I think that we would do much better going back to last year's level and learning to live within that means, Mr. Chairman, than trying to expand the programs.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I just want to clear up one thing. Let's clear the smoke out of the room here and put some facts in the discussion. The Clinton administration awarded the Halliburton contract. Mr. Cheney only extended it. The Bush administration only extended it after trouble in the Middle East broke out.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding. I rise in support of her amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell a story for you and other people that might be listening about a gentleman who was a wide receiver for the Atlanta Falcons. His name was Alex Hawkins. One night he didn't come home. He had a history of maybe carousing around and staying out a little bit too late. He didn't come home one night, so he snuck in the door early the next morning, and his wife said, ``Hawk, where have you been?''

He said, ``Well, I got in kind of late last night and didn't want to wake you

up, and I fell asleep outside in the hammock on the porch.''

She said, ``Alex, that hammock has been gone for a year.''

He looked kind of puzzled and he said, ``Well, Honey, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.''

That is what the other side is doing. They have a story, and they are sticking to it.

I want to give you, Mr. Chairman, a math problem. Other people who want to work this math problem can, too, but I want to give you a math problem. If you take $53.6 billion and you multiply it times 0.025 percent, Mr. Chairman, will you get more than $53.6 billion? I think you will. I think it will be an increase over that number. So what this amendment does, it gives an increase over last year's spending.

Now, did the FBI come in and say, We don't need any more money? I doubt it. So really and truly, if you want to take the kind of logic that the majority is taking because they can't do math very well, then the FBI could have come in and said, You know what? We want $10 billion more. Well, I can't give you that. So in reality, they are cutting the FBI from the request that they made even though they are getting more money.

Now, this is fuzzy math, I know, and, Mr. Chairman, for any young people that might be listening to this, I hope you don't get confused. I know all these speeches are somewhat, Mr. Chairman, like an algebra problem, but we are asking, this is an increase? It is an increase over last year for these FBI agents and these police officers. It is not a cut. I don't know how else to explain it.

And, you know, I'm sure that Alex Hawkins knew that his wife knew that he was lying, but that was his story, and he's sticking to it. The same thing goes to the majority party.

The sad part about this, Mr. Chairman, is when we're all going to realize the truth, and many of us realize it's the truth now, it is when the taxpayers of this country and those family budgets are getting judged.

Madam Speaker, in June, my hometown of Grantville, GA, lost one of its treasures upon the death of Mrs. Barbara Scruggs, who was an activist, a public servant, a devoted wife and mother, a patron of the arts and an American patriot. She was 75.

Born in Pennsylvania, Barbara wasn't a Georgia native. She chose Georgia as her home and loved the state and Coweta County with the zeal of a convert.

After graduating from nursing school in 1954, Barbara eventually served her Nation as a nurse in the U.S. Air Force in 1957 and 1958. It was during that time that she fell in love with a fighter pilot named William Gordon Scruggs, whom she married in 1957. They eventually moved to Coweta County and raised three children together there.

Growing up in Pennsylvania, Barbara's parents had raised her as a Republican, but when she moved South, Georgia was conservative but it was a one-party state controlled at every level by Democrats. Barbara became a politically active Republican in Coweta County at a time when no one in Georgia had ever heard of such a thing. To paraphrase a country song, Barbara Scruggs was a Republican when being a Republican wasn't cool.

She always followed politics closely and got involved. She took leadership positions in the Coweta County Republican Party and the Coweta County Republican Women's Club, handling the latter's newsletter duties for many years. Prominent in the Georgia GOP--described as a volunteer always willing to do more than her share--she was selected as a delegate to the 2000 Republican National Convention, where she proudly donned patriotic attire and donated to future first lady Laura Bush's book drive for local libraries.

In 1984, she moved from activist to public servant. She ran for and won a seat on the Coweta County school board. As a board member for 12 years, Barbara saw the ``big picture,'' said former Superintendent Bobby Welch, adding that she had a passion for improving opportunities for students, faculty and staff.

In Barbara's heart, politics had to share space with her love of art. She indulged this interest later in life, her husband said, as she found she had more free time. She became a big supporter of the Newnan- Coweta Art Association. In fact, she was attending a reception for an exhibition opening at the Centre for the Performing and Visual Arts on the night that she died. ``She died, if you have to go, under perfect circumstances, doing the thing she loved so much,'' her husband told the Newnan Times-Herald.

Barbara Scruggs gave her all for her community. She'll be missed in Grantville and throughout Coweta County, but I consider this a personal loss as well. Throughout my career in elected office, I could always count on Barbara's support. My wife Joan and I have kept the Scruggs family in our thoughts and prayers this summer.

Mr. Speaker, the Representatives in these hallowed halls of Congress come from every corner of the United States, and our pallets and diets are as varied as our accents.

When I say ``barbecue'' here in Washington that means something totally different to people from different parts of this country. In Texas, barbecue is beef. To others, barbecue is pretty much anything cooked on a grill. But in my home State of Georgia and in surrounding southern States, barbecue means only one thing: pit-cooked pork.

Americans concerned about the ``McDonald's-ization'' of this Nation need only come down South for some fine barbecue cuisine. While pork is always at the base of southern barbecue, the secret is in the sauce and in the sides. Drive a hundred-mile radius from any barbecue joint in the South and the meal and preparation will probably be totally different. In parts of the Carolinas, you're more likely to get mustard-based sauce while pretty much throughout Georgia the sauce of choice is vinegar-based. In east Georgia, your side might be hash and rice; in west Georgia where I live, you'll probably get a side of Brunswick stew.

One thing that's always the same: No matter where you go in the South, the locals think their brand of barbecue beats out the rest.

Residents of Fayette County in Georgia's Third Congressional District have dined on pork barbecue and Brunswick stew and sweet tea at Melear's Barbecue for 50 years this month. Restaurants make their profits pennies on the plate and they have to sell a lot of plates to stay in business. The majority of eateries go out of business within 2 years of opening. To survive for 25 times that long testifies to the Melear family's good business sense, yes, but also to their good barbecue.

The fine Southern cuisine isn't Melear's only draw; it's also a neighborhood gathering spot for the people of Fayetteville. It's where local city council members, county commissioners and sheriff's deputies meet up to plot plans, and it's where aspiring politicians running statewide in Georgia head to shake hands with the community's leaders.

Melear's is a special barbecue restaurant in that it's open for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I confess that as a longtime homebuilder in Fayette County, there was a time when I started every day off right with a heaping breakfast served up by Kenny Melear.

The people of Fayette County and I personally am thankful for 50 years of fine meals and good company at Melear's. I congratulate Kenny and his family for a half-century of success and send best wishes for a half-century more. And with those best wishes, I'd like a barbecue plate with Brunswick stew and a big glass of sweet tea.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply eliminate the $8.7 million for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program. The 2007 level was $8.7 million, and the President requested $5.9 million for fiscal year 2008. This would simply eliminate it.

These funds, this Native Hawaiian Housing fund, has been funded since 2002. So far there has been over $37 million going to the housing fund.

In the 2000 census, the Native Hawaiians, and there was approximately 750,000 Native Hawaiians, lived in homes on the island of Hawaii, the average medial value was $209,000. The Native Hawaiians that live in Georgia, and there is 2,200 of them by the 2000 census, their median value home was $111,000.

These grants can only go to Native Hawaiians on the islands of Hawaii. I believe that this is probably unconstitutional in the fact that we are doing a set-aside for a racial group, and so I just wanted to point that out.

It is a great opportunity to save some money. It is a great opportunity to look and make sure that we are all treated equally and that the 14th amendment of our Constitution is kept intact.

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

Mr. Chairman, I missed in the rule book where you needed to call any Member or anything to discuss an amendment that you might have, and I apologize for not reading that chapter in the rule book.

And, Mr. Chairman, I think I was raised very appropriately from a family that had to watch their money. My father worked two jobs. He was an Atlanta firefighter, and he worked shifts. In one week he'd be gone, work at the fire department during the day and then he'd be home at night. And then the next week he worked surveying during the day and the fire station at night, so we didn't see him for a week at a time. And he would watch every dollar that he had, and I think he did a great job in raising me and my sister and providing for our family.

He never really asked for anything from the government, and so I guess that I'm very careful about some of the ways that we spend our money, and especially when it is on a program that I look at as a set- aside program. And whether the gentleman from Hawaii or the lady from Hawaii look at it as a set-aside or not, I don't know. That's their right. And I understand that they may know some things that I don't know. And I can just look at this as a Member of Congress and look at see what the Congresses have done in the past.

And for some reason, Mr. Chairman, the tendency for the majority party now is to tell me and other Members that stand up here and try to look after the taxpayers' dollars what the Republicans did. I don't care what the Republicans did. What they did, what other people did in the past doesn't make what we're doing today right or wrong.

And so all I'm doing is bringing up the point that this is a set- aside for somebody, for a group of people that are not Native Americans. They're not an Indian tribe. This is a race group, and that's as simple as it is.

Now, we can argue all the points that we want to argue, and the learned gentleman from Hawaii is a very smart guy. I know he's probably a doctor in sociology. And he can come down here and talk negatively about me if he wants to. That's his prerogative.

But I was asking a learned defense attorney one day, I said, you know, what does it feel like to have a client that you're trying to defend, and all the information and the facts are against you?

He said, you know what, you just have to really get up and talk as loud as you can and really be as mad as you can and really talk about anything other than the facts. And I know I've seen that on a couple of occasions here from different people.

And so all I'm asking is that we have a chance, in this House, to vote on this amendment. And I think it's fair that we vote on this amendment; that we vote on this amendment to try to decide if we want to give another $8.7 million, and regardless of what they've

gotten from the Republican Congress since 2002, that we could start anew. And so I think it's worthwhile that we can offer an amendment that we can have a vote on trying to take a special set-aside for a racial group to have something different than the rest of the people in this country have.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, is it not true that, if indeed this motion passed, this bill could be reported back to the committee it was assigned to and that bill could be reported back to the House tomorrow?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, is it not true that having reported this bill back to the committee from which it was designated, that it could be brought back to the floor as early as tomorrow?

Madam Speaker, it is my great honor to inform the House that three of my constituents in Georgia's 3rd Congressional District have won the Honor Medal With Crossed Palms, a distinction given the Boy Scouts of America to herald heroism carried out at extreme personal risk.

These courageous young men put their lives on the line to save a friend, and one of them died in the rescue attempt.

In July of 2005, during the onslaught of Hurricane Cindy, three Eagle Scouts, Brett Boot, Brock Gardner and Danen Clarke, were at a park in Peachtree City, Ga., with a small group of family and friends. After they helped a man dislodge his golf cart from rising waters, Danen' s cousin ventured into what appeared to be still waters near a flooded road and was immediately sucked under by an unseen rip current.

Thinking that the cousin was pinned by a possible grate, the three Scouts waded in the dangerous waters to feel around for him with their feet. The cousin had actually been sucked through a 40-foot-long culvert located 5 feet below the road, which wasn't visible under the high water. The cousin was swept under the road, reappearing on the other side with severe cuts on his feet, but alive.

Danen was then caught under the ferocious current, followed by Brock, whose one leg caught on the entrance of the 4-foot-wide culvert. Brett was behind Brock in the water and was able to secure him with his arms against the pull of the current.

Danen's body was found the next morning in the stream that feeds into Lake Peachtree, caught in branches that prevented him from being swept into the lake. It is believed that Danen hit his head on a large piece of the culvert, knocking him out and causing him to drown.

The awarding of the Honor Medal With Crossed Palms is as prestigious within the scouting community as it is rare. The honor has been awarded nationally only 199 times since it was created in 1922. The Boy Scouts of America have given out only four such medals this year, and I will have the great honor of presenting these awards at a ceremony later this month to Brock and to the siblings of Danen and Brett, the latter of whom is serving his church as a missionary in South America. The medals read: ``The Honor Medal With Crossed Palms presented by the Boy Scouts of America upon the Recommendation of the National Court of Honor to Bretton Boot, Danen Clarke and Brock Gardner for unusual heroism and extraordinary skill or resourcefulness in saving or attempting to save life at extreme risk to self.''

The courage and selflessness of these young men testifies to their character and to the unwavering values they learned from loving families, their church and, yes, from the Boy Scouts of America. Georgia's 3rd Congressional District proudly claims them as its own. I can think of no more deserving recipients for this award. The July 28th ceremony presents an opportunity to celebrate heroism and to remember and mourn Danen Clarke's sacrifice on that fateful day.

Danan, Brett and Brock set an example for us all. They will serve as an inspiration for present and future generations of Boy Scouts in Troop 208 and throughout the Flint River Council.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, when a student decides to go to college, many families gather all their financial records and sit down to fill out the free application for Federal Student Aid, or the FISA, form.

To be eligible to receive Federal student aid, a student must meet certain eligibility requirements. Importantly, one of those requirements is that the student be a U.S. citizen or eligible noncitizen, basically, a legal permanent resident. They also have to have a high school diploma or a GED and be enrolled or accepted at a school that participates in the Federal Student Loan Aid program.

Given these requirements, it would be expected that a citizen or legal permanent resident that is a high school graduate or GED holder and has been accepted as a student at an institution of higher education would be able to complete the FISA in English; however, the U.S. Department of Education clearly does not think so. I have a higher opinion of our education system than that, and I believe a student that meets these eligibility requirements will be proficient enough in English to complete this form in English.

When I learned that this free Federal student application form is available for completion in either English or Spanish, I became concerned that others don't share my opinion of the capabilities of our education system. Even more disturbing is the presumption that the Federal Government would be subsidizing the college education of an individual that does not have the proficiency in English to fill out the form to get free Federal assistance.

So, colleagues, my amendment is simple. It would prevent the Department of Education from providing or

processing the free application for student loan assistance form in any language other than English. With the requirements for obtaining student assistance, it is not an imposition to ensure that our tax dollars go to students that are clearly ready to receive and achieve a college education. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Reclaiming my time, I wondered how the other side would answer to this, and quite interesting answers. First of all, this doesn't have anything to do with K-12. And as far as you buying your phone, Mr. Chairman, as far as somebody buying a phone that's got instructions in three or four different languages, they may be sold in different countries. I don't have any idea. But the Federal Government didn't buy that phone for you to use.

Now, here's the thing. We're talking about student aid, free aid going to someone who is fixing to go to college that is a legal resident here, either a citizen or a legal resident. All we're

saying is if you're going to ask the American taxpayers to pay for your financial assistance, that you should be proficient enough in the language of this country to fill out the application. Now, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. And we can throw all these other little things in there about the people that won't get to apply and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It doesn't matter.

All this amendment says is if you're going to ask the Federal Government to help with financial aid for your college education that we hope you succeed in, and that we want you to excel in, that you can at least speak the language of this country. That's all we're saying.

This is a very simple amendment. There's been so much rhetoric over there. I guess, you know, evidently, they're taking this for something that it's not. Very simple, Mr. Chairman. Very, very simple. Do we want to make sure that our taxpayers' dollars go to students who are legal citizens of this country, who have a GED or a high school education, that are applying for financial aid to go to a college in this country to be proficient enough in English to fill the application out in English? It's very simple.

I won't belabor this. And I know the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is trying to get as many of these amendments out of the way as you can. But I certainly hope that my colleagues, and especially all the colleagues who are interested in protecting the hard taxpayers' dollars of this country, and who are interested in getting as many students financial aid that need it, that have the best opportunity to go forward and succeed in their college education and spend the money wisely, that they would support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I want to thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this would almost be sad if it really wasn't so comical.

I think what a lot of folks are witnessing today is some more smoke and mirrors, another magic show that they may have seen somewhere.

We have the chairman of the Appropriations Committee who said that the President's budget would spend 48 percent less this year on education and some other things that he mentioned than 1980, but yet they talk about what kind of spending spree we are on. I can't imagine what kind of spending spree the Democratic majority must have been on in 1980.

Let me say this. We keep hearing a lot of history lessons, a lot of history in here. For some reason we don't want to talk about the future.

But we keep hearing about the $57 billion from the people in this country that make over $1 million. Now, I really don't know if that's true or not. I am going to assume the chairman of the Appropriations Committee knows if that's true or not.

But it's almost like he sounds mad that he can't get his hands on somebody else's money. He says, you know, we can't get that $57 billion, and we want to spend it. I am mad about it.

You know what? We are spending too much money on the war on terror. Well, look, I have only been here 3 years, but I know one thing. I know that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the Democratic leadership over there can stop this war today, today. They got 232 votes. They control the purse strings, they can stop it today.

The supplemental budget that we passed that our leader talked about was $20 billion more than the President requested. The chairman of the committee said, you know what, I would spend $10 billion more. What's stopping him? He is already spending $11 billion more. What's stopping him from spending $10 billion more.

Because you know why? I think they are afraid to tell you that these things that they are investing in, that's what they like to call spending taxpayers' dollars. The things that they are investing in is coming out of the American people's pocket. They are making investments for the people of this country that they don't even have any say in. It's time we wake up.

Sure.

I think that the Federal Government, if they want to fund K-12, it should be in block grants to the local school districts for them to be able to spend the money to the needs of their local school districts and the needs of the State.

I think that if the Federal Government is going to spend money on education, that they need to send it to the State as a block grant for the State Department of Education to spend in their local districts.

You know, I have listened to you many nights and I respect you, because I really believe that you are a true believer in what you are saying.

Let me just say this, that I am part of that fringe.

You are part of a fringe, somewhat of a fringe.

Being part of that fringe, I am proud of the fringe.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, is it not true that if indeed this motion passed, this bill could be reported back to the respective committee through which it was designated, and that the bill could be reported back to the House the very next legislative day?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Is it not true that this bill could be reported back the next legislative day?

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I would like to recognize my good friend from New Jersey.

I want to thank my friend from New Jersey for offering this amendment. I hope this House will see fit to pass it.

But let me say this: I think as we talk about children and education, that from my background, and I have a high school education, I attended college for a short period of time prior to being married, but let me say this: What I have found is that education is best from the local level, and I don't know that the Federal Government can really take some of these programs and put them down into a local school district and say here is this money, use it for this purpose or you don't get the money.

To me, it would be much better if some of this money were set down in a block grant to the State and let the State identify the problems and especially the funding problems that they have and be able to administer the money.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank my friend from New Jersey for offering this amendment because I did not know that this would open up the types of discussions that it has, but I think it's great for this body.

My friend from Ohio, Mr. Ryan, who, Mr. Chairman, I stood up on that podium and listened to many nights with the 30-something group, that talked about the spending of the Republicans, I hope he will come back now and talk about the largest tax increase in the history of this country. He talked about dividing Members, and I stood there, Mr. Chairman, right where you're at, and I listened to the rhetoric that was designed to divide Members.

And talking about a spending and what's a good investment, I don't know when we were in the majority party why the things we weren't doing wasn't a good investment. Now, all of the sudden spending $11 billion more than the President's recommendation is a good investment. So spending more money is a good investment, and he's talking about that we borrowed money from foreign countries. I don't agree with that, but you know what, they probably won't borrow money from a foreign country. You know what they're going to do, Mr. Chairman? They're going to go up on your taxes. They have passed and are passing appropriations bills, other pieces of legislation that's going to cause this country to have the largest tax increase in history.

So I want to thank him for bringing this up, and I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing this up because this is a perfect example that we have to prioritize, and we all have different ideas about prioritizing. We all have different ideas about who's writing a budget, if it's a good investment or if it's wasteful spending.

So, I support the gentleman's amendment because I don't think that those children in Alaska, regardless if a Member of my party says it or not, or the children of Hawaii need special exception and more money than my kids, my special need kids in the Third District of Georgia.

So I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding, and I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment. We've listened to the other side talk about, I guess, some of us maybe being disingenuous or doing different things with this amendment. And the gentleman from Ohio talked about a fringe group over here, and I'm happy to be part of that fringe group. The Republican Study Committee I guess is who he was talking about in that we're trying to look after the taxpayers' money.

For the past 12 years, I would have to admit, although I've only been here three of those years, that we spent too much money. We expanded government too much, and we didn't do what we should have been doing. But it's good, because I think a lot of people woke up after the last election and realized that we had lost our brand of being fiscal conservatives, being responsible with the taxpayers' money, because it's not our money, it's their money, they work hard for it every day, and that we need to be more responsible with it.

And I think that the President got that message. And in this budget, he cut the funding for the writing instruction. It's $23.5 million, or a very, very small percentage of the $152 billion budget that the majority party is offering for this appropriations bill, which is $11 billion more than the President offered. And, you know, it doesn't hurt to zero a program out if it's not working or not doing its job, or if the money can better be spent somewhere else in a different program, something that has more advantages for more people.

Under titles II, III and IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Federal Government provides extensive support to States and operates numerous programs designed to enhance teacher recruiting and training.

While many of these programs provide important services, States would be well served to receive this funding in the form of a block grant with increased flexibility to use these funds on the programs most needed in that State.

Mr. Chairman, I know from talking to my local school board superintendents and school board members that they certainly agree with that. No Child Left Behind, while working in a lot of situations, has cost them more money, really, to implement those programs than they receive in Federal dollars because a lot of that money is, has to be spent in a certain area.

This would be an opportunity that we could take this very, very small amount out. The President recommended a zero. It was funded at $21.7 million last year, so there's been a 10 percent increase this year, and just zero the program out.

And so it's a pretty simple amendment. It puts back the writing instruction program back to zero, where the President put it, and I hope that my colleagues will finally decide, let's vote for one thing that actually cuts something.

I know one appropriations bill, Mr. Chairman, we were talking about, and I believe the chairman of the committee said they had cut 250 programs. And I asked for a list of those programs. Haven't received it yet. So, hopefully this will encourage him to support this amendment, because it is zeroing out a program, and also get me the list of the other 250 programs that this Congress has cut so far this year.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, would the gentlewoman please address the Chair and not a Member?