Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida for yielding, and when I came to the floor today, I didn't come here to speak; but, you know, my father was a fireman for 26 years for the City of Atlanta. In fact, he died in an alarm. I know what it is like for these firefighters to answer the alarms. He suffered a heart attack while turning off an OS&Y valve in a pit. It was 18 degrees that December morning. I know what it is like for those firefighters. But, you know, my father never belonged to a firefighters union, and that is what this is. This is basically a union bill and payback to the unions.

But, you know, Georgia is a right-to-work State. We have a 10th amendment to our Constitution. I was very disappointed to hear from the chairman that this thing passed out of committee 42-1. That breaks my heart. That really breaks my heart that those Republicans were on that side. I don't know what the majority thinks about the 10th amendment, but I believe very strongly in it. This has something to do with States rights. And I am sorry and I am very disappointed that this House will do this under suspension and there won't be any opportunity for amendments or this thing to be looked at.

I hope that the majority of the Members here will realize what is going on, oppose this suspension and bring it up under regular order.

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

Madam Speaker, the Arkansas River system provides navigation, flood protection, hydropower, water supply and recreation for millions of Americans. This body of water provides a 9-foot navigation channel that is almost 445 miles long and is controlled over this length by 17 locks and dams.

Madam Speaker, lock and dam No. 5, which this legislation would name after Colonel Charles Maynard, became operational in 1968. This is a vital piece of infrastructure where almost 9 million tons of commodities pass through it annually.

Prior to his work as district engineer in Little Rock, Arkansas, Colonel Maynard served in the Army in New Guinea and the Philippines during World War II and later supported the Berlin airlift as an engineer in charge of construction at Keflavik Field in Iceland.

Madam Speaker, Colonel Maynard oversaw many of the Army Corps of Engineers construction projects along the Arkansas River. Under his watch, Colonel Maynard directed the construction of 13 of the 17 locks along the river.

Due to his military education, management skills and World War II experience, he was uniquely qualified for his assignment as the Little Rock district engineer. This designation is an appropriate honor for Colonel Maynard's achievements and contributions.

I urge all Members to support H.R. 781.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 375, honoring the United Parcel Service and its 100 years of commitment and leadership in the United States, and all across this world.

It is increasingly difficult for businesses to survive in today's global economy, and I am proud to offer this resolution honoring UPS as a company that has not only survived but one that has continued to grow and prosper for 100 years not only in this country but all over the world.

In 1907, when Mr. James E. Casey borrowed $100 from a friend to start a delivery company, I am sure that it was impossible for him to envision what his hard work would become.

Whether it was purchasing his first delivery car in 1913, becoming the first package delivery company to provide air service in 1929, or using alternative fuels to power its fleet, UPS has continued to embrace technological advancements in order to better serve its customers.

Now, 100 years after its inception, UPS is a 427,000-employee global transportation corporation that moves nearly 15 million packages through its network each business day. While UPS is headquartered in my home State of Georgia, its presence is felt in every congressional district and all around the globe.

Madam Speaker, I believe it is fitting that we honor this tremendous achievement, and I urge all Members to support this resolution and recognize what brown has done for us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding, and I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri for being an honorable gentleman during this tough time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start with a couple of warnings. First, I would suggest anyone on the Republican side shaking hands with the majority might want to be careful because they have been licking their fingers and sticking them into the political wind.

Second, government opinion by polls may lead to short-term success at the ballot box, but in this case it could lead to a catastrophe on a global scale.

We in this House best serve the United States, Iraq, and the world community if we establish conditions in Iraq that allow for a somewhat orderly transition to autonomy for Iraqis. A quick withdrawal from Iraq would set off a fuse that would eventually blow up not only Iraq but quite possibly surrounding countries as well.

Iraq foreign minister on Monday warned against a quick withdrawal by the United States, saying, ``The dangers could be a civil war dividing the country, regional wars, and the collapse of the state.''

Today when we talk about the Holocaust or when we talk about Rwanda or when we talk about the Sudan, we ask how could good people stand by and let this happen. It is an important lesson to remember as we pull out our voting cards today. Remember, we are trying to help. If we pull out of Iraq, we guarantee that the Tigris and the Euphrates will run red with the blood of innocents. We guarantee a safe haven for the training camps of al Qaeda. We guarantee more free rein for the death squads of Moqtada al Sadr. We guarantee a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. We guarantee even more or worse instability in the region, perhaps for decades.

No matter how we vote today, we are not going to stop the war. We may stop fighting, but we are not going to stop the war. As Indonesian jihadist leader Abu Bakar Bashir said, ``All Muslims should fight to create an Islamic state. There are only two options for Muslims, to win or to die.''

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how I am always so lucky, or unlucky, I guess, to speak after the majority leader's minute, which is probably the longest minute I have ever seen. But to listen to him talk, you know, this weekend I bought a TV from somebody that was as good a salesman as Mr. Hoyer. I didn't need the TV. It was too expensive, and I really didn't want it. But after talking to the salesman, I ended up thinking I needed it and I could afford it and it was what I needed. So I bought it.

Mr. Hoyer and I have had this conversation on the floor before, and that is that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. So the American people were sold a bill of goods last November, and they are continually being sold things in this Congress.

I come from Georgia. We have the HOPE scholarship, Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest tools for education that I think has been done. It comes from a lottery, which a lot of people oppose, but a lot of young people in Georgia are now able to go to college. What we found in Georgia was that when the State started paying for the college tuition, that the tuition went out of sight. It was another funding means for these institutions of higher education to charge more.

Now, the majority leader said that tuition in Maryland had gone up 43 percent in 4 years. Well, if he thinks that is something, wait until this bill passes. Because what is going to end up happening is that when the government starts loaning the money and paying for this, those tuitions are going to skyrocket, because the people that are getting it don't really care how much the tuition is.

Let me say this: When I bought this TV that I didn't need, that I couldn't afford, I got down to the bottom dollar of what I thought that I could afford. Of course, this great salesman walked away because he said, do you know what? If I can't make some money, I am not going to do this. We ended up negotiating. What ended up happening is that I paid up more than what I wanted to. He took less.

But a bank is not going to loan money if they can't make money. We hear a lot of back and forth on this floor. We don't know who to believe and who not to believe. Let me tell you the truth. If a bank, a lending institution, cannot make money, they are not going to do business with people. So the reality is that the private sector is going to get out of making these loans, which is probably the last stop we have of having any type of accountability to it. The government is going to start doing it all. If the banks will not loan it at this interest rate because they are losing money, and the government will, then that means, again, here is the thing, if we continue to govern our political correctness, the taxpayers end up holding the bag. They are going to end up holding the bag on this.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. If this motion to recommit is passed, it does not kill the legislation; does it not simply send it back to committee?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Is the question I just asked not a procedure of this House as far as the Speaker is in control of this body, would he not be learned enough to know that if this motion passed, would it--

Further parliamentary inquiry, if I read the motion to recommit correctly--

I'm sorry, sir?

Your answer.

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

If it's true that you don't have the facts right, you should just beat the podium?

Madam Speaker, people throughout Western Civilization owe a debt of gratitude to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a courageous statesman and world leader, who resigned his office today.

Oftentimes, leaders of courage fare much more favorably in the eyes of history than they do in the opinion polls of their day. Like President Harry Truman and Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Prime Minister Blair will be remembered for his wisdom, his forbearance and his foresight.

The United States and free peoples throughout the world have had no truer friend than Tony Blair. Since he won the keys to No. 10 Downing Street in May 1997, he has steadfastly fought to promote human rights and to battle the scourge of terrorism. He has strived for peace in the Middle East, promoted Western aid to battle the AIDS epidemic and poverty throughout Africa and successfully argued for intervention against mass killings in the Balkans in the late 1990s.

After the horrors of Sept. 11, Blair recognized more quickly than most world leaders that the global fight against terrorism was not a battle for the United States to wage alone. Blair knew that all civilized nations had to stand together as one to battle the medievalism, violence and hate preached by al-Qaida and other Islamist groups.

Blair stood with the forces of freedom not just in word, but in deed. He committed British forces to serve with the U.S. military and other coalition forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and he bravely stood his ground against a rising tide of opposition among the British people.

I am proud to be a part of this body which several years ago bestowed Blair with the Congressional Gold Medal. I can think of no one more deserving.

Prime Minister Blair's visionary leadership will be missed on the world stage, but I trust that his vast talents will be put to good use in the pursuit of peace, justice and human rights for many years to come.

Madam Speaker, I want to personally thank the Prime Minister and let him know how much I respect the tremendous work he has done over the past 10 years. He has had a positive impact on his nation and on the world. May God continue to bless him in all his endeavors.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from Ohio for yielding and my friend from Indiana for offering this amendment.

Let me say this: there seems to be some doubt over there or something from the subcommittee Chair and the full committee Chair about why we don't believe them. Well, in November they kind of snookered the public. They had told them that they were going to give more affordable health care to all Americans, which hasn't been done. They were bring gas prices down, which, hello, if you are out there at the pump, you know that's not true. And then we were going to get away from dependence on foreign oil, which last night we saw that we voted not to do that, but to be dependent on them.

So you fooled the public in November; so we don't want you to fool us this time. And I think it is evident that you are trying to trick us when you had two Members go down and talk about the only reason why you are not going back against the Fairness Doctrine is because you don't have the FCC.

And let me say you have said that the Republicans are calling this a red herring. Well, I want to say the majority party is looking at the Fairness Doctrine as the one that got away. The one that got away. You all want to recapture that one that got away.

So I hope that all of my colleagues will vote in support of this. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for offering it with Mr. Hensarling and Mr. Flake.

And I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) for offering this amendment.

You know, this is what I call fuzzy math. I think, Mr. Chairman, we need to explain this to people because the chairman of the subcommittee just asked the question, maybe you wanted us to go deeper in the cuts. Well, let me explain to the people, Mr. Chairman, that this is a 9.9 percent increase in fiscal year 2007. This is not a cut. And what the gentleman from Georgia is saying, let's just take 1 percent. Let's give a haircut of 1 percent to this budget. If you do the 1 percent, you will have an 8.9 percent increase. So it is not a cut. That is fuzzy math. That is smoke and mirrors. That is more sleight of hand when you are presenting this that we are asking for more of a cut. All we are saying is let's not increase by 9.9, let's only increase by 8.9.

Mr. Chairman, the American people need to be aware that sometimes in Washington when people talk about a cut, they are actually saying they are not getting as much of an increase as they want to have. Now, in a year's time for somebody to get a 10 percent raise or for a family to say, you know what, we can spend another 9.9 percent because we need it, so we will just go borrow the money, the majority says we are not borrowing the money. Okay. Well, I will go out and get an extra job to get more revenue. But the majority says, no, we are not doing it that way either. We are not raising taxes.

Well, if you spend more, you've either got to make more money or you have to go in debt. Or you've got to get more taxes in. So I think that is where we have a little bit of a dilemma here. We see the final answer, but we don't see the solution in how to get there, the math problem in how to get there. I can tell you the math problem that is going to get there. It is going to be a problem for the American family and the small businessman, because where this result comes from is the largest tax increase in American history.

So don't go for the smoke and mirrors, don't go for the sleight of hand, don't go for the wonderful sales job of we're not going to increase your taxes or increase the deficit, we're just making it happen.

Well, that sounds like a fairy tale. Sometimes up here I feel like I am in

Alice in Wonderland. I just want the American people to know that there is a group, that there are some of us that are trying to bring us back from Alice in Wonderland, trying to bring us back to a reality that we need to stop the big spending and the expansion of government.

I just want to tell Mr. Chairman that I hope Mr. Price is listening because it is going to take a lot of truth squad to straighten this out.

The chairman over here mentioned the Iraq spending and wanted to see how much we would cut it. Well, when the President sent down the emergency Iraq spending bill the Democrats went ``Yee-Haw,'' let's add $23 billion to it.

So I want to quote what the chairman and the subcommittee chairman has said. ``Don't lecture me on spending on the war.''

Mr. Chairman, I just heard some great news down here. We have cut 250 programs. I'm excited because, you know, I used to be in the construction business, and one time we had a superintendent that was not getting his job done, not performing, not getting the houses built on time. And the gentleman we worked for went in one day and he said, Jerry, I want you to go out there and I want you to fire somebody. And Jerry said, Who do you want me to fire? And he said, I don't care. Just fire somebody so they will know who's in charge.

We need to fire somebody. We need to cut something somewhere. And I am excited to hear that we have cut 250 programs at a savings to the taxpayers of $6 billion because, what that means to the taxpayers, Mr. Chairman, is that now we've only spent $80 billion more than we did in 2007. So we took the

first step in a long, long journey to get down to where we get back to the level of 2007.

I hope that the chairman, Mr. Chairman, of appropriations, the full Appropriations Committee, will supply every Member in this body a list of the 250 programs that have been cut, because I want to see that. I want to be able to take that back home to my constituents and say, You know what? We are cutting the size of government. And here are the 250 programs that we've cut.

Now, what I would also like for him to bring me when he brings me the 250 programs that we have cut, I hope that he will bring me a list of the other programs in the other expansion of government that we have done to spend another $80 billion.

Now, Mr. Chairman, a lot of people may not understand how much a billion dollars is. If you spent a dollar a day, no, if you spent a dollar a second, a dollar a second, it would take you 31\1/2\ years to spend a billion dollars; 31\1/2\ years to spend a billion dollars if you spent a dollar a second.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the people of America know that we have spent $80 billion more than we did last year. That scares me. That scares me not only for me. It scares me for my children. It scares me for my grandchildren. And it scares me for my great grandchildren.

And so I hope that somewhere we'll fire somebody, just one person, one cut that we can make and let the people of America see it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I just want to say a couple of things. I know, Mr. Chairman, people watching this on TV probably think they are in the Twilight Zone or caught up in the middle of Alice in Wonderland because you don't know which side to believe.

The chairman of the subcommittee said people couldn't sleep or wouldn't be able to sleep worrying about these cuts. Nobody in Grantville, Georgia, will be staying up worrying about the government cutting its own size.

We are talking about saving time. We have been debating for about 14 hours $28 billion. I don't know about anybody on the other side of the aisle, but I know that when me and my family sit down and discuss a budget, it took a lot longer for us to discuss our little pittance of a budget than 14 hours to discuss $27 billion.

The other thing, we are hearing all of this whining about we borrowed $3 trillion in the last 6 years. We ran up the deficit. And then we hear about we cut the budget $16 billion. Now listen, where I come from, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. We were either wrong in borrowing the money, or we were wrong in not spending the money, but you can't be wrong in both of them. Somebody has to make up their mind.

We talked the other night that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

I would like to say that I think the majority is running out of time, because pretty soon, the gig is going to be up. We tried pinpointing, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Flake, we tried pinpointing, doing some accurate bombing or cutting on this bill; but that didn't work.

Now it's being talked about using the meat-cleaver approach. When I get those 250 programs that have been cut and the $6 billion that has been saved, and the list of the $80 billion that we are spending more, could you send me maybe a method to do some cutting? Because if we can't pinpoint, we can't use a scalpel, and we can't use a meat cleaver, how can we do it? I think that is what the taxpayers want to know. Who is going to stand up for them?

We call each other ``my good friend'' and ``my good buddy'' and ``my colleague'' and this and that. What we need to be doing is being a good friend to the taxpayer. We are not being a good friend to the taxpayer.

We talk about national parks being closed down, and yet we spend another $7 million expanding the Carl Sandburg property.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for yielding.

Congressman Jack Flynt was a lifelong resident of Spalding County in my district. After gaining a bachelor's degree at the University of Georgia and a law degree at George Washington University, a young Jack Flynt enlisted in the Army Reserves. He fought the war in France, won a Bronze Star, and retired as a colonel in the Reserves.

After serving his Nation at war and in the Congress, Congressman Flynt came home to Griffin for the last 20 years of his life and he continued working in his hometown community.

On behalf of the people of my district, the Third District of Georgia, and the great State of Georgia, I thank Congressman Flynt for his lifetime of service, and our thoughts and prayers are with his wife and family.

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, rule XX, clause 2(a) says that no vote will be held open to change the outcome.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that you hold the vote open for people not having voted, but this was a specific case of people changing their vote after the limit.

Mr. Chairman, if I understand it correctly, the rule XX, clause 2(a) was put into effect to keep votes open and keep people from lobbying to change their votes. That is exactly what happened on this vote, and it is against the rules.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Lamborn

Madam Speaker, I stayed at home due to an ongoing medical condition of a family member. As a result, I missed a number of votes. Had I been present, I would have voted the following:

Aye on H. Res. 189, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a ``Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day'' should be established. (Rollcall No. 549)

Aye on H.R. 2546, to designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Asheville, North Carolina, as the ``Charles George Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.'' (Rollcall No. 550)

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to stand up in support of my colleague from Georgia's amendment.

I spent 12 years in the Georgia House in the minority. What I tried to do for that 12 years is change the process, because the process was broken. When the process is broken, the product is flawed.

When I came to Congress, I came as a freshman in the majority, and found that the process was still broken. So I found myself going from being in the minority trying to change the process, to being in the majority trying to change the process that the majority was using.

Now I find myself back in the minority still trying to change the process, because the process in Washington is broken.

I think Mr. Gingrey's amendment highlights that, in that we adopted rules in this House on first day, but we keep waiving those rules when those rules don't fit what we want to do. Now this is not to say anything about a Commission on Climate Change. But when you let public opinion, and you let political winds determine public policy, then the taxpayers of this country pay for it.

That's exactly what the majority party is doing. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we used to have a majority party and a minority party. I think, now, some people in this body think they are a monarchy, that they control everything, that the process should just be overlooked.

The gentleman's amendment talks about this process and who has authorization and who has oversight. If you will remember when we first opened up and we had the first 100 hours or 100 days or 100 amendments or 6 for '06 or whatever it was, we didn't go through any regular process, no regular order. So we have seen this body go from what the minority, now the majority, used to complain about us.

You know, my momma used to say to me, Lynn, if your buddy jumped off the cliff, would you jump after him? Well, I am going to ask, I am going to ask the side over there, if we jumped off a cliff or no matter what we had done, are you saying, well, you all did it. That sounds like a bunch of kids playing in a sandbox.

We need to stop the things that are wrong with the process today, no matter who used to do them. No matter what's been done in the past, let's look at today. Let's see if we can't make a difference.

That's what I ask, that we go through the normal process. I think the gentleman from Georgia's amendment gets us back to that place. It puts the Rules Committee, hopefully, back in a light to where they understand that we are not going to stand for the continual waiving of the rules that this House adopted.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I just want to say that I am certainly not in favor of, Mr. Chairman, increasing this bill any more. In fact, I think we really need to look at where it is at. At $27.6 billion in discretionary funding, that is $1.9 billion or 7.5 percent more than the President requested, and it is $1.2 billion over fiscal year 2007. So it is about, I guess, $700 million more than the President requested.

We have been on this floor, Mr. Chairman, and have heard the majority brag about how they were spending less than the President requested and that they had actually cut it and it wasn't as much as the President had requested.

Well, here is one that is more than the President requested. And it is adding money for the Climate Change Commission, the sense of Congress. We are looking at maybe not becoming dependent on our own oil supply and requiring and leaning more on the foreign oil supply.

So I hope that we would not look at this as, I guess, doing something that needs to be done. It is a process of spending more money.

If you look at the 302(b) allocations for fiscal year 2008, Mr. Chairman, $83 billion. And most Americans, including myself, don't really understand what $1 billion is. There are very few people in this country that are even worth $1 billion. This spends $83 billion more than the 2007 enacted budget levels.

I have heard the majority say, well, we have got this increase because these programs were starved to death during the last 6 years. They were just starved to death. Well, the reality is domestic discretionary spending has increased 40 percent since 2001.

Let me say this, and I spoke about it before in my last conversation, the process is broken and the product is flawed. Let's recognize that and don't pass another flawed product because the process is not breaking itself; we are breaking the process because we are the ones that the people elect to put in charge of the process to make it run correctly.

I want to thank my friend, Mr. Gingrey, for doing this and his tireless work on presenting the WHINSEC good faith that they do.

Mr. Chairman, it's a shame that every year defenders of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation have to fight for its very existence. But the annual efforts of my colleague, Mr. McGovern, and others to close this important institution at least gives us a regular opportunity to discuss the great work done at WHINSEC in a national forum.

It also gives Members of the House a chance to show their support for this educational institution that spreads American know-how and American values to our neighbors and allies throughout Latin America.

At least since the administration of Woodrow Wilson, presidents and congressional leaders of both parties have included promotion of democracy throughout our hemisphere and the rest the world as a central tenet of U.S. foreign policy. The last 20 years have witnessed significant global progress in scores of countries. From the southern tip of South America to the northern reaches of Central Europe and throughout the Pacific Rim, the oppressed have become liberated.

From the beginning of our Nation, we have belief that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness comes not from man or from law; those rights are God-given. Thus, we knows as Americans that we can't take all the credit for the growth of liberty and human rights, but we can take pride that our Nation has served for more than 100 years as the loudest voice, the greatest advocate and the fiercest defender of democracy, liberty and individual determination.

When we must, we wield the stick. We have fought and shed blood for democracy on the beaches of Normandy, the jungles of Vietnam and the deserts of Iraq.

When we can, we wield the carrot. We promote our values to foreign students and our world-leading university system by increasing development through trade agreements and through targeted foreign aid.

WHINSEC is a great example of the carrot approach. It's a positive influence through soft power. In other words, it's a positive influence through education and training.

WHINSEC is based at Fort Benning, the world's largest infantry training center, which is in my district. Fort Benning plays a huge role in training the U.S. Army, the greatest fighting force in the history of the world. Manuals currently used at WHINSEC are identical to those used to train all U.S. Army personnel. WHINSEC operates the most advanced and sophisticated military human rights training program in the world.

Comparable training is not available from any other nation or in any other American training facility. Without WHINSEC, Latin American militaries would not have any access to training in military human rights.

In the past 20 to 30 years, we have seen great transition in the Latin American countries from the chains of totalitarianism towards the freedom of democracy. We have seen democratically elected governments become more stable, we have seen progress on free trade and more open markets, and we have seen economic growth.

It's getting better, but challenges in the region remain. Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez remain vocal adversaries to freedom in the American values.

The arc of the universe bends toward justice, and these foes of freedom will fail in time, but the United States must continue to be the lighthouse among rocky waters. We must cooperate, educate, and assist our friends and our neighbors in Latin America. We do that best by supporting WHINSEC and the crucial work that is done there.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the McGovern amendment and let freedom ring throughout the Western Hemisphere.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the learned orthopedic surgeon from Georgia for yielding me this time.

I want to say something to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. When he was talking about an idiot can offer a 1 percent cut amendment, I certainly hope he wasn't talking about my good friend from Georgia.

Now if you want to talk about fuzzy math and idiots, we can do that here tonight. Because this bill increases the spending 9\1/2\ percent. What the learned surgeon's amendment does is cut that by 1 percent.

Now you can say this isn't going to cause a tax increase, you can say it is not going to cost people more money, you can say anything you want to, but the people of this country are smarter than that because they know every day that if they spend more money it is going to cost somebody at some point.

So they can say anything they want to. They can talk about all of the fuzzy math, whether it is going to be a tax increase or not a tax increase. But when you spend 10 percent more money, somebody is going to pay for it.

I love coming down and listening to the majority leader when he comes down. You know, I was a real estate salesman. I felt like I was a pretty good real estate salesman. And a good salesman loves to hear another salesman. And I think the majority leader could sell an Eskimo ice cubes.

But let me say this. He made a statement that the Republicans did not fool the people in November. We didn't. Y'all did. And I think the joke is up. I think the gig is up. I think the foolish is up, because now the ratings of this Congress are at 13 percent, which is about half of what they were when the Republicans in charge.

So you're right. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Mrs. Wendy Harding, the 2007 Muscogee County School District Teacher of the Year.

Almost every student that passes through a school, from the teacher's pet to the class clown, has a fond memory of a special teacher who positively influenced their lives. For many students at Columbus' Hardaway High School, that teacher has been a Spanish teacher named Wendy Harding.

Harding knows how to stick with a good thing once she's found it. She stayed happily married and raised two high-achieving children with her high school sweetheart Phil, who was also an educator, until his death from cancer 7 years ago. And Harding has spent every single day of her 31-year professional career at Hardaway High, making her the longest- serving teacher there.

Principal Matt Bell told the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer that Harding is an integral part of the school's success: ``She's a leader in the school. She teaches everyone. She heads our mentor program. She cares about every student who comes through her doorway as well as students who don't. If a student doesn't learn in her class, she takes it personally. They all learn at a high level. They see her enthusiasm for her subject and her zest for life and it's just contagious.''

Harding says she's wanted to become a teacher since she was 7 years old. Now, she mentors the next generation of teachers, encouraging her own students to pick up the torch that enlightens young minds. Those influenced by her example include her daughter, who last year was named First Year Teacher of the Year in a Texas school district. The skills needed to excel at the head of the classroom obviously run deep in the family blood.

I would like to personally thank Mrs. Harding for her many years of outstanding service to the young people of Muscogee County. Teachers such as her, across Georgia and the United States, make a positive difference every day.

On behalf of Georgia's 3rd Congressional District, I congratulate the Muscogee County Teacher of the Year and wish her many years of continued success.

Madam Speaker, on Friday, June 15 until the end of the legislative day, I was home in Georgia due to an unexpected medical condition of a family member. As a result, I missed a number of votes. Had I been present, I would have voted the following:

``Aye'' on the McHenry 2nd Degree Amendment to the Fox Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (rollcall 466).

``Aye'' on the Fox Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (rollcall 467).

``Aye'' on the Fallin Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (rollcall 468).

``Aye'' on the Drake Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (rollcall 469).

``Aye'' on the King (NY) Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (rollcall 470).

``Aye'' on the Brown-Waite Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (rollcall 471).

``Aye'' on the Burgess Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (rollcall 472).

``Aye'' on the Ferguson Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (rollcall 473).

``Aye'' on the McHenry Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (rollcall 474).

``Aye'' on the Pearce Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (rollcall 475).

``Aye'' on the Carter Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (rollcall 476).

``Aye'' on the McCaul (TX) Amendment No. 98 to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 477).

``Aye'' on the King (IA) Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 478).

``Aye'' on the Bilbray Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 479).

``Aye'' on the McCaul (TX) Amendment No. 99 to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 480).

``Aye'' on the Rogers Amendment No. 2 to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 481).

``Aye'' on the Poe Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 482).

``No'' on the LaTourette Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 483).

``Aye'' on the Tancredo Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 484).

``Aye'' on the Tancredo Amendment No. 7 to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 485).

``Aye'' on the Royce Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 486).

``Aye'' on the Forbes Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 487).

``Aye'' on the Rogers (KY) Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 488).

``Aye'' on the Rogers (KY) Amendment No. 1 to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 489).

``Aye'' on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 490).

``No'' on Passage of H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 491).

``Aye'' on Hayes Amendment to H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 492).

``No'' on the Blumenauer Amendment to H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 493).

``Aye'' on the Price (GA) Amendment No. 17 to H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 494).

``Aye'' on the Moran (KS) Amendment to H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 495).

``Aye'' on the Garrett Amendment No. 1 to H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 496).

``Aye'' on the Musgrave Amendment to H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 497).

``Aye'' on Passage of H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 498).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I almost feel like rather than offering an amendment that I need to ask everybody to stand up and we'll hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but I guess it's easy and people are in a good mood and very agreeable when you're talking about spending other people's money.

And in this case, we're talking about spending taxpayers' hard-earned dollars where we have very little control over how hard it is for them to make their money, but we spend it pretty easily.

This amendment takes $30 million out of the Corps of Engineers' investigation budget. It brings it down to the spending level that the President has requested in his budget request.

The Energy and Water appropriations bill is $1.1 billion over the President's request, and this amendment would reduce the funding for the investigation account under the Corps of Engineers by the $30 million, bringing it back down to the President's original request.

The investigations and construction funding is used to collect and study the basic information pertaining to local water projects such as flood and storm damage reduction. The funding is also used to restudy projects already authorized by Congress which can lead to additional Federal spending on local projects that have already received Federal funds.

Let me say that on some of these projects that we've heard about today from the delays, and Ranking Member Hobson mentioned the MOX project which has been delayed for a number of years, probably that's not only due to funding but in these additional restudies that the Corps of Engineers has had to do on the project. The Corps of Engineers has greatly expanded over the last decade.

In addition, according to the administration, the Corps already has a large backlog of ongoing construction work, and the President's budget limits funding for the study and design of additional projects. So, in other words, by limiting new Corps investigations, this amendment would ensure that the current Corps projects move forward at a pace to bring them to completion without further delays.

So far there has been at least a $105.5 billion in new Federal spending over the next 5 years that has been authorized by this new leadership, the democratically controlled Congress this year, in enacting the largest tax increase in American history, the Democrat budget allows for $23 billion in spending over the President's budget's request.

This amendment is designed to save the taxpayers $30 million, only a small amount, just a small dent, in the unnecessary increase in Federal spending this year, and this again is fueled by the largest tax increase in the history of this country.

So, Mr. Chairman, I ask that all Members support this amendment. It is a small dent in the large increase in Federal spending.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment on the chairman's comment about rules change every day. They do change every day, but when someone has based a project on the prior rules and regulations of the Corps, and they have based their whole project, and proceeded with that project, when the rules change and they come back to reinvestigate, that's no way to do business.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment would reduce the amount by $481,186,000. It's in the area of construction.

Last year, $2.37 billion was spent. The President requested $1.5 billion, and the proposed budget is a little over $2 billion.

Mr. Chairman, we have talked about the overspending, and we have just heard about the 404 permitting process and the regulatory process. Let me say that the Corps of Engineers is a great organization. They do a wonderful job.

The problem is that they have a general or colonel, depending on what area of the country it is, that rotates in or out, and what we are left with are life-long bureaucrats that control the Corps of Engineers. I appreciate listening to the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member and others as they have promised to get into speeding up the process and going through these regulations and making sure that these projects that are so important to our citizens move along at a pace and not impaired by just red tape and bureaucracy.

This construction area is somewhere that we have spent a lot of dollars.

The President came back, and as we mentioned in the last amendment that we had, and said, look, we have got such a backlog of projects already, why don't we make sure and get those out of the way before we go on to spending more money.

Let me say this, even though we may look at this as a construction, when you put more money into these agencies, it does nothing but build a bureaucracy and broaden the red tape that our citizens have to go through to deal with these agencies.

As I made the last comment on the last amendment, there has been at least $105 billion in new Federal spending over the next 5 years that has been authorized, and will be authorized by this new Democratic Congress, the leadership of this House. In enacting the largest tax increase in American history, this Democratic budget will allow for $23 billion in spending over what the President's budget request was.

We, as a party, as a former majority party, the Republican Party, understood that people got tired of their government growing at a rate so much faster than the population of this country and the excessive spending that we did. It's time for us to try to get back the confidence of the American people, not just Republicans, or the minority party, but Congress in general. The ratings of this Congress is at a record low, record low.

The majority seems to think that they've heard the voice last November of the American people. Well, I hope that they're listening to the voice now because their rating is even lower than what the Republican rating was last November.

But this amendment is designed to save the taxpayers about $480 million, and although, there again, the last amendment was just for $30 million, this one's for $481 million, it's just a small dent in the amount of money that we're spending here. But I think it is a small indication to the people of this country that we're willing to be wise stewards of their money.

So I ask all of the Members here today if they would support this amendment to reduce the construction in the Corps of Engineers by $481 million.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out to the ranking member that he's exactly right. And if you look at the bill, I think it will talk about that specific amounts of this money has been itemized to go to section 107 of the River Harbor Act of 1960; $45 million to go to the Flood Control Act of 1948; $10 million to go to the Flood Control Act of 1946; $25 million to go exclusively for projects of the Water Resource Development Act of 1986; $25 million for the Water Resource Act of 1996. This is all because we have continued to put money into construction, and I hope that what the ranking member was saying is that there's no new projects in here. And maybe this is to finish up some of the projects. Maybe we can go back and finish some of the projects of the 1946 act or the 1986 act.

I'm glad to hear that from the ranking member.

But let's have a start. Let's prioritize. Let's tell the Corps with this amendment that we're going to cut this money, and that we need to see a prioritization schedule from them on how we're going to spend it; that we're going to be responsible for taxpayers' money.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it cuts $18 million from the $278 million authorized under this bill. It is a small cut. Although $278 million is already authorized in current law, it is what the President's request was; and even though we have looked at other amendments and, hopefully, the whole House will see to do some cuts, this appropriations bill is $1.1 billion over the President's request. So this $18 million simply brings back the President's request for the Mississippi River and Tributaries program.

The Mississippi River and Tributaries last year was $396.6 million in 2007. There has been plenty of money there, I think, to look at these harbors, look at the flood damage, look at the things that should be done there; and this is a mild decrease of the $18 million.

But let me again reiterate, as I did on the previous two amendments, that this is in addition to $105 billion in new Federal spending over the next 5 years that has been authorized by the new leadership in this House. It has been done by enacting the largest tax increase in American history. And this budget that we are looking at for 2008 allows $23 billion in new spending that will be funded by the largest tax increase in American history. This amendment, while being only $18 million, is a small dent. I can't believe that I have been in Congress long enough to say ``only $18 million,'' because that is more money than most American families will see in one lifetime or two lifetimes. It is just a small dent in this year's budget. And, Mr. Chairman, I hope that all Members will see their way to cut this amount of money out of this particular appropriations bill.

I want to thank my friend from Texas for yielding.

I just wanted to make a few comments about my friend Mr. Ryan, who I listened to many nights, Mr. Chairman, while I was up in the chair where you're at. Many nights, I listened to the 30-something Group get up and rail and talk about all the wasteful spending and about how much money we were spending and about how we had gone into debt and about what the debt was. And I hear Mr. Ryan stand up and talk about economic development. I'm going to tell you the best bills this country has ever had for economic development was the Bush tax cuts. Those were the best economic bills we've had for economic development in this country. Look at where the Dow is today at 13,000-plus. I haven't been keeping up with it, I don't really have a lot of money in the market. But we have busted records continually, and it has been because of those economic growth tax cut bills that we have had and the economic policies of this White House.

And as my gentleman friend from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) said, we don't necessarily agree with the President's recommendation. We feel like that's probably more money than we need to spend. But at least it is a recommendation that we need to go back to from the proposal of what the Democratic leadership has proposed.

And you know, if you talk about striking any money from an agency's budget, I think you get their attention. The ranking member was telling me that when he was the chairman 2 years ago, he asked for the Corps to send 10 of their most important projects that need to be completed. He hasn't heard from them yet. And so we need to send a message to some of these agencies and say look, you are going to give us the information we want, you are going to be accountable, and you are going to be under some authority.

So, I think we need to send that message loud and clear. And although some of these cuts are mighty small, I think they will do a good job in getting some attention. I'm glad to see that the 30-something Group is now, and that the Blue Dogs, or whatever kind of dogs they are, that I listened to also, Mr. Chairman, when I was up there late at night, listened to them for hours at a time talk about wasteful spending, I hope that they will join me in an hour, in Special Orders, when we talk about the largest tax increase in the history of this country and the runaway spending that we now have, even larger spending than it was when we were in charge. I hope they will join me in that hour and we can get up and talk about being good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply strikes $184,241,000 from operations and maintenance to the Corps.

The amendment would save $184 million, reducing the account from $2.655 billion to $2.471 billion. The account was funded at $1.97 billion in fiscal year 2007. The bill increases this amount by 34 percent over last year's funding level and the amendment would limit this increase to 25 percent. While I may feel this is still too much money, it at least brings some type of accountance that we would want to increase this 34 percent in 1 year.

Mr. Chairman, I think as already testified today by many Members in talking about the bureaucracy, the red tape, the problems in prioritized spending, the lack of accountability, where better to make a difference and to make a change and to spend something than in the maintenance and operation of this agency.

We heard from the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Klein, talk about the problems that he had with regulations, and I know that Florida has a lot of different water problems and a lot of different Corps' interests down there.

I was pleased to hear Chairman Visclosky in his comments about bringing accountability to the Corps and bringing about accountability on this spending that seems to be run away. I really enjoyed talking to the ranking member about some of these problems that he has been addressing over the past years as chairman of this committee and how accountability needs to be brought to the attention of Members.

I don't know if I have mentioned it before, but this appropriations bill is $1.1 billion over the President's request. I don't know if I have mentioned it before, but there has been at least $105 billion in new Federal spending over the next 5 years that has been authorized by the new majority in this House, the Democratic leadership. And I don't know if I have mentioned it or not, but we have enacted the largest tax increase in American history.

This Democratic budget, and I don't know if I have mentioned this before or not, allows for $23 billion in new spending over that of the President's request.

And I want to just make a couple of other comments. Mr. Ryan had mentioned economic development. I just want to say that 6 years ago the Dow was at 10,690. Today it is at 13,632. That is a pretty nice increase, seeing how it came on the heels of 9/11, and I think and I believe Mr. Ryan quoted the fact that 7.8 million new jobs since this economic development tax cut legislation has gone into effect. That's more than Europe and Japan combined.

The President's policies, economic policies, have been working. And whether we agree with the amount of money that he has spent or not, the economic policies are working and tax cuts do work.

And so I would ask that we would send a message to the American taxpayers that we want to cut $184 million out of this bill that is already bloated, over $1.1 billion. And I think we also want to send a message to some of these departments that we are going to hold you accountable and we are going to make sure that you are responsible for the way you spend money and that you are accountable to this Congress, because we are directly accountable to the people who elect us to this position.

So I ask Members to support this amendment and keep in mind that last year it was $1.9 billion, that this year the President's request was $2.4 billion, and the proposal is for $2.6 billion.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.