Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of Middle Tennessee's finest community leaders as he receives the Joe and Honey Rodgers Leadership Award. Named to honor the outstanding legacy of public service of Honey and the late Joe Rodgers, former Ambassador to France, the Rodgers Leadership Award is given each year to an individual in the Nashville area who demonstrates leadership while living a life of personal integrity, godly character, and concern for others.

Lee Beaman offers more to the Nashville area than a multitude of trucks, cars, and sports utility vehicles. More than what he sells with the Beaman Automotive Group, he is known for the incredible character with which he runs his family business of over 60 years. Due to his customer-oriented business philosophy, generosity to the community, and overall work environment, Beaman's company was named one of the top 20 places to work in Tennessee in 2006.

To be a success in business is a good goal, and one Mr. Beaman has met and matched. His true contribution to the Middle Tennessee area is in his civic service, philanthropy, and fidelity to a cause greater than himself. Mr. Beaman puts his faith into action through his work with the organizations like Salvation Army, Boy Scouts of America, and the American Heart Association. I thank him for his continued example in generously dedicating his time, talents, and treasures in making a difference in the community. I appreciate the great work civic leaders like Mr. Beaman contribute to the Middle Tennessee area and I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Lee Beaman as he receives the Joe and Honey Rodgers Leadership Award.

Mr. Speaker, every second weekend in September, Wayne County's population doubles as citizens and visitors alike attend the Horseshoe Riverbend Festival. Located on the banks of the Tennessee River in historic Clifton, Tennessee, this three day Festival celebrates the musical heritage championed in this great state.

Sponsored by the Clifton Rotary Club, the Horseshoe Riverbend Festival brings not just music, memories, and fireworks for those in attendance. More than those, the three day event raises support for charitable needs both at home and abroad. Gathering musicians with crafters and families with friends, the Horseshoe Riverbend Festival celebrates the great traditions of Tennessee.

I congratulate all those whose hard work and dedication to the City of Clifton have brought another year of success for the Festival. Tied together with the love of music and community, I ask my colleagues to join with me in celebrating the music, the local artisans, and the 29 years of service that comes from the Horseshoe Riverbend Festival.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for the Budget Control Act of 2011, what I like to call Cut, Cap, and Balance 3.0.

Last week the House passed Cut, Cap, and Balance 1.0 in bipartisan fashion. Not surprisingly, Senator Reid and his Democrat colleagues in the Senate failed to even allow for a vote. Speaker Boehner then offered Cut, Cap, and Balance 2.0, which, according to the CBO, failed to generate sufficient savings to accompany the debt ceiling increase. So the Speaker went back to the drawing board, found more cuts and reductions, and I applaud him for that.

Today the House will once again ensure that our Nation will take another step by enacting legislation that cuts spending more than any increase in the debt ceiling, does not raise taxes on

America's families and job creators during a time of economic hardship, and ensures an up-or-down vote on the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. And I thank my constituents and the small business owners who have called to encourage me in this process to say let's get this job done.

Let it be known that this is merely a small foundational step to ensure that we put this Nation on the road to fiscal health, and it is historic. By passing the Budget Control Act, we will take away President Barack Obama's blank check. For the first time, debt limit legislation will cut spending, lock in these cuts, cap future spending, does not raise taxes, ensures that balanced budget amendment vote, and keeps our attention on the Nation's fiscal problems.

House Republicans are saying the buck stops here. Let's get to work addressing our Nation's fiscal woes and cutting the spending problem in Washington, D.C.

For that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Budget Control Act.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, first I would like to begin by commending our Appropriations Committee for the extraordinary job that they have done to claw back this money and to reduce spending below the levels that we had last year or the levels in the CR.

They have, indeed, done an exemplary job. But I think during these extraordinary and unprecedented times, we have to do more. And this Diesel Emissions Reduction program is one of those areas of funding that we can look at and say, indeed, this is duplicative, and because of that, we can eliminate this $30 million and move that funding into the spending reduction account.

Now, DERA, the program under discussion, is a grant program administered by EPA. It seeks to reduce diesel emissions--that's a worthy goal--by providing funds for technologies to retrofit existing vehicles and infrastructure not subject to updated diesel air standards. This is something that at one point in time, yes, it was important and had a tremendous impact on some of our communities, and they have done grants all across this country.

Now I want to point out that President Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget recommends completely eliminating funding for the DERA grants, and there is a reason that it has done that.

One of the reasons that they have done that is because since 2007, new diesel engines have to comply with a much higher emissions standard, therefore, it is decreasing the need for retrofits. There's also other funding available for such retrofits through the Department of Transportation Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program. They have about $45 million for diesel retrofits annually, and through the EPA's Supplemental Environmental Project enforcement agreements, where there's $7.1 million for that.

There are other programs with similar grants, the EPA's Smart Growth Program, the EPA's Performance Partnership Grants, the Clean Fuels Formula Grants. Indeed, the administration has not increased Federal funding for this program above the $60 million level in place since fiscal year 2009, when it received an additional $300 million in the Stimulus Act.

This is a program that we can say, indeed, has been a helpful program, but it is duplicative, it has outlived its usefulness because there are emissions standards on diesel vehicles that have been in place since 2007. There is less need for these grants.

Indeed, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as we were debating the CR, had recommended that we use this program, an offset with this program, and eliminate the funding for this program. Mr. Moran had offered, at that point in time, that we do that, and one the reasons he gave was because the President had eliminated it in order to encourage the truck industry to increase its own diesel R&D. I agree with that.

This is a program that we would save $30 million. I know that it is duplicative. We need to save every penny we can possibly save of the taxpayers' money. This is a step that we should take. I appreciate the support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And, indeed, we are all for clean air; we are all for clean water; we are all for a clean environment. I think that during these times we have to look at how we're going to spend that money. And Mr. Moran is right. I did vote against his amendment because the money was going to wetlands and not into a spending reduction account.

This is a program that is duplicative. There are other programs on the books. As we look at how to remove these redundancies and the duplications that are in the budget, this is an area where we can do it. We all want to make certain that we clean up the diesel emissions, but I would remind you all, since 2008 there have been a total of 500 grants that the EPA has given through this program, and we have four other programs that do this same work.

This is an area where we can go and achieve a savings. It is $30 million, but these are the types of steps in the right direction that, Mr. Chairman, we have to be willing to take if we're going to get the Federal spending under control.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, this is quite an interesting debate that we're having, and I think it is an historic day. It is a time when we have the opportunity to do something about the out-of-control, reckless Washington spending. It's long overdue.

I had an email from a constituent a few minutes ago. They're watching the debate and, I would offer to my colleagues, I think lots of Americans are watching this debate. They're waiting to see if we have the courage, if we have the political will to actually do something about spending money we don't have for programs our constituents don't want.

Amazingly, my constituent could not believe that there are people who would actually come to this floor and say that they opposed cutting what the Federal Government spends because we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that is spent. They were amazed that people would oppose placing a cap over what that government can spend. And they were quite amazed that they would actually stand and oppose a balanced budget amendment, something that is long overdue for our country.

This problem has been years, decades in the making. I think we all agree with that. But I also think there's one thing that we will all agree with: The past 3 years has seen such a rapid rate of accelerated spending that it has added $3.4 trillion, this administration has added $3.4 trillion to our debt. Unprecedented.

And, indeed, included in that was the passage of the President's health care bill, PPACA, or Obamacare, which spent another $1.2 trillion. And, by the way, to my colleagues, you all made the choice and the decision in that bill to cut $575 billion out of Medicare. I just remind you of that.

The time has come for fiscal responsibility. It is time to pass Cut, Cap, and Balance. I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and to support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill before us today includes $30.6 billion in funding. That falls $1 billion below last year's level and $5.9 billion beneath the President's budget request.

While I applaud our appropriators for the great work they've done in reducing this spending, I am one of those Members of the House who believes there is still room for improvement. We are in an extraordinary time when it comes to our budget and when it comes to the budget of this Nation in the spending, and this extraordinary time does require some extraordinary measures.

That's why I am introducing a 5 percent across-the-board spending reduction amendment. This amendment has the backing of 10 national conservative groups. This amendment would reduce the funding appropriated by this bill by an additional $1.5 billion and would take Federal spending back to just above the fiscal year 2007 level.

Across-the-board spending cuts effectively control the growth and the cost of the Federal Government. They give agencies the flexibility to determine which expenses are necessary and which are not. In fact, in my State of Tennessee, as I have mentioned many times as we have debated these across-the-board amendments--and Mr. Chairman, I know many of my colleagues are probably a little bit tired of hearing of these across-the-board spending cuts--we bring them forward because the States have used them, and they've used them successfully.

A Governor in my State, who is of my colleague's party across the aisle, made a 9 percent across-the-board spending reduction to bring that budget back into balance, to put our State on a firm fiscal footing. Our States that have balanced budget amendments take these actions, and they take them carefully, cautiously, and with an eye towards securing fiscal stability.

It is time for us in Congress to begin to enact these very same measures. Removing a nickel from every dollar is a way we can help our departments find new efficiencies and to reform wasteful business practices. It would save taxpayers millions of dollars in the process. Indeed, if we had been doing this for years, we probably wouldn't find ourselves in the situation that we are in right now. It's a step in the right direction, so I encourage the support of my colleagues on the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In closing, I do appreciate the comments that have been made, and I appreciate the work of the Appropriations Committee. I do agree that the issues that are dealt with are important issues. So is the fiscal stability of this Nation, I think. That's a very crucial and very important issue that is laid before us at this time. So is sending a message to our constituents and to the taxpayers of this Nation, that, yes, indeed we are going to require the bureaucracy to tighten its belt.

One of the questions I am most often asked by my constituents is, in our homes, in our businesses, in our churches, we're all tightening the belt. Why is the bureaucracy not tightening its belt? Why does Washington seem to be recession-proof?

They want to see this bureaucracy engaged in this. They want to see the bureaucracy join us in the fight to put this Nation on a firm fiscal footing.

When it comes to our Nation's security, I would just remind my colleagues that on July 6, 2010, Admiral Mullen made the comment that the greatest threat to our national security is our Nation's debt.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for the time to speak on this and to bring this amendment forward.

Again, this is a cut amendment. Every year, I say let's look at 1 percent, 2 percent, 5 percent. Let's look at where to make these reductions. I do it because I know that we all realize and probably many of us in this Chamber agree with the sentiment that Ronald Reagan regularly expressed, and that is that the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal Government program. We are reminded of that fact today as we are here debating this funding bill.

This amendment calls for a clean 1 percent across-the-board reduction in each account of this act. One penny on a dollar. We are doing this, yes, for today; yes, to send a message to constituents that we are working to reduce the spending; yes, to send a message to those that are watching the

growing debt in this country; yes, a message that we are getting the fiscal house in order. We are also doing it for our children and our grandchildren, to make certain that they have an America that is strong, that is safe, that has its fiscal house in order.

We are in a time where every child that is born in this Nation is now seeing $46,000 worth of debt heaped on their head, Federal debt, that is theirs. It is so important that we make this cut. It's an extra $306 million that would come out of this budget.

As I said in my previous remarks, the appropriators have worked hard. They have worked diligently to make certain that they were reducing and coming in below last year's level, and they are to be commended for that. But these are extraordinary times and it requires that we put the focus on going a step further, that we engage those that are running the bureaucracies, and that we have them go save a penny out of a dollar and that they do it for future generations.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Chairman, I would just remind my colleagues, all the issues we address are important issues, but as Admiral Mullen has said, ``the greatest threat to our national security is our growing national debt.''

We are calling for another $306 million to be reduced from this bill. Ten conservative groups support this. Let's tighten our belts. Let's engage the bureaucracy. Let's put our country back on the path to fiscal health.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mrs. Blackburn

Amendment No. 82: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mrs. Blackburn

Amendment No. 83: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Madam Speaker, the chairman spoke to the cost of these bulbs and how incredibly expensive they are; and, indeed, our constituents have talked about that.

And to my colleagues who are going to try to support this standard and this de facto ban on the incandescent light bulb, I would simply say two wrongs do not make a right. I know you heard that as you grew up, and I would ask you to think about that in this Chamber today.

Putting this ban, putting these higher efficiency standards in place, many people thought it was the right decision. I didn't think it was the right decision. I voted against it in committee. I voted against all of this on the floor.

But I would ask you just to remember the American people are telling us this doesn't work. They don't like the restrictions that are there in the marketplace. They don't like the fact that the bulbs cost too much money.

And I would also remind my colleagues that all of the CFLs, the compact fluorescent light bulbs, they are made in China. They are not made here. The CFLs don't work as well. It requires more bulbs to get the same amount of light in a given area. These things have proven to be very vulnerable to power surges. We hear that from our constituents in the rural areas.

In essence, Madam Speaker, they don't save any energy, and we know that they are also dangerous because they are filled with mercury. I know that Congressman Burgess, who has also worked on this with Chairman Barton and me, is going to speak to that. There is a provision in this that does address the mercury levels.

Also, our legislation says, and I think this is very important, that D.C. cannot mandate the standards on these bulbs, that your State government cannot mandate the standards on these bulbs, that we are going to leave that to the consumer to choose. And consumers want to have that choice.

I think so many groups have come out in favor of our legislation and opposed to these light bulbs, even the AFL-CIO has an interesting little bit on their labor union Web site about that light bulb, making the point that there are many ways to save electricity without shifting all these jobs to China for a mercury-filled light bulb.

We know that the President thought this was going to help create 800,000 U.S. jobs. The only jobs we have found is that the Winchester, Virginia, plant shut down and those 200 jobs, employees that lost their jobs on September 24, 2010, they saw their jobs go to China.

There have been unanticipated consequences of the 2007 act, and it is time for us to say it was bad policy, it was a bad idea, and we need to get it off the books.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week my Republican female colleagues spent an hour on the floor of this great Chamber talking about why they have chosen to come to Congress, talking about why they have chosen to leave the private sector and come to the public sector, and talked about why it is so important, so vitally important that they chose to come as Republican women.

I think that as you listened to that debate, their stories were inspiring. You realized the diversity of the background of the Republican women that have come to this Chamber, the richness of the experiences, the life experiences that they have brought with them. You also realized how solidly and firmly committed they are to strengthening and preserving this great Nation.

I think it's fair to say that our Republican philosophy of government centers on faith, family, freedom, hope, opportunity, and preserving those tenets that really underpin this Nation.

I can say that, as a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a small business owner, I've had the blessing of learning firsthand how very important it is that we take our conservative philosophy of life and government into the public sector of our Nation. Daily we work to preserve opportunities for all of our children and our grandchildren.

We work to make certain that each and every child in our presence knows the value of, and realizes there is an opportunity for them to achieve the American Dream; that it is a good thing, a healthy thing for them to dream big dreams and to work very hard to make those dreams come true.

We know, and we teach our children in our families and our extended families, in our classrooms, that if you work hard, you exercise discipline, you show integrity, and you put others first, that inevitably, you're going to prevail and enjoy seeing your dreams come true in the marketplace of products and ideas.

We all know, and we work hard so that our children don't have to work harder. We work hard so that we're giving more opportunities to the next generation.

That is why you're going to see our Republican Conference women continue to lead the fight on preserving jobs, rebuilding jobs, rebuilding this economy, making certain that the 21st century economy is jobs-rich for our children and our grandchildren.

That is why we have taken the lead on the issue of health care. Women are the drivers when it comes to health care decisions, and we are committed to making certain that we reverse this course that we are on with ObamaCare, that we push to repeal that law, and that we make certain we preserve access to affordable health care for everyone in this Nation.

We are committed to strengthening our Nation, our economy, jobs, strengthening our people, and making certain that we secure freedom for future generations.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

As you can see, this is a very simple bill. My amendment would require every single agency covered in this Ag appropriations bill to be accountable to the taxpayers by reducing one nickel out of a dollar for what they have been given to spend. It requires all accounts to absorb that equally, that 5 percent reduction, and it will keep the bureaucracy from picking winners and losers or choosing to fund their pet programs. Certainly the amendment will save the taxpayers money, but this is also a stand for good government. It's about taking responsibility, not torturing the American taxpayer with excuses for ineffective and inefficient bureaucracies.

There are a lot of people that say the Appropriations Committee deserves a pat on the back for decreasing discretionary spending by 4.7 percent below the 2008 levels, and I agree with that. I think they are to be commended. Certainly off the President's request, the 13 percent reduction that they have made. I'm part of that effort that has pushed to return our spending to the pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, but there is more that must be done. We have to make our government leaner. We have to make it more effective. Every day, Americans are tightening their belts. They're asking government to do the very same thing. Tennesseans keep saying, why is it that government keeps asking us to sacrifice for it when government should be sacrificing for us? Every Federal program needs to be held accountable, and this is a way to do it. Our States have done across-the-board cuts. Our city governments have done across-the-board cuts. Even history will show you that twice before, our Presidents have pushed for across-the-board cuts: World War II, Korean Conflict, there were 28 percent and 30 percent across-the- board cuts in discretionary spending. The reason they did this, Madam Chairman, is because there was a crisis, there was a war, there was a need to restructure, to reorder and to address the priorities of the day.

One of my constituents came up to me recently--this is someone who is active in the ag community in our State--and she said, ``It is time that the bureaucracies get their house in order. It is time that you all in Congress stop spending money you don't have on programs we don't want.''

So as we do our due diligence on the spending process, as we act responsibly to our constituents and to the taxpayer, it is time for us to turn to the bureaucracies, the rank-and-file Federal employees who put the pen to the paper on how this money gets spent, and say to them, ``Find another nickel on a dollar.'' We're doing it for the children, we are doing it for our grandchildren, we're doing it to make certain that we stop borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that is spent.

This amendment would reduce the budget authority by $951 million. It would reduce the current outlays by $675 million. That would be spread equally at a 5 percent rate across every single agency. It can be done, and, Madam Chairman, in these times of crisis, it should be done as we seek to return this Nation to fiscal stability and to responsibility.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his leadership on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, it is so interesting to me. We had a 2,700-page health care bill that basically was a government takeover of health care. What we have heard from so many people in this country is gosh, you know, I wish somebody would have read that bill before they passed it. And the former Speaker said we need to pass the bill, and then we can read it and find out what is in it.

One of the things that many of the people did not like that was in that bill was many of these mandatory provisions that were put in place, programs that had been on the books for years that were discretionary programs that all of a sudden became mandatory. And the confusing thing, Mr. Chairman, is there didn't seem to be any consistency. As the subcommittee chairman who spoke before me had said, Mr. Pitts had said, you know, you don't tend to children's hospitals in the same way, you don't tend to nurses and technicians in the same way. But here was this conversion from discretionary to mandatory for teaching hospitals, a total of $230 million, over $40 million a year.

Now, it doesn't matter if you need the money or not. It doesn't matter if you know exactly where you are going to use it or not. The money is going to be appropriated. It's put on autopilot. Doesn't matter what we say is going to happen with the government, if we need to reduce it. They're going to get that money. That is why this bill is so important.

You will notice, Mr. Chairman, that 2,700-page bill, we are able to delete $230 million of that appropriation, mandatory appropriation with a bill that basically is about 2 pages long. What we do in this 2 pages is responsibly address what the American people want to see us address. They know that the Federal mandates are costing private sector jobs. They know that the Federal Government coming in and taking over health care is costing private sector health care jobs. Indeed, we have study after study that is saying we have already lost over a million jobs.

It seems like every time we turn around, whether it is our health care delivery systems, whether it is our hospitals, whether it is our physicians' offices, we are hearing about the loss of jobs to health care providers and in the health care sector because of the passage of PPACA, or ObamaCare, as many people in our country refer to the bill.

One of the reasons we have to go about repealing these slush funds, Mr. Chairman, is because we simply can't afford this. Every second of every day, every single second of every single day we are borrowing $40,000. We are borrowing 41 cents of every single dollar that we spend. This government is so overspent, we are spending money we don't have for programs that our constituents don't want. And instead of eliminating, what we are saying is, look, let's eliminate a mandatory program and turn it back to what it was for years, discretionary, so that Members of this body bring their discretion to bear on the issues of the day and bring the opinions of their constituents to bear on how this Chamber spends the taxpayers' money.

Mr. Chairman, it is not Federal money; it is the taxpayers' money. This government is overspent. We cannot afford all these Federal mandates. It is time to move these programs back to the discretion of this Chamber.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill because this is the right step at the right time. If you're listening to the American people, one of the things they have said loud and clear is that they do not want the ObamaCare bill on the books. They want this repealed.

When my colleagues ask ``how many times do we have to revisit this issue?'' we are going to keep revisiting this issue until we get every single piece of this bill off the books, because it is too

expensive to afford. A great example of this is exactly what we're dealing with, which is the little slice of it that gives as much as may be needed, as much as may be consumed, as much as the HHS Secretary says they will need for this unlimited slush fund to give money to the States for these grants.

Now, I will remind my colleagues from across the aisle that our former Democrat Governor has called this program the ``mother of all unfunded mandates.'' Mr. Chairman, there is a reason he called this program such. It is because he knows that putting this burden onto the States is far too expensive for the States to afford. It doesn't make it right to set up a slush fund, which will have no congressional oversight. The HHS Secretary can spend as much as she thinks is necessary, and she does not have to come back to us in Congress for this.

We do not need legislation with this nebulous language, and we do not need to give that authority of spending taxpayer money on this to the HHS Secretary. It is important that we distinguish: Are we for reforming health care? There are portions of health care that need to be reformed; but what happened in ObamaCare? PPACA is not health care reform. It is a movement away from patient-centered health care to government control. It is time for us to get back on the right track.

I appreciate the chairman for yielding to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to stand and speak against the Progressive Caucus budget because it is a budget that, once again, will spend too much money.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we have heard from the American people is this: they are tired of the Federal Government spending taxpayer money for programs they don't want and spending money that they don't have. And it is time for us to put this fiscal house in order.

Now, quite frankly, I think that today is a really great day. When we get to the end of this legislative day and the end of this legislative week, we will have passed the Ryan budget, which turns an enormous corner for our Nation. Over the next 10 years, it will reduce spending not by millions and billions, but by trillions--$6.2 trillion over the next 10 years.

Those are the kinds of first steps that the American people are wanting to see. That's the kind of fiscal responsibility that the American people are holding us accountable for: controlling spending, limiting spending, and making certain that there is a stable and secure environment in which economic growth and job creation can take place.

They have spoken loudly and clearly. And they have said reduce what you are spending, get your fiscal house in order, begin to focus not on the next 6 weeks or 6 months but the next 60 years, and focus on our children and our grandchildren, making certain that we are not tapping their futures and trading it to the nations that hold our debt. I think that it's so important that we begin to arrest this and get it under control and to pass the Ryan budget today.

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of H.R. 1217. I think this is an important bill for us to bring forward. And I want to thank the chairman for bringing it forward and for helping to lead this Congress in the repeal of ObamaCare. It is a message that the American people sent loud and clear last November. They do not want to see government coming in and controlling their health care choices. That is something that should be made by individuals, their family members, and their physicians and not by the Federal Government.

I have found it so interesting, as we have been through the hearings on this and through the markups, that we continue to hear, well, this $17\3/4\ billion, well, it's just not that much money. Isn't that amazing that in the middle of a CR crisis and a debt crisis that we are hearing such rhetoric?

I think it is amazing that we are being told, and through what we know--yes, and some of us did read the bill and so we do know what was in that bill--that the Secretary can spend this however she wants to. She does not have to come back to Congress another time to get permission for spending this slush fund. And isn't it amazing that some of our colleagues think that a fund will make people healthier? Money doesn't make people healthier. We all know that.

And isn't it amazing that in the middle of all of this, we are out of money at the Federal level? We all know that the cost of health care is rising, and we know that one of the reasons that the cost of health care has risen so much in the last few years is government intervention. Those are some of the known components that we have.

I think it's important to realize too, Mr. Chairman, eliminating the slush fund does not cut any specific program. And proponents of this fund want to claim that we're cutting, we're cutting, we're cutting. What we're doing is saying, no, you can't allow the Secretary to have control and just give it out. This needs to go through the normal, regular funding processes. That is very important. And it's time that we realize we have to do that.

Yes, let's move forward. Yes, let's repeal ObamaCare. Yes, let's get it off the books. Let's do everything we can to get the Federal Government out of your pocket, out of the middle of your health care decisions. Let's make certain that those choices go to individuals and to their physicians and that they are not going to be dictated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who has a slush fund of $17.75 billion to spend as she or he sees fit over the next 10 years.

We need to be changing the way health care is going to work, and we need to do it with putting individuals in charge.