Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, this Republican minority is intensely interested in making sure that we do the right thing for the country, but it should be noted that these bills should not be about economic development, they should be about solving water problems that we have with the dollars that are generated by the taxpayer to solve problems with water, with flooding and with the various elements of ensuring we have clean and better water that is available.

This should not be an economic development spending bill. I disagree with the gentleman from Ohio, and it is my hope that this body will recognize this economic development spending bill for what it is, as opposed to a water resources bill. I am disappointed to hear that it's characterized that way. And that is why we support the gentleman from Georgia with his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike section 105 of this legislation which as drafted would prevent the funds spent by this bill from being used to conduct public-private competitions or to direct A-76 conversions for any Army Corps of Engineers program, project, or activity.

This underlying language would present an enormous setback for competition in government sourcing, costing the Federal Government millions of dollars a year by preventing private sector contracting in the Army Corps of Engineers for everything from janitorial and food services to the engineering and design of locks and dams which private sector contractors have done competitively for years at the Federal, State, and local levels.

While this policy may be good for increasing dues payments to public sector union bosses, it is unquestionably bad for taxpayers and for Federal agencies because these agencies will have less money to spend on their core missions if the opportunity to use competition and private sector efficiencies is taken away from them.

In 2006, Federal agencies competed only 1.7 percent of their commercial workforce, which makes up less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire civilian workforce. This very small use of competition for services is expected to generate savings of $1.3 billion over the next 5-10 years.

Competitions completed since 2003 are expected to produce almost $7 billion in savings for taxpayers over the next 5-10 years. This means that taxpayers will receive a return of about $31 for every dollar spent on competition, with an annualized expected savings of more than $1 billion.

At the Corps, in 2006 three public/private competitions were competed, involving IT support, financial services, and public works.

The largest of these, dealing with IT support services, has a projected savings of $960 million over a 6-year period. By introducing competition and leveraging the government's size to reduce equipment maintenance and replacement, the government will now be able to save almost $1 billion, but without my amendment, similar future efforts will be impossible.

Mr. Chairman, in this time of stretched budgets and bloated Federal spending, Congress should be looking to use all of the tools it can to find taxpayer savings and to reduce the cost of services that very easily can be found in the Yellow Pages.

I insert into the Record at this point a letter of support for this amendment from the American Society of Civil Engineers and a letter of support for the amendment from the Council on Federal Procurement of Architectural and Engineering Services.

American Society

of Civil Engineers,

Washington, DC, June 19, 2007.

Hon. Pete Sessions,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Sessions: The American Society of Civil

Engineers (ASCE) is writing to support your amendment to H.R.

2641 that would strike language prohibiting the U.S. Army

Corps of engineers from conducting any public-private

competition or direct conversion under OMB Circular A-76.

ASCE believes that section 105 of the bill as reported

effectively would stop the USACE from employing engineers in

the private sector. Such a provision is contrary to sound

public policy. We think federal, state,

and local government agencies responsible for major civil

engineering works must maintain professional engineering

expertise within their organizations by employing civil

engineers and providing for their professional development.

Nevertheless, public sector engineering projects that can be

accomplished more efficiently by private engineering firms

should be contracted out with proper oversight by the public

agency. The ratio of in-house engineering to contracted

engineering services should be based upon an assessment of

the agency's continuing project and policy requirements

rather than on rigid rules or percentages fixed by

legislation or regulation. We urge all Members to vote

``yes'' on the Sessions amendment to strike section 105 from

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 46th annual YMCA Youth Governor's Conference that began in Washington, DC, this past weekend and continues throughout this week. I am pleased to have the distinct honor of being one of the congressional hosts for the YMCA Youth Governor's breakfast with my House colleagues this Wednesday morning.

The YMCA Youth Governor's Conference brings together some of the most outstanding youth leaders in America. YMCA Youth and Government is a nationwide program that allows thousands of teenagers to simulate State and national government.

Madam Speaker, I would like to personally recognize each of this year's YMCA Youth Governors for their dedication and service to America's youth:

Lillian Wilson of Alabama, Emile Gordon of Arizona, David Murdter of California, Alex Chandler of Colorado, Samantha Free of Connecticut, Anna Galati of Delaware, Bradley Pough of Florida, Kristin Graham of Georgia, Tiana Maruyama of Hawaii, Elise Marchant of Idaho, Sean Tompkins of Illinois, Martin Turman of Indiana, Will Webb of Louisiana, Jay Gobeil of Maine, Arnell Limberry of Maryland, Alexis Morin of Massachusetts, Trenton Swank of Michigan, Dilara Uskup of Michigan, Eric Kunkel of Minnesota, Josh Travis of Missouri, Olaniyi Solebo of the Model United Nations Program, David Colaco of New Jersey, Matthew Scarvie of New Mexico, Matthew Vigliotta of New York, Tucker Piner of North Carolina, Stuart Downey of Oklahoma, Gregory Murray of Oregon, Jeff Mitch of Pennsylvania, Neel Mehta of South Carolina, Matt Robinson of Tennessee, Tyler Thomason of Tennessee, Dave Harris of Texas, Marco Leung of Virginia, Erik Ashida of Washington, Damien White of the District of Columbia, Caroline Kitchens of Wisconsin.

I wish all of the 2007 YMCA Youth Governors a very successful conference here in Washington, and encourage them to continue their sincere devotion to leadership and public service in this and their future endeavors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and to this seriously flawed underlying legislation. While the process involved with bringing bills to this floor is very slightly improved over this past January when the Democratic leadership bypassed long- standing bipartisan regular order and used their rules package to create a closed process that skipped even bringing their flawed stem cell bill to the Rules Committee for its consideration, it is still overwhelmingly flawed and directly contradicts widely reported Democrat campaign promises to run the most open and ethical Congress in history.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and the majority Democrats reported out two completely closed rules, one which will completely lock down this important debate today regarding the Federal funding of stem cell research upon which a great deal of honest and heartfelt moral and scientific disagreement exists on both sides of the aisle.

In this exclusive and rushed process, it feels very familiar for the Members. If it does, it should. Because, back in January, the Democrat leadership forced a similar hastily written and politically motivated stem cell bill through the House without any input from the Members. Their purpose then was the same as it is today: to attempt to score some political points at the expense of sound science, openness, and transparency, not to mention feedback from its Members.

Because they knew that their crass political move would never pass the Senate, today we are forced again to take up yet another flawed stem cell bill for political purposes under yet another completely closed rule that provides no Member of this body with the opportunity to amend or improve it.

Worst of all, rather than taking this second chance to work in a bipartisan fashion to create a bill that balances cutting-edge medical research with the serious ethical implications created by stem cell research, this rule simply advances the Democrats' cynical agenda to send a flawed bill to the President for his veto, despite the legislation not even achieving a veto-proof majority in the Senate.

Unfortunately, judging by their performance on recent supplemental funding measures for our troops, it seems like the Democrats need to be vetoed once or twice before they realize that they simply cannot pander to their liberal blogs. They actually need to work together to reach across the aisle to deliver workable bills that are in the interest of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, not only is this a bad way to handle this process, I think it is an embarrassment to the institution that the Democrat leadership would fail to work openly with the over 400 duly elected Members of this legislative body to find common ground that balances the multiple grave concerns surrounding this legislation.

This legislation forces taxpayers to fund research requiring the destruction of human embryos rather than seeking a middle ground on which researchers can be provided with the embryonic stem cells that they need to advance science while not violating the sanctity of life.

This legislation fails to specify whether these embryonic stem cells that will now be eligible for Federal funding can be taken from embryos that still retain the potential for implantation or if they would be taken from embryos that no longer have the potential for further cellular division.

This lack of clarity is not a function of a lack of ideas or debate on the matter. A compromise measure, introduced in the Senate by Senators Isakson and Coleman, already exists which provides for research only on those embryos which no longer have the potential for cellular division.

Here in the House my colleagues, including my friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, also offered a thoughtful amendment that was rejected by the Democrat Rules Committee which would have provided for the Federal funding of pluripotent stem cells which can specialize in any bodily tissue but cannot develop into a human being.

And despite the near-certain protests to the contrary that will be made by some Members of this body, this legislation also fails to contain language to prohibit or even propose ethical regulations for cloning or egg farming.

Finally, rather than allowing science to progress based on merit, this legislation picks winners and losers in the research community by choosing which research methods would be funded. It diverts research funds from very promising areas, such as adult stem cells and cord blood, despite the fact that adult stem cells have already been proven to work over and over.

But don't take my word for it. James Thompson, the first scientist to derive stem cells from a human embryo, was quoted in The Wall Street Journal saying, ``I am not entirely convinced that embryonic stem cells will, in my lifetime and possibly anybody's lifetime for that matter, be holding quite the promise that we desperately hope they will.''

Mr. Speaker, this debate has been so politicized that the American public can no longer even hear above the political fray about the miraculous and leading-edge technologies and therapies being derived today from adult stem cells, amniotic fluid and human umbilical cords, all without the moral and ethical controversies created by this bill.

Treatments for injuries and chronic illnesses as diverse as spinal cord and heart tissue regeneration, bone marrow and vision therapies and diabetic management are all emerging as we speak, and this Congress should not be in the business of politically allocating scarce resources away from these technologies and methods as researchers continue to perform scientific miracles, such as creating embryonic- like stem cells without using eggs or destroying embryos, like the scientists at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, have already accomplished in laboratory tests.

The point, Mr. Speaker, is that the process provided for under this rule does not allow for debate on the central issue: Does a middle ground exist that can provide scientists with the stem cells that they need to continue their cutting-edge research while at the same time respecting the sanctity of life?

Unfortunately, once again, the graveyard of good ideas in the House, the Democrat Rules Committee, has provided this body with a rule that allows none of this debate. Instead, Members of this body are being asked to vote up or down on a very blunt measure that fails to recognize the vast complexity of this issue.

This is no way to run the people's House, Mr. Speaker, and it is certainly no way to run a self-proclaimed most open and ethical Congress in history. I urge all of my colleagues to defeat this rule and the underlying legislation so that the House can have a real and meaningful debate on this issue and not allow something as important as the fate of stem cell research to be determined by bumper-sticker politics. This House does deserve better and the American people deserve better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to inquire upon how much time is remaining on both sides, please.

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

I continue to reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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

Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party, this President, is completely in favor of spending money in doing stem cell research. We, however, are not in favor of putting an olive branch out that is unproven, untested, and up to today has produced no results from embryonic stem cell research.

The real problem with it is that it takes someone else's stem cells and puts them into someone else's body and there is a rejection rate. We know what works best is when a researcher uses stem cells from a person's own body and puts them back into their own body. This is called stem cell research for adults. This is what will lead this country to where it needs to go.

We are simply saying, rather than spending Federal money on untested and unwise decision-making processes that have not led forth to any research that is meaningful, we should spend the money which will yield the best results.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforcement to the earmark rule.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield back the balance of my time, I want to say thank you very much for your cautious and careful rulings and administration today as the Speaker. I appreciate and respect the way you have conducted yourself in this debate.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Welcome Home a Hero program at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Every day, more than a hundred troops come through DFW on their way home from Iraq and Afghanistan for Rest and Recuperation. Since Welcome Home a Hero's inception in 2004, coordinated volunteers have gathered at the airport each day to greet our brave men and women serving our country and to make sure they receive the warm homecoming they have earned.

Welcome Home a Hero is a result of the dedication of the North Texas Commission, the employees at DFW International Airport, the USO, the Boy Scouts of America, local businesses and thousands of volunteers. This program is one of the largest and most effective community initiatives in north Texas, and its positive impact on the morale of our troops has not gone unnoticed.

As the 500,000th soldier arrives at DFW International Airport this month and the program approaches its 3-year anniversary, I want to thank all involved in this valuable effort. The dedicated and selfless participants of this valuable program are what make our country great.

The North Texas Commission, DFW Airport employees, the USO and all of the volunteers should be proud of their leadership and accomplishments. I am extremely grateful for their dedication to our troops and our country, and I applaud the people of north Texas for taking the initiative to create this program.

Madam Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the accomplishments of Timothy J. Craddock, Marguerite Gabriele, Jessica E. Shay, and Avi M. Wolfson as the recipients of this year's Undergraduate Research Fellowships at the University of Texas at Austin. They have been selected to receive scholarships to pursue research in their respective areas of interest.

The University of Texas in Austin offers financial support for students who undertake

scholarly research projects through Undergraduate Research Fellowships. Since its inception in 1996, the fellowship has remained committed to enriching academic experiences by providing 236 students with over $200,000 over the past 10 years to support efforts in their area of study.

After competing in a rigorous application process that included resume submissions, itemized budget proposals, and faculty recommendations, these four outstanding students from the 32nd District of Texas were selected. They were chosen with the anticipation that their efforts would assist in future studies of the field and contribute to the researchers' disciplines. The high caliber of these students' achievements is truly impressive and for that I wish to acknowledge them to my congressional colleagues.

It is my honor to recognize these students. The people of the 32nd District of Texas are proud of their successes. I wish the recipients the best of luck in both present and future endeavors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont, my friend, for not only his friendship, but also for our opportunity to engage today on this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this unorthodox rule and to a number of provisions in the underlying legislation in its current form. While I do appreciate and support the committee's effort to provide for the safety and soundness of our Nation's housing finance system and broader financial system, this legislation has a number of fatal shortcomings that I hope will be corrected during the modified open amendment process provided for by this rule.

Unfortunately, I cannot support this rule, which breaks with the longstanding, bipartisan precedent of providing Members with the certainty of a specific date by which their amendments must be printed in the Congressional Record so that they may be included in the debate under this rule. By changing this longstanding, established practice and only providing Members with the requirement that their amendments must be printed at an undetermined, unannounced time before the consideration that this bill begins, Members from both sides of the aisle are left vulnerable to the scheduling whims of the majority, which is neither an open nor a transparent way to run the House of Representatives.

I also find it odd that a majority of the Rules Committee members would vote to provide for such an open deadline. Just this week, they demanded such precision in timing from Members and an overworked Legislative Counsel Office with a filing deadline for the Defense authorization bill. That is an unprecedented move. Amendments filed less than 12 hours after this deadline were simply turned away at the door.

Members were informed that their noncompliance with the arbitrary deadline meant that their voices would not even have the opportunity to be heard in the House.

I wish I could say that I was surprised by this decision made by the Democrat members of the Rules Committee. Unfortunately, the majority's selective enforcement of amendment deadlines and disregard for other long-standing House precedents has become the status quo in the Democrat Rules Committee. So much for all of those campaign promises to run the most honest, ethical and transparent House in history.

While this bill does provide for a stronger regulator with increased powers to ensure the safe and sound operations of the housing government sponsored enterprises, I must rise in strong opposition to this bill's worst flaw: A new housing fund mandate that would create a de facto tax on the middle-class homeowners to finance an expensive and ill-defined big government housing program.

In its budget score of the legislation, the Congressional Budget Office acknowledges that the new government-mandated assessments on the GSEs could very easily be passed on to their customers in the form of higher fees, meaning that this fund would unfairly target the most modest home prices to finance this unprecedented government-mandated redistribution of wealth from the middle class.

I believe it is bad public policy to tie the fate of families that need housing support to the success or failure of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac's portfolios. Even worse because the affordable housing funds would come from loans that are less than $417,000, which in 12 metropolitan areas in the country is dangerously close to or below the median home price, this bill levies a new stealth tax on the most modest home buyers without even disclosing to them the costs associated with this new Federal mandate. Mr. Speaker, it is the same as a tax increase to these middle income home buyers.

To deal with this problem, I will be offering an amendment that provides useful information to home buyers about the real costs of this stealth tax. This amendment would require that the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency determine what the cost per $1,000 finance would be to home buyers whose mortgages are purchased by the housing GSEs. This information would need to be disclosed to the home buyer at or before closing for these mortgages, who qualify for future GSE purchase, and any additional cost for mortgage originators created by this new disclosure regulation would be paid for by the housing fund so that the new disclosure requirement does not create a new, costly private sector mandate.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to pass along a brand new, stealth $2.5 billion tax increase on the middle class to pay for their affordable housing, I think that Congress should at the very least be up front about the true cost of this fund with those who are being asked to foot the bill. My amendment simply provides for transparency for mortgage consumers about the true cost of this new government $2.5 billion mandate, and I would encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule and the underlying legislation in its

current form, particularly this stealth tax contained in the affordable housing fund provision.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to notify my colleague from the Rules Committee that I have no additional speakers at this time. We had spoken about that before. But, in fact, as a result of the scheduling that has taken place this morning, none of my colleagues on my side are available to come down this morning.

Mr. Speaker, as is generally always understood in this House, the gentleman is generally correct, that the Rules Committee, in fact, did provide a good number of wonderful amendments that would be made in order.

The fact of the matter is that as part of this House majority and minority being able to understand what the Rules Committee is going to do, we were looking for some transparency and some consistency. I believe it is important for Members to be able to know when they can submit those amendments that they might want to have.

It is also true that the majority is the one that determines what this schedule would be. Members generally have no clue exactly when amendments are going to be due if you do not give them a deadline and if you simply say well, before the bill is called up.

The bottom line is we are simply asking that the Rules Committee would state very clearly when amendments would need to be placed for consideration, and that is what our point is.

The gentleman also makes other points about the GSEs and about this House voting on this money that would become available for affordable housing.

I recall that earlier this year this House provided for Katrina housing relief. We've done that, and yet that's now what this bill that is left over for, that was passed last year was for. And so now what we're doing is taking a bill that was passed last year through a huge number of votes in this House, did not pass the other body, was not signed into law, and yet earlier this year we provided for a housing fund for Katrina earlier.

Now we're asking for $2.5 billion increase on middle class homeowners. We're simply saying that we believe that there should be transparency. We believe that the processes by which this takes place should be more apparent to Members where they would have these opportunities to come down.

If the gentleman wants to support a $2.5 billion increase for middle class consumers, as he did last year by bringing the bill forward, as he's doing this year, then we will let the Members decide by voting on that. But I think there should be transparency to the people who will be footing or paying the bill as to why there's additional costs that may keep people out of the marketplace because of additional costs related to them by buying their new home.

Mr. Speaker, evidently at this time I have created an opportunity to continue dialogue, so I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman asking. At this time I have no additional speakers.

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

The gentleman from Massachusetts makes important points. I think that the gentleman should also hear that we believe there should be transparency to make sure that these middle class homeowners who would be buying and paying for this $2.5 billion increase, that they would understand why that additional cost is being placed on them, and these are the transparency things that we think that good government can be about.

The process also has developed itself to where we began talking about the Rules Committee once again, and Mr. Speaker, two nights ago I was provided with a summary by the majority party of a breakdown of the rules, what we have done when I was in the majority in the Rules Committee versus the Democrats now being the majority party.

And the fact of the matter is through May 15, which is what this is talking about, the Democrats have had 13 closed rules. The Republicans had six closed rules over the same period of time. Six closed rules for Republicans; 13 closed rules for Democrats. Eight open rules for the Democrats, which they call open rules but that had a preprinting requirement, so they really should be modified open rules, but the bottom line is a number of those have been over suspensions that Republicans did not even place a rule on. We just brought them to the floor of the House of Representatives and let them see what that outcome would be.

Mr. Speaker, I would insert this into the Record at this point.

110th rule breakdown through May 15, 2007

43 Total rules:

8 open rules (7 with a preprinting requirement).

20 structured rules.

Thirteen closed rules.

1 conference report rule.

1 procedural rule.

60--Republican/minority amendments in order.

109th rule breakdown through May 15, 2005

29 Total rules:

2 open rules (1 appropriations bill).

15 structured rules.

Six closed rules.

2 conference report rules.

4 procedural rules.

51--Democratic/minority amendments in order.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party, my party, is very aware of the dramatic needs of housing in this country, the needs that people have, families who have children, elderly people, disabled people, who do need more affordable and better housing, and that's why you have seen in our past, as was undisputed on the floor today, about the number of people who have voted for providing these funds that would be available.

We do believe that there should be transparency. We believe that the people, the consumers, who will be paying this additional $2.5 billion should be told why, what it's for, just as anyone who closes on a house should understand if there's going to be a FedEx package that would be delivered or a title fee or some fee that would be associated even with a notary public, that that should be included as part of the closing cost of a house to make sure that the consumer knows why and what they are paying for.

So I would be offering an amendment that was made in order by the Rules Committee as part of our discussion about how to improve this opportunity to make transparency available to all the consumers.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for yielding me the time, the gentlewoman from Ohio, my friend on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and to the outrageous tax increase conference report that the Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor today.

Mr. Speaker, once again, we will reiterate, the Democrat Party says it's not a tax increase, but if it's not a tax increase, then it's several hundred billion dollars more worth of spending. It's one or the other, because what we see here today is exactly that. They are going to give us the largest single tax increase in the history of this country, and even though they say it's not a tax increase, then it's going to be an outrageous spending spree because they intend to spend more money or have more taxation, and that's why we're opposed to this bill.

I wish I could report to my colleagues that the majority Democrats had seen the downside of their tax-and-spend ways since the House last considered the budget in March, but on the positive side this budget does contain a 1 year Alternative Minimum Tax patch which prevents over 20 million middle class Americans from being slammed by this tax.

And this tax in this budget also represents the largest tax increase in history, not the first anyway, but I'm sorry to report that it's about as good as it gets from here because the massive and irresponsible tax increase included in the House budget would still be the second largest in American history, weighing in at least $217 billion over the next 5 years.

It also contains a trigger that could nearly double it by including increases in taxes in marginal rates, capital gains and dividend taxes, among other tax relief that was provided previously by the Republican majority.

As further evidence that the Democrats continue to ignore their campaign trail promises to demonstrate fiscal discipline, the additional spending envisioned by this plan will trigger an automatic tax hike that will affect every single taxpaying American.

This means that as Democrats continue to implement their true tax- and-spend agenda, important middle class tax relief provisions passed by the Republican majorities of the past, such as the marriage penalty and the child tax credit, will shrink or disappear, raising the Democrats' tax increase right back to the original House-passed level of $400 billion, or restoring it to its historic infamy, which it would truly be, as the largest tax increase in American history.

And if this insatiable appetite for taxing were not enough, Democrats leave themselves enough room in this budget to raise taxes even further to pay for more than $190 million of additional, unfunded spending promises.

This budget also promises and provides for a massive new spending spree by increasing nondefense appropriations by $22 billion over 2007 levels. This is in addition to the $26 billion that they have already proposed to spend outside the normal appropriations process through the omnibus and supplemental legislation that they have forced through the House.

This conference report abandons the emergency set-aside fund included in last year's budget and opens the way for unlimited future spending by dropping any limitation on what can be considered emergency spending. But it has new funds for peanut farmers and spinach growers, so I guess that's a good thing.

But in a surprising bit of consistency, the Democrats do hold true to their pay-for rules and allow the 23 shell reserve funds to spend an additional $190 billion, as soon as appropriate because these will be tax increases that they intend to identify and then pay for.

This irresponsible budget continues to ignore the brewing entitlement crisis and puts off any major reform for at least another 5 years. This is despite the fact that around 77 million baby boomers will be retiring in the near future and will begin collecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Funding this new spending represents the greatest economic challenge of our era, and it is a challenge that the Democrat budget has chosen to completely ignore while going on their own spending spree everywhere else.

And what's worse, this budget completely shirks its oversight responsibility to root out waste, fraud and abuse in Federal spending by providing only $750 million of reconciliation spending out of an $8.5 trillion Federal budget. This is the legislative equivalent of checking under the seat cushions to pay the Federal Government's rent, and I believe, for one, that the American people deserve better.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, despite these massive tax increases, the Democrats fail to provide a surplus large enough to halt the raid on Social Security, directly contradicting their previous campaign trail promises to do precisely that. This is something that the Republican budget provided a surplus large enough to do starting in the next 5 years, and it did so by controlling, among other things, spending, not raising taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the voters watching this debate on C-SPAN can understand what these tax increases will mean for our economy and for our ability to compete globally. I think that they can see through this charade, and I know that they deserve better than this massive tax increase and spending spree that is on their dime and against the future of our children.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying tax increase.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I do have an additional speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

I thank the inquiry from the gentlewoman. I will assume that the gentlewoman is still going to hold her time with no additional speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Speaker, I will be urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that I may offer an amendment to the rule, which will stop this Chamber from hiding behind a cheap procedural maneuver invented by former Democrat Majority Leader Dick Gephardt. This rule allows Members to duck the responsibility of taking a vote on raising a limit on a public debt, a painful but necessary exercise of this Chamber's legislative responsibilities.

Because of this rule invented by Democrats, Members who vote for this underlying conference report will also be recorded as voting to raise the public debt. Members need to be aware of this. They need to know exactly what they are voting for.

For a long time, Members on both sides of the aisle have been appalled by this practice. Members of growths as ideologically diverse as the RSC, Blue Dogs and the New Democrat Coalition alike have called for its repeal. It's time for members of the Blue Dogs and New Democrat Coalition to demonstrate the courage of their convictions and end this bait-and-switch practice.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment and extraneous material just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, what we are debating here today is the largest tax increase that will take place in American history. As the Republican majority has done for a number of years, we recognize that America needs to be more competitive with the world in cutting taxes, making sure that the budgets, very clearly, help protect this country, help protect the men and women of the United States military. They are doing their daily job in trying to not only protect this country, but to defeat terrorists all around the world.

Today we have an opportunity to stand very clearly, talking about what a budget does. We have heard it's a moral piece of paper. It defines very clearly about what someone's priorities are. Well, we know what those priorities are. They are tax and spend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority a few years ago heard the American people loud and clear that they wanted America to be competitive with the world. We were tired of losing jobs overseas. That is not happening. It has not happened in a couple years. As a matter of fact, there are signs all over this country that say ``workers needed.'' We need more workers in this country. And that comes as a result of the tax cuts that were offered to allow American business, corporations become competitive with the world, an opportunity to attract new capital, to retool our companies here in this country to give us the newest tools and the tool kits that are available.

We have a strong and vibrant economy. We have a strong and vibrant economy because we have people who have money in their own pockets creating jobs. We have some 5 million new jobs just in the last few years, 7 million since 2001, that have been created.

This economy is doing the right thing. It is giving the Americans their own dreams, their dreams to not only have their own homes, the highest level ever of people who own their own homes, but it is also giving America to save for our future because our stock market is back.

Just a few years ago, after 9/11, everybody was worried about their retirement. Big worries. At that time, what did we hear from the Democrat Party? Raise taxes. But that is not what the Republican majority or President Bush did. We cut taxes; we grew our economy. We have a strong and great economy today.

The Republican Party stands forth today on this day in Washington, D.C., to say we will vote against the largest or second largest tax increase in the history of the United States of America.

This budget that comes from the Democrat Party will raise taxes and raise spending. The Republican Party disagrees with that. The Republican Party disagrees with saying that we will have taxpayers who will be without jobs in this country, because we will take away the investment and the opportunity that goes forth to make investment possible to where jobs are available. The Republican Party stands today and says we are opposed to this new bill because of what it does by having all sorts of special accounts, just spending opportunities that sit out there in the future, undefined, but ready to spend money if the money comes in.

We believe that we should have had more responsibility, as we have tried to do for years, to do something responsible about Social Security. But we have heard from the Democrats for the last 6 years, there is nothing wrong with Social Security. There is no problem. Mr. Speaker, we disagree with that. Republicans are going to oppose this today. I ask my Members to join me in defeating the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will provide useful information to middle-class home buyers about the real cost of the $2.5 billion stealth tax included in this legislation, and how it will affect these consumers' wallets.

The amendment requires that the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency will determine how much the new tax created by this housing fund will increase total costs for home buyers whose mortgages are purchased by housing GSEs.

This information would then be disclosed to the home buyer at or before closing for these mortgages to qualify for future GSE purchase. To ensure that it does not create a costly regulatory burden for mortgage originators, the amendment also provides that additional costs created by this new disclosure requirement would be paid for by the Housing Fund.

I believe that if we are going to pass a new stealth $2.5 billion tax on the middle class to pay for affordable housing, then Congress should, at the very least, be up front about the true cost of this fund with those who are being asked to foot the bill.

My amendment simply provides for transparencies for consumers about the true cost of this new government mandate. I would encourage all my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support it.

Mr. Chairman, a consistent fact about the free market is that new taxes to build big government programs are always passed on to the consumer. The Housing Fund created by this legislation raids the portfolios of the GSEs for funding. And the GSEs in turn, you guessed it, have to pass the increased costs associated with compliance with this new Federal mandate along to the middle-class home buyers in the conforming loan bracket.

I think it is bad public policy to tie the fate of families that need housing support to the success or failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's portfolios, as this Housing Fund does. I think that it is bad policy to discourage middle-class home buyers from achieving their American Dream of homeownership by creating a new $2.5 billion stealth tax.

But I think it is absolutely awful public policy to pass this stealth tax and not let consumers know how their pockets are being picked to fund this new big government program brought to us as the courtesy of the Democrat majority in Congress.

I encourage all my Members to support this amendment to provide transparency and funding for the Housing Fund.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I do thank the gentleman from North Carolina. So that he is aware, this is unlike any of the other amendments.

This is very straightforward. It offers an opportunity for consumers to see straight up exactly what those costs are that are being passed to them. There is no duplication. There is nothing about this amendment or about the reporting process that would be duplicative. It would be straightforward, and it would be full transparency.

As I recall it, just a few weeks ago the new Democrat majority was intensely interested in making sure that every single person who was a shareholder would have transparency and understanding about the compensation of executives, in the best interests of shareholders.

Now, here we are talking about middle class home buyers who are attempting to understand, to know what costs they are to pay for, whether there is a FedEx package, if there is a notary charge. We are trying to make sure that this money, which would add up to be about $2.5 billion over a short period of time that would be passed to them, they would simply have a statement of exactly what that charge was for.

I think this is good government. I think it is transparency. I do not find any way that it is duplicative. I do not find where there is necessarily additional work. It would be paid for by the fund. The fund that we are saying tonight we are supportive of would simply need to make sure that it becomes transparent to those people who will be paying the money.

I think if you checked out of any restaurant, if you checked out of any store, that you would want to know what you paid for. There would be a line item for it. That is what we are asking for. This is really not very confusing. It makes the bill a little bit better.

It provides transparency. In my opinion, that is still what Congress, both sides, Republicans and Democrats, should strive for, if middle class taxpayers are having to pay for it. I think it makes sense.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

In reply to the gentleman from Georgia, this amendment does not require originators to provide this disclosure to home buyers. It simply says that the disclosure must be given if the originator wants the mortgage to qualify for the purchase by the GSEs.

This is not the first time that Congress has asked that mortgage originators provide blanket disclosures to home buyers, regardless of whether or not the disclosure applies to their specific mortgage. The Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act mandated disclosure to consumers about the mere likelihood that a mortgage's servicing rights would be transferred without regard to whether any specific mortgage servicing rights would actually be transferred. The gentleman, Mr. Frank, was an original cosponsor of the bill in the 101st Congress, and voted in favor of it on August 1, 1990.

Mr. Chairman, I will insert into the Record an example of the precedent for this nonspecific mandated mortgage disclosure requirement supported by our chairman, Chairman Frank.

RESPA Servicing Disclosure

Lender: Indiana Members Credit Union, 4790 East 96th

Street, Ste. 120, Indianapolis, IN 46240, Notice to first

lien mortgage loan applicants: the right to collect your

mortgage loan payments may be transferred. Federal law gives

you certain related rights. If your loan is made, save this

statement with your loan documents. Sign the acknowledgment

at the end of this statement only if you understand its

contents.

Because you are applying for a mortgage loan covered by the

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)(12 U.S.C.

Section 2601 et seq.) you have certain rights under the

Federal law. This statement tells you about those rights. It

also tells you what the chances are that the servicing for

this loan may be transferred to a different loan servicer.

``Servicing'' refers to collecting your principal, interest

and escrow account payments, if any. If your loan servicer

changes, there are certain procedures that

must be followed. This statement generally explains those

procedures.

transfer practices and requirements

If the servicing of your loan is assigned, sold, or

transferred to a new servicer, you must be given written

notice of that transfer. The present loan servicer must send

you notice in writing of the assignment, sale or transfer of

the servicing not less than 15 days before the effective date

of the transfer. The new loans servicer must also send you

notice within 15 days after the effective date of the

transfer. The present servicer and the new servicer may

combine this information in one notice, so long as the notice

is sent to you 15 days before the effective date of transfer.

The 15-day period is not applicable if a notice of

prospective transfer is provided to you at settlement. The

law allows a delay in the time (not more than 30 days after a

transfer) for servicers to notify you, upon the occurrence of

certain business emergencies. Notices must contain certain

information. They must contain the effective date of the

transfer of the servicing of your loan to the new servicer,

and the name, address, and toll-free or collect call

telephone number of the new servicer, and toll-free or

collect call telephone numbers of a person or department for

both your present servicer and your new servicer to answer

your questions. During the 60-day period following the

effective date of the transfer of the loan servicing, a loan

payment received by your old servicer before its due date may

not be treated by the new loan servicer as late, and a late

fee may not be imposed on you.

complaint resolution

Section 6 of RESPA (12 U.S.C. Section 2605) gives you

certain consumer rights, whether or not your loan servicing

is transferred. If you send a ``qualified written request''

to your servicer, your servicer must provide you with a

written acknowledgment with 20 Business Days of receipt of

your request. A ``qualified written request'' is a written

correspondence, other than notice on a payment coupon or

other payment medium supplied by the servicer which includes

your name and account number, and the information regarding

your request. Not later than 60 Business Days after receiving

your request, your servicer must make any appropriate

corrections to your account, or must provide you with a

written clarification regarding any dispute. During this 60

Business Day period, your servicer may not provide

information to a consumer-reporting agency concerning any

overdue payment related to such period or qualified written

request. A Business Day is any day in which the offices of

the business entity are open to the public for carrying on

substantially all of its business functions.

damages and costs

Section 6 of RESPA also provides for damages and costs for

individuals or classes of individuals in circumstances where

servicers are shown to have violated the requirements of that

Section.

servicing transfer estimates

1. The following is the best estimate of what will happen

to the servicing of your mortgage loan:

We may assign, sell or transfer the servicing of your loan

while the loan is outstanding. We are able to service your

loan and we will not have not decided whether to service your

loan. or

We do not service mortgage loans, and we have not serviced

mortgage loans in the past three years.

We presently intend to assign, sell or transfer the

servicing of your mortgage loan. You will be informed about

your servicer.

We assign, sell or transfer the servicing of some of our

loans while the loan is outstanding depending on the type of

loan and other factors. For the program you have applied for,

we expect to:

Sell all of the mortgage servicing retain all the mortgage

I thank the gentleman. The gentleman wants to argue that shareholders should pay for this. Yet just a couple of weeks ago we were arguing on this floor about who should pay to know about executive compensation. We definitely understood it shouldn't be shareholders there. But tonight it is okay.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

You know, we are once again arguing what, first, is a ``de minimus'' amount of money. Then it turns out to be a lot of money. And now we understand it is really not that much money at all that these consumers are having to pay.

But somebody has to pay the $2.5 billion, and that is a new tax. And it is in this legislation. This money is just not going to come out of anywhere. We do expect if there is going to be money that is going to be owed by somebody, that they ought to know where it comes from. It just doesn't come from home buyers. It will come from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders. And excluding them from the decision-making process seems like a significant backward step for shareholder rights. But just a few weeks ago the chairman brought legislation to the floor that would mandate a new, nonbinding shareholder vote on executive compensation.

I think that shareholders and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, if they are, in fact, the ones to foot the bill for this new fund, at least deserve a little bit of participation. They ought to understand it and know.

I ask the chairman in the name of shareholder rights and shareholder participation to include the language during any conference negotiations, and to make sure he does the same thing thereto.

The bottom line is that shareholders or middle class home buyers all deserve a right to know how much they are being charged. It is a simple request. The gentleman almost got it right. I think it is an American thing that consumers ought to know what they are paying for, and it is unAmerican not to know what you are paying for.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, between November 2006 and January 2007, Iran tested its long-range ballistic missile capacities twice.

In July 2006, North Korea also tested a number of its ballistic missiles, including one that has a range of 9,000 miles and could hit parts of the United States of America.

In response to North Korea's test, the United States' Northern Command made nearly a dozen of our anti-ballistic missiles operational, or ready to use, to defend the United States against an imminent danger posed by ballistic missiles.

North Korea's long-range missiles were detected by United States satellites within seconds, and, thankfully, the missile failed after 42 seconds and after only several hundred miles of flight but North Korea and many of our strategic rivals and enemies continue to develop their missile capacities.

Now, it is the time for America's adversaries to understand that America must not have an unwillingness to put its missile defense system on operational alert in the face of imminent threat.

Section 222 of this legislation that we are debating tonight would prevent the missile defense funds authorized by this legislation from being used for operational and support activities.

Specifically, the language in this bill states that the funds provided only be used for the research, development, test and evaluation of our Nation's missile defense system, and it specifically prevents these funds from being used for operational and support activities.

My amendment would clarify that nothing in this legislation would prevent the United States of America from placing our missile defense system on operational alert to respond to an immediate threat to our security posed by enemy ballistic missiles.

If this bill is adopted without my amendment, it would mean that we are telling countries like North Korea that they can take a free shot at the United States of America because we would be unwilling to stand up our current missile defense capacities, exactly the wrong message to send to our enemies.

This makes no strategic sense, and the position of every Member of this body also should be on record saying that. If you want to tie the President's hands in defeating and defending America from ballistic missiles and declare to our enemies our lack of will to defend ourselves against ballistic missile attack, you should oppose this amendment.

But if you believe that Congress should make clear that this legislation should not and would not prevent our defenses from being placed on operational alert to respond to an immediate threat posed by ballistic missiles, you must support this amendment.

I encourage all of my colleagues to provide our military with the clearly stated flexibility that they need to defend our country.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman from California, and the gentleman from California also, speaking about this very important issue. And I do appreciate the gentlewoman accepting this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time with the knowledge that will be done.

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 10: Page 100, after line 17, insert the

following new section:

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay special tribute to Mr. Jose Santos, an outstanding individual from Dallas and recent recipient of the Fulbright award. Mr. Santos was chosen to receive the prestigious award to study, lecture or conduct research abroad during the 2006-2007 academic year after demonstrating high academic achievement studying Anthropology at Southern Methodist University.

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs, the Fulbright Award is America's leading international exchange program. Congress established the Fulbright Program in 1946 with the intention of fostering mutual understanding between United States citizens and the rest of the world. The Fulbright Program has since provided avenues of academic exchange with over a quarter of a million people in more than 150 countries worldwide. Surely the recipient of such an esteemed award does not lack merit.

Mr. Santos was chosen for his high academic and professional achievement, as well as his exemplary leadership in his field. Mr. Santos' accomplishments thus far have been truly impressive and for that I wish to recognize him here on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

It is my honor to recognize Mr. Santos as the recipient of the Fulbright award, and I know I speak for all of Dallas when I say that we are very proud of his successes. I wish Mr. Santos the very best in all of his endeavors both at home and abroad.

I want to thank the gentleman from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee, who I look up to and is a great mentor. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in strong opposition to this rule, which completely shuts out the minority from offering any amendments to improve this legislation.

Last night, the Rules Committee met to consider the 14 amendments offered by Members to improve this legislation; and the Democratic majority voted along party lines to prevent any amendments offered by a Republican from being considered.

I wish I could say that I was surprised by this outcome, but this is nothing new. This new Democratic majority decided to break its campaign trail promises to open up legislative process for all Members. Instead, they have chosen, once again, to play party politics and to help the Rules Committee to solidify its position and reputation as the graveyard of good ideas in the House of Representatives.

I offered one of the Republican amendments that will not be considered by the House today because of the partisanship in the Rules Committee. My amendment would have struck section 303, which mandates the automatic annual recertification of successful small businesses, whether this recertification is necessary or not.

Section 303 will create an administrative nightmare for small businesses

who wish to contract with the Federal Government. Mandating this annual recertification creates a disincentive for businesses to contract with the government, because filing this unnecessary paperwork takes time, takes money and takes manpower, proving that the actions we take here in Congress actually do have real-world consequences.

The Small Business Administration already has the discretion to determine how frequently small businesses must recertify, and the SBA studied and rejected this annual recertification because it would create, as they call it, an unnecessary burden for small business.

The SBA has already passed a recertification rule that goes into effect in June of this year. This rule will protect small business contracts without the added costs and headaches associated with the Democratic majority's heavy-handed proposal. Congress should have allowed the SBA rule to take effect before mandating this new, unnecessary statutory paperwork.

The failure of the Democratic majority to include my amendment proves that this bill is more about politics than it is about policy. Yesterday, person after person from both parties talked about how great it would be for us to help the great engine of this economy, small business. Yet we find out, when it really comes down to it, they want to put rules and regulations on small businesses, whether they are needed or not.

Mr. Speaker, I ask to insert in the Record the Statement of Administrative Policy for the bill which specifically states that the bill would impose additional detailed reporting requirements on agencies and prime contractors that would increase costs without clear benefits.

Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 1873--Small Business Fairness

in Contracting Act

(Representative Braley (D), IA and 29 cosponsors)

The Administration supports efforts to increase

opportunities for small businesses to compete for Federal

government acquisitions. The Administration, however, opposes

H.R. 1873, because it would impose broad, burdensome

statutory restrictions on Federal agencies' ability to

conduct acquisitions and establish unrealistic small business

procurement goals. Although the Administration appreciates

the efforts of the House Oversight and Government Reform

Committee to address some of the Administration's concerns,

its reported bill contains many of the same objectionable

provisions as the introduced bill and the bill as reported by

the House Small Business Committee.

Among its objectionable provisions, H.R. 1873 would impose

costly and time-consuming requirements on thousands of agency

acquisitions through an overly-expansive definition of

``contract bundling'' that would include construction

contracts, new procurements not previously performed by or

considered suitable for small businesses, and task and

delivery orders under existing contracts even when bundling

justifications were already performed under such contract.

These requirements would be in addition to existing rules

that already require review of all agency procurements for

small business opportunities.

Additionally, the bill would establish unrealistic

government-wide and individual agency small business

procurement goals that could undermine the small business

procurement goal process. Moreover, both the increase in

goals and the restrictions on allowing a small business to be

counted for only one preferred small business contracting

category raise constitutional questions by establishing new

race- and gender-based Government preferences without

presenting a strong basis in evidence that these preferences

meet constitutional standards.

The bill also would overturn a recently issued small

business regulation that guards against the abuse of small

business preferences while allowing an affected small

business a reasonable period of time to take advantage of

such preferences during performance of a Federal procurement

contract. Finally, the bill would impose additional detailed

reporting requirements on agencies and prime contractors that

would increase costs without clear benefits.

The Administration would strongly oppose amendments to

require the Office of Management and Budget intervention in

individual agency acquisition decisions, thereby removing the

discretion and flexibility that agencies must have to

accomplish their missions by contracting for needed supplies

and services. The Administration also would strongly oppose

any amendments that require individual agency goals to be no

lower than government-wide statutory small business goals, or

that apply small business goals to overseas acquisitions.

The Administration looks forward to working with Congress

to increase opportunities for small businesses without

unnecessarily disrupting agency operations and imposing

burdensome requirements on agencies and contractors.

I ask for all my colleagues to oppose this partisan rule, this restrictive rule that will do very little to help small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and the unprecedented tax increase that the Democrat majority is bringing back to the House today.

I wish I could report to my colleagues that this legislation was improved since the last time the House considered it in March. Unfortunately, the massive and irresponsible tax increase included in the House version of this budget would still be the largest tax increase in American history, weighing in at a shocking $392.5 billion over the next 5 years.

This Democrat budget, which is balanced on the backs of everyday taxpayers, would be used to finance bloated new government spending that will grow well above the rate of inflation through 2012, while also ignoring the brewing entitlement crisis. Around 77 million baby boomers will be retiring in the very near future and will begin collecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Funding this new spending represents the greatest economic challenge of our era, and it is a challenge that the Democrat budget has chosen to completely ignore, while going on its own spending spree elsewhere.

In the 32nd Congressional District of Texas, which I have the honor to represent, the Heritage Foundation estimates that the passage of this budget will cost every single taxpayer an additional $2,920 in 2012. It will also mean a per capita loss of $474 in personal income, as well as 2,389 lost jobs as a result of a loss of $328 million to the local economy of the 32nd Congressional District of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record this entire document which details the severe negative impact on the passage that this budget will have on every single taxpayer from every single district across the country.

Mr. Speaker, if fiscal discipline is what the Democrats promised voters this past fall, then, by my account, it took only 3 months for the Democrat candidates to abandon their campaign promises and an additional 2 months for Democrats to reiterate their really true support for tax-and-spend policies again here on the House floor today.

This deeply flawed budget would increase taxes on almost 8 million taxpayers just in my home State of Texas alone. It would collect these taxes by allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax relief provided by the Republican Congress to expire.

In real terms, for every American taxpayer, this means reducing the child tax credit for working families so that the government can collect $27 billion more to finance, yes, you've got it, Mr. Speaker, brand-new spending.

It means reinstating the marriage penalty and the death tax to collect an additional $104 billion so that the new majority Democrats can kick the can further down the road, rather than reforming and strengthening our Nation's entitlement programs.

And it means completely ignoring the alternative minimum tax crisis which is projected to hit 23 million middle-class families if not dealt with in a responsible manner.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the voters watching this debate on C-SPAN understand what these tax increases mean for them, the economy, and for our ability to compete globally. But they may not realize what they mean for the average family of four with $60,000 in earnings. It will mean a tax increase of 61 percent. It means that a single parent with two children and $30,000 in earnings would see a tax increase of 67 percent. And it means that an elderly couple with $40,000 of income would see their taxes increase by a whopping 156 percent.

Mr. Speaker, you can see the advantages of the Republican tax cut and what it means to every single middle-class American.

Now, one would think that a hike of almost $400 billion impacting every American taxpayer would be enough to finance the Democrats' appetite for big government. But trust me, it's just the start. This budget also contains 12 reserve funds or pet initiative IOUs which set the stage for more than $115 billion in higher future spending which would have to be financed by, you guessed it, even higher taxes.

For the last 4 years, responsible budgets passed by the Republican Party kept discretionary spending at or below inflation for all nondefense, non-homeland security spending. This budget plan brought forward by the Democrats brings this fiscally disciplined tradition to a screeching halt by allowing about $25 billion more in discretionary spending than President Bush or even the spendthrift Senate, for that matter, which asked for about $7 billion less than the House.

Thankfully, it's not too late to stop this fiscal train wreck. By voting against this rule, every Member of this

body can demonstrate their opposition to the Federal largesse included in this budget, as well as their opposition to the largest tax increase in American history.

Without the meaningful tax relief passed by this recent Republican Congress, our economy would not have seen the massive job growth with 7.6 million new jobs created for American workers and tremendous economic growth of 3.5 percent per year that has our economy growing at the highest rate and has done so over the last 15 quarters.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to stand up for fiscal discipline, economic growth, and responsible budgeting by opposing this rule and the underlying tax increase.

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

Mr. Speaker, my wonderful colleague from Massachusetts is trying to have it both ways: We're going to balance the budget; we're not going to cut taxes. We're going to balance the budget; we're not going to cut taxes. But, in fact, what happens is this budget relies on every single tax cut going away so that they can then say they balance the budget, but the fact of the matter is that they do not even address the biggest issues and the problems that face the Nation.

He is correct. The gentleman from Massachusetts is correct. Republicans did produce a balanced budget as a result of cutting taxes and fiscal discipline in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000. And in 2001, the day America was attacked, we had a balanced budget. He is absolutely correct. Since that time, we have not had a balanced budget. One million jobs were lost within 1 month after 9/11, 2001. And so as a result of that, Republicans decided that in order for us to gain financial advantage, that we would have tax cuts.

It is true that, as a result of rules in the Senate, the other body, that we could not make these tax cuts permanent. It is also true that every single year since that period of time that Republicans have asked Democrats, please make every single one of these tax cuts permanent, well, that's like light to a vampire. Absolutely no, not for the Democrats, because they're opposed to the tax cuts. They're on record of opposing the tax cuts. And today they come to the floor, oh, we're not taking away any of the tax cuts. Of course they are. Because if they didn't, they couldn't then ``balance the budget'' that they have on the floor today. That is exactly what they are doing.

Second point, Social Security, as a result of our growing economy, every single new worker that comes in, Social Security has to add to its deficit the amount of money that is owed to Social Security every time we get a new worker, and that is more than half of this deficit. It's an accounting gimmick because what happens is that Social Security accounts for what they have to have as an unfunded liability out for 50 years.

So to talk about the irresponsibility, I will take part of the blame. But growing this economy, having increased tax revenue, having the greatest single economy we have ever had, more people than ever living in homes, their own homes and our challenging the Democrat minority and now majority to say, why don't we get on with the real things that are important like worrying about Medicare and Medicaid? Nothing. Why don't we make sure that families do not have to pay after-tax dollars for health care? Silence. Silence from our Democrat majority.

The new Democrats want to tax and spend. That's what they've always been about. That's what they're about on the floor of the House of Representatives today. And they're trying to get it both ways.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member from the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a second and highlight the admiration that this House has for the two gentlemen who have just been speaking. The gentleman, Mr. Spratt, and the gentleman, Mr. Ryan, have conducted themselves despite tough differences, and I applaud both of them, in particular my good friend from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for the conduct that he has on this floor.

Now back to the real issues.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is the Republican minority is here on the floor of the House today opposing this bill. We are opposing this resolution because we do not believe that this properly talks about the future of this country for entitlement spending, raising taxes and not being responsible for the future opportunity for America to compete.

So we, once again, continue our opposition to the process that is happening today, as well as the underlying legislation.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the Fifth Congressional District of Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to this bill. The first thing this is going to do is provide for higher taxes, $392 billion worth of new taxes between now and 2012. Secondly, this budget outspends inflation. It outspends inflation moving forward that will increase higher than the average of 2.4 percent. It is reckless entitlement spending increases. It is either empty promises or tax increases that they have.

Mr. Speaker, lastly, it is very obvious that there is no entitlement reform that will take place. They had a 5-year budget to do it. They had 5 years to look out and say, we are going to match our Republican colleagues. It is now our chance, because the Republicans tried and got no support from the Democrats for the last 12 years to make sure we could do entitlement reform. Now it is their turn. Nothing. Nada. They are ignoring the future. This is a bad precedent.

We know that the Democratic party is about taxing and spending. It is obvious. It is there today. We will let them vote for the tax increases. We will continue on the Republican side to make sure that we are for growing the economy and cutting taxes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of promoting technological innovation, bolstering the strength of our manufacturing industry and contributing to the overall global competitiveness of American business. However, I simply cannot support the closed rule process brought forward today by the Democrat majority that prevents all but one Republican amendment from being considered by the House.

This rule represents a substantial break with recent precedent because the last time that a comprehensive reauthorization of the National Institute of Standards and Technology was brought to the Rules Committee, the Republican majority provided the House with a completely open rule for its consideration. I know this, Mr. Speaker, because I had the privilege of managing that rule for our majority, and the Democrat minority position was then ably handled by the current chairman of the Rules Committee, my good friend Chairman Louise Slaughter.

Unfortunately, Chairwoman Slaughter seems to have forgotten the merits of providing the House with an open rules process because today the committee that she chairs has provided the House with a closed process, through a restrictive rule, not an open rule, even using the more lenient definition of an open rule currently being employed by the Democrat majority, which under Republican leadership was reserved for modified open rules.

I include for the Record a copy of this rule, H. Res. 474, which provided for the consideration of H.R. 2733, the Enterprise Integration Act of 2002, to remind the majority that NIST reauthorization is, in fact, possible to do under an open process.

H. Res. 474

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this

resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 2733) to authorize the National Institute of

Standards and Technology to work with major manufacturing

industries on an initiative of standards development and

implementation for electronic enterprise integration. The

first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General

debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one

hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. After

general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment

under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider

as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the

five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of substitute

recommended by the Committee on Science now printed in the

bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the nature

of a substitute shall be considered as read. During

consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the

Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on

the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has

caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional

Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.

Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the

conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may

demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted

in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee

amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions.

Despite my objection to the rule, I do want to support the underlying legislation which makes a number of positive changes to an institution with a long history of helping to keep America globally competitive.

Since its inception in 1901, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has worked diligently to achieve its mission of promoting U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement, science, standards and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve the quality of life.

By focusing on its core mission of stimulating innovation, fostering industrial competition and competitiveness and improving quality of life, the NIST has become a valuable component in the ongoing struggle that the United States faces to remain globally competitive.

This legislation authorizes appropriations for NIST for the next 3 years, most notably doubling the Federal Government's investment in physical

science research, as proposed by President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative. And this increased investment will yield real-world benefits across a number of diverse sectors, including developing performance standards for bullet-proof vests for our military and law enforcement, chemical and biological protection equipment for first responders, and measurement standards vital to leading-edge industries like nanotechnology and next-generation solar cells that will help America increase its energy independence.

This legislation strengthens oversight by requiring the NIST director to submit annual programmatic planning documents to Congress, ensuring that the NIST budget is spent on activities that meet the needs of American industry, and that the increased funds which the NIST is being entrusted with are spent wisely.

This legislation also takes steps to ensure the continued viability of the workhorses of the American economy, small and medium-size manufacturers.

By reauthorizing the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, Congress will help countless domestic manufacturers to improve their manufacturing processes, reduce waste and to train workers to use new equipment.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the work of Chairman Bart Gordon and my good friend, the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Rockwall, Texas, Mr. Ralph Hall, for all of their hard work and bipartisan cooperation on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Statement of Administration Policy for this legislation.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 1868--Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of

2007, May 1, 2007

The Administration opposes House passage of H.R. 1868 in

its current form. The bill conflicts with the

administration's Research and Development Criteria by

diverting funds from critical, high-return basic research to

support subsidized management consulting activities and a

Technology Innovation Program (TIP) modeled on the Advanced

Technology Program that was proceeding toward termination

last Congress, as the Administration has proposed for the

past five years. These external commercial support programs

would be authorized at a total of $223 million in Fiscal Year

2008, and would increase by more than 18 percent in FY 2009.

The Administration does not support the level of funding or

the focus and structure of the programs as currently

reflected in the bill. The Administration recognizes that a

Manager's Amendment may be offered that is intended to

improve the bill by refocusing TIP awards on areas of

national need. However, the bill still permits grants to

large corporations, limits the role of universities and

national laboratories, and does not target major societal

challenges.

The Administration continues to believe that investing in

basic research is a higher priority. Last year the President

proposed doubling support for high-payoff physical science

research in the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST), the National Science Foundation, and the

Department of Energy's Office of Science over the coming

decade as part of the American Competitiveness Initiative

(ACI). Compared with the amounts required to double NIST's

core research and facilities funding, H.R. 1868 provides $22

million less in FY 2008 than the President requested and

authorizes less funding than the Administration recommends in

FYs 2009 and 2010. Such investment in NIST's core measurement

and standards capabilities has demonstrated a significant,

and often exceptional, return to the economy. Studies

commissioned by NIST to evaluate the economic impacts of its

core standards activities generally show benefits far greater

than costs--the benefit-cost ratio across 19 of these studies

averaged 44:1, indicative of the great leveraging of NIST's

work in the economy. The research funding increases for NIST

proposed in the ACI have been broadly endorsed by the science

community, most recently in the ``American Innovation

Proc1amation''--a package of targeted recommendations by

America's business and higher education leaders.

The House bill would divert NIST resources from core basic

research activities toward less meritorious industrial

policy. The Administration urges the House to amend the bill

to address these concerns.

But despite my support for the legislation's goals, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule, so that this legislation can be considered under an open rule process that gives every single Member of this body with a germane amendment an opportunity to come down to the floor and to make their case.

Mr. Speaker, the essence of what we are here to do today is to help America to become more competitive in the global process. By doing this, what we are saying is that by working with the NIST, it is a collaboration that the government has on behalf of and in particular for technology.

Technology is what ultimately will drive America well into this new century to make sure that we solve problems, problems that have existed. Maybe they are mathematical problems, perhaps they are problems of trying to get people to work with new equipment that they may have. But the technology angle and the ability that the Federal Government has to take a proactive stand on behalf of American competitiveness is the essence of this bill.

For a long time, we have spoken on this floor, Member-to-Member and as a body, about how important it is for America to understand the global competition that faces America. Today is an opportunity for us to come together here in this Congress to make sure that we are talking not only about that which will help America, but to continue something that we have been doing since 1901, and that is a government program that works well with the private sector to make sure that America is poised in its future to be prepared for what lies ahead.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see by the last two speakers, the gentleman from Georgia (Dr. Gingrey) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), they have approached this subject not only in a bipartisan way, but with a genuine friendship to each other in trying to promote NIST as well as American competitiveness. I think this flows all the way to the top, where Chairman Bart Gordon and ranking member Ralph Hall have worked very diligently on this. I think it is a good thing when we are able to work in the Congress on behalf of the American people, in this case for the NIST laboratories.

I would like to talk for just a minute, if I can, about more of what they do, because I think it is an interesting exercise to go through.

Between 3 and 6 percent of the U.S. gross domestic products is attributed to measurements and measurement-related operations that rely on the NIST for accuracy, reliability and for international recognition. The NIST X-ray standards and proficiency tests ensure proper radiation exposure levels in

more than 9,000 facilities that perform more than 30 million mammograms yearly.

The NIST Internet time services are being used by NASDAQ, a key component of our wonderful American system of financial integrity, for NASDAQ members to time stamp hundreds of billions of dollars worth of stock trades and other financial transactions that are conducted in business every single day.

The United States, for the last 35 years, has helped the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI. During part of that time my father, for eight of those years, served as Director of the FBI.

The NIST helps improve the process of matching fingerprints found at crime scenes or collected from suspects with those that are on file. In cooperation with the American National Standards Institute, the NIST also developed a uniform way for fingerprint identification data to be exchanged between different jurisdictions and between scanning machines made by different manufacturers.

The Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award, the Nation's highest honor awarded by the President of the United States to U.S. organizations for their performance excellence in quality achievement, is managed by the NIST, and the award criteria are used by thousands of companies, hospitals, and schools to improve their products and services all across the United States.

The total economic benefit of the NIST Baldridge National Quality Program, which receives only a small amount of Federal funding, is estimated at almost $25 billion for a stunning benefit-cost ratio of 207 to 1.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about something that is a laboratory that all Americans can be proud of. I came from a research organization years ago in New Jersey where I had a chance to also work in a lab. This lab is an asset to America. But, Mr. Speaker, it is part of an overall comprehensive and complex way that the United States chooses to do business not only in this country, but also to lead the world.

I found it interesting that just a few weeks ago there was a report issued by the Financial Times, which is a newspaper that reports on international monetary circumstances, and it reported that now the 25- member EU countries have a combined GDP that equals that of the United States of America, 25 member countries from the EU. But if you read on, you see that they now have a combined GDP that equals the United States where we were in 1985.

America truly is the world leader. We are the world leader in commerce and activities that create better lives for people. The EU is struggling. They are struggling because of high taxes, rules and regulations, and a single-payer system in health care, those things that we here in the United States Congress also debate and talk about.

And because we have a chance to have something like the NIST as well as a free-enterprise system that is vibrant here in America, because we shut off the heavy rules and regulations, the heavy taxation, and those things that would be related to a single-payer system for health care, we have been able to move America economically in the world marketplace.

So Republicans today come to the floor in full appreciation and respect with our colleagues to say we want to continue what this lab does, but we are also asking for them at the same time to recognize that growing medium and small business, ensuring that America stays competitive, and, most importantly, that we are prepared for the future where our competitors might be is what really this Congress should be doing.

Today is a small piece, part, a component of that competitiveness model that will keep America going, and I am proud to be a part of that.

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

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

Madam Speaker, for years now, Taiwan has had no representation in the World Health Organization (WHO). The health rights of Taiwan's 23 million people have been grossly neglected. As a democracy, the Government of Taiwan is compelled to respect the wishes of its people and apply for membership into the WHO. Also, Taiwan would like to be invited to send observers to sessions of the World Health Assembly this May.

I support Taiwan's bid to be a member of the WHO. Taiwan's bid is closely related to its campaign for World Health Assembly observer status and meaningful participation in World Health Organization activities. The health rights of the 23 million Taiwanese people must be respected. Moreover, Taiwan is willing and able to contribute to the world health network. As of December 2006, Taiwan had 32 technical missions stationed in 29 partner countries and dispatched 16 mobile medical missions to 12 countries. It is conceivable that with a membership in the WHO, Taiwan will be able to contribute even more of its resources to the global health network.

Several years ago, Taiwan was gripped in crisis with the outbreak of SARS. Since Taiwan was not a member of the WHO, Taiwan encountered a significant amount of red-tape in getting WHO assistance to the affected areas during its urgent time of need during the SARS crisis. Should there ever be a new medical crisis in Taiwan, the WHO should be free of all barriers in assisting people in urgent need of immediate medical attention.

Madam Speaker, Taiwan's application for WHO membership in the name of Taiwan does not represent any change of Taiwan's status quo. Taiwan is most commonly known as ``Taiwan'' internationally and the Government of Taiwan has made it absolutely clear that it has no intention of changing its national name. Taiwan's Constitution has not been changed.

I hope that the administration will once again enthusiastically support Taiwan's application and that no government will dispute Taiwan's membership request. All nations, especially the United States, Japan, and major European countries, should request the WHO to make appropriate arrangements for Taiwan to participate in WHO's mechanisms or at the very least grant Taiwan WHA observer status this May.