Floor Statements

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) to H.R. 547. I also rise to support H.R. 547, Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act. It is a good bill. And I am on the Science Committee, and it did pass by unanimous consent.

Mr. Chairman, I was also at the hearing this morning that lasted 3 hours on the Science Committee with my chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee. And we were honored to have the Speaker of the House of Representatives testify before that committee. Well, this is a historic opportunity. She was received with a great deal of respect and certainly respect by me.

She testified; I don't disagree with any of her testimony. She talked about global warming and the concern that she has for our young children and the environmental debt that has to be paid at some point in the future. Unfortunately, her schedule did not permit time to take questions, maybe a couple, from the Members of the Science Committee. Maybe one question that should have been asked if we had that opportunity is how about the economic debt that we would have to pay if we do something draconian when all these other countries, especially countries like China and India, are totally ignoring it, and they are going to continue to pollute the environment.

This amendment, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Virginia brings is about the concern with continuing to produce carbon dioxide, and yes, polluting the environment, and jet fuel is a big problem, a big contributor to that. I commend the chairman for accepting the amendment, and I think we should do that unanimously. Maybe the Speaker would like to come down on the floor and take as much time as she would like and talk about her support for this. But the Speaker has made a mistake in requesting a jet plane far beyond what the previous Speaker had.

I don't disagree that she should have the same security as the previous Speaker; we are not arguing that point. Mistakes can be made like Tunagate; the Speaker may not have known about that. And she was smart enough to call a press conference and say we are going to correct that, she should be smart enough to hold a press conference and correct this.

Mr. Speaker, as Congress debates measures to clean up meth labs, I believe it is important to offer a physician's perspective to help some people understand why this drug is so dangerous. Also called crank, blue acid, speed, and ice, meth is a popular drug because it is cheap, easy to manufacture, and acts as a powerful stimulant. An investment of just a few hundred dollars in over-the-counter medications and chemicals can produce thousands of dollars worth of methamphetamine, which can be cooked in something as small as a suitcase.

The average meth ``cook'' annually teaches an average of ten people how to make the drug. Typical ingredients include over-the-counter cold and asthma medications containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, in addition to red phosphorous, hydrochloric acid, drain cleaner, battery acid, lye, lantern fuel, and antifreeze.

In fact, users of this drug are often not aware that they are potentially ingesting toxic chemicals. The toxic fumes emitted during manufacturing are highly flammable, even explosive, and can suffocate plants, animals, and even people. For my colleagues concerned about the environment, each pound of meth produced leaves behind five or six pounds of toxic waste. Meth ``cooks'' often pour leftover chemicals and byproduct sludge down drains in nearby plumbing, storm drains, or directly onto the ground, creating long-term hazards: the chemical waste can remain in our soil and groundwater for years. The average cost to clean up a methamphetamine laboratory ranges between $2,000 and $3,000. However, this does not include the ancillary costs of cleaning up a former laboratory.

In February 2005, the Atlanta Police, U.S. Drug Enforcement, the MCS drug taskforce, and other law enforcement agencies discovered Georgia's first ``super lab'' at a house in Smyrna, Georgia, which is in the Congressional District I represent. With 39 pounds of meth-crystal and 250 gallons of the drug in liquid form, one mistake could have destroyed an entire neighborhood due to the explosive volatility of the materials.

No longer just the addictive scourge of 1970's biker gangs, meth is a very real problem that affects our children and neighbors in very real ways. The drug works directly on the brain and spinal cord by interacting with neurotransmitters--chemical substances produced in nerve cells--which communicate throughout the body. The foremost neurotransmitter affected by methamphetamine is dopamine, which is involved with our natural reward system. This is known as the automatic nervous system. For example, a pat on the back for a job well done, getting enjoyment from family and social interactions, and the feeling that our lives are meaningful, all rely on dopamine transmission.

With properties that target the nervous system, it should be no surprise that side affects of meth include extreme paranoia, violent behavior, rapid weight loss, tooth loss, hallucinations, unexplained voices, pale complexion, speech impediments, Parkinson's disease-like symptoms, depression, insomnia, suicide contemplation, and schizophrenia. It is important to mention these various symptoms and health problems because without proper clean-up unseen chemicals can spread from one home through entire neighborhoods, creating an unknown danger to current and future owners.

Considering the numerous dangers caused by methamphetamines, I believe it is more important than ever to make sure our law enforcement community has the laws, equipment, and training necessary to protect our communities from this drug. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the House of Representatives for the passage of today's Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2007, which includes substantive legislation that will establish voluntary guidelines to assist state and local governments in the development and implementation of policies for the clean-up of former methamphetamine laboratories.

Mr. Costello. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 365, the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act to initiate standards for methamphetamine (meth) cleanup in our neighborhoods. As a cosponsor of H.R. 365, I believe this legislation is necessary in order to protect unsuspecting families from the dangers of illegal meth labs and provide the necessary tools for law enforcement to detect labs throughout our communities.

As a member of the Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine and a former law enforcement official, I am actively working with my colleagues to decrease methamphetamine use. In my home state of Illinois, there were 1,189 methamphetamine laboratory seizures reported in 2005, many in my district in Southern Illinois. In order to combat meth, I believe we need a comprehensive plan to deal with the environmental, health, and law enforcement challenges facing our communities because of the growing use of this dangerous drug.

Mr. Speaker, the national guidelines this bill creates will help protect our communities by ensuring that dangerous meth labs are cleaned properly and efficiently. It is my continued hope that by raising national awareness about meth and providing increased federal resources to combat the drug problem, we can make significant progress to overcome methamphetamine use. This legislation is a critical step we can take toward this goal and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 365.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of football all-star and community hero Ray Beck, who passed away recently in Cedartown, Georgia.

Mr. Beck is a football legend both in my home State of Georgia and across the Nation. After 4 years as a star on the Cedartown High School football team, Ray attended Georgia Tech, my alma mater, to play guard for the legendary coach Bobby Dodd.

In 1951, he was named an All-American by the American Football Coaches Association and the Football Writers Association. That same year, he helped lead Georgia Tech to an 11-1 record and an Orange Bowl victory over Baylor University.

After college, Beck was drafted by the New York Giants. He was part of the 1956 World Championship Team. And Madam Speaker, that team included the likes of Y.A. Tittle, Kyle Rote and Sam Huff. They led the Giants to a 56-7 victory over the Chicago Bears, a far more lopsided score than the Indianapolis Colts achieved this past weekend.

On the football field, Ray was known as a team player, someone who gave his all to the game. Because of his tremendous work ethic he was inducted into the Georgia Sports Hall of Fame and the College Football Hall of Fame.

But Ray was more than just a football player. He was an active and enthusiastic supporter of the Cedartown community. The same attitude that made him a star on the field made him a hero in his community. There is hardly an organization in Cedartown that hasn't been touched by Beck's generosity.

Madam Speaker, he was chairman of the Cedartown Development Authority. He was president of the Cedartown Chamber of Commerce, a member of the Polk Medical Center Advisory Board, a board member of the Georgia Motor Trucking Association.

But perhaps he will be best remembered for a charity golf tournament he arranged with his long time friend, Doc Ayers. This annual event raised thousands of dollars for Polk County, for charities such as children's literacy and all the way to local food banks.

It is a little wonder Beck was named Citizen of Excellence by the Cedartown

Civic Arts Commission for his philanthropy to this great community.

One of Ray's former teammates commented that he was, and I quote, ``one of the people you could always count on.'' Ray took that attitude from the football field to the community of Cedartown, and his contributions to both will live on as his legacy. I send my deepest, deepest condolences to his wife, Claire, and to his whole family. I know all of Polk County mourns your loss.

Madam Speaker, as a younger generation looks to sport stars as heroes and role models, I hope they come across men like Ray Beck. He was committed to his team and committed to his community. He gave his all on the field and then gave back to the town where he was raised. He was generous with his time, his wisdom and his energy, and Cedartown, Georgia, is a far, far better place because of him.

Madam Speaker, I ask that you join me in honoring the legacy of Ray Beck.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

And I want to take just a second to join my colleagues from Georgia and particularly the two that are on the floor tonight, Dr. Price and Representative Westmoreland, in saying to our colleague Charlie Norwood that we are praying for you, buddy. All of us from Georgia, but every Member of this body on both sides of the aisle are praying that the miracle of God's healing will deliver you back to us soon, and we think about you constantly.

Mr. Speaker, this hour is a great opportunity for us to discuss the budget. And I had an opportunity this morning to be on the C-SPAN program, and the host said to me, Congressman, are you aware of the fact that one of the Members of the other body has recommended that maybe we need something called a war tax to pay for our Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom? And I said to the host, I know that has probably been done in the history of this country. Maybe it was necessary to fund a previous war. But the thing about this President and this administration is because of these economic principles of cutting taxes and growing revenue, fortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have been able to do this without raising the people's taxes. And I certainly commend President Bush for that foresight and wisdom and the former majority party as we supported those tax cuts when it was predicted that it would cost the economy over a 10-year period something like $1.3 trillion.

So what I would like to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle in particular as I wrap up quickly, and I know time is limited, on the defense budget, please, please do not cut future combat systems. Don't cut our missile defense system to pay for some social programs when the defense of this Nation is so important at this time of war.

With that, I really appreciate my colleague giving me the opportunity to weigh in tonight.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Grace Carter Dawkins, a native of Greenville, GA. Mrs. Dawkins recently passed away, leaving behind a long legacy of compassion and spirited involvement in her community.

Mrs. Dawkins had a big heart and a willingness to help others. As a teacher in Newnan and Atlanta, she not only taught home economics and served as a class sponsor, but she helped sew prom dresses for the students and cooked up delicious meals for class banquets.

Grace was also deeply involved with her church, Brinson Chapel, where she lent her passion for service to the church's missionary, senior, and community outreach programs.

Madam Speaker, I've had the honor to experience Grace's generous personality first-hand, and I know her loving acts of kindness will be felt in Greenville for many years to come.

I also know Grace's husband, Robert, her sister, Gloria Carter Morris, and her three brothers, Rufus, Earnest, and Willie Carter, will keep her memory strong.

Madam Speaker, I ask that you join me in honoring the compassion, charity, and joy of Grace Carter Dawkins's life.

Mr. Speaker, in the other body yesterday, under the leadership of Senator Reid, the gentleman from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, had a resolution supporting the funding of our troops, and the Senate leadership prevented that resolution from being brought to the floor under regular order because they wanted first to bring a resolution condemning the President.

Now the Speaker of the House has announced that next week we will have a resolution brought to the floor of this body condemning the President's plan for a new way forward in Iraq.

I challenge the Speaker and the Democratic leadership, if that resolution is on this floor, to bring forward also the resolution of a true war hero, Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, supporting the continued funding of the troops in Iraq.

We have heard Members on the other side of the aisle continue to say we can and will, if necessary, cut off funding. This will give them an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn an unconscionable commercial from last night's Super Bowl. Some ads were good, some ads were bad; but this one was very ugly. For those who missed it, an antiwar political action committee ran an ad claiming, and this is a direct quote: ``If you support escalation, you don't support the troops.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, that couldn't be farther from the truth. Supporting additional troops in Iraq is supporting one final surge to push the Iraqi people over the threshold of violence and deliver the best shot for a more stable Middle East.

Let me assure you that the veterans in this commercial do not speak for the veterans in my district, nor do they speak for the soldiers that I visited in Iraq or Walter Reed, nor do they speak for our military commanders. But, Mr. Speaker, what disturbs me most about this commercial is that it wasn't just broadcast to those of us watching the game from the comfort of our living rooms and our homes. It was broadcast to the troops watching the game in Iraq.

Our troops should know that the United States military strategy will not be determined by political groups buying air time during the Super Bowl. I support victory in Iraq, and this final surge may be our best last chance to achieve it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule and the underlying resolution. No amendments allowed, no committee hearings, no committee votes taken, all we have is simply a closed rule, a closed process, a bunch of broken promises.

So here we go again, Mr. Speaker. Once more, Members of the House find themselves with really no good choices, forced to accept the ``our way or the highway'' mentality of the new majority, despite their promises to do otherwise.

As if the majority's broken promises for civility and openness in the people's House wasn't disconcerting enough, this continuing resolution is one giant broken promise.

For instance, the Democrats promise no earmarks in this continuing resolution. They even include ``window-dressing'' language to that effect for the

purpose of their talking points and sound bites. Yet, on closer inspection, one realizes that, while this resolution does eliminate earmarks for organizations such as the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, various law enforcement programs, schools and hospitals, it somehow still provides funding for several notorious million-dollar earmarks such as the Bridge to Nowhere.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic rationale for picking at which earmarks stay and which earmarks go strikes me as bizarre and hypocritical, to say the least.

Even more troubling, this continuing resolution shortchanges our military, their families and our communities transitioning under the BRAC process by almost $3.1 billion, not to mention an additional billion dollar shortfall for military construction. Clearly, the majority has a ``tough love'' philosophy when it comes to our military, their families and the war on terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, we could have even fixed some of these problems right here, right now if Members had been allowed to offer amendments. But I guess that is not the way it works in this moveon.org Congress.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to let the majority know that I have no other speakers requesting time, and I will just reserve the balance of my time for my closing remarks.

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

I want to thank the Chair for allowing me to manage the remaining time on our side in the absence of the ranking member, Mr. Hall, who had a very important meeting before the Rules Committee, and I thank the Chair for allowing that.

Madam Speaker, I am not an engineer but I went to an engineering school. In fact, I went to one of the very best engineering schools in this country. I am a Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech and a heck of an engineer and actually not an engineer but a chemist. I look forward to the next bill as we honor Dr. Julian.

But engineering, Madam Speaker, is a profession in this country that is very, very important to us, to our ability to compete in this global economy, and as we all know, we are losing unfortunately far too many engineers to retirement and not replacing them. If we are going to remain competitive in this country, and I know the work of the Education and Labor Committee of this House and Chairman Miller and before him Chairman McKeon and Chairman Boehner, we have addressed these issues in our reauthorization of higher education and how important it is; and I know that Chairman Miller, as we go forward to reauthorizing No Child Left Behind and highly qualified teachers and special incentives for math and science teachers at elementary, middle and high school levels so that we do stimulate more bright young minds in this country, and yes, many more women than may be traditionally would select engineering as a professional track, as a career, because this is the only way we are going to be able to compete in this global economy.

I love sports, Madam Speaker, and I know we all do and we honor sports teams all the time up here, whether it is basketball, football, hockey. You name it, we are doing these resolutions, but I like to see more and more of this kind of activity where we are supporting the goals and ideals of National Engineering Week with H. Res. 59 to say, look, what is really important in this country is not games. Games are fun and games are a diversion, but this is about life and the success of our individual young students and, indeed, our country.

So to have an opportunity to stand here and have the closing remarks on supporting H. Res. 59, I commend the majority and my friend Representative Lipinski and others that have brought this, Representative Johnson and other members of the Science Committee. I think this is a wonderful opportunity to salute our engineers and the profession.

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

Madam Speaker, as my good friend and colleague, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, has already stated, House Concurrent Resolution 34 honors the life of Dr. Percy Lavon Julian, a pioneer in organic chemistry, research and development.

Dr. Julian identified and synthesized, and my trusty assistant had to tell me how to pronounce it, physostigmine. I should know that from medical school. Dr. Julian, though, synthesized that, and it is a drug used to treat glaucoma. I think we all know about glaucoma and the ravages of that, particularly with our elderly, more recently to improve memory in Alzheimer's patients and as an antidote to nerve gas.

He also made great advances, Madam Speaker, in synthesizing the drug known, as we all know, as cortisone, and making it affordable treatment back then for arthritis, and of course, it is used for that and many other things today.

In addition to his glaucoma and arthritis treatment contributions, Dr. Julian's impressive achievements also include the invention of a soy-based fire extinguishing foam used on Navy ships during World War II, various improvements in paints and coatings while employed with the Glidden Paint Company, with which he was affiliated, I think, for over 18 years; and he developed a method to filter chemicals in soybean oil to mass produce hormones for medical application.

Once again, Madam Speaker, as a retired OB/GYN physician, I know a little bit about the use of hormones for medical conditions.

As an African American in the early 20th century, Dr. Julian overcame great adversity to succeed and to make his mark on society. The National Academy of Sciences recognized and honored his significant contributions to organic chemistry when they inducted him in 1973.

Madam Speaker, I remember to this day my organic chemistry teacher at Georgia Tech in those 5, 6-hour labs that we had twice a week in addition to all the classroom work. I wish I had had the privilege of being taught by Dr. Julian, but Dr. Cherry was a fine professor in his own right.

I encourage my colleagues to give Dr. Julian the same recognition today and support this resolution honoring him and his great life.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I had one other request for time, but he is detained at this point. Right now, I don't have any other speakers.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, just a few words in closing. We talked about Engineers' Week in the previous suspension resolution. I was just listening to my good friend, Rush Holt, talk about the importance of making sure that we encourage people of color and someone like Dr. Julian and many more like him to get an opportunity.

I am sure it must have been awfully difficult back in those days, and actually in 1961, that was when I was a student at Georgia Tech, and there were literally no African-American students at school. I don't remember any at that time, and that was just, what, 46 years ago. It is unbelievable.

But, thank God, you know, times have changed; and certainly to learn about Dr. Julian, I didn't know of him until my colleagues on the majority side, on the Science Committee, brought forward this resolution.

I am honored to manage for the ranking member, Mr. Hall, on this side of the Science Committee and to get to know more about the life of Dr. Percy Julian, talking about the work he did in developing and manufacturing a process for the production of cortisone. Madam Speaker, I can really appreciate him in regard to that, because just yesterday morning, I was lying on an operating table getting cortisone injected into my arthritic neck, and I feel better already. I will say, Thank you, Dr. Julian, for that discovery, and I appreciate it very much.

But it is an honor to pay respect to this gentleman. I am pleased in a reading of his life that, unlike a lot of other people who do great things, and they get honored 25 years after their death, and everybody else seems to capitalize on their discovery, the fact that he was not only honored in his lifetime by the National Academy of Sciences, but also was able to get financial remuneration for his work in the sale of his company to a big pharmaceutical, I think it was Smith, Kline & French or one of the major pharmaceutical companies back in 1961 purchased his company for $2.1 million. Well, that is great, and I am very happy that occurred and happy for him and his family.

It is great to have these good bipartisan opportunities, Madam Speaker. I want to ask all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, and I know all my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa for leading this Iowa Special Order, particularly in regard to what is going to be on the floor of this body tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, and that is this $463 billion monstrosity that, as the gentleman has already pointed out, gives no opportunity for Members of this body to have any input.

We heard all this rhetoric, as we started the 110th, about the need to pass those six per six bumper sticker issues that the Democratic majority had tested, had poll tested, that drew 75, 80 percent approval rating; so that was their justification of closing down the process and bundling all of those bills, H.R. 1 through 6, in a single rule, a single closed rule, and no opportunity for even Members on their own side of the aisle, the Democratic majority, the new Members of the Democratic majority, to have a voice and represent their constituents. I think it is appalling, Mr. Speaker, that they would do that.

But, also, as we railed against that process in the first 2 weeks, we had the assurance over and over again of the leadership of the Democratic majority that once they got through with their 100 hours, and as Representative King has pointed out, we are up to 147 hours now, where is the fairness that they promised? Where is the open process? Here this $463 billion so-called CR or, in layman's terms, continuing resolution, gets posted on the Internet at 11 o'clock last night. I don't think that Members of this body were sitting up holding their breath every 15 minutes checking on the Internet to see if Mr. Obey had finally posted the bill so that Members could see it and look at it and analyze it, study it, and hopefully come forward through the Rules Committee. Certainly there was no committee process in what they have done here.

And I do not know, maybe my colleagues can answer this question in just a minute, but I know the Rules Committee did meet today, and I am not going to hold my breath counting the number of amendments that were made in order.

But this is unconscionable, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it is not a CR. A CR would be a continuing resolution to continue to fund the government at last year's level. In fact, that would indeed save money. That would save the taxpayers money. This is no CR. A CR is three or four pages long. In fact, the last time we had a CR to cover an entire fiscal year was under the Democratic leadership back in 1987 and 1988. I don't know how long those bills were, but I do not think they were 123 pages, as this monstrosity is, Mr. Speaker.

I have heard this thing called a lot of terms other than a CR. I have heard some refer to it as a ``CRomnibus.'' To me, and maybe my colleagues can understand this better because ``CRomnibus'' is a little difficult to decipher, it looks like a hooker dressed up like a nun.

Now, I hope everybody can understand what I am talking about there. This is an appalling embarrassment to this body. And the Democratic majority talked about, in December and leading up to the election before that, how, give them the opportunity to lead this body and they will absolutely eliminate earmarks, totally eliminate earmarks in finishing up the fiscal 2007 and the fiscal 2008 budget.

This is a giant earmark, or if you want to call it an ``Obeymark.'' There are so many things in here. And, of course, you know we have had since about 9 o'clock this morning when people came to work, maybe a little earlier for some of us insomniacs, to study this bill. And the devil is, of course, in the details.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa. I know he is limited in time, and I know our colleague from Florida is here, as well, and possibly other Members will be coming to weigh in on this.

But this is appalling, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues. I mean, the Democratic majority has talked about opening up this process and not doing as we did, as they say we did; but dawn of a new day, to start a new open process of bipartisanship. Whether they were truthful in that or not, I think if you say that, if you make that pledge as you ask people to vote or, in many instances, replace somebody on our side of the aisle, then you need to fulfill that contract.

That indeed was a pledge that has already been broken. And it does not have to be that way. It absolutely does not have to be that way.

So I thank the gentleman for allowing me to weigh in on this issue. With that, I will turn it back over to Mr. King and continue this dialogue with my colleagues. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, just a quick point. In these appropriation bills that come to the floor under regular order, each one of the 13 separate appropriations bills came to the floor with an open rule, an open process.

If the gentleman would yield.

And I hope I won't offend the gentleman, but just as he is pointing out, these earmarks are there but they are selected, in this instance, by one person. And as you start enumerating a few, like the ones that you have already mentioned, I have got to also say that the tropical rainforest in Iowa is back at $44.6 million. Now, I don't know how the gentleman feels about that one, but that is the whole point here. A CR is supposed to save money. It is literally supposed to save the taxpayers money, because instead of increasing the amount of spending at a rate of inflation or consumer price index, you go back to the last year and you just continue that process.

So, in fact, if we had done that, if we had this year-long CR, we are talking about maybe saving $6.1 billion. But, no, what the Democratic leadership of a committee of one or two decides to do is under that budget cap authority to plus this thing all the way up from 2006 levels to the budget cap, and that is an additional $6.11 billion burden on the taxpayer.

As I mentioned earlier, I won't repeat the phrase I used in referencing this bill. But people are going to call it all kind of things in addition to CRomnibus. But really it is a CR on steroids. Maybe we should call it a steroid.

And with that I will turn it back over to the gentleman from Iowa for the continuation of this discussion

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wanted to point out, and I am sure the gentleman would agree with me, that there are things in this so-called CR that we approve of. As I look through the list, and of course, I have got a lot more looking to do, but as I see things like an increase in Pell Grants to $260 up to $4,310, I think that is good. And additional funding for the Head Start program. And I could go on and on and on. There are a number of things here that I see that I could vote in favor of, but there are a number that I would be opposed to.

And just as the gentleman points out, especially for the new Members on both sides of the aisle to not have an opportunity to go through regular order and a committee markup process, go to the Rules Committee with their amendments, I am talking now about majority Member amendments, things that they have heard about, as you pointed out, Mr. King, from their constituents, as they campaigned for the very first time for Congress and the excitement of that, and you pointed that out as well. It is just sad. It really is sad. And if it wasn't so sad, it would be almost laughable.

So I just want to say that, again, it is not that, as I register tomorrow my vote against this, it is unfortunate because there are some things in here that I would be in favor of. But I am going to be voting against the usurp of power and putting the process under the jackboot of the new majority.

I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding, and I am proud to be here tonight with the Countdown Crew to talk about an issue which typically you would think or you hear said many times that our physician colleagues across this country are not real good business men and women. But as my colleague, the CPA from Texas, just pointed out, they better darn well become good business men and women.

I appreciate the carve-out, but it probably specifically applies to the gentleman, the peach from Georgia.

But in any regard, the main point that I would like to make, and maybe my colleagues, the gentleman from Kentucky and my good friend from the Keystone State Mr. Shuster from Pennsylvania, have already mentioned this, but if Congress takes no action, and that is what the Countdown Crew is talking about in these 1,433 days leading up to January 1, I think, 2011. But in 2007, in fact I think this has already occurred, but we can do something about it because tax day, April 15, is, thank goodness, 3 months away. But taxpayers in States with no income tax will not be allowed to deduct their sales taxes from Federal income tax if we don't make a change. And we are talking about Representative Conaway's great State of Texas, a highly populated State. We are talking about the great State of Florida. We are talking about Tennessee and other States. And this is significant, because citizens in those States pay no income tax, no State income tax, but pay huge sales tax to fund their State government, and that will go away if we don't do something about it.

In 2007, I think the gentleman from Kentucky mentioned this, the exemption for the alternative minimum tax will decrease from the current $42,500 to $33,750 for a single filer, and from $62,500 to $45,000 for a married couple.

In 2009, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the standard deduction for couples as a percentage of the standard deduction for a single individual decreases from 200 percent to 174 percent, further discouraging couples from entering into the great sacrament of matrimony.

And in 2010, the section 179, Small Business Expensing Cap, will decrease from $100,000 to $25,000.

I heard my colleague from Kentucky, Representative Davis, talk about this just a minute ago; and he made the comment that most of the jobs in this country, and that would include those 7 million new jobs that have occurred since 2003, in fact more new jobs than the European Union and Japan combined, most of those 7 million new jobs are created by small business men and women. And this section 179 which allows them to write off $100,000 in the first year for capital improvement, buying a new piece of equipment, indeed, expanding the size of their operation so they can hire new people, if it goes down t $25,000, you are going to see, just like a stand-alone increase in the minimum wage, you are going to see jobs lost, and all of a sudden that 7 million number is going to start trickling down.

It has been mentioned that the child tax credit will decrease from $1,000 to $500.

And listen to this, my colleagues: on marginal rates, if this has not already been mentioned, and even if it has, it probably deserves repeating, the 35 percent bracket will increase to 39.6 percent; the 33 percent bracket, 36 percent; 28 percent bracket, 31 percent; 25 percent, up to 28 percent; and, worst of all is the 10 percent bracket will increase to 15 percent. And not to mention capital gains going back up to 20 percent. Dividends, again, double taxation on dividend. All of these things are going to really hurt this economy.

And while maybe under our majority leadership there are a lot of areas in which we could have done better, I truly believe, and I think my colleagues here tonight would agree, we could hardly have done better than the 2001 and 2003 tax cut package, many of which I just enumerated, including finally trying to get rid of the double taxation of the death tax, the estate tax. This is what Republicans have done. This is what this President has done. And this has resulted in 7 million new jobs.

Instead of an estimated cost to the revenue of $1.3 trillion over 10 years because you made these cuts, guess what: within 2 years we have run the revenue, I think, and my colleague from Texas knows these numbers better than I do, but something like $275 billion more revenue because of the tax cuts.

I have said this a number of times on this floor, and maybe the folks at home watching on C-SPAN know this, but in 1960 Democratic President Kennedy cut taxes, revenue went up drastically; in 1980, President Reagan, Republican President, did the same thing and the revenue went up. And of course that is the case that we have here today.

Unemployment rate across the country, 4.6 percent. In my State, where we have actually, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, we have actually lost a lot of jobs here recently because both General Motors and Ford have shut down plants that have been in Georgia for a long time, but our unemployment rate is just barely above 5.1 percent, and we are growing jobs in other areas, small businesses primarily as I said earlier.

So to be here tonight to talk about this, talk with the Countdown Crew why this is so critical, because we know the Democratic majority has already said it. But this issue of PAYGO that they have put in the rules package, it is an absolute farce. It doesn't even look like the PAYGO provision that the then-ranking member on the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt from South Carolina, that what he proposed was that there would be no point of order waiver allowed; and yet in this

new rules package that they proffered in the first week of the 110th, they allow that. So that at any point if PAYGO is violated, then they can simply in their Rules Committee waive that point of order. Or if they don't want to appear hypocritical and they don't waive the point of order, then whatever is done on the Senate side and comes back as a conference committee, they waive all points of order. So to have a really meaningful PAYGO provision, then it needs to have the force of law.

And I will conclude by pointing out the double standard here. What the Democrats would consider a tax cut and the expiration of these tax cuts as something that has to be offset, but they would not consider the extension of a program that expires, that has a sunset. Let's say as an example, and I think this is a great program and I hope we continue it and maybe even make it better, but as an example of the hypocrisy of PAYGO, take something like the SCHIP program which was authorized 10 years ago and we spend about $5 billion a year on that program. It is scheduled to sunset in June, I think, of 2007, this year. And I am sure it will be reauthorized, but that additional spending will be outside of PAYGO rules.

But yet when we have these tax cuts that expire, if we, the Republican minority now, want to continue those great tax cuts for the reasons that the Countdown Crew has enumerated here tonight, then that would be considered a new tax cut and would have to be offset. It is so hypocritical, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues. I think it needs to be said over and over again, and I want to come become and join my colleagues as often as we can to talk about this, because American people need to understand.

With that, I yield back to my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my former chairman on the Rules Committee for the time. And I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying resolution, with some degree of sadness, because I certainly have great, great respect for the representatives of the territories and the District of Columbia. They are sitting here on the floor and speaking, and they are great Members. But I have to oppose this because I think that indeed, Mr. Speaker, it will be ruled unconstitutional in the final analysis.

And I know that the Democratic majority in the first 2 weeks, in the 100 hours, with the Six for '06 legislative agenda, the bumper sticker issues that were poll-tested; if you took an issue like this and you said to the American people, We are about to grant voting rights to the members from the territories that do not pay Federal income taxes, and these votes can raise your taxes, and they don't pay Federal income taxes, I think that the poll on that would be at least 90 percent in opposition. So if you are going to do things on a poll-driven agenda, you would not be doing this.

I think that it may end up being a moot point, Mr. Speaker, because voting in the Committee of the Whole, giving the Members that right, it may never occur. It may be a moot point, because with these closed rules and no regular order, there may never be any votes in the Committee of the Whole.

So I regrettably rise to oppose this. I think it is absolutely wrong. But I have great respect for my colleagues from the territories and the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share one of the many stories of bravery from our Armed Forces stationed in Iraq. I want to tell you about Navy Petty Officer Dustin Kirby, a native of Hiram, Georgia, a skilled Navy corpsman attached to the 2nd Marine Division in Iraq.

Petty Officer Kirby was injured by sniper fire outside of Fallujah on Christmas Day. I had the honor of visiting him and his family at Bethesda Naval Hospital earlier this week, and I was deeply moved by his courage and dedication to the defense of our Nation.

From my visit, it was clear Petty Officer Kirby had touched many lives. In fact, while we visited he got a phone call from his fellow troops overseas.

His wife, Lauren, his parents, Jack and Gail, his brother and sister, all shared with me their praise of his bravery and resolve.

Mr. Speaker, it is because of soldiers like Petty Officer Dustin Kirby that I know we will achieve victory in Iraq. The dedication and determination of our Armed Forces is what protects our Nation every day and what will ultimately help deliver security and freedom in the Middle East.

I ask that my colleagues join me in commending Petty Officer Kirby for his service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of delivering a knockout punch in Iraq, stabilizing Baghdad, securing freedom for the Iraqi people, and dealing a blow to terrorism across the Middle East.

There has been far too much politicking on this issue. Let me remind my colleagues that Iraq strategy is not about the legacy of Don Rumsfeld or General Abizaid or even President Bush. It is about 23 million Iraqi people. It is about the citizens of the United States of America. It is about the future of the Middle East, and it is about the 6 billion people on this planet who desire to live without the fear of radical terrorism.

We can achieve victory in Iraq. In the past we have underestimated the intensity of the death squads and the sectarian violence. Now we will confront them head on by ensuring we have enough coalition and Iraqi troops, not only to clear pockets of resistance, but to hold them.

Mr. Speaker, our President and combatant commanders are ready to deliver the knockout blow in Iraq. This is not the time for Congress to tie one hand behind their backs. We must be in this fight to win, and I support our drive to victory.