Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3067, the Small Public Housing Authority Act.

Like many of my colleagues, I represent a rural district where most of the public housing authorities operate in small communities. In fact, many of the PHAs in my district administer fewer than 200 housing units and some even have part-time directors or directors who split their time between public housing authorities. For many of those small public housing authorities, excessive paperwork requirements and outdated regulatory burdens continue to create an unnecessary distraction from their important work of providing affordable housing for underprivileged families.

For example, the 1992 Public Housing Reform Act requires PHAs to submit both a 5-year and an annual plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. While the annual plans were designed to address changes to the 5-year plan, small PHAs are already required by law to submit any policy changes, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, to HUD for review and approval. This yearly report of unchanged plans and policy amounts to an unnecessary Federal mandate. While HUD has taken regulatory steps to streamline this annual reporting for small PHAs that are performing well, a recent example of one of the streamlined plans was 47 pages with attachments. So small public housing authorities just do not have the time and the staff and the resources to complete these annual plans by themselves and in many cases have to use outside vendors or contractors, expensive consultants to do the work that they don't have the computer software to do themselves to complete these annual plans.

For this reason, I have introduced H.R. 3067, the Small Public Housing Act. This legislation would bring long-needed regulatory relief to our small PHAs by exempting those that are 250 fewer units and section 8 vouchers from continuing the requirement of an annual plan if there is no material change in the operations during that year. So if they have some material change they still have to do it, but if it is just business as usual, then they do not have to make that submission. They still have to submit their 5-year plan, as is required by law.

H.R. 3067 only addresses, as I said, the annual plans. This legislation will provide an opportunity where they don't have to spend their much-needed resources and time away from doing what they need to be doing, and that is helping to provide affordable housing for our most needy folks.

I would just want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his interest in public housing. This bill passed overwhelmingly in the previous Congress. Unfortunately, the time ran out, and we did not get that done from the other body. As a matter of fact, it passed 387-2; so I think there is broad support for this. I appreciate Chairwoman Waters' Housing Subcommittee as well as Ranking Member Biggert and, of course, Ranking Member Bachus for their support for this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I also rise in strong opposition to the Udall amendment. This amendment singles out one commodity for reduction in order to increase an unrelated program.

This bill already increases funding to enroll nearly 1 million new acres in the Grassland Reserve Program. That is a significant amount of land.

Some might think this is a small change in direct payment. It doesn't seem like much; however, this bill does not make changes in any of the current direct payments, and this would single out only one commodity, that being cotton, for reduction in direct payments.

The House Agriculture Committee has already made significant changes to cotton. The bill reduces cotton target prices and eliminates cotton loan storage credits. In addition, payment limit changes are more likely to affect cotton farmers than any other commodity.

If you want to increase the grasslands program, the offsets should not come from one commodity that is already taking a fairly major change in this bill. Let's treat all commodities the same and oppose the Udall amendment.

Madam Chairman, I woke up on Monday this week very excited about the opportunity to bring this farm bill to this floor, but as you can imagine, my disappointment tonight because of the culmination of 2 years worth of hearings all across America, subcommittee hearings, 31 hours of markup in full committee working on a bill that is going to be good for America, good for American agriculture, working in a bipartisan way to make sure that all of agriculture has a bright future for this country, making sure that America will have a good source of food and fiber for the years to come and that it will not become dependent on importing food as we have become in importing energy in this country.

And you can imagine my disappointment because we've worked in a very bipartisan way with the chairman, working on the safety net for American producers when the commodity prices were low and then working on a safety net when we have drought conditions, weather conditions, to provide an additional safety net for them.

But unfortunately, we were duped, I guess is the best way I can say it. As we were working along with the leadership, they kept saying we are going to find some additional offsets so that they can expand these nutrition programs while at the same time asking American producers to take cuts in payments, but with the understanding that we weren't going to have any new taxes. Unfortunately, Madam Chairman, that isn't the way this farm bill was written up.

Today, without any debate, without any discussion, the American people's farm bill was put in jeopardy. It now faces a Presidential veto. It now faces opposition from Members of this body that would have voted for this farm bill, but now they are not going to vote for this farm bill because it raises taxes.

And what we've known and what we've tried to say to the American people over the last few months is we knew this was coming because this new leadership has started off on the old way they used to do business under the promise of doing business in a new way, by taxing and spending, taxing and spending. And it's unfortunate that we would bring that kind of politics to the American farm policy.

Madam Chairman, I rise tonight in strong opposition to the Kind amendment. The Kind amendment may be kind to someone, but it is not to American farm families.

You see, what is happening in America today is that we have already asked American farm families to make a reduction. Mr. Kind wants to reduce farm payments 40 percent. Well, that is on top of the 50 percent that they have already been reduced.

For America to be competitive in the global marketplace, farmers and ranchers all across America have had to get larger. To be competing in this global economy, the efficiencies of running $150,000 farm machinery across small acreages is no longer feasible. And yet what Mr. Kind and his friends want to do is to make American agriculture not competitive.

You see, to be competitive in this world, you have to find economic efficiencies, and these efficiencies have meant that many producers have had to get larger. And as they are trying to compete in a global marketplace where in many cases they are locked out because of trade restraints in these other countries, now we want to say to the American ranchers and farmers: Don't be efficient. Don't be competitive in this global marketplace. We want to take away the ability for you to be sustained in a global marketplace.

That is not good policy for any business. We don't do that in any other area of our government today. We don't say to American companies, why don't you all get small and inefficient? We don't tell them to do that. We say, get strong and efficient. And yet the Kind amendment wants to say to American farmers don't be efficient.

I urge members not to support the Kind amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kind amendment. This amendment will reduce the safety net for U.S. farmers and result in a less secure and more expensive food supply for Americans.

There has been a lot of discussion about the need for ``reform'' in farm programs. I suggest the so-called reformers out there get better acquainted with the facts:

First, the portion of spending in the 2007 Farm Bill that goes to farm commodity programs has declined by half, to 14 percent of the spending in the bill. In the 2002 Farm Bill, the share of spending for commodities was 28 percent.

Second, in 2002, commodity programs were projected to cost $94 billion over 5 years. As the 2002 Farm Bill comes to a close, actual spending will come in $21 billion less.

Finally, because spending has been lower and is projected to stay low, the cost projection for the next 10 years for farm commodity programs is down nearly $60 billion compared to 2002.

Farm programs have worked as intended, providing support when prices are low and pulling back when prices are high, as most currently are. Maintaining the farm safety net has a reasonable cost.

Farm programs are the only area in H.R. 2419 in which spending is down. On top of these reductions, the Ag Committee took the additional step of reforming farm program payment policies and crop Insurance.

The Kind amendment doesn't save any money. It simply puts what it cuts from farm programs into expanding other spending.

A final reason for not cutting these programs off: maintaining U.S. leverage in trade negotiations.

U.S. farmers' and ranchers' exports are currently shut out of markets around the world. Without a significant market access agreement in the WTO Doha round negotiations, U.S. producers will continue to be at a disadvantage. The only leverage our negotiators have to gain new market access is to offer to change farm programs.

If Congress unilaterally reduces farm programs through the Kind amendment, our negotiators' efforts to gain market access are completely undercut and will be ineffective.

Support U.S. farmers and consumers and oppose the Kind amendment.

Madam Speaker, this morning I come to the floor of this House to honor Army Sergeant Chris Davis. Sergeant Davis died Saturday defending liberty in Iraq. Serving in the United States Army was a life-long dream for Sergeant Davis. His 8 years in the Army included four tours of duty in Iraq. His devotion to America's security earned him numerous medals for his achievement, service and defense of his country.

A native of Lubbock, Texas, Chris was a brave soldier, a devoted husband and a loving father. This morning, my thoughts and prayers go out to his family: His parents, Ray and Hermina, his three sisters, his wife, Debbie, the children, Kasey, Blade, Jacob, Taylor and Dillon.

As we celebrate this Fourth of July week, may we remember the sacrifices of many that have gone before us and particularly this young brave soldier, Sergeant Davis from Lubbock, Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And I was listening to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee talking about people not following the rules, people that are avoiding their income taxes. Quite honestly, I want to bring a point up tonight that is about not obeying the rules. So I rise in opposition to this rule.

We spent a lot of time a few weeks ago talking about earmarks. Fortunately, we were successful in eliminating the secret slush funds of earmarks being reined in. So this is one of the ways we worked on controlling spending in an environment right now where the Democrats have already passed legislation that would increase spending by $50 billion this year, $20 billion in this current appropriations cycle.

But when we were talking about earmark reform, we really were only talking about 1 percent of our spending. If we are going to win the battle on spending, we have to focus on more than just earmarks.

One of the things that is very important is that we have a process in Congress. We say we are going to authorize programs, and then we say we are going to take time out and then fund them in the appropriations process. Tonight we are going to take up this bill, and it is called an appropriations bill. That is how we spend the money.

But one of the things we said in the House rules is a project or program has to be authorized before it can be appropriated. But you know what the very first thing that we do is? We say, oh, Congress is not going to play by the rules during this appropriations process. We are going to fund projects that aren't even authorized.

The American people understand the term ``authorization.'' Many of you have a credit card or a checking account. On your checking account, you have authorized signatures. On your credit card, you have authorized users. Unfortunately for the American people tonight, we are talking about using a credit card, because we are spending more money than we have.

One of the things that is an alarming number to me is it was recently reported that Congress is going to appropriate over $100 billion of unauthorized expenses. I don't think the people back in America, the people certainly back in the 19th District of Texas, think Congress ought to be spending $100 billion on programs that aren't even authorized.

Here are just a few examples of those. Tonight in this bill, for example, there is $23 billion worth of spending that is, what? Not authorized. Some of those projects are $100 million for a Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. That program was last authorized in 1998.

There is $315 million for the Election Assistance Commission. That authorization expired in 2005.

A lot of people say Congress may be just too busy to authorize these new programs. Well, you know what, if we are too busy to look at whether these current programs are relevant, whether they are efficient, or whether we should be doing them, then we are probably too busy. But by the way, we haven't been too busy to authorize just in 6 months over $600 billion in new programs.

So what we are spending money tonight on is projects that we didn't take the time to evaluate whether these projects are worthwhile and worthy of spending the American taxpayers' money on. And in the meantime, we have been very busy passing brand new programs to the tune of $228 billion, which is why this Democratic leadership is going to hand the American people a gift of the largest tax increase in American history.

If we are serious about leaving more money in the American taxpayers' pockets so that those families can pay for health care and gasoline and other things that are essential to those families, we are going to have to leave more money in their pockets, and we certainly can't do that by runaway spending. Spending money on projects that we haven't reviewed to determine whether those programs are worthwhile, relevant today, and whether some efficiencies could accrue in some of those programs and could be combined, and that we could do it better and spend less money.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of letting the American people have more of their money and against a rule that is going to appropriate money that we haven't even authorized.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, June 25, I was absent from rollcall votes 549 and 550 due to a weather-related flight delay.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 549 in favor of H. Res. 189, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a ``Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day'' should be established.

On rollcall 550 on passage of H.R. 2546, designating the Charles George Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the American taxpayers in opposition to this rule.

A couple of weeks ago we had a lot of debate on this floor about earmarks. At the end of this agreement we were able to have a process that's more open and transparent for the earmark process, and so that was a victory for the American taxpayer. However, it's worth noting that when you look at the spending, for example in 2005, earmark spending was less than 1 percent. So even though the battle was won on earmarks, the war is still on against overspending of the American taxpayers' money.

There are many causes for overspending in this country today, and one of those is the entitlement programs. Those are programs, unfortunately, that this body doesn't even get to vote on. And the fact that the new majority's budget now has an additional discretionary spending of $20 billion does not help the spending problem at all.

I would argue that Congress is failing at another very important issue as well. According to a CQ Weekly article recently, $100 billion in appropriations this year that we will make aren't authorized. Now, the American people know what ``authorized'' means. If you go down and open up a checking account, people want to know if you're authorized to sign on that account. If you get a credit card, certain people are authorized to use the credit card. I wish we were using a checking account for the American taxpayers, but unfortunately we're using a credit card.

What we're going to have in this bill today, the Interior EPA appropriations bill, is $7.29 billion that's not authorized. What does that mean? That means that the committees of jurisdiction have chosen either not to authorize this spending or to reauthorize this spending, yet the appropriation process is going to go ahead and spend $7.29 billion of the American taxpayers' money. Let me tell you where some of that unauthorized money is going to be distributed; $160 million to the National Endowment of the Arts was last authorized and it expired in 1993. The authorization for this expired in 1993. $1.8 billion of discretionary programs for the Bureau of Land Management. That authorization expired in 2002. $10.5 million for EPA State and Tribal Grants to Alaskan Native Villages. Authorization for this spending expired in 1979. These projects aren't on autopilot. In fact, there is not even a pilot in the cockpit. These are programs that no one has chosen to reauthorize in a number of years.

As Members of Congress, we're entrusted to spend the taxpayers' money wisely. Congress is supposed to continually review these policies and programs to determine, one, are they working; secondly, do they need to be improved; or, third, should they be eliminated altogether.

Get this: House rules require appropriations to go through the authorization program, yet each year the Rules Committee chooses to waive points of order authorizing spending. In other words, that means we have rules in this House to protect the American taxpayer by saying we're not going to fund projects that aren't authorized. But what is the first action that we take? We waive the rules. This is a practice

both Republican and Democratic Congresses are guilty of. However, I think it's important to point out this shortcoming as we go into this very important legislative process.

Now, some might argue, well, Congress is just too busy, doesn't have enough time to review all of these program. Well, quite honestly, if these programs aren't important enough for Congress to take the time to review them to determine whether they should be continued to be funded or if they're relevant today, we probably shouldn't be sending billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money for those programs. And to the argument, well, we're too busy, well, we haven't been too busy in the first 6 months of this Congress. In the first 6 months of this Congress we've authorized $828 billion in new programs. So if we have time to authorize $828 billion in new programs, it looks like to me we have time to go through these programs that are going to be funded today in this bill that are unauthorized.

Clearly, Congress needs to do a better job. The first thing Congress needs to do is follow the rules. These were rules that were put in place to put checks and balances on how we spend the American taxpayers' money. And so I would encourage our Members today to vote against this rule and for Congress to follow its own rules, and that is, to make sure that we do not fund unauthorized projects.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission. This commission is a perfect example of Ronald Reagan's belief that the nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this Earth is a government program.

Established more than 40 years ago, this commission has evolved into an inequitable and duplicative Federal program, yet it receives $35 million in next year's budget.

Although most of ARC funding is spent building State roads, the agency also spends tax dollars on water programs, housing projects, business development, and health care.

However, this funding is only available to 13 States. In other words, this is a bracketed bill. The ARC is a redundant layer of bureaucracy. Several other Federal agencies have similar missions as the ARC. For example, an Appalachian community applying for an economic development grant would be eligible to use 20 other programs across five other agencies and receive funding for the exact same purposes. For every ARC program, it is duplicated by another Federal program.

According to the Department of Agriculture's Web site, USDA's Rural Development Agency supports such essential public facilities and services as water and sewer systems, housing,

health clinics and promotes economic development. In other words, under the current Department of Agriculture programs, these communities could apply for these grants instead of having a separate bracketed amount of money.

At the Department of Housing and Urban Development, there is a rural housing and economic development program within the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Departments of Transportation and Commerce, for example, and even the Department of Defense, have programs whose mission is to help rural communities.

Therefore, if we were to eliminate the ARC, applicants could still apply for countless other grants from other agencies that are already providing funding for rural communities.

I represent a rural community, and so I understand the unique challenges facing rural America today. However, as we work to help communities overcome their challenges, we should do it in such a way that we are not wasting taxpayer dollars.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).

Mr. Chairman, I was going to point out exactly the point that the gentleman made about the earmarks. There is $300,000 for central Pennsylvania's largest kitchen, $20,000 to renovate an abandoned hospital for a possible visual arts center, $7,000 to place 16 poster-size vignettes in culturally significant areas in Connellsville, Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, economic development is important to all America. It is important to rural America; but what is also important to America is fiscal responsibility, keeping taxes lower.

If we keep spending money the way we are spending money now, we are going to have to raise taxes. In fact, the Democratic budget passed what is going to be the largest tax increase in American history. The government doesn't have an income problem; the government has a spending problem. When you look at the revenues over the last few years because we lowered taxes and let the American people keep their money and let the American people invest and let small businesses create jobs all across America, what happened? Well, the economy got better. What happened to tax revenues? Tax revenues are increasing at a fairly substantial rate.

What we have to do is cut spending so spending is growing at a slower rate than the revenues. That is the only way we are ever going to be able to balance our budget. I urge support of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

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

One of the things that we have to understand that we're talking about today on this floor, we're talking about a lot of different kinds of security. We're talking about energy security. We're also talking about economic security. But really the bottom line we're talking about is jobs in America.

No doubt that energy is a major issue in our country. Our energy dependence becomes a problem, is continuing to be a problem, but what we have to do is go about this in a way that makes sense.

And when we look at, yes, we need to look at additional research in certain areas and additional expenditures in other areas and nuclear, and the gentleman from Florida brought that point forward, the gentleman brings forward the fact that we're increasing things like that by 20 percent. That would be really good if we were spending surpluses, but in fact we're not spending from surpluses, and what we're talking about is deficit spending and what we're talking about is an economic future for our young men and women.

Because you see what we're on the floor here today trying to do. My colleagues and I are trying to save the American taxpayers some money, because we have a leadership on the other side of the aisle that's on a spending spree. They think they have surpluses that they're spending, and in fact we're not.

In fact, we've got a $23 billion increase. We have got these ``funny money'' accounts where we're going to come up with the money from someplace. We all know where that money is coming from. That money is going to come from the American taxpayers because they've already gone on record to say that we're going to pass the largest tax increase in American history. And the way they're going to do that is they're going to tax the rich people.

Well, let's talk about the tax structure in this country today. For example, who are the rich people? We've got 1 percent of the top wage earners in this country already paying 33 percent of the taxes. Now, the next level up, the top 5 percent, they get to pay 54 percent of the taxes, and the top 10 percent get to pay 68 percent of the taxes.

Recently, the Tax Foundation brought forth a point that I think most of us knew, and that is, that three out of every five, that's 60 percent, of America's highest income-bracket payers are small business people. Let me repeat that. Three out of every five of the people who are in the upper bracket, which is the bracket that they want to tax, are small business people.

And what do small business people do? Well, they just do something that's extraordinarily great for America. They create jobs. In fact, they're the largest creator of jobs in this country. And what we did is back in 2003 we said, you know what, we want small businesses to create more jobs, make more economic security for our young people, and so we lowered the taxes.

And what happened? Well, something wonderful. We created 7.8 million new jobs in America. And you know what creating 7.8 million new jobs in America did for us? Well, number one, we have the highest home ownership rate in the history of this country.

More people own a home today than any other time in the history of this Nation. Guess what, more people are employed than any other time in the history of our Nation.

What we have to do, the Speaker of this House stood up on the day that she was sworn in and said, we listened to the people. I don't think they were listening. If they thought the American people were saying we want more spending and more taxes, I think they misunderstood.

If the American people said anything, it is they want a government that's less, that takes less of their money, spends less of their money, lives, spends their money like government spends their money like the American people have to, they have to spend within their limits.

Yes, I will like a 2 percent increase in this and a 2 percent increase in that, but the truth of the matter is, we can't afford it. If we continue on this trend of higher taxes, bigger spending, we are going to see these job numbers begin to talk.

So when you talk about we want more energy-efficient cars, let me tell you, if we don't have anybody that can afford cars in America because they don't have jobs, then what do we need energy-efficient cars for?

Let's be sensible about our policy here. We are making a sufficient amount of commitments to many of these initiatives, but we have to do it in a commonsense way. We have to do it in a way that says, you know what, a 2 percent increase or 3 percent, maybe this program should be eliminated, because this program is not providing any dividends for the American taxpayers.

We measure, around here, what we are doing about our problem by how much money we spend on it. Quite honestly, that's how we got in the situation of these large deficits is because we keep throwing money at problems instead of standing up here on the floor of this House and debating these issues and talking about what is in the best interest of the taxpayers.

I commend the gentleman from Minnesota on his amendment and urge passage.

Offered By: Mr. Neugebauer

Amendment No. 17: Page 37, strike lines 9 through 19.

Madam Speaker, It was an honor to join the residents of Post, TX, on June 3, 2007 to celebrate the community's centennial.

As the Congressman for the 19th district, I often travel back and forth from Lubbock to the southern part of the district around Abilene. One of my favorite parts of the trip up and down U.S. Route 84 is approaching Post and looking across the caprock in the distance.

During my trips to each of the district's 27 counties, I also have developed an even deeper appreciation for many of the other qualities that make west Texas so special. Our region is home to the best people in the world who are always ready to welcome you into their hometowns.

Another quality that makes west Texas special is the strong sense of patriotism that so many West Texans possess. We see this patriotism in the great numbers of young people who volunteer to defend freedom and protect American citizens by serving in the United States military.

This tradition continues on today. It continues in the form of young men and women like Colter Creech from Post. Colter--who has the distinction of being accepted into two military service academies--will attend the United States Air Force Academy beginning this summer.

Colter is a fine example of the type of young people that come from Post and towns like it across west Texas. He is smart, patriotic, and understands the importance of serving his country. Our freedom and the freedoms of millions across the globe will depend on fine young Americans like Colter.

As the residents of Post reflect on and celebrate their history, they can also look forward to a promising future knowing that the west Texas values that have sustained their community through the years continue to do so today.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. You know, I think sometimes we get a little crass around here and we think, oh, it's just $1 million, it's just $1.2 million. But the people back in the 19th District of Texas still think that $1.2 million is a lot of money. In fact, it's their hard-earned money that we're debating on the floor of this House tonight. I think sometimes we forget that.

One of the things that I am very proud of is the fact that our economy has been growing at a very strong rate for the last few years. We found a novel idea about leaving more of the American taxpayers' money in their pocket, and what happened? The economy started getting better, more jobs.

More people today, Mr. Chairman, own a home than any other time in the history of this country. More people working today than any other time in the history of this country. And why is that? Because we're creating jobs. And who are creating those jobs? Businessmen all over this country.

And one of the things that concerns me about this budget process that we've gone down, and it's been alluded to tonight, is really what we're talking about tonight is tax increases, because we know that this budget is going to be financed with more taxes.

And, quite honestly, the people in the 19th District of Texas believe they are paying enough taxes. In fact, they believe that Congress doesn't have an income problem. It has a spending problem. And it is one that they are looking to our leadership to begin to solve. As was alluded to a while ago, you cannot spend your way out of a deficit.

One of the things that concerns me most about this budget process is, we are also going to be asked to vote on things we can't see right now, but we are going to trust somebody. In other words, what we are going to do is, we are going to be asked to vote on these appropriation bills, and then in August the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is going to tell us what we voted on.

You know what? The people in the 19th District of Texas voted to send Randy Neugebauer to the United States Congress to review legislation, review appropriations, determine whether they think that that is in their best interest, and vote on it. And they kind of think that it would be a good idea, before I voted on something, that I knew what was in that piece of legislation. But yet we are going to have appropriation bills where we are going to vote on those, and then earmarks are going to be airdropped into those bills and mysteriously are going to be revealed to all of us.

Can you imagine being in your home district and the paper calls you up and says, ``I see what you voted on.'' And you say, ``I'm sorry. I haven't read the paper this morning. I haven't seen what I have voted on,'' because the earmarks were not disclosed in the bills that we are considering. Now, I don't know about in your home district, but in my home district that doesn't make a lot of sense.

What we need is transparency here. We have a lot of very smart people in Congress, and while the chairman may believe he is a very smart person, and he may be, I don't know, but I believe that I know more about the 19th District and some of the priorities in that community than the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. And the people in the 19th District are relying on Randy Neugebauer to make sure that that interest is represented here.

Now, one of the things that we have to begin to do is to do what we said we were going to do. And this group, when they got the leadership, they ran on a platform of we are going to be more transparent, that people are going to get to see all of the spending bill at one time, that they are not going to be in pieces and parts, and there are not going to be deals cut in conference; that when these spending bills are brought to the floor of the House of Representatives, we are going to know what is in those bills. And that should be the way it is.

But now, as we get into this process, we find out that, no, that is not the way it is going to be; that we have a new rule, and the new rule is that we will let you know when it is time for you to know.

Well, you know what? The people in America think that the time for a United States Congressman to know what is in a bill is not after he has

voted or she has voted on that bill, but while and before they voted on that bill.

We said we were going to come down and bring these bills onto the floor. We were going to look at them, peruse them, that we were going to have time to look at them. And we have not kept that promise, and that is a shame. It is a shame that the American taxpayers are getting rooked with this appropriation process.

Mr. Speaker, you're going to hear a lot of perspectives today, but I wanted to give you a perspective from my friend James Clark. James wrote me this letter about stem cell research.

``In October 2004, I was involved in a car crash which has left me paralyzed from the waist down . . . Given the current technology and my condition, there is no hope of full recovery.''

James goes on to say, ``I fully support ethical forms of stem cell research. I believe, based on news accounts, that stem cells could be the key to a full recovery for me. To walk again and regain complete independence,'' would be, ``a joyous day for me and my family. I can only imagine how many American people would also benefit.

``But, Congressman, I believe there is a very dark side to stem cell research. There are those who believe stem cells should be taken from living embryos. In my opinion, the killing of an embryo for the harvest of stem cells is exactly the same as killing another human being. Under no circumstances do I wish to benefit from the stem cells that result from the harming or killing of a human embryo. No thanks, I'll stay in this wheelchair.''

Clearly, James has a lot to gain from scientific breakthroughs in stem cell research. Let's spend our money where we can get breakthroughs. Let's continue adult stem cells.

So let's focus taxpayer dollars on research that has shown promise.

Adult stem cell research, and other research that doesn't lead to the destruction of human life, have produced more than 70 treatments.

On the other hand, stem cell research on embryos has produced ZERO treatments or cures that could help James walk again.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill so that we can focus our resources on ethical and promising adult stem cell research that could help my good friend James get rid of his wheelchair.

Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Congressman Neugebauer, Thank you for letting me share my

concerns with you about a matter of great importance to

millions of Americans. The Congress debates again the issue

of stem cell research for which history, generations of

Americans to come, and God himself will judge us. For so very

many reasons it is important that we get this issue right.

In October 2004 I was involved a car crash, which has left

me paralyzed from the waist down. Further complicating any

hope of recovery, I suffer a rare form of spinal cord injury

resulting from anoxia or loss of blood flow to the spinal

cord. Given the current technology and my condition there is

no hope of full recovery.

Other people suffer conditions far worse than mine but just

to establish my background let me share with you the

following: I cannot use my legs, nor can I feel them. I

suffer DVT's (blood clots in the veins) from the lack of

mobility, lack of circulation and fragility of my legs. A DVT

can lead to stroke or death. I cannot go to the bathroom in

the normal way. I must have the assistance of catheters and

at least once a day the help of another person.

I suffer constant back pain. It's rather mild but it also

never quits. About once every two months I suffer a serious

infection of one sort or another. Sometimes it's an infection

under a toenail or sometimes it's a urinary tract infection.

One such infection was so bad and developed so quickly I was

taken to the emergency room and then hospitalized for almost

a week.

The single most painful aspect of my condition is the

embarrassment and humiliation of not having bowel and bladder

control when it leads to an accident in public. There are not

words that can describe the sense of absolute shame when this

happens and I have to be extraordinarily careful when going

to public places. Even the best-laid plans for an accident-

free public outing are not always successful.

On the whole I would have to say I'm pretty happy. I have a

lovely wife, two beautiful children, parents and extended

family who love me deeply. I have been blessed.

I fully support ethical forms of stem cell research. I

believe based on news accounts that stem cells could be the

key to a full recovery for me. To walk, to regain complete

independence, to retake my former strength and good health; I

can't tell you how joyous that would be for me and for my

family. I can only imagine how many millions of Americans

would also benefit.

But, Congressman, I believe there is a very dark side to

stem cell research. There are those who believe stem cells

should be taken from living embryos. In my opinion the

killing of an embryo for the harvest of stem cells is exactly

the same as killing another human being. Under no

circumstances do I wish to benefit from the stem cells that

result from the harming or killing of a human embryo. No

thanks, I'll stay in this wheelchair.

There are those who believe stem cells should be taken from

aborted embryos. After all they're just going to be discarded

anyway. To me that's like saying, well the Nazis did

experiments on some of the 6 million Jews. Can't we use their

notes and their lab materials to advance scientific and

medical knowledge? No, as a matter we cannot do so with a

clear conscience.

Nor can we with a clear conscience use embryonic stem cells

resulting from the harm or death of a human embryo.

I have no opposition to the use of embryonic stem cells,

which are collected in such a way as to cause no harm to an

unborn baby (which includes a human embryo or a human fetus).

I also have no opposition to the use of adult stem cells.

I fully support ethical research and I know you do too.

Thank you for this opportunity to be heard on the record,

Congressman Neugebauer. You have been a great friend to the

sanctity of human life and for that we all owe you a debt of

gratitude.

James Clark.

Mr. Speaker, I was listening with interest this evening about all of the things that are going, supposedly, not well in Iraq. So I hope to spend the next hour with some of my colleagues talking about the things that are going well. I thought it was interesting as the other side was talking about how they support our troops, and are thankful for the wonderful job they are doing, yet they have made them wait 107 days for much-needed resources to do the job that we have asked them to do.

We are going to talk about that later on this evening, of all of the things that our young men and women have

had to wait for as we have been playing a political game, or the other side, I would say, has been playing the political game, and our young men and women have been doing and continue to do the professional job that they have been doing for so many times.

I have been to Iraq three times myself, and tonight I am joined by some of my colleagues that have also been over there. We are going to talk about this war, because it's a real war. I think some people try to minimize what is going on in this global war on terrorism, but, in fact, it is a real war. We will talk about where this war is being fought. It's not just being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are also going to talk about the fact that Iraq is a central front for the war on terrorism.

Finally, we are also going to talk a lot about the progress that's being made over there. General Pace was in Congress today briefing Members on what's going on in Iraq and brought forth a very positive report in many ways.

I look forward to this time. I am certainly glad that some of my friends on the other side weren't around when we fought the Revolutionary War, because it might have been too expensive, or we might have lost too many lives. What we do know is freedom and democracy has never come cheap. It comes with a price.

We enjoy the freedoms. In fact, we enjoy the freedom to be on the floor tonight with our colleagues because of price that many have paid that have gone before us. I am very proud of them. Every time that I have had the opportunity to travel and be with our soldiers, it makes me proud to be an American.

I would like to recognize my good friend from New Mexico, my neighbor Mr. Pearce. Mr. Pearce has also been to Iraq on three different occasions. He has seen many of the things that I have been alluding to. I would ask him to talk about his perspective of what is going on in the global war on terrorism.

I thank the gentleman from New Mexico. He brought a lot of insight to this discussion tonight. There is nothing better than, if you want to see what's going on, to go to the battlefield yourself.

What I was wondering with some of my colleagues this evening is the Democrats have made our troops sit and wait for 107 days to see if, in fact, they are going to fund the very resources that they need. And I have got to wonder how demoralizing that has to be when you get up every morning and you are putting yourself in harm's way for this great Nation of America, keeping America safe, and also helping liberate and begin to bring peace and democracy to another country, and how that must feel to know that your own home country is sitting over here and playing political games while you are doing the heavy lifting.

So I have to say to the young men and women that are in harm's way tonight that I am hopeful that this Democratic leadership will finally step up and do what they should do.

Before I yield to the next gentleman, I wanted to let the American people know what our young men and women have been waiting on. In this bill that we hopefully can pass this week is $8 billion for body armor, armored vehicles, and base security surveillance. In other words, these are the things that would help to keep them safe. Yet we have to wait 108 days for the Democrats to decide that they want to keep our troops safe. That just isn't right; $2.4 billion to help use some new technology and some things that we are learning about IEDs, which is one of the things over there that has caused so much damage and death and destruction in that country and harmed and injured, severely, many of our young men and women. And yet they have had to wait 108 days for these resources, for this Democratic Congress, this Democratic leadership, to give them the resources that they need.

Another important piece of this supplemental is the fact that $2.7 billion is allocated for updating our security and our surveillance and our intelligence. Let me tell you, today in Iraq and Afghanistan and all around the world, knowing where the bad guys are is a very important piece of how we defend this country and we prosecute the war on terrorism. Yet we have had to wait 108 days and counting for this leadership to do the right thing by our young men and women.

It is my honor and privilege now to recognize a fellow Texan, a former judge, a good friend, Congressman Carter from Texas, who has also been to Iraq. I believe the gentleman has been three times, if I am correct.

Soon to be 108 days.

Well, I thank the gentleman. And you alluded to something that I want to point out, and several of our previous speakers have talked about this chart. And basically, people say, well, what's going on in Iraq? And I think what we hear is the news media portrays, well, there's a lot of fighting going on. But really what's been going on in Iraq at the same time is some nation building. And what you see on this chart is over 14,000 projects that have either been completed or are underway, and as the gentleman referred to, as some of these provinces for the first time have water. Some of them, for the first time in a long time, have electricity.

But let's get down to really talking about what's making a difference in the lives of the Iraqi people. And for the first time, young men and women are back in school again, and commerce is going on in these communities, and people are being able to live a life that's less fearful of this tyranny that Saddam Hussein would reign over his people. And so 14,000 projects, either completed or underway. And all of those green dots, and I know that it doesn't show up on the C-SPAN that well, but this map is dotted with projects.

The other thing that the gentleman brought up, and I think you're going to hear from some of the other speakers tonight, is that most of the time when we go to Iraq, we spend some time with the troops. I have meals, almost with every chance we always say to the military, we want to eat with the troops. We want to hear from the young men and women that are out there with boots on the ground what's going on.

And my most recent trip to Iraq, I was sitting with a young man, and it was one of the last, I think we were in Baghdad, and he looked over at me, and he looked me right in the eye and he said, Congressman, this is my third trip to Iraq. He said, nobody has more invested in this effort than me. Would I like to be home with my family? Absolutely. But, Congressman, go back and tell your colleagues, please let us finish this job. We are winning. We are making a difference. And it would be a true shame for us to leave this job undone and to let the Iraqi people down.

The other thing, and the gentleman alluded to, was the fact that now we've been hearing that tens of thousands of calls are coming in now to the security forces of people in the neighborhoods saying, there's some bad folks roaming in our neighborhood. They're trying to do bad things; they're trying to harm us. And so they're turning in the bad people. So the Iraqi people are buying into the fact that this is their country. They have a responsibility. They're standing up the troops.

One of the interesting things the gentleman talked about the fact that we're standing up an Iraqi Army. Every once in a while, and we know it's unfortunately, but our suicide bombers will bomb a recruitment area. And the next day, what shows up at that same

site but more recruits because they went their country back.

They've had a number of elections, and so the fact that now that the sheiks, and not just the sheiks but the people in the communities are getting engaged in this process, and what we're hearing is that now these leads are turning into being able to not only get the bad guys, but get their weapons. And hundreds of thousands of pounds of ammunition has been seized because of these tips that we're not getting from our soldiers, but from the people in Iraq.

I believe the gentleman from New Mexico wanted to make a comment about that.

I would yield to the gentleman from Texas.

And the gentleman's correct. In fact, the money that was taken out to fund the studying of global warming and intelligence was taken out of some of our more crucial intelligence areas, the intelligence that's used to help our young men and women in the battlefield know where the bad guys are before the bad guys know where they are. So that just doesn't make sense.

We're joined by some additional colleagues this evening, and certainly my good friend from Georgia, Congressman Gingrey, he's another Member that's been to Iraq three times. That seems to be the theme tonight. And I'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

And he brings a point that many of us have had to experience, and that is to make that call of condolence to a mom or a dad or to a wife.

And I thought it was interesting, one of the previous speakers talked about being in the majority means you lead. And, in fact, we have gone 107 days without the much-needed resources for our young men and women, and it took the Republicans having to write to the Speaker of the House and saying it is going to be hard for us to go back home and talk about memorializing the sacrifice our young men and women have made in the past when we aren't even funding the troops of today. So we said we are not willing to go back on a recess for Memorial Day without taking care of the business of supporting our troops.

And I am hopeful that tomorrow, and certainly before we adjourn, that the Democrats do begin to deliver to our young men and women the resources they need so that when we do go home for this Memorial Day, we can celebrate the sacrifices of the many that have gone before, that we can do it with our heads held high that we have taken care of our part of the business.

I am pleased to be joined by a new Member of Congress from Michigan, someone who has a number of military bases in his district, who also has taken a keen interest in the Walter Reed issue and making sure that when our young men and women get injured that they get 21st century care. So I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Walberg.

I thank the gentleman. And as the gentleman has said, he has been to Walter Reed with his wife; I have, also. And I think about one time I went and I was there with a soldier that had gotten a new prosthesis. He had lost part of his leg. And he said he was so proud of it. He said, Congressman, this is state-of-the-art, and I'm going to be able to walk again, and do you know what I want to do? I said, what do you want to do? He said, I want to go back and be with my buddies and finish the job that I went to do.

Those are the kind of men and women that I'm going to be celebrating during this Memorial Day weekend.

I am proud to see that a great Member of Congress from Iowa, the gentleman from Iowa Mr. King, who I know has been to Iraq on a number of occasions, and I am pleased that he has joined us this evening and would yield to the gentleman.

I am also pleased that another colleague and a fellow Texan has joined us this evening, Congressman Burgess.