Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 245 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 245 provides for the consideration of two very important bills, H.R. 1229, the Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act, and H.R. 1230, the Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act, both under a structured rule. With many amendments, all of which are Democrat amendments having been made in order, this is a very fair rule.

I commend the sponsor of the two bills, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Hastings of Washington, for his leadership in bringing both of these bills to the House.

H.R. 1229 is a bill that goes to the heart of the bureaucratic delays, which are preventing the approval of drilling permits within the Gulf of Mexico; and it modifies the standards and procedures governing Federal leases and permits in order to streamline the process, making the development of these domestic resources a reality instead of the status quo of paying lip service to drilling and then stifling drilling through bureaucratic inaction.

H.R. 1230 is a bill that would direct the sale of oil and gas leases within the Outer Continental Shelf, reversing a failed administration policy of canceling and delaying those processes.

Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 years, many Republicans have come to this floor and have sung the same refrain of ``show us the jobs.'' It was, indeed, a nice song and a catchy tune--so catchy that the minority of today seems to have been picking up on that kind of song as well. I don't expect to hear that today, or at least we ought not to hear it today, because the two bills before us under this rule are real bills that create real jobs for people.

Unlike the bills we have seen over the past couple of years which have led us to a situation where today there are twice as many workers in the government as there are in all of manufacturing in this Nation, which is an exact reverse of the situation this Nation was in in 1960, these are not going to be government jobs which attack the taxpayers and suck the money out of their wallets to fund them. These are going to be real jobs that grow the private sector, that expand the economy, that provide wealth, and that will provide, actually, millions of new government revenues coming into this country.

The situation we find ourselves in today with regard to energy is one that is detrimental to everybody. Everyone who goes to the pump to fill their cars recognizes the cost is increasing and will continue to increase. They recognize that the situation we are in puts all our jobs in jeopardy, and it is because of the inaction of this particular administration. The President has continually said that he wants to do action, to move forward, to develop American energy, but the actions of his administration have, quite frankly, failed to meet the rhetoric of the administration.

The problem has always been a fundamental flaw in our Nation's energy plan. Last May, the Deepwater Horizon accident occurred, which was a tragedy; and we must thank all of those who helped to solve that particular problem; but, unfortunately, the administration's response to that tragedy has turned it into a catastrophe and one which destroys jobs.

Immediately, a moratorium on all sorts of development was put into place. Prior to that moratorium being put into place, there were 52 approved and pending permits, and that moratorium was lifted in October; but of those 52, only 10 permits have been issued since that time. Two of them are new in deepwater and are eight of the 52 that were originally done. That means there are over 40 still approved and still stalled in what has become a de facto moratorium, caused by a foot-dragging of this administration that, what one columnist said, is moving at a glacial pace. More rigs have left our shore--12--to go to other places in the world where they are welcomed and where they are developing energy sources, where they don't have to face the red tape and the foot-dragging than have actually been approved by this administration.

A perfect example is Seahawk Drilling, a company that had over 500 jobs and 20 rigs that went into chapter 11 bankruptcy. The president of that company stated only one reason for that bankruptcy and that loss of jobs, which was the de facto moratorium of inaction done by this administration in this area in 2008 in a response to an arbitrary drilling ban that was lifted by both the President and Congress. It created a 5-year plan. Virginia was supposed to start the exploration process in 2011, but the Secretary of the Interior delayed that until 2012 and then later delayed all exploration on the Atlantic coast until after 2017.

In the Gulf of Mexico, two other sales were canceled and moved out from this year, which was when they were supposed to begin, once again into next year. It became so bad that a judge in New Orleans gave the administration 30 days to start moving on these projects, saying that what was happening by this administration was increasingly inexcusable and that not acting at all is not a lawful action.

The result of this has simply been catastrophic for jobs in America. The Obama administration has admitted in its official memorandum that, for those days of its official moratorium, 12,000 jobs were lost; but what is more significant is the de facto moratorium there. An LSU study simply said, if this were sustained for 18 months in the gulf area, there would be 24,532 jobs lost and in the Nation 36,137 jobs lost simply because of what we are not doing in the Gulf of Mexico.

It is very simple to understand how this works. Each platform that is out there drilling has 90 to 150 employees. If you add the production team as well as the exploration team, you can multiply that by a factor of four. So you have almost per every drilling up to 1,400 jobs that are tied to that particular project with $1,800 a week as the average wage.

That means for every one of those drills that is not put back into production, it is $5 million to $10 million per month per platform that is lost to this economy; and the ripple effect within the economy for our energy uses as well as jobs is, once again, staggering as this administration is, indeed, going at a glacial pace. In Virginia alone, 2,000 jobs will be estimated to be lost if the de facto moratorium that pushes everything to 2017 is allowed to take place.

Now, this action, or inaction, by the administration costs every American. It costs us at the gas pump as we see the cost of running our cars increasing almost daily, and this hurts the poor worse than anyone else. It is estimated that every American will pay $700 more this year for gasoline than least year. Obviously, those at the lower end of the economic scale are the ones who are hurt the most. For every cent that is increased in gas at the pump, that is $1 billion that is taken out of household incomes in this country; and it makes sure that Americans are then put at the mercy of foreign oil development and foreign energy sources, which may not necessarily like us, and sometimes they're just flat out bad guys.

It also has other areas in which it has affected everyone--once again, those at the lower end of the income scale the most. For every dime that diesel goes up, that is $400 million that is added to the agricultural industry, which is what we eat, which is tacked onto our food prices. You have to have oil for fertilizer. As that goes up, the cost of fertilizer goes up; the cost of running machinery goes up; the cost of food goes up; the cost of pharmaceuticals, plastics. If you go into the emergency room, everything that is not metal has some element of oil that developed it, and all of those are increasing.

Now, there are only two ways that we can handle this situation. First, you can go with the old concept of supply and demand and simply increase production, which is what these two bills are trying to do; or you can go to the approach that this administration seems to be asking us to do, which is to cut our standard of living, accept gasoline prices at the European level, and beg Saudi Arabia to be nice to us--to put our futures in the hands of OPEC and then amazingly say we can also solve these problems simply by taxing oil companies at a higher rate.

Since 2010, the domestic production of energy in this country has decreased 16 percent. In this year, next year and the year after that, we estimate, unless we make changes, that a quarter of a million barrels of oil will be decreased in our production rate in each of those years. The only area in which any energy production has been increasing is on private property. Unfortunately for this country, almost all of the energy that we have, most of the energy that we can develop, is on public lands, which is controlled by the government, which is doing nothing now to help develop that.

This is a time where pragmatism is much better than a failed ideology of restrictions. Now, what these two bills do is to simply reverse the job-killing delays that have been taking place. In H.R. 1229, it reforms the law to require leaseholders to receive permits to drill before they start drilling; and it will do it for the first time by law, not simply by a regulation. It demands that the Secretary of the Interior conduct and approve safety revenues, once again, for the first time in history.

More importantly, it ends the de facto moratorium by demanding prompt guidelines and action. It says that the Secretary of the Interior will have 30 days in which to deal with these issues and then can have up to two 15-day extensions--a total of 60 days to do the review.

Now, while that may seem to some as a quick path, it's not when you look at the history of what has been done. Before the moratorium went into effect, it was taking 5 to 15 days to do the drilling leases and permits.

One company was done in nine days just recently. What the problem is is that most of these are simply not being done simply because of inaction. It also says for those that were approved prior to the May 27 moratorium, you've got 30 days to get them going again. This is plenty of time to do the work.

It also does something else for the first time. It provides an expedited hearing process so that legal rights are not lost--they are protected--but you will not go back into a concept of a never-ending lawsuit moratorium.

In 1230, the bill recognizes that this year will be the first time since 1958 that we have a possibility of no offshore lease sales. And it wants to reverse that action to proceed promptly with the 5-year plan so that things, for example, in Virginia will be in effect within 1 year, and those that were scheduled in the gulf can be done within 1 year of the passage of this bill.

This bill simply will create billions in Federal Reserve revenues coming in, and it will create billions in our economy, and it will create jobs.

I hate to say this, but under President Obama, the cost of energy has skyrocketed. The administration has actively blocked and delayed energy production. It's cost jobs. It's raised energy prices. It's made the United States more reliant on unstable foreign countries for our energy. Through the American Energy Initiative, this House is actively working to increase American energy production to lower gas prices, to create American jobs, to generate revenue to help reduce the deficit, and to decrease our dependence on foreign energy.

The United States Government has had a long history of sporadic attempts to respond to oil and gas prices. Usually, we have missed the mark. But, unfortunately, oil is still the lifeblood of the world and will be for most of our lives. That is why 70 countries and 31 States in the United States are involved in the process. Prices are influenced by the signals that are given by worldwide circumstances and also by government policy.

These two bills are the first of several signals that this House wants to send to the world and to the economy that says our goal should be to come as close to economic and energy self-sufficiency and independence as possible. We are not an energy-poor Nation; and we need to be developing the resources in every way possible, including in the gulf, including in the Outer Continental Shelf, and including on our land sources. That is our future if we want to do anything to create jobs and help the American people. That is specifically what these two bills are aimed to do.

With such, Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule and a fair rule; and the underlying piece of legislation is entirely worthy of our support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of very quick points, if I could.

Once again, the purpose of these two bills is to start our process going towards Americans having adequate energy supplies to live their lives. And it's one of the things that you either increase production or you try to cut back. Our goal is to increase the production.

The idea that what we are doing is in some way making safety less significant is silly. There are new safety rules that have been in place. They are ready. They are prepared. They are ready to go forward.

The myth of subsidies to Big Oil is one of the things also that we need to talk about because even my fellow Democrats have admitted that the President's plan to push a tax hike on energy taxes does result in the loss of American jobs and higher taxes on independent oil and gas companies.

I love the fact that we always spin things by talking about Big Oil. But the nonpartisan Politifact.com noted that a majority of the U.S. oil production comes not from the biggest multinational oil companies but from independent firms. American production activities are dominated by these independent producers who drill 95 percent of the Nation's natural gas and oil wells, accounting for as much as 67 percent of the total U.S. natural gas and oil production.

Often we try to find some kind of straw man which to attack, and the idea of Big Oil is one of those easiest ones to do. But in reality, if those tax hikes were to go into place on production, you would not be hitting the Big Oil companies; you're going to be hitting small companies which have 100 or fewer employees, not only offshore, but on the shore as well. That is the attack.

I'm sorry. I am not validating President Obama's leadership on this issue. To me, leadership means you do something. Inaction is not leadership.

It's not the government picking winners and losers. What this administration is doing by the de facto moratorium, the inability to move forward on this issue is simply picking losers, losers in the field, losers for America, losers in jobs, and that is wrong.

This tries to get us going ahead in an area and in a way in which we can do it, we should do it, we have the capability of doing it. All we simply need to do is do it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

For the moment I will reserve the balance of my time and enjoy the spin.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), who lives in this area and understands the situation firsthand.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry). He is a member of the Resources Committee that provides a great deal of insight from his personal background.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), another great new member of the Resources Committee.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the minority is asking us to walk down a tangent issue by using negative cue words like ``subsidy,'' so let me walk down that for 30 seconds.

Please realize the U.S. oil and natural gas industry does not receive subsidized payments from the government. The word ``subsidy'' is inaccurate. Tax deductions should in no way be confused with the concept of subsidies. There are, though, tax deductions that go to all industries. Section 199, which has been talked about by the Democrats, is the domestic manufacturers'

deduction. Every industry--manufacturing, producing, growing, extracting--gets a 9 percent of earned income deduction, not a credit, except for oil and gas; but they are limited to just 6 percent. There is similarity.

They've also asked us to try and walk down a tangent in talking about safety, but the ideas of safety are codified in the legislation before us. They then say let's increase our production by raising taxes. What a non sequitur. Even if you raise taxes against somebody else and try to create some kind of straw man to attack, that is simply a non sequitur, because we do not have a tax problem in this country. We have a production problem; we have a jobs problem. These two bills go directly to that problem. They increase production and increase jobs.

We are not trying to pick winners and losers. We want the Americans to be winners, and that's what our choice is to be. These are two good bills in a time of $4 and $5 gasoline prices that are devastating jobs and our economy. These bills surely should be something that every Member should support.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of May 9 to grant a rule that could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 754, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.

Any Member wishing to offer an amendment to the bill must submit an electronic copy of the amendment and description via the Rules Committee Web site. Members must also submit 30 hard copies of the amendment, one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment, and an amendment log in form to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 12 p.m. on Tuesday, May 10, 2011. Both electronic and hard copies must be received by the date and time specified. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as ordered reported by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which is available on the Rules Committee Web site.

Members should also use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members should also check with the Office of the

Parliamentarian, the Committee on the Budget, and the Congressional Budget Office to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House and the Congressional Budget Act.

If you have any questions, please contact Chairman Dreier or the Rules Committee staff.

Thank you.

Tom Nevins, who is actually a social archaeologist, gave an interesting discussion about Ancient Central America in which he said, in 1521, Cortez led a group of Spanish soldiers to what is today Mexico City. There he found an Aztec society and an Aztec capital with 15 million inhabitants. Cortez gave simple instructions to Montezuma, II, who was in charge at that time, which was, either give us your gold or I'll kill you. For whatever reason, Montezuma gave him the gold, and then he proceeded to kill him. In fact, in the siege of what is today Mexico City, approximately a quarter of a million Aztecs died from starvation in that siege, and within 2 years the Aztec empire was totally controlled by the Spanish.

A decade later, the Inca civilization had the same thing happen to them, led by Pizarro, who, once again, said, Give us your gold or we'll kill you. They got the gold, and they proceeded to kill him. Also, within 2 years, the Inca civilization was totally dominated by the Spanish, which meant that both the Aztecs and the Incas were a highly centralized government, a highly centralized society, a highly centralized economic system, and because of that they were easy prey for a smaller but a very well-trained and well-organized Spanish Army.

By the 1680s, the Spanish moved into the deserts of New Mexico where they moved against the Apaches. There are two things that are different about the Spanish efforts with the Apaches in New Mexico. Number one, there was no gold to be taken. Number two, the Spanish lost. In fact, for almost two centuries, the Apaches were able to hold at bay the Spanish. One of the reasons they were is that the Apache civilization was very decentralized. They had tribal leaders. Yet, as the tribal leaders were either captured or killed, they just simply got another tribal leader. The greatest of all is the one whose name we probably mispronounce and call Geronimo.

As Nevin said, this Apache civilization was not loosey-goosey. They had customs; they had traditions; they had a very sophisticated society, but they also were decentralized. I am told that, in the Apache language, the phrase ``you should'' simply does not exist. Whereas, if we look at the thousands and thousands of pages that produced ObamaCare and cap-and-trade, you will find the concept of ``you should'' being repeatedly inserted over and over and over again, which means a centralized society has certain strengths and certain weaknesses. Its greatest strength is the concept of uniformity. Everyone can be coerced into doing the exact same thing at the exact same time. A decentralized society has certain strengths and certain weaknesses.

Its greatest strength is creativity, flexibility and the opportunity of its people to have options in the way they live. Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, you and probably Mr. Stutzman are wondering what I am actually doing here: I came into the wrong Special Order; like, what does this have to do with the topic at hand? I think it does have to do with the topic at hand because the idea at the Constitutional Convention was: Do we have a centralized or a decentralized society and government here in this country?

Indeed, they tried to separate powers horizontally between the three branches of government, but more significantly, and more importantly, vertically between national and State governments as a specific way of trying to make sure that we had a decentralized system of government, one that puts a greater emphasis on creativity, on flexibility and the ability to ensure that our citizens had what they call personal liberty, what I simply say are the options to make choices for themselves in the way they wish to do that.

The Founding Fathers had a great fear of control. That is why they rebelled against the British in the first place. They had a great fear of bureaucracy. It is why in the Declaration of Independence they talk about the swarms of officials who were sent here by the British Government to devour from us our substance.

Today, we have in our government a Federal Government that apparently tries to vacuum up as much power, as much money, and as much influence as possible. Our government bureaucracy today in Washington is one that is based on command-and-control style of leadership which builds a heavy emphasis on rules. And obeying the rules of procedure is far more important than just coming up with a commonsense solution to the problem which happens to be at hand. In fact, one of the questions that we have is, have we become, in essence, too big today? Have we become more centralized than decentralized? And does that give some inherent weaknesses to our society and our country that we have today? One of the things that we have to do is try and rethink this entire situation.

Tomorrow, Members of this House will be inviting legislators from around the country who are back here, and we will have a conference in which State legislators will meet with Members of Congress to discuss this very issue of what direction this country will be going in the future and to recognize very clearly that this is not an issue between the left and the right.

The idea of Federalism, of balancing powers of creativity and a less centralized government, is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It's an issue of the direction of this country, because it's about people. It's about whether people actually have options in their lives or whether they don't. And when we recognize this, it becomes apparent that the only way to make sense of the situation is to make sure that fewer decisions in Washington are allowed to be directed towards the States and local governments and that the people make more decisions in their lives.

As Justice Rehnquist said, surely, there can be no more important fundamental Constitution question than the intention of the Framers of the Constitution as to how authority should be allocated between the national and State governments. That's the battle which we still fight for and struggle with here. And it's the one in which we cannot afford, for the future of this country, to lose or to fail.

If sometimes when I was teaching school my students didn't quite understand the significance of the fall of the Aztecs or the Incas, then that was an annoyance. But if we, as Members of Congress, fail to recognize the distinction between the centralization of power and the decentralization of power, which was the very foundation of this country, that is not an annoyance. That becomes a tragedy.

I am very grateful to the Constitutional Caucus, especially Chairman Garrett of New Jersey and Representative Stutzman from Indiana, for your leadership in organizing this. I am proud to join my good friend from Colorado and, hopefully, my good friend from New Mexico as long as he does not try and change any of my story about the Apache. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

But this is important. This is one of those key issues. This is one of the quintessential issues that will define where we go, either forward to a brighter future or forward into a less secure and more dangerous future. And I appreciate being able to be a part of it. I thank you for allowing me to be here for a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow for morning-hour debate and 11 a.m. for legislative business.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 186 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act, sometimes called the SOAR Act, with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Further, this proposed rule will make in order all of the amendments filed at the Rules Committee for H.R. 471. Admittedly, it was only one amendment, but it is made in order, and it is offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). This is an amendment that was presented in the committee and defeated on a 12-21 vote, but which will be reoffered here today as a substitute measure. In short, this rule is about as fair as they potentially get.

Madam Speaker, this is a very open, straightforward rule that we will be considering today, and I am pleased to stand before the House in support of this rule as well as the underlying legislation, H.R. 471. I commend the sponsor of this legislation, the distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who has previously served as chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, and he understands education issues very, very well.

Madam Speaker, when the Cubs in the 1960s hired Leo Durocher to be their manager, he was hired 2 years after they finished the season 49 games out of first place. In his short period of time there, he would take them to the top, in which case, in 1969, a year that still hurts, the Cubs were atop the National League for 155 days. Unfortunately, 7 of those days they were not on top included the last day of the season.

But Durocher always said for his team that ``I make a great effort to argue for the issues, but there are two things that are working against me: the umpires and the rules.''

There will be a lot of people--some people--who will speak against this motion, perhaps even this rule, and there are two things against them: One is the unique constitutional relationship between Congress and the District of Columbia that is not there, vis-a-vis the States; and, number two, the underprivileged kids who benefit from this underlying bill.

If I were to predict a preview of what will be taking place in the debate, not only on the rule but also on the bill itself, I would predict four themes will be appearing time after time after time.

One will be the concept of the constitutional mandate that is here. When this Republic was established, the Constitution gave unique jurisdictional responsibility to Congress over the District of Columbia. That is not going to be a violation of their home rule concept, but it is a responsibility of Congress. And there is great precedent for this particular kind of provision.

In 1996, it is Congress that insisted upon a charter school program in the District of Columbia. You will hear from both sides of the aisle recognition of the great value that that program has, and justifiably so. There is a waiting list in the District of Columbia for those charter schools. This underlying bill increases the percentage of funding going to charter schools in the District.

In 2003, an Opportunity Scholarship was instituted, at the insistence of Congress. Again, there was a waiting list of people wanting the opportunity; disadvantaged kids who wanted the opportunity that this scholarship afforded them. In the appropriation bill for 2010, unfortunately, Congress intervened again in a negative way and cut out this Opportunity Scholarship program. There were a lot of upset students and parents who couldn't believe how special interest politics got in the way of their son's or daughter's dreams and was snatched from their very hands. Their opportunity to make what they believe were better educational choices was basically taken away from them.

H.R. 471 remedies this inequity. There were 216 kids at the time scheduled to enter the program who were not allowed because of the action of that particular appropriation bill. Those 216 kids, by this particular legislation, will be given priority in once again being able to apply for this Opportunity Scholarship.

A second discussion point that will be coming up repeatedly deals with the efficacy of these programs. There will be conflicting data that will be thrown from both sides as to the effectiveness. But I think the one piece of information that can be clearly stated is that 91 percent of the kids enrolled in this Opportunity Scholarship complete their coursework. That is 21 percent higher than a control group of kids who were interested but were not allowed the opportunity to complete this particular program. That completion rate is almost 32 percent higher than the regular completion rate of kids in the public education system in Washington, D.C.

To quote Dr. Patrick Wolf, who was the lead investigator of the evaluation mandated by Congress of this program, he concluded by stating: ``The research evidence and the testimonials of parents confirm that the District of Columbia is a better place because of the Opportunity Scholarship program.''

The third issue that you will be hearing deals with the support of this particular program. There will be dueling statistics that will be coming at you during the course of the debate. Those in favor of the bill will give lists of groups who are in favor of this particular program. Those against the bill will give lists of groups and unions who are opposed to it. Each side will give a list of political leaders both within Washington, D.C., and outside who are in favor; and those opposed will give lists of political leaders who do not support this program.

There will be poll results that will be given from both sides, the most recent of which will be given by advocates, a Lester & Associates poll, which simply says 74 percent of the D.C. residents polled supported this program and wanted it restored and made available to all D.C. students for all their abilities to participate. You will hear polling data to the contrary. You will hear anecdotal stories to the contrary.

Perhaps the most telling, though, issue of support deals with parents and the kids in Washington, D.C., who lined up for this program; who went on waiting lists for the opportunity to become involved in this program; who cried and pled with Congresses past when this program was eliminated. They clearly do not want this program to totally be destroyed because it takes away from them their chance, their option, their opportunity to individualize and upgrade their educational opportunities.

This program probably has a philosophical basis, a kinship, if you would, with the Pell Grant, the GI Bill of

Rights, in which, once again, government tried to empower with choices with few strings attached individual adult students or parents so they could choose their own personal education future. That's what this bill still tries to do.

The final concept that will probably be presented during debate on the rule as well as the bill deals with the concept of liberty. We have a Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor. The Revolutionary War was supposedly fought for the purpose of preserving personal liberty.

I have to admit, though, as I was teaching school that it was difficult for my kids there to really comprehend what liberty meant. It was an abstract noun, to say the least. The Founders clearly understood what that concept meant as they looked upon a government that was far, far away from them. And in the Declaration of Independence we're willing to write that the government far away has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eke out their stance. Indeed, they had waged war against them. Those of us who live in the West today have the Department of the Interior to remind us of those same circumstances.

But the kids, mainly in urban and rural settings and suburban settings, still have a problem understanding what it means really to have liberty until you try and talk about liberty in terms of choices. Options, opportunity, without the heavy hand of a government official defining what those options and opportunities may or may not be.

The entrepreneurial world gets it. They realize if they want a market share, they have to give people choices in their lives. So if I want a mobile phone, there are all sorts of plans from which I may choose. Even in the smallest corner market in Washington there are still a whole row of breakfast cereals from which I may choose. I may want Pringles potato chips, but they still give me 16 varieties. If indeed Omaha Steaks sends me an invitation every week to try and come up with one of their products, I will choose this week to order one that fits for me.

Only in Washington in this government do you still have people that truly believe in a one-size-fits-all approach and that mandates can actually be worked, that believe and go back to the concepts of Henry Ford when the automobile was so unique he could with a straight face look at a consumer and say, You can have a car in any color you want as long as it is black.

Unfortunately, many of the ideas and philosophies still in government today, indeed some of the programs still in government today, were born in that era in which the idea of an elite sitting in some darkened office would decide what I wanted and what was indeed best for me. That's liberty.

The icons who face us in this Chamber, all of them were related in some way of moving the concept of law forward, which led to the concept of liberty. This bill is based on that concept of choice, opportunity, and options for people. It deserves our support because it is an opportunity. Call it an education app for Americans living in the District of Columbia. The most needy and deserving can actually have their choice of how they want their education to take place and it is done under the sphere of responsibility given to Congress by the Constitution.

This bill is worthy of our heritage. It is a symbol of our legacy. One can only assume that the Founders, indeed the icons that are looking down from the perch above us, are smiling now, saying, Congress doesn't always do it correctly, but this time with this bill they got it right.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of being here, and I also appreciate being here with my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who is one of the true delights with whom I have such an opportunity to work here in Washington.

I guess, if he is saying that we have the group du jour from whom we are presenting bills, today's group du jour would be those who are financially disadvantaged and still want a better opportunity for education.

As I said, there would be four issues that would be discussed. We can check off three of the four already. Only the concept of ``liberty'' has yet to be addressed here. Some of them may be non sequiturs, but they were still there nonetheless. I guess the last statistic that still can be put out there as to whether this program works or not deals with the parents who, when the free market of ideas was opened up to them, they chose this program. They wanted this program. They wanted to maintain this program, and they will flock back to it.

Since my good friend Mr. Hastings also used a baseball reference to tie me, I have to one-up him one more time. In the words of the great Satchel Paige, who was consulting a struggling pitcher who was failing to get it over on the corners, he just said, Throw the pitch. Just throw strikes. Home plate don't move.

This program is one of those strikes. All we need to do is throw it. Home plate don't move.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Again, Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to be here and also be joined my good friend from Colorado, whom I should probably publicly apologize to for saying disparaging things last night. I screwed up and I apologize for that.

However, he presents to us an unusual conundrum that is here on who gets to decide what will or will not be allowed. Whatever we do in this unique situation, the decision will be made. If we pass the underlying bill, we empower parents in Washington, D.C., to make a choice. If we don't pass the underlying bill, we prohibit parents in Washington, D.C., from making that kind of choice. Once again, when they were allowed to make that choice, they had a waiting list for those wishing to participate. It's a conundrum whatever we do, yes or no. It makes a decision on behalf of the people of Washington, D.C.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, again, I appreciate the opportunity of discussing this particular issue.

There is one effect where the Delegate from the District of Columbia does have something in common with the State of Utah. Over 70 percent of my land is owned by the Federal Government in Utah, and it is one of those factors that inhibits our ability to fund our education system in the State of Utah. The District of Columbia has that same initiative problem with so much of the land owned by the Federal Government.

The difference, though, is that this program is giving Federal money to the District of Columbia to fund not just the scholarship opportunity but also increased funds to fund their charter schools, as well as funds to fund the regular public education system. In that respect, I wish we were very similar to what's happening in the District of Columbia, but unfortunately we are not.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time so I can find another baseball metaphor.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am not objecting at all to the concepts and the comments about Chinese trade. I think that's a legitimate issue. It has its time and place, perhaps not necessarily on this particular bill. But as an approach that the opposition, the minority, wishes to take, I can understand that.

I do, though, have my baseball analogy still here, and I'm not going to count the DiMaggio joke because that was made up. That was not a true one. But it is true that Casey Stengel at one time, talking about I think one of the best second basemen ever, Bobby Richardson, said: I just can't understand it. He doesn't smoke, he doesn't drink, he doesn't stay out at night, and he still can't hit .250.

Now, even though a healthy lifestyle may extend a career, it still has no ability or connection to the ability of hitting a curve ball. But those kind of non sequiturs are part and parcel of the entire debate that we will be having not just on this rule but also extended on to the other debate as well.

I find it personally very difficult to understand why anyone would oppose this bill, which only expands choices for D.C.'s brightest and least financially blessed schoolkids and does not subtract from school funding for D.C. public schools. In fact, it increases funding while keeping within Federal budget disciplines. It increases the percentage of money going to the charter school program as well as to the public schools. This is a win-win-win situation because it sends money to three distinct efforts: the regular public school; the charter schools, which have a waiting list more than ever before; and also this Opportunity Scholarship Program, which had a waiting list and will again as well.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left?

I will yield 10 minutes if the gentleman from California wants it. Otherwise, I will be happy to use what he does not use.

Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time, and I will tell the gentleman from Florida that I am prepared to close when he is.

Once again, I appreciate the discussion, I appreciate my good friend from Florida if for no other reason that all of a sudden people are now sending me baseball stories and analogies here. I have one from Casey Stengel which I will save for the next time we join together here on the floor.

Madam Speaker, it is fairly clear what we are dealing with in this particular bill. This is money that is within our Federal budgetary discipline. We are talking with this bill about money that would go to the traditional public education system in the District of Columbia, an equal amount of money that would go to the charter schools which does have a waiting list here in the District of Columbia, as well as money that would go to this new opportunity scholarship.

Once again, with our dueling statistics, whether one wants to say that it was successful or not, the bottom line is still there were parents who wanted that program, there were parents who complained when the program was taken away from them by Congress, and there are parents who still want this program reestablished. They want those options for their children.

We have a choice here. If we act favorably on this bill, we empower those parents. If we refuse to act favorably on this bill, then we limit those parents and the choices that they seem to want. That is one of those issues that is there.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate the fairness of this structured rule. I urge its adoption, along with the underlying legislation. I urge members to support this rule which will allow the House to consider good legislation that affords bright and competitive D.C. students with an enhanced opportunity to pursue a higher quality of education while not harming the underlying public education system in the District of Columbia.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 186 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

639) to amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify

that countervailing duties may be imposed to address

subsidies relating to a fundamentally undervalued currency of

any foreign country. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.

All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this

resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 150 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a modified open rule for the consideration of H.R. 830, the FHA Refinance Program Termination Act. It provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services, and for consideration of any amendments proposed by Members that conform to House rules and which were preprinted in the Congressional Record no later than March 9, today.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to stand before the House today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 830, the FHA Refinance Program Termination Act.

I appreciate the hard work of the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Bachus, as well as the hard work of the bill's chief sponsor, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold), in creating this piece of legislation which will help this Congress continue to take concrete steps to rein in the out-of-control Federal mandatory spending.

The FHA Refinance Program was originally promoted by the current administration as a way to bail out the so-called underwater borrowers who for whatever reason found themselves in over their heads in personal and mortgage debt and unable to pay their mortgages.

The 110th Congress passed TARP, which was enabling legislation for this new program, thereby effectively allowing lenders to transfer high-risk mortgages, through the FHA, onto the backs of taxpayers in the case of likely default. The $8 billion in TARP funds was originally identified for this new expansive program.

While no one likes to see homeowners in distress and at risk of losing their homes, the fact of the matter is that this new program, no matter how well intentioned, is expensive and has also proven to be a woefully ineffective program at its best.

Originally it was asserted by the administration that this program would allow up to 1\1/2\ million homeowners or, as some reports in the papers said, 3 million to 4 million distressed homeowners to obtain more favorable mortgage terms, all guaranteed by U.S. taxpayers in case of ultimate default.

However, Mr. Speaker, there are several problems with this new mortgage bailout program.

First, in some and perhaps in many cases, this program would subsidize irresponsible lenders and borrowers and insulate them from the consequences of bad choices and, in some cases, intentionally speculative financial choices that were made during the housing boom, thus shifting the economic impact of those bad choices and decisions onto the backs of responsible homeowners and the taxpayers. This is troubling, for this should not be the role of the Federal Government-- to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.

While homeownership in this country is certainly to be encouraged, this program is exactly the wrong way to go about it. The program basically tells a lender, Don't worry, it's okay. So what if you knowingly encouraged or lent more than you knew the borrower could afford? We'll bail you out of your predicament so you don't have to feel any of the economic consequences of your actions. The program tells borrowers, So what if you took out the maximum loan and got the most expensive house that you could buy even though you knew it was highly unlikely that you would be able to afford those payments in the future. We will bail you out too and insulate you from the consequences of actions as well, and we'll shift all the costs and send the bill, via the FHA, onto the backs of the already overburdened taxpayers.

That's apparently where the buck stops in this program. It stops on the back of already burdened taxpayers and the Nation that itself is $14 trillion underwater in a crushing and unprecedented debt.

Second, it appears that in spite of the urgent housing crisis, this so-called emergency program to bail out underwater mortgages hasn't actually helped anyone. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development statistics, as of February 3, only 44 refinancing applications have been processed by the agency. That's 44 homeowners out of the potentially 3 million to 4 million as originally asserted by the program's sponsors. Mr. Lamar Wooley, a spokesman for HUD, was quoted in a National Journal Daily article last week as saying ``the department has not yet spent any of the money for the FHA program.''

Even the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program testified before the Financial Services Committee last week that it was ``somewhat shameful'' how the administration has mishandled this program. Those are his words, not mine. And, finally, FHA Administrator Stevens also testified before that committee last week that ``these new loans may perform worse than refinanced loans that were not previously underwater.'' In other words, Mr. Stevens' statement indicates that many new loans made under this program for underwater loans are far less likely to be repaid, which will weaken the FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund, hurting other taxpayers and other potential homeowners and exposing them to an even higher risk.

As a result, this program privatizes profit, socializes losses, and at its foundation, this program appears to be built on a misguided economic principle of income redistribution, leaving other taxpayers and future generations to hold the bag with interest.

In testimony before the Rules Committee yesterday, it was mentioned that the private sector, the private mortgage industry, has on its own and without any interference by the Federal Government worked with troubled borrowers to refinance over 3 million loans in order to keep these homes from foreclosure.

So there clearly appears to be a far more effective private sector solution to this crisis than to inject a layer of Federal Government regulation and spending through this expensive program.

We must have the courage to admit when a program is ineffective or too expensive or based on wrong-headed principles of subsidizing personal greed and irresponsibility. With our Nation itself underwater with monstrous debt, passage of this bill to terminate this expensive and ineffective program is a step in the right direction.

It's a good and fair rule. It opens it up for anyone to have access to this bill, and a good underlying bill, and I urge their adoption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of this bill who has found a program that flat-out doesn't work, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

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

I appreciate listening to the gentlewoman's discussion of the bill actually at hand, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I close with some trepidation, as I heard the debate today about continuing resolutions, health programs, teachers, gas prices, and capital gains. But let me risk something and actually talk about the bill at hand.

First of all, it's an impeccably good rule, which allows an open amendment process for anyone who wants to think through an amendment and prefile it. Not a gotcha amendment, but a real amendment to this bill. It's a good way of handling the situation on the floor. I am very proud of the Rules Committee for presenting this type of a rule.

Secondly, you have heard from the sponsor of this piece of legislation the details that are required of this particular program, which discourages those from actually using it. So that the CBO would say that if we continue this program, which is not actually attracting any takers, it would cost the Federal Government at least $175 million in failed mortgages, defaulted mortgages.

In addition, this is one of the programs that we are talking about mandatory spending, not discretionary, but actually doing something about mandatory spending. And in the terms of the Inspector General, this program has failed. We can do better. And as a government we ought to do better than this poorly planned, poorly executed, underutilized, and very, very expensive failed program.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be here and be part of this significant issue.

In the Constitution it says that certain things are self-evident. And what are the things that were self-evident in the Declaration of Independence? I have to get words right, don't I? In the Declaration of Independence there are things that are self-evident. And what was self- evident is that all men are created equal in a political sense. And because of that, because all men are equal, the Creator has given us certain inalienable rights.

And then it goes on to say the next step in that process is once you have those inalienable rights, it is the purpose of government to secure those rights. That's what we are talking about here, that within the concept of our country, which was written and established in the brilliant prose of Thomas Jefferson, every individual has an innate-- almost divine--worth within them which signifies that they all have certain rights that are there from the Creator.

In England, those rights were established in law starting with the Magna Carta and then building on, so that at the time of our country's founding, everyone knew what the rights of Englishmen were. Our Revolutionary War was not about taxes being too high. It was, not as some revisionist historians will say, about impressment of colonials into the British Navy. It was about the rights of Englishmen which were being denied British subjects living in America at the time. That's what they argued about. That's what in Philadelphia they were talking about is the denial of those individual rights which are basic to all people because we all have that spark of divinity and we have those inalienable rights.

That's why as part of the debate that was established there was an exchange in which Benjamin Franklin took part in which he was talking with another person that said, there are more important things in life than simply having our rights protected. The fact is we are British citizens. To which Franklin then said, to be called a British citizen without given the rights of a British citizen is like calling an ox a bull. He is grateful for the honor, but would much rather have restored what was rightfully his. That's the key element to which we were talking here. With that, the Constitution was written as a fortification of those individual rights and freedoms.

And it is the purpose of limited government to protect those individual liberties. The Constitution created limited government, the purpose of which was to protect our individual liberties.

Now as I try and talk to my old students to try and sometimes define the term ``individual liberties,'' because it becomes somewhat vague in the minds of people, I look at individual liberties as the concept that individuals have choices in their personal lives. It is not the role of government to pick winners and losers in society, whether that be socially or economically. That is our rights as individuals.

It is the right to have choices in my life. You know, I look around the world in which we are, and it seems like all the time I am given choices and options, even when I don't want them. I can pick a cell phone plan from a myriad of options that are there. If I want a breakfast cereal, there is a whole row of choices that are there. Even if I want Pringles potato chips, there are 16 kinds of varieties for me.

The entrepreneurial world has understood that people in America want choices and options. That's their liberty. It is only government, especially here in Washington, that seems to see that one size fits all and mandates so that the government chooses winners and losers rather than allowing that

for individuals. It is only us it seems who have not learned what is yearning within the soul of all Americans that they understood when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and then formalized the Constitution of the United States.

I wish to quote someone here, and I don't know who actually wrote this, but it is brilliant so I am going to claim that I said it: In the first 150 years of this country, under the Constitution, we can sum up in the following way. In the early years of this country, measures to expand government's power beyond those enumerated in the Constitution rarely got out of Congress because they were stopped by the objections in that branch. Constitutional objections in Congress.

Members of Congress actually debated whether they had the power to do whatever it was that was being proposed. They didn't simply assume they had the power and then leave it to the courts to check them, Congress took the Constitution and the limits it imposed on congressional action seriously. Then when constitutionally dubious bills did by chance get out of Congress, Presidents vetoed them not simply on policy but on constitutional grounds. Indeed, the first six Presidents thought the veto was supposed to be used only for constitutional purposes. And finally, when that brake failed, the courts stepped in. In short, the system of checks and balances worked because the Constitution was taken seriously by a sufficient number of those who had sworn to uphold it. We seem to have forgotten that in probably the last 60, 70, maybe even 100 years.

If I can give a religious reference, at some time the children of Israel, as we read in the Old Testament, wanted to have a king so they could be likened to all other nations. They went to the prophet who tried to dissuade them, but they were insistent that they have a king to be likened to all other nations, so the king could do marvelous things. And, indeed, they had a king. And the first kings did great things. They unified a nation; they built a beautiful temple. But ultimately, those kings became the millstone around the neck of the people that brought them down to destruction.

We have a change that took place almost 100 years ago where people decided to change what the Federal Government was designed to do. It is not that they did not understand the Constitution. They understood it perfectly; they just didn't like it because it prohibited us from doing marvelous things. We have now run through almost two generations, three generations of individuals under a system of government in which we look not to limit what government does to protect individual liberties, but to try to make sure that government does those marvelous things. We have come to a period of time where economically and socially we are now in a period of distress simply because we forgot the original foundation of this country, the purpose of the Constitution, the joy and brilliance of limited government whose sole purpose should be to protect individual liberties, not for government to do marvelous things.

If we restore ourselves to that purpose and reinvigorate the concepts for which this country was established, which I do believe to be the concepts of federalism and limited government here, then indeed we have a chance of restoring this country and solving our problems. If not, we face very dark and difficult times indeed.

For the first 150 years, they understood that. They acted that way. We can do the same thing again. We have the same spark of divinity within us that they had back then. We can do it; we should do it.

I thank you for this opportunity of being here. I know you have other speakers who will speak on this particular issue far more eloquently than I, and I yield back to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Chairman, the map you see in front of you is not the coverage area for Verizon. Everything that is red on this map is land that is owned by the Federal Government. One in every 3 acres in America is owned by the Federal Government and as you can clearly see it is disproportionate here in the West.

This of course is the gentlewoman from Ohio's region. This is my district. And until such time as my district resembles her district, in the ability of us to control our future and our resources, payment in lieu of taxes is not welfare to the West, it is simply rent on the land that you control; until such time as the Secretary of the Interior's decision--which the Inspector General said was capricious and arbitrary--does not destroy 3,000 jobs in a county with only 31,000 inhabitants; until such time as $1.9 billion in investment leaves the West to go to the East where there are fewer regulations; until such time as somebody from the East who comes to frolic in the public lands of the West and consumes the entire county's search and rescue budget in 1 day, until that is changed, PILT is not welfare, it is rent on the land you control.

I want you to look carefully at this map. See where the red is. Then I also want you to look at this particular map. States in red are the States that have the hardest time funding their education system. That is the slowest growth in education. I hope you realize there is a similarity between the two particular maps. Because the bottom line is, individuals in the West pay more in State and Federal taxes than in the East. There are more kids in the West. We have larger class sizes in the West. Our education system has a harder time to fund itself in the West because this map prohibits us from developing our property taxes, developing our energy royalties, developing high-paying jobs with income taxes, so kids are hurt in the West. This map and this situation means that kids are underfunded.

Kids in the West, their education is underfunded, their teacher salaries are depressed, and my retirement is threatened because of this particular situation. When this changes, there will be no more need for PILT. But until that time comes, this is not welfare; this is rent on the land you control. To be honest, we'd rather have the land back, but until that time, pay for what you control.

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

Mr. Chairman, the NLCS, which is a redundant administrative system, was codified by legislation. In the 110th session of Congress, the House passed an amended bill which went over to the Senate and died. In the 111th session, the Senate picked up that bill, stripped all the House amendments off and put it into the omnibus lands bill where, without any hearing or debate, it was hidden in the bowels and sent over to us where, once again, we had no hearings, limited debate, none of which was on this particular system.

This redundant system, since I have introduced a resolution to try and streamline the Department of the Interior by streamlining those functions, I have heard some of the most amazing accusations of what would happen if we were to indeed do that, everything from having the sun come up in the west to the immediate beginning of the Mayan calendar.

With the time that we are at right now and with the further indication that during this session our committee will definitely review this particular administrative system for further investigation, I would ask, with permission of the Chair, to withdraw the amendment.

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

Now, we have heard a lot about this particular fund and the difficulty it has and some exaggerations as to where it actually goes, what it actually does.

The problem is severalfold, one of which is that since 1994 there has been no clearinghouse of information. We do not know what has been funded. We do not know what has been used. We do not know what has been abused. And repeated requests to try and find that information have fallen on deaf ears.

In this CR, which is for a limited time, this particular provision would, once again, as I heard other people saying yesterday, raise attention to this issue and give someone a reason to actually give that information.

It is estimated in the last 15 years there have been around 1,100 lawsuits, and that doesn't even include administratively brought actions that go before Interior Land Boards, and within the Forest Service. So all of those are part of the situation.

I heard some great speeches about how this would hurt poor people. And he's actually right, except you're not looking at who are the poor people who are hurt with the current situation.

Under the way this is administered correctly, any nonprofit, regardless of the amount of money they have, is eligible for these funds. But a for-profit individual, these poor farmers you're talking about, if they have over $7 million in net worth, which means a farmer, a rancher who is land rich and cash poor, have several options. They can just sit out and hope something happens for them, or they can put money out of their own pocket to try and force their way into this particular situation.

Let me tell you how this has been abused. I'll go with one case that took place in Federal courts in Idaho in which there was a settlement. No one was right. No one was wrong. They came to an agreement. And yet, even though that settlement which represented no admission of fault on behalf of the government or what it did, the environmental special interest lawyers were given $43,000 in attorney fees under this proposal, under this program. And we don't know if that's just the top, or the tip, of the iceberg or how far it particularly goes.

This is simply an element that we have. We have an unfair balance of who is available to get these funds. We have an unfair balance of what happens if someone prevails, and we have an unfair balance if certain groups get paid with taxpayer money, even though they didn't win the case, even though the government did nothing wrong.

This system is broken; and this is a good amendment to say, all right, for the rest of the termination of the CR, we're not going to spend any more funds in a system that does not work, and we're going to demand some transparency so we can make some changes. This halts spending only for a short period of time till we can find out who was given what and what was spent from whom and to whom. And that's the point of the amendment. I urge everyone to support it.

I yield back.

Offered By: Mr. Bishop of Utah

Amendment No. 515: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, last year the Senate and House Western Caucus produced a document that was entitled the War on Western Jobs, in which we discovered 10 areas in which regulations from this administration and past administrations have created specific problems and specific loss of jobs to the West.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has said that the West has the highest regional unemployment for the past year; that, indeed, six of the top 12 States that had the largest decline in employment-to-population ratio since the recession began were found in the West. Three of the top five States showing the most stress were found in the West, and Washington's misguided policies were making the matter worse. Whether it was in the areas of energy

use, takeover of water, domestic energy mandates, prioritization of species, multiple use on national forests, overregulating, seizing Western lands, bureaucratic overreach, all 10 of those areas illustrate the problems that we face in the West.

In Western public lands, it is essential to have a resource management plan. It is an effort where professionals on the ground were able to come up--in the case of Utah after 6 to 10 years of planning-- following the law, including the public process to come up with a policy and procedures for our plans, all of which have been turned upside down by arbitrary regulations coming out of the Interior Department here in Washington.

Let me give you simply two examples: an arbitrary decision that made a restrictive new regulatory framework for U.S. oil shale. The U.S. Geological Survey said in a 16,000-square-mile area of Utah, Wyoming, and parts of Colorado, they estimate at least 2 trillion barrels of oil shale--that is equal to what Canada is enriching themselves through their tar sands proposal--were available and experimental programs were moving forward until a regulation stopped it. The estimate: a potential loss of 100,000 jobs and $1.9 trillion to the GDP of this country was lost in that particular project.

The day after the last day of our lame duck session, the Secretary of the Interior, using questionable authorities, created a new or announced a new wild land policy which, once again, stopped those management plans in their tracks.

The result of that, let me simply give you one example: one company in two counties of my State, having 300 high-paying jobs, that had been working for 3 years with leasing and environmental review process with the BLM, within hours of that wild lands announcement, special interest groups recommended the area they were working being managed as wild lands; and their leasing process was delayed indefinitely for a potential wild lands inventory, despite the fact that this entire area consists of 800 drill holes with cement casings, roads, man-made Earth berms, and every other sign of man that would be prohibited if it was a wilderness designation.

Local governments desperately need those management plans because they provide the consistency for business to understand that.

Once again, in the West, thousands of jobs have been lost. Millions of dollars that should be going to schools on trust lands have been lost. Billions in capital investment have been lost because of this war on the West through regulation. It's time to end the war. It's time to help the people out. I look forward to this process.

Thank you, Mr. Kildee. I appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, the young men and women who are standing behind the bar and at the back of our Chamber here today are great young men and women who have served us well over this past semester. We appreciate you. Both Ms. Keating and Ms. Sampson have said this is probably the best behaved group of pages we've ever had. I don't know if you want to take it further than that, but you have done a great job and we appreciate you.

I thank the gentleman from Missouri for allowing me to have some time here, and I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Ohio illustrating what happens in the States. I think oftentimes we should be looking to the States as an example of what does and what does not work, and we can emulate those concepts here in Washington.

You are right, as you initially said, we have a severe budget problem. There are really only two ways of trying to reconcile that budget problem: We can either raise taxes or we can cut spending.

I think it is interesting to look at some other States. Cal Thomas had a wonderful article this morning--maybe it was last night--that talked about comparing what other States have done. So we see the State of Illinois, another midwestern State whose solution to their problem was to raise the personal income tax 67 percent and their corporate tax rate by over 46 percent.

Sixty-seven is what I heard, and 46 percent on corporate taxes. And let's face it, corporate taxes are paid by consumers anyway. So you get hit with it coming or going.

You can compare that with what other States have done, like the neighboring State of Indiana or Wisconsin, Virginia, New Jersey, my home State of Utah, which decided to solve their problem simply by reducing their spending. I am told that Indiana, since 2004, reduced spending by 40 percent.

And it will be interesting to see if the Illinois experience will replicate what happened in Indiana and those other States I listed, and my gut guess is it probably will not.

But when we instituted income tax for the first time in this country, the statute that did that would cap the maximum rate of income tax at 2 percent, even though we only applied a 0.5 percent income tax. I think if people would look at their paychecks today, they would see it slightly different from that original time.

It is alarming, but that is actually accurate. As we found out in that experience, the best tax is, obviously, something paid by somebody else. It was estimated when that original income tax was in place that 80 percent of it would actually come from only four States. Apparently, four States were fighting it, and the rest of the States kind of liked it.

Unfortunately, there was--and I'm not impugning anybody here--a Representative from Missouri at the time who actually did say that a new dawn has broken with this new income tax and that, actually, the government would be more careful with people's money now that we are taking it directly from them than in the past when we simply ran government by taxes coming from tariffs or land sales.

That certainly does not represent your thinking anyway.

What happened is, within a short period of time, using World War I as the excuse, that top rate was not at 2 percent or at 5. It was at 75 percent. Now, what we found out is the actual amount of money coming into the country was in a decline, not in an incline.

So, when President Coolidge came into power and initiated the first tax cuts by reducing the rates across the board, the amount of revenue coming into the country actually increased. The same thing happened when President Kennedy tried it, President Reagan, and President Bush, because what we found out was that people with money are not stupid. They had money for a reason and that it was not that they were avoiding their taxes. They had just found an alternative way of investing--in the case of World War I, it was a lot of municipal funds that were going in there that were not taxed--or they simply did not invest their money. They sat on it until such time as they actually had control of their money again.

So the bottom line here is, if we look at the tax pot, or proposal, as a way of solving our problem, all we do when we allow taxes to increase is allow Congress to actually spend more.

It's like going on a diet, which I desperately need. I may change my diet to my only eating good food; but if I eat a whole lot more of good food, it's not going to really solve the problem. There is another problem, too, that goes onto the spending side, which is I can actually be full and malnourished at the same time. If I only eat potatoes as a diet, I may be full; but I'm not helping my body.

When we look at the spending side, which is really the only option that we have, and when we don't look at it in a way of looking at how we are spending, all we're doing is malnourishing us. All the CRs we passed last year, without actually doing a real budget or a real appropriations act, may have flat-lined our spending, but it didn't help us out. It was like eating potatoes all the time, which in moderation are good; but if that's the only consumption you have, we are making serious problems.

Well, so am I, and I have to admit I love potato chips; but, yes, that's where we're going.

What we need to do is, I think, what this Congress is looking at, which is to try and readjust what we are doing and look at our spending levels, which is why 2008 spending will be a starting point to adjust and look at what we are doing. We have to look at our spending in prioritization so we're not just spending everything. We have to look at what our responsibility as a government is, and we have to look at the spending side seriously.

As the gentleman from Ohio stated and you stated with your charts, if we do not take the spending side seriously as the solution to our problem, we will never find a solution to our problem; and the end result will be disastrous for this country.