Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it's my honor to rise in support of this legislation, and to thank the many people who made this possible, beginning, Mr. Speaker, with the chairman's friendship and mentorship and leadership. Mr. Skelton is a gifted consensus builder and a great role model for many Members of this House, myself included. I thank him from the bottom of my heart for this opportunity.

To my very dear friend, Mr. McHugh, whose expertise is matched by his good spiritedness and a sense of inclusiveness. The way that these two gentlemen work together, Mr. Speaker, is a model for how we ought to serve the public's problems, and I'm very grateful to serve with each of them.

I want to thank my friend, Mike Conaway, from Texas, who is the ranking member of the special panel, who gave this effort a great deal of attention and diligence. And he and I, Mr. Speaker, know that our job is only about one-fifth done, and we look forward to proceeding in the weeks and months ahead.

We want to extend our appreciation to each of the members of the special panel, Republican and Democrat, who came to the meetings, expressed their views. Each of them had a hand in shaping this legislation. Many of them offered amendments at the full committee markup that found its way into the legislation.

As the chairman said, those of us who are elected have the privilege of standing out front in these efforts, but the truth of the matter is that the most diligent and skillful work is done by the staffs that serve us with such distinction. And I do want to join the chairman's comments and specifically thank Erin Conaton, who's the leader of the staff on the majority side. She has built a tremendous team and is a great resource to Members of this House.

Paul Oostburg, who is an able counsel in every respect, guides us through the legal thicket. Andrew Hunter did a tremendous job on this. He was always available, always a great resource, a person of just great, great diligence.

His counterpart on the minority side, Jenness Simler, we thank her for her equally effective and cheerful and resourceful efforts.

And I especially want to thank from my office staff, Nat Bell, who gave this around-the-clock attention, mastered the details in a very short period of time, and did just a terrific job.

Mr. Speaker, when the American people hear that nearly $300 billion has been run up in cost overruns on major weapons systems, they're justifiably outraged. When we're paying $300 billion more than we should be for major weapons systems, they understand that we're not doing right by the people who wear the uniform, and we're not doing right by them.

As the chairman said, to understand the magnitude of this problem, if we had not squandered that $300 billion in cost overruns we would have had enough to pay the salaries of the troops, the health benefits of the troops and their families, for more than 2 years. That's how much money that is, and it was squandered.

So, as a result of this effort, with the able leadership of Senators Levin and McCain on the other side, we are going to present to the President today, by this vote, a solution to that problem. And here is the essence of that solution. When the public asks how do we really know how much these programs are going to cost, how effective they are, and when they're going to be done, for the first time, those questions will be answered by independent, qualified, accountable officials in the Department of Defense. Independent and accountable to the President, to the Congress and to the general public.

When people ask, you know, we've got a weapons system that doesn't appear to be working out very well in the early going. Its promise exceeded the early signs of its performance. For the first time, in that early stage, the weapons system will have to meet a rigid and severe burden before it can go on. And if the best judgment of the independent experts is it shouldn't go on, it won't, and we will not throw good money after bad.

When people ask the question, a weapons system has far exceeded its projected cost and it's taking far longer than it should, why should it continue to go on, for the first time, this legislation will say, well, it shouldn't. And if there's a different decision made, if there's an exception given to this weapons system so it can go on, the weapons system will be watched like a hawk, every day, every dollar, every step of the way, to make sure that if a weapons system is not terminated after poor performance, that it gets right, gets right in a hurry and stays right.

And finally, when people ask the question, whose interests are really being served in this process, are the decisionmakers really looking out for those who serve in the military of this country and use the systems? Are the interests of the taxpayers being looked after, or are there other interests at work? This legislation institutionalizes the rule that I think most of our decisionmakers in the Department of Defense have lived by as a matter of personal ethics; but it spreads that personal ethic into the law, and says, when you make decisions about protecting those who wear our uniform and spending our taxpayers money, you may serve only one master. Conflicts of interest will be rigidly monitored and prohibited as a result of this legislation.

Our work is just beginning. By passing this legislation, we are putting in place a series of safeguards and checks so we can understand if it looks like a system has been overpromised and underperforming. It is our responsibility, once this system is in place, to learn from its lessons so that we can give those who wear the uniform of this country the best that they deserve, and pay for it with the price that the taxpayers deserve, with not a penny wasted.

It has been an honor to serve with my friends and colleagues in this process. We are eager to see this bill become law. We would urge a ``yes'' vote from both Republicans and Democrats.

Ladies and gentlemen, this amendment is 8 years too late. If the minority wants to be sure there's a trigger before you can do something, where was the trigger before they enacted the reckless tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country? Where was the trigger before they enacted the disastrous Medicare part D program and plunged us further in deficit? And where was the trigger before they poured over $1 trillion into a mismanaged war in Iraq? This amendment is 8 years too late. Vote it down.

I'd like to thank my friend, the chairman, for yielding. I rise in support of the legislation.

This is really more than just a bill about modernization and repair of schools. It's a bill that helps address a number of the chronic and substantial problems that face our country. One is unemployment.

This bill will create jobs for workers who will go about the process of fixing these schools and repairing them. Second, the bill creates a model for the construction and renovation of facilities that will save energy, that will reduce our carbon footprint, reduce pollution, and make our country greener. Third, this bill will help local education agencies--schools--by freeing up dollars they would otherwise have to spend on repairs, making those dollars available for the programs that educate the young people who attend those schools.

This is a bill that is not simply about the very desirable work of installing insulation or energy efficient windows

or green technology. It's really about addressing in an important way our unemployment problem, our energy problem, and our education indication problem, and we are giving students a better environment in which to learn.

I'm hopeful that this legislation will provide a benchmark against which future efforts can be measured. It makes great sense. It's something that should achieve support on both sides of the aisle.

I would urge a ``yes'' vote.

On behalf of the committee, we want to commend the gentleman for offering this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there are some misconceptions about Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. One of the misconceptions is that the devastation people felt in New Orleans was pretty much the sole extent of that.

The gentleman, I think, has done the institution a great service by pointing out that the disaster was very widespread. There is still an urgent need in

his area and other areas throughout the region, and as we invest funds in renovation and improvement of schools, I would think that a very high priority should go to the types of communities that are covered by this amendment.

So the committee believes that this amendment is very well considered, it will do a great service, it's an accurate reflection of priorities, and we wish to commend the gentleman for offering the amendment. As a new Member, I think he has come up with a creative solution. We enthusiastically support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the author of the amendment for yielding. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the committee, we would urge support of the amendment. Not only does this amendment do a lot of good for children and teachers, it does a lot of good for the health care system.

Seventy-five percent of health care expenditures in this country, as I'm sure the gentleman knows, are attributable to chronic illness. Four chronic illnesses are accountable for 80 percent of that 75 percent. Among them is asthma.

So by this very well-crafted amendment, not only is the gentleman improving conditions within schools, but he is making a good first start toward dealing with the problem of the health care cost explosion here in our country. We commend a ``yes'' vote.

I thank the author of the amendment for yielding. On behalf of the committee, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my friend from California suggested that these funds should go to academic improvement. I think he implied that these do not. The research is rather ample. The children who are fit and healthy, do better in the classroom than those who do not. There's a connection between academic performance and fitness.

The second point that I would make mirrors the one we made with reference to the previous amendment. Of the four chronic illnesses that drive the explosion of health care costs in this country, in addition to asthma, another is diabetes and the obesity that often comes with it, childhood obesity in particular.

So in addition to the academic dividends that I think the gentleman's amendment produces, it also produces the dividend of yet another down payment on control of the health care cost explosion.

We believe that the amendment is entirely suitable. It will be used in an innovative way that will provide national models for school districts around the country. We'd urge a ``yes'' vote in favor of the amendment.

The committee supports this bill. The bill requires the money be spent for academic purposes. I don't know really how you teach biology effectively without giving children the chance to interact with plant life. I think it just makes an awful lot of sense to have that kind of lab.

We support the bill and urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the author for yielding and would urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

With all due respect, the amendment does not require simply a keeping of lists of where the money is spent. It requires an analysis of the effectiveness of the expenditure of the money, it requires an analysis of whether all children are getting proportionately equal access to the funds that are expended, and it gives the Congress the basis, the factual basis, to make further decisions about whether to expand, eliminate or modify such programs in the future.

The minority protest is concerned about the ever-growing size of government. The minority knows a lot about growing the size of government. That is what they did for 8 years when they

doubled the national debt. That is what they did for 8 years when they inherited the largest surplus in American history and turned it into the largest deficit in American history.

One of the ways to turn about deficit financing is economic growth. We believe this bill will do that.

We urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, there is an understandable frustration and cynicism in our country about our political system. There are people who believe that all we do is argue, that the two parties never agree on anything. And when we do agree on something, it's on something symbolic or inconsequential.

I think beyond the value of the substance of this legislation is the value of showing how those caricatures of the American political process are not always true. This has been a very substantive and very significant process, and it was led by outstanding bipartisan leadership from Mr. Skelton, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who had the foresight to put together this panel and empower us with the staff, resources, and time to do the job well; and Mr. McHugh, who loaned both his expertise and his personal credibility to this effort, both of which are in significant supply.

I would also like to thank Mr. Conaway from Texas, the ranking member of the panel, for his outstanding contributions; each member of the panel, both Republican and Democratic, for their diligence in this effort; and most assuredly, the hardworking staff people who made the product possible: Erin Conaton and Andrew Hunter, Jenness Simler, Nat Bell from my office. We appreciate very much their efforts and many others.

You have heard the chairman and others say earlier that the Government Accountability Office has identified $296 billion in cost overruns, that's just overruns, in major weapons systems. And as the chairman said, had we not incurred these overruns, that's enough money to pay for the salaries of the troops and the health benefits for the troops and their families for nearly 2\1/2\ years. That's the opportunity cost for the problem that we are facing today.

The House is encouraged to pass this bill because we believe it faces that problem by implementing four very important changes. The first has to do with independence. The people who will be doing cost estimates, engineering and conceptual scientific evaluations, and scheduling analyses will not be people vested in the success of the weapons system. They will be people vested in protection of the taxpayer dollar and providing the very best value for those who wear the uniform.

The second principle is looking very critically at the development of these weapons systems as early as possible in the process. By the time 10 percent of the money is spent on these weapons systems, 70 percent of the money is obligated. That is to say, on or before the time that we decide to build or not build a weapons system, we are already far into the process, whereby a political constituency builds up, hundreds of thousands of workers, thousands of contractors, political constituencies around the country, who understandably advocate for these programs as if they were a public works project. Well, they are not. The idea behind these programs is to provide the very best tools to those who wear the uniform of this country at the appropriate price for the taxpayer.

By getting involved earlier in the process, we make it far more likely that when a bad judgment has been made, when we set off on the wrong course, that course can be reversed or terminated, as it should be.

The third principle in this bill is to give intensive attention, intensive care, to weapons systems that have been permitted to go forward even though they have not yet met all of the criteria to go forward.

If there is a true national security reason that those weapons systems should go forward beyond that milestone, it is very important that they be looked at carefully and on an ongoing basis. That is what this bill provides.

And in those, unfortunately, many instances where the programs far exceed the cost that's originally estimated, by 25 percent, by 50 percent, this legislation says that if the programs are not terminated, and if they are not terminated because there is a strong national security reason not to terminate them or a strong economic reason not to terminate them, they must be watched with great intensive attention.

Finally, the product before us has a very strong but flexible provision to prohibit undue conflicts of interest.

Frankly, this body does not aspire to micromanage the process of who can participate and contract and who cannot. What we are committed to is that all of those who are serving the public in this process serve only one master, that they are acting on behalf of the uniformed personnel and the taxpayers and not on behalf of anyone else who has an economic interest in the outcome of their deliberations.

This is a substantive piece of legislation that happened because the two parties worked together, because they listened to the best experts, and because we had put aside the squabbling in which we sometimes all engage to do what is right with our country.

It's an honor to work with my friends on this. I would urge my Members to vote ``yes'' and move this process forward.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my friend, the chairman, for yielding and congratulate him and thank him for his tremendous leadership in this effort.

The minority whip said that the House faces a choice between two very distinctive strategies. He is absolutely right. The strategy that the minority would like to pursue is a strategy that has been tried and has failed. It has led us to the peril that we face today.

The strategy that we would initiate is a return to principles that have succeeded. Following their strategy, for every one job their strategy has created, we have created 108. For every $1 of economic growth their strategy has created, ours has created $1.69.

The middle-class family that began this decade saw its purchasing power decrease by $500 a year by the time the last President left office. During the 1990s, that same family saw its purchasing power increase by $5,000.

The choice before the country is which strategy works. Ours does. Vote ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana just said that we don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past. He is right. So this budget does not repeat those mistakes. It does not give massive tax reductions to the wealthiest people in the country and hope they do the right thing with the money. It does not ignore the health care, education and energy needs of our country for the long term and weaken our global position. Finally, it does not further the

path of deregulation of our markets, our financial system, which has led to the cataclysmic meltdown of the U.S. economy in recent weeks and months.

No, this does not repeat the mistakes of the past. It is a new direction. It is a new opportunity. It is a new strategy that we believe will speak to the needs of the unemployed American, the American without health insurance, all of us who pay rising utility bills, and each of us who wants the finest quality education for our children.

This is a change. It is what the people asked for in November, and, with the help of the majority, it is what we will deliver today.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding.

First, Madam Speaker, the consistent reference to the so-called ``cap-and-trade policy'' from the other side is not in the budget. That will be debated another day. It is not here.

My friend from California talks about the number of months that there was job growth in the prior administration. Madam Speaker, I think most Americans are worried about the number of months they've been out of work and about the number of months until their unemployment benefits expire, and this budget is a part of addressing that concern.

Shortly after taking office, this President signed an economic stimulus law, the benefits of which are now being seen in communities around the United States as construction workers go to work, as first- time home buyers get help with their down payments, hopefully as more cars and trucks are sold, as people can deduct their sales tax, as schools are given more opportunities not to lay off teachers, lunch aides and other personnel.

The President also put forth a long-term economic proposal that we're addressing today in this budget. It's not the number of months that President Bush did this or that. It's other questions about how many months people have been without health insurance. This budget puts us on a track to finally deal with that problem and to get health care costs under control for all Americans and to get coverage for the 47 million who do not have it. This budget, in a very robust way, talks about helping to pay for college education. It will make the largest investment in college and technical training in the Nation's history as a result of what is in this budget.

The gentleman is concerned about the process by which this is being done. We're concerned about the process by which it wasn't done in the previous 8 years.

Now, having said that, if anyone wants to read the budget, it's on the Internet. Read it. If someone is concerned about the lack of alternatives from the minority, there were dozens of amendments when the committee worked on this budget. Mr. McGovern and I were part of that. There were two full alternatives from the minority that were debated on the floor a couple of weeks ago when the minority had a chance to set forth its views, and those views were considered.

So we think there is a problem with the timing of these plans. We think the American public shouldn't have to wait 8 years for someone to finally address health care and education and the budget deficit, which is cut by two-thirds under this budget. The process is right. The plan is right. The right thing to do is to vote ``yes.''

Will the gentleman yield?

Is the gentleman aware of the fact that the vote on this is tomorrow?

Will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend.

So my friend is acknowledging, is he not, that Members who wish to read the budget will have over tonight to do that before there is a vote tomorrow, correct?

The debate is starting today and concluding tomorrow. The conclusion of debate will be tomorrow.

Will the gentleman yield?

How many of the gentleman's Members from his side are here to deliberate and debate this right now, out of curiosity?

Will the gentleman yield?

That is not what I said. I said that the conference report does not enact cap-and-trade.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I would say to my friend from California that the Democratic majority with a Democratic President will demonstrate to the gentleman what we believe in and will enact it.

With respect to the issue of cap-and-trade, the two sections that are referenced in the budget conference report say this: If the Congress enacts cap-and-trade legislation, then the budget numbers will be adjusted to reflect that being enacted. If this conference report passes, there will be no limit on carbon enacted. There will be no revenues raised to enforce that limit. It simply says that if the Congress in subsequent consideration does that, then, in fact, the budget would be adjusted.

The minority has consistently frankly used a number of tax increase per household that the authors of the study on which they rely have said was a misrepresentation.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the question before the Congress and before the country is how do we get the economy to recover, how do we put people back to work and see their retirement savings grow again, their home equity rise again.

One of the ways that needs to be done is to stop our addiction to imported foreign oil, and this budget takes an important step forward.

It's important to understand what the budget does and does not do.

What the budget does not do is make a judgment on the so-called cap- and-trade proposals. At another time, on another piece of legislation, the House will debate and decide what to do about that. What the budget does, however, is to increase by about 10 percent our investment in ridding ourselves of that addiction to imported oil.

What we say is building on the work in the economic recovery law, let's put Americans back to work building a smart grid that can take wind energy and other energy and spread it throughout our system. Let's put Americans to work building a hydrogen plant, solar farms, other forms of clean renewable energy and create green collar jobs. Let's retrofit existing buildings so they have a smaller carbon footprint and costs the owners and operators less to do.

This budget represents the most significant investment in green technology and green jobs in the history of the country, and it does so because we recognize that an important part of the answer to the question of how to restore prosperity and create jobs for our constituents is to invest in clean energy and green collar jobs. So whether it is tax credits, loans, or other investments, this budget takes us a very long way towards that very laudable goal.

A ``yes'' vote for this budget is a ``yes'' vote for a new strategy that will liberate us from the addiction of imported oil and grow jobs in our families and our communities.

I would urge a ``yes'' vote.

Madam Speaker, the House deserves an accurate record before it renders judgment on this budget. It's important that we know that accurate record.

We've heard that the budget imposes ``the largest energy tax in history.'' That is not so. The budget does not refer to cap-and-trade. It doesn't impose energy taxes on families the way that it was described. It simply isn't the case.

We've heard that the budget ``nationalizes health care.'' The fact of the matter is that the budget sets up a process where this House will consider and debate legislation that will help to reduce costs for covered Americans and extend insurance to Americans who do not have coverage. There is nothing about nationalization of health care.

We've heard consistently that this has a significant tax increase on small businesses. The fact of the matter is that any tax change that is contemplated in the health care plan will be limited to a repeal of the tax breaks the prior administration gave the wealthiest Americans. The record shows that 98 percent of small business filers will not be included in any such consideration.

Finally, we hear that the budget doubles the deficit, one of the Members on the other side said. Not so. This budget reduces the deficit by two-thirds, but more importantly and profoundly, it puts us back on a path to the economic growth and prosperity which preceded the prior administration.

Mr. Speaker, I want to clearly explain the sources of the data I have used to compare the strength of the economy during President Clinton's time in office as compared to the economy during the Bush administration. During the Bush administration, an average of 2,000 private sector jobs were created per month. For purposes of comparison, 217,000 private sector jobs were created per month under President Clinton. These statistics are drawn from Bureau of Labor Statistics data. To provide further evidence for the relative success of Presidents Clinton and Bush, it is helpful to look at economic growth during their Presidencies. President Clinton created $1.68 in economic growth for every dollar of economic growth created under the Bush administration. These numbers are taken directly from research by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Finally, and perhaps most convincing, is the stark difference between the change in purchasing power, for the median household, between the Clinton and the Bush years. Under President Bush, the median household had $500 less purchasing power as of 2007 as compared to the beginning of Bush's Presidency. Under President Clinton the purchasing power of the median household rose by over $5,000. These numbers were drawn from data compiled by the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. My friends on the other side of the aisle may prefer to ignore these comparisons; however, I am of the opinion that we must learn from our past to better prepare for the future. As we work to create jobs and get the economy back on track, it is useful to keep in mind the lessons of the past two decades.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.

This debate really is very timely because the number one issue on the minds of the American people is the economic crisis, and although we use the language of the budget, what we are really talking about here is whether to adopt or not adopt a plan to fix the economic crisis facing the country.

Literally, the motion that we're debating right now is whether to try to reach an agreement with the Senate about that plan, and we'll take a vote on whether to go forward or not. I hope everybody votes to go forward with the process.

But I assume, Mr. Speaker, the minority's not really debating the process; they're debating the substance, and that's good and that's welcome.

I think for us to fix this economic crisis we need to do three things, and the President has stepped forward to try to do these three things. The first is to get the economy kick-started in the short run. The President proposed legislation that would put construction workers back to work, that would help first-time homebuyers with their down payment for a new home, that would let people deduct the sales tax when they buy a car or truck, that would stop the hemorrhaging of layoffs from schools around the country by a significant increase in Federal aid to schools. And we passed that. And it's about 2 months old, and we're hoping that it will work.

The second leg of recovery is to stop the meltdown of the financial system. You know, the two parties came together in the fall and passed legislation that was very controversial, very easy to vote against, to try to rescue the financial system and the banking system, not for the benefit of the shareholders of banks, but for the benefit of borrowers and depositors and all of us who depend upon the banking system. And the new Secretary of the Treasury has gone forward with a different version of how to implement that plan, and it's playing out in the marketplace, and we're hoping that that plan will be successful.

The third piece of the recovery plan is a long-term plan to deal with the long-term problems of the country. The President proposed a way to deal with the problem of borrowing too much money to run the country, and we passed in the House a budget that cuts the deficit by two-thirds and we hope will stimulate the economic growth that will pay down the debt as we did in the 1990s.

The President proposed a plan that would start us toward fixing our health care system, to control costs for businesses and families, so that the metastasizing growth of health care costs is reduced and subdued, and that's included in this budget.

The President has proposed a plan to deal with our energy dependency upon imported foreign oil; and although the specifics of that are not included in this budget, this House, at the appropriate time, will take up that debate and will either pass it or not.

And, finally, the President talked about improving the job skills of our workers so we are more competitive in global economic competition with some major reforms in the way we pay for getting a college or higher education.

Now, you can disagree with the way the President went about these objectives. But I think what you can't do is propose essentially nothing as an alternative. And I know there were alternatives on the floor during the budget debate. But the reality is the minority has kind of set itself up here to tell us what it's against, and I respect that.

We're for something very different. We're for a plan that reduces the deficit by two-thirds. We're for a plan that stops the hemorrhaging from our pocketbooks in America's health care system. We want to debate and eventually adopt a plan that will terminate our addiction to imported oil. We're for a plan that raises the skills and aspirations of every worker, every man, woman and child in this country. That is what we are for. And we want to go forward with the other body and with the President and, hopefully, with the other party in a way that will implement a plan that will make this economy recover.

So that's what we're talking about today: Should we or should we not go forward with a plan that will help the economy recover?

We've laid out our ideas. We believe in them. We think the track record shows that they work. There really are two competing sets of ideas about how to fix the economy. The minority believes that massive reductions in taxes for the wealthiest Americans and deregulation of the economy will produce prosperity for all. We don't believe that. We think that lower deficits, investment in education and health care, infrastructure, sensible regulation of the marketplace will produce prosperity for all.

There's a record, Mr. Speaker. Their method, tried in the last 8 years, has, frankly, led us to the economic catastrophe we're experiencing today. Our method, by and large, tried in the 1990s, led to a very different result. For every one job----

For every one job that their strategy produced, ours produced 108. For every dollar of economic growth that their strategy produced, ours produced $1.69. A middle class family, during the last 8 years, saw their purchasing power drop by $500, at least, compared to what it was 8 years ago. And finally, the purchasing power of the middle class family during our strategy being invoked saw purchasing power for middle class families increase by over $5,000. That's the record. That's the choice. Let's get on with it and go to conference.

Will the gentleman yield? I would be happy to supply that answer.

I thank my chairman for yielding.

My neighbor from New Jersey, Mr. Speaker, asked the source of the statistics I used. Here is the answer:

One job for every 108 is the source of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the Bush administration, the average number of private- sector jobs created per month was 2,000 per month. Under our strategy, it was 217,000 jobs per month. The economic growth figure is from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. It is derived by looking at the average rate of GDP growth during the 1990s and during the sunny years of the last 8 years we've just endured. The source of the purchasing power of middle class families is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Bureau of the Census is derived this way.

I have only 90 seconds.

Reclaiming my time, it is also the case that every single Republican voted against the plan that created that economic growth.

The source of the median family income is the BLS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Bureau of the Census is derived by looking at the real family income of the median American family from when the prior President took office to when he left and a similar comparison in the 1990s. We'll put it in the Record. Those are the facts. They're very uncomfortable for the minority, but they speak for themselves.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Several million Americans have lost their jobs since the fall. We are saying let's get to work to try to fix that problem.

The minority is saying no, not now, not this way. Wages have gone up only one-third as fast as health care costs have gone up for the typical American family in the last decade or so. And we are saying let's get to work together to fix that problem and, in the process, let's say to people who are working in convenience stores and gas stations and mowing lawns and store clerks, that they have to have health insurance too for themselves and their children.

We are saying let's get to work on that. The minority is saying no, not now, not this way.

We all suffered the ravages of $4-a-gallon gasoline last summer. It will probably go back up again because we are so addicted to imported energy from overseas. We're saying let's get to work on solving that problem, on building windmills and hydrogen engines and solar farms and other ideas. The minority is saying no, not now, not this way.

There are American families whose sons or daughters are going to come home from school today and receive the thick envelope that says they got into the college they've always wanted to go to. And the parents are going to have to say no, not now, not this way because we can't afford the cost of a college education. We say let's get to work on solving that problem by moving $94 billion away from corporate welfare to student financial aid. Let's get to work on that. The minority says no, not now, not this way.

This is a choice between ``yes'' and ``no.'' It's a choice between optimism and pessimism. It's a choice between working on the country's problems and just watching them metastasize. We can do so much better. We should do it together. But we should do it.

So I would urge a vote against this motion to instruct. I would urge that we work with the other body and get started on this budget and get started on solving these problems.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Donald Norcross, who was the recipient of the inaugural Camden County Civic Leadership and Responsibility Award on April 2, 2009. Mr. Norcross received this award in recognition of his tireless efforts championing the causes of local laborers and their families, ensuring that the needs of local social service organizations and their clients are met, and spearheading efforts toward the renewal of the City of Camden.

While a student at Camden County College, Mr. Norcross began his career as an apprentice electrician. Today he is the president of the Southern New Jersey AFL-CIO Central Labor Council, vice president of the Southern New Jersey Building Trades Council, and assistant business manager of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 351.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Norcross has also worked to make his community better through his civic endeavors. For more than ten years he has served as a member of the executive board of the United Way of Camden County. He founded the Home Port Alliance, a group of South Jersey veterans, activists and elected officials. This group successfully worked to bring the retired USS New Jersey, the most decorated battleship in United States history, to the Camden waterfront. This proud ship now serves as a monument to the brave sailors who served on her during her long and distinguished career as well as an exciting attraction that contributes to the economic development of Southern New Jersey. In light of these considerable achievements, it is fitting that Mr. Norcross was honored with the inaugural Camden County Civic Leadership and Responsibility Award. He is an excellent example for all Camden County College graduates and students. I congratulate Mr. Norcross for receiving the award and wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Jim Saxton for his service to the United States House of Representatives. I was pleased to have the opportunity to previously honor Mr. Saxton at a dinner in Cherry Hill on March 15, 2009.

Since his time as an elementary school teacher and a small business owner, Representative Saxton has worked tirelessly to help the people of New Jersey. He served in the New Jersey General Assembly and the New Jersey Senate. He served the State of New Jersey in the House of Representatives for more than twenty-three years. He became the Ranking Member of the Armed Services and Resources Committee. He has been instrumental in efforts to keep military bases in New Jersey, to stop beach erosion, and to support New Jersey hospitals.

Madam Speaker, Jim Saxton has a proud record of service to the State of New Jersey and I am proud to call him my friend. I congratulate Mr. Saxton for all his accomplishments and wish him the best of luck in all of his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Master Sergeant Robert Morrell of Marine Wing Support Squadron 472 of Willow Grove, PA for his service to the Marine Corps and to the U.S. Postal Service. At fifty-eight years old, he is preparing to deploy to Iraq.

Master Sergeant Morrell joined the Marine Corps in 1969 and spent four years on active duty. He earned the Vietnam Service Medal for his service in the South China Sea. He was also deployed in the Mediterranean. Master Sergeant Morrell became a letter carrier for the United States Postal Service in 1979. He now serves as the financial secretary of The National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 540 Camden NJ Merged. He retired from the postal service on August 31, 2007.

Madam Speaker, Master Sergeant Morrell rejoined the Marine Corps Reserves in 1990. During his two Marine Corps careers he has earned a Selected Marine Corps Reserve medal, a Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation, the Marine Corps Good Conduct medal, and the National Defense Service medal. In 2007, he was promoted to Master Sergeant in the Marine Corps. When his retirement date from the Marine Corps loomed close, Master Sergeant Morrell chose instead to continue with his unit. He is now getting ready to serve his country in Iraq, just as he served in Vietnam. He is an excellent example for all Americans. I congratulate Mr. Morrell on his tremendous dedication to this country and wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.