Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today is National Ride Your Motorcycle to Work Day, and just a few minutes ago, I proudly rode a Harley Davidson Roadking to the steps of the Capitol building.

Motorcycle riding has been a passion of mine for many years, since my 20th birthday, and a proud member of the American Motorcyclist Association I am, as well as the Harley Owners Group. I can attest that responsible riding has many unique recreational benefits for millions of Americans.

During this session of Congress, we are looking for ways to break our dependence on foreign oil, develop alternative fuels, and increase domestic conservation. Motorcycles are excellent alternatives to current forms of transportation because they offer both fuel efficiency and greater enjoyment for the commuter.

I encourage all Americans to learn more about the recreational and environmental benefits of responsible motorcycle riding by visiting American Motorcyclist Association's Web site and availing themselves of the motorcycle rider safety training program.

Mr. Speaker, this week, news reports came out indicating our Federal budget deficit has continued to drop and our economy continues to grow due to tax relief policies passed by Congress in 2001 and 2003.

In spite of that good news, Democratic leadership in Congress is discounting advancements made possible by this tax relief by trying to slap U.S. taxpayers with a $400 billion tax increase that will slow our economy and its current progress.

Additionally, Democrats piled $6 billion in new spending onto January's omnibus budget bill to finish the 2007 appropriations process, passed a budget for 2008 that is $20 billion more than the President's budget request, and added billions in extra spending to the few appropriations bills the House has passed.

Raising taxes hurts American families, discourages innovation and hinders job creation. Let's work together in this Congress to make tax relief permanent and continue to grow our economy. Together, this Congress can foster further prosperity and build a better, brighter future for our country.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to this cleverly entitled College Cost Reduction Act of 2007. Under the guise of saving money and paying down the deficit, Democratic leaders are using the budget reconciliation process as a vehicle to create a host of expensive new Federal bureaucracies rather than making tough decisions to restrain entitlement spending and balance the Federal budget.

Mandatory spending programs consume the largest portion of the Federal budget, and their share will only increase as Social Security and Medicare costs explode in coming years. Unfortunately, this action comes as no surprise. After reclaiming the majority under the claims of fiscal accountability, House Democrats have already voted to approve a massive $400 billion tax increase on working families and small businesses, and may I add, that amounts to over $3,000 on average tax increase for these students who we are attempting to help.

Now we are considering a piece of legislation that will create nine new entitlement programs resulting in $18 billion in new spending. The explosion in new, unchecked entitlement spending is another unfortunate step backwards for the American taxpayer. I agree that Congress must remain committed to ensuring affordable access to post-secondary education. But instead of focusing the bulk of need on increasing access to higher education for low-income students, the bill increases aid to colleges and universities at the expense of students who receive Pell Grants. H.R. 2669 only targets $4.9 billion towards Pell Grants, increasing the maximum award by only $100 per year for 5 years. Pell Grants have proven to be effective in helping low-income students attain higher education. This bill will not prioritize Pell Grants.

I do wish to take a moment to thank Chairman Miller for working with me to remove section 201 of his bill in his manager's amendment. I was happy to work with our State's Governor to make this change. This action withheld funds from the Leveraging Education Assistance Partnership, known as the LEAP, if a State reduced the average amount of funding it has provided over the last 5 years. This so-called maintenance of effort provision is a bold and unprecedented overreach of Federal authority designed to dictate State budgets.

This is particularly true because the Federal Government provides little direct assistance to States or higher education institutions. Low-income and financially needy students should not have to struggle because of a State's budgetary shortfalls. My home State of Michigan continues to suffer from a struggling economy and difficult choices must be made on how to most appropriately fund the State. However, needy students should not have critical financial aid yanked away because the State cannot afford the same financial commitment it has made to the LEAP program in more prosperous years.

I was also prepared to offer an amendment to the House Rules Committee concerning the Upward Bound program. I appreciate that the chairman's manager's amendment removes a section that earmarked $30 million for prior Upward Bound grantees who submitted low-scoring applications, bypassing 107 new applicants who submitted competitive proposals.

But despite these small improvements, the College Cost Reduction Act contains dozens of poison pills that mark another step towards unchecked spending. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the so- called College Cost Reduction Act.

Mr. Chairman, I stand here today to say that it's amazing, as I listened on my TV in my room and then came over here and heard complaints about cutting just .5 percent. I heard talks about runaway rugged individualism. And I had to think that what we're talking here is concern runaway rugged individualism versus a nanny state regulatory state, a nanny state that says we can't do for ourselves what we could and should do for ourselves.

And to talk about cutting this miniscule cut that would at least start to establish for our taxpayers that we have heard to some degree, and .5 percent is what we could take away and indicate that if we want to move in that direction, not only will we say to the taxpayer, you will do well if we keep moving that direction, but I think we can prove to the regulatory mentality here that we can live without some of that.

We're talking about myself in a State of Michigan, where we are hurting for certain, and it's not because we don't have too little government. It's not because we don't have too little regulation. We've got too much. We've got too much taxation. We've got too much spending. We've got too much regulation that continues to break down what we should and could do for ourselves.

So I thank the gentlelady from Colorado for sponsoring this very reasonable amendment that just simply says, come on. We're still going to have a significant increase. Let's move forward. And I thank you for offering it.

Mr. Speaker, like the majority of my constituents, I believe that any and all attempts to enact immigration reform must not include amnesty for lawbreakers.

My constituents are tired of empty promises from Washington, DC, and we must address our Nation's immigration problems in a way that produces real results.

Many Americans are divided on what immigration reform should entail, but on one point almost all Americans agree. We must secure our borders. With a secured border, we can build on solutions to strengthen our country and maintain our heritage of embracing legal immigrants.

We need to create a work permit program that meets the evolving needs of today's agriculture industry. Serious reform is also needed to bring an end to the massive amount of bureaucratic red tape in our immigration system.

The crafters of the immigration bill currently being debated in the Senate are misguided on how to fix America's immigration problem. And on behalf of the American people, I urge my colleagues to secure our borders and enact commonsense immigration reforms.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), and in support of this evidence-based approach to reducing the spread of HIV and AIDS.

The AIDS epidemic in Africa is a serious problem that demands serious results. However, I also had the privilege of seeing firsthand the success of Uganda's ABC program when I traveled to Uganda a couple of years ago to visit my daughter who's a missionary there and also a health educator dealing specifically with HIV/AIDS. Also meeting with who has now become adopted into our family, Mama Nabali, who is a young woman with three children who has HIV as a result of behavior issues related specifically to a husband who was unfaithful in many, many ways.

It has been interesting to note that in Uganda as well as other countries that are now using the ABC program authorized and pushed by the First Lady and the President, President Museveni of Uganda, in each of those cases there is a significant decline in reported numbers of sexual partners, that's the behavior portion of it, and a significant decline in the numbers of unmarried youth who are sexually active, which is the abstinence portion of it.

Authorizing legislation that requires 33 percent of prevention funds to be spent in abstinence-until-marriage programming is the best way to address this problem because it's a proven, successful method of reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS. There is growing evidence that partner reduction is the single most important factor in reducing HIV/AIDS prevalence rates.

According to the PEPFAR Third Report to Congress, ``Of the countless developments taking place in the global fight against the AIDS pandemic, perhaps the single most important in recent years is the growing number of nations in which there is clear evidence of declining HIV prevalence as a result of changes in sexual behavior.''

Furthermore, no country with a generalized epidemic that has relied on condom prevention alone has reported a decline in HIV/AIDS prevalence rates. Because studies have shown that the abstinence-until- marriage method is producing the best results, I urge my colleagues to consider the merits of the Pitts amendment and support this important and, need I say, life-changing and lifesaving legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Ohio for putting up this amendment. It's a very simple amendment that I think does well for us to consider in context with what we have to wrestle with, the consideration coming from the largest tax

increase in the history of the United States being offered, $400 billion on the taxpayers. And I take it into context as I looked here with this amendment offering a $1.3 billion cut in spending, going back to last year's levels, and saying let's live within our means.

I come from a Great Lakes State. When we talk about water, I do know about water. I know the impact that it can have, the impact upon all of our way of life.

But I also come from a State that's struggling at this point in time with economic conditions that comes from too large government, too much spending, too much taxation. And in the process of trying to deal with that, going the opposite direction of where they should, they're still frustrating what's going on and producing unemployment rates that rival any in history, and frustrating Michigan from having the same type of impact that we see just last week talked about in the New York Times of a 40-State growth rate that goes on with States that not only, because of tax cuts and spending within their means, have seen the ability not only to increase some of their services, set aside rainy day funds, but also talk about further tax cuts. That's what we need to be doing here; not considering spending more in a time in our history when we ought to be considering what comes with the future.

If we see a $400 billion tax increase go in place, we see a tax that goes on for working, a tax that goes on if you get married, a tax that goes on if you have a child, a tax that will go on, even if you die. Those are issues of great concern.

And so to be fiscally responsible here and use an amendment that simply takes us back to a reasonable standard of expenditures, puts us in a place that we can afford and fund to do the necessary services, we do ourself well.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor David Byron Chapel, a constituent from Parma, Michigan who has been named a member of the 43rd Class of Presidential Scholars. The Presidential Scholarship was established in 1964 to honor our countries most distinguished graduating high school seniors. Only 144 high school seniors are offered the title of a Presidential Scholar, and I am proud to honor David Byron Chapel as one of Michigan's two Presidential Scholars.

Mr. Chapel's work has spanned all areas of community service; from mission trips with his youth group, local service projects, peer tutoring and his church music program. David has touched the lives of many with his service.

Highlights of Mr. Chapel's volunteer work include a center for underprivileged children, summer Vacation Bible School, fundraising projects for his school's Academic Boosters Club, frequent visits to his local nursing home to spend time with the elderly, and service as a substitute Church pianist. In addition, David has spent numerous weekends helping with Church maintenance, local landscaping and yard work, as well as operating his own small-scale lawn care business.

David's academic achievements are exemplified through the numerous scholarships he has already been awarded. He has received such awards as the Marsh Family Scholarship and the University of Michigan Regents Merit Scholarship for exemplary academic performances throughout his high school career. In addition to these prestigious awards, David has received numerous other recognitions.

These are not the first awards Mr. Chapel has received to honor his achievements. David has been named a National Merit Finalist, Student of the Month, Big 10 Drum Major and Best Supporting Actor in his high school drama program. He has also worked diligently to receive his Academic Letter and Pin, the Community Service award all four years of high school, Honor Roll and All A's Award's each semester.

I offer the congratulations of the U.S. House of Representatives to Mr. David Byron Chapel for his leadership, dedication to community service, and being named a U.S. Presidential Scholar.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and praise Sergeant Matthew Soper, a constituent of mine who died while serving his country in Iraq; Sgt. Soper's truck was hit by an IED in Iraq on June 6, 2007.

SGT Soper of Jackson was 25-years-old. Sergeant Matthew Soper served in the Michigan Army National Guard's 1461st Transportation Company based in Jackson. Sergeant Soper was courageous as he manned the front vehicle gun in his company.

SGT Soper's family has said the military changed their son and brother. His sister stated he joined the military to ``call something his own,'' and to make people proud. Nothing serves as greater evidence to the heart of this young man than his selflessness in volunteering for a second tour of duty in Iraq. SGT Soper's first tour was in 2004 and 2005. I stand here today to tell the country and SGT Soper's family how proud of him I am.

The country mourns the loss of a soldier and we celebrate his life. My thoughts and prayers are with Matthew's family. I thank them for their beloved sons' dedicated service to the United States. May God be with them.

Mr. Speaker, let me read you a line from today's Wall Street Journal: ``The latest Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg survey finds that Congress' approval rating is down to 27 percent, with 63 percent of the public saying Democrats are practicing `business as usual.' ''

The frustration of the American people is real and growing. Every weekend I hear it in the voices of my constituents, regardless of their affiliation.

Almost all south central Michiganders have the same message: control runaway government spending, maintain the highest of ethical standards, and put an end to wasteful pork barrel spending.

The actions of Congress this week not only continue the culture of corruption currently plaguing the capital city, but also are an insult to an American public that longs for transparency and accountability.

Together, Democrats and Republicans must seize this opportunity and use it to enact real reform that values how taxpayer dollars are being spent.

I believe that by limiting the size and scope of government and making certain taxpayer dollars go to meaningful programs, Congress can restore public trust and build a better, brighter future for our country.

Mr. Speaker, this week I am introducing the Tax Increase Prevention Act, legislation that would make permanent tax relief passed in 2001 and 2003.

My bill simply takes away all the sunset provisions of these tax relief packages that passed Congress and provided American families and job creators the certainty to provide for the future. This tax relief passed by Congress is working, and States are much more likely to take fiscally responsible moves and tighten their belts instead of hiking taxes. States that were once in recession are now brimming with tax revenue.

The few States that are struggling, such as my home State of Michigan, have hope for a turnaround in the future because these tax cuts are creating jobs and leaving more money in the pockets of taxpayers.

Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress are choosing to ignore the advancements made possible by these tax cuts. In their most recent budget bill, the House Democrats' budget plan included a $400 billion tax increase that will cripple current progress in our economy.

By making tax cuts permanent and continuing to grow our economy, this Congress can go a long way in restoring the trust of the American people and build a better, brighter future for our country.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Constitution Caucus, I am convinced that today, at a time when our Nation lags behind other countries in math and science testing and the Federal Government has a larger role in education than ever before, this Congress must find a way to give our schools greater flexibility, reduce the bureaucracy involved in education, and ensure these opportunities really are being given to our children.

In years past Congress has attempted to solve problems in education by simply throwing piles of Federal money into the education system. The original purpose of No Child Left Behind was to return some education policymaking authority to the States. Unfortunately, during the process of crafting, passing, and enacting this legislation, No Child Left Behind took the form of a massive spending bill that increased the Federal Government's presence in classrooms.

As a December 22, 2006 editorial in the Detroit News stated, ``What our Federal legislators come up with in the Nation's Capital doesn't always translate well into the classroom.''

The editorial continues: ``Michigan should have the flexibility to decide how and when to measure student progress.''

My daughter-in-law is a hardworking and talented teacher who has experienced firsthand the problems No Child Left Behind creates for teachers, parents, and students. As a classroom teacher forced to teach to the tests required by local, State, and No Child

Left Behind, she actually considered quitting because of the paperwork and restrictions imposed upon her. She struggled to have time to give individual attention to each of her ``special needs'' students.

Ironically, she obtained her teaching position due to her performance the year prior as a permanent substitute teacher in a classroom. Because she was not required to fill out all the forms and paperwork required by No Child Left Behind, she excelled and the school offered her a permanent position.

In its origin, No Child Left Behind attempted to provide greater school choice and reduce Washington's involvement in education. But instead this expensive and largely unsuccessful legislation has broadened the scope of the Federal Government's role in education. Enshrined in our Constitution is the 10th amendment, which reads, ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.'' Federal control of education is listed nowhere in the Constitution. And in accordance with the 10th amendment, education should be the responsibility of State and local governments.

Because I believe each child's educational path should be determined by a child's parents and not by the Federal Government, I am an original cosponsor of the A-Plus Act. The A-Plus Act would give States, teachers and parents the freedom and authority to determine what educational path a student should take.

As part of this legislation, States can opt out of Federal programs, and State leaders can decide how to use Federal education funds to improve student achievement.

We all are seeking the best possible educational opportunities for our children, and the way to achieve this is to let States and local communities be accountable for academic achievement and educational reforms.

With that, I yield back, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand with men here who have served with distinction and consistency on this issue and the most important issue, as I understand it, as a new Member of Congress, taking that oath of office for the first time on January 4 to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which gives us the primary responsibility, number one responsibility, for security and defense of this great Nation not only for its people but for the impact that this Nation has given and continues to give worldwide.

We are the greatest bastion of hope for liberty, for individualism, for opportunity. And for us to be now in an arena that, frankly, with my colleagues I can't say that I have been there yet. I look forward to being over in the arena of this war and having the opportunity to sit with our heroes, our warriors over there who understand the process. I look forward to that experience to be able to hear directly from them in the field. But until that time, I have to resort to memories, including a memory my wife and I will never forget in sitting on the parade grounds in Fort Knox, Kentucky, watching my son graduate with the rest of the young recruits, troops that volunteered, all volunteers to serve their country, all of whom understood that in signing up for this austere and wonderful choice of patriotism, yet also put their lives on the line potentially.

And I will never forget watching my son, who had changed before my eyes during the course of the past number of weeks at Fort Knox, and had become a man with an understanding, as he was preparing to be a combat medic. That was unique. And meeting with his fellow soldiers and understanding that they had a purpose in mind, what an encouraging thing that was.

And now to look back on that and realize that not only have numerous of his fellow comrades gone to the arena, some who have come home with the impact of that time on their life never to leave them. Others have not come home alive and have given the supreme sacrifice. We would do well to honor them not only by our words but by our actions.

I have stood at Walter Reed Hospital on numerous occasions now, with my wife alongside several times, and I have met these troops, these fallen warrior heroes. I have prayed at their bedside. I have thanked them. I have had the opportunity to hear from them: Mr. Congressman, don't thank us. It was a privilege to serve. Don't thank me, though I appreciate your being here, but I want you to go back and tell your colleagues that we would appreciate their unquestioning support, that they would stand with us, that they would encourage us, that they would support us with the necessary resources, both armaments and financial resources, to complete this passion that we have, to stand for the defense not only of Iraq and its citizens who long to be free, but stand for our fellow citizens at home so we don't have to fight this war on our home turf as well. They understand this.

I don't understand why many of my colleagues, whom I respect highly, yet don't seem to understand, on the other side of the aisle, that we are fighting so it doesn't come home here as well.

I have also had, and I call it a distinct honor, though difficult as well, to speak to families who are now dealing with the impact of the war. I think of Travis Webb from Adrian, Michigan, who is still at Walter Reed, who came home missing two legs but not missing his heart, and still with a passion for his comrades back in the field and expressing the desire that we stand firm with them, thanking him and hearing him say ``I wish I could go back.''

Just a week ago, I called the mother of Daniel Courneya of Vermontville, Michigan, and expressed my sincere sympathy to her. Her son has not come home alive. He along with three other of his fellow troops were killed with an IED explosion, and three of his troops are still missing. We have read about them in the media. And we pray for their safe return. We know also that they have given their service for a cause. And I will be at the funeral of Daniel Courneya this coming Friday, in fact 2 days from now, and will stand proudly and yet humbly, recognizing the sacrifice that they have given for a cause greater than all of us even on this floor tonight.

Mr. Speaker, 108 days ago, on February 5, President Bush requested from Congress funding for our troops in Iraq. And even though current funding for our troops is set to expire at the end of May, and I say this as a new Member and I guess I say it as a Member that doubts until I actually see the bill in front of me to vote on, this funding is set to expire at the end of May. The new leadership in the House of Representatives has yet to put in front of me a bill that even comes close to properly financing the troops. And I say that saying until proven otherwise, it hasn't been in front of me to vote yet, and that is a shame.

Our American commanders need an opportunity to implement the new strategy. We are handcuffing our generals on the front line. That is not the

way it ought to be. New House leadership first introduced a bill in March that not only micromanaged the troops but also contained millions of dollars of unrelated pork-barrel projects to buy a few votes for bad legislation. That is not what I understood that I signed up for in supporting our troops and protecting and defending this great country.

The bill was a salad bar of egregious earmarks: $25 million for payments to spinach producers; $120 million to shrimp industries, $74 million for peanut storage; $5 million for shellfish, oyster and clam producers are just a few examples. And again, as a new Member of Congress, I couldn't believe that, that we were dealing with that type of funding with a war going on.

This bill was rightfully vetoed. In response, House leadership scrambled, and now we see supposedly that there is a bill before us.

I heard my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, express appreciation that we have a bill now that we can vote on that will fund our troops. But again, I haven't voted on it yet. And so I say, let it come before us. No wonder this body, this Congress, this great symbol of American freedom has a 29 percent approval rating, when we mess around with the lives of our troops and the freedom of our citizens.

House leadership seems to have finally relented, and hopefully has decided to provide the necessary funding for our brave men and women. I am glad to hear that we will put aside any plans to go on break until a clean funding bill will pass, and I trust that that will take place tomorrow, to support our men and women in combat. Our troops deserve this respect.

Recently, the Iraqi Government, after complaints from myself and other Members of Congress, decided to forego its plans for a 2-month summer recess so important decisions such as the development and distribution of Iraq's oil and how to deal properly with sectarian violence can be made and laws can be passed.

This Congress similarly has decided not to go home for more than a week and leave our troops in limbo until we finish this job. We have to stay here and finish our job so our brave troops, our men and women in uniform, can finish theirs.

House leadership needs to allow Members to vote as early as possible tomorrow on a clean bill, devoid of wasteful, nonmilitary spending. We need a bill that doesn't handcuff our generals, but instead gives our troops the resources they need. Setting timelines on American involvement in Iraq is good policy, but not publicly in front of our enemies. Our military commanders need to have control of the situation, and not the terrorists.

The Congress needs to give General David Petraeus, the new Commander in Iraq, who was confirmed unanimously by the Senate, a chance to fully implement the new strategy instead of telegraphing surrender to terrorists.

In the Anbar Province, one of the most dangerous areas in Iraq, violent crime is dropping, and 20 of 22 tribal leaders of that area now support the U.S. and Iraqi forces against al Qaeda. Granted, the level of violence remains high, and the hot spots are numerous, and many challenges persist. But the wounded soldiers I've met at Walter Reed and Bethesda deserve our support. They have indicated that our Armed Forces can secure Iraq enough so that an Iraqi Government and a security force there can take over.

Time is running out. Congress needs to move past political posturing and partisanship and allow the men and women serving in Iraq the opportunity to crush the terrorists in the Middle East so our families will have a more secure future here at home.

I want us to win this war. There are only two options, as we mentioned tonight already, only two options: One, victory; and the other, defeat. I do not believe that Americans countenance, by and large, the option of defeat.

I am asking my fellow Members of Congress, those that I am proud to stand with here on the floor tonight, as well as those who have wavered and waffled at times, to buck up. FDR called our America to a strength of sacrifice together, to win a war as brave people that sustain this great world as well. We, as well, have the privilege tonight, as Members of Congress, to call our Nation by first standing together, calling them to sacrifice in support of our troops, calling them to bravery and courage in standing for this country, calling them to one decision, and that being the decision for victory.

Memorial Day is upon us. I will experience this Memorial Day like I have experienced no other Memorial Day, because I have stood next to these wounded heroes. I have defended these brave troops. I have spoken with them. I have had family members, including my son, sign up to do that brave duty. And I will say to the troops who may hear us tonight, God bless you. We stand with you, and we will support you.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and praise Army PFC Daniel Courneya, a constituent of mine who died while serving his country in Iraq; PFC Courneya's convoy was ambushed in Iraq on May 12, 2007.

PFC Courneya of Vermontville was 19 years old. He grew up dreaming of serving in the military. Daniel grew up wishing to carry on the legacy of service to our great Nation which has run through his family. He grew up with the heart of a hero. Enlisting in the United States Army at 17 years old during his senior year of high school, his mother had to sign a waiver to allow her son to enlist.

As a student at Maple Valley High School, Daniel was well known and well respected. Daniel ran track at Maple Valley, played on the soccer team and played the clarinet in the school band.

In Vermontville, the members of the community hold parades to welcome home returning members of the military and have done so to honor PFC Courneya. What impresses me the most is the way the community has rallied around Daniel's family and provided caring support during this time of grieving.

My thoughts and prayers are with Daniel's family. I thank them for their beloved sons' dedicated service to the United States. May God be with them.

Mr. Speaker, though I am only in my fifth month of service in this Chamber, I have developed a deep admiration and respect for the men and women in this body. But, frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the new House leadership has been inflicted with a severe case of amnesia.

In March of 2005, the then Democratic minority in the House released a report accusing the then Republican majority leadership of abusing their power through parliamentary tactics designed to suppress dissent. The same leadership that published that report over 2 years ago pledged, at the beginning of this very year, to run the ``most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress'' in history.

Yesterday these leaders attempted to change a 185-year-old House rule to dramatically increase taxes and government spending against the will of the minority party and the American people. Is this really the way to run the self-proclaimed most honest and most open Congress in America's history?

While House leadership may suffer from amnesia, the American people most certainty do not, and bending the rules to pass egregious tax-and- spend policies will not stand in this people's House.