Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I am able to recognize and honor a number of dedicated and selfless public servants from Cobb County, Georgia

today. The Cobb County Chamber of Commerce recently presented two awards for notable devotion to public safety and awareness. The presentation of these awards marked the beginning of Public Safety Awareness Week, a celebration of the men and women who work every day throughout Cobb County to keep our communities safe and secure.

On October 1, 2007, the Cobb Chamber Public Safety Employee of the Year Award was presented to Mr. James Arrowood, the Director of Public Safety for Cobb County Schools. This award is a notable highlight in a distinguished 35-year career in public safety for Mr. Arrowood. Each day Cobb County parents place their trust in Director Arrowood, as he ensures a safe learning environment for all Cobb students. I applaud Mr. Arrowood on this exceptional honor and all he does for our community.

Also recognized for their pursuit of public safety, the Cobb Chamber Award of Merit was presented to the Wildland Fire Response Team of the Marietta Fire Department. The Team courageously traveled to fire- ravaged South Georgia in May of 2007 to assist in a vital fight to extinguish the out-of-control blazes. When Georgians needed help the most, the Marietta Wildland Fire Response Team responded as true heroes would. Sacrificing their safety to ensure the survival of an endangered area of the State, the Team epitomizes strength and character of our public safety professionals.

The countless hard working men and women of public safety too often go unnoticed. It is necessary and responsible that we honor them this way, and I commend the Cobb County Chamber of Commerce for their support of this initiative. Public Safety Awareness Week serves as an important reminder that our safety is not assured without the hard work of public safety professionals and volunteers.

Madam Speaker, I join with the House of Representatives today in declaring a sincere appreciation for these honorable award winners and dedicated public servants. Congratulations, Director Arrowood and the Marietta Wildland Fire Response Team.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his leadership and for yielding.

As a physician, I recognize clearly the imperative of all having health insurance, and I strongly support providing low-income kids with greater access to health care coverage, which is why I support a positive bipartisan reauthorization of SCHIP.

The problem is that's not what this bill is, and today, we're debating a 2-week delay. Now, there's no reason for a delay. It delays solving the problem, and it delays providing health care to some needy youngsters.

But I welcome this time because it gives Americans more time to realize this is all about politics. It gives Americans more time to realize that the bill is paid for with 22 million new smokers. It gives the American people more time to realize that the bill covers kids in higher-income families before lower-income families. It gives the American people the opportunity to understand the irresponsible and cynical nature of this bill.

We're sent here to solve challenges, Madam Speaker, and I call on my colleagues to work positively together now. Let's cover kids most in need now. Vote ``no'' on the postponement now.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and the ranking member, my good friend from California for yielding and for your leadership on this issue and on so many others that come to our House.

You mentioned, and folks have mentioned, that we have been victimized. Well, Mr. Speaker, we haven't been victimized; the American people have been victimized. Because we were promised, we in the House of Representatives were promised, but the American people were promised, an open process. They were promised a fair process. And, as you mentioned, the stories are too numerous to stipulate each individually.

But the story that I bring is one of the flood insurance bill, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act that came just last week. We had an amendment that we were essentially assured would be made in order through the assurances of the Chair of that committee, that we would have an open and deliberative process.

You are absolutely correct. The amendment to file with the Rules Committee was 5 p.m., an arbitrary deadline, but that is all right. It is a deadline, 5 p.m.

My office submitted our amendment electronically to the Rules Committee, as we do all the time, 8 minutes before 5 o'clock, 4:52 p.m. In the process of bringing that hard piece of paper over to the Rules Committee, we got that there at 5:03 p.m., 3 minutes after 5:00.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Tennessee for yielding and for her leadership on this issue, and I am pleased to join my friend from Texas, as well as my good friend from North Carolina, who is yet to come. I appreciate her bringing great focus to this issue, because, Mr. Speaker, if the casual observer were to give you a description of what they thought was going on here in Washington, they would say, Oh, well, they are being much more responsible. They are not spending as much money as they have in the past. All sorts of wonderful things are happening. They would say so because this new majority has captured what I have called ``Orwellian democracy.'' They are talking the talk, Mr. Speaker, but they are not walking the walk.

So I appreciate my friend from Tennessee for taking the leadership and making certain that we bring focus to what truly is happening here in Washington under this new leadership.

Our good friends on the other side of the aisle, as you say, this is the first day of the new fiscal year. It is a great opportunity to look back and see what has happened over the last fiscal year that they have been in charge and to look forward. But if what has happened to date is any harbinger of what is to come in the future, Mr. Speaker, we have got real problems, because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, not a single appropriations bill of the 12 annual appropriations bills has made it to the President's desk yet, and we are done with the last fiscal year. The new fiscal year has begun today.

They didn't make it to the President's desk because this new majority has picked up right where they left off when they were last in the majority back in 1994 with more taxing and more spending. It is the spending that has our attention tonight, and through so many different areas.

This new majority is interested in spending over $23 billion in new money, new Federal money, and that is just the beginning. That is just the beginning. That is what they have appropriated, not what they have authorized to be spent, which is truly hundreds of billions of dollars. But $23 billion is what separates responsible spending from the new majority, which is why we haven't gotten any of the appropriations bills to the President's desk and signed.

What we are talking about tonight is a portion of all of that, and that is the issue of earmarks, the issue of special projects, the issue of spending that gets into bills, oftentimes late at night and oftentimes behind closed doors; little projects that one Member or two in Congress make certain are inserted into bills. It is an earmark process, it is a special project process that we on our side, when we were in the majority recognized, albeit a little late, but recognized that it had significant potential for huge abuse. Some of our former colleagues, in fact, have different residences right now because of that abuse. They violated the law and were held to account.

So what we did as a majority before the end of last year was to pass a rule that said that all earmarks, all special projects, had to be disclosed. Whether they were in tax bills, whether they were in authorizing bills or whether they were in appropriations bills, every one of them had to be disclosed: who asked for it and how much did they ask for.

Mr. Speaker, that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? It is called sunshine. Sunshine for earmarks, we called it. It is what the American people desire. It is what the American people deserve. It is what my constituents home in Georgia say that is what we want. We want to know who is asking for these things.

We instituted this program. One would have thought, given the talk that we heard from this new majority, that when they took over that would have been one of those commonsense reforms they would have continued. That would have made a whole lot of sense.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, as you know, that is not what happened. In fact, there was to be no disclosure of individuals who requested earmarks, as my friend from Tennessee knows; and we fought, Republicans fought tooth and nail to make certain that disclosure occurred in appropriations bills before any were passed. This happened in May and June of this year.

Finally, finally, the new majority relented and said, Okay, we will allow for disclosure of who is asking for those earmarks, but that is not true for authorizing bills or tax bills. So what we see in these bills, as my friend from Texas cited, is these projects that get pushed into these bills that have special rewards for certain Members of Congress and their districts. We see it in all sorts of bills.

Mr. Speaker, as you will remember, last week we passed in this House of Representatives the SCHIP bill, the State Children's Health Insurance Program bill. One wouldn't think that you would need to sway Members' votes on that from a majority standpoint. Just let the bill stand or fall on its merits. The issue of those merits is another debate. But what we saw in that bill were earmarks, special projects for Members on the majority side to sway their vote.

Mr. Speaker, that is not what my constituents want; it is not what the American people want.

That might not even be so bad if they were disclosed, if people knew what was happening; if the Member had to stand in this Chamber before his or her colleagues and offer the justification for those programs, if they would stand before their constituents at home and offer justification for those programs.

But one of the things that really gets in the craw of my constituents, and I know those of my good friend from Tennessee, is the arrogance with which this new majority has fashioned these programs, the incredible arrogance, once again, saying one thing and doing another.

As my friend from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn stated, you can get this kind of information at CQ.com, Mr. Speaker, if you like. You may not have seen it. I would ask you to look it up.

They had an article today, as a matter of fact, asking: ``Do you want to know how your tax dollars are being spent in Washington?'' And the response is: ``Tough (expletive).'' They are quoting a very powerful Member of the majority party.

That is what is so distressing, Mr. Speaker. There is an arrogance about this majority. There is an arrogance that exceeds anything that anybody has ever seen in this Chamber, and there is a culture of excessive Washington spending that I believe the American people are sick and tired of.

So when you see this kind of activity going on in the committees, in the authorizing committees and in the tax committees and in the appropriations committees, where Members of this Congress are attempting to hide from their constituents and from other Members of Congress what is in these bills, who is asking for it, how much money and how do I identify it, and when a reporter in fact asks a very senior Member of the majority party how to find out ``how much money for which projects are in this bill,'' that Member of Congress says, ``Tough (expletive).''

Mr. Speaker, that is not befitting of this House. That is not befitting of the institution that you and I were elected to hold a seat in. That is not befitting of the responsibilities that our constituents desire us to have when we come to this House of Representatives.

So what is the solution? Mr. Speaker, the solution at this point in time for this issue is H. Res. 479. We have a resolution that we would like to get debated on this floor, to have a debate on this floor that says just what we have talked about, to disclose who is asking for these special projects, who is asking for these earmarks, whether it is in appropriation bills, authorizing bills or tax bills. It is a resolution that sits in one of the committees controlled by the majority side. There is an opportunity for all Members of this House to say we ought to be voting on that. It is called a discharge petition. There we have 193 Members who signed to bring that resolution to the floor and debate it and vote on it. It takes 218, which is the majority here. So it is going to take some Democrats. So 193 Members have signed that discharge petition. Not a single Democrat has signed that discharge petition.

So, Mr. Speaker, I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who said during their campaign and even come to the floor of this Chamber and say now: We want earmarks disclosed. We want people to know who has been asking for these special projects. So sign the discharge petition, and it will give us a great opportunity to debate this issue on the floor of the house during a legislative session, during a time when we are talking about adopting legislation and making certain that sunshine is present for earmarks.

So I want to commend my friend from Tennessee for her leadership on this issue, for bringing this issue into focus, and for making certain that we fight day in and day out on behalf of the American taxpayer whose money it is that we are given the responsibility for.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from South Carolina for his leadership on this, as well as so many other issues.

Mr. Chairman, I represent the Sixth District of Georgia, one that is interested actively in the input of Members of Congress and the actions of government. But they have some suspicion about the actions of government.

When I came to Congress, I was told a story by a former Member who told an amusing story about his sense that when Members of Congress get on the airplane and they head toward Washington to come to work, they think they are pretty smart folks. As they get closer to Washington, they think that their intelligence increases. As they begin to descend and come into Reagan National Airport, they really think they are getting mighty smart. And then once they step off the plane, they think they are the brightest people on the Earth.

I tell that because folks listening to this might be surprised that there actually is a process in place for rulemaking within OSHA. There is a process in place that maximizes workplace safety while it sets standards based upon the strongest and the most complete scientific information.

Now, today, the House of Representatives is considering a bill which bypasses this process, bypasses the process and sets a permissible exposure limit for diacetyl, making Members of Congress the ones who are the experts on scientific evidence.

As my friend mentioned, before I came to Congress, I was a physician. One of the things that concerned me greatly was that Members of Congress, many Members of Congress think that they know best about so many issues. One of them was how to practice medicine. In this instance, it's what the level of appropriate exposure for a worker in this Nation ought be for diacetyl.

Diacetyl is an artificial flavoring commonly used for popcorn. It has been determined to be safe for general consumption, but the inhalation, the breathing in of large quantities may be harmful, although there is not any evidence that demonstrates that it can be solely harmful to an individual, which is what this bill actually assumes or presumes.

You have heard talk about the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH. NIOSH is the group that studies these kinds of things. In fact, they produced a study that concluded, ``There is insufficient data that exists on which to base workplace exposure standards or recommended exposure limits for butter flavorings.''

Those are the folks that are the scientists that are involved in setting standards. We ought to listen to their recommendation. I commend the author and I commend the individuals who want to push the process forward more rapidly. I think that's an appropriate thing to do. But by adopting this bill, Congress is effectively saying to OSHA that your rulemaking process doesn't make any difference, that we don't need to hear the folks who have the greatest amount of knowledge about an issue, and that Congress is about to set standards based upon incomplete scientific evidence.

Now that may not be of great concern to some, but it ought to be. It ought to be. Regulations of this nature should only be based on the most sound and thorough scientific data. Otherwise, Congress is coming back every 6 months, every year, every 2 years and revising what they have put in place because they haven't based their decisionmaking on appropriate scientific information.

If this legislation is to go forward, then I would encourage my colleagues to allow it to do so with the adoption of the Wilson amendment. This amendment would ensure that a final safety standard for diacetyl is in fact based on adequate scientific and complete review by NIOSH. The Wilson amendment will guarantee that the most effective worker protections are put in place with the backing of science rather than identifying one compound without complete information.

If the goal here is workplace safety, if the goal is workplace safety, then we ought to make certain that that safety, those guidelines, those regulations are put in place and done correctly. Members of Congress should have a critical eye on the OSHA rulemaking process, without a doubt. But it's important that we not implement mandates based upon incomplete scientific evidence and without all of the facts.

So, for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I once again thank my colleague for his assistance and leadership in this area. I would urge adoption of the Wilson amendment, and if that does not occur, then I would urge defeat of the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, today the new majority sadly declares politics more important than health care for our Nation's poorest children. Democrats are moving forward with a massive expansion of Washington-run health care under the auspices of helping kids. Yet, any honest discussion about this bill reveals that it is clearly less about helping children and more about Washington control. You see, they think they can make better decisions than you.

Remarkably, this expansion of bureaucratic health care offers taxpayer-funded coverage to people who are neither poor nor children. Democrats have made it clear that this bill is just the next step in their desired march toward Washington control of health care. And as a physician, I have seen how dangerous government control of health care can be.

Rather than forcing bureaucratic-controlled health care upon the American people, I urge my colleagues to reject this proposal and reauthorize SCHIP in a way that is consistent with its original bipartisan intent: helping America's poorest children.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Texas and his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this remarkable rule, this martial-law rule.

Mr. Speaker, as you likely know, the new majority is becoming much more creative with their rule writing, and frankly it would be humorous if it weren't so serious.

At the beginning of this Congress, this new majority promised us a fair and an open process, but again the majority has failed to live up to that promise. Speaker Pelosi said, ``Because the debate has been limited and Americans' voices silenced by this restrictive rule, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.'' That's what she said before the election last year. Well, I agree with the Speaker, we ought to vote against this restrictive rule.

Chairman Louise Slaughter of the Rules Committee said before, ``If we want to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and the thoughtfulness to debate all legislation under an open rule. An open process should be the norm and not the exception.'' Well, I agree, Mr. Speaker. Now, is that a broken promise, or is it political expediency?

Democrat Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel said before the election, ``Let's have an up-or-down vote. Don't be scared. Don't hide behind some little rule. Come on out here. Put it on the table, and let's have a vote.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, I agree.

Mr. Speaker, there were five amendments in total that were submitted to the Rules Committee last night. Two were made in order. What's the rush, Mr. Speaker? Which idea was so scary that the new majority decided to shut down debate? In the wake of a terrorist attack, as a result of this legislation, the liability of the American taxpayer is over $100 billion. So this legislation represents a dramatic increase in exposure to the taxpayer. And that may be appropriate.

I offered an amendment that would have allowed for appropriate PAYGO rules to make certain that we funded this bill. It went down by a partisan vote. My amendment would have protected the taxpayer dollars of hardworking Americans. There would be real offsets, a commonsense approach. If there is to be a taxpayer subsidy, as good stewards of the American hard-earned taxpayer dollars, we should provide the specific spending decrease to offset any new spending required by this legislation. Instead, Mr. Speaker, we get a budget gimmick that many of my friends and I believe is likely unconstitutional.

And that's not only the opinion of those on our side of the aisle. I have here a letter to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer from the office of Congressman Ackerman, a respected Member on the other side, who said, ``It is our strong belief that making the entire program contingent on Congress passing a second piece of legislation completely undermines the intent and the desired effect of the legislation.'' Not only unconstitutional, Mr. Speaker, but irresponsible.

Well, welcome to the theater of the absurd. Only in Washington would someone believe that requiring an additional vote at some point in the future for Congress to be able to release funds, where PAYGO won't apply, that it would diminish the cost to the hard-earned American taxpayer, or even that it's possible to do so.

Mr. Speaker, rules aren't rules if you only follow them when you want to. The Democrats promised to use PAYGO rules for everything. Instead, they're picking and choosing when they do so. At home, we call that breaking a rule and breaking a promise. Fiscal responsibility shouldn't just be something that we trump out there during campaigns and on the campaign trail.

What idea, what amendment was so scary that it inspired this incredibly draconian and restrictive rule? I urge my colleagues not to be scared. Don't hide behind, as Mr. Emanuel said, some little rule. Vote ``no'' on this rule so we can have real PAYGO, real fiscal responsibility on this legislation. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its current form, I am.

Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense motion to recommit that would require that any individual or household receiving money from the Affordable Housing Fund must present verification of legal residency by a secure identification document.

Americans believe that it's appropriate to ask those receiving hard- earned taxpayer dollars, taxpayer assistance, that it's right to establish that they are legal residents of the United States. It's common sense.

Across the country, whether it's Denver, where in 2006 there were an estimated 20,000 illegal immigrants holding FHA insured loans, or L.A. or Atlanta, where similar activity occurs, illegal immigrants are being given unprecedented access to taxpayer benefits and taxpayer money. In many of these cases of FHA loans, the documents submitted with their applications later proved to be false, resident alien numbers that were never issued, or Social Security numbers belonging to other people, or W-2 forms that were fabricated. In the case of financial institutions, minimal documents are required by their regulators to establish a new customer's identity to open accounts.

The current loopholes in Federal law are an invitation, they're an attraction, they're a magnet to illegal immigration. We must not reward those coming here illegally by allowing them the services that ought to be only afforded to American citizens and they're here legally. If we do so, this results in back-door amnesty.

This motion to recommit would require that the Federal official responsible for administering the Housing Trust Fund ensure that any assistance provided from the Affordable Housing Fund must require that all adults are legal residents of the United States. Simple common sense.

Recipients may use one of three different forms of identification. These forms are considered the most secure types of identification because they're harder to forge or to duplicate. They're all issued by a government agency

which has more checks and balances, more checks and balances preventing illegal immigrants or criminals or terrorists from obtaining these documents.

Everyone who is in the United States legally can easily obtain one of the three identification forms, but illegal immigrants, criminals, and terrorists would have to go to significant lengths to receive one.

Now, we have offered this type of amendment to bills in the past on this floor, and it's needed on this bill as well, as there appears to be no end in sight to the appetite of our friends in the majority to provide taxpayer benefits to illegals against the will and against the desire of the American people.

Now, you will hear that this MTR, this motion to recommit, provides for the committee to report back promptly and that that would ``kill the bill.'' But we all know that's not true. In fact, the Speaker has previously ruled that any bill adopted with this language could readily be returned to the House floor with the new language.

You will hear that those already here illegally cannot get federally subsidized benefits. Then because it's clear that there are currently some loopholes in our current system, we ought not have any problem adopting more enforceable criteria for legal documentation.

You will hear that if you don't drive or you don't travel to foreign countries, that this is an undue burden. But the American people don't believe that it is inappropriate to ask those citizens receiving Federal taxpayer assistance to first establish that they are legal residents of the United States.

You will hear that this might lead us down the path to using Social Security as a universal identifier. But if you read this motion, what it does is simply provide for an array of options for secure IDs that all Americans and legal immigrants have ready access to. Simple common sense.

You may hear that it's already in the bill. Well, in fact it is, Mr. Speaker; but it doesn't cover the Affordable Housing Fund. The current regulations to establish a customer's identity do a disservice to the American people. Greater clarification in this area will help stem the tide of illegal immigrants.

The Federal Government should not be operating under obscure parameters that do not serve our Nation. We can and should strengthen these regulations to protect the American people.

This is a much more appropriate solution to the problem of back-door amnesty than simply saying that we're not going to let illegal immigrants live in government-subsidized housing. To the best of our ability, we must eliminate using hard-earned American taxpayer money to subsidize illegal activity. This motion to recommit does just that, and I urge my colleagues to support the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, what a great opportunity it is to come back to the floor of the House as the designee of the minority leader, the Republican leader, and bring some issues hopefully into a little greater perspective.

We come here often and try to shed a little light as a group that we call the Official Truth Squad. The Official Truth Squad is a group that got started a little over 2 years ago, because, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, when folks tend to speak on the floor of the House, sometimes they exaggerate a little bit. I know that is hard to believe, but in fact that is the case. In fact, what we just heard, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, is a bit of an exaggeration, and maybe a distortion of the facts.

What we would like to do tonight is to talk about a number of issues, primarily monetary issues, taxing and spending and those kinds of things. But before we get started, we want to bring a couple of issues together that have as their common core and their common theme truth.

Our desire is to try to bring into perspective some of those areas that oftentimes don't have the light of day given to them, if you will, Mr. Speaker. We have a favorite phrase or quote that we use in the Official Truth Squad, and it comes from a gentleman who was revered in this Capitol, and truly across this Nation, a former Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He is quoted, and a number of folks have said something like this, but he has my favorite quote that crystallizes this issue, and that is that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

Before I begin and talk about some of the fiscal matters, the monetary matters, that we have confronting us in this Nation and that this Congress has already dealt with in ways that I think would benefit from a little light, and certainly issues that we will be dealing with further as we go on into this fall and winter, I want to talk about two very specific issues that have come to this Congress within the last week.

The first is something that the American people are well aware of, and that is that General Petraeus, who was the commanding officer of the coalition forces in Iraq, came last week after much fanfare in the media to present to Congress his perspective on what was going on in Iraq, and only in Iraq. Leading up to that, we had a remarkable display by Members of the other side of the aisle, the majority party, that did their best, their dead level best, to discredit this incredible hero and this incredible patriot and this incredible man of service to this Nation.

All the while you hear them say over and over and over, ``we support the troops.'' ``We don't like the war, but we support the troops.'' Well, nobody likes the war. But some people back up their statement that they indeed support the troops with action, and the action that occurred leading up to last week's presentation before a joint committee in the House and a committee in the Senate by General Petraeus, a true hero and a true patriot, the action that led up to that by Members of the majority party, the Democrat majority party, I found to be disconcerting. When I was home last week for our extended recess, folks at home found it to be disconcerting.

But then what we heard after a remarkable ad was taken out by a left- wing advocacy group that questioned the patriotism and that questioned the honor and that questioned the veracity of what General Petraeus was going to present to the committee, what we heard from the other side after that was remarkable silence, a remarkable silence.

So when you hear Members on the other side of the aisle, as we just did within the last 15 minutes, say, Mr. Speaker, I support the troops, but I don't support the mission, well, it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that you can't do that and be true to our men and women on the ground. You can't do that. Because what we heard after the ad that was put in The New York Times, at a discount rate, I might add, the ad that was put in The New York Times, when it questioned the honesty of one of our bravest heroes, military heroes, what we heard from the other side was virtually nothing, which put it all into perspective.

That is the truth that Senator Moynihan was talking about. You can have your opinion, but you can't have your own facts. And the fact of the matter is in that instance, when there was an attack on one of our leaders in the military, one of our heroes, when there was an attack, where were the Americans in the majority party, who represent the majority party? Where were they?

I know where their constituents were, because I represent many of them, and they were as disgusted as I with the actions of MoveOn.org. They were as disgusted as I with the remarkable, remarkable betrayal of the public trust that anybody in the public arena has. And it was distressing. I found it distressing and saddening that in fact we heard virtually nothing from folks on the other side of the aisle.

So that is a bit of truth that the American people are paying attention to. When I go home, that is what I hear. I hear folks ask me all the time, why is it that our Congress, the majority party now in our Congress, cannot stand up proudly and say that they match their words with action when it comes to our brave men and women in the military? So that is a bit of truth that I wanted to highlight, to bring a little light to in this House of Representatives.

The other is an issue that again doesn't have anything to do with that, except we are trying to shed some light of truth on it. It happened just a couple of hours ago, Mr. Speaker, on the floor of this House.

The majority party has bent over backwards in their efforts to try to make certain that individuals who are in this Nation illegally are able to access certain benefit that are paid for with hard-earned taxpayer money. Now, I don't know why that is. I can't answer the question I get at home, why on Earth would they do those sorts of things? I can't answer that. But they bend over backwards to make certain that individuals who have come into this Nation illegally are able to get access to housing, get access to all sorts of things that in fact my constituents, your constituents, I suspect, Mr. Speaker, don't believe is appropriate.

They believe that we ought to make certain that our borders are secure and that individuals come into this Nation correctly, legally. I don't know of anybody that opposes legal immigration. What many of us, especially on the minority side, the Republican side, oppose is illegal immigration and the consequences of attempting to take care of or provide services for those folks that are here illegally. The problem is, those services, all of the services that we address here, are paid for by hard-earned American taxpayer money.

So what we had on the floor of the House here today was a bill that should have gotten broad support, the reauthorization of the Federal Housing Act. It is a bill that in its original intent was supposed to try to provide assistance for people who were kind of at the margins. They weren't able to make certain that they were able to afford some kind of housing, and this bill was an attempt to try to provide in a very generous and positive way some assistance to those that needed it.

Over time, that mission has become a bit distorted. In this instance today, it has not only become distorted; it has become abused, abused in a way that, again, my constituents at home, they just shake their head when they hear these kinds of stories.

What happened is what the bill included, at the direction of the chairman of the committee and of the Democrat majority. What it included was up to a $5 billion slush fund.

Mr. Speaker, remember, that is $5 billion of hard-earned American taxpayer money, $5 billion to go into what is euphemistically called an Affordable Housing Fund. But in fact what that money can be used for is virtually anything that the majority party believes is appropriate in terms of giving money to organizations that have something to do with housing.

Now, how is that something defined? Well, it isn't, which means that that money can be used for an organization that simply advertises that if you are having difficulty with housing, then we would like to assist you and move you and get you to talk to the people who truly have the answers.

That may be 1 percent of their mission, and the other 99 percent of their mission is advocacy for left-leaning organizations all across this Nation. And advocacy for individuals on the other side of the aisle to get elected, and advocacy in ways that the vast majority of the American people would say we ought not be doing that. We ought not be spending hard-earned American taxpayer money that way. Yet this is a $5 billion slush fund for individuals to be able to use it kind of as their own little pet project.

If that weren't bad enough, on our side of the aisle we get one opportunity to truly affect and change the course or the description, the content of a bill. It is called a motion to recommit, as you know, Mr. Speaker. In that motion to recommit that we offered today, it was very simple. It said, if you are going to allow individuals to have access to that $5 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money, you ought to make certain that the people receiving that money are either U.S. citizens or here legally. Kind of a simple, commonsense amendment.

What we heard from the other side was oh, no, you can't do that. That would limit the ability of us to do, to accomplish our mission. That would make it so we are not able to do the kinds of things that we want to do.

Remember, the kinds of things that they want to do is to support organizations that are not consistent with mainstream America. So we offered that amendment that would have provided that you had to be legal in this Nation, that you had appropriate documentation of your legality. You had to be a U.S. citizen or here legally. The other side strenuously objected and defeated it. So 216 or 217 Members of the Democrat Party said no, we don't believe that you ought to be here legally and get those kinds of moneys. We believe those moneys ought to be able to go to those folks here illegally.

Mr. Speaker, when I go home and try to explain that to my constituents, there is no way I can do that. They stand in front of me just dumbfounded that the majority party that we have right now is intent on providing taxpayer benefits, taxpayer-funded benefits, to individuals here illegally. That is a bit of a truth that I am trying to weave through and make certain that Members of this body, Mr. Speaker, understand and appreciate that some of these votes actually do matter. Some of these votes matter. That vote today mattered.

I am attempting to shed some light on issues that in fact matter, and the issue of the ad that denigrated and criticized and brought into question the honesty and truthfulness of one of our military heroes about which we heard nothing, virtually nothing from the other side, that is truth. That's truth. And the American people are watching. The American people are watching.

I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, when I go home I often get some questions from folks who are concerned about what is going on here in Washington. I was reminded by a friend here on the floor of the House today that it is striking that so often what seems to matter at home doesn't matter here, and what matters here doesn't matter at home. So we get the kind of remarkable back-and-forth that goes on here on the floor of the House that oftentimes is not full of the kind of substance that the American people are concerned about, and the issues about which they are concerned we often get very little attention paid to those things here in Washington.

We are going to talk about one of those that I hear about all the time from my constituents back home. We are going to talk about the issue of taxes and the issue of spending and the issue of entitlements. ``Entitlements'' is a word I am not very fond of because it is not an appropriate description. Entitlements have come to en capture the Social Security program, Medicare program and Medicaid program. They are called entitlements, because in order to receive the benefits from those three programs, and other entitlements, there are other entitlements, all you have to do is meet certain parameters. So if you are a certain age, for example, you are eligible for Medicare, regardless of anything else. If you are below a certain income and you have a certain family situation, then you are eligible for Medicaid. Once you reach a certain age, you are eligible for Social Security. The proceeds or the benefits that are in those programs are automatic. So I prefer to call them automatic spending as opposed to entitlements. And instead of mandatory spending, I like to call them automatic spending because the spending is on autopilot. It just goes and goes.

Regardless of what happens in this Chamber and in the Senate, the spending continues and continues and continues. The inertia here in Washington about these programs is to do nothing. It is to do absolutely nothing because they are automatic. They are entitlements. Why would we want to do anything. We would want to do something because of the changing demographics of our society. We are on a collision course with a fiscal disaster. A collision course with a fiscal disaster. That is not my opinion, that is a fact, to quote Senator Moynihan.

If you go to other folks who are much more knowledgeable about this situation, they will tell you the same thing. The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Chairman Bernanke said in February 2007, ``Without early and meaningful action to address the rapid growth of entitlement, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened with future generations bearing much of the cost.'' That is the Federal Reserve chairman saying if something isn't done, the economy

could be seriously weakened. What that means is fewer jobs, decreasing income, higher taxes, decreasing opportunity, a shadow coming across the dreams of the American people. That's what that means.

The comptroller general, David Walker, who has been working as hard as he can for literally years to get the American people and this Congress to wake up to this impending crisis, David Walker said in March of this year, ``The rising cost of government entitlements are `a fiscal cancer' that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country and could `bankrupt America.' ''

Mr. Speaker, that's not Representative Price talking. That's not somebody who is talking willy-nilly about the sky falling for no reason at all. That is the comptroller general of the United States of America who looks at the numbers and looks into the projections of spending in these entitlement programs and says that there are catastrophic consequences for our country if nothing is done.

I am fond of saying that a picture is worth a thousand words, and graphs are oftentimes worth more than that. This graph demonstrates clearly the course we are on. These are pie charts that identify the amount of the portion, the percentage of the Federal budget, that goes to mandatory or automatic spending, the entitlement programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

In 1995, these programs, the entitlement programs, automatic spending programs, comprised about 48.7 percent of the Federal budget. And the prediction then in 2005 was that they would comprise about 54 percent of the Federal budget. That was the prediction back in 1995. And what happened? Well, it was right on track. Right on track. 53.4 percent of the Federal budget went to automatic spending in the area of entitlements.

Now what's the prediction for 2017? It is 62.2 percent. This yellow portion of the pie continues to get larger and larger and larger. That's the spending in the automatic spending area, the entitlement area: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. That is a course, Mr. Speaker, that we as a Nation are not able to sustain. It is crying out for reform. It is crying out for improvement and programs that will be more responsive to the individuals receiving it. It is crying out to make certain that as the baby boomers of our Nation retire, as they age, and as we have individuals who are at the lower end of the economic spectrum, it is crying out for programs that are more responsive to them, that answer their concerns, that listen to them. These programs will not be able to do that because they will not be able to be funded. And to sit here in 2007 and act as a Congress and not address these issues is irresponsible. It is irresponsible.

This chart, Mr. Speaker, talks about this looming entitlement or automatic spending crisis. In 2007, Federal spending as a percentage of GDP, that's the gross domestic product, is about 20 percent. That means about 20 percent, about two dimes out of every dollar that every American earns, goes towards taxes in order to cover the programs that the Federal Government provides. And the bulk of this, remember, the bulk of this yellow bar here is entitlement spending: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.

If we remain on our current course, if we do nothing at all, and remember, we have done nothing. If we continue to do nothing, what happens is that in relatively short order, 2020, we go to 23, 24 percent. In 2030 we go over 30 percent. In 2040, we go to 40 percent. In 2050, we exceed 50 percent of the gross domestic product.

It's important to remember that, and I have another chart which I don't have with me, but it is important to remember that the average level of Federal budget, taxation to the American people is 18 to 20 percent and has been for decades. It is also important to note that amount of spending, that amount of taxation, that amount of Federal spending, a Nation spending at about 20 percent, is about the maximum that any Nation can sustain for any period of time and remain financially viable. Once you get up into these areas here, Mr. Speaker, you can't sustain that. The economy won't sustain it. People won't have jobs. You begin to lose companies and jobs. You begin to lose the infrastructure that makes it so that individuals can go to work and send their money to Uncle Sam.

There is a balance, and that's what Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke knows. That is what Comptroller General David Walker knows, and that is why they are sounding these alarms.

So you would think that this Congress that is charged with making certain that our financial stake, that our financial future, is positive and optimistic and that my son, our son and children all across this Nation can grow up and be able to have the wonderful opportunities that so many of us have had. You would think that this majority would want to continue or want to make reforms so that those kinds of dreams and visions and entrepreneurship and excitement about America's future would continue. You would think that the current leadership would listen to what they hear if they take that shell and they put it up to their ear or they read the tea leaves or they listen to the people that truly know like David Bernanke and like David Walker. You would think that they would reform these programs or put a proposal on the table to reform these programs.

You would think, Mr. Speaker, that there would be no expansion of entitlements, there would be no more additions to the automatic spending that is going on here in Washington. Well, Mr. Speaker, as you know, that is not the case.

We have had a number of bills that have come through the floor of this House that have in fact expanded entitlements. The most recent one was terribly discomforting to me. It was the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Before I came to Congress, Mr. Speaker, I was a physician. I spent over 20 years, 25 years taking care of people, trying to get them well, trying to heal them, trying to make certain that in spite of all the remarkable rules and regulations that are put on the backs of every single physician across this here Nation, that we could actually take care of patients.

One of the things that became much more onerous than it ought to be is the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which actually provided greater rules to how to care for individuals than otherwise. It also ultimately didn't fit the original definition.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program began in 1997. Its mission was to make certain that those individuals, those children in families where their family made too much money to qualify for Medicaid but they didn't make enough money to be able to readily afford health insurance were given some help; that those families were able to provide some type of health insurance that was truly quality for their children.

It is a good mission. It is a bipartisan program, a program that passed through this House in Congress in 1997 in a bipartisan manner because it had an appropriate ideal; it was an appropriate compromise between some Federal program, a State program, and a lot of private input. That program was to run for 10 years. So it is about to expire.

So what has happened in this House is that the Democrat majority decided that they weren't interested in working in a bipartisan way, contrary to so much of what they talk about. They weren't interested in working in a bipartisan way. It was their way or the highway.

Their way was a remarkable expansion of an entitlement. Remember, the State Children's Health Insurance Program was a discretionary program, which means that the Federal Government determines what resources it has available to provide that kind of care, and it works with the States to make certain that the amount of money is there but that it is not on one of those automatic trajectories to the sky in terms of spending. It is not one of those programs that will assist in bankrupting the Nation, as David Walker talks about.

But what does this majority do, this new majority, this Democrat majority that talks all the time about being fiscally responsible? It takes that program and instead of keeping it in the discretionary side, that side where

folks at home can be able to appreciate that it is that side of the budget where if they are able to afford it, they utilize the money in that area, and it puts it in the entitlement side.

Instead of these bar graphs and those pie charts being accurate in their prediction, that will be significantly off. In fact, they will be off so much that we will reach this position of not being able to sustain those programs and of decreasing economic activity in this Nation and of lowering wages and of losing jobs in this Nation sooner because of the recent actions of this Democrat majority.

They made it an entitlement. They did all sorts of other things which I thought were egregious, as well as they pitted seniors against children in their effort to try to pay for it. You don't see the kind of reform that is so necessary.

So, again, Mr. Speaker, you would think that this new majority would say, well, it looks like when we look into the future that we have got a problem on our hands. We have got a problem, financial problem. It is our responsibility as elected representatives of the people of the United States that we need to be responsible, that we need to be responsive to the concerns of our constituents, that we need to make certain that the programs that we put in place will allow Americans to continue to dream and continue to have that great opportunity for success.

We need to make certain that we don't allow the entitlement programs to consume an ever greater portion of the Federal budget so that that discretionary side, which, Mr. Speaker, as you know, is not just the military, it is roads, it is highways, it is all transportation, it is all funding for the aviation, it is all of the other kinds of programs. It is jobs, housing. It is the wonderful housing bill that we worked on today.

It is all those kinds of things. It is everything that you think of when you think of the Federal Government having activity, everything is all of the discretionary side, and it will be consumed by the entitlements, which means all of the things that folks think about other than those three programs will not be able to take place.

So you would think that this new majority would say, well, we better get our act in order, get our House in order, better work together in a collegial and a positive and a bipartisan way to be able to solve this problem. It is what we have been trying to do, what we have been talking about, what we have proposed.

In fact, we did so in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. That act reformed entitlements, about $130 billion of reform. That is one of the big things that resulted in the ability to balance the budget, to have a surplus. That was done with a Republican Congress and a Democrat President. In fact, in 2005, in spite of all the kicking and screaming from the other side, another $40 billion in appropriate entitlement reform.

What has happened with the budget for this year among this majority, who clearly can read the same charts, who get the same information from the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, and Comptroller David Walker, who can look at the same projections? What have they done in terms of entitlement reform? Nothing. Nothing, Mr. Speaker.

That is an abrogation of duty; that is irresponsible out of this majority. The American people are paying attention because, again, when I go home, they want these problems solved. They want them solved. They ask why can't you work together and get these problems solved. Mr. Speaker, we stand ready, willing and able to work together to get these problems solved.

We are going to talk a little more about entitlements, but we want to talk a fair amount about the taxing that has been hoisted upon the American public by this current majority. We will talk about spending. There are a number of ways you can increase revenue to the Federal Government and cover the programs that are so vital and necessary to the American people.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that increasing taxes and increasing spending together are not two of them. I believe that we ought to be decreasing taxes and decreasing spending and being fiscally responsible as a Congress.

I am pleased to be joined by my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), who is a fiscal hawk, an individual who recognizes and appreciates the importance of balancing budgets and making certain that we don't spend beyond our means at the Federal level. I look forward to your comments. I am happy to yield to you.

I appreciate you pointing that out. What this chart demonstrates is that the rhetoric that we hear from the other side doesn't match the action. It happens in so many different areas; it is hard to keep up with. I call it Orwellian democracy, which is that the words don't match the actions.

This chart demonstrates the seven appropriations bills. A number of us, and you were so very, very supportive of these efforts, attempted to say the Federal Government is spending too much, we ought to decrease that. If you don't want to decrease it in certain specific programs, then let's just decrease it by a certain percent.

In this instance, I promoted amendments that would decrease it by 1 percent. Decrease these seven appropriations bills by 1 percent. That is one penny out of every dollar. That reduction would have saved $3.9 billion. Yet the individuals who so often say over and over and over that they are champions of fiscal responsibility, that they certainly don't want to see us overspend, and you see on the far right there the number of times that they voted for and then against this type of amendment, overwhelmingly voted against it, 95 percent almost all the time.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

I thank my good friend for coming and helping out and participating and trying to shed light, trying to put a little fact on the table when we talk about the issue of taxing and spending.

I do, Mr. Speaker, want to talk fairly specifically about taxes because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the general consensus out in America is that the majority party, the Democrats, are the party of tax and spend. I grew up believing that, I grew up thinking that, and that is one of the reasons that I was so staunchly a Republican as I entered my political career, because I thought it was most appropriate to decrease taxes and to decrease spending at the State and the Federal level, because I believe firmly, as I believe most Americans believe, that the American people are better able to decide how to spend their hard- earned money, not the Federal Government, not the State government.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle tend to believe by and large that the Federal Government knows best; that the choices that the Federal Government makes with how to spend individuals' money, those are better choices than that person could make for themselves. I simply don't believe it and I don't think the American people believe that.

But what has happened in a relatively short period of time, Mr. Speaker, we have been in this 110th Congress now a little over 9 months, right about 9 months, in a relatively short period of time the bills that have been passed would increase taxes on the American people, and truly across the board, not just a small focal area. They will talk about increasing taxes on the rich, and we will talk about that a little bit, but in fact what they have passed through this House are bills repeatedly that increase taxes on virtually every single American. And why do I say that? Well, they passed a budget that includes this portion, these parameters laid out in terms of increasing taxes.

When you talk about ordinary income, the highest rate would go from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. When you talk about capital gains, it would go from 15 percent to 20 percent. Dividends, 15 percent to 39.6 percent. Those are all increases, Mr. Speaker. They are also facts, not opinions. They are facts.

The estate tax in 2010 will be zero. That is the death tax. That means that if you are unfortunate enough to have somebody in your family that dies, that their estate on that day that they die, you don't have to write a check to the Federal Government. But on January 1, 2011, with the budget that the new majority passed, that amount, that death tax goes right back up to 55 percent, which is where it was when we have been trying to get it down, 55 percent. That is an increase, Mr. Speaker.

The child tax credit, the amount of money that you are given from the Federal Government as a credit to assist in raising your child, $1,000, in 2010, 2011 down to $500, cut in half, slashed in half.

The lowest tax bracket, curiously enough, those at the lowest end of the economic spectrum in 2010 would have a taxable income tax at 10 percent, and then in 2011 at 15 percent.

What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? What does that mean to people? The other side is fond of saying that all they are going to do is tax the rich. They demonize the rich, because there is a tried-and-true method in politics which is to divide people. We believe, I believe that it is important to bring people together to work together in a positive way to solve problems, to solve the challenges that we have as the American people. And so they say, well, all we are going to do is increase taxes on the rich.

In fact, with these tax rates here, one in five people who benefit from the lower rate on capital gains that was passed earlier in this decade have incomes below $50,000. That is 20 percent have incomes below $50,000. So I guess that all we can conclude from that is that our friends on the other side, the majority party, believe that anybody who makes less than $50,000 is rich, the only conclusion that we could reach given their rhetoric, given what they say. One in four people who benefit from the lowered rate on dividends, one in four, 25 percent have an income less than $50,000. Again, are those people rich, Mr. Speaker? Are those people rich? When you pit people against each other, it doesn't do well or a service to our Nation in terms of the discussion as we move forward.

How many folks is that? 2.4 million people earning less than $50,000 benefit from the capital gains tax relief, 2.4 million Americans; 5.4 million Americans who earn less than $50,000 benefit from the dividend tax relief, 5.4 million. In fact, 58 percent of the people who have benefited, Americans who have benefited from the capital gains tax cuts earn less than $100,000 a year.

Over half of the individuals earn less than $100,000 a year. So I guess all those people, Mr. Speaker, by the definition of our friends on the other side, are rich.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking a bit about taxes and about the Orwellian nature of the rhetoric that we hear from folks on the other side of the aisle as they continually say, well, we will only tax the rich and we will only tax corporations, as if corporations are this inanimate object that don't relate at all to the American people, that there is no nexus between the American people's jobs and businesses. In fact, when they tax at the rate that they do or that they propose, it affects virtually every single individual in this Nation who has a job. And, Mr. Speaker, that is personal. That is personal to those folks.

So we have talked about the $392.5 billion tax increase that was incorporated in the budget that our friends adopted on the other side. We have talked about that, and we outlined where that came from with all of the increases in income taxes, capital gains taxes, the death tax coming back. But what else have they done? Virtually a new tax at every single turn. A new bill comes through here, and it is a new tax or it is a new fee. $15 billion in the energy bill that was passed, $15 billion in new taxes on American corporations, American oil corporations. And I know it is popular to beat up on the oil companies. But, Mr. Speaker, if you tax them more, who is going to pay those taxes? The American people are going to pay those taxes. Corporations don't make any money, they don't mint any money. What they do is American people purchase their products. And if they are taxed more, the American people will pay more for those taxes.

In addition to what that means is that we are penalizing American corporations. And they didn't tax foreign oil companies. That is not what they did. They taxed American oil companies $15 billion; $5.8 billion in new tobacco taxes. That might be appropriate. In fact, as a physician I strongly believe that individuals ought not smoke. Ought not smoke. But what they have done is incorporate new tobacco taxes in a children's health insurance bill, so that as you decrease the number of folks that are smoking, you will have to find that money elsewhere. And then where does that come from? Yes, Mr. Speaker, you guessed it, new taxes.

$7.5 billion in new taxes in the farm bill. Remember, Mr. Speaker, at every single turn, virtually every single turn, every new bill, this new majority has seen to find an opportunity to raise taxes on the American people.

Five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax increase for infrastructure. That infrastructure is an appropriate thing to pay for. But, Mr. Speaker, as you know, when you set a budget, you ought to set priorities. And one of the priorities of this Nation ought to be infrastructure improvement, but we have got enough money to be able to do that if we would set those priorities. We ought not be increasing the taxes on the American people.

A 50-cent-per-gallon, 50-cents-per-gallon tax increase to study global warming. Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is fairly well documented that the temperature on the Earth has increased some over the past couple of years. I don't know that that is due to human activity, but I do believe that we ought to be studying it and looking at it. I also believe that it ought to be a priority of our Nation and it ought to be a priority of our budget, but I don't believe that we need to increase taxes in order to perform that study. I believe that those resources are certainly already there.

New taxes on homeowners by ending the mortgage deductions. That is what has been proposed by the other side.

And in the SCHIP bill again, in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, there was a small little portion of it that many people didn't even know they were voting on when they voted on it that will provide, if it becomes law, for a tax on every single personal private health insurance policy in this Nation. Every single one. Mr. Speaker, it is not the way that we ought to be proceeding to increase economic development to solve the challenges that we have by taxing Americans over and over and over.

I want to spend a few brief moments talking about taxes on corporations, because our friends on the other side, it is one of their favorite pinatas. They beat up on the corporations left, right, and center, and they do so as if the corporations in America aren't paying any tax at all, they aren't paying their fair share. You will hear them say that, Mr. Speaker. If you look at the facts, if you look at the facts, then we could see where the American corporations stand as it relates to the rest of the industrialized world.

Now, one would think, given the Orwellian rhetoric that we have heard from the other side, that American corporations are clearly not paying their fair share. Right? They are not paying as much as they might be in, say, oh, pick a nation. Canada? Canadian corporations pay about 22 percent. American corporations, oh, by the way, they are down there on the far right on this chart, Mr. Speaker. They are down there on the far right paying the greatest percentage of taxes of their income of any other nation, tied with Spain. Granted, we are tied with Spain, 35 percent. Switzerland down here, 8 or 9 percent. Ireland is about 12 percent.

In fact, Ireland is a great case study, because Ireland used to be way down at this end of the chart, way down at that end. In fact, what they did was decrease their corporate taxes, decrease their taxes on corporations and businesses. And what happened, Mr. Speaker? An incredible economic boom, an incredible economic development occurred, because when you allow corporations to create more jobs, more people get jobs, more money is created in terms of revenue for the Federal Government. And it seems counterintuitive, but when you decrease taxes on both people and on corporations, there is more money that comes into the Federal Government.

So, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the facts, when you look at the facts you appreciate that the United States corporations, again, a wonderful whipping boy and it is easy to criticize them because it is tough for them to defend themselves, especially with the rhetoric that we so often hear on this floor of the House. And I find that troubling and I think that is distressing, and it ought to be to the American people, Mr. Speaker. Because when you look at the facts, what you see is that United States corporations are taxed more than any other industrialized nation except for Spain, and we are tied with Spain, 35 percent. So those are the facts, Mr. Speaker.

Now, what is the solution? Well, the solution is to respect the hard- earned money of the American taxpayer. That is the solution. We have proposed a taxpayer bill of rights. I encourage my colleagues on the other side to look at the bill, to cosponsor the bill. I would love to have it passed. I would love to bring it to the floor and passed.

What does it include? It says that the Federal Government ought not grow beyond their ability to pay for it. That is the balanced budget portion of the bill. You ought not spend more than you take in. You ought to make certain that you end deficit spending. We believe taxpayers have a right to that. We believe that taxpayers have a right to receive back each dollar that they entrust to the Federal Government for their retirement. That is the Social Security portion. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, we talked about entitlements earlier, entitlement reform is imperative. If young people across this Nation are going to be able to receive back with some benefit the resources that they have sent to the Federal Government for their retirement, if that is going to be able to occur, then what needs to happen is that that money needs to be put into a fund that is not used for anything else. Social Security trust fund money ought to be used for Social Security alone. That is what the taxpayer bill of rights says. That is what we say in our bill. That is what many individuals across this Chamber on both sides of the aisle have said that they support.

Well, Mr. Speaker, let's vote on that. That's a positive move to make. In fact, that would be a bipartisan positive move to make. We encourage that to happen. We believe that taxpayers have a right to a balanced budget amendment without raising taxes.

As we've demonstrated already, the current majority believes that if you

just tax more, you'll be able to increase the money coming to the Federal Government to pay for all these programs, these new programs that they want to enact.

In fact, what happens if you tax more, you decrease money coming to the Federal Government. And every single President that has decreased taxes recognized that. John Kennedy did when he decreased taxes, saw a significant increase to the Federal Government in terms of revenue. Ronald Reagan did when he decreased taxes, saw an increasing amount of money to the Federal Government. And certainly in this administration we've seen significant increased revenues to the Federal Government. When you decrease taxes, money to the Federal Government increases. Again, it sounds counterintuitive; but it's not, because what happens is that American people get to keep more of their hard-earned money.

And you remember, Mr. Speaker, we talked about choices, who ought to be able to choose. One of the most fundamental principles that we believe, I believe, is that the American individual, the American citizen ought to be the one that has the right to choose when they save or they spend or they invest, not the Federal Government, with their money. So many of our good friends on the other side believe that they can make better decisions than the American people with that hard- earned taxpayer money.

We believe that you ought to be able to get to a balanced budget without raising taxes. We have a bill that will allow that to happen. We strongly encourage our friends on the other side to support it.

We believe that taxpayers have a right to fundamental and fair tax reform. Some of my friends are supporters of a flat tax, a flat income tax. Some are supporters of a fair tax, the national retail sales tax, which I believe to be the most appropriate way to align our form of taxation in our Nation with our form of commerce. We would then incentivize all the things that we say that we want, like hard work and vision and entrepreneurship and success. Right now we punish all those things. Our current tax system punishes people when they do more, when they succeed, when they die. Those aren't things we ought to be taxing. My goodness.

And we believe also that the taxpayers have a right to a supermajority required for any tax increase. In fact, as you know, Mr. Speaker, that was the rule of the House until this new majority took over. When they changed the rules on the very first day that we met in January of this year, they changed the rule to make it so that it only took a majority to raise taxes on any bill that comes through this House, not a supermajority, which meant 60 percent before.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's very clear. We believe, I believe, that working together positively, productively we can solve the challenges that we have before us.

It's an incredible honor to represent the Sixth District of Georgia in this United States House of Representatives. It's an incredible honor for each and every one of us to be a Member here.

But what our constituents demand of us, I believe, is responsibility to act together and to work together in a positive way, in an uplifting way, in a way that will make certain that we preserve the American Dream and a system in place, an economic system in place that will allow the majority of Americans, the vast majority of Americans, if not every single American, the opportunity to succeed in his or her own life.

I challenge my colleagues across the aisle to work together positively in that direction. I know that you've got partners who will assist you on this side.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New Jersey, Congressman Garrett, for organizing this hour, and for your leadership on what truly is one of the most important issues, and that is the education of our children. It is a great privilege to be able to join you tonight and to commend you for the work that you have done in this area.

What could truly be more important, Mr. Speaker, other than the education of our children? I don't know that anything could be more important than the education of our children. What it gets to, when you get right down to the rub though, is who is going to make decisions? Who is going to decide where we are going in the area of education?

I was pleased to hear my friend from North Carolina earlier, Congresswoman Foxx, point out that No Child Left Behind is oftentimes thought of as a new endeavor. In fact, it was the reauthorization of the ESEA, or the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that began back in 1965. You have pointed out so well about the issue of the amount of money and the amount of performance or the quality of performance of children. But the No Child Left Behind Act, which was passed originally in 2002, is up for reauthorization.

I represent a district on the north side of Atlanta, the Sixth District of Georgia. I served on the Education Committee in the State legislature, in the State Senate, and also serve on the Education Committee here in the United States Congress. One of the concerns that I have heard about for the last decade or more that I have been involved in public service is from teachers, and their main concern is that they have remarkable constraints placed upon them in trying to get their children to whatever level it is in whatever subject.

When I was running for Congress initially, I used to tell folks that as a physician, one of the reasons that spurred me into public service, to get involved in elective office, was there were all sorts of folks at the local, State and Federal level that were making decisions about what I could do for and with my patients.

When I would share those stories with my local teachers, they would say, well, you haven't seen anything. You wouldn't believe what the State government is doing to encumber what we are trying to do for our children in our classroom. Then after 2002 with No Child Left Behind, they would say, you wouldn't believe the changes that have occurred that have made my job as a teacher more difficult in trying to educate the children that are entrusted to me.

So I think it is important as we look at the reauthorization as we move forward on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, now known as No Child Left Behind, what has happened over the last 5 years. The original bill provided for increasing money from the

Federal Government, a 26 percent increase in spending and new programs as it relates to No Child Left Behind.

The problem, as you know, is most folks across this Nation know what the Golden Rule is: Do onto others as you would have them do onto you. But in Washington the Golden Rule is different. In Washington the Golden Rule is: He who has the gold makes the rules. Consequently, what we have seen in our education establishment is that money from the Federal Government, that 26 percent increase in spending from the Federal Government, with it comes strings and those strings are rules and regulations that require more of local folks in the area of education.

And now all of that might be wonderful if we were to have seen over the last 5 years, if not the last 40 years, an increase in the level of achievement of children in our local schools.

You can look at that and realize that the hard- earned taxpayer dollars that we are entrusted with to spend responsibly, and it was the collective wisdom of Congress over that period of time, to spend significantly greater money. You have an increase of nearly 90 percent in spending over that period of time on that chart; and, in fact, little to no change in the achievement of the students in both the areas of math and reading.

That is not to say that kids can't improve. But I think it is to say that the amount of money, it is clearly documented, that the amount of money in and of itself as being a predictor of student achievement just doesn't exist. That is study after study after study.

But I want to spend just a few more moments, because when you think back to your school days, you always were a little anxious about getting your report card. You weren't quite certain whether or not that teacher was going to recognize the wonderful work you had done that would boost you into that next level. But I thought it would be helpful to give a report card on No Child Left Behind, the last 5 years of the authorization.

So I searched around to find an objective report card, and I found the Heritage Foundation, which is a wonderful group of independent thinkers, objective thinkers, not necessarily Republican thinkers by any means, but objective thinkers; and they came up with kind of tracking in four or five different areas. I thought it might be helpful to share with my colleagues tonight a couple areas that they graded as it related to No Child Left Behind, or the reauthorization of the ESEA from 2002 to 2007.

One of the things that they looked at was one of the goals that was cited was to constrain this remarkable Federal spending. As we have discussed, of course, spending increased by $23.5 billion over 2001 to 2007, a significant increase, an increase that is well documented on the graphs here. So they gave the constraint of Federal spending an F. That is failing on constraining Federal spending.

What about streamlining bureaucracy and decreasing red tape, one of the things that we always tout as the latest and the greatest for every Federal program; it is going to streamline the bureaucracy and decrease the red tape. Certainly that is one of the areas that teachers that I talk to back home have the greatest objection to, that it has increased their paperwork and increased their red tape.

In fact, another objective organization, the Office of Management and Budget, has determined that the annual paperwork burden on State and local communities has been 7 million hours, a cost of at least $140 million to the local and State communities in the area of education. So streamlining bureaucracy and red tape, what is the grade? It is another F, a failure.

What about maintaining meaningful State testing? It is not that States haven't tried for decades to increase the performance of the children entrusted to them in the public education system. Many of the States have adopted all sorts of testing; and, in fact, what No Child Left Behind has done is either duplicated or usurped the ability of States to maintain their meaningful testing. So Heritage was relatively kind and gave us, the Federal Government, a C as it related to that.

Finally, the area that I hear the most about, restoring State and local control. All of us know that local teachers and local communities and local administrators and certainly parents know best the kinds of activities that will allow one child and another, all children, the opportunity to achieve and reach their greatest potential. And restoring State and local control, what happened with No Child Left Behind, that is another F. So we can all agree that we ought to increase student achievement. We all believe that ought to occur.

I would just implore my colleagues and respectfully request that we look at the history. Look at the charts. Look at the demonstration. Look at the history that has gone on in terms of Federal spending and student achievement.

I would ask my colleagues to look at the history over the last 5 years of what the increase in regulation and requirements from the Federal Government has been to the local communities. Have they increased student

achievement? I think an objective assessment of the situation would say that in fact they have not. I would ask my colleagues to look at whether or not removing State and local control over the issue of education has assisted in increasing student achievement, and I would suggest candidly it has not.

That is why I am so proud to stand with my colleague from New Jersey tonight who has penned the LEARN Act, the bill that would allow States to opt out of this insanity, opt out of this merry-go-round that apparently by evidence tonight demonstrates that the Federal Government and its role in elementary and secondary education has not been necessarily productive in increasing student achievement, and to allow the States and local communities to recognize and appreciate that they know best how to get our young people to a level of accountability.

All of us want them to achieve. I so strongly support my colleague from New Jersey in his efforts to make it so his State and my State and other States across this Nation, if they so desire, can opt out of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act so that those moneys can go back home to be utilized in the most efficient and effective manner to make it so our children can achieve.

I thank my good friend from California for his wonderful and diligent work in this area, an area that we ought to have had a bipartisan bill.

Madam Speaker, this bill is interesting and a curious work product of this House, one that I believe will be troubling to the Nation. What the Democrat majority has done is brought together the ingredients in a huge recipe for bad policy.

So far, the new majority has kept the Republicans out of the process. Not a single House Republican, not one, was involved in the conference committee report or signed it. They have manipulated the recommendations of the administration to serve their ulterior motives, and they have disregarded input from key stakeholders and students and parents across this Nation.

As a result of this recipe, the Congress has a final product that distorts the reconciliation and puts at risk expanding college access for students over the long term.

We predicted, during the debate of the budget resolution, that the ``savings,'' ``savings'' in the reconciliation process were a fig leaf. Today the House is debating a bill which spends nearly $22 billion more in new entitlement spending just to get $750 million in savings. That's fuzzy math.

Fact, entitlement growth, automatic spending is unsustainable and consumes more than half the entire Federal budget. It is also fact that if left on autopilot, by 2030 that automatic spending will consume the entire Federal budget.

Without true spending reform, entitlements will crowd out all other spending. This bill, H.R. 2669, makes a major mistake of magnifying the problem by adding new entitlement monies.

In fact, the conference agreement dedicates $1.17 billion to new automatic spending programs. At a time of run-away spending, the Democratic majority is intent on creating these massive new spending programs instead of dedicating the savings to deficit reduction. Such an approach continues us down the path to fiscal irresponsibility.

Now, all of that might be okay if, if the changes offered would truly help students, but they don't. The Democrats have decided to favor a Washington-run bureaucrat student-lending system rather than a flexible, responsive free market alternative. This bill cuts over $22 billion in the Federal Family Education Loan program. The only conceivable reason to do that is to paralyze it and put it at a disadvantage to the direct government loan program or Washington-run program.

This is unfortunate because that Federal Family Education Loan program has proven to be far more successful, does a better job of providing student loans. This is reflected in the fact that for nearly every government loan, there are four loans by the Federal Family Education Loan.

In the end, Democrats want to cripple this program because they favor a centralized governmental approach to this Nation's challenges. All these drastic cuts do is put at risk the need for students and the access that they will have to a college education over time.

For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the bill on the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this commonsense amendment to H.R. 2786.

This bill, as you know, would reauthorize the Native American and Native Hawaiian Block Grant programs, and the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, estimates that appropriation of the amounts necessary to implement this bill will cost approximately $2.2 billion over the 2008- 2012 period of this reauthorization.

This bill originally was authorized, or passed, in 1996 and then reauthorized in 2002, and the reorganization of the system of Federal housing assistance to Native Americans was accomplished by eliminating several separate programs of assistance and replacing them with a single block grant program.

In addition to simplifying the process of providing housing assistance, the purpose of this is to provide Federal assistance for Indian tribes in a manner that recognizes the right of Indian self- determination and tribal self-governance.

Now, Mr. Chairman, equally as important I would suggest is fiscal responsibility. We've all come back from a month in our districts, working and listening to our constituents, and I heard repeatedly from my constituents that they continue to appeal to us to be more fiscally responsible. Many of my colleagues on our side of the aisle have attempted to offer amendments and bring about that kind of fiscal responsibility. This is another one of those amendments.

This amendment will not prohibit funds from being spent on this program, but it will protect taxpayers by applying the principle of pay-as-you-go to the spending that's authorized by this legislation by requiring that any new spending as a result of this legislation must have a specific offset before the legislation can take effect.

Now, if there is to be a taxpayer subsidy, as good stewards of the American hard-earned taxpayer money, we should provide a specific spending decrease to offset any new spending that would be required by this legislation.

To be sure, this is important legislation, and I want to commend Congressman Pearce for his hard work on the legislation, ensuring its consideration on the floor. It's a testament to his hard work that he does every day for his constituents back home.

But fiscal responsibility isn't something that we ought to just trump out during campaigns. We heard a lot about it during the last campaign; but I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is way past time that we act in this responsible manner.

I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment for PAYGO for authorization of the appropriations that will come as a result of this bill, and I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

This language was taken directly from your side's PAYGO language in the rule. So what I'm attempting to do is to try to provide individuals with something which they hopefully have seen before. This is the PAYGO language from the PAYGO rules.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding again.

The amendment's pretty simple. It says that if we're going to spend more money out of this Congress for this appropriation that we ought to find money elsewhere to make certain that we're not taking more hard- earned taxpayer money----

That's exactly what it says, precisely what it says.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman from Iowa and I appreciate his support.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the vigor with which the other side opposes this amendment, because I think it sets up a clear distinction. The vigor and the enthusiasm with which they oppose responsible spending is clear. It's clear to us. It will be made clear to the American people repeatedly over the next number of months, and then the American people will decide.

The enthusiasm that the gentleman has voiced in opposition to this, which clearly states that if any new spending, any increase in spending occurs because of this bill, then there must be offsets elsewhere. The gentleman clearly knows, the gentleman clearly knows the rules are germane. This requires that that's the way this be written, clearly.

We can start at this point being fiscally responsible, or we can never start. But it's clear that what we desire and my colleagues desire to do is to begin that fiscally responsible move now and support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

No, I have no plan to offer that at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

This is truly a day of great sadness for our conference, for this House, for the State of Ohio and, yes, Mr. Speaker, for our Nation.

Though only in my second term in Congress, I came to know and appreciate Paul Gillmor, serving on one of his committees, Financial Services, and I came to appreciate him for many different and wonderful attributes. He had a warm and gentle temperament, a calm and friendly demeanor, a measured and thoughtful reason, a respected and a respectful legislator. These and so many other attributes shall be missed by one and all.

I join my colleagues in extending our thoughts and our prayers to his constituents, to his friends, and most, to his family. We are truly a better Nation because of the service of Paul Gillmor.

May God rest his soul.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill, add the following

new section: