Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I thank the Chair, and I thank the leadership for the opportunity to bring this amendment forward.

This amendment is a very simple amendment. It's an amendment that has come to be known as the Hefley amendment, or at least came to be known as the Hefley amendment, a former Member of this body who offered an amendment to decrease appropriations bills by 1 percent in an effort to begin fiscal responsibility.

And it's my privilege to bring these amendments to the floor again in an effort to take that first step, take that first step to begin fiscal responsibility in this Chamber.

This is a good debate. It's a good debate that we have when we talk about how to spend hard-earned taxpayer money, because, Mr. Chairman, as you know, oftentimes in this Chamber, in fact, we've heard on some of these appropriations bills Members talk about their money, about my money. And it's always important that we remember whose money it is. It's not government money. It's not our money. It's the money of the hardworking American taxpayer.

So this amendment is very simple. It simply says that we ought to reduce by 1 percent the amount of money being spent in this particular appropriations bill. And to be clear, that is still a significant increase in spending over last year, but it's an attempt to begin fiscal responsibility.

One of the numbers, the numbers are that last year this portion of the appropriations bill spent $47.5 billion. The President requested an increase to $47.9 billion for this next fiscal year, and the committee itself brings forward a bill that will spend $50.7 billion. That's $3.2 billion more than last year.

So this amendment would say, well, we ought not spend $50.7 billion. Let's see if we can't get a little fiscal responsibility and instead spend $50.2 billion.

Again, it's not as far as many of us think we ought to go in an effort to try to be more responsible with spending the hard-earned American taxpayers' money, but it is a step in the right direction. It is a step along the line of fiscal responsibility. It is a recognition. It would be the beginning of a recognition that this is not Congress's money, that it is the money of the hardworking American taxpayer.

On many of these bills we seem to get a few more votes each time. I'm hopeful that at some point this House will make a statement, that this House will make a statement and say, yes, we do believe that, in fact, moving forward under the banner of fiscal responsibility dictates that we respect the hard work of the American taxpayer and, in fact, accept one of these amendments as we move forward.

So with that I think it's a commonsense amendment. It's a problem- solving amendment. It's an amendment that speaks to what the American family would do when they have some fiscal challenges, and that is to overall reduce the amount of money that they spend.

So, with that, I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire whether it's the intention of the gentleman from Ohio to close when he speaks.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) for purposes of setting the record straight.

Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire as to the amount of time remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend from Texas, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Mr. Hensarling.

Mr. Chairman, I am tempted to ask my good friend from Ohio whether it is the final right to close, or whether it is otherwise.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my good friend from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining?

I thank the chairman.

I think this has been a healthy presentation from this side. The muted response from the other side is understandable.

When you have instituted in your budget the largest tax increase in the history of the Nation, when you continue to increase the spending at a rate that is greater than inflation, greater than the increase in population for our Nation, then the response, I suspect, ought to be muted.

My good friend from Ohio has said he will close, and I look forward to that response. I am reminded, prior to him standing up, though, that a wise individual once said: When you don't have the facts on your side, then you ought to raise your voice, and you ought to raise it very loud. And so I ask my colleagues to pay attention to what is about to come.

I do want to recognize what my good friend from Texas said, though, and that was talk about Alice in Wonderland. I have dubbed it Orwellian democracy that we are involved in here. My friend from Massachusetts talks about the railing against the Republicans who spent too much and increased the debt. And so what is the response to that? It is to increase it even further, spend more money. They use the grand line of we are interested in investing in the American family. Well, Mr. Chairman, the American families all across this Nation know that when the majority party, when the Democrats talk about investing, what they mean is to hold on to your wallet because that means that taxes are coming; and the budget indeed includes the largest tax increase in the history of the Nation.

This bill, this bill in and of itself, a $3.2 billion increase, 6.7 percent over last year. Why is it that we can't just decrease that by 1 percent? By 1 percent. Is that too much to ask?

Mr. Chairman, I would urge you, if you have any questions about what kinds of money we are talking about, it is H.R. 3074, you can go on line. You can find this bill on line, and you can go to any line item. And I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, when you do that, that if you take any specific line item and you say to yourself, is it possible that they might be able to get by with 1 percent less, 1 penny out of a dollar, $1 out of every $100? Again, that is what American families all across this Nation do. When they find themselves in a little bit of financial difficulty, when they find that their wallet is a little pinched, what they do is they look at their expenditures and they say, we are going to have to cut back. And that is exactly what we, the American family, want to do is to cut back.

That is what this is. This is a sincere and a commonsense attempt to try to begin fiscal responsibility here in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I would urge my colleagues to take a clear look at this commonsense amendment.

This is an amendment that addresses an area of the bill. The underlying bill itself, this appropriations bill, allows for money to be placed in a slush fund that would be used essentially for political purposes.

So, Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this commonsense amendment that would prohibit the FHA from diverting money to help fund a ``housing trust fund.'' This name for this is actually part of the Orwellian democracy that I've talked about extensively with this new majority.

Because it really isn't a housing trust fund. It is a fund that is wholly unnecessary and wholly political.

This amendment would shield middle-class homeowners from the new majority's desire to fund a new expansion of government-built housing; again, with completely political paybacks. HUD already has a number of programs, a number of programs, Market-to-Market, the American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which are aimed at preserving existing affordable housing and expanding affordable homeownership.

The HOME Investment Partnerships Program, also administered by Housing and Urban Development, is the largest Federal block grant to State and local governments. It is dedicated exclusively to creating new affordable housing to low-income households.

The new Affordable Housing Trust Fund that is pending funding in this bill derives part of its funding from skimming money, and a lot of it, from FHA mortgage premiums and creates another mechanism which forces the Federal Government into the home-building business and with political nuances to it all.

As Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal Housing Commissioner of the United States, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Mr. Brian Montgomery, pointed out at a recent hearing before the House Committee on Financial Services, FHA receipts are already credited toward HUD appropriations. As a result, any new program, any new program, like this one, takes that revenue at the expense of the previous HUD programs that I mentioned earlier. As Mr. Montgomery testified, we will be ``robbing Peter to pay Paul.'' Now, why would we do this? Well, we would do it, I guess, because the majority party desires to have political direction over that money.

Mr. Chairman, is there any doubt that the provisions of the FHA modernization bill will create an incentive for FHA to charge higher premiums than is safe or prudent given that incentive? Pressure to hit certain revenue targets will cause a dramatic departure from today's environment where the FHA is able to work to ensure that low-income and first-time homebuyers are being charged the lowest possible premium. It will be those borrowers who pay the cost of this new housing trust fund, those least able to afford it, and likely those least able to desire any activity that smacks of the political cronyism that this slush fund would bring about.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to take a serious and prudent look at this commonsense amendment. I believe it is something that the entire House should be able to embrace. I hope they will support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those comments. I understand the lack of desire on the part of the appropriators to get into the business of the authorizers, but that is the way the system works here. One committee will authorize, and then the Appropriations Committee comes along and determines whether or not there ought to be money.

What this amendment says is that this House ought to say no, we ought not put money into a slush fund, into a housing slush fund that actually takes money away from programs that are demonstrated to have had excellent results, Market-to-Market, the American Dream Downpayment Initiative, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program.

This slush fund will take money away from those programs that have been very, very helpful to individuals across this Nation, low-income individuals across this Nation, who are trying to get into a home. What it will do is substitute it with a slush fund that will be used for political purposes. There is no doubt about it. So it doesn't surprise me, I guess, that the majority party would oppose this amendment.

But I would ask my colleagues on both sides, Republicans and Democrats, to clearly look at this amendment and appreciate that none of us, none of us, ought be using this kind of money, the kind of money that allows low-income Americans to get into their home and have the American dream, realize the American dream, but to do so with political slush fund money. It just isn't appropriate. It is just not right.

So I urge my colleagues to take a serious look at this amendment and support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 35: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 410. None of the funds made available in this Act for

the mortgage insurance programs under title II of the

National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1707 et seq.) may be used for

any housing trust fund established under title II of the

Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C.

12721 et seq.).

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 26: Page 16, line 20, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

Page 65, line 21, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my leadership on the Republican side of the aisle for allowing me to address the House this evening. It is always an honor to come before the House of Representatives and to discuss issues of importance to this Chamber, to this Capitol and to the Nation.

This is a truncated version of the Official Truth Squad because of the hour of the evening. The Official Truth Squad is a group of individuals who come to the floor of the House and try to shed a little light, try to shed a little truth, if you will, on the deliberations going on here in our Nation's Capital and hopefully bring a perspective that will allow Members of the House and this Chamber and men and women across our Nation to be able to gain a little greater perspective on exactly what is going on here in Washington as we struggle with the challenges that we have facing the issues that we have in our Nation that demand so much of our attention and demand, frankly, a greater level of cooperation than is frequently seen here in Washington.

It is one of the things that I strive, along with my colleagues, try to bring about, and that is a greater sense of urgency to solve the challenges that we have, and to address honestly and openly and truthfully the issues we have before us.

We have one special quote that I like to quote that I think kind of puts it all into perspective, especially when you are talking about issues that are so complex in Washington. It comes from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He used to say everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

So often here in Washington, people want their opinions to be facts. It is one of the items or issues that the Official Truth Squad attempts to address, and that is trying to talk about facts, trying to bring facts to the table as it relates to any particular issue.

Tonight we are going to talk about at least one issue that is in great need of facts. Madam Speaker, we are in appropriation season. During this period of time, the House works on its multiple appropriations bills and tries to determine exactly how we as a Nation ought to set priorities from an appropriations or a spending standpoint, what level of spending ought to go into the various programs of the Federal Government. And so often, and we just heard it this evening, many people come to the floor and they say, if we just had more money, if we just had more money for this program or that program, that would solve the problem.

And so often it is not money that is needed for programs, especially out across our Nation, because what is needed most often is to free up the wonderful enthusiasm of the American people and the wonderful ingenuity of the American people. What happens is along with the money that comes from Washington comes rules and regulations and strings and stipulations, and makes it that those individuals who are trying as hard as they can to make ends meet and improve their communities and make certain that they are providing for their families, so often what Washington does is ties their hands behind their back and makes it so they are not able to realize the kinds of dreams that they would otherwise be able to realize.

We cite often the Golden Rule. You know what that is. Most folks know what that is, but the Golden Rule of Washington is not what most people across this Nation know. The Golden Rule across this Nation is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. But the Golden Rule here in Washington is he who has the gold makes the rules. That is especially true during appropriation season because we put all kinds of strings attached to the money that the Federal Government spends.

We often forget, as I am fond of reminding my friends here in the House, of whose money it is, because it is not government's money, it is the people's money. It is hard-earned American taxpayer money.

We have had individuals come even to this well and say, ``Keep your hands off my money.'' My money. It is phenomenal when you hear that, when I go home to the Sixth Congressional District in Georgia, and my constituents ask incredibly insightful questions about that kind of mindset that exists here in Washington. ``How can politicians believe it is their money?'' This is so important as we are in this appropriation season and as we determine exactly how to spend that hard-earned taxpayer money, and we ought to do it more responsibly, I would suggest, Madam Speaker.

I want to talk tonight about an issue that is near and dear to my heart, and to the heart and well-being of every single American, and that is the issue of health care. Before I came to this body, I was a practicing physician. I was an orthopedic surgeon and practiced for over 20 years in the Atlanta area.

One of the things that drove me into politics or had me stand up and volunteer to get into politics was the recognition and the appreciation that year after year after year would go by as I tried the best I could to care for my patients and worked with my colleagues to provide the best and highest quality of health care we could provide, and year after year, and month after month, and day after day each of us appreciated that there were more individuals in our State capital and in this Capital right here who were making decisions about health care that affected very directly what I could do for and with my patients than anybody I ever met in medical school and anybody I met in residency and training as I was training to become an orthopedic surgeon. That was true for every specialty that I talked to, every single colleague.

If you talk to your doctor, Madam Speaker, or if the Members of Congress would speak to their physicians and to their neighbors, they would appreciate readily that there are so many rules and regulations that are coming from Washington and from State capitals around this Nation that tie the hands, that make it more difficult, not easier, more difficult for physicians and other health care providers to be able to take care of patients. And that's wrong. That is wrong because what it means is we have a lesser quality of health care system than we would otherwise have if the government weren't involved in the way that it is.

And there are all sorts of programs that you can talk about that would lend truth and credibility to that statement, but I want to talk about one specifically this evening that is going to get a lot of discussion, Madam Speaker, here over the next week or two and maybe number of months as we move forward in Washington, and that is the program known as SCHIP, or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

That is a program that was begun 10 years ago. It was part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It was a program that had wonderful goals. The goals were, specifically, there was a recognition that low-income individuals who weren't eligible for Medicaid, they made too much money to be eligible for Medicaid, but they didn't make enough money to be able to afford health insurance for their families, those individuals ought to be able to have some sort of assistance provided by States and the Federal Government in a complex formula that would allow those families to be able to have health insurance for their children. So hence the name State Children's Health Insurance Program. And it was a laudable goal, without any doubt. And it was passed by a significant majority, and the goal was to increase the enrollment of children who were below 200 percent of the poverty level. That is what was selected as the limit at the time.

Over the last 10 years what happened, however, is a distortion, a significant

distortion, of the program so that it covered not just children up to 200 percent of the poverty level, but in some States covered up to 350 percent of the poverty level, and it covered not just children. The State Health Insurance Program covered hundreds of thousands of adults. So like other government programs, it grew.

Government programs in the area of health don't just grow, as I started this conversation talking about, they insert themselves in terms of rules and regulations into the process and make it extremely difficult for those who are charged with the administration of the program, charged with caring for patients in this instance, to be able to care appropriately for them.

So what we saw between 1998 when the State Children's Health Insurance Program was instituted and became effective, at that time there were about 28 percent of the children of this Nation on some sort of government-run health care. In 2005, that number had grown to 45 percent. It is a little more than that right now, but about 45 percent.

The proposal that will be on the floor of the House or certainly in Committee of the House is to move it so that in a relatively short period of time, another 5 years, we will have 70 to 75 percent of children on government-run health care.

We will talk a little bit more about the consequences of that and why many of us believe that is the wrong direction to head, because most of us, most people, most Americans, I believe, are not interested in having a Washington-controlled, bureaucratic medical model be the one that is making those kinds of personal health care decisions for themselves and their families, and especially for their children.

That is what we are going to talk a little bit about tonight. I am so pleased to be joined by one of my good friends and colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), who has great insights into both fiscal responsibility issues and issues where government tends to intervene in ways that most of us would desire that it not. I am happy to have the gentleman join us this evening, and I yield to the gentleman.

I appreciate your comments in pointing out a number of different areas where the government has been intimately involved in health care issues specifically and ones where most individuals across this Nation I believe, Madam Speaker, have questions about the advisability of governmental involvement and the effectiveness of governmental involvement.

We're pleased to be joined by another good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, who has been chair and now is ranking member of the Budget Committee, an individual who has great perspective on both fiscal responsibility and the issue of health care as a member of the Ways and Means Committee. We are pleased to have Mr. Ryan join us this evening and I'm happy to yield to him.

I thank the gentleman for his comments and really succinct presentation of the issue of health care and the philosophical difference between the two parties, philosophical difference between the majority party and our party at this point.

The majority party believes that Washington-controlled bureaucratic medicine, bureaucratic health care is exactly what the country needs, and we don't believe that. We believe firmly in patient-centered health care and patient-centered decisions as it relates to health care.

So I thank you very much, and you point out as clearly as anybody could ever do the philosophy on that side of the aisle, once again, that is, if we just give it more money, give it more money, it will somehow miraculously improve.

You know as well as anybody as the ranking member on the Budget Committee that when the estimates are a certain amount, it's never that amount. So if $50 billion is the estimate for the first 5 years and $100 billion for the 10-year period of time, it will never remain at that level. When folks across America hear that kind of comment, they just better say I better hold on to my wallet.

I'm pleased to yield to you once again if you have any other comments.

Thank you ever so much for your comments and, once again, succinctly pointing out the rationale for why it doesn't make sense for Washington to be controlling health care.

And sometimes I get the question as a physician, what does it mean specifically? What kind of issues would the government insert themselves into? If I think back on personal experience that I have, there are a number of issues where Washington and governments insert themselves into health care. The reason that it sometimes isn't easy to see is because patients don't often see it.

I worked for a period of time in a veterans hospital in Atlanta, and every quarter there were a certain number of joint replacements that were allowed to be done at the hospital. When we got to the end of that number, even though it wasn't the end of the quarter, there were more patients that needed joint replacements, we couldn't do them. We weren't able to do them because the resources weren't there to be able to fund them.

Now, the patients that didn't get their joint replacement in May or June because they were rescheduled to July didn't know that the reason they didn't get their joint replacement in May or June wasn't because there wasn't anybody to do it, or there weren't any prostheses to implant, or the nurses weren't there, or the operating rooms weren't functioning, no. They didn't know that the reason they weren't getting it is because the Federal Government wouldn't pay for it. That was the reason.

So, the government inserts itself in so many ways into the practice of medicine. Medicaid programs are a classic example. Medicaid programs across this Nation, which are government-run health care for lower- income individuals, the vast majority of States have formularies for drug prescription plans in Medicaid, which means that the government is deciding which drugs are available for folks at the lower end of the economic spectrum. That's wrong. That's simply wrong.

Now, there is a way to solve that without the heavy hammer of the government, because when the heavy hammer of the government comes in, what happens is that they just put more restrictions on, or they make a change, and for 2 months it's the right change to make.

But government isn't nimble, it isn't flexible, it can't change easily. Even if it made the right decision at one point in relatively short order, it would be the wrong decision, because science moves on, medicine moves on, health care moves on. There is no way the government can catch up, which is why the importance of having patient-centered decisions, patients and their families making decisions in concert with the consultation with the physician, is so incredibly important.

I yield to my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I thank the gentleman for pointing out the shortfall of Federal Government rules, because they can't ever catch up.

My State, Georgia, was one of those States that spent too much. It spent too much, we would argue, in Georgia, because we were too efficient at signing up children in the program.

Because the formula wasn't flexible, wasn't nimble enough, couldn't accommodate for a State that overperformed, if you will, then it wasn't able to be able to get the match that it was promised. Whether or not that should have happened in the first place is a different question. But the fundamental challenge that we see in all of this is that the Federal Government can't respond, and it can't respond in so many different ways.

But what we see with this chart here that my colleagues know very, very well, and that is that there are all sorts of children out there right now across our Nation that are covered by private insurance. What happens when the Federal Government and the States get involved and they say, let's put this carrot in front of you; let's entice you to come and join government-run health care? What happens?

The fact of the matter is that there is a crowd-out phenomenon, that individual families who currently have private insurance, either they or their employer looks at the program and they say, well, we could save that money by having you enroll your children in government-run health care.

That's exactly right. That's what we saw with the previous program. It happens every time when you have a government program that potentially can supplant the private program.

In 1998, 28 percent of the children in our Nation were covered by some sort of government-run health insurance. In 2005, 45 percent. This is a combination of SCHIP and Medicaid.

Now, the problem is that when you look at the number of children that are covered by private health insurance in our Nation, up to 200 percent, 50 percent of them are already covered by private health insurance. If you go up to 300 percent, which is what the Senate proposes, 70 percent of the children in America whose families have incomes less than 300 percent have some form of private health insurance.

At 400 percent it's nearly 90 percent.

That's exactly right. That is the crux of the matter. If everything else were equal in the system, if it were to allow for the same kind of ability for patients and families and doctors to make decisions, that might be one thing. But as we have talked about, and as everybody across this Nation knows, that's not the case.

When you have government get involved in the provision of health care, government is going to make decisions about where you can be treated, who can treat you and what kind of treatment you can have. That's where the personal health care decisions go away from the individual. I don't believe, and I know you don't believe, that that's what the American people want. It's up to you.

Yes.

No, it doesn't make any sense at all. It lays bare the true motive and the true philosophy, which, on the other side of the aisle, at least the true leadership who are pushing this legislation, their belief is that government knows better how to spend people's money than the people themselves. This stretches all the way into the area of health care, which, as you mentioned, are very personal, personal, health care decisions.

You are absolutely right. And to give some credibility to that from a pie chart standpoint, these are the mandatory spending programs, and all of what you said happens unless we act. Unless we act as a Congress, all of these things happen.

In 1995, those three programs were this yellow portion, about percent 48.7 percent of Federal spending. In 2005, about 53.4 percent. In relatively short order, 2017, 62.2 percent. And, as you mentioned, in 2030 the yellow portion of that will be the entire pie.

You are absolutely right. And that is why you mentioned the significant increase in taxes that would be required, and that is if we don't do anything. That is why it is so imperative that we act, which is why it was so astounding to me that this new majority that came in with this ``new direction'' that they were going to take us on for our Nation. You know what happened when they had the opportunity to bring about some entitlement reform.

What happened with the bill that they passed this year in their budget was no entitlement reform, in spite of the fact that we worked as diligently as we could back in 1997 with the Balanced Budget Act, about $130 billion of entitlement reform, and fought like the dickens, as you remember, in 2005 with the Deficit Reduction Act to get about $40 billion in entitlement reform.

But this new majority comes in with the previous chart that we saw, increases in Social Security spending, increases in Medicare spending, increases in Medicaid spending, the prospect of another $100 billion entitlement with the SCHIP program if they have their way, and no reform. Can you imagine what that is going to do to our economy?

I appreciate your pointing out the issue of taxes, because there has also been work that has laid out the tax increase for the average citizen in every State across this Nation. And in Georgia, that average increase is $2,700 average tax increase when those tax increases go into effect if they are not changed. They were included in this budget that included no entitlement reform. In Wisconsin, the average number was $2,964. And New Jersey is a big winner, average increase $3,779.

I want to thank you all for joining us tonight. I do want to close on a positive note, and that is that there is an alternative. And the alternative, as we talk about, is patient-centered health care. And patient-centered health care, as you know, puts the opportunity and the

right and the privilege and the responsibility for decisionmaking among patients and their doctors, among families and their doctors. And the way to do that is to structure a tax system that allows individuals, incentivizes individuals to purchase health insurance, through whether it is tax deductions or tax credits, or advanceable refundable tax credits, through high-risk pools, through risk pools that allow people to pool together, making certain that individuals have the same kind of tax treatment for the purchase of health insurance as employers do now, as businesses do now, all sorts of wonderful ways to bring about the opportunity for folks to purchase health insurance.

So it is not whether or not you have the current system or whether you march down the road to more Washington-controlled bureaucratic medicine. There is another way. And I know my good friend from Wisconsin has worked on this extensively on Ways and Means, and I would be pleased to hear your comments.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments from Wisconsin. And this is what we believe, patient-centered health care, and we going to work on putting some limbs and leaves on the tree of this over the next number of weeks and number of months, and make certain that the American people understand, Madam Speaker, that there is an alternative and it is a positive alternative. Because we live in a wondrous and a grand Nation, and a Nation where when individuals are allowed to encourage their own visions and their own dreams and their own entrepreneurship and their own work, that they can decide what is best for themselves, not government.

Nobody across this Nation I believe is truly interested in having Washington-controlled bureaucratic medicine, yet that is the road that we are about to march down if this new majority has their way. Our alternative is patient-centered, patient-centered health care and allows individuals to make decisions with their families and with their physicians and with their health care providers.

I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make certain that as we move forward on this issue, that we move forward in a way that ensures that those decisions, those very personal decisions are able to be made in a very personal way without the government limiting care, without the government determining where you can be seen and who can see you and what kind of treatment you would receive.

Madam Speaker, on that positive note and looking forward to patient- centered health care across this Nation, I want to once again thank the leadership for allowing us to spend this time on the floor.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 41 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, July 24, 2007, at 9 a.m., for morning-hour debate.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 20: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec.__. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby reduced

in the amount of $507,767,000.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 10: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues who are endeavoring to bring about some responsible spending here in Washington. I think this debate is helpful. It is helpful for the American people, because what it demonstrates is a difference in philosophy.

Before I get to the specifics of my amendment, I want to mention, we have just heard a litany of projects that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee said would be cut with the previous amendment, and he went through: No Child Left Behind cut $1.2 billion; title I, $684 million; IDEA, $519 million; Pell Grants, $717 million cut.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, what the American people understand is that the amendment that was just proposed would keep funding level. Not cut, level, which means that there wouldn't be any decreases over this current year of spending; there would be the same amount of money. It is what Americans do every year when they have a difficult challenge financially.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we have a difficult challenge financially this year in our Nation. And, consequently, to label those things cuts just isn't so.

But I rise to offer my amendment, which is affectionately known as the Hefley amendment. Former Congressman Joel Hefley from Colorado offered this amendment on multiple occasions. It is a 1 percent reduction in the increase of this Appropriations bill.

Now, to look at the big picture, look at where we are in terms of numbers right now, this current year enacted for this portion of the Federal Appropriations covered $144.6 billion. The President's request, the administration's request, as we all know, was less than that, $140.9 billion. The bill that we have before us is $151.7 billion; $10.8 billion more than the administration's request, more than the request of those that we charge for running this portion of our Nation.

My amendment that I am offering now would, instead of having this bill be $151.7 billion, would say let's have it be $150.2 billion. So, a significant increase over last year but a 1 percent reduction from the increase, an increase that would be greater than the rate of inflation but a 1 percent reduction than that that comes from the committee. And the reason for that is because of the financial situation that we find ourselves in as a Nation.

If you, Mr. Chairman, or I or any of our constituents find themselves in a situation where they need to save some money, then oftentimes what they will do is say we need to cut back across the board on the kinds of things that we are spending. And this amendment simply states that, out of a 1 percent cut, we ought to be able to find one penny out of every dollar to save for our children's future. And the rationale for that is because it is not our money, Mr. Chairman, it is not Congress's money. It is the hard-earned money of the American taxpayer. And we hear a lot about priorities, and we ought to be prioritizing. And that is what budgetary bills are, that is what appropriations bills are, making priority judgments for the hard-earned American taxpayer money. Our priority on this side is that hardworking American taxpayer.

So we rise to offer this amendment that we believe to be a responsible amendment. It outlines the differences between the two sides very clearly. We believe that there ought to be at least one penny out of every dollar that we ought to be able to find in terms of savings for this area for the next year, and offer it sincerely and honestly and respectfully. I would encourage my colleagues to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I was heartened to hear my good friend talk about the promise for the future, because that is exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about the future. It was a bit of an Orwellian speech there, because the actions of this bill don't match the wonderful sunshine that the gentleman paints, but that is all right, because that continues to be the mantra that we hear.

Americans know that when you hear the word ``investment'' in this Chamber that what that means is taxes, and it points out the fundamental difference between the majority party and the minority party. The majority party believes that government spends hardworking American taxpayer money better than hardworking American taxpayers. That is the fundamental difference, and that is what this discussion is about. So I am pleased that the gentleman who just spoke shed light on that, because he indeed did.

I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentlelady from Oklahoma, and look forward to her comments on a fiscally responsible approach to this appropriations bill.

I thank the Chair, and again I appreciate the gentleman's passion. We believe that in order to improve Americans' lives you have got to let them keep more of their hard-earned money and that's what this amendment does, allows Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money.

Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments that I believe point clearly to what the facts are.

I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The conversation that I was having with my assistant to the right resulted in my glee, not to your comment.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose above 14,000 for the first time ever. What a proud moment for all of us.

For many of us it is not a surprise. This strong economy is a direct result of the pro-growth Republican policies that we are fighting for every day on this floor. It is a sign of continued and growing investor confidence, and it shows that when taxes are low and Americans choose how and where to spend more of their money they will choose to invest in America and make us stronger.

This isn't a victory for Wall Street or for big business; it is a victory for Americans. Over half of all Americans are invested in the stock market. More and more Americans want to participate in this strong and growing economy. So they need a Federal Government that respects those wishes, not one that will raise their taxes to pay for out-of-control spending.

Let's keep this economy on the right track. Let's rein in spending. Let's focus on growing our economy rather than Washington's bureaucracy. That is what Americans want.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, this amendment is offered in an effort to try to reprioritize monies between two separate funds related to gaining high-quality teachers in our Nation, the Teacher Incentive Fund and the Teacher Quality State Grants.

The Teacher Incentive Fund, my amendment would increase the funding for that by $21 million. When the 2007 fiscal year budget was adopted or the appropriations bill adopted, receipt was $2 million. The request from the President for this year was $199 million, and the bill before us includes a provision for $99 million, $100 million less than the President's request.

As opposed to the Teacher Quality State Grants, which received last year $2.8 billion, the President's request was for $2.7 billion and the bill before us includes a provision for $3.1 billion, $400 million more than the request by the Department.

Teacher quality, Madam Chairman, is certainly the most important school-related factor influencing student achievement. The No Child Left Behind Act reflects this and one of the central tenets is putting a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. Congress now has a greater opportunity to take teacher quality initiatives a step further by increasing funding for the Teacher Incentive Fund, a program that rewards highly effective teachers and rewards results.

The Teacher Incentive Fund allows States and school districts to apply for Federal grants in order to develop and implement performance- based compensation systems for both teachers and principals. With the Teacher Incentive Fund, educators who improve student achievement in the classroom are provided with financial rewards such as bonuses and increasing salaries. In 2006, the Teacher Incentive Fund and Congress provided $100 million for the new program; however, in 2007 it received only $2 million, and this is for a program that has shown very successful and rewarding results.

There is certainly a need for the fund and to date 34 grantees have received money. But the Department of Education has received nearly 150 applications. More resources would mean more districts would be able to establish performance-based compensation systems.

Looking at the workforce, it is estimated that more than 2 million teachers will need to be hired over the next decade. Research has shown that performance pay can be effective at recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers. So the Teacher Incentive Fund will encourage a talented pool of individuals to go into the field of teaching.

Again, this is a reprioritization, a movement of $21 million from the

Teacher Quality State Grants, which is slated to receive $3.1 billion to the Teacher Incentive Fund, which would then receive $120 million. By doing so, this money can be directly given to local districts to create compensation systems and therefore recruit and reward outstanding teachers. Nothing wrong with rewarding the best and brightest when it comes to educating our children.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I appreciate the Chair's comments and I agree with him that we don't have all the answers. I would suggest, however, that what this amendment does is more appropriately prioritize moneys based upon the concerns and recommendation of the Department of Education. The fundamental difference between the two programs, the Teacher Quality State Grants, which is a program that in many areas gets excellent results, the differences are two that this amendment addresses:

One is that the overwhelming portion of the money that is available has been put into the Teacher Quality State Grants, moving from $2.8 billion last year to $3.1 billion this year, as opposed to the Teacher Incentive Fund, which would move from a high of $100 million in the last 2 years to $99 million this year, in essence a flat appropriations.

The other main difference is that the Teacher Incentive Fund rewards results. It rewards performance. It rewards teachers and schools who are actually gaining those high quality results that we desire for all students across our Nation.

So I would respectfully disagree with the Chair, that this is not prescriptive in its formula and the only rigidity that it has in it is that it requires results. So, hopefully, the House will see that the sense in looking at performance, looking at quality teachers, looking at what they are doing in the classroom and the results that they are getting, and rewarding that kind of performance makes sense. I would suggest that that is what most of us have said at home when we talk to our constituents and that this amendment aligns

the actions of this House with what we have told our constituents we would be supporting here in the House of Representatives.

So I appreciate the time, and I encourage, again, my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I thank the Chair, and I appreciate the gentleman's passion. I would suggest, however, that each of us are elected to this House to determine best how we should use our vote, to either concur or disagree with the manner in which this body spends hard-working American taxpayer money. So I wouldn't criticize anybody for coming to the floor and providing their assessment of priorities as to where they believe hard-earned American taxpayer money ought to be spent.

I am pleased to yield to my good friend from New Jersey for a comment.

I thank my friend for offering the amendment, and I thank him for his explanation. There is no desire to remove all funding in this area. That would be a different debate and a different discussion. That is not the debate we are having right now.

Madam Chairman, I do want to point out the larger picture, the bigger picture we are talking about here, and that is the issue of fiscal responsibility and the issue of responsibly spending taxpayer money, hard-earned American taxpayer money.

I was pleased to hear the chairman of the Appropriations Committee say to the gentleman from New Jersey that if the committee determined that those funds ought not be authorized, that they would be pleased to remove those funds, or something like that.

I would point out to the gentleman and to my colleagues that on page 302, 303, 304, and 305 of the report of the Committee on Appropriations, there is a paragraph that is headed ``Appropriations Not Authorized By Law.'' I would suggest that we revisit these items and require that they be authorized.

``Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules the House, the following table lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill,'' this bill we are talking about right now, ``which are not authorized by law for the period concerned.''

It may be helpful, Madam Chairman, for individuals to hear which ones are not authorized, not talking about the quality of those programs or the need for them, but the fact that this is a process that has come about where we are appropriating money for many programs which are in fact not authorized.

Department of Labor, for example, Training and Employment Services, not authorized since 2003. Appropriations in this bill, $3.5 billion.

Not authorized in this bill, the Veterans Workforce Improvement Program, not authorized since 2003. Appropriated in this bill, $1.649 billion.

National Health Service Corps, not authorized since 2002, again not talking about the appropriateness of the appropriation itself, but whether or not the process is such that it ought not be authorized prior to carrying out the appropriation. In this bill, $131 million.

Not authorized in this bill, Healthy Start, not authorized since 2005. In this bill, $120 million.

Not authorized in this bill, Rural Health Outreach Grants, not authorized since 2006. Funding in this bill to a level of $52.9 million.

Not authorized in this bill, cancer registries, not authorized since 2003. In this bill, funded at the rate of $47.9 million.

Not authorized in this bill, oral health promotion, not authorized since 2005. Funding in this bill, $13.1 million.

Not authorized in this bill, substance abuse and mental health services programs, not authorized since 2003. Funding in this bill, $3.26 billion.

Madam Chairman, the list goes on and on, and I draw my colleagues' attention to it, because I would agree with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee that we ought to be concerned about what is authorized by the authorizing committees and whether or not appropriations ought to be spent for items that are not authorized.

But the challenge for us is to spend responsibly, spend hard-earned taxpayer money responsibly.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment, because fundamentally what we are charged with doing here is being responsible with hard-earned taxpayer money. As the gentleman from New Jersey said, it is not responsible to pay for two programs that do the same thing, which is why the administration in its review looked at this program, which is wonderfully named, perfectly appropriate, has a wonderful mission, but the provisions of this program are being accomplished elsewhere in the Federal Government.

Now, it may be hard for the Chair of the Appropriations Committee to believe that there is some duplication in the Federal Government, but it is not hard for the citizens of the Sixth District of Georgia to believe that there is duplication. The name of the program that accomplishes this same end is the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants Program.

The goal of the gentleman from New Jersey, I don't believe, is to eliminate the ability to have appropriate programs for migrant and seasonal farm workers. That is not the goal at all. The goal is to responsibly spend hard-earned taxpayer money in accomplishing the appropriate priorities of the Federal Government. So to have anybody come to the floor and say that anybody who would support this amendment desires to end the programs for migrant and seasonal farm workers is simply not true and not the case, and it doesn't appropriately represent the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I commend him for his desire to make certain that we do not provide duplicative services which are wasteful, wasteful of hard- earned taxpayer money.

I am pleased to yield to my friend from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. The point about the demonstration project precisely gets to the point of so many of these programs. We do a poor job as a Federal Government in looking at programs that we put in place as pilots or demonstration projects to determine whether or not their effectiveness has been met.

I will have an amendment in a little bit that addresses a program whose mission and goal has been achieved and yet it continues to have money coming from the Federal Government.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

The amendment that the Clerk is currently reading is not one that I am offering.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for the confusion. I apologize for rising early.

This amendment is a simple amendment. It addresses the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership program and would end the funding for this program, saving $65 million of hard-earned taxpayer money. The rationale is, as the administration has described and as has been recommended by the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education, virtually every State operates programs to a much larger degree than the Federal Government that address this very same issue.

As I mentioned just a moment ago when I rose to another amendment, we here in Washington enact all sorts of pilot programs and all sorts of trial programs, and so very often, in fact probably more often than not, we don't go back and look as a Federal Government to see whether or not the goal or the mission of those programs has been accomplished.

Rarely, in fact, I would suggest, do we see if the goal has been accomplished. This is one in which there has been great success. The mission and the goal of the program has indeed been accomplished. It has accomplished its original objective of stimulating all States to establish need-based post-secondary student grant programs. However, beyond the establishment of these programs, the LEAP program, the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership program itself, does little to encourage States to increase their investment in grant aid for their neediest of students or effectively targets this aid to students who could most benefit from it.

When we do look, when the Department of Education and when the Office of Management and Budget performs its assessment and reviews this program, what it says is, at this point, because the mission has been accomplished, the results of any further funding for this program are clearly not demonstrated. So in an effort to achieve again some fiscal responsibility and in an effort to decrease some of the significant waste that does occur at the Federal level, I encourage my colleagues to accept and vote for the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for obtaining time, and I appreciate the chairman's comments.

Again, the purpose of this amendment is to address wasteful spending. It is a significant responsibility that we have here in the House to make certain that the money we spend, which is hard-earned taxpayer money, is spent wisely. I know there is huge animosity on the other side of the aisle against the President. I think sometimes that animosity actually blinds individuals to some quality work that is coming

from the administration. There are high-quality people who work in the administration, this administration, just like every other administration. In fact, there are high-quality people in the Department of Education and there are high-quality people in the Office of Management and Budget who looked at this problem and said that the goals and the mission of this program have, indeed, been accomplished. It was a wonderful program, served a grand purpose, but the goals and the missions have been accomplished. Consequently, it is appropriate, if we are going to be responsible with hard-earned taxpayer money, to end a program that has accomplished its mission, accomplished its goals, and not continue wasteful Federal spending.

So I would urge my colleagues, I know that they can be blinded by animosity for the President and for the administration, but I would urge my colleagues to listen to those hardworking individuals in the Federal Government who are looking at these programs and attempting to find cost savings for the American public so that we can prioritize on other programs.

That's what this amendment does. It seeks to be responsible with hard-earned taxpayer money. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 633 and 634 I was unavoidably detain and not able to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on 633 and ``no'' on 634.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I thank my friend from Minnesota for bringing this issue forward. Madam Chairman, this is an extremely important issue, and I think it is important that we bring the debate back to the actual amendment.

The amendment addresses the issue of funding for the Office of Labor Management Statistics, and that agency is the only agency of the government that is devoted to protecting the interests of dues-paying union members, the only one.

The funding in last year, fiscal year 2007, was about $47 million. Funding proposed for this year is about $45 million. It is a cut of about $2 million. That is a cut. Not the cut that we have heard explained in other bills that were reductions in the increase; it is a cut. The President felt so strongly about this and felt so strongly about the success of this agency that he recommended an increase to $56 million. So this proposal by the majority party is a decrease of $11.1 million from the President's request.

Now, it is curious the arguments that we are hearing on the other side. They have increased spending virtually across the board for every single agency except for this one, and this is the one that provides the enforcement for the Department of Labor. I have supported many appropriate reductions, there is no doubt about it, as we have moved through these appropriations bills, but I believe strongly that there is a message that is being sent in this cut that is being proposed by the majority party, and that message is that it is imperative that the debt that they owe to union bosses be paid.

And why do I say that? This is an agency that has significant results. Since 2001, the indictments resulting from investigations by this agency have increased by 20 percent. Now, why would we want to decrease funding to an agency that is showing success in protecting dues-paying workers? Convictions have increased by 26 percent and the courts have ordered restitution of over $70 million in union members' dues that were stolen, stolen by union officials. That sounds like a project that would merit support by the majority party, but, as my good friend from Florida just said, it is clear that this is a trend that we are seeing by this new majority party, and that is that the protection of the rank-and-file worker is not what they have an interest in. And that was demonstrated clearly with the card check issue which, as he mentioned, took away the sacrosanct right of a secret ballot in union formation in this Nation. The majority party said, no, that wasn't important, that individuals ought to be exposed to the kind of intimidation that we see on both sides, both the employer and the union side.

So, Madam Chairman, I guess it ought not be surprising that we see this included in the current bill, but it is disappointing. There is no doubt that it is disappointing. Because, again, we have an agency of the Federal Government, the Office of Labor Management Statistics, which is getting results, which is fulfilling its mission, which is fulfilling its charge, which is fulfilling its responsibility to the American people and to this Federal Government, and this new majority proposes to significantly cut the amount of funding to the agency. I think it exposes a flaw in the thinking of the majority party and, hence, this general statement that we are the only individuals for working people. In fact, tax cuts are for working people. In fact, decreasing spending at the level of the Federal Government is for working people. In fact, not passing the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation is for working people.

So we stand proudly and honorably before the American people and say that the party that stands in favor of working people is the party that is most responsible with Federal spending. It is the party that holds to account Federal agencies. This Federal agency, this office is accomplishing its goal, it is accomplishing its mission, and so it ought not be one that we cut. There are certainly others that are available to be decreased. I urge support of the Kline amendment and ask all my colleagues to support it.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I am somewhat amused by the posture of the Appropriations Chair in the last two amendments, and I appreciate the difficult position he finds himself in. But on the one hand, the amendment before this one attempting to support the President's recommendation and then on this one lambasting the President's recommendation. So a case of whiplash, I understand, may be in order.

But it is important to talk about exactly what this amendment does. And I want to commend my good friend from Texas for proposing this amendment.

The Department of Labor proposes in the President's budget that $14 million go to the International Labor Affairs Bureau, which would move the agency closer to its core mission of research and policy analysis. Remember this is the Department of Labor, not the Department of State. In 2008 the International Labor Affairs Bureau will continue to focus on administering over $530 million, $530 million, in projects that were launched in previous years, including in the field of child labor, as the chairman mentioned.

The Department of Labor seeks to restore the International Labor Affairs Bureau to its original mission of research and advocacy by eliminating its grant-making activities. We have all sorts of duplication and redundancies in the Federal Government, and this certainly is one of them. As an example of that, between 1996 and 2001, the International Labor Affairs Bureau's funding rose by 1,500 percent over a 5-year period of time when the agency embarked on an expansive grant-making mission intended to combat international child labor, develop and disseminate AIDS prevention information in the international workplace, support core labor standards development, and provide bilateral technical assistance.

Madam Chairman, grant-making activities are appropriately funded through the Department of State and through the USAID, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and other agencies. For example, the 2008 budget includes $3 billion to continue international assistance activities in developing countries through the Millennium Challenge Account. The administration created the Millennium Challenge Account to provide targeted and accountable international development assistance to poor countries with a demonstrative commitment to ruling justly, investing in people, and encouraging economic growth. So there are more appropriate places to fund these kinds of grant activities.

I would suggest, Madam Chairman, that the gentleman from Texas has proposed an appropriate amendment to return the level of funding in this appropriations bill to a level that would allow the International Labor Affairs Bureau to return to its core mission, its core mission of research and policy analysis and I believe better serve this Congress and the American people.

So I commend the gentleman for his amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I will be relatively brief on this.

I want to commend my friend from Louisiana for offering the amendment. As a physician in my former life, I appreciate the remarkable increase in the incidence of tuberculosis and the need for surveillance as well as detection and treatment. So I commend my friend from Louisiana for offering this amendment. We all watched with some curiosity and some significant concern within the last couple of months as we tracked the travels of one individual from my City of Atlanta around the world who was felt to have a case of tuberculosis that needed to be treated urgently. So I commend my good friend for the amendment.

I do want to say in the larger context, however, that I'm a little perplexed, for the Chair of the Appropriations Committee talks about ``pretending'' to support AmeriCorps in previous amendments dealing with this section of the bill, ``pretending'' to support NLRB, ``pretending'' to support deaf and blind children, and yet those are the amendments that he accepted.

So I am a little perplexed as to why this amendment isn't being given the same, at least the same pretending of, support from the Chair of the committee.

I would also point out that the appropriately decreased reductions in the proposal from the administration in this area of the budget aren't taken in isolation. They are part of the entire, larger budget, which gets to the issue of the entire, larger budget that this new majority has passed, and that, as you well know, Madam Chairman, includes the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation. So I understand that somehow you have to pay for all these things, but I believe strongly that it is not the American people who desire to have the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation.

So I rise to commend my good friend from Louisiana for proposing this sound amendment. I would encourage its adoption. I understand the concerns that others have regarding the underlying section in this area of the bill, but I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I'm pleased to yield to my friend from Florida.

I thank my friend for his comments, and I would just like to underscore one point that he made, and that is, that all appropriations bills are bills that relate to priorities.

And we oftentimes hear from our good friends on the other side that we're quibbling or pretending or all sorts of descriptions about what's going on here tonight, but Madam Chairman, what's going on here tonight is the work of our democracy and the work of representatives in Congress to best represent their constituents.

And to scoff at ordering priorities for spending at the Federal level, I don't believe it's an appropriate message to send to the American people. This is important work. This is hard-earned taxpayer money, and it behooves us to spend as much time as any Member in this House so desires to determine the best way in which that money ought to be spent.

So I commend my friend for standing up for the priorities that he believes are most appropriate in this bill.

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

Madam Chairman, we have had a number of amendments that have dealt with line items at one point in the bill and then at a point later in the bill that has not been read yet, so I would respectfully suggest that the point of order is not appropriate as it has not been utilized on other amendments that have been offered and that all Members ought to be treated with equity in the offering of their amendments.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 64: Page 87, line 1, strike the comma and

insert ``and''.

Page 87, line 3, strike ``and'' and all that follows

through the first comma on line 5.

Page 87, line 5, after each dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $93,531,000)''.

Page 88, line 13, strike the colon and all that follows

through page 89, line 3, and insert a period.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 65: Page 89, line 7, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $64,987,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section: