Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad and disappointing day for this House and for America. Once again, the majority is placing politics over national security, politics over reasoned policy, politics and partisanship over citizens and sanity.

Clearly this bill was not written in response to what our generals think, whose interim report was released just hours ago. Instead, it was written in reaction to polls and to political pressure from MoveOn.org and others. This isn't a thoughtful piece of legislation to achieve success in Iraq or success for America.

The lack of definition for a limited presence included in the bill reveals that this is just another cynical attempt by the majority to politically pander. How terribly disappointing.

In effect, this legislation is a vote of no confidence in our military commanders, and it's a shot of encouragement to al Qaeda. It's pure political opportunism, and it's devoid of military strategy.

As Members of Congress, we have a greater responsibility than just to politics. We have a responsibility to do what is in the best interest of long-term American security. We must be thoughtful. We must be deliberate in our actions.

We have a capable leader, General David Petraeus, unanimously approved by the Senate, the expert in counterinsurgency strategy. He was given by this Congress, just a few weeks ago, until September, to make positive progress in Iraq and report.

But this majority isn't interested in what our military commanders are capable of, or the situation on the ground. Their only interest is politics, in raising the white flag and in coming home without any thought or definition as to when or where they are willing to defend our security.

But because the political climate is ripe, the majority wants to undercut our troops. It's upsetting, it's sad, and it's very disconcerting that politics would trump national security.

This bill signals to our enemies that it doesn't matter what the commanders say. It says that thoughtful military strategy takes a back seat to good politics.

This isn't an exit strategy, it's a political strategy. How terribly disappointing.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and to commit to positively working together on behalf of the American people and American security.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Florida for his leadership on this issue and so many others.

I rise opposed to this rule for process and policy reasons.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the new majority promised us and they promised the American people a fair and open process. But again, the majority has failed to live up to its promises, and now that it is out from under the spotlight of election-year promises, we see that they are few and far between.

Before last year's election, 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.''

And, Mr. Speaker, I agree. So what's changed? Is it political expediency or is it a broken promise?

In December following last year's election, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, told the media that ``We intend to have a Rules Committee . . . that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the House.''

Mr. Speaker, where is the commitment to that promise, with only six of 23 amendments made in order? What has changed, Mr. Speaker? Is it political expediency or is it a broken promise?

Mr. Speaker, the Rules chairman, Ms. Slaughter, has said, ``If we want to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and the thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open rule, not just appropriations bills . . . an open process should be the norm, not the exception.''

Mr. Speaker, what's changed? Is it political expediency or is it a broken promise?

Rules Committee member Mr. McGovern has said, ``I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you want to show some bipartisanship, if you want to promote a process that has some integrity, then this should be an open rule. All Members should have an opportunity to come here and offer amendments to this bill to improve the quality of the deliberations on this House floor. They should be able to come and offer amendments to clean up this place.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, what's changed? Is it political expediency or is it a broken promise?

Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel has said, ``Let's have an up- and-down vote. Don't be scared. Do not hide behind some little rule. Come on out here. Put it out on the table and let's have a vote . . . So don't hide behind the rule. If this is what you want to do, let's have an up-and-down vote. You can put your votes right up there . . . and then the American people can see what it is all about.''

So what has changed, Mr. Speaker? Is it political expediency or is it a broken promise?

Mr. Speaker, I am also very curious as to what has happened with the distinguished chairman and my friend on the Financial Services Committee. In the past, not only has he been a vocal advocate for open rules to the legislation that he has brought to the floor, but the new majority has spared him no effort to applaud him for doing so. In fact, Chairman Frank was such a firm believer in allowing debate, allowing consideration of amendments, that Representative Welch of Vermont felt so moved to say, ``All of us applaud the work of Chairman Frank for recommending an open rule to this bill . . . ''

But, Mr. Speaker, that was on a previous bill. So I would ask what's changed. What is the chairman afraid of? Because it certainly appears that he has lost his passion for an open and a fair process.

In a letter dated July 9, 2007, to the Chair of the House Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, Chairman Frank urged that the Rules Committee ``provide a structured amendment process.'' So what's changed, Mr. Speaker? What's changed?

The Rules Committee Web site lists 23 amendments submitted for consideration, yet only six were made in order. So what's so scary about the other 17? What's so scary?

Mr. Speaker, I submitted three amendments not made in order by this draconian and restrictive rule. My first amendment would have applied pay-as-you-go spending rules to this bill that CBO has said will have a net cost of $2.4 billion over the next 5 years. Remember Democrats' promise to use PAYGO rules for everything; instead, they're picking and choosing when to do so. At home we call that breaking a rule and breaking a promise.

The second amendment, Mr. Speaker, is clearly a substantive one. It would have prevented, as the gentlelady from Florida said, prevented illegal immigrants from receiving assistance under the section 8 program by providing all adults to provide secure identification before receiving assistance. It's the kind of commonsense amendment that the Financial Services Committee has applied before. It has also been accepted by the full House on other legislation.

The third amendment would have helped clarify a new requirement for public housing authorities. This bill provides that the public housing authorities have to report rental payments as alternative data to the credit bureaus. Rental payment information is clearly different than other forms of commerce and may need to be treated differently in order to ensure accuracy of credit reporting.

These were three thoughtful and substantive amendments which deserved the consideration of all 435 Members of the House, but they were denied that opportunity, Mr. Speaker, by this restrictive and draconian rule.

Mr. Speaker, back home in my district, rules aren't rules if you only follow them when you want to. Democrats promised to use a fair and open process for everything. Instead, they're picking and choosing. And when you pick and choose to do so, it's called breaking a rule and breaking a promise.

So I urge the new majority to rededicate itself to its campaign promises of a fair and open process. We should allow this Chamber to work its will on all legislation. An open process shouldn't just be something that's just talked about solely on the campaign trail. What amendment was so scary that it ought not be included in this discussion?

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule so that we may have a complete, open and fair debate. The American people deserve and expect no less.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend from Illinois for yielding, and I want to thank also the Chair of the committee and Chair of the subcommittee for the work that they have done on this, and the ranking member.

I rise to express a few sincere and serious concerns with section 9 of the bill. This is the section that allows the public housing authorities, or the PHAs, to report the rental payments of its tenants to credit reporting agencies.

Reporting alternative data, like rental payments, to the credit reporting agencies may indeed be a very good thing. The hope obviously is that increased alternative data will help improve the credit reports for consumers and, in the long run, provide them with better and less expensive access to credit. In this increasingly credit-drive society, that's truly an important thing.

However, I've got four specific concerns with the way that the language in section 9 of this bill is written.

First is the format that this data will take. The language of the underlying bill requires the PHAs and credit reporting agencies to establish a system and format for reporting the new data. This is obviously new territory for PHAs, and they haven't done it before and aren't financial institutions and have no history of providing reporting data in the proper format.

Second concern is that this section may be incorrectly read to constitute a new requirement on the credit reporting agencies, and I would submit that this would be a drastic and significant change to our current system. Currently, credit reporting agencies must consider the timeliness of the data supplied to them. They must verify that it is accurate data, ensure that there hasn't been any case of identity fraud so that false data is not included in an unsuspecting consumer's credit file. Rental payment, clearly that information is different than other forms of commerce, and it may need to be treated differently.

A third concern is that the section, as it reads, would apply to ``families receiving tenant-based housing choice vouchers.'' Credit files historically are unique to individuals. Credit reporting agencies have no way to adjust their credit files for an entire family. So I wonder again sincerely what the real consequences of this ambiguity and potentially harmful aspect are to spreading potential financial responsibility to some without regard to accountability.

My fourth concern may be the most important, and that is, that the underlying legislation requires that the PHA, or the public housing agency, gain the permission of the family in writing before submitting the data to credit reporting agencies. This provision potentially would turn our credit reporting system on its head. It's a 100-year-old system based on the voluntary reporting of data to credit reporting agencies. If consumers are able to turn on or off when the data is reported, then it, in its essence, undermines completely the accuracy of the credit reports.

Both those who furnish the data to the credit reporting agencies and those who use that data to offer credit to consumers rely on the accuracy of these reports so that they can appropriately and responsibly price the cost of credit to a specific consumer. If someone can decide not to submit certain data to a credit reporting agency, then the accuracy of that data will be greatly compromised.

I sincerely believe that a few minor changes to the underlying legislation would indeed perfect the language in a way that would allow for new alternative data to help consumers and also to have that new data submitted in a way that does not undermine a credit reporting system that truly has become the envy of the world.

It's my hope that we can work on these concerns as this legislation moves forward, and once again, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for her time and thank the Chair of the committee and subcommittee for their work on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and honor Miss Katja Martin, a sixth grade student from my district, who is an inspired writer and gifted reader and writer.

This year, the Library of Congress has selected Miss Katja Martin of Appharetta, Georgia as one of only six national winners in their annual ``Letters About Literature'' program. With more than 56,000 adolescent and young adult readers in fourth through 12th grades participating, this program encourages students to read and be inspired and to write a letter that might have been sent to an author who has changed the student's view of the world and of themselves.

For her entry, Miss Martin wrote about the Robert Frost poem, ``Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening.'' Because of her talented efforts, she and the other five national winners will be honored at the National Book Festival on September 29 here in Washington, DC, where they will have the opportunity to read their letters to the gathered audience.

I am pleased to have the House recognize this accomplishment. It's a great honor for me to be able to represent and recognize Katja Martin, clearly a dedicated and intelligent young lady.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leadership for allowing me to come to the floor of the House this evening and spend another hour of The Official Truth Squad, a group of individuals who come to the floor at least once a week, we try to, at least, to try to shed a little light, a little correct view on the situations that occur here in our Nation's Capital and especially here on the House floor.

This group grew out of some frustration by Members on the Republican side of the aisle who felt that there was less light and less truthfulness being spoken here on the floor of the House, and that so often, because of the constrained rules on the floor of the House, we and others were prevented from bringing those instances to light. So we started what we call The Official Truth Squad, and the leadership has been very kind in allowing us to shed that light, bring that truth to the Members of the House and hopefully set the record straight so often.

We have many favorite sayings. One of them that I enjoy most is one from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitle to their own facts.

When you think about it, it's so very true here that if we were to deal more in fact that we would have a much better debate, a much better discussion, a discussion that would be much more appropriate for the American people, and live up to the charge that we have all been given, that is, to represent our constituents to the best ability that we have.

But facts oftentimes don't hold the day here. But, hopefully, during this hour we will be able to bring some light to some very interesting matters that have been brought before the House and some that are yet to come in the days and the weeks ahead.

It has been a curious time here in Washington since the beginning of the year. It's a time of what I have called and dubbed Orwellian democracy, Orwellian democracy, because so often what we see is the party in charge, the majority party, says one thing and then does something completely different. So it harkens back to the author, George Orwell, and the double speak that he highlighted.

It's, sadly, distressing that the leadership on the other side of the aisle seems to be all politics all the time. It's a shame, because we both have just gotten back in town from a week of district work period, and I know that you likely heard what I heard at home, and that is that folks are frustrated and oftentimes disgusted with the kind of activity that goes on here in Washington, the kind of lack of debate, the lack of open and honest discussion. The all politics all the time is very frustrating to my constituents, and, I suspect, to those of yours as well.

Tomorrow is one of those days that will be a classic example of all politics all the time. The majority party has seen fit to bring forth, and you have heard a lot of folks talk about the issue this evening on the other side of the aisle, but they have seen fit to bring forth another resolution on the war in Iraq. It's curious that it comes literally just hours after the Speaker of the House had an individual stand up, who is known to folks far and wide across this Nation, and say that she was going to challenge the Speaker in the next election. So it appears that the timeliness of this resolution may be, again, all politics all the time in response to an electoral challenge that may be coming upon the Speaker of the House.

But the sad part about all of this, as it relates to the war in Iraq, and we are going to talk about a number of issues tonight, but the sad part about the resolution that's coming up tomorrow is that it is all just politics. It's not anything about real policy debates for the American people; it's not about real action. This Congress, this House and the Senate, said relatively recently that we were going to allow the reinforcements to run their course in Iraq, that we are going to allow General David Petraeus, who is on the ground there, along with credible fortitude and gallantry on the part of the American men and women, that we were going to allow the increase in the reenforcements of the American troops to run their course and see whether or not there was progress being made.

Now, just a few short weeks after the number of individuals have increased in Iraq, the majority party says, oh, no, we really didn't mean that, we need a new bumper sticker, we need a new headline, so they are going to bring a resolution on Iraq tomorrow. It is really a shame and very sad, because it, again, doesn't add anything to the debate, doesn't do anything other than highlight the politics of this majority party and the fact that they are having extreme difficulty getting any real accomplishments. So they bring another very politically motivated resolution on the war in Iraq, Orwellian democracy, saying one thing and doing another.

We have been told this is going to be the most open and honest Congress, most open and honest Congress ever. Well, the facts of the matter, the facts of the matter are that this is one of the most closed and clandestine Congresses ever to grace the American public. It is really a shame, again, really a shame, because issues aren't being debated the way that they should. We will talk very specifically about one of those issues tonight.

I want to highlight a couple areas where Orwellian democracy is holding forth and living and surviving well with this new majority. As you know well, this new majority came to power, and they said we are going to cut spending, we are going to decrease spending; we are going to be more responsible with spending hard-earned taxpayer money out there.

What does this new majority do? They increase spending. They couldn't wait to criticize all the spending that went on under the charge of the Republican Party when we were in the majority. So what they said, in essence, you spent so much, and it was so awful, that we are going to spend more. That's what they have done. They have increased spending by over $25 billion, $25 billion in the appropriations bills so far, and we are barely halfway through, if that, of the appropriations bills.

I would suggest to the American people that it's time to put your hands squarely on your wallet, because the true tax-and-spend majority is back in charge, and it's of great concern, I know, to my constituents and, I suspect, if you talk to yours as well.

When they adopted their budget, they adopted a budget that includes the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation, nearly $400 billion tax increase. Again, not what they said they were going to do, and not what they said they have done, as a matter of fact. That's why it's Orwellian democracy, because they won't even fess up and own up to the fact, the fact that they have passed a budget that includes the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation.

Then they go on and they talk about fiscal responsibility. In fact, many Members have posters outside their offices up here in Washington. Some constituents may have come by the Halls of Congress and seen the posters. The posters look wonderful. They talk about the need for fiscal responsibility, and the amount of the debt, the amount of the deficit. But, in fact, when given the opportunity to decrease the debt, and to decrease the deficit, what happens is that they continually say no. Orwellian democracy is alive and well.

Just today, just today we passed a bill that was the reauthorization of the higher education act for our Nation. But it didn't just reauthorize the act and provide more money for students of low-income, and ``low'' means to be able to attend colleges and universities. No, it didn't just do that. What it did in addition to that was to create nine new entitlement programs, nine new entitlement programs.

Now, entitlement programs are really a misnomer. They are programs that are on automatic pilot here. They are mandatory spending. They are programs that get started, and they never, ever end, because they are not able to be touched by the kind of discretionary spending that Congress has more control over. They just spend on and on and on, year after year.

Yes, this majority created nine new entitlement programs that will spend upwards of $18 billion in just a few short years, a new $18 billion. So there are nine new entitlements, no reform, no reform listed for the entitlement programs, which brings me to this issue of mandatory spending growth that we have seen in our Nation.

It's comprised of all sorts of mandatory spending programs, entitlement programs; but there are three that kind of highlight the major problem that we have. Of the nine new ones that they passed today, however, they may grow into being as important as these three, but the three are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Those three programs, in and of themselves, comprise about 54 percent of our Federal budget right now, about 54 percent of our Federal budget. Our mandatory programs are mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

The reason that's important is because these programs are mandatory, because they are on kind of automatic pilot, the amount of money, hard- earned American taxpayer money that comes to Washington that is spent on those programs increases gradually every single year.

So what this chart here shows, these pie charts here show is that in 1995, those three programs comprised about 48.7 percent of the Federal budget, about half of the Federal budget just 12 short years ago. Now, as I mentioned, about 54, 55 percent of the Federal budget is comprised of these mandatory, automatic-spending programs.

In a few short years, 2017, it will be about 62, 63 percent of the Federal budget. That's important because one would think that if you looked at that slope of increase in spending, slope of increase in total spending of the mandatory programs, as it relates to the Federal budget, in a relatively short period of time, it's true, as you know, that those three programs will comprise the entire Federal budget, the entire Federal budget, about 2030, 2035, somewhere in that range, which is within the lifetime of most of us here in this Chamber and certainly the vast majority of the citizens in our districts.

That's important because something has got to change. You can't have these programs continue as they are without appropriate and responsible reform.

So one would think that the party in charge would say, well, we have got to look at these, and we have got to make certain that we reform these programs, otherwise we are going to have all of the Federal money going to these three programs.

When our party, my party, was in charge, what we attempted to do was to appropriately reform these programs and work diligently to make that happen.

So in 1997, with the Balanced Budget Act, we passed entitlement reform. We decreased the slope of that line. Now, we didn't end it, because of the difficulty in doing that, there are ways to do that, but it's extremely difficult both politically and financially to do that.

But in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we increased by about $137 billion the entitlement mandatory spending over a period of time. In fact, in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2 years ago, of 2005, it was about $40 billion in reform, reform spending in those entitlement programs. It makes it so that the hard-earned taxpayer money is more responsibly spent, that it makes it so that we work diligently to decrease the deficit and to decrease the debt.

One would again believe that looking at the previous charts, and realizing that these programs are expanding exponentially, and that they are very, very soon to comprise a much greater portion of the Federal budget, one would say, well, the party in charge probably, when they adopted a budget, they would bring about some appropriate reform to mandatory programs. That's what I expected. It's what my constituents expected.

Frankly, I think it's what the American people expected when they went to the polls and voted last November. They expected a more bold process for reform of automatic mandatory spending. Many of us on our side of the aisle would have been in support of that.

But what happened? You see over on the far right of this chart, it shows the amount of entitlement reform under this new leadership. Do you remember Orwellian democracy, the talk about fiscal responsibility, the talk about importance for entitlement reform, the talk about reforming the Federal Government, making it run more efficiently?

Well, what happened is that the budget was adopted by this new majority that had no entitlement reform, none. In fact, as I mentioned earlier today, nine new entitlement programs adopted, put into place, one could make an argument that that not ought to be zero, that ought to be minus, that this new majority is going in the wrong direction. When they talk about a new direction for America, there is a new direction for America, but it's the wrong direction. It's the direction of greater debt and greater deficit and greater fiscal irresponsibility.

That is not what the American people bargained for. I have no doubt about it. Which brings us to the issue that I would like to spend a fair amount of time on this evening.

There is a proposal coming forward later this month, within maybe just a few short days, that will address the SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance program. This is a program that is near and dear to my heart. Mr. Speaker, as you may remember, before I came to Congress, I was a physician. I was an orthopedic surgeon. I spent over 20 years practicing orthopedic surgery in Atlanta. And one of the things that drove me in to politics, to stand up and say, I would like to serve my constituents in the public in this way, was a belief that there were individuals both in my State capital and in Washington that thought they had a better idea, about almost anything, but especially a better idea about health care; that they thought that they could make better decisions about health care than the people involved; that is, patients.

So the SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, is one of those that I think highlights one of the fundamental differences, one of the fundamental flaws in this Orwellian Democratic leadership, which is that they say one thing and then do something completely different. Because what they will say is that they are interested in reforming the system and bringing greater health care, more health care for more children across our Nation, and, Mr. Speaker, what they will do and what they will propose is in fact a program that will move us one step closer, one step further down the road to a nationalized health insurance program and also one step closer to a program that will make it so that patients, parents, doctors are unable to make health care decisions. It is not what the American people bargained for, there is no doubt about it.

This new majority is obviously driven by the left in our Nation, driven by, I think, a small minority of individuals who firmly believe, again, that the government knows best; that the government knows best how to make all sorts of decisions. But in this instance it is personal. It is personal for every single American. Certainly it is personal for the children in these programs; because what this program is saying and what is being proposed is that the government, that Washington knows better what kind of health care you need, and we make better decisions. We, politicians, bureaucrats here in Washington, make better decisions than individuals, than individuals, than children and their parents together.

I think it is helpful that we are having this debate because I think it provides that great contrast, that wonderful contrast between the party of individual responsibility, and the party that believes that patients and parents and their doctors ought to be able to make medical decisions, and the party that believes that the government ought to be making those decisions.

So I am looking forward to the debate. It is a difficult issue because the consequences are so great and the consequences are so personal to each and every American. I don't know anybody that believes truly that the government can make better health care decisions for themselves. I don't know anybody that believes the government can do that. So I am looking forward to the debate as we move forward on the SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

I am going to talk a little bit more about that as we go on, but I am pleased to be joined by my good friend from Tennessee, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, who is a leader in so many areas, but especially in the area of health care, and serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee. I am so pleased to have you join us this evening and share your concerns and your knowledge and information about the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

If the gentlelady will yield. I appreciate your comments. And I appreciate especially concentrating in that last statement about whose money this is, because so often we lose sight here with the incredible number of zeroes that we deal with here in Washington, billions and billions of dollars, truly. And all of those dollars take hardworking Americans waking up every single day, making certain that they have cared for themselves and their family, and getting to work and being generous enough to entrust to us their hardearned money, and it is incumbent upon us to spend that money wisely. And the challenge that I see with every government program, but especially

this State Children's Health Insurance Program; it is a noble cause. It is a noble cause without a doubt. Who can object to providing health care for needy children? So it is a noble cause, but it is a government program that is clearly being morphed into something else. And I think that is what you were alluding to.

Let me get this straight. In the Children's Health Insurance Program, there are hundreds of thousands of adults who are being covered? How is that possible?

I thank the gentlelady again for that perspective. And I just want to highlight something that you mentioned, and that is that there are proposals here in the House and in Congress to make this program mandatory, part of that entitlement mentality that exists on the other side of the aisle, and to increase the eligibility for this mandatory program up to 400 percent of the poverty level; you mentioned that is about $82,000 for a family of four.

This chart demonstrates that the percent of children who would be covered up to 200 percent, which is what has been the original guidelines for the SCHIP program and what we believe ought to be appropriate at this point, is 50 percent of the kids will be covered in a Federal-State program.

If you go up to 300 percent, then it gets to 77 percent of the children. If you go up to 400 percent of the poverty level, you get nearly 90 percent of children in a Federal health care program. And that's what sheds light on the real issue here, the real issue being who ought to be in charge of health care for our Nation's children and for our Nation's families, and for individual people all across this Nation. We believe it ought not be the Federal Government, I think that that's fair to say. And the other side clearly believes that this is the next step, to allow them to have the Federal Government control health care. And I'm happy to yield.

I appreciate that because you triggered in my mind something about cost-of-government programs. And I'm reminded of the fact that when Medicaid itself was instituted in the mid-1960s that there was a wonderful estimate that said that Medicaid, at the turn of the century, when 2000 rolled around, would only cost about $8 billion. In fact, it cost about $80 billion.

So the Federal Government is always off by a significant factor, and so when you hear an estimate that this will only cost $108 billion, in fact, we can say with relative certainty that that is a lesser amount than it would actually cost, and it would be much greater burden on the American taxpayer.

And I'm pleased to yield back.

I thank you so much for you comments. And I think the issues that you point out most recently there on the bargaining chips really speaks to the cynicism with which this leadership leads this Congress because it is, it's purchasing votes. It's purchasing numbers of votes in order to pass a bill. And then to have the, again, the all politics all the time, the bumper sticker politics that goes on by this leadership. And it is, frankly, what the American people are tired of. It's not what they voted for in November. And they are clearly telling each other and telling any individual who will ask that that has decreased their opinion of Congress.

And I'm pleased to yield.

I thank you so much. I appreciate your perspective this evening so much on the program about which you know a lot and your perspective from the committee, and especially your perspective about representing constituents, real Americans, real Americans who are working just as hard as they can to make ends meet and being so very, very frustrated with a Federal Government and a leadership now in Congress that appears absolutely more interested in dividing and conquering, as opposed to putting in place appropriate policies. So I appreciate your comments.

I just want to make a few more comments about the specifics of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, because I think that there are a number of issues that need to be pointed out as we move forward with this debate. The current program, as we've talked about, was meant to cover, was scheduled and meant to cover children up to 200 percent of the poverty level. And as we've heard, many of the States covered to a higher degree than that. Some 235, some 250, some went up to 350 percent of the poverty level. And although that is, I think, a move in a direction that's not consistent, certainly with the intent of Congress, it probably is a move away from where the American people thought that program was going, without a doubt.

But, Mr. Speaker, it definitely is a move away from the intent when you look at the programs and realize that even those States that went up to 300 and 350 percent of the poverty level, some even up to 250 percent of the poverty level weren't even covering all of the children under 200 percent of the poverty level. And they were covering adults.

So it just was a flawed program.

And it is so often what happens here in Washington: Federal programs are enacted. Noble cause is outlined. Wonderful banner headlines provided. Great speeches given about how this will save this, that or the other thing. And then the implementation is so terribly and woefully flawed. And that has indeed happened in this case.

This reauthorization, as has been mentioned, is up because the program is about to be 10 years old. It expires on September 30 of this year. As a physician, I joined many of my colleagues before I came to Congress and before I was in the State legislature early in the 1990s, and many of us believed we were at a crossroads at that time as it related to health care. There were many on the other side of the aisle, on the Democrat side of the aisle, who believed that the government ought to take over health care at that point in the early 1990s. And, Mr. Speaker, as you will remember and as many folks will remember, if they think back to that time, there was a huge battle and a lot of expose about what the consequences of that would be. And thank goodness we didn't march down that road.

But we are now back at that crossroads. We backed up. We went down another road a little bit, and some of the direction was correct. Some of the direction was putting us further toward government-run health care. But we are now at that crossroads where we have a group of individuals in charge in the United States House of Representatives now, with a Democrat leadership, who believe that a Washington- controlled bureaucratic health care model is what America wants.

I don't believe that is what America wants. It certainly isn't what my constituents want. It wasn't what my patients wanted when I was practicing medicine.

I think it is important, as we look at this program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and as we look at the fact that it is up for reauthorization, that we ought to ask some questions. What have the consequences of the program been to date? Indeed, we have covered a number of children who would not possibly have had health insurance. One of the consequences of raising the Federal poverty level eligibility for the Children's Health Insurance Program is that we crowd out children who might otherwise be obtaining insurance through a private plan where their mom or their dad work. But there are other consequences, and some of those consequences are grave. One of them is, I believe, an increased dependence on government for the provision of health care. There is no doubt about that. I believe also that it undermines parental responsibility. And there is no doubt that it increases the burden on the hard-working American taxpayer.

I would like to touch on a few specifics on each of those. Increasing dependency on government, where does that come from? Well, when you look at the year 1998 and the percent of American children who were on either Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program, in 1998 it was about 28 percent. Twenty-eight percent of American children were enrolled in 1998 in either Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. In 2005, that number had jumped to 45 percent or 6.2 million children. So it went in 1998 from 28 percent to 45 percent in 2005. So there is no doubt that there is an increased dependency on the government for the provision of health care. Again, I don't think that is what the American people had in mind.

State policies also have increased and encouraged the trend of adult enrollees. A couple of examples which just boggle my mind, Mr. Speaker, in Minnesota, for example, 87 percent of those enrolled in the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 2005 were adults. Eighty-seven percent were adults. That is not what Congress voted on in 1997. That is not what the American people thought was going to be the program to provide health insurance, health access, health care for the neediest children in our Nation. In Wisconsin, the number was 66 percent. So, in Wisconsin, 66 percent, and in Minnesota, 87 percent in 2005 were adults on the Children's Health Insurance Program. That is not what this program was to be about. And State officials, as we have mentioned, didn't stick to the 200 percent. So in New Jersey, for example, the amount went up to 350 percent of the poverty level. Mr. Speaker, that is an income of about $72,000. Now, that may or may not seem to be a lot of money to some folks, but the problem that we get in this doublespeak in Washington, in this Orwellian democracy model that we have by the leadership right now is that, as Congresswoman Blackburn mentioned, on the one hand, $72,000 is deemed to be ``rich'' by the other side of the aisle when it comes to the alternative minimum tax, but $72,000 for a given State under this program is deemed to be needy so that the State has to cover children in their health insurance program. Clearly it is doublespeak. Clearly it is Orwellian democracy. It has become increasingly clear that there are many Members of Congress who believe that expansion into higher income levels for families is exactly what they want because they at their core desire government health insurance over private health insurance. They desire a Washington-controlled bureaucratic model for the provision of health care and medicine in our Nation. So it is clear that the program has increased dependency on the government for the provision of health care.

How about transferring family responsibilities, taking the place of parents, transferring family responsibilities to the government? There is no doubt that that has occurred and in a variety of ways. In many cases, for example, the SCHIP program means that children's health coverage will be totally separate than their parents. So they go to different offices. They go to different office locations. There are different office hours. There are different doctors that care for them, different paperwork, all of which makes life more difficult. It makes the Federal Government and the State government the determiners. It makes them making the decisions for parents and for families.

I believe that the goal should be to help unite families, to help unite their coverage under one private plan that they select, that they own, not to spread the coverage out through a hodgepodge that increases dependency on the government.

Some in Congress suggest that private coverage is unattainable for lower-income families or working families. But the facts tell a different story. Remember, Mr. Speaker, facts are stubborn things and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts? Well, the facts tell a different story. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 50 percent of children whose families earn between 100 and 200 percent of the Federal poverty level have private health insurance coverage. Remember the other 50 percent covered by this program, 50 percent are covered by private health insurance. That number skyrocketed to 77 percent for those families that earn 200 to 300 percent of the Federal poverty level. In fact, 60 percent of people covered by SCHIP expansions already had private coverage available to them. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker, because that is a startling statement. It is a startling fact, and it is something that we ought to pay attention to. Sixty percent of the people covered by SCHIP expansions were already covered by private insurance before the program was instituted.

Mr. Speaker, what that means is that we are making decisions here in Washington that are providing financial incentives for individuals and businesses and people to move their health care coverage to government, and when we do that, it is incumbent upon us to ask the question, should we be doing that? What are the consequences of doing that? What are the unintended consequences of doing that? In 2012, if we continue down this road, 71 percent of the American children will be in a government-run health care system.

Now, what does that mean? What are the consequences of that? As a physician, I am here to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the consequences of that are that more health care decisions are made by bureaucrats and are made by individuals here in Washington than are made by doctors and their patients and children's parents. That is what it means. It means that more personal health care decisions move away from being made by patients and their doctors. That is not what we ought to be about. That is not increasing choice for individuals in the health care system. That is not increasing freedom for individuals in the health care system. That is creating a system that is Washington-controlled bureaucratic health care, and I don't believe that that is what the American people desire.

This program definitely has burdened the taxpayer. There is no doubt about

that. You couldn't reach any other conclusion regardless of where you come down on the program. As was mentioned, this will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. And if it is made into an automatic or mandatory or entitlement program, it will increase even greater than that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have just a few short minutes, but I do want to touch on what we believe, what I believe we ought to do because there are positive solutions. There are positive answers to how we ought to move in a direction that provides patient-centered health care, patient-centered health care, something that I believe is wanted by the American people. It is something that I have termed American values and American vision. And one of those American values and one of those American visions is to have a health care system that is patient centered, that allows patients and their doctors to make decisions, not government officials. Not government officials. That is not where the American people want us to be. So if we are going to have a Children's Health Insurance Program, then we ought to live up to the premise for which it was brought about, and that is to target it to low-income families, low-income, uninsured families. And there is an easy way to do that. There is an easy way to do that.

You can empower families to make health care decisions that directly affect their own children. The way that you do that is through a robust system of premium assistance. You can provide and allow parents to utilize the SCHIP funds to be able to purchase private health care coverage without government micromanagement. It is a system that results, in essence, in a defined contribution program so that the Federal Government would, when needed for low-income uninsured children, provide assistance that would allow for the purchase of a private health insurance policy so that the family owns the policy. And when that happens, what that means is that it becomes patient-centered because the individuals, the parents, will select the best program for their child. And that is all that anybody is truly wanting. They want a system that responds to the health care needs of their family and their children; not a system where the Federal Government is making those decisions.

It is easy to also provide for a program that would expand the options for individuals and families beyond the narrow confines of the SCHIP program. It is important that the perceived need is for a system that provides appropriate health care, indeed, but the appropriate need is for one that is responsive to patients.

I have a few other items that I just want to point out, Mr. Speaker, before I close. And that is, again, that if we move toward the system that is being proposed by the folks who are interested in Washington- controlled bureaucratic health care, 71 percent of America's children will be on Medicaid or SCHIP in the year 2012. Over the next 4 years, if nothing has changed with this program and others, we will move from $11,000 per year, per household, Federal money, $11,000 per household to $13,000 per household spent on health care.

And there is a wonderful article that I would like to point out to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that was published on June 28 by Robert Novak called, ``Socialized Medicine for 'Kids.''' And I will include that in the Record. I urge my colleagues to avail themselves of this article. This talks about removing the ability of parents to make personal health care decisions for their children.

Socialized Medicine for ``Kids''

(By Robert D. Novak)

Washington--There is no need to wait until a new president

is elected next year for the great national health care

debate. It is underway right now, disguised as a routine

extension of an immensely popular, non-controversial 10-year-

old program of providing coverage to poor children. In fact,

this proposal is the thin edge of the wedge to achieve the

longtime goal of government-supplied universal health

insurance and the suffocation of the private system.

The Senate Finance Committee was scheduled to mark up this

portentous legislation expanding the State Children's Health

Insurance Program (SCHIP) today [Thursday], but disagreement

over the size of the program and how to pay for it forced

postponement. Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller's version would

triple SCHIP's current five-year cost of $25 billion to a

level of $75 billion. That would grant federal largesse to

more than just poor ``kids'' (as politicians endearingly call

children). An estimated 71 percent of all American children

in families of four making as much as $82,000 a year would

become eligible, with states also continuing present coverage

of adults under SCHIP.

But where to find money to cover the massive cost? Senators

of both parties want to raise tobacco taxes, but that well is

not bottomless, as existing taxes have reduced cigarette

smoking. Instead, House Democrats want to take money from

private elements of Medicare instituted by the Bush

administration. The overall effect would make three out of

four American children accustomed to relying on government

care no matter what course their parents take. In sum, SCHIP

turns out to be socialized medicine for ``kids'' (and many

adults).

A principal sponsor of the $75 billion program is Sen.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose hand is detected in health care

struggles the past 15 years. After the Clinton

administration's sweeping ``Hillarycare'' failed in 1994 and

contributed to that year's Republican takeover of Congress,

the first lady miniaturized her goals by limiting coverage to

poor children. Republicans, led by Sen. Orrin Hatch in one of

his several collaborations with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, had

lost their revolutionary zeal after the government shutdown

of 1995 and accepted SCHIP as a fallback position at a

beginning outlay of $4 billion a year. It was the bargaining

chip given President Bill Clinton in return for him signing

the Deficit Reduction Act of 1997.

SCHIP over the past decade has been a beloved ``kids''

program whose faults were overlooked, much like the Head

Start school program. The federal government has consistently

granted waivers to permit 14 states to cover adults under

SCHIP, which now cost $5 billion a year. Minnesota led the

way, with 92 percent of money spent under the program going

to adults.

The massive expansion was proposed by Sen. Clinton this

year, furthering her promise of ``step by step'' advancement

toward universal health care. Her proposal extends SCHIP to

families at 400 percent of poverty (or $82,000 annually).

Hatch after 10 years is back again supporting a Democratic

program along with Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Finance

Committee's ranking Republican. But they want a mere $55

billion (a $30 billion increase), compared with Rockefeller's

$75 billion, causing the postponement of today's markup.

The Democratic congressional majority now faces the

consequence of its ``paygo'' mandate to account for higher

spending. The Senate's preference for tobacco taxes runs into

present overall cigarette taxes of more than one dollar a

pack, lower legal cigarette purchases and reduced smoking

typified by a 19 percent decline in New York City. More

creative funding comes with Rep. Pete Stark's scheme in the

House Ways and Means Committee for slashing the popular

private Medicare program. That not only would fund an

expanded SCHIP but move toward government monopoly over all

health insurance.

An indirect but pervasive impact of Sen. Clinton's grand

design would be the impact in the same family of children who

are insured by the government while their parents are covered

privately. Would the children become accustomed to Washington

taking care of them? Would the adults drop private insurance?

The future is now for universal health care coverage, and

President George W. Bush may soon face the decision of

whether or not to veto it going into the election year.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to urge my colleagues to make certain that we remember why we were elected. We were elected to represent honestly and hopefully and responsibly our constituents, especially in the area of health care, an area that I knew very well as a physician and about which I became very frustrated because of governmental intervention. We are responsible to make certain that we set in place programs and policies that allow for the most personal decisions of our lives and of our children's lives to be made by individuals and their parents and their families, not by government.

So I urge my colleagues to make certain that as we move forward with this debate and with this discussion that we act responsibly and allow patients, their parents, and physicians to make health care decisions.

Madam Speaker, freedom is the foundational principle of our society. Our founders were champions of this God-given right and charged future generations with eternal vigilance to protect it.

Now, a handful of people in Washington want Uncle Sam to start telling radio and TV personalities what to talk about, to limit their freedom and ours.

Rather than fight in the marketplace of ideas, they want to bring back a 1929 radio regulation rule known as the ``Fairness Doctrine.'' Now, don't be fooled. There's nothing fair about it.

In the early age of broadcasting, when the majority of news and information was distributed by one or two outlets, it seemed important to promote a competition of viewpoints. That was then.

A fairness doctrine today tramples upon freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It dictates to Americans that in an open, free and flooded marketplace of ideas, they need Washington politicians to sort it all out.

Madam Speaker, real freedom means a government that listens to the people, not one that dictates to the people who they must listen to.

Let's keep the Fairness Doctrine off our airwaves and in the history books where it belongs.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time and I appreciate his leadership on this.

Mr. Chairman, freedom is the foundational principle of our society. Our Founders were champions of this God-given right and charged future generations with eternal vigilance to protect it.

We are here today because some very prominent Democrat leaders, including the Senate whip, want Uncle Sam to start telling radio and TV personalities what to talk about, to limit their freedom and ours. Rather than fight in the marketplace of ideas, they want to bring back a 1929 radio regulation known as the Fairness Doctrine, which has nothing to do with fairness.

A so-called ``fairness doctrine'' today tramples upon freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It dictates to Americans that in an open and free and flooded marketplace of ideas, they need Washington politicians to sort it all out.

Mr. Chairman, real freedom means a government that listens to the people, not one that dictates to the people whom they must listen to.

Let's keep the Fairness Doctrine off our airwaves and in the history books where it belongs.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues, at least on this side of the aisle, for working as diligently as possible to introduce amendments that will result in fiscal responsibility, or at least the start of fiscal responsibility, here in Washington.

This amendment is affectionately known as the Hefley amendment. A former Member here from Colorado, Mr. Hefley often introduced an amendment that would reduce the increase in appropriations bills by 1 percent. I suspect we will hear another cry of ``devastating cuts'' from the majority party, but in fact, Mr. Chairman, this is a minimal reduction for the Federal budget, but a huge win for the American people.

When we talk about amendments that are reducing appropriately the spending that goes on by the Federal Government, it is always important to remember whose money we are spending. This isn't the government's money. This is the people's money, and they work extremely hard to make certain that they can make their ends meet. And in so doing, they generously, they generously, provide the Federal Government with the resources with which to run our government and our country. It is incumbent upon us to be as responsible as possible with that spending. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we can be more responsible than we are being.

We have heard a lot of pronouns bantied about on the floor today, mostly ``I'' and ``you.'' I wish, Mr. Chairman, we would have a few more ``we's,'' because when we work together on behalf of the American people to decrease spending, to responsibly spend, what we do is come together in a way that I think the American people desire us to, and certainly I believe that is one of the messages they sent last November.

We have heard also discussions or comments saying this is a big waste of time. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you that any time we are fighting on behalf of the American taxpayer, that is not time wasted. I would also suggest that they don't believe that fighting on their behalf to make sure that the Federal Government spends less than is planned by this majority, that that is a waste of time.

Now, what is the big picture in this bill? The big picture is that last year the programs under this bill spent $19.5 billion. The committee has come forward with a proposal to spend $21.4 billion, an increase of $1.9 billion, nearly 10 percent.

This amendment, this amendment that is before us right now, is to decrease that increase, that nearly 10 percent increase, decrease that increase by 1 percent. So it is not, it is not, something that could be described as a devastating cut.

The numbers again: Last year we spent $19.5 billion. The committee proposes $21.4 billion. When this amendment is enacted, we will spend $21.2 billion on behalf of financial services and general government operations.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the American people have lost a great deal of trust, a great deal of trust, in our Federal Government, and part of that is the irresponsible way in which we spend the people's money. This is a small step, a small step forward in order to begin to regain that trust.

So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, before I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Georgia, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) be allowed to control the time for the remaining portion of the time for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership on this issue and for bringing important distinctions to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question, though, of the body, and it's curious what's going on here. The chairman of the subcommittee yielded back his time, didn't even want to engage.

Can you hear it, Mr. Chairman? That's silence. That's silence on the part of the majority party because they aren't even interested in defending the spending that is in their bill.

Before I came to Congress, I was a physician. I knew that I needed to listen to patients in order to make the right diagnosis.

Well, the right diagnosis, Mr. Chairman, here, is that Washington doesn't have a revenue problem; it's got a spending problem. And the ways that the Democrats are moving forward with their spending spree of 2007 are very frightening, as the gentleman before me spoke.

There are a couple of ways to pay for it. One, you can charge it. And so they've increased the debt ceiling. They've increased the debt ceiling to over $9 trillion for the first time ever in the history of this Nation.

The other way you can pay for it is to tax folks. Mandatory withholding, tax increases. And already we've seen the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation adopted by this majority party.

Mr. Chairman, if that were my record, I wouldn't want to talk about it either. I wouldn't want to talk about it either.

So I want to commend my friend from Ohio who is standing tall for fiscal responsibility. It's clear that there's a distinction between the majority party and the minority party. And the minority party says, the Republicans say, we believe in fiscal responsibility. We believe that we can hold the line on spending to holding it to where it was last year.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment. This amendment is what became affectionately known as the Hefley amendment. Mr. Hefley was a former Member of the House and offered a 1 percent decrease in the reduction of the increase on appropriations bills routinely. And he no longer serves with us; so many of us believe that it is an appropriate way to try to bring about some kind of fiscal restraint and fiscal responsibility here in the United States Congress.

I think it is important to look at the big picture, and the big picture is that we always have to remind ourselves whose money this is. And there is a sense in this Chamber and in Washington that this money is the government's money, that the government somehow makes it and discovers it and that it ought to just spend it willy-nilly.

Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, this isn't the government's money; it is the people's money. This money comes to Washington through the hard work of the American taxpayer. And it is imperative that we remember that because only when we remember that will we have that touchstone to make certain we spend it responsibly.

What are the big numbers here that we are talking about in the Interior, Environment Appropriations bill? Last year, fiscal year 2007, this bill appropriated $26.4 billion. This year the proposal is to spend $27.6 billion. That is an increase of $1.2 billion, an increase of 9.5 percent, an increase three times the rate of inflation.

This amendment would decrease that increase by 1 percent. It would decrease that increase by $276 million. It would trim one penny out of every dollar spent in this appropriations bill. It is the kind of thing that American families all across our Nation do when they find themselves in times when they are spending more than they are taking in, which is what the Federal Government is doing, spending more than we are taking in.

This is a responsible amendment. It starts us down that road of being fiscally responsible. It tells the American people that we care about their budget and in caring about their budget, we will be responsible with the Federal budget. It will begin to restore some of that trust that the American people have lost in Washington's ability to restrain spending.

So I offer this amendment in good faith. I believe it is an appropriate way to begin the process of gaining back fiscal responsibility here in Washington. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of my good friend from Washington if he has any speakers on this amendment?

I have got more than my 20 minutes will be able to fill.

Mr. Chairman, the silence persists. The silence persists on the majority side because they are loathe to defend the spending that is going on here in Washington. Mr. Chairman, I find that particularly offensive to the American people. This is not government's money. It is the American taxpayers' money. It is incumbent upon the party that is proposing to spend billions and billions of dollars to increase the debt ceiling in this Nation over $9 trillion for the first time, to ignore the entitlement spending, to ignore $50 trillion in liability. This is the majority party that is silent, silent when it comes to this kind of spending.

So I would urge my colleagues to reconsider their desire not to defend their spending.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my good friend from California (Mr. Campbell), who is a leader on fiscal responsibility here in the House.

I appreciate the attempt at defending the remarkable increased spending on the part of the majority party. To describe this amendment as a devastating cut is curious. Only in Washington is a decrease in the increase a cut.

It's important that the American people appreciate that the proposal of the majority party is to spend in this bill $27.6 billion. This amendment, if enacted would provide for the spending of $27.4 billion, hardly, Mr. Chairman, a devastating cut.

I would also ask my good friend from Washington to simply read the amendment. It talks about an across-the-board cut. The amendment states that ``appropriations made by this Act are hereby reduced in the amount of $276 million.'' That's not an across-the-board cut. That's a 1 percent reduction in the total allocation in this bill. So it is disingenuous of my good friend to make those kinds of comments.

I would also say that he says that we need to move quickly. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that any time we spend defending the American taxpayer is time well spent.

And then they talk about priorities. Mr. Chairman, the correct priority we have is defending the American taxpayer.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the Chair of the Republican Study Committee and the champion of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time available on each side?

Mr. Chairman, given the discrepancy in the times, to equalize the time, I will reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), a champion for fiscal responsibility and fiscal reform in Washington.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side, if I may?

I thank the Chair.

I just would point out to my good friend from Ohio that no specific programs are identified in this decrease in the increase. So to identify specific programs is a spurious argument, truly.

I would also say that this points out fundamentally the difference between the two parties. We believe fundamentally that individuals spend their money more wisely than the government. It is clear that the majority party does not believe that. They believe that they spend the taxpayer money much more wisely. We just think that is a fundamental difference.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), on this appropriate amendment of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I think this has been a healthy debate.

I appreciate my good friend from Colorado for yielding. I want to commend as well my friend from Washington, the subcommittee chairman, for the work that he has done and the ranking member for work that they have done. The subcommittee chairman said that there was nothing personal in his opposition to this amendment, and that's true. There is absolutely nothing personal here in this Chamber.

But this discussion is personal to the American taxpayer, and it's all about priorities. We have offered today a series of amendments. One amendment said we ought to spend exactly what we spent last year, tens of billions of dollars in this area of the government. The majority party declined to accept that amendment.

Then we offered an amendment that said instead of increasing spending by 9.5 percent, we ought to increase spending by 8.5 percent, and they said, no, they weren't interested in that.

So the gentlelady from Colorado says, well, if you can't save $1 out of every $100, how about 50 cents? How about 50 cents out of every $100?

What Congress is spending in this appropriations bill and in every appropriations bill, because of the increase in spending, is money that we don't have. It's money that the Congress doesn't have. This money represents the debt that Congress is burdening on future generations, our children, and our grandchildren. It is simply time, it's time for Washington to stop finding ways to spend more money.

I commend the gentlelady from Colorado for her amendment. I urge my colleagues to support her amendment by decreasing by one half of 1 percent the increase in this appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas is unable to be here this evening, although this is, indeed, his amendment. I would ask unanimous consent that it be identified as such for all proceedings of the House.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment would strike section 738 of this legislation, which, as drafted, would have the same effect as language already included in a number of the Democrat majority's other appropriations bills, preventing funds from being spent to conduct public/private competitions.

While this policy may be good for increasing dues payments to public- sector union bosses, it is unquestionably bad for taxpayers and for Federal agencies because agencies are left with less money to spend on their core mission when Congress takes the opportunity to save money through competition away from them.

In 2006, Federal agencies ``competed'' only 1.7 percent of their commercial workforce, which makes up less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire civil workforce. This very small use of competition for services is expected to generate savings of $1.3 billion over the next 10 years. Competitions completed since 2003 are expected to produce almost $7 billion in savings for taxpayers over the next 10 years. This means that taxpayers will receive a return of about $31 for every dollar spent on competition, with annualized expected savings of more than $1 billion.

But the particular language included in this bill is even worse. The underlying language goes further than past Democrat efforts to gut public/private competition by unnecessarily delaying and complicating how the most efficient delivery of commercial activities is determined. This newest attempt to stack the deck against competition for services that can easily be found in the Yellow Pages also creates uneven and duplicative protest rights and intrusive new data requirements, while ignoring the consideration of quality in determining the best source of commercial services for the taxpayer.

In short, Mr. Chairman, by allowing this language to remain in the underlying legislation, approximately $200 million in expected annual savings from planned competitions will be placed at risk.

Additionally, by removing quality from the list of factors in determining who wins a competition, this bill would double costs in many competitions. In this time of stretched budgets and bloated Federal spending, Congress should be looking to use all of the tools it can to find taxpayer savings and reduce the cost of services that are already being provided by thousands of hardworking private companies nationwide.

At this point I will insert into the Record a letter of support for this amendment from the Fair Competition Coalition. A portion of that letter reads, This provision will discourage many private-sector firms from participating in the competitive sourcing contracting process. Section 738 would penalize private-sector bidders that offer health insurance benefits to their employees. The Office of Management and Budget reports that the competition under the A-76 process creates an average savings of 15 to 20 percent for the American taxpayer.

The Fair Competition Coalition,

June 27, 2007.

Dear Representative: As you continue consideration of the

FY 2008 appropriations bills, I would like to bring to your

attention some anticompetitive language that was included in

Section 738 of the FY 2008 Financial Services and General

Government Appropriations Act. This provision will discourage

many private sector firms from participating in the

competitive sourcing contracting process, which is being held

at most Federal agencies. The members of the Fair Competition

Coalition ask that you support an amendment offered by

Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX) which would strike the

Section 738 language from the bill.

Section 738 would penalize private sector bidders that

offer health insurance benefits to their employees. In an

unprecedented intrusion into the competitive process, this

provision singles out one benefit element, and ignores the

reality of the total compensation packages commonly offered

in the private sector. These compensation packages typically

include a wide range of health, matching retirement, bonus/

incentive, professional and personal development, and other

benefits. It also undermines and ignores unique and

innovative health benefits plans, particularly those that are

provided by the small business community.

Section 738 also would allow employees of the Federal

government to protest the award to the private sector.

Congress and the Executive Branch have properly excluded

Federal employees from challenging agency management

decisions in Federal court. Beyond the constitutional

questions of whether such action creates the required ``case

or controversy,'' the President has properly asserted his

responsibility to supervise the ``unitary'' executive branch

and opposed establishing ``interested party'' status for

these decisions.

Already many companies are not pursuing A-76 competitions,

and the language in Section 738 will drive companies further

away from the process. The Office of Management and Budget

reports that the competition under the current A-76 process

creates an average savings of 15% to 20% for the American

taxpayer. The proven benefits of competitive sourcing are too

high to place arbitrary restrictions on the program. We urge

you to support effectiveness and efficiency in Government by

voting YES to the Sessions amendment.

If you have any questions, please contact our Coalition

points of contact: Michele Kaplan of the Professional

Services Council or Kent Sholars of the Contract Services

Association.

Sincerely,

Aerospace Industries Association, American Congress on

Surveying and Mapping, Airport Consultants Council,

American Council of Independent Laboratories, American

Council of Engineering Companies, American Electronics

Association, American Institute of Architects,

Associated General Contractors of America, Business

Executives for National Security, Construction

Management Association of America, Contract Services

Association of America.

Design Professionals Coalition, Electronic Industries

Alliance, Information Technology Association of

America, Management Association for Private

Photogrammetric Surveyors, National Association of RV

Parks and Campgrounds, National Defense Industrial

Association, National Federation Of Independent

Business, Professional Services Council, Small Business

Legislative Council, Textile Rental Services

Association of America, The National Auctioneers

Association, United States Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to follow the advice of that letter and support this commonsense taxpayer-first amendment to oppose the underlying provision to benefit public-sector union bosses by keeping cost-saving competition available to the government.

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

Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman's comments.

I, too, have respect, as well we all do, for all Federal employees. But this is serious business. Spending the taxpayers' money is serious business. And outsourcing does one thing, private contracting does one thing: It provides for an opportunity to save hard-earned taxpayer money.

The majority says that they oppose and fight adamantly as they oppose no-bid contracts. So how can be it be consistent to oppose a competitive contracting process that allows private firms the opportunity to have outsource contracts?

This is a commonsense amendment. I offer it on behalf of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, fiscally responsible amendment.

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

Will the gentleman yield? It is Mr. Sessions' amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Reserving the right to object, if I may ask a question as to the form of the unanimous consent request, is it my understanding that this 20 minutes would apply to every amendment to be offered hereafter?

I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment.

This amendment would reduce the EPA operations and administrations budget by $3.884 million and increase the EPA's science and technology homeland security water security initiative by that same amount. This area of the EPA program was decreased by $3.884 million below the President's request and $9 million below 2007 appropriations levels.

The operations and administrative appropriations has been increased by $40.8 million from the 2007 level, although that's the administration's request and I commend the committee for meeting that request.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the chairman recognizing the importance of this initiative. I thank him very much.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the individual's understanding and recognizing the importance of this initiative.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 29: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

I want to thank my friend from Texas for his leadership on the Rules Committee and on this issue of wanting and demanding what the American people want, and that is an open process.

I oppose this rule because I believe, Madam Speaker, that it stifles the ability for Members of this House to represent their constituents. The reason that it stifles them is because it doesn't allow for the kind of debate and the kind of voting on issues that we've just heard about.

This is a good bill. I want to commend my classmate, Representative Wasserman Schultz, and Representative Wamp for their work; but it's not a perfect bill. And so we ought to move in the direction of making it a more perfect bill by allowing amendments, other ideas from this House to come forward.

Madam Speaker, I'm sorry to say that this is just another example of what I have come to know and phrase as ``Orwellian democracy'' by this new majority. It's Orwellian democracy because they say one thing and they do exactly the opposite.

What did they say? Well, what they said is that they would assure a fair and open process. Before the last election, Speaker Pelosi said, ``Because the debate has been limited and Americans' voice is silenced by this restrictive rule, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.''

So what's different now, Madam Speaker? Is it political expediency, or is it a broken promise?

The chairman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, said before, ``If we want to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and the thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open rule.''

So what's changed, Madam Speaker? What's different now? Is it political expediency, or is it a broken promise?

Mr. McGovern, a member of the Rules Committee, said, ``I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you want to show some bipartisanship, if you want to promote a process that has some integrity, this should be an open rule. All Members should have an opportunity to come here and offer amendments to this bill to improve the quality of deliberations on this House floor.''

So what's different now, Madam Speaker? Is it political expediency, or a broken promise?

Democratic Caucus Chair, Mr. Emanuel, said before, ``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. Let's have a vote. So don't hide behind the rule. If this is what you want to do, let's have an up or down vote. You can put your votes right up there, and then the American people can see what it's all about.''

So what's different, Madam Speaker? Political expediency, or a broken promise?

I offered an amendment that would be debated on this floor that would have reduced the amount of spending by 1 percent. It would have saved the American taxpayer $31 million. Now, $31 million may not seem like a lot in Washington, but back where I come from and across this Nation, $31 million is a lot of money. It would say to the American people this is a step in the right direction for fiscal responsibility. That was said before, what was said before by the now majority leader, Steny Hoyer, who said, ``We want to get the budget deficit under control. We have said fiscal responsibility was necessary, but we're not going to be hoisted on the torrent of fiscal responsibility.''

Madam Speaker, rules aren't rules if you only follow them when you want to, and choosing when to do so is breaking a promise. An open promise shouldn't just be something that you talk about on the campaign trail.

Madam Speaker, Americans understand that promises made on the campaign trail and promises that aren't kept in the heat of debate on the House floor are broken promises. And the American people are paying attention.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment. This amendment is what is affectionately referred to as the Hefley amendment. Former Congressman Hefley, who served in this body, offered an across-the-board decrease in spending in appropriations bills by 1 percent in an effort to try to bring about some fiscal responsibilities. I commend him at this time.

I also want to recognize Congresswoman Blackburn, Congressman Hensarling, Congressman Feeney and Congressman Campbell for also offering similar amendments and commend them for their fiscal responsibility.

There has been a lot of talk about money, and properly so, during this appropriation season. It is important, Mr. Chairman, however, to remember where that money comes from. That money comes from hardworking American taxpayers. It is their money. It is not the government's money. It is their money. It is easy here in Washington to lose sight of that fact.

But it is imperative that we remember with great responsibility and act with great reason as we move and spend the hard working American taxpayers' money.

The big picture in this bill is that last year in this area of the Federal budget we spent as a Nation $31.2 billion. That is with a B, Mr. Chairman, $31.2 billion. The proposal today is to spend $34.2 billion. That is an increase of 9.5 percent. This amendment would decrease that by 1 percent. By 1 percent. One penny out of every dollar savings for the American people. A savings of $342 million.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is a small step, a symbolic step but is an important step, to let the American people know that, yes, we do believe that we respect the hard work that they do, and we also believe that it is important for Washington to get its fiscal house in order.

I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I am pleased to have the support of so many of my colleagues in this House on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those comments. However, only in Washington by this majority party can a cut be an actual increase of $2.56 billion. Adopting this amendment would result in an increase of $2.56 billion. It is just a decrease in the slope of the increase.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Chairman, I would just ask a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair, if the Chair might opine as to words that might offend and be inappropriate to the decorum of the House being spoken, and the Chair might want to admonish individuals to refrain from making those kind of statements.

And I thank the Chair for that.

I think you are able to get time on your side. I don't believe I have time to spare.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I do appreciate the chairman's passion and also appreciate his reference to ``frothy nonsense.'' I would suggest that frothy nonsense in my district and across this Nation comes due in the form of a tax bill when we increase spending across this Nation and that my constituents, and I suspect constituents around this Nation, would prefer that we decrease the frothy nonsense going on here in Washington.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield that minute to my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be granted an additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Chairman, point of order.

Are comments not supposed to be addressed to the Chair?

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the leadership's support in allowing me to bring this amendment forward. I also want to recognize former Congressman Joel Hefley. This has come to be known as the Hefley amendment. So I want to thank former Congressman Hefley for his leadership on fiscal responsibility issues in Congresses past.

There has been a lot of talk about money on this bill, Mr. Chairman, and this is the appropriate time, because it is appropriations time. Most of the programs that we have discussed are indeed worthy programs. But I think it is imperative that we always remember where this money comes from that we are appropriating, that we are spending.

The money isn't Washington's money. The money is the money of the hardworking American taxpayer, and we ought not ever lose sight of that. As such, we ought to bend over backwards to make certain we are being as responsible as possible in its expenditure.

The big picture on this bill is the Energy and Water appropriations. The big picture is that last year this government spent, Washington spent on these programs, $30.2 billion. That is with a ``B,'' Mr. Chairman. This year, the proposal is to spend $31.6 billion; $31.6 billion, an increase of 4.3 percent.

This amendment is very simple. It says simply that we ought to decrease that overall amount by 1 percent, in an effort to save one penny on the dollar, as families all across this Nation have to do when they are having some tight fiscal times.

It would be an increase of 3.3 percent over last year. I know there are those who would like it to be lower. I am one of those. But I think it is important that Congress ought to make a statement that we can indeed be fiscally responsible. This 3.3 percent increase, this amendment would provide for that, and would be a reduction of 1 percent over the amount in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank a number of Members who have offered similar pieces of legislation or amendments, Congresswoman Blackburn, Congressman Campbell, Congressman Jordan, Congressman Feeney, Congresswoman Musgrave and Congressman Hensarling, for their leadership on these issues.

I think this a commonsense issue. It is a matter that I believe ought to garner great support in this Congress and demonstrate to all that we indeed have an interest in fiscal responsibility. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the chief deputy whip of this conference.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the passion of my good friend from Ohio as he talks about cut after cut after cut, and I would just remind him that this amendment, this amendment, would reduce the overall bill by 1 percent which, Mr. Chairman, as you know, is a 3.3 percent increase over last year. So nobody is talking about cutting anything.

That might be the problem here in Washington. This would be a 1 percent reduction on the remarkable amount of increased money that the majority party has brought with this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire of the time remaining on each side.

I thank the Chair.

I appreciate again the comments of my good friend from Ohio, who previously talked about there being no tax increase in 2008, and he urged the American people to take a look at their tax bill.

He is right. There won't be, because of Washington shenanigans. Because what we do here is budget in a 5-year window, and in fact the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation will hit the American people, curiously, Mr. Chairman, after the next election.

But you can check the record. It is indeed there, and all the American people have to do is recognize that, and they will. And they will.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. Chairman, is it the chairman's prerogative to close?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

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

I think this has been a helpful debate. I want to recognize the efforts of Congressman Hefley in the past and urge my colleagues to support the former Hefley amendment of a 1-percent reduction in the increase, Mr.

Chairman. As I remind our colleagues, the portion appropriated for this area of Federal spending last year was $30.2 billion. This year the request in this bill is for $31.6 billion. This amendment would simply reduce it by 1 percent. It would be a 3.3-percent increase. It would be a symbolic decrease, but it would be a recognition that Washington needs to get its fiscal house in order.

My good friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the importance of reducing spending. But yet we see a significant increase over, as the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) just said, significantly over what we brought last year. Yes, it would be a symbolic decrease, but it would ever so slightly reduce that slope, that increasing slope of Federal spending. I think that is indeed what the American people desire.

Spending in this bill, as in other appropriations bills that are coming before us, will be allocating money, Mr. Chairman, that the Congress doesn't have. The Congress doesn't have it, and it continues to spend more than it takes in. I think it is imperative that we harken back and remember that wonderful Reagan admonition that Washington spends too much, it is not that it doesn't gain enough revenue. There is certainly enough revenue to provide for appropriate services.

And I will be the first to tell my colleagues that there are wonderful programs within this bill. The question is whether or not we are going to demonstrate to the American people that we have the fiscal responsibility, the reasonable standards in terms of what ought to be spent at the Federal level based upon what has been spent in the past and the incredible hardworking American taxpayers who send their money year after year after year. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense 1-percent reduction.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the leadership for allowing me to come to the floor this evening and spend a few moments and talk about some of the activity that has gone on here in the House over the past couple of weeks. This is an edition of the Truth Squad that I am pleased to be able to host.

The Truth Squad is a group of individuals who endeavor to come to the floor of the House and try to shed a little light, a little truth, a little honesty on the matters that are discussed here on the House floor. It is my privilege to come to the floor of the House tonight and talk about the work that is being done here in the House right now and in Congress.

On the House side, we are in the appropriations process, the time when we determine as a Congress, as a House of Representatives, how to prioritize, how to spend hard earned American taxpayer money. It has been an interesting process, Madam Speaker, as you well know.

Last week we had a fascinating time that really brought light to one of our favorite quotes and that is this quote here from Senator Patrick Moynihan.

Senator Moynihan said that everyone's entitled to their own opinion but no one's entitled to their own facts.

And so last week we had one of the appropriations bills come to the floor of the House and the majority party had determined that they were intent upon making certain that earmarks, or special projects, were never seen by not just the American people during the process of the debate but by Members of Congress. The appropriations process was such that the majority party had determined that these special programs or special projects in individuals' districts, what have come to be known as earmarks, some people know them as pork, that these special projects would not be seen by Members of Congress until the very end of the process, until the conference committee occurred, and then they would be put into the bill. The reason that that is important is that there would be no way from a procedural standpoint or parliamentary standpoint, no way to be able to have a Member of this House of Representatives stand up and say, I think that we ought to have a separate vote on spending X amount of dollars for this project. And that's just wrong, Madam Speaker.

And so what we did on our side was to say, that's not what the American people want. That's not democracy. That's not what we're here for. That's not a process that gives honor to the House of Representatives. That's not a process that says that, yes, we are interested in being responsible with hard-earned American taxpayer money. So we spent a lot of time last week trying to make certain that that point was brought to the floor, that that point was brought to the American people. In so doing, we got some attention. We got some attention, because I think for a small moment that many people across this Nation appreciated that there were people fighting as hard as they could here in this Congress to make certain that there was some fiscal responsibility, that there were individuals who were doing their dead level best to make certain that if this Congress was going to spend as much money as the majority appears to desire to spend, if we were going to do that, that we were going to make certain that every dollar was held accountable.

We got a lot of individuals, a lot of newspapers, a lot of press across this Nation who agreed with us, who said, that's absolutely right. How on earth can you have a process that hides money, that hides money until the very last moment? That's not the way it ought to be done. I have here a number of pages, a number of editorials that were written all across this Nation agreeing with our perspective: Roll call, the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, the Hill, the Washington Times, on and on and on, around the Nation far and wide, really remarkable, Chicago Tribune, papers all across this Nation agreed.

What they said was that they were proud of Republicans, proud of conservative Members finally standing up and saying, no, we're not going to have that kind of process here.

And so the majority party relented. They said, okay, we agree. We ought not do what we said we were going to do, we're going to work to make certain that those projects are transparent, that there is accountability, that individuals when they present and desire to have special projects in their district that they have their name attached to it, something we've been fighting for for a long time. It was proof that democracy works. It was proof that hard work and diligence and that when you fight in that way for the American people, for the American taxpayer, that yes, there are times when you can be victorious. I was proud to work with my colleagues in the Republican Conference and on the Republican side of the aisle and some of our friends on the other side who joined us and said that you've just got to change that.

It has been a curious situation here these past couple of weeks as the majority party has brought appropriations bills to the floor. I am reminded in this process as we bring up some of the remarkable irresponsible spending that continues to go on here in Washington, Madam Speaker, of some experience that I had back at the State level. I represent a district in Georgia on the northern side of Atlanta, the northern suburban Atlanta area. I served four terms in the State senate before coming to the House of Representatives. In that process, there were also individuals there who were interested in spending what many of us believed was too much of hardworking American taxpayer money, and so we came up with an award that we entitled the ``stuck pig award.'' I was reminded of it this week, because when we have pointed out the amount of spending, increased spending, irresponsible in many instances spending, on the part of the majority party, you hear them squawk and squeal. And so we came up with, at the State level, what we called the stuck pig award and we would award it to somebody who defended the most ridiculous kind of spending. It may be, Madam Speaker, that we need to come up with the same kind of award here in Washington, because there would certainly be a number of candidates for the stuck pig award. But maybe we'll leave that for another day.

I want to highlight a number of things that happened on the floor just today. Today we had, Madam Speaker, as you remember, the Energy and Water appropriations bill, a bill that is very important for our Nation, an area that sets priorities in terms of spending for our Nation and the amount of money that ought to be spent on projects all across this Nation that in many areas are needed desperately. Last year, Madam Speaker, in that area of appropriations, we spent, this Nation spent, $30.2 billion. The administration's request in the areas where they felt appropriate to fund for this year, for fiscal year 2008, was $30.4 billion, an increase of about 0.6 percent, under 1 percent and certainly under the rate of inflation, which is what we attempted to do when we were in the majority, was to keep these levels increasing at a rate less than inflation. Many of us believe that we ought to have actual decreases, but keeping it less than inflation is certainly a step in the right direction.

But what happened this year is that the majority party brought this bill to the floor, the appropriations bill for Energy and Water, at a rate of spending of $31.6 billion. That's a 4.3 percent increase, which is about three times the rate of increase that we had when we brought the bill to the floor last year.

Now, many of us believe that that's simply too much money, that that doesn't prioritize the Federal budget in the way that Americans across this Nation have to prioritize their family budget. And so we offered a number of amendments, which is really the only way that you can kind of get to who is interested in being fiscally responsible and who isn't. Because, Madam Speaker, as you know, people can stand up and give speeches about anything they want and they can say anything they want, but as Senator Moynihan said, everyone's entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

We learned some facts today on the floor of the House, Madam Speaker, about who is interested truly in fiscal responsibility. A number of us offered amendments that would have resulted in some decrease in the amount of spending. These amendments covered various levels. One of the amendments offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) said that we ought to keep the spending in this area of the appropriations, in this area of our budgetary process, to exactly what it was last year, to have no actual percentage increase, which results in a functional decrease because of the rate of inflation, something that many people believe to be responsible at a time when the Federal Government spends more than it takes in, which the Federal Government currently does. So Mr. Campbell offered an amendment that said you ought to keep it at last year's level, which is about a $1.3 billion savings.

Mr. Jordan, the gentleman from Ohio, said that may be appropriate, but if our friends on the other side of the aisle or in this Chamber don't think that that's a little too much to save, then I'll offer an amendment that says we ought to keep it at the President's level, the 0.6 percent increase. What that would do would save about $1.1 billion.

I offered an amendment that said, well, there may be some people who believe that keeping it at last year's level is not an appropriate level, that keeping it at the level that the President and the administration requested is not an appropriate level, that, well, then maybe we just ought to decrease it or reduce it by 1 percent. Now, Madam Speaker, this isn't a 1 percent cut. This would be a 1 percent reduction in the increase. The increase is about 4.3 percent. This would be a 1 percent reduction, increasing it about 3.3 percent. So if you didn't believe that we ought to keep it at last year's number, if you didn't believe that we ought to put it at the number that the President requested, then you might believe that we ought to just reduce spending by 1 percent, decrease it by 1 percent in the reduction of the increase. And so we offered that amendment.

And then a final amendment, overall amendment, was offered by Mrs. Musgrave, the gentlelady from Colorado. She said, in essence, well, you may not believe that we ought to keep it at last year's amount, you may not believe that we ought to go to the President's amount, you may not believe that you ought to cut 1 percent, that may seem to be too much, but you ought to believe that you could cut a

half a percent. You ought to believe that you could cut a half a percent, so 50 cents out of every $100, that you ought to be able to cut that amount.

Those four amendments were offered on the floor of the House today. The fact is, Madam Speaker, that each and every one of those amendments failed, that the vast majority of the Members of the majority party, the Democrat Party, voted against those to carry the day. So that they believe that, no, you ought not keep the spending level, as a matter of fact, you ought not keep the spending level in this area of the budget to last year. You ought not save $1.3 billion.

And they voted that you ought not have the amount of spending be at the level that the administration, that the President requested. This is the executive branch, the branch that is responsible for carrying out the laws and the bills and the priorities that we pass here in Congress, you ought not keep it at that level. You aren't interested in saving $1.1 billion. Again, a fact.

They also said, as a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, that you don't want to cut it 1 percent. You don't want to have a reduction of 1 percent. Remember, a reduction in the increase. Not a reduction in real numbers but a reduction in the increase. None of these amendments would have reduced in real dollars. All of them were a percentage reduction in the increase.

The majority party, in fact as a majority said, no, we don't as a matter of fact want to reduce the increase by 1 percent. Also, as a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, they said that they didn't want to reduce it by one-half of 1 percent. They didn't want to realize savings that would result in a 50 cent savings out of every $100 spent by the Federal Government in the area of Energy and Water appropriations.

Now, Madam Speaker, I don't know about you, but when times are tight in our household, when times are tight in the household of my constituents, when times are tight in households all across this Nation, when American families have times when they are spending more or budgeting more than is coming in, what they do is they look at their budget, they look at their family budget and say, Where can we save some money? Sometimes they say, Well, we'll just cut everything a little bit. We'll spend a little less on everything. That's the similar story. That's the analogy to the family budget.

But what this Congress said, what this majority party said is that, no, we don't believe that we're not spending enough. In fact, we believe that we ought to spend more. We ought to spend more than the increase last year, we ought to spend more than was requested by the administration, we just ought to spend more. And so it rings on deaf ears, Madam Speaker, when the majority party says, and had said before the election in November, we will rein in Federal spending.

Well, this is a clear example, once again, of what I have dubbed Orwellian democracy, after George Orwell, the famous author, who famously in his books demonstrated that policies of governments oftentimes say one thing and do exactly the opposite.

That's what we find now in, I believe, this majority party, is that they say one thing and do exactly the opposite. So they say, with a straight face, that we are reining in government spending, that we are reining in Federal spending.

But, in fact, what's happening is a significant increase in Federal spending and an increase of greater than the amount that they railed against last year, which strikes me as being somewhat disingenuous and also misleading to the American people. The American people go to the polls every 2 years, and they vote based upon what people are going to tell them what they are going to do. I believe before that our side of the aisle had gotten a little wayward in terms of spending. So the message of reining in Federal spending fell on receptive ears.

The problem is that it hasn't been followed up by action. So it's a leadership that continues to say one thing and to do another, truly, truly remarkable.

Now, I want to talk a little bit about the issue of taxes and the tax increases that will be required to cover the amount of spending that the new majority has begun to march down a path to spend. The appropriations bill last week was an example of that, the appropriations bill today was an example of that, and most of them, as they come up through the 12 bills of the appropriations process will, indeed, demonstrate the lack of fiscal responsibility.

So what the other side is going to have to do is to find revenue. Instead of doing what our party did, and this President did, and President Reagan did, and, in fact, President Kennedy did in order to gain increased economic activity and in order to increase revenue to the Federal Government, those three individuals, President Bush, President Reagan and President Kennedy, all decreased taxes in a somewhat nonintuitive kind of activity, increased revenue to the Federal Government.

Because when you decrease taxes, what you do is you allow people to keep more of their money, you allow them to keep more of their money in their back pocket and in their pocketbook. Hence, they are able to decide for themselves when to save or when to spend or when to invest. When they spend, because they have more money, what results is increased economic activity.

Well, the current majority party demonstrates clear differences between a conservative Republican philosophy and a liberal Democrat philosophy. The difference is that we believe taxes ought to be reduced in order to increase economic activity. The other side clearly believes that the taxes ought to be increased, with the peculiar notion that if you just increase taxes enough, you will gain enough revenue to the Federal Government to equal the appetite for spending.

So they passed a budget, and their budget would increase taxes for every single American that pays taxes, every single American that pays taxes. The largest tax increase in the history of our Nation was passed by this majority just a few short months ago.

When you ask, well, what would that cover, what happens is that all of the tax, the appropriate tax reductions of earlier in this decade, 2001 and 2003, if the budget that was adopted by this majority is allowed to proceed over the next number of years, all of those tax reductions go away. All of the tax increases come back.

What happens on December 31, 2010, which isn't too far away, what happens is that the tax rates on ordinary income go from 35 percent overnight to 39.6 percent. The capital gains tax goes from 15 percent to 20 percent overnight. Dividends tax goes from 15 percent to 39.6, overnight. Estate tax, this is the death tax, this is what individuals, individuals' families, their estate has to pay when they die. It would be 0 percent on December 31, 2010, under the majority party's budget, and under the budget that they adopted. Again, this is the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation. It will jump to 55 percent overnight in 1 second.

Child tax credit, which would rest at $1,000 in 2010, would decrease in half. It would be cut in half, decrease child tax credits by 50 percent down to $500. The lowest tax bracket, those at the lower end of the economic spectrum who currently pay 10 percent would pay 15 percent, a significant increase in their taxes, nearly about half of what they would currently pay.

Now, it just doesn't make any sense to have that kind of tax policy in place when, in fact, what they have said before is that they would responsibly spend American hard-earned taxpayer money and be fiscally responsible. Instead, what they have done is gone back to a tried and true method of tax and spend. So everybody's taxes, nearly $400 billion, will shoot up virtually overnight.

Now, in their budgetary process, and that might be all right for some people, that whole tax increase and gaining, supposedly gaining new revenue for the Federal Government. Some people will say that's fine, if you are really solving problems, if you are truly solving problems, then it may be appropriate for us to do that.

As you well know, the largest problem that we have in our Nation from a fiscal standpoint is the issue of entitlement spending, automatic spending that occurs in our Federal Government programs, primarily three programs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

This chart here outlines the percentage of the Federal budget that goes for those programs. These are the programs that are on automatic pilot. They just kind of continued to increase because of the demographics of our society, aging population. The monies for these programs continue to increase year after year unless there is particular reform.

So, in 1995, those three programs that are in this yellow portion of this pie chart here were about 48.7 percent of the Federal budget. In 2005, they measured 53 percent. They are a little over 54 percent now. In 2017, they will be 62.2 percent with no changes, and within another, oh, 10 to 15 years beyond that, they will consume the entire Federal budget, if the budget remains at its current level, which is its historic rate.

Now, many of my constituents might say if you are going to increase taxes like the majority party has done by adopting the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation, nearly a $400 billion tax increase, if you are going to do that, that might be okay if you are going to solve real problems, if you are going to solve real problems. But the fact of the matter is that the budget didn't solve any of the problems, none, zero.

When we look at this graph, this graph is evidence of the absolute emptiness of the promise that the majority party had to reform entitlement spending, to reform automatic spending, mandatory spending. In our budget, in 1997, we had 125, $130 billion in appropriate reform and reductions. The Deficit Reduction Act, in 2005, had about $43 billion in appropriate reductions.

The budget just adopted for the coming years, by the new majority party, had zero, zero, no money at all for appropriate fiscal reform, responsible reform in the area of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.

Those programs are social compacts with the American people, but they are programs that left on their current course will not be able to survive. They will not be able to survive. So every day that we wait, the problems get greater, the solution gets more elusive for each of those programs. So it is imperative, it is imperative that we move forward.

I would challenge my friends on the other side of the aisle to join together with those of us who are interested in true fiscal responsibility and true entitlement reform, and let's get it done. Let's get it done on behalf of the American people, because, frankly, that's what they sent us here to Washington to do, to solve big problems.

This graph demonstrates that we are not solving big problems here. As I say, if you were going to increase significantly the amount of taxes that the American people are paying, then many of them may say, I think there is a better way to do it, as I mentioned. Because I think tax reductions increase revenue to a greater degree to the Federal Government.

But many people across this Nation might say, well, I am all right paying a little more taxes if we are solving real problems, but not if we're on a spending spree that appears to be what is occurring with this new majority. This graph demonstrates the commitment to entitlement reform, which apparently in this new majority is zero. So I urge my colleagues to rethink the process and the policies that they put in place that will result in no significant entitlement reform.

As they are looking, once again, at their budget and at their policies, I would urge them also to look back into history. The next graph demonstrates clearly what kind of economic policy does work. This graph could be a number of things that show, that demonstrate negative growth or negative activity in the economy to positive activity in the economy over the years of this decade.

This graph, as a matter of fact, is the graph about job creation. How many new jobs have been created in our Nation since the beginning of 2001? As you can see, what we have here for month after month after month after month, between 2001 and 2003, virtually negative job growth during that period of time, no new jobs, in fact, losing jobs in the economy. For every single quarter, with the exception of four during that 4-year period.

Something happened, miraculously, in the beginning of 2003, the early months of 2003, in this vertical line here that marks the beginning of moving toward quarter after quarter after quarter after quarter of increased job growth, over 7 million new jobs since the summer of 2003.

What happened at that time is, as you know, this is when the final appropriate tax reductions were adopted by the Republican majority with this administration and this Congress. What that has resulted in is remarkable increase in job growth across our Nation. Virtually every single State, virtually every single State has seen increase in job growth over that period of time, average job gain of 168,000 new jobs per month on average.

So one would think that if you were charged with coming up with economic policy for our Nation that you would look back and say, well, this looks to be a pretty good program here that has resulted in significant job growth.

As I said before, this could be economic development, you could see a significant decrease in unemployment. All sorts of things could go on these axis, and you would see positive activity during this same period of time.

So if you were charged with coming up with economic policy for our Nation, one would think that you would look at this and say what happened, what happened at that point that made the resulting number of quarters to the current time, made it so productive? How did we become so productive as a Nation compared to where we were earlier in this decade?

Well, as I said, what happened during that time was appropriate tax reductions, making it so that individuals paid less of their hard- earned taxpayer money, that they are allowed to keep more of their money so that they decide when they spend, or they save or they invest. It's those kinds of policies that have resulted in can significant economic growth and economic activity.

I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as they are working through their process, as they are trying to figure out how to make certain that we stay a global, world competitive economic engine, that what they ought to do is look into history. Just a few short years ago there was a policy that was adopted by this Congress that resulted in remarkable, remarkable economic activity. So that we have the most economically productive Nation in the world, the industrialized world.

We continue to perform month after month after month. One of the main reasons for that is, indeed, the decrease, the appropriate reductions in taxes all across the Nation so that anybody who has paid taxes pays fewer taxes, less taxes today from a percentage standpoint than they did prior to that early point in 2003.

That's what results in increasing economic activity. It's not something that is unique to these tax reductions in 2003. In fact, that's what we saw when President Reagan decreased taxes in the 1980s, decreased taxes for the American people. Many folks said, oh, you can't do that, you won't be able to fund the programs in the Federal Government.

But what happened is that, as happened here, it increased revenue to the Federal Government because you decreased taxes because you cut taxes and because you allow the American people to keep more of their hard-earned money.

And that's what results in increasing economic activity. And it hasn't only been on the Republican side of the aisle. Democrats, indeed, have shown this same kind of discipline in the past. When President Kennedy, in the early 1960s, in fact, cut taxes, decreased taxes, appropriate tax reductions for the American people, because he knew that if you decrease taxes to the American people, what happens is that they will determine for themselves responsibly when to save or to spend or invest and, in fact, that increases economic activity for our Nation.

It points out, Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental differences that I talked about between a conservative Republican philosophy and a liberal Democrat philosophy, and that is that we believe that the American people know best how to spend their money, not Washington. There are very few times when Washington knows better how to spend someone's money than themselves. And it just makes common

sense, because only an individual, only people know their priorities.

Now, there are certain things that we have to spend common money on, without a doubt, and we talked about one of those that we dealt with earlier today. But there's a responsible way to do it, and that responsible way to do it, Mr. Speaker, is to identify, clearly identify those programs that ought to be absolute priorities.

And I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is so many fewer programs than this Federal Government is currently undertaking. But the Democrat liberal majority has a mentality that tends to come from San Francisco, I guess, which means that you just ought to spend just as much as you can get. You just ought to spend as much as you can get.

And so I'm pleased to join with my colleagues and point out that the economic policies that have been successful in the past and will continue to be successful if they're adopted, are those policies that will result in more hard-earned taxpayer money being able to be kept by hard-earned American taxpayers.

I just want to highlight once more a chart that demonstrates exactly that. And that is that when you reduce taxes to the American people, when you reduce, appropriately, taxes so that the American people can keep more of their hard-earned money, which is what occurred here in the early part of 2003, tax revenues were going down and down and down, 3 straight years of decreases between 2000 and 2003, tax reductions occurred with the Tax Relief Act being passed, and then the revenues increased significantly so that greater revenues than ever seen by the Federal Government because of tax reductions. And that's the kind of responsible economic policy that we believe, that I believe, ought to be put in place and kept in place, so that you decrease the tax burden on the American people, you allow them to determine when they save or they spend or they invest their own money. And then what happens is that the economy flourishes because there's more money available to drive the economy, more jobs created, more economic activity, more independence, and more liberty, more liberty and more freedom, because when people are able to keep their own money, they're freer, they're freer to make decisions about how they indeed spend or save or invest their own money.

So we're talking some economic policy tonight, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully, we'll be able to encourage our friends on the other side of the aisle to adopt some of these commonsense reforms.

I'm pleased to be joined by my good friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) who's going to talk a little bit also about some economic activity that's been going on here in Washington, and I'm pleased to yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I appreciate his bringing that sign because it highlights the Orwellian nature of this majority. You say you have got folks who are members of the Blue Dog coalition and what they say is that they are opposed to increasing that number. But, Mr. Speaker, what happened earlier this year is that the 8 trillion plus dollars of debt that have increased over multiple administrations have been increased to over $9 trillion now. The debt ceiling was increased by the Democrat majority, along with the Blue Dogs, to over $9 trillion. By this majority. By this majority, Mr. Speaker. Something they said they would never do. But, in fact, that is exactly what they did do. And in so doing, they adopted the second largest debt increase in our history.

So it is important for the American people to be listening and watching. It is important for them to appreciate what happens when you decrease taxes, that Federal revenues increase. It is important for them to appreciate, as this chart demonstrates, what track we are on for spending with this new majority.

This green line here, Mr. Speaker, that is moving along demonstrates the significant increase in spending. And much of that is driven by the entitlements that we talked about earlier, the mandatory spending, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and demands reform. Demands reform. But that is not what has been enacted by this majority. The problem is that this majority is adopting policies in their current appropriations bills that will not decrease that line; it will increase. It will further increase that slope. And that is not the kind of leadership that America needs or deserves or desires or, Mr. Speaker, I believe, not the kind of leadership that they voted for in November.

One of the things that they did do in November was send us a good new Member on our side of the aisle, Mr. Lamborn, and I am pleased to see him join us this evening and I look forward to his comments on economic policy.

I would be happy to yield to you.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments, Mr. Speaker. And I am so pleased that he brought that up because oftentimes when we have these discussions, you hear people never provide any solutions, and you have put a solution on the table that I think is very important.

As you mentioned, I have been here just 3 years. This is my third year in Congress. And I came from the State level, where you have to balance the budget, and the reason you have to balance the budget is because you can't print money. States can't print money and Washington can, and that may be the crux of the problem right there. But I recognized early on that all of the inertia, and we see it during this appropriations season, all of the inertia here in Washington is to spend money, to spend more money. There are very few institutional, if any institutional, parameters in place that force you to hold the line on spending, which is why a balanced budget amendment is so incredibly important. And it is one of the reasons that many of us have supported a taxpayer bill of rights at the Federal level. We certainly did at the State level. I know I did. I suspect you did as well at the State level.

But we believe and we have introduced legislation for a Federal taxpayer bill of rights because we believe taxpayers have a right to know that the Federal Government doesn't grow beyond their means; that they have a right to receive back every single dollar that they put into their retirement program, into the Social Security program. We believe that taxpayers have a right to a balanced budget amendment without raising taxes, which is one of the issues that you stated. And it is so important, and the reason it is important is because of the programs and the policies and the traditions, if you will, of Washington. And the American people understand this clearly. The traditions are to continue programs that are already in place and then add some more on. It is just the natural tendency, and that is simply not what the American people want or desire, I believe.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

I thank my friend for his comment.

I am hopeful that the President will follow through on his admonition to Congress to toe the line on spending, and I am hopeful that he will indeed veto a bill that gets to his desk that has an increase in spending.

Remember, the amount that the administration requested is the amount that the departments believe is the appropriate level of spending to carry out the needs of the American people.

Now, it is perfectly appropriate I believe for Congress to reprioritize within that basket, to say we think we ought to be spending, as a Nation, more here as opposed to here. I am one of those who believe we ought to be spending less as a Nation; so I would hope we would reprioritize and say this program is a priority of the Federal Government and, in fact, this one is best done elsewhere, maybe even the private sector and consequently doesn't need to be funded.

But what will happen, I trust, is that the President will be good to his word and veto legislation that spends more than the departments asked for and then it comes back to the Congress in order to rewrite a bill that will provide and allow for the President to sign. And as I say, I am hopeful that that kind of fiscally responsible activity occurs as we move through this process.

And I am pleased to yield again to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments. And I will point out that our side of the aisle, when we had responsibility for these budgets over the past at least 2 years that I have been here, we kept the rate of increase in the discretionary programs to less than the rate of inflation. And that was something that I and many others here thought was important.

I think it is important to put on the table solutions because the American people want solutions. They want us to work together in a positive way and provide solutions. And the Taxpayer Bill of Rights is indeed a program of solutions, making certain that we don't grow beyond our means, that the Federal Government budget doesn't grow faster than the rate of inflation and the increase in population. Perfectly appropriate. Making certain that the Social Security Trust Fund money is spent on Social Security.

We heard a lot about that from our friends before the election, that that is exactly what they would do. In fact, they have had an opportunity to put that in place and have not done so.

A balanced budget amendment without raising taxes, it is clearly possible from historical precedent and from economic policy that has been written before that it is easily done to balance this budget without raising taxes. You will hear our friends on the other side say, no, you have got to raise taxes in order to balance the budget.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

I thank my friend for asking it because it is one of the things that resulted in a 12-year history in this Congress of no increase in taxes. And one of the reasons for that was we required in our rules a super majority to raise taxes. And you are absolutely correct. On that first day there were a lot of rules that changed that determined how the House works. One of the rules that was changed said, no, you don't need a super majority; all you need is a simple majority, which, as you know and as the American people know, means that the majority party can do anything they want in terms of taxes, which was how they were able to pass a budget that includes the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation, nearly $400 billion in the future.

So I appreciate my good friend's comments and would yield to him if he has another question or comment.

I thank my friend from Colorado for coming down this evening and sharing his comments and his perspective. It's similar to mine. And the disappointment is shared as well because the American people did expect more. And I think that the numbers that we've seen, Mr. Speaker, and the polls that are out now that demonstrate the impression of the American people of Congress is at its lowest point in decades, that that's reflective of the disappointment that they have in this new majority. So I appreciate your comments.

I do just want to end, Mr. Speaker, by highlighting once again what we believe the solutions are. And there are solutions, and they're positive solutions. And they are solutions that we can embrace together, Republicans and Democrats, who truly desire to be fiscally responsible. And they are incorporated in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights at the Federal level. Again, it means that the Federal Government ought not grow faster than the rate of inflation and the increase in population; that every single dollar that goes into the Social Security trust fund ought to be spent on Social Security; that that money ought to be preserved for individuals who send that money to the Federal Government; that a balanced budget occurs without raising taxes. It's very doable. We have demonstrated it time and time again, that you increase revenue to the Federal Government when you decrease taxes. So, a balanced budget amendment without raising taxes.

And fundamental and fair tax reform. Our tax system is woefully flawed, and it is a system that is crying out for reform, crying out for repair. It's unfair for people all across the spectrum, and demands, indeed demands, fundamental reform.

And finally, a supermajority required for any tax increase, as my friend from Colorado highlighted. We had no tax increase over the 12 years when my party was in charge. And one of the reasons for that was that it required a supermajority to pass a tax increase. And that just makes common sense. If you are going to take more of the hard-earned American taxpayer money, then you ought to do it with significant majorities. Thomas Jefferson, I believe, said that ``You ought not make major changes with minor majorities.'' It's something that I think this majority ought to adhere to.

Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying that we live in a wonderful and glorious Nation, a Nation that allows us to be elected and to come and represent the finest people on the face of the Earth. I challenge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to endeavor to do that in a way that's responsible, that respects the hard work that they do day in and day out, that respects the importance in the correlation between liberty and freedom, and allowing the American people to keep more of their money. When they're able to keep more money, they're more free, they have greater independence and greater liberty. And by so doing, we adhere to fundamental principles that are uniquely American.

I yield back the balance of my time.