Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1051, which is a bill to establish a public Web site through which individuals may find a database of available scholarships and fellowships and other programs of financial assistance for the study of science and technology and engineering and math.

Before I begin, I just want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey for introducing this piece of legislation and for his leadership in this area. I also want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for his leadership, as well as Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mrs. Biggert and others for their support of this bill itself.

I am a strong proponent, strong proponent of STEM education programs. Anything that Congress can do to strengthen interest in these fields is wholeheartedly welcome.

As a physician, I understand and appreciate the challenge that our Nation has in maintaining its preeminence in these fields. Encouraging our best and brightest and interested young people to choose this field of study is a positive step, and I believe this bill is a step in that direction.

As we continue to discuss new ideas for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, it's important that we develop proposals that will ensure students are informed about their options for financial aid, both from the Federal Government and from the private sector. In fact, the House has already taken one step in that direction, included in H.R. 890, the Student Loan Sunshine Act, which passed last month, was a proposal that was offered by Representative Keller, that would make it easier for students to get information on their options for Federal financial aid.

This proposal would launch a single Web site for opportunities for financial aid in fellowships and scholarships being offered by any agency within the Federal Government.

This bill simply takes this idea one step further by making sure that information about scholarships and fellowships and other forms of private financial aid is readily available to students interested in pursuing their opportunities in education and science, technology, engineering and math. As we continue to examine proposals to increase America's competitiveness, it's helpful for us to equip students interested in pursuing careers in these fields with the information that they need that might assist them in financing their education.

For these reasons and others, I respectfully ask my colleagues to support H.R. 1051.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, who has been pivotal in this area, in this field, Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. Speaker, I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) who's been a leader in this field as well.

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to close and commend once again my good friend Mr. Holt for introducing this legislation and for moving this forward.

I think the discussion that we have had has been good. I think that the breadth of individuals that have signed on as cosponsors to this legislation, as well as the diversity of the background of those Members who have come to the floor today to speak on behalf of this legislation, give testimony to the importance of moving forward and having this kind of information available.

So I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1051.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2559, which is a measure to extend programs under the Higher Education Act that are set to expire at the end of this month.

I want to thank my committee colleagues, Chairman Miller, Chairman Hinojosa, Mr. McKeon and Mr. Keller for their work on this bill, as well as their consistent efforts on behalf of our Nation's college students and their families.

Bolstering our higher education and student aid programs has long been a priority for Congress, regardless of which party was in the majority. In the last Congress, for example, under Republican leadership, we passed a measure that reduced lender subsidies, increased loan limits for students, and provided additional resources for students studying math, science and critical foreign languages in college.

Unfortunately, the Senate didn't act on the higher education reauthorization in the last Congress, so we were forced to extend programs under the law last September. In that extension, we included a number of important benefits for college students and institutions of higher education as well. For example, we reduced red tape and provided loan forgiveness to spouses and parents of those who died or became disabled on September 11.

Mr. Speaker, just last month, the House continued our work to strengthen the student aid system by passing the Student Loan Sunshine Act, bipartisan legislation that will restore confidence in the relationships between student lenders and colleges and universities.

Now, as we prepare anew to reauthorize programs under the Higher Education Act, we are again faced with the need to pass an extension of these programs to bridge this gap. Now, make no mistake, the measure before us today is worthy of our support, but, at the same time, I am hopeful that our friends on the other side of the Capitol will renew their commitment to a full reauthorization. These extensions, now five of which we've had in the last Congress alone, ought to become a thing of the past.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol in completing our reauthorization work in the 110th Congress. Just as importantly, I also look forward to working toward reforms that recognize the contributions of market-based programs that have been made on behalf of millions of students for the last several decades. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield to my good friend and fellow physician, a gentleman from Louisiana who has been a strong proponent of higher education in his work on the committee. I yield the gentleman 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman once again for moving this issue forward. Again, I look forward to working with him as we move forward with the Higher Education Reauthorization Act. I am confident that we will be able to get it done in this Congress.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand before this House and say that I oppose human cloning.

As a physician, I'm extremely concerned about the consequences of human cloning and all of its ramifications, but this bill doesn't ban human cloning, not as we all know it.

The author says, read the bill. Well, I would suggest to my colleagues, that is exactly what they ought to do, read the bill.

The definition on page 2 of human cloning says, ``The term `human cloning' means the implantation of the product of human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology into a uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus.'' It confines the definition to implantation. Cloning means to copy. Human cloning means to copy a human.

Dorland's medical dictionary definition of human cloning is, ``The transplantation of a nucleus from a somatic cell into an ovum which then develops into an embryo.'' It doesn't confine it to implantation, because implantation is the next step.

Cloning doesn't have to do with implantation. This is another, Mr. Speaker, in a long list of Orwellian democracy actions by this majority, saying one thing and doing another. This bill wouldn't ban human cloning at all.

What a shame, what a sham. I urge my colleagues to read the bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my leadership for the opportunity once again to come to the floor and to shed a little light. Tonight, we are going to shed a little truth on some of the messages that we have heard just now and maybe previously here in Washington.

This is another edition of The Official Truth Squad. The Official Truth Squad is a group of Republicans who desire to make certain that some sense of factual information is provided, Mr. Speaker, as we talk about the issues that are dealt with on the floor of this House.

We have a favorite, a number of favorite quotes. One of them is from Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Senator Moynihan said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not to their own facts.

Mr. Speaker, it is curious to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle and their righteous indignation, the righteous indignation that they have about so many various things, particularly tonight when they talked about spending and funding the troops.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it is curious because the bill that this House passed under the leadership on the other side, the majority party leadership, just 2 weeks ago, I know you will find this amazing, but that is a bill that could have been passed the first or second week of January of this year to appropriately fund the troops who are standing in harm's way, who are defending our liberty and our freedom and attempting to carry out what they believe, we believe, to be a role that will result in a more safe and secure Middle East and a more safe and secure United States of America.

That bill was held up literally for 5 months because of political posturing and gamesmanship and all sorts of things that, frankly, Mr. Speaker, Americans are tired of. They are tired of it.

We all got back in Washington from a week at home. Most of us went home to our districts. It is good to go home and hear what people are really thinking. The folks in my district on the northern side of Atlanta, they are mad as can be about the partisan games that are played here in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to bring a little truth and light and fact to many different areas. But I think it is important for everybody to appreciate, especially in this body, that the bill that was passed to appropriately fund the troops, 2 weeks ago we passed that bill, that is a bill that could have been passed by virtually every single positive vote in this House the first or second week of January had our good friends, the Blue Dogs and others, not participated in the kind of gamesmanship that the American people are, frankly, tired of.

I want to talk a little bit about the fiscal house being put back in order. Our good friends on the other side of the aisle talked about putting the, quote, ``fiscal house back in order'' which is why the Blue Dogs felt that they increased their numbers and assisted the election of the majority.

I think it is curious when they talk about putting the fiscal house of this Nation back in order. Because if you look at the truth, if you look at facts, if you listen to facts and not just opinion, Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate I know that what has happened over the first, a little over 5 months of this new Congress under new leadership is that we have seen an increased authorization for over $50 billion in new spending. So are they putting the fiscal house back in order by decreasing spending? No. Over $50 billion in new spending authorized by this new majority with the Blue Dogs supporting virtually every one of those bills.

So they must be then decreasing taxes, right, Mr. Speaker, in order to put the fiscal house back in order. Well, no, they are not doing that either. Because the budget that they adopted, this Democrat majority with I think the unanimous support of the Blue Dogs on the other side of the aisle, the budget that they adopted, over $400 billion in new taxes for the American people. It is the largest tax increase in the history of the Nation. I guess that they would argue that is putting this fiscal house back in order.

Well, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it has many folks at home asking me if the Blue Dogs are not just lap dogs and if they are not just kowtowing to the Democratic leadership and doing what they are told to do, as opposed to being fiscally responsible. Which is what so many of us on our side of the aisle are working so hard to do.

So things are a little curious, which is why I think it is important to bring some truth and facts to the debate and the discussion.

We had some curious things happen on the floor of the House today, Mr. Speaker. I know that you were as puzzled as I at some of the events that occurred yesterday. There was an indictment that was passed down in a court that indicted a Member of Congress, a Member of the House of Representatives. They indicted him I think on 16 counts. So the new majority party came to the floor of the House today, having known about the problem that this individual has had for years, literally. They came to the floor of the House today and they were stumbling over themselves to get to the microphone and to the floor as fast as they could to address this issue that could have been addressed long ago, and passed a resolution that said that anybody who had any criminal charge against them as a Member of Congress, a Member of the House, or any indictment would be referred to the Ethics Committee.

That may be appropriate. It passed by a wide margin. I was pleased to support it. I think the process was flawed. It didn't go through the regular committee process and, consequently, was a pretty poorly written bill, but it moves us in a little bit of the right direction.

In that whole process of talking about it on the floor of the House this afternoon and evening, the majority leader said something to the effect of anyone accused of wrongdoing needs to be investigated. Any Member of the House who is accused of wrongdoing needs to be investigated, which brings up, Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of earmarks, of special projects.

That's what I'd like to spend a little time talking about this evening, the whole issue of pork projects, special projects, earmarks, things that have inflated our budget to a huge degree and things that, frankly, ought not be included in the vast majority of bills, and if they are, they ought to have the greatest amount of scrutiny by both sides of the aisle, Members from both sides, and certainly greatest amount of scrutiny from our constituents, from people all across this Nation, and a great amount of scrutiny from the press.

That's what we call sunshine. That's what I call sunshine for earmarks, and it's an important thing. And the majority party made a huge deal as they ran for office last fall about the importance of spending restraint and getting the fiscal house in order, as it were, although we haven't seen a whole lot of that since they took over, but they made a huge point about controlling earmarks and putting a lid on earmarks and special projects.

And this past week, we've heard a lot about it, but what has happened is that things have actually gotten worse. Mr. Speaker, I know it's hard to believe, but they have actually gotten worse. And there are a number of people who believe that and a number of objective individuals. Again, facts will back up this case.

There was a letter written by the minority leader to the Speaker recently in which he said, We now have reached the point at which the congressional earmark process has become less transparent and less accountable than it was during the 109th Congress, directly violating pledges made last year by Democratic leaders.

That goes a long way. I tell you that's a major statement, less transparent, meaning not the kind of sunshine, and less accountable so that who knows where these projects are coming from. How are the people, how are the American citizens, supposed to hold their Member accountable if, in fact, they're doing what they don't believe they ought to do?

It has gotten so bad that a Member of even the Democrat majority has said, A lot of Democrats believe it's our turn at the trough. Quite a statement, Mr. Speaker. A lot of Democrats believe it's our turn at the trough. That's a fact that that was indeed said, and in fact, it's distressing because it appears to be that that's the fact of action on the part of this new majority.

Now, what did they do in fact? I have coined it Orwellian democracy because so often what has happened with this new majority is that they have said the right thing, they said they were going to do something, and then in fact either done exactly the opposite or ignored what they said they were going to do.

Well, what do I mean by that, Mr. Speaker? I have in my hand here the book of rules of the House of Representatives. It's a pretty dry read, but it's got some important points in it, and these are the rules by which the House operates and by which we supposedly make certain that individual Members of this House are held accountable for their actions.

One part of the rules talks about congressional earmarks. What's an earmark? How do you determine what an earmark is? How do you determine what a special project is? It's important to know that so you can say, yeah, that ought to be subject to a certain amount of scrutiny, hopefully more scrutiny, a certain amount of sunshine, that the individual Member of Congress ought to have to stand up and say that's my project, I support that project, I'm interested in having us spend Federal taxpayer money on that project.

So what's the definition of a congressional earmark? Well, in House rule XXI, subclause 9(d) it says, congressional earmark means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Member providing, authorizing or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority or other expenditure targeted to a specific State, locality, or congressional district other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.

Now, what does that mean? That means that if an individual Member of Congress says I believe that certain Federal tax dollars, hard-earned taxpayer dollars ought to go for a specific project in my district for a specific purpose, and it's not part of any other authorization that the Federal Government has for another role or another aspect of its responsibility, it's something that a specific Member requests, that's a congressional earmark.

Now, how do you make certain that there's appropriate accountability for that? Well, Mr. Speaker, another portion of the rules it says that a list of those earmarks have to be in any bill that has an earmark, and the list has to include the Member's name who requested it. That's an important point because that allows for the sunshine. That makes it so that all Members of this body know who's requested that. It makes it so that the press know who's requested it and they can follow up on it and do investigations if they deem it to be appropriate. It's necessary so that constituents, people out across America, can know who's requesting these things.

And it goes on to say that if a list isn't included, the way that you can follow the rules as well is that a statement that the proposition contains no congressional earmarks may suffice. So, if the bill actually contained no earmarks, then all that it took was the chairman of the committee to write a statement to the Speaker and to the Rules Committee that, in fact, the bill contained no earmarks, no special projects.

Now, one of the reasons that I've dubbed this the new Orwellian majority and Orwellian democracy is that what we've seen is that multiple bills, Mr. Speaker, multiple bills have come to the floor of the House with special project after special project after special project, millions and sometimes billions of dollars, and yet what is included in the report language from the committee is the sentence from the chairman that no congressional earmarks are in the bill, in spite of the fact that they're in the bill. That's why I call it Orwellian democracy because it just simply takes the chairman, an individual, to say, well, there aren't any earmarks in there, and so it satisfies the rule.

Now, I went to the parliamentarian on this because I couldn't believe it. I

said, Do you mean to tell me that if the chairman of the committee just says, regardless of its truth, just says there are no earmarks in this bill that that satisfies, that means there are no earmarks, even if there are? And the parliamentarian said absolutely correct, absolutely.

And so the only option that we have is to come to the floor and say, look, what they've said just isn't the truth. Remember, it's an opinion. It's not a fact. And the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that time after time this new majority has brought bill after bill to the floor with earmarks and special project after special project after special project and simply gotten around the rules because they say, oh, no, there's no earmarks here.

Let me give you a couple of examples, Mr. Speaker, because I know people would be interested in looking at that. Members of the House, if they're interested, H.R. 1100 was a bill that we voted on just a couple of weeks ago. The whole legislation really was one big earmark with a $7 million estimate cost by CBO over a number of years, and it specifically dealt with one congressional district, one specific project, and it did not have any other statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process. The whole thing was an earmark, but it had in the language of the report from the committee, no earmarks here, no earmarks here. Mr. Speaker, that emperor has no clothes I promise you.

H.J. Res. 20 was the continuing resolution to make certain that there was the money in place to continue the Federal Government's responsible activities. What did that have? Multiple earmarks, multiple. Millions and millions of dollars of earmarks, and in fact, got around the rule by just saying, oh, there are no earmarks here, there are no earmarks here. Orwellian democracy, Mr. Speaker.

And then most recently, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill had billions, billions of dollars in special projects, and in fact, all that was done in order to comply with the rules of the House was to have one of the chairmen of the committee say, oh, no, there are no earmarks here.

It reminds one of the Wizard of Oz, you know, where the wizard says, oh, don't pay any attention to that man behind that curtain. Well, that's kind of what the majority party is asking; don't pay attention to these earmarks even though we say there are none.

So what's the solution now? They have taken a lot of heat, this majority party has taken a lot of heat for trying to put these special projects, pork projects into bills. And so what's their solution? Well, they have come up with a solution.

Before we talk about that solution, it's important to remember what they promised. What did this new majority promise? And what they said was, We're going to adopt rules that make the system of legislation transparent so that we don't legislate in the dark of night and the public and other Members can see what's being done. We need to have earmarks subject to more debate. That's what debate and public awareness is all about. Democracy works if people know what's going on. That was Majority Leader Hoyer last fall after the election. That's what he said about the earmark process.

And the now-Speaker said about a year ago, It's the special interest earmarks that are ones that go in there in the dark of night. They don't want anybody to see, and that nobody does see and then they're voted upon. So transparency, yes, by all means, let's subject them all to the scrutiny that they deserve and let them compete for the dollar. That's now-Speaker Pelosi. That's the statement that she made just a little over a year ago.

What's happened? What's the reality, Mr. Speaker? What's the facts, not the opinion, not the Orwellian democracy of, oh, there aren't any earmarks in that bill, don't bother looking because there aren't any earmarks in that bill? But what's the facts?

The fact is that after promising this unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, what the majority party, the House Democrats, have done, they've moved in exactly the opposite direction. As they draw up spending bills, the new appropriations bills are coming on line for this new budget year, they're side-stepping the rules approved on the very first day that they took power in January where they said we need to identify earmarks. Remember those rules, Mr. Speaker, where you had to have a list of earmarks? You had to have the individual that requested them? Had to make certain that there was sunshine?

Rather than including specific pet projects or grants or contracts in the legislation as it's written, this is what's new, Mr. Speaker. Democrats are following an order by House Appropriations Committee Chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it's too late in the process to challenge them. Too late in the process to challenge them. Phenomenal, absolutely phenomenal.

Associated Press writer Andrew Taylor said just 2 days ago, After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction.

From an article by Andrew Taylor, the Associated Press of January 3, Representative David Obey, who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, says that those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added spending measures in the fall. That's when the House and the Senate negotiators assemble their final bill. So, as a result, most lawmakers will not get the chance to oppose or even identify specific projects as wasteful or questionable when the spending bills for various agencies get their first vote in the full House this month.

So what's going to happen, Mr. Speaker, is that instead of this wonderful transparency, instead of the sunshine, all the accountability that this new majority talked about, in fact what they're doing is going way back, way back to an old time long, long ago when these special projects were put in late at night with nobody watching, no ability to gain accountability for it, no ability to see what's happening, no opportunity for average Members of this House of Representatives to see and appreciate what's happening in terms of spending in the appropriations bills as they go forward.

The House-Senate compromise bills due for final action in September cannot be amended, and it's extremely pivotal because you can't say, well, this is a project that we ought to have more discussion on, more debate on. So it can't be amended and they're only subject to 1 hour of debate.

It's not just those of us who believe in sunshine for earmarks, something that I have fought for a number of years. It's not just those of us in the House of Representatives who are concerned. Tom Shatz, the President of Citizens Against Government Waste says, ``Who appointed him judge and jury of earmarks? What that does is leave out the public's input.''

The article from Mr. Taylor goes on to say what Mr. Obey is doing runs counter to new rules. The Democrats promised they would make such spending decisions more open. Those rules made it clear that projects earmarked for Federal dollars and their sponsors were to be made available to public scrutiny when appropriations bills are debated. The rules also require lawmakers requesting such projects to provide a written explanation describing their request in a letter certifying that they or their spouse wouldn't make any financial gain from them.

So it's important to appreciate what is happening with this new Orwellian democracy, Orwellian majority, is that what we are seeing is them saying one thing and then doing something exactly the opposite.

Again, it's not just those of us on this side of the aisle who believe that and have documented that. This is an article from the St. Petersburg Times that explains in an editorial, ``The new game that House Appropriations Chairman David Obey intends to play with budget earmarks this year is worse than the usual hide-and-seek. He's taken the whole thing underground, as though he is to be trusted as a one-man auditor for congressional pork. If this is to be the new ethic the Democrats promised, voters might want to get their ballots back.''

Something that I have talked about, the American people are paying attention, they are watching, and they are disappointed with what they see. This

new majority talked about taking the Nation in a new direction. They have taken it in a new direction, and it has been exactly backwards, backwards to a time, as documented or given the opinion by the St. Petersburg Times. It's worse than what has happened in the past.

The Las Vegas Review Journal notes that it didn't take long for Democrats to break their promise on earmark reform. ``When Democrats took control of Congress 4 months back, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bragged that it would take her party less than 100 hours to curb wasteful pork spending by requiring Members to attach their names to their earmarks, exposing such waste to the harsh light of public scrutiny. She failed to mention this reform would remain in effect for little more than the 100 days.''

Didn't even last that long, because, as we have documented already, what has taken place is this process of bypassing or skirting the rules by saying, oh, no, there is no earmarks there, when, in fact, there is a laundry list as long as your arm in there. That's the fact. That's the fact of the matter.

So while Democrats plot to hide their wasteful spending from the American people, our side, House Republicans, will continue to work to make the earmark process much more transparent and more accountable; and we will work to root out that wasteful spending and balance the budget without raising taxes, without raising taxes, which is so remarkably important.

I mentioned that I was home last week, many of us were home in our districts last week. That's what I heard, that individuals all across my district that I talked to have been concerned about spending. Over and over and over they said, we know that you can balance that budget without increasing spending and without increasing taxes.

So when our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about getting the fiscal House in order, yet they authorize more spending and they increase in their budget taxes by over $400 billion, the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation, my folks, the folks in my district at home say, well, that just doesn't wash. That's not the kind of leadership we want.

So that new direction, those ballots that that editorial talked about, folks getting back, may, in fact, need to occur. And it's a wonderful thing to be able to have accountability for Members of Congress every 2 years. I believe firmly that the American people are, indeed, watching; and they are already tired of what they see on the part of this new majority, especially in the area of earmark reform.

I have been joined by a very good friend from Arizona, who truly is the champion of earmark reform, a fellow who has worked tirelessly in his time in Congress to bring light and shed light on the egregious activity that occurs here in the special project. I am so pleased to have my good friend join me, Mr. Flake from Arizona. I look forward to your comments.

Thank you so much for your comments and for your good work on this matter. It's an issue that really strikes a chord, because it gets to the heart of irresponsible activity and irresponsible spending here in Washington.

So many of our friends back at home just are tired of it. They are tired of it. I think that's the message this they sent in November. I think that's the message that they sent. It wasn't some of the things that our good friends on the other side of the aisle, the message that they were sending. The message that they were sending is be responsible about your spending.

I will bet that if you had a referendum last November and you asked every single voter who went to the polls, would you think it would be a better idea to hide from the American people the special project spending that goes on in Congress to a greater degree than currently exists, yes or no, I bet you couldn't find a soul in this Nation that would support that.

That really brings to light the issue of accountability, what your constituents want. I know what my constituents want me to do is to make certain that I am paying attention to all of these items and that I raise questions about items that I believe they would not support.

Sometimes just a question of clarification, I have been so pleased to be able to support you in many of your efforts to shed light on so many earmarks that have been brought to the floor, and maybe you wouldn't mind sharing with our colleagues the process that that takes and how to get just one vote on a specific earmark and how this process would foil all of that and make it so that there would be no transparency at all.

I thank you again for your comments.

And I think it's important, Mr. Speaker, for our colleagues to appreciate that this is a proposed process that is being put in place by the majority party to correct what they have perceived as a lack of transparency and a lack of accountability. But their solution will result in less accountability and less transparency. And as I mentioned before, I don't think that's what the American people want. It certainly isn't what my constituents want, and it's not what you fought for for years and years to have greater transparency and greater accountability to the whole special project earmarking process.

Does the gentleman have any more comments?

Thank you so very much. I appreciate you coming and joining us this evening.

So folks say well, what is it that you're asking for? Well I've talked about American values and American vision. And what we believe, what I believe Americans are asking for in this instance is open and honest leadership. It's what we oftentimes here in Washington give lip service to. But the fact of the matter is that the American people desire and I believe are demanding open and honest leadership. I believe, we believe that they have a right to transparent and fair legislative process. And the process that has been described for dealing with these earmarks, these special projects, these pork projects is neither transparent nor is it fair because it puts, it's not transparent because there's no light on it. There's no sunlight. There's no ability for, as my good friend from Arizona said, there's no ability for anybody to know who's asking for these earmarks during the process. And then there's no way for the House to work its will on an individual special project as to vote them up or down. Maybe thousands, literally thousands of them included in a particular bill. So that's not a transparent process. It's not a fair process because it concentrates power into the hands of too few individuals, the chairman of Appropriations or the subcommittee chairmen on Appropriations.

We believe that Americans have a right to sunshine on how taxpayer money is spent. That again gets to the transparency. You ought to shed light on it. How does this process work? Who's asking for the money? And so that they have to stand up and defend it in front of their constituents, in front of their colleagues and in front of the media, in front of the press.

And finally, that Americans have a right to merit based spending that's open to the public debate and open to public scrutiny.

Those are principles that I believe, we believe incorporate American values and an American vision that individuals all across this Nation have as the kind of vision for their government, how they believe their government ought to act.

Again, in November, if one had asked on everybody's ballot across this Nation, do you think that there ought to be less transparency, that there ought to be less accountability for special projects in Congress, Mr. Speaker, I'll bet you wouldn't have got 1 percent of the people across this Nation to vote in favor of that. Not one. So what we're asking for is accountability, is transparency.

I think it's also important, again, to appreciate that there are others across

this Nation who are concerned and dismayed by this process proposal that's been put forward by the new majority party. And I'd just like to highlight some of them, because I think it's important for folks to appreciate that this isn't just your usual political backbiting. This is serious business. This is how we're spending hard earned American taxpayer money. And the proposal is such that I believe, we believe, that it would be much less responsible, certainly much less transparent and much less accountable, and there are folks who believe that all across this Nation.

As I mentioned, the editorial in the St. Petersburg Times, one of the lines there said, ``The result then is that the earmark projects will receive almost no public scrutiny and no Congressional debate.'' Significant, major paper in an editorial today.

The Review Journal in Las Vegas, the Las Vegas Review Journal said, ``Democrat earmark reforms lasted 100 days. When Democrats took control of Congress just 4 months back, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California bragged that it would take her party less than 100 hours to curb wasteful pork spending by requiring Members to attach their names to their earmarks exposing such waste to the harsh light of public scrutiny. She failed to mention that this reform would remain in effect for little more than 100 days. The anti-earmark reforms are just for show, mere window dressing.'' That's the Las Vegas Review and Journal from an editorial today.

There is a gentleman on CNN, Mr. Cafferty, Jack Cafferty, who has had a lot to say about Washington spending. Yesterday he said, ``Remember when the Democrats took control of the Congress back in January? On their very first day in power they approved rules to clearly identify so-called pet projects or earmarks in spending bills. You know, part of their promise to bring openness and transparency to government. Well, guess what? The Associated Press reports Democrats are not including the spending requests in legislation as it's being written. Instead they're following an order from the House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey to keep the bills free of these earmarks until the fall. Now, by doing this, nobody will know what the earmarks are when the bills are first voted on in June. And when they're finally announced in the fall, well, then it will be virtually too late to do anything about them. Clever, don't you think?'' That comes from CNN's Jack Cafferty, June 4, yesterday.

And so it's people all across this Nation who are concerned about the process that's been defined. The Toledo Blade, newspaper in Toledo, Ohio, in an editorial a little over a week ago, said, ``Backtracking on earmarks. Here's the outrage of the week from Washington. Democrats who took control of Congress by pledging reform and whacking Republicans over the issue of special interest earmarks already are perpetuating this odious waste of taxpayer money. Democrats promised to end such abuses. Now that they are in charge, they should live up to their rhetoric.'' That's an editorial in the Toledo Blade a little over a week ago.

From Montana, the Missoulian in Montana said, ``Congressional pork too tasty to leave alone. Congress is ignoring election promises and feasting on pork projects. What's on the menu on Capital Hill these days? Pork of course. Not that we're surprised, but we're scratching our heads given the promises and pronouncements of the last election season. In their first half year in office, the newly powerful House Democrats have seemingly lost their reformist zeal.'' Editorial from the Missoulian Montana this May 31 of this year.

How about Pennsylvania? Reading, Pennsylvania, the Reading Eagle in Pennsylvania said, ``Democratic vows remain unfulfilled. They can talk the talk but they seem to have difficulty walking the walk. As the approval ratings of Republicans plummeted prior to last November's general election, Democrats saw their chance to regain Congressional control. Representative Nancy Pelosi, who was soon to become Speaker of the House, said, `We pledge to make this the most honest, ethical and open Congress in history.' That pledge,'' this is now from the Reading Eagle, from Reading, Pennsylvania. ``That pledge was broken in March when democratic leaders pushed through a $124 billion emergency supplemental bill to fund the military in Iraq and Afghanistan that was laden with $21 billion in pork barrel spending known as earmarks. A House rule instituted by Democrats that prohibits swapping earmarks for votes also seems to have fallen by the wayside.''

In fact, that brings up a specific point that is of grave concern to many of us. We highlighted on our side of the aisle a member of the Appropriations Committee who challenged and literally threatened a Member of the minority party, Republican Member, with saying that if he didn't support a certain bill, a certain provision, that his earmarks would be pulled from the appropriations bill. And it happened on the floor of the House. Many people witnessed it. And what did the new majority, when that was brought to light, what did they do with that complaint, with that concern, with that issue?

Well, Mr. Speaker, as you know, and you remember, they moved to table the motion, the resolution that would have simply required an investigation of that process. And tabling, as you know, Mr. Speaker, means that it kills the issue. It's dead. So the majority party wielded their muscle and made certain that an individual who is in the majority, who is muscling another Member of the House of Representatives and threatening to withhold certain funds from a bill because he wouldn't support another provision, that will go uninvestigated. That will just be tossed under the rug, swept under the rug. That, Mr. Speaker, is not the kind of United States House of Representatives that Americans desire or that they deserve.

Further, a couple of others, Mr. Speaker, of objective individuals citing their concern about this new process for spending on the part of our new majority. CNN investigative reporter Drew Griffin said on May 25, ``The new open Democratic Party-controlled Congress promised the earmark process would no longer be secret. All earmark requests are made public with plenty of time for debate. But David Obey, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and one of those Democrats bragging about those changes, has decided that earmarks, those generous gifts of your money, will be inserted into bills only after the bill has cleared the House floor. In other words, earmarks will still be done in secret with no public debate. There was supposed to be some kind of change. In the next few months, in what Congressman Obey says is the most open earmark process ever, the bills will be drafted, the earmarks added. But only then, just before those bills are passed, will the public learn where the treasure is buried.''

Mr. Speaker, that's not the kind of process that my constituents desire. That's not the kind of process that they voted for. It's not the kind of process that we've proposed. It's not the kind of process that is becoming of a House, especially when the majority party says that they are desirous of getting this fiscal house in order. It's more of that Orwellian democracy. Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

Associated Press on June 3 said, ``After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress's pork barrel practices House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget's year. Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power to clearly identify earmarks, lawmakers' requests for special projects, and contracts for their states in the documents that accompany spending bills.''

And finally, CNN's Drew Griffin said on May 31, ``Thousands of pages of earmarks in a bill time after time, and the Democrats promised reform and it's not happening.''

Mr. Speaker, what a shame. Truly what a shame. What a great opportunity we have to work together and fashion a system and a process that provides greater transparency, that provides greater openness, that answers the concerns of our constituents who say we want to make certain that there's sunshine on this process. We want to make certain that folks are held accountable. We want to make certain that our hard earned tax money that's going to Washington is

being spent in the most responsible fashion.

And so what is it that we desire? Open and honest leadership, Mr. Speaker. Americans have a right to transparent and fair legislative process. They have a right to sunshine on how taxpayer money is spent. They have a right to merit based spending that's open to public debate and to public scrutiny.

So I would ask my colleagues, I would challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to talk to their leadership, to implore them to urge them to move in the direction that they said they would move and that is greater transparency and greater openness and greater scrutiny of how these public monies are being spent.

So all is not lost. This is recoverable. I know that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee said that it would be so, but this is a 435-Member body, and it ought to act in a majority fashion, and I am hopeful that at least some members of the majority party will see that that is not the kind of leadership and not the kind of process that their constituents desire.

Mr. Speaker, before I close this evening, I do want to touch on one other item very briefly, because I know that time is getting late, and that is the whole issue of taxes and spending.

As I mentioned, I was home this past week in the district over the Memorial Day break. And person after person, constituent after constituent kept coming up to me and talking about issue after issue, and one of the major issues was spending, spending in Washington, and taxes, making certain that tax money was being spent responsibly and that taxes didn't go up, which was why it was so concerning to them that this new majority has increased the authorization for spending already, in just 5 months, by over $50 billion; also why it was concerning to them that this new majority has passed a budget that incorporates $400 billion in new taxes. The largest tax increase in the history of the Nation, $400 billion. Phenomenal, absolutely phenomenal.

So when you think about how our economy has been relatively rolling along over the past number of months, over 16, 17, 18 quarters of growth in a row; more homeownership than ever before in the history of the Nation; the unemployment rate at its lowest continual rate in decades, lower than the average of the 1960s and the 1970s and the 1980s and the 1990s; remarkable success in terms of an economy that is performing extremely well, one would think that it would behoove the majority party to say, well, I wonder how that happened. I wonder how that economy got to be so strong.

There are issues and points in time that you can recognize and point to and say there were changes made then that resulted in a very strong economy, and one of them occurred in 2003. This graph highlights it. These are tax revenues coming into the Federal Government.

And, Mr. Speaker, as you know, between 2000 and 2003, Federal tax revenue was declining. We had been hit by some significant challenges, 9/11, a recession, the tech dot com boom burst, and so tax revenue was decreasing. So what happened in 2003, whatever this was, whatever happened on this vertical line here at that point in time, it resulted in significant increases to the Federal Government tax revenue because of a significant increase in the economy, a significant increase in productivity.

Well, Mr. Speaker, as you know, what happened at that time was that appropriate tax reductions were put in place. Fair tax cuts for the American people were put in place so that the marginal rates were decreased for everybody, so that there was a decrease in capital gains and dividends tax, a decrease over a period of time in the marriage penalty and the death penalty. All of those appropriate tax reductions were decreased.

Tax cuts result in more economic activity and more economic growth. It sounds counterintuitive, but, in fact, it happens every single time that you cut taxes. If you cut taxes, if you give the American people more of their hard-earned money, what they do is they determine when they save or they spend or they invest that money, and that results in a flourishing, increasing economic development and an increasing economic activity in our Nation, and it is undeniable what happened.

There is another graph that demonstrates it, that talks about jobs growth. Here you have a number of jobs created on the horizontal line from 2001 through 2007, and you see again, Mr. Speaker, before the appropriate tax reductions in 2003, what happened was a relative decrease in job growth, month after month after month after month. And what happened with the tax cuts on the American people, allowing people to keep more of their hard-earned tax money, what happens is an incredible increase in job growth, and that is why we have seen over 7 million new jobs created since August of 2003. Incredible economic activity.

So it astounds me that the majority party believes somehow that if they increase taxes, again by passing a budget that has the largest tax increase in the history of the Nation, nearly $400 billion in increased taxes to Americans, almost $2,700 for every single Georgian, a phenomenal increase in taxes, it is incomprehensible to try to understand why the majority party believes that that is the appropriate kind of policy to put in place if they want to continue this kind of activity.

If they wanted to continue this kind of activity, one would think that they would conclude appropriately, objectively, looking at the facts, that the appropriate tax reductions ought to continue. But what they have said is, no, they ought not continue, that those marginal rates ought to go up, that we ought to increase taxes on every single American who pays taxes, that we ought to increase the marriage penalty, that we ought to do away with the decreases in death tax, that we ought to have increases in taxes on capital gains and dividends and we ought to decrease the incentive for investment. It just doesn't make sense.

I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are responsible. I know that they desire to do the right thing. I know that they have heard from their constituents back home, and I suspect what they have heard is please make certain that we continue an economy that allows our Nation to grow, that allows our Nation to defend itself, that allows our Nation to create jobs, that allows our communities to thrive. And one way to do that, one of the most effective ways to do that, is the way that it has happened every single time that it has been tried in our Nation's history, and that is to decrease taxes on the American people. Allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. Allow them to be the ones who determine when they spend or they save or they invest their money.

So I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a good look at what has happened. Take a good look at history. Take a good look at the remarkable economic growth and development that we have had across this Nation over the past 3 to 4 years. And I think what you will conclude, Mr. Speaker, is that those tax reductions ought to remain in place.

We live in an incredible Nation, a Nation that allows those of us who represent districts all across this Nation to come to the House of Representatives and to try our best as honestly and openly as we can to represent our constituents. It is a wonderful Nation. It is a beacon of hope and liberty for folks all around the world, and it is so because we are responsible when we act responsibly and we listen to our constituents and we decide issues based upon what their desires are and what is in the best interest of them and our Nation.

So I call on my colleagues to think seriously about the issues as they relate to taxes and economic development of our Nation. And I know that they will conclude what I have concluded; and that is decreasing taxes results in increasing economic development, increasing economic activity, and, amazingly enough, increasing revenue to the Federal Treasury.

Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I wish to reserve a point of order on H.R. 1100, and would ask the Chair at what time would be the appropriate time to reserve that point of order.

Then, Madam Speaker, I rise to reserve a point of order against consideration of H.R. 1100 because I believe that the bill itself fits the definition of an earmark. And I would ask the author of the bill if he might, by way of making my point of order, I would quote rule XXI, clause 9(d), which states the definition for a congressional earmark, and it states, Means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Member providing, authorizing or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority, or other expenditure, or targeted to a specific State, locality or congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula driven or competitive award process.

And I would be pleased to yield to the author of the bill as to why this bill doesn't fit that definition of an earmark.

I reserve a point of order then. I make my point of order against the consideration of H.R. 1100.

I make a point of order against consideration of H.R. 1100.

Madam Speaker, I believe I have made my point that this bill indeed fits the definition of a congressional earmark under rule XXI, clause 9(d) and, therefore, violates the rules of the House and, therefore, should not be considered.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrat budget being brought to the floor today is not about leadership, it's about passing the buck, billions of them, onto our children.

This Democrat budget will raise taxes by more than $200 billion over the next 5 years. And if these massive tax hikes don't bring in the revenue they want to keep expanding government, they will trigger more tax increases so they can pay for future spending. This is not leadership.

Despite the repeated warnings of every expert, this does nothing to deal with our Social Security and Medicare crisis. This is not leadership.

Tax-and-spend season is alive and well here in the House of Representatives.

Now, we can eliminate the deficit without raising taxes, but it will take setting priorities, making tough decisions to rein in our colossal government spending and working together. That's leadership.

This budget is forcing the American people to pay for a lack of leadership, and that's wrong. And the American people are watching.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to my good friend from Alabama.

Reclaiming my time.

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I yield to the chairman.

Reclaiming my time.

I appreciate the chairman's candor, because what we have just heard from the chairman is important because it's the first time that the chairman has recognized and appreciated that, in fact, mortgages will go up, and they will go up on individuals that may be the least able to afford them in this Nation. And therefore, I think the contention of my good friend from Texas, that this is indeed a mortgage tax on individuals least likely to be able to afford them is accurate. I appreciate the gentleman pointing that out.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to my good friend from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I commend the gentleman for his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the conversation that just went on and the gentleman from Florida's amendment and his desire to modify his amendment because I think it brings out the point clearly that this is, in fact, a closed rule and should be recognized as such by our colleagues and by the American people.

This amendment I am offering, along with Representatives Capito and Campbell and Pearce, and I want to thank them for their leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to look at this amendment carefully. This amendment would prevent illegal immigrants from owning or renting housing built by funds from the Affordable Housing Fund by requiring the adult occupants of that housing to establish their legal residency through the use of secure forms of identification.

Across the country, whether it is Denver, where in 2006 there was an estimated 20,000 illegal immigrants holding FHA-insured loans, or L.A., where banks have begun offering them credit cards, clear reform and oversight is necessary.

In some of these cases, like the FHA loans, the documents submitted with their applications to GSE are later proved to be false, resident alien numbers that have never been issued, Social Security numbers that belong to other people, and W-2 forms that are fabricated.

In the case of financial institutions, minimal documents are required by their regulators to establish a new customer's identity to open accounts, and then after a few short months pass, banks are giving these illegal immigrants credit cards.

So the current loopholes in Federal law are an invitation to illegal immigration, and we shouldn't reward those coming here illegally with the privilege of the services afforded to American citizens. This would clearly result in back-door amnesty.

Our amendment would require the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency to ensure that any assistance provided from the Affordable Housing Fund should be for adults who are legal residents in the United States. Occupants of this housing may either use a foreign service or U.S. passport; a Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, photo ID card; or a Social Security card in conjunction with a State or Federal ID. These forms of identification are considered to be the most secure types of identification because they are harder to forge or to duplicate. They are all issued by a government agency which has more checks and balances against illegal immigrants, criminals, or terrorists from obtaining these documents.

The current regulations to establish a customer's identity do a disservice to the American people. And I am confident that greater clarification in this area will help stem the tide of illegal aliens, which has been promoted due to a lack of clarity on this issue. The Federal Government should not be operated under obscure parameters that do not serve our Nation. We can strengthen these regulations to help protect America.

The CBO estimates that over the period from 2008 to 2011 that the housing fund created by this bill will generate roughly $3 billion. This is not an insignificant amount of money, and that will be available to build new housing as a result of this legislation.

To the best of our ability, we must eliminate the ability of someone here illegally to use new taxes from hardworking Americans to ``buy a home.'' That is not leadership and it is the wrong incentive.

So I urge my colleagues to reject back-door amnesty for illegal immigrants and to support this commonsense amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concerns that have been voiced from the other side, but in fact, they are not legitimate concerns. We've heard a lot about the REAL ID Act. We're not debating the REAL ID Act. What we are debating is the requirement of specific pieces of identification in order to be eligible for these loans.

As the gentleman from New Mexico stated over and over, the Social Security card with photo identification works, a driver's license works, a passport works, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services works. So we are not debating the REAL ID Act.

We've heard from a couple of gentlemen on the other side of the aisle that this has already been adopted in the amendment that was accepted by the gentleman from Arkansas. And although we appreciate the magnanimous nature of the chairman, in fact, this is a significantly different amendment because it provides specificity to the documents that would be required.

If the chairman truly believes that the director or a regulatory body makes certain that individuals are here legally, then I would suggest that the gentleman look at the issue of the ability to gain access to credit from illegals in many areas across this Nation with banks that are indeed regulated. And they are regulated with the same kind of language that says that you ought not provide credit to individuals who are here illegally.

So I would urge my colleagues to appreciate and understand that greater clarification, greater specificity in the documents that ought to be required should be accepted. I think it's a commonsense amendment. I appreciate my colleagues for supporting it.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of my good friend and colleague from Georgia about the previous amendment. I wasn't interested in revisiting it, but I was compelled to do so because of the obfuscation that I believe occurred.

The amendment, my amendment, states on line 9, page 1, that the personal identification shall be one of the following forms. ``One of the following forms.''

The first item is Social Security card. The second item is in fact a driver's license with a State complying with REAL ID. And then there is an ``or'' between the two. An ``or'' means one of them. Not all of them. Not always in compliance with REAL ID.

Then it goes on to have the two small ii's on page 2, line 9, where it says a passport.

Then there is even a third way that you can do it. Line 12, page 2, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Documentation.

Lo and behold, it is just one of those, Mr. Chairman. It is not all of them.

So I would suggest that my good friend from Georgia be complete in his characterization of my amendment.

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

I thank the gentleman for his amendment and appreciate his leadership on this issue, and I appreciate his leadership in defending the hardworking American taxpayer.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I'm pleased to yield to my good friend from Texas.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Reclaiming my time, I'd be glad to yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Be pleased to.

Reclaiming my time, I'd be glad to yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his amendment and urge my colleagues to adopt it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment which I believe enhances the oversight of the Director over the payments into the Affordable Housing Fund.

The underlying legislation takes the responsible step of providing criteria that the Director of the new regulatory agency should use to suspend contributions to the Affordable Housing Fund created by this bill, and that is a responsible step. However, I and others are concerned that this language doesn't go far enough to ensure the GSE safety and soundness, which indeed is the intent of this important legislation that we are dealing with today.

In the underlying legislation, if the Director finds that contributing to the Affordable Housing Fund would contribute to the instability of the GSE, would cause the GSE to become undercapitalized, or would prevent the GSE from successfully completing a capital restoration plan, then payments to the Housing Fund would be suspending.

I have three specific concerns.

First, nowhere in this language does this legislation provide an explicit requirement for the Director to actively seek out this information and to report on his or her findings.

Second, the language in this section doesn't explicitly list the safe and sound operation of the GSE as one of the factors that the Director should consider.

And, third, the Director does not consider the extent to which these payments into the Housing Trust Fund will result in an increase in costs to the borrowers under residential mortgages.

This amendment very simply would require the Director to study the additional factors that I just mentioned, safety and soundness, and increased costs to the borrowers. Along with those factors already in the text of the underlying bill, and to certify to Congress that they won't be adversely affected before the GSE makes a payment into the Housing Fund, it is imperative that we make certain that all of the hard work that went into creating this new world-class regulator in the underlying legislation isn't undone because of the mandatory payments the GSE will have to make into the Affordable Housing Fund. And we can do that by requiring the Director to look at all of these safety and soundness issues that might be affected, and to provide a responsible signoff requirement before payments are made into the Housing Fund.

I think this greatly improves the accountability and the success and the appropriateness of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for his commitment and for his wisdom and for his leadership on America's security.

Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 8: Page 144, after line 19, insert the

following:

``(8) Acceptable identification requirement for occupancy

or assistance.--

``(A) In general.--Any assistance provided with any

affordable housing grant amounts may not be made available

to, or on behalf of, any individual or household unless the

individual provides, or, in the case of a household, all

adult members of the household provide, personal

identification in one of the following forms:

``(i) Social security card with photo identification card

or real id act identification.--

``(I) A social security card accompanied by a photo

identification card issued by the Federal Government or a

State Government; or

``(II) A driver's license or identification card issued by

a State in the case of a State that is in compliance with

title II of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (title II of division B

of Public Law 109-13; 49 U.S.C. 30301 note).

``(ii) Passport.--A passport issued by the United States or

a foreign government.

``(iii) USCIS photo identification card.--A photo

identification card issued by the Secretary of Homeland

Security (acting through the Director of the United States

Citizenship and Immigration Services).

``(B) Regulations.--The Director shall, by regulation,

require that each grantee and recipient take such actions as

the Director considers necessary to ensure compliance with

the requirements of subparagraph (A).''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 9: Strike line 21 on page 128 and all that

follows through line 7 on page 129, and insert the following:

``(2) Requirements for contributions.--

``(A) Timing.--An enterprise shall not be required to make

an allocation for a year pursuant to paragraph (1) unless the

Director, pursuant to the study under paragraph (2) for such

year, makes a determination that such allocation by the

enterprise for the year--

``(i) will not contribute to the financial instability of

the enterprise or impair the safe and sound operation of the

enterprise;

``(ii) will not cause the enterprise to be classified as

undercapitalized;

``(iii) will not prevent the enterprise from successfully

completing a capital restoration plan under section 1369C;

and

``(iv) will not result in increased costs to borrowers

under residential mortgages.

``(B) Study.--The Director shall, for each year referred to

in paragraph (1)--

``(i) conduct a study to determine the effects on each

enterprise of making allocations in such year under such

paragraph; and

``(ii) submit to the Congress a report containing the

findings of such study and the determinations of the

Secretary regarding the issues set forth in clauses (i)

through (iv) of subparagraph (A).''.

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

I would rise, Mr. Speaker, to say that all of us obviously support police officers on the street. But there are some legitimate concerns about this bill and others that are brought to the floor. One that I would point out on this bill is that we attempt to find some objective information about the programs that we put in place here at the Federal level.

The Office of Management and Budget has a program called Program Assessment Rating Tool which attempts to determine the effectiveness of what we do here on the floor, and their grade for this COPS Program is ``Not performing, results not demonstrated'' in the latest review.

That is not to say that we don't support cops on the street, police on the street, but it is important to appreciate that there are some legitimate concerns about the program.

Another concern I have is that one of our House rules, XIII section 3(d)(1) says that all committee reports must contain a statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. In fact, in this bill being brought to the floor, there is no such statement available from the committee.

So I think there are legitimate concerns, Mr. Speaker, and I ask my colleagues to review those.

Madam Speaker, I thank the Speaker so very much for the opportunity for presenting once again before the House of Representatives. I want to thank my leadership for allowing me to head up and chair this hour that is a Special Order hour. It is an opportunity for us in the minority party to come and try to shed some light on some issues that frankly don't get a whole lot of attention here on the floor of the House of

Representatives, and so I appreciate that opportunity once again.

Madam Speaker, most of us go home every weekend and visit our district, talk to constituents. It is a wonderful time to be able to go back and get grounded, go back to that touchstone and those people that supported us as we came to Washington, to try to assist in moving our country in the right direction.

And I have been struck over the last couple of months as I go home every weekend and talk to my friends and neighbors and fellow church- goers in my Sixth District of Georgia on the north side of Atlanta, I have been struck by their concern about what appears to be from their standpoint a continuing decrease in the level of civility here in Washington.

I am in my second term, initially elected in 2004, and one of the things that I thought I would hopefully be able to have some effect on would be to affect positively the level of rhetoric and the level of discourse here in Washington, and the level of frustration that my constituents tell me they have regarding what's going on here in Washington continues to increase.

So one of the things that I and some other Members of our conference have tried to do is to come to the floor, try to do it at least once a week, sometimes we're not able to do that, but talk about issues in a light that is hopefully more positive, hopefully respects the history of our Nation in a way that allows us to kind of glean the role that we ought to play as the House of Representatives and as Congress and to hopefully chart out or to define a path that will continue to allow our children and our grandchildren to live in the finest Nation on the face of the Earth.

In so doing, what we have tried to do is to talk about truth, to talk about facts. So often in the world of politics, in fact we have heard it just within the last few moments, Madam Speaker, the issue of politics over policy. So often when folks come to the floor of the House they talk more about politics than they do about policy, and I understand that. People have to get elected and I appreciate that, but when you're talking about things that are so incredibly important to the future of this Nation, it would behoove us as a House of Representatives to endeavor as much as we can to work together and to try to come up with the best solution for our Nation.

All of us come from different backgrounds. I happen to come from a profession of medicine. I practiced medicine for over 20 years, and medicine is a little different endeavor than politics and legislating. In taking care of patients what we try to do is try to work together, all for a common goal, which is to get the patient well obviously. So it is a collegial activity. It tends to be an activity where we share information and support one another.

Would that were the case on the floor of this House of Representatives, Madam Speaker, because I share my constituents' frustration with much of the partisanship that goes on here and much of the sniping and the politics over policy that makes it so very difficult, very difficult to move our Nation forward.

So we have developed a group that we call The Official Truth Squad, and its desire, as I mentioned, is to try to shed some light on issues here before our Nation. We have a number of individuals that we like to point to as heroes over the history of our Nation. Many of our former Presidents were certainly individuals who sought the truth and sought to guide this Nation in a positive and an uplifting direction.

One of the individuals that I like to quote is Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Mr. Moynihan was a Senator from the State of New York, and he had marvelous quips and marvelous phrases that he would use. One of them was this one right here. It says, ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but they are not entitled to their own facts.'' Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but they are not entitled to their own facts.

So I was struck by that, Madam Speaker, just last week as I was working here late in the Capitol one evening, happened to run into a couple who was in the hallway, obviously tourists, and they were stopping at some of the statues here in the Capitol. They were interested in finding where the gallery to the House of Representatives was, and so I pointed them in the right direction and happened to see them up in the gallery.

I had some friends from home who were visiting as well, and I got a chance to talk to them in the hallway. This young man was a physician. Come to find out he was a doctor who was serving in our military, and in 2 days or 3 days from last week when I met him, he was on his way to Iraq. He was on his way to try to help our men and women who are standing in harm's way and trying to protect our liberty and our freedom to make certain that they were given the finest care they possibly could be given in a difficult situation. He shared with me his frustration about the lack of not just civility but about the lack of attention to urgent problems.

One of the things that we briefly talked about was the responsibility that this Congress has to make certain that our men and women who are defending liberty, defending us, making certain that our children and our grandchildren can live in this great Nation for generations to come, and the frustration that he had with the inability of this Congress to make certain that the resources, the money that's needed to be able to allow our military men and women to protect themselves and to protect us has not been forthcoming, and I shared my frustration with him about that same event.

Madam Speaker, tomorrow I believe will be 100 days, 100 days since the President of the United States has sent to Congress his request for money, resources, for our fighting men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq, and if there was anything that demonstrated politics over policy, it has been this last 100 days. Very frustrating, Madam Speaker, frustrating for me, and I know that it is concerning and frustrating for our constituents all across this Nation, because what has happened has been a length of time that was played out to just apparently get headlines, it appeared to be.

And then there was a supplemental bill that was brought to the floor of the House, and it had in addition to the money that had been requested to allow our troops to defend themselves, it had in addition to that a peculiar set of directions, benchmarks, timelines, for our men and women and our generals on the ground, so much so that they said, look, there isn't any way that we can accomplish what we need to accomplish if you, Congress, adopt this bill, adopts this piece of legislation.

Many individuals on both sides of the aisle said, well, you're absolutely right, that sounds ridiculous. And so then what happened was that in order for the majority party apparently to pass this piece of legislation, they kept adding money on to it. So money in Washington does not start with an M. It starts with a B. So they kept adding billions and billions and billions, over $20 billion, to the bill in order to allow for folks on either side of the aisle who had concerns, enough of them to be able to say, okay, well, I can justify my vote for that bill if I am going to get those kinds of resources.

And so that bill passed the House with a very slim margin and passed the Senate, was sent to the President, the President promptly vetoed it. It came back to the House of Representatives and was delayed for another 4 or 5 days by this majority, Madam Speaker. The only reason that anybody can determine was for, again, politics over policy.

And just last week, another bill was then adopted which had a peculiar arrangement that would allow for some money to go for a while, and then if the Congress still agreed, within a month or two then there would be more money forthcoming. It was what many of us have called war on the installment plan, which is actually a worse plan than the majority party came up with initially.

Now, those are the facts. So that bill is passed, and we are waiting to see what happens from the Senate.

But I get back to the point of that young man who shared his frustration and his concern with me about why Congress can't act on things that are so pressing for the security of our Nation and for those men and women who are serving in harm's way. It just, it is very, very concerning to men and

women across this Nation, that we, as a legislative body, the United States House of Representatives, can't put politics aside and work for the good of the Nation and work for the benefit and the security of our men and women who are defending our liberty and defending our freedom.

So I just offer that as what I am hearing from home. I suspect it's what many of my colleagues are hearing from home as well. I am hopeful that we will be able to move forward with a clean bill, a bill that provides money for our men and women who are defending liberty and defending themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have got a number of folks who will be joining us today, I hope. We will talk about a number of issues, the war supplemental, the budget and some other items, I hope.

But I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) and look forward to your comments. I yield to you.

I appreciate the gentleman's perspective on the issue of energy, because it's extremely important, because I hear that at home as well. Folks are frustrated by the level of inactivity by this Congress as it relates to many things, and certainly in the area of gas prices.

As you recall, Congressman Westmoreland, and I know you appreciate that what we heard out of this new majority was that their bill, earlier this year, their part of their 6 for '06 plan was going to solve a lot of the problems as it related to energy, and what was that plan?

As you will remember, that plan was to increase taxes on American oil companies. Increased taxes on American oil companies was somehow going to be this grand plan that would make it so that those mean and awful oil companies wouldn't be making so much money.

Well, I appreciate that observation as well, because that appears to be what they believe. But we are getting a little ahead of ourselves, because it's important to close the loop on this energy issue.

Because what the majority party offered was this remarkable smoke and mirrors that said, as part of their 6 for '06, that if we just passed this bill, if we just increased taxes on the oil company, then what will happen is that they will, by some miraculous determination, lower the price of oil for folks at the pump.

Well, as you well know, what increases taxes on American oil companies does is make it so that they are less likely to be able to compete in the world so that our reliance on foreign oil gets greater.

Absolutely, without a doubt. There are some real keys, pivotal keys to the real solution to our energy challenges. One of them is conservation. We can all do more in the area of conservation. We can all probably do more on conservation. Probably the long-term solution is some type of alternative fuel. We have done a lot for that. In fact, most Members of the majority party are on record as opposing rewards for the provision of alternative fuel.

But one of the mainstays, especially in the short-term, is to provide American energy for Americans. So, peculiarly, what this majority party did, and it's perplexing, frankly, because it doesn't solve anything, is to pass a bill to increase taxes on American oil companies, again, which makes us less competitive in the world, makes us more reliant on foreign oil, and, frankly, it means that what we do is finance those folks who like us less to a greater degree. That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

I appreciate your comments so much. I think it's important. It's called smoke and mirrors; I think that's an apt title. I talk about politics over policy, which is what frustrates me, frustrates so many of our constituents at home.

I am so pleased to be joined by my friend from Tennessee, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, who is a strong leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee. I look forward to your comments on this issue and others.

I appreciate your passion about this and the information that you bring. I suspect you see what I see at home, and you hear what I hear at home, that is, that Americans want us to be working towards solutions. They want us to come up with solutions and make certain that we are working together to put those solutions on the table and move them forward so that we can work to get that American energy.

What they are concerned about is the lack of solutions that they see being put on the table by the current majority party.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I appreciate you bringing up the issue of the largest tax increase in American history that was passed by this majority on this floor. And folks at home say, well that can't be true. That just can't be true. We can't allow that to happen. What are they doing?

And what they're doing is displayed in this chart right here, as you well know, because all of these tax rates, all of these tax rates, given the budget that has been adopted by this House, will increase to significant levels in relatively short order. Ordinary income going from the top rate of 35 percent to 39.6, capital gains going from 15 percent to 20 percent, dividends going from 15 percent to 39.6 percent, estate tax goes from 0 percent in 2010 to 55 percent. That's the death tax. It goes to 55 percent in 2011. The child tax credit cut in half. And the lowest tax bracket, amazingly enough, goes from 10 to 15 percent, which is a 50 percent increase.

I appreciate the gentlelady's perspective on that because it is so true. And when folks think about the ordinary income going up from 35 to 39.6 percent they say, well, that, you know, that's just all those folks who are at the top, all those rich folks. Well, as you mentioned and so clearly stated, that includes all the small businesses, and what that means is jobs for America. And so the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation is what has been passed on the floor of this House. Very frustrating. And when you talk with reasonable folks on the other side of the aisle about this, they say, oh, well, we're not going to do all that. We're going to change some of those numbers. We're going to make it so that the lowest rate isn't 15 percent, it comes back down to 10.

But the problem is that their budget has spent all of the money that's to come from all of these tax increases. So if they're not going to get that money from one spot, then they've got to get it from another and raise them even more.

So, Madam Speaker, I think that it is clear that this is a real problem that the American people are beginning to appreciate, that the leadership that they thought they were electing in November of 2006 is, in fact, not the leadership that they are getting. Again, politics over appropriate policy.

This is a pie chart, Madam Speaker, that demonstrates who's going to be paying all those new taxes. And it talks about the billions, billions and billions of dollars that will be supposedly raised by those. In fact, what will happen is that it will so depress the economy that it is not likely that you'll see those kinds of revenues. In fact, what will happen is that we'll see fewer jobs, fewer amount of revenue to the Federal Government, and a significant change in what is a relatively good economic picture at the current time.

I am pleased to be joined by my good friend from California (Mr. McCarthy), Kevin McCarthy, who is a member, of, I believe a member of the Budget Committee, and has been involved in certainly budgetary aspects and budgetary planning at the State level. And we're pleased to have you join us here in Washington this term as a new Member of the House of Representatives and look forward to your comments this evening.

I appreciate the gentleman and the comments that he makes about every single tax that we pay with every single thing we do is so apt because this new majority seems to believe that, well, in everything they do, seem to believe that they have got a better idea. They've got better solutions. They know better than the American people about how they ought to do most anything, and especially how they ought to spend their money.

And when I talk to my good friends on the other side of the aisle who appear to be interested in making certain that America sustains this economic vitality that it has, and you ask them, well, how did that vitality come about, and you point to things like this chart demonstrates, which is where job creation was before the appropriate tax reductions and what happened afterward, it's as clear as the nose on your face or the drawing before you. Before tax cuts were put in place, there was a staggering job growth and mostly negative job creation. But something happened in 2003, as you pointed out. Something happened.

And it resulted in huge, significant job growth, job increase, across this Nation. Literally 49 of the 50 States have increased employment since 2003. And one would think that if you had the responsibility for determining what the economic policies of this Nation ought to be that you would look at that point and you would say, well, it would help me understand what happened then in order to continue the economic growth that we have seen. And it is clear that this job creation, this job growth, was a direct result of allowing Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. So it is without doubt that we need to continue those policies, in fact, to increase the ability for Americans to keep their own money and, therefore, continue the wonderful growth that we have had.

I am pleased to yield to the gentleman.

Exactly right.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's contributing this afternoon and his perspective.

And it is so appropriate and so uplifting, frankly, to have Members in the House of Representatives who understand and appreciate the connection between cause and effect, the connection between the actions that we take here and then what happens out in the real world. And it is one of those things, Madam Speaker, that frustrates my constituents and I know it frustrates Americans all across this Nation who are concerned that there are fewer and fewer individuals in this House of Representatives that appreciate that connection.

I want to mention just a few more items as it relates to the economy and as it relates to our current situation and, hopefully, what will occur with the policies that are adopted by this House of Representatives and this Congress.

This is a chart, Madam Speaker, that demonstrates the unemployment rate. And as you will recall, at the beginning of this decade, the unemployment rate was increasing significantly and got up to almost 6.5 percent in the early part of 2003. If you were to look at this graph and to believe and appreciate that a low unemployment rate means a vibrant economy, that people are working, that people are being able to support their family, that they are able to change jobs, that they are able to move up in the job market, that is what happens when you have a low unemployment rate. And anything below about 5 percent is considered to be an extremely vibrant economy.

So something happened in 2003 to result in a steady decline in the unemployment rate over the last 3 or 4 years. And what happened in 2003, again, is that we, Congress, and this administration allowed for Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. Now, when you look at that, it is an important thing to appreciate. It is also important to recognize that cause and effect. But it is also important to look at some other numbers and kind of dig a little deeper into what was the consequence, what happened with the decreases in taxes.

As I mentioned, job growth, 88,000 new jobs were gained in just this past April, with nearly 2 million new jobs being created over the last 12 months. Our Nation has added nearly 8 million new jobs since August of 2003. And, Madam Speaker, sometimes those numbers just kind of get lost. You say 8 million new jobs or nearly 8 million new jobs, and it is tough to know whether or not that is good or bad compared to maybe what the rest of the world is creating. What is happening in the rest of the world?

Well, Madam Speaker, 7.8 million new jobs since August of 2003, that is more new jobs than all other major industrialized countries combined. That is more than all other major industrialized countries combined. That is

more than England plus France plus Spain plus Italy plus Scandinavia plus Japan plus all other industrialized countries combined. That is phenomenal, Madam Speaker. It would behoove us to delve into why that has happened.

Our economy has seen job gains for 44 straight months, and employment has increased in 47 States. I think I should correct myself. I think I said 49 States earlier. It is 47 States within the last year. So the lower unemployment rate that we see, 4.5 percent, among the lowest in the past 6 years. And, Madam Speaker, that rate is lower than the average for the 1960s, for the 1970s, for the 1980s, and for the 1990s. That rate is lower than the average unemployment rate during those periods of time.

Economic growth, this economy that has been in transition has shown a sustainable growth path, an increasing path over a period of time. Real GDP growth is up 1.3 percent in the first quarter of this year and 2.1 percent over the last four quarters. Household spending, what are moms and dads across this Nation spending? Well, their spending is up 3.8 percent, and it remains strong and really is expected to be that kind of firm foundation upon which we continue this positive economic activity. But it will only continue, Madam Speaker, if we are responsible and set appropriate policies that will allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money.

By the same token, business investment continues to increase. Capital investment turned up in the first quarter. As my good friend from California mentioned just a moment ago, tax receipts were up. Tax receipts rose 11.8 percent in fiscal year 2006 on top of a 14.6 percent increase in 2005. And so far this year, we have seen growth of 11.5 percent. And that is what is confounding to our good friends on the left who don't seem to appreciate the cause and effect of allowing Americans to keep more of their money. In fact, what they say over and over is, well, the government needs more money in order to X-Y-Z. Even if you believe that all of the things that Washington does are appropriate and even if you believed that there was no waste and that there was no fraud and that there was no abuse that you could squeeze out of the system, even if you believe that, what we see happens when you decrease taxes, when you allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money, is that revenue increases. So, Madam Speaker, what we see here on this chart is a chart that demonstrates Federal revenue. That is the amount of money coming into the Federal Government in billions of dollars. And over the first part of this decade, we saw a steady decline in the amount of money coming into the Federal Government. And then once again that magic line, that magic point in time in 2003, when this Congress acted responsibly, along with this administration, and allowed Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money, what happened, Madam Speaker, is a remarkable thing, and that is a significant and huge increase in the amount of money coming into the Federal Government.

It ought not have been a mystery. Many people predicted it. Many people said that is exactly what would happen, and they knew that because that is what happened throughout history. President Reagan knew it when he decreased taxes on the American people and saw increasing revenue to the Federal Government. President Kennedy knew it when he enacted appropriate decreases in taxes on the American people in the early 1960s, and what we saw as a Nation at that time was an increase in revenue to the Federal Government.

So, Madam Speaker, it is important that we look at the cause and effect. What we do here makes a difference in everything. It has consequences for the American people. And so when you have positive activity in our Nation as it relates to the economy, positive job growth, positive numbers coming into the Federal Government, positive business investment, increasing homeownership, low inflation, low unemployment, it behooves us to figure out why that happened. It happened because we allowed more Americans to keep more of their hard- earned money, and we ought to continue those policies.

Now, one of the great concerns that I have, Madam Speaker, is that I don't sense any amount of willingness on the part of our new majority to continue those appropriate policies. And, frankly, I don't sense a whole lot of willingness on the part of a majority of Congress on both sides of the aisle to do what needs to be done in the area of spending. As my good friend said earlier, we don't have a revenue problem here in Washington; we have a spending problem. And it is clear that that spending problem continues regardless of the party in power.

So I am one of those who believes that there needs to be some restraints, some process restraints that ought to be put in place in order to decrease the level of spending appropriately and make certain that we hold people accountable and that we make certain that people are being responsible with the hard-earned money that Americans send to Washington, which is why I support a Federal Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

And I have labeled this chart ``American Values and American Vision'' because, Madam Speaker, I believe that it is an American value to allow individuals to keep the benefits of their labor. I believe that the more we allow individuals to derive the benefits of their labor and their hard work and their entrepreneurship and their ingenuity that what we will do is create more Americans who will strive to do more, who will strive to create more, who will strive to risk more, who will strive to do more in order to succeed. And the more Americans that are willing to do that, I have all the faith in the world that we will continue to be a wonderful and productive and successful Nation.

However, if we as a nation decide, no, we as a government know best, that we ought to tell you what to do, that we ought to tell you where to go, we ought to tell you how much you can make, that we ought to tell you when you make too much, what that does is stifle ingenuity and it stifles creativity and it stifles entrepreneurship and it says, no, we don't want you to be successful. We only want you to do this much, not more. We don't want you to truly reach your full potential. We just want you to do this much. We don't want you to dream big dreams because that wouldn't be a decision that we have made. Your dream may be at odds with some decision that Washington makes.

Madam Speaker, that is not the America that I know. That is not the American value that I was taught. That is not the American vision that I have and that so many of my colleagues have.

So the Taxpayer Bill of Rights that we have introduced in this Congress, Federal Taxpayer Bill of Rights, says a number of things, positively says a number of things. It says that taxpayers across this Nation have a right to a Federal Government that does not grow beyond their ability to pay for it. And what does that mean, Madam Speaker? What that means is that this bill, if enacted, would appropriately reduce the size of government or limit the size in the growth of government to an increase in the population of our Nation plus a cost- of-living adjustment so that the government could rise but no more than the increase in population and the increase in inflation. That is a restraint on the kind of spending that occurs on both sides of the aisle here in Washington. That is the kind of positive solution that I and many people support.

We believe in American values and an American vision and a Taxpayer Bill of Rights that says that taxpayers have a right to receive back every dollar they entrust to the government for their retirement.

The issue of entitlements, Madam Speaker, we haven't even touched on this afternoon, but it's an important issue. The issue of Social Security is one that is extremely important because it was a program that was put in place a number of decades ago, and it was put in place at a time when there were 15 or 16 workers for every retiree, a wonderful program to have in place to allow for seniors to have some nest egg or some cushion that they could rely on when they retire. It also, curiously, Madam Speaker, as you likely know, was put in place at a time when the average life expectancy in this Nation was less than when the benefits

would begin. That is the kind of program that the Federal Government likes. It means that you don't necessarily get what you put into the program itself.

We believe that American taxpayers have the right to receive every dollar back that they put into the Social Security program. We believe that the Social Security trust fund money ought not be spent on anything but Social Security retirement benefits. We believe that is a right that Americans have. We believe that is a responsibility that this Congress has in a positive way to say we will limit the spending of that money to what it was intended for. We believe in American values and American vision, that Federal taxpayers have a right to a balanced budget without raising taxes.

There are a number of ways that you can get to balancing the budget. You can get to it by increasing taxes. You can tax businesses and you can tax people, successful people and folks all across this Nation who work for a living. You can tax them and take more of their hard-earned money and for the short term you can balance the budget. Yes, you can.

But the way to responsibly balance the budget that embraces American values and that embraces American vision and that allows people to succeed and dream and work hard and have the benefits of their labor, the way to do that responsibly is not to take more of their money. The way to do that responsibly is to decrease spending, is to decrease and restrain the growth of government, and to make it so that the Federal Government does what the Federal Government ought to and ought do only. And that requires, I believe, Madam Speaker, a balanced budget amendment.

As I mentioned, folks on both sides of the aisle have difficulty with spending too much of the American taxpayers' hard-earned money. We believe that a balanced budget amendment is imperative.

We believe also that Federal taxpayers have a right to fundamental and fair tax reform. My good friend from Tennessee mentioned earlier that on January 1, 2011, 1/1/11, that this new majority is destined for the largest tax increase in the history of this Nation. We believe that that's wrong. We believe that the manner in which this Federal Government gains revenue stifles entrepreneurship, stifles vision, hurts dreams, harms success, says to folks who are working hard out there across this Nation, Don't do that. Don't work hard. That's not what you want to do, because if you do that, we will just take more of your money. That is not the America I dream about and I believe in. So we believe that fundamental and fair tax reform is imperative.

And finally, Madam Speaker, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights says that in order to increase taxes in this body, that we must have a supermajority. We must have more than just 50 percent plus one. We must convince a supermajority, a vast number of the individuals who serve in this body from all across this Nation, that a tax increase is absolutely necessary. It is one of the provisions that we had in place for the last 12 years, from 1994 to 2006. It's one of the things that was changed on the very first day of this new Congress, that a supermajority was no longer required. It is one of the reasons, Madam Speaker, why there was no significant tax increase over the last 12 years. One of the reasons, Madam Speaker, that we've seen a significant increase in economic productivity across this Nation over the last 4 years is because of appropriate tax decreases and not allowing increases by just a slim majority.

So, Madam Speaker, I am honored to come to the floor this afternoon and to share an American value, American vision that talks about positive things about our Nation and congratulates the men and women around this Nation who are working hard, who are trying to earn for their families and save for their retirement, who are trying to contribute to their own American Dream.

I believe that it is an incredible honor to serve in this United States House of Representatives. I believe it is incumbent on every single Member of this House to respect and value the hard work that each and every American performs each and every single day, regardless of the job that they're doing. Every single job has merit and worth and is deserving of our respect. And one of the ways that we ought to respect it is to allow men and women across this Nation to keep more of their hard-earned money and to be responsible with the spending that we perform here at the Federal level.

So I am honored to have presented that American vision and that American value to my colleagues today. Madam Speaker, I appreciate that opportunity.

I yield back the balance of my time.