Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his simple motion to recommit.

This really is a simple motion to recommit. What it says is that the money that is authorized and appropriated should go for its intended purposes. It would expand upon existing law by specifically prohibiting Federal funds from being used to pay for membership in any association or organization. It is important to make clear that the funds should only be used for the purposes intended by Congress, mainly the construction of facilities and infrastructure to treat combined sewer overflows.

Now, while associations and organizations can sometimes provide very meaningful opportunities for collaboration and knowledge dissemination, it would not be appropriate to use scarce, hard-earned Federal taxpayer dollars to pay for membership in such associations.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if my colleagues are aware of this, but some of these dues in these associations and organizations run up to $48,000 to $50,000 a year. Certainly, hard-earned taxpayer money should not go for that purpose. So, in the spirit of responsible spending and to decrease the abuse of hard-earned taxpayer dollars, I urge the adoption of this motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, right now, brave Americans are going door to door in some of the most dangerous parts of Iraq. They are working with the Iraqi people to bring stability to Iraq, and they are doing this because it is their duty and because they understand our enemy, what is at stake should we not succeed.

Right now, in households all across this country, there are families praying for the safe return of their loved ones. They understand the dangers. They know what is at stake. Unfortunately, in Washington, it would seem that too many politicians do not realize what is at stake, what the consequences are of failure. Instead, some propose we tell these soldiers and their families that Congress believes that the only choice is to close the door. They say retreat is our only option. Their desire is to adopt a policy of slow bleed, methodically squeezing off the necessary funding.

We all know our enemy is committed. We also know that this slow-bleed tactic, supported by some here in Washington, is a weakly disguised measure to turn our backs on our soldiers. That is something, Madam Speaker, that I cannot support.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that recognition. I want to thank the leadership on the Republican side for the opportunity to address once again the House of Representatives and talk about some important issues that our Nation is dealing with, and bring the latest version of the Official Truth Squad. This is a group of folks who have determined to try to bring some sunlight and some truth to the issues that we talk about here in Washington. And after the last hour, Mr. Speaker, a lot of truth needs to be shed, because the amount of misinformation and disinformation that our friends on the other side of the aisle have put forward needs to be corrected, and so we are here as the Official Truth Squad to do just that. It is a great privilege, and I want to thank the Republican Conference, the Republican leadership for that opportunity.

The Official Truth Squad started as a group of freshmen last term who were frustrated by, as I said, the disinformation and the misinformation that was perpetrated and brought forward on this House floor day after day after day after day, and we thought that it was appropriate to get together and attempt to bring some light to issues, attempt to bring some facts to issues. And we have a favorite quote.

We have a lot of favorite quotes, but one of our favorite quotes is indeed one of my favorite quotes that I think crystallizes exactly what the mission is here. And in Washington it is so difficult to try to get to the second clause of this sentence. But this is from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Senator Moynihan, a former United States Senator from the State of New York and a former United States representative of the United Nations, a wonderful gentleman, a very wise individual. And he said, ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.'' Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

So it is in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, that we come to the floor tonight and talk about a number of issues, and try to shed some of that light, try to bring some facts to the table.

We get visited oftentimes here in Washington by folks who are constituents, folks from back home. They come here and they visit us, and they talk about the kinds of issues that are important to them. And today, Mr. Speaker, and yesterday in Washington we have been visited, all of us have been visited, I know, by members of the VFW, by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. And it is very humbling to sit and to talk with members of the VFW, to listen to their stories, to hear their concerns, to appreciate the challenges that they have and the issues that they believe Congress ought to be addressing.

These are truly heroes. They are truly heroes from previous conflicts that our Nation has been involved in. And it is distressing when you talk to these members of the VFW and you hear their same kinds of concerns about facts.

Many of them from my district came, and they wanted to know why there was not the kind of correct information that was getting out on the floor of the House of Representatives, why we weren't talking about the truth as it relates to, not just our veterans, but the current situation in the world. They were extremely concerned that so many of our friends on the other side of the aisle were distorting the truth, were not bringing real information to the American people, and were causing great challenges for all of us to try to do the right thing as it relates to our Nation and to our members of the military right now who are defending liberty around the globe, and to assist veterans in their time of need. And so I shared my concern with them about the information that was being brought forth, especially about the situation in Iraq.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have heard what the strategy of the Democrats is as it relates to Iraq. They have preemptively surrendered. One of their Members has defined what has been described as a slow- bleed policy. It kind of gives you chills when you think about it, Mr. Speaker, a slow-bleed policy. That individual was interviewed 2 or 3 weeks ago, and during that period of time when asked how is he going to institute this, how is he going to institute this slow-bleed policy on the military as a Member of the House of Representatives, an influential Member of the House, a member of the majority party, a member who has an opportunity to do great things, and what he has said is, ``They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment.''

Mr. Speaker, that is chilling. That is chilling.

It is made all the more disgusting because of the comments of our own Speaker who said that funds would never be cut off from our troops in harm's way. And here the individual who is charged with developing the strategy for the majority party in the House of Representatives on Iraq says, ``They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment.''

Mr. Speaker, I don't know about you, but I get e-mails and communications sent to me from constituents who are serving in Iraq. I know men and women

who are serving in Iraq who are doing their duty. To have a Member of the House of Representatives in a remarkably influential role say he is going to do all he can to limit the equipment that will protect our men and women in harm's way in Iraq and around the world is deplorable. It is deplorable.

Mr. Speaker, that is a fact. Not an opinion, not my opinion. That is a fact. That is what he said. That is what he plans on doing. That is what he said he will work to convince his party to do.

About that same time, our Speaker was quoted as making the following claim, ``Democrats have proposed a different course of action over and over again, and we have suggested a different plan.'' That is the claim. That is the facts of the statement.

The truth, according to United States Senator Joe Lieberman who has been a stalwart in recognizing the danger that the world finds itself in and recognizing the importance of supporting our troops who are in harm's way, the truth, as he states it, is, ``Any alternatives that I have heard ultimately don't work. They are all about failing. They are all about withdrawing. And I think allowing Iraq to collapse would be a disaster for the Iraqis, for the Middle East, and for us.''

Mr. Speaker, I find the double talk that is coming out of the majority party's mouth at this time as it relates to protecting our troops and fighting for freedom and liberty to be not only disingenuous, I find it to be a disservice to the American people, because when we are not talking about facts, it is impossible to reach the right conclusion.

All of us come to this body with various experiences, different backgrounds, different professions, different work experience. Mine is as a physician. I spent over 20 years, nearly 25 years practicing medicine. And I knew that when I took care of patients, that if I didn't do my level best to make certain that I had made the right diagnosis, that I had dealt with truthful items to get to the right diagnosis, I couldn't institute the right treatment.

And so I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues that unless we recognize truthful statements, unless we recognize the facts that are presented to us, that we will not make the right diagnosis. And I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the other side, the majority party has failed to make the correct diagnosis, so it will be difficult for them to institute the right treatment.

Now, I won't go so far as to say, although I might be legitimate in doing so, that occasionally, when physicians make the wrong diagnosis, they are charged with malpractice. But I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to appreciate and recognize that truth will get you to the right diagnosis, which will allow all of us to work together to identify what the right treatment ought to be.

And that is in the case with this reprehensible, ``slow bleed'' policy that has been put forward by the majority party, as much it is with the rest of the policies that we will address, some of which we will address tonight.

I want to just highlight a couple other matters as it relates to this ``slow bleed'' policy. And Mr. Speaker, as you know what that has been defined as is cutting off the funding or decreasing the funding, not for the troops specifically but for the equipment, for the logistics, for the support staff that is required, all of the things that make it so our men and women can be secure in the knowledge that they are able to have all the equipment and the personnel available to protect themselves and to carry out their mission.

So, once again, the quote from our Speaker, another quote from our Speaker about, almost now 2 months ago, from January 19, 2007. The quote was, ``Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way.''

The reality is, and it goes into a broken promise that I believe, we believe, the other side is getting very adept at. They are continuing to break promises that they make with the American people over and over again. This one, the promise was, we will never cut off funding for the troops.

The reality, according to Mr. John Conyers, Representative John Conyers, ``The founders of our country gave our Congress the power of the purse because they envisioned a scenario exactly like we find ourselves in today. Not only is it in our power, it is our obligation. It is our obligation to stop President Bush.''

Another quote from Representative Maxine Waters, Representative from California, made just a couple of weeks ago, ``I will not vote for one dime. I will not vote for one dime.''

So, Mr. Speaker, we see the promises that are being made, that are being talked about to the American people, but the truth of the matter is that the majority party is continuing to break promises, and I find that very distressing. I also find that of great concern to being able, once again, to reach the right diagnosis of the challenges that we have before us and then moving forward with the correct treatment.

I want to talk for a little bit, now, Mr. Speaker, about another item that has, another issue that has not had a whole lot of light from the other side of the aisle on it, and that is our economy and the remarkable economic growth that this Nation has seen over the last three to 4 years.

If you look at truth, and you look at facts, one would have to admit that this has been a remarkably robust economy. We have now seen nearly 3\1/2\ years of solid, consistent economic expansion which followed the downturn, the economic downturn and the recession of 2001.

The measure of economic expansion can be measured by all sorts of different parameters, and we are going to look at a couple of them this evening. Measure of economic expansion can be measured by real GDP growth, gross domestic product growth. And that has averaged a robust 3.6 percent since the enactment of what, Mr. Speaker? Tax reductions in 2003. The tax relief measures of 2003 have resulted in, I believe, we believe, a remarkably robust economy.

And so as we move through these facts tonight, as we move through these measures, it is important to appreciate, well, how did that all come about? Why did that happen? It didn't just happen willy nilly. And so what we have seen over the last 3\1/2\ years is a remarkably robust growth in the gross domestic product; 3.6 percent, as I mentioned, over that period of time. Mr. Speaker, that is faster than the averages of the 1970, which was 3.4 percent, the 1980s, which was 3.1 percent, and I know this will come as a shock to some folks, Mr. Speaker, but those glory days of the 1990s, when we all thought that the economy was booming as rapidly as it could and as good as it could; in fact, that growth during the 1990s was 3.3 percent, again, compared to 3.6 percent since the tax reductions, appropriate tax reductions in 2003.

What we have on this chart, Mr. Speaker, is the unemployment rate, and it is another kind of gauge of how the economy is doing. How many jobs is our economy creating? And that is the good news, Mr. Speaker, that since June of 2003, 7.4 million new jobs; 7.4 million new jobs, Mr. Speaker, which is a remarkable number, an average of 169,000 new jobs each and every month.

Now, you would say, well, that had just been going on just like that before the reductions in the tax rates in 2003. But this poster, Mr. Speaker, speaks to that. What this poster shows is the level of unemployment, the percent level of unemployment in our Nation and plots it over a period of time.

Here on the far left portion of the graph, we have 2001, and on the far right portion, we have 2007. So over the past 7 years, 6 to 7 years, what we see is this red line that demonstrates the level of unemployment. And we see it climbing from a rate of mid 4 percent until 2003, at this point where it reached its apex, its highest amount of about 6.3 percent. And at that point, something happened.

Something happened, Mr. Speaker. And what happened was that this administration recognized and this Congress recognized that the economy needed stimulating, needed some encouragement, needed some investment. And our good friends on the other side of the aisle oftentimes say, well, when the economy needs more money what we need to do is to get more taxes from the American people. We need to take more money from them so that government has the amount of money that it needs to be able to do whatever they would like to do with revenue that comes into the Federal Government.

But what we understand, and what fiscal conservatives understand and what true historians understand is that, when you cut taxes, when you decrease taxes on the American people, revenue goes up, the economy booms, and jobs are created. And that is what happened in 2003, Mr. Speaker. And you see, since then, a steady decline in the unemployment rate. Why? Because the American people had more money in their back pocket, because American people know best how to spend their money, not government. It is not the government's money. It is the American people's money. And when they have that money and can make those decisions, those personal financial decisions, then our Nation is helped in ways that are incalculable. Incalculable. And what happens is that the economy grows, the economy booms, and more jobs are created.

What about household net worth? We have heard, well, it is not getting down to real people. It is not getting down to those who own homes. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are more individuals, more people, more percent and more numbers of Americans owning homes now than ever before in the history of our Nation. Mr. Speaker, that is a good thing. That is a good thing.

I know there is a lot of doom and gloom out there, and a lot of people in this town don't want the American people to know that there are some good things that are happening in our Nation. I, frankly, get tired of all the naysayers. I know that people in my district do as well, because they know what is happening on the ground and what is happening out there across America is that more Americans own their home now than ever before in the history of our Nation.

And that is not just absolute numbers. That is a percent. Nearly 70 percent of the American people own their home. That is a record. That is a record, Mr. Speaker.

And when you look at household net worth, household net worth, the value of homes for the American people has reached an all-time historic high, and in the last year, it increased by 7 percent. We see the unemployment rate down to 4.6 percent in January of this year.

We talked about some averages for economic growth over the last couple of decades, comparing now, where we are right now, to where we have been over the last couple of decades.

What about unemployment? Well, the unemployment rate that we have right now, at 4.6 percent, is lower than the average for the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and yes, Mr. Speaker, the 1990s, too. Isn't that something? That is wonderful news. That is great news. And I would suggest to my colleagues in the House that it would be important to relay that news to your constituents. That is a good thing.

The average rate in the 1960s of unemployment was 4.8 percent. Right now, 4.6 percent. The average for the 1970s, difficult time, 6.2 percent. Right now, Mr. Speaker, 4.6 percent. The average through the 1970s, 7.3. Right now, Mr. Speaker, 4.6 percent. And you remember the 1990s? Again, that wonderful time, those halcyon days of the 1990s, when our economy was booming and everybody was doing just grand?

Well, Mr. Speaker, the average unemployment rate in the 1990s was 5.8 percent. Today, 4.6 percent. Mr. Speaker, that is a fact.

And remember, Mr. Speaker, people are entitled, as Senator Moynihan used to say, they are entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

And then we hear, well, there are jobs, yes, but they are not good jobs. They are not real jobs. They aren't jobs that have seen any real economic growth. Well, let's look at some facts there, too, Mr. Speaker.

Productivity growth, which is a fundamental driver of the potential long-term economic growth, what kind of productivity, what kind of output our economy is producing, grew at a rate of 2.1 percent in 2006. The average growth between 1993 and 2000, remember those halcyon days, Mr. Speaker, the average growth during that period of time in productivity was 1.8 percent.

The average growth now, productivity growth: 2.1 percent.

So, Mr. Speaker, these are good days from an economic standpoint.

And then wage growth, we hear from some of our friends on the other side of the aisle, well, they just aren't good jobs. Real wage growth isn't happening. But wage growth plus benefits growth, total compensation, which had lagged behind productivity growth earlier in this recovery, surged in the last year, in 2006. It was up 6.3 percent, 6.3 percent on an analyzed rate in the fourth quarter of 2006.

Mr. Speaker, that is good news. That is good news. I would once again urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to convey that good news to their constituents. And then I would urge them to ask why is that happening, why have we seen this kind of good news.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it is because of the appropriate tax reductions that this Congress, this administration passed on to the American people in 2003.

We have many folks who will say, well, when you cut taxes, what happens is that the government doesn't have enough money to be able to do what it needs to do. And that sounds plausible, I guess. But when you look at what really happens, when you look at what happens historically and you look at what has happened with this tax reduction in 2003, what we have seen is a significant increase in revenue coming into the Federal Government. And it ought not be a surprise, Mr. Speaker, because in the two major tax reductions that have occurred in this Nation over the last 45 years, the tax reductions of President Reagan's administration and, yes, Mr. Speaker, the tax reductions of President Kennedy's administration, both of those tax reductions saw a significant increase in the amount of revenue that comes into the Federal Government. And why is that? It seems kind of counterintuitive. Why is that?

Well, again, when you allow the American people to make decisions about their own money and not have the government making decisions about that money, they decide for themselves when to save or to spend or invest that money, and what that does is stimulate the economy in ways that the government never, never can stimulate.

And consequently what you see, Mr. Speaker, is this kind of graph: here we have the capital gains tax revenues. These are revenues from taxes on the gains that are seen across all types of investments. And what we have is the amount of money from that capital gains that came into the Federal Government in the years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 on the same track as heading for 2007. And the yellow line on the bottom here, Mr. Speaker, is the projection that the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, made prior to the tax reductions, appropriate tax reductions. So we see a gradual, steady increase in the amount of money coming into the Federal Government based upon capital gains tax revenue. The same graph would hold for dividend taxation revenue.

And what we see actually happened when the tax reductions were instituted is the blue line, and it tracked a little bit above it for the first year. But what we always see, when you keep tax reductions in place, is more economic development, more job growth, more gross domestic product growth, more revitalization of the economy; and so what happens is that annual revenues coming into the Federal Government actually increase, and they increase by a huge amount. Increase by a huge amount.

The tax relief has resulted in significant economic growth that has resulted in significantly higher tax revenue. After the declines from 2000 to 2003, revenue surged in 2004, 2005, and 2006. In 2005 the revenues grew by 14.6 percent. In 2006 they were up by 11.8 percent.

This next statement, Mr. Speaker, is important because it speaks to the permanence and the penetration of the result of these tax reductions and how they affect the economy and how they affect our Nation. Those two revenue increases, 14.6 percent in 2005 and 11.8 percent in 2006, that was the first time since the mid-1980s, and you will recall that that was the last time we had significant tax reductions, the first time since the mid-1980s that our Nation has generated double-digit revenue growth in consecutive years. Remarkable, Mr. Speaker. It really is.

And I would think that any individual charged with representing this Nation and charged with having some input into how to keep this economy moving and how to generate more growth in this economy would want to know why, why did that happen? What happened in 2003 to turn that around?

And it is still continuing. Revenues continue to surge in fiscal year 2007. Through the first 4 months of the year, revenues are up by 9.8 percent, with 12.6 percent for individual receipts and 22.1 percent for corporate receipts.

Mr. Speaker, these are incredible numbers, truly incredible numbers. So one would think that Members of the House of Representatives, Members of the Senate, who are charged with formulating national policy that by any estimation anybody would look at these numbers and say, yes, that kind of looks pretty good, maybe we ought to continue that. And if you are charged with developing policy, Federal policy, national policy that results in these kinds of good numbers, you would think that they would want to know why, how did that happen.

How did that happen? Well, there are some other charts that I would like to share with you that will demonstrate how that happened and the effect of it.

I think it is always helpful, Mr. Speaker, to compare what happened before the tax reductions and what has happened since because unless you can point to a date on the calendar when something concrete changed and identify the occurrences in this Nation from an economic standpoint before that date and after that date, it becomes difficult to answer that question why, why did these seemingly good things happen?

So this poster here demonstrates business investment before and after the tax relief of 2003. And this is remarkably telling. As you see, the middle line here is the percent of business investment, either increased investment or decreased investment. And you could say, Mr. Speaker, that through 2001 and 2002 and the first quarter of 2003, virtually all of those quarters had decreased business growth or investment. In fact, the average was a decrease of 5.6 percent. And that is a decrease from year to year to year. So, in fact, the cumulative amount of decreased investment is huge.

And then something happened here. Mr. Speaker, on this vertical line, something happened. And it answers the question why, why did we see these remarkable improvements? And it was the appropriate tax reductions of 2003. And these are undeniable numbers. This is the business investment after the tax reductions of 2003, and they have averaged since that time 7.29 percent every quarter. So you see it over and over and over and over again. In fact, we have had 15 straight quarters of economic business investment increase. And that is not because the business of America says it is not a good idea to invest, it is not a good idea to grow. That is because they say it is a great idea. And the policies that have been put in place at the Federal Government level will result in their opportunity to succeed, their opportunity for their employees to succeed, the opportunity for employees to then take that success from the company and from the employee and go buy homes and go buy cars and go buy all sorts of items that are needed by each and every American. And what happens then is that it just becomes a wonderfully self-perpetuating cycle.

But, Mr. Speaker, the reason that it is important to look at this and the reason that I am talking about this tonight and that we on our side of the aisle are trying to bring truth and light to this issue is because there is a plan on the other side of the aisle to do away with the tax reductions that have resulted in all this wonderful, wonderful economic news. And that is just baffling to me when I think about again the challenge, the charge that each of us in this House has, which is to, I believe, develop policies that will work to the benefit of the vast majority and as many Americans as possible.

And these types of numbers here, these facts, Mr. Speaker, not opinions, but facts, demonstrate that that is exactly and precisely what the tax reductions have done from 2003. And they have done so by decreasing also the budget deficit. And, again, if the economy is booming to a greater degree, if it is more successful, more people working, more people investing, more people participating in the American Dream, that is a good thing. And what happens is that more revenue comes into the Federal Government, and what happens, Mr. Speaker, to the budget deficit? It decreases. It goes down. In fact, if we allow the tax reductions to remain in place, which is what we absolutely ought to do, and some of our friends on the other side of the aisle, some of our friends in the majority party have already said they don't believe any of those tax reductions ought to remain in place, that every American ought to have a tax increase, but if we allow them to stay in place, what this chart demonstrates, Mr. Speaker, is that the budget will balance of its own accord because of the policies already in place within a 4-year period of time. Within a 4- year period of time.

Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle, they will come up to the well of the House and they will say, sure we have got to balance the budget, but we have got to raise taxes to do it.

Mr. Speaker, it just isn't so. It just isn't so. So I would encourage all Members of the House to look at these numbers, to appreciate the trend that has occurred, the facts of the economic numbers that we have available to us in this Nation, and to appreciate that there is a reason, there is a reason that more people are working now. There is a reason that more people are owning their own home. There is a reason that more individuals are able to invest in this economy. There is a reason that there is more money coming into the Federal Government. And that reason is we are allowing more Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money.

Oftentimes I hear in committee meetings many Members of Congress who will talk about the government's money as if it is the government's, as if it is ours in Congress, that we have ownership of this money and that we ought to be able to just spend it as we please without absolute priorities.

We heard our good friends earlier this evening talk about PAYGO, pay- as-you-go, making certain that new programs that come before the Congress, that any costs for those new programs will be offset by decreasing the expenditures for another program. But what they don't tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that in that small print of the rules that they have passed, it doesn't apply to the vast majority of the budget. It doesn't apply. And, in fact, what the Rules Committee upstairs does over and over and over again is to say we are going to bring this bill to the floor and we are going to adopt this program and we will adopt it and not require it to comply with the PAYGO rules that this House has supposedly adopted.

That is what happened in the very first 100 hours, Mr. Speaker, the vaunted 100 hours, that period of time when the new majority was taking this Nation in what they called a ``new direction.'' Well, they were. And the direction they were taking them was into the red, further into the red, by spending more money without any offsets.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that is what the American people voted for in November of 2006. I just don't believe that. And when I go home, that is what people tell me at home. They don't believe that the Federal Government ought to be spending more money. They think that we ought to be decreasing the expenditures, not increasing them.

So the challenge from an economic standpoint is truly the size of the Federal budget and the lack of ability of this Congress, this new majority Congress, to prioritize where it wants to spend the hard- earned taxpayer money.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is not the government's money. It is not the government's money. It is the American people's money, and they work hard, hard, for that money, and we ought to be very diligent about how we address spending their hardearned money.

I believe that we ought to allow them to keep a whole lot more of their hardearned money. I believe, if you look objectively at the facts of our economy right now, we are moving along pretty well. But there is caution on the horizon.

We are moving down a highway, and we are ticking along pretty well, our speed is pretty much at the speed limit, but the signs are flashing. They

are flashing, and they are saying, caution ahead, caution ahead, because, in our Federal budget, there is automatic spending that is occurring, and it is occurring primarily in three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, three wonderfully successful programs providing great comfort and assurance to the individuals who receive the benefits from those programs.

Each of those programs have been promises made to the American people, and those programs ought to continue for the individuals who are eligible for those programs currently in the manner in which they were instituted. But if we continue them in that manner for every American who reaches that wonderful age of 62 or 65 and becomes eligible for them, then this is what happens, Mr. Speaker.

This chart demonstrates the entitlement programs, and I don't like that word ``entitlement,'' I like the word ``automatic,'' because it is automatic spending. It just keeps on going. These programs have a formula built into them that generates increased money going into those programs year after year after year because there are more individuals who become eligible for them, because of the demographics of our society. But we are an aging society. There are more individuals who are becoming eligible for these programs, and consequently, it takes more money.

This poster demonstrates the percentage of the Federal budget that is generated in tax revenue, and this line here is the revenue of the Federal budget. So we average somewhere a little below 20 percent of the gross domestic product coming in as tax revenue. If we continue that right along, that is, if we don't raise taxes on the American people, which is what we are committed to doing, that is, not raising taxes, this is about the level of revenue that we will have as a nation.

Down below are the fiscal years starting with 2007, this year, and moving forward all the way to 2050. People say well, that is a long way away, and they are absolutely right. But if no changes are made in these three programs, Medicare being the blue, Medicaid being the yellow and Social Security being the green, this chart demonstrates that those three programs, those three automatic spending programs, will consume the entire Federal budget, the entire Federal budget by the year 2045 or 2046.

That seems like a long way away, Mr. Speaker, but do you know what? That is under 40 years from now. Under 40 years ago was the late sixties, and I remember the late sixties very well. Many of us will remember when the United States landed on the moon. That is about 40 years ago, 38 years ago. Many individuals, most individuals who were alive at the time will certainly remember when President Kennedy was assassinated. On the one hand, it seems a long time ago. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like very long at all. It doesn't seem like very long at all. So this is not a long way away.

What this is screaming at us, what this is shouting at us, what this is saying to us as we travel down that road and those caution lights are flashing, is that we as a United States Congress, in order to be wise and prudent and spend taxpayer money appropriately, these programs need to be reformed. We need to keep the solemn promise that we have with the American people who are in these programs currently, and we need to make certain that we move forward aggressively and actively with programs that will make it so these are financially sound programs.

Now, there are a couple ways you can go. There are a couple directions you can head when you reform programs like this. The real question that becomes asked when you reform these kinds of programs is this question, Mr. Speaker. It is the question that is really being shouted right now in Washington. That is the question, who decides? Who decides?

We all come to Washington as Members of Congress with different experiences, as I mentioned. We come to Washington with different political stripes. We come to Washington with different political philosophies. We come to Washington with various degrees of understanding or appreciation for our Nation's history and how we became great.

Right now, we are at a crossroads, Mr. Speaker. We are at a crossroads for our financial programs. We are at a crossroads for so many of our social programs. We are at a crossroads for, I believe, our Nation when it relates to freedom and liberty. And the question being asked is, who decides?

Are we going to, with our tax policy, allow the Federal Government to make more and more decisions as it relates to how to spend the hard earned taxpayers' money? Are we going to allow the Federal Government to be the ones that prioritize how the American pocketbook ought to be spent? Are we going to allow the Federal Government to increase its involvement in American lives?

Our friends in the majority party talk about new direction. Mr. Speaker, that is the new direction that I see. When they talk about it, bill after bill and policy after policy, if you look at each and every one, whatever the policy is, the question that they are answering is, who decides?

Their answer to that question, more often than not, Mr. Speaker, is that the Federal Government ought to be deciding, not the States, not the local communities and not the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe firmly in the rectitude of decisions made by the American people. I believe strongly that decisions are best when left to the American people, about almost anything. I believe that the American people know best how to spend their hardearned money.

That is why I believe that it is incumbent upon all of us to ask those questions, why is the economy doing as well as it is right now, appreciating the truth in the facts that have been presented this evening that demonstrate that the reason that the economy is doing so well right now is because Americans have more of their hardearned money in their back pocket so that they can decide when they spend or they save or invest their money. What that results in is the ability and the opportunity for them to make those personal decisions; not the Federal Government.

So, Mr. Speaker, when you see people coming down to the floor of the House and they are asking questions about or asking their colleagues to support this program or that program or this policy or that policy, I would ask you to think about this question: Well, who is deciding? Who are they asking to make decisions in this bill? And more often than not, Mr. Speaker, I think you will appreciate that this new majority, the Democrat majority that is currently controlling this House of Representatives, is answering that question with the Federal Government. The Federal Government is deciding.

I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, that I am a physician. In my previous life, I was a doctor. I practiced medicine outside of Atlanta for nearly 25 years. I have great concerns about the direction of health care in our Nation.

We are at one of those crossroads, and this is the question that this Congress will have to answer as it relates to health care: Who decides? Who is going to be allowed to make personal health care decisions? Is it going to be patients and doctors, is it going to be families and their children, along with the guidance of a medical professional, or is it going to be the Federal Government? Is it going to be individuals in buildings around this Capitol and around this Nation who may or may not have any medical training or any medical experience at all that will be making decisions, personal health care decisions, for people?

I don't think that is the direction in which we ought to go, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think that is what the American people believe we ought to do as it relates to health care, and I certainly don't believe that that is the new direction that the American people thought they were going to get when they went to the polls last November.

You say, well, what kind of program could that be? Well, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of proposals that have been put forward by members of the majority party, and not just freshman members, not just members who don't have any input, real input, into the nuts and bolts of health care policy that is coming forward. In fact, what we have are the chairs of the committees of jurisdiction, the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee that has jurisdiction over health care

and the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee that has jurisdiction over health care in this Nation.

Those individuals, certainly the latter, has said that what he believes we ought to move toward in terms of health care in this Nation is what he describes as Medicare for all. Medicare for all.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to tell you that all patients have to do around this Nation, all citizens have to do around this Nation, is the next time they talk to their doctor, ask their doctor, do you believe that our health care system would be better if it were to look like Medicare? Do you believe that my personal insurance would be better if it were like Medicare? Do you believe that allowing the Federal Government to make health care decisions like they do in Medicare for our entire Nation is the right way to go?

I don't believe that is the case, Mr. Speaker. I don't believe that is what the American people want, and I know, I know that when patients ask their doctors around this Nation, that is not what they will want.

Why? Why wouldn't we want Medicare for all? Let me give you an example or two, Mr. Speaker.

We had a huge debate a couple of years ago in this Nation about whether or not Medicare ought to cover prescription medication for Medicare recipients. That debate went on for a few years. It was a proposal by this administration, passed by this Congress in 2003, and we have seen that program instituted over the past 14 months, 15 months, and it is a relatively successful program.

But I don't want to talk about the merits of the program, because that is a different debate. I want to talk, Mr. Speaker, about a program that takes 40 years to decide that it needs to cover prescription medication for seniors in this Nation. That is Medicare. It is a government program that cannot, it is impossible for it to be responsive to people. It is impossible for it to incorporate the kind of new inventions and wonderful treatment options that are available to the American people in a private system. It is impossible for them to be able to incorporate those treatment changes to benefit patients.

Why is it impossible? Because it is a massive government bureaucracy, and a massive government bureaucracy cannot be by its very definition nimble and flexible and responsive to the American people. And that is the answer to this question, who decides? Who decides?

This new majority thinks that the Federal Government ought to be deciding personal health care decisions for people. I, and most of my colleagues on our side of the aisle, simply believe that ought not be the case; that patients and doctors, that families and children in consultation with their doctor, that those people ought to be the ones that are making those personal health care decisions.

So I urge my colleagues to ask as we go through the next number of months, as we go through the kind of policy suggestions and bills that will come to the floor, to ask this question. I know what my answer is. Who ought to decide in terms of the policies that we brought forward? I know what my answer is. I believe that the American people ought to be the ones deciding.

I believe that the American people ought to be the ones that have an opportunity to say, I think that my hard-earned money ought to be spent in this way. I ought to be allowed to decide when to spend or save or invest my money, not the Federal Government, not the Federal Government. As well intentioned as they are, and individuals who work in the Federal Government by and large are extremely well intentioned, they are encumbered by the very apparatus that is in place because of the size and massive nature of our Federal Government. It is impossible for them to be responsive to the American people. It is impossible for them to be as nimble as they ought to be, to be as flexible as they ought to be.

Health care is one example where science is exploding, and all sorts of wonderful opportunities are available for the treatment of disease. But should we in this House of Representatives be the ones deciding what kind of health care treatment ought to be given in a very particular instance? I would say no. Those decisions ought to be the decisions of people, individuals with their doctor and their family.

So I urge my colleagues as we look at the issues that come before us over the next number of months to ask this question: Who decides? Who ought to decide? I think if they answer honestly, they will come down on the side that I have come down on, and that is on the side of the American people.

I would encourage my colleagues when they go home this weekend when they talk to their constituents to ask their constituents, who do you think ought to decide how to spend your money? Should you, should the American people decide that, or should the Federal Government? Should the American people be able to decide what kind of health care treatment they ought to receive, or should the Federal Government? Should the American people be able to decide what kind of education system they want for their children, where they want their child educated, what kind of curriculum they want for their children in their community, or should that decision be made by the Federal Government?

Huge questions, Mr. Speaker. We are at a crossroads. We are at a crossroads in this Nation on so many areas. Our time right now is to govern responsibly. It is our time to make certain that we listen to our constituents. It is our time to do our due diligence to make certain that we appreciate how we became this wonderful and glorious and grand and great Nation. It is our responsibility in the United States Congress to listen to the truth, to appreciate how we got to where we are right now and to incorporate the structure that allowed us to become this great and wonderful and glorious Nation, to be the Nation that truly is the beacon to all who love freedom and love liberty around this world. How did we become that Nation, and to incorporate the reasons, the rationale and the policies that brought us to that point into the policies that we promote to move our Nation forward.

I am confident that if we do that, we will answer the question of who decides, with the American people being first and foremost. I am confident if we do that as a Congress, we will make the right conclusions. I am confident if we do that as Congress, we will make the right diagnosis for this Nation, and we will develop the right treatment plan as we go forward.

I want to thank once again the leadership for allowing me the opportunity to come and speak to the House this evening and bring some truth and light to some issues that are oftentimes very complex, but oftentimes very simple because we ask simple questions. We ask simple questions: Who should decide? Should it be the American people or the Federal Government? Mr. Speaker, I vote for the American people.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill, add the following:

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill, add the following:

Madam Chairwoman, here we are back to Orwellian democracy. We are here considering the Employee Free Choice Act, which better is described as the ``Employee Intimidation Act,'' and we are here because it is the number one legislative priority of organized labor, and for Democrats it is the cost of doing business to gain the majority. Big Labor has given their marching orders and Democrats are executing them to a tee.

The ``Employee Intimidation Act'' is incompatible with the interests of workers, individual liberty, and the principles of sound democracy. If this legislation passes, then Congress will effectively be stripping away the protection of secret ballot elections.

Employers and union organizers alike shouldn't fear elections conducted by secret ballot. It is the only manner to protect an individual's choice without subtle or overt coercion. Secret ballots are the cornerstone of democracy.

This card check process is not only biased and inferior; it is also rife with coercion and abuse. In fact, card checks have been challenged on the basis of coercion, forgery, fraud, and peer pressure. Testimony before our committee only three weeks ago revealed the practices union organizers undertake to manipulate the card check system and get employees to sign at any cost, including home visits and workplace intimidation, and granted, yes, intimidation that can occur on both sides, from the employer or from the union.

The intent of this Employee Intimidation Act is to reverse the decline of union membership. Only 12 percent of workers belong to labor unions, down from 20 percent in 1983. But secret ballot elections remain the most effective way to determine the true wishes of the majority of employees at a work site. In fact, Federal courts have ruled that the secret ballot elections are the most foolproof method to determine support. Signing an authorization card in public before employers and the union and fellow employees is often done to avoid offending anyone or getting organizers off one's back. It is not a true gauge of union support, and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 800, the Employee Intimidation Act.

Madam Chairman, the previous speaker said this is only the beginning. That is our concern, and that is the concern of the American worker.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle have said that people can get fired when they show an interest in either signing up or supporting a union. Well, it is curious. In our committee we heard from Ernest Bennett, who is the director of organizing For UNITE, a union, who told a room full of organizers, while he was organizing this union, during a training meeting for the Cintas union, that if three workers weren't fired by the end of the first week of organizing, that UNITE wouldn't win the campaign. Madam Chairman, facts are tricky things.

So when did the rights of American workers become so dispensable? When did allowing Americans to decide in private how they would make decisions that affect their life become expendable? A party that claims to be a voice for American workers is going to silence them in one quick vote. It is shameful and it is saddening. And it is even more disturbing that some of our friends on the other side of the aisle feel that Mexican workers deserve more rights than workers here in America.

Madam Chairman, I support Charlie Norwood's bill. A secret ballot protects all and preserves democracy and defends the American worker.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue and in this House. Illegal immigration is as important an issue as any other major policy concern to my constituents, and I know to all Americans.

Across the country, there is overwhelming support for immigration reform, and this is due to the general sense that Federal policies have not succeeded and illegal immigration has become a crisis. With an estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens living here, Americans realize that the presence of so many is undermining the rule of law and undercutting the economic security of hardworking Americans.

No one wants to be denied economic opportunity for freedom, especially if it is being determined by those who are not lawfully in the United States. This motion to recommit is an opportunity to address the concerns of legal American workers which have not been raised from across the aisle.

This recommittal would simply require a union to demonstrate that any authorization card presented for recognition be signed by a United States citizen or a legal alien. Under current law, any worker, whether in the United States legally or not, can sign an authorization card. I repeat, under current law, whether in the United States legally or not, any worker can sign an authorization card and have it counted toward the threshold for union recognition.

So far, Republicans have proven that this Employee Intimidation Act is incompatible with the interests of workers, individual liberty, and the principles of democracy. Moreover, the card check process has proven not only to be biased and inferior, but also ripe for coercion and abuse.

Even more incompatible with democracy and ripe for abuse would be to allow illegal aliens the right to approve workplace representation for all legal workers at a site. I can't imagine that anyone truly believes that illegal aliens should be able to weigh in and determine union recognition, compensation, and benefits for legal American workers.

This Nation is at a point where illegal immigration has become such a crisis that it is threatening national security. To get this crisis under control and reaffirm our security, it is not too much to ask that all parties, employers, unions and employees, do their part. Employers are already on the front lines of deterring illegal immigration and verifying employee status.

Asking that authorization cards be determined as ``valid'' and accompanied by documentation is just another step to get the matter under control and ensure only legal workers are

deciding on union recognition and workplace rules.

It is such a small step. Unions can fulfill the requirements by following the same process that employers follow and use the same universe of documents that employers use, and to do this would not only guarantee that illegal aliens are not determining the rules for legal American workers, but it would add another check to strengthen national security.

I urge passage of this motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, lest the American people be deceived, the House is finished for today; 2:15 this afternoon, 4 hours and 15 minutes. Yesterday we were in session for less than an hour. Monday we weren't in session at all. This week, 5 hours and 15 minutes. That is less than 2 hours a day, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, Orwellian democracy is alive and well here in Washington, but just because the Democrats say that we are working 5 days a week doesn't make it so. This kind of disinformation does a disservice to our entire Nation.

Democrat broken promises are piling up, Madam Speaker, and the American people are paying attention.

Mr. Speaker, America, the State of Georgia and this House of Representatives have lost a great public servant, an uncommon leader, and a proud patriot.

I am profoundly saddened by the passing of Congressman Charlie Norwood, a gentleman who selflessly served the people of Georgia and this House for more than 12 years.

Charlie spent his entire life helping others as a soldier, as a dentist, as a legislator. He served valiantly in the defense of our Nation in the Medical Battalion of the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam. He returned home to serve his community in Augusta as a dentist. And for 12 years, he was a faithful servant to the people of Georgia in his district as a Member of Congress.

In Congress he was a passionate supporter of our military and of our veterans. He was a tireless advocate for patients and patient centered health reform. And he never forgot for whom he was to work in Washington, his constituents.

Congressman Norwood was a dear friend to me. His friendship and his perspective and his guidance in this House are things that I will always cherish. Anyone who knew Charlie knew that he was as tough as they come and he always stood up for what he believed in. Rarely, rarely in any walk of life are we privileged to come to know someone who stood for his principles as strongly as Charlie Norwood. His legacy in the House of Representatives will be one of integrity, one of vigor, and one of loyalty.

Congressman Norwood's devotion to this body and to our country will be sorely missed, but his legacy will never be forgotten. And I shall never forget that wry smile and that twinkle in his eye. What a hero.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing our deepest sympathies to Charlie's wife Gloria, his family and his friends.

And while we mourn the loss of this great patriot, we celebrate his lifetime

of noble and heroic service and we thank God for giving us the gift of the life of Charlie Norwood.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much for the time and for her charity and her leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening with a whirlwind of senses and emotions. I am disappointed. I am disappointed by the emptiness and the hypocrisy of this resolution.

Our men and women in the field, valiantly serving to protect our freedom, they deserve more than this. They deserve a real debate that honors the job that they are doing.

Instead, what we have this week is a resolution that is eight short lines, eight lines, that in their entirety stab at the motives and undermine the difficult work that our patriot military is doing. I am so disappointed in a majority party that has no more respect for our military than that.

This debate has been called historic, and historic it is. It is historic in its hypocrisy. If you truly believe that this is not winnable with what has been proposed, then it is incumbent upon you to do everything that you can do to stop it and stop it now. Doing anything less belies your duty and your responsibility.

This resolution says we support you but we are going to hang you out to dry, and this from the folks who say they want a new direction. What a disgrace to the integrity of this body. How disappointing.

I am saddened. I am saddened by the apparent fact that everything done by the majority is absolutely political, all form, no substance. Is there nothing above politics? Surely the defense of our Nation and the preservation of freedom should be above politics.

How did a once proud party, the party of FDR, who said, ``We have nothing to fear but fear itself,'' and the party of JFK, who said, ``Let every Nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty,'' how did a once proud party drop to such a depth? How very sad.

I am astounded by the seeming lack of desire to study and to call upon historical events for a basis upon which to develop policy. America is a great and a good Nation, and we are great and good because we have been blessed to have been led by men and women who until now did their level best to utilize all the information available.

I urge my colleagues to be true to the oath that we took just a few weeks ago. Don't you remember, we stood right here and said, ``I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic?'' All enemies, foreign and domestic.

What is a glimpse of the recent history of our current enemy? 1983, a truck bomb kills 241 Marines in their barracks in Beirut; 1993, six killed in the first World Trade Center bombing; 2000, al Qaeda's attack on the destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 American sailors; and then September 11, 2001, al Qaeda's hijackers fly planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, while passengers on a fourth plane bring it to a crash landing in Pennsylvania, total number killed, 2,973.

Since then, there have been attacks in England and Spain and elsewhere, and just last summer, Scotland Yard in Britain arrested a couple who planned to destroy 10 civilian planes over the Atlantic. They were going to use their 8-month-old baby to disguise the bomb material as baby food. We as a Nation are ill-prepared for the ferocity and the hatred of people who will kill their own baby in order to get a chance to kill us.

American public policy failed to grasp the scope of the threat posed by radical Islam until September 11, 2001. On September 11, we reaped the consequences of decades of inaction against the very real threat posed by militant Islam.

These are extremely challenging times. Some would credibly suggest that these are more difficult times than we have faced since World War II, with the demographics of our society, the changing nature of the world and globalization and the nature of our competitors, all overshadowed by the nature of our avowed enemy, those who have publicly stated their goal to see the end of the Western world and America and who are working to secure the means to accomplish that goal.

I am perplexed. I am perplexed by the apparent inability of many in Congress to grasp this fundamental fact. We are currently facing an enemy who is calculating, patient, indiscriminate and murderous, an enemy actively waging war against us.

That is not just an opinion. That is not just my opinion. That is their stated purpose and fact.

In their own words, Osama bin Laden said, ``Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so- called superpower that is America.''

Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman said, ``Oh, you Muslims everywhere, sever the ties of their Nation, tear them apart, ruin their economy, instigate against their corporations, destroy their embassies, attack their interests, sink their ships, and shoot down their airplanes. Kill them in land, at sea, and in the air, kill them wherever you find them.''

So the impact of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, is to give aid and comfort to the enemy and to dishearten our own military.

In a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on January 23, General David Petraeus, now commanding officer in Iraq, agreed that a resolution of disapproval for this new strategy would ``give the enemy encouragement.''

What are the consequences of failure? The consequences of failure would be catastrophic to the region, to the United States, and yes, to the world. The consequence of the next step of this majority party plan is defeat. They may say it is inevitable or unavoidable, but it is, nonetheless, a strategy for defeat.

What message does that send to our allies around the world? What will the Chinese think of our commitment to Taiwan? Will the North Korean, the Iranians, the Syrians, the Venezuelans, will they be more cautious or will they be bolder after an American defeat?

It is inconceivable to me how a remarkably weakened United States in the eyes of the world is a good thing for us or will result in a less emboldened Iran or North Korea or al Qaeda. The consequences of failure are clearly unacceptable.

So I am disappointed, I am saddened, I am astounded and I am perplexed, but I am also enthusiastic and I am optimistic, Mr. Speaker. I am enthusiastic in my support of our valiant men and women who defend our freedom day in and day out, and I am optimistic because I believe so strongly in the United States and in her people, and I am optimistic because I am certain that they will appreciate and recognize the consequences of this debate and the remarkable differences in our approach and our desire to defend America.

Thomas Paine said, ``He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.''

So, Mr. Speaker, let us honor our troops. Let us honor all who work for freedom on our behalf. Let us work together for liberty. Let us recall and recommit ourselves to our oath and our duty to defend our blessed Nation. It is that action, and that action alone, with the grace of God, that will ensure the wonder and the survival of our great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, taxpayer funded luxury travel is not accorded to our brave men and women serving the cause of liberty. However, the new Democrat leadership believes they deserve just that.

While the previous Speaker of the House was afforded the use of a military aircraft as a security precaution following 9/11, it didn't include the amenities being sought by the current Democrat Speaker, room for 42 passengers, a crew of 16, state-of-the-art entertainment and communications and a private bedroom. Nonetheless, that which was good enough for prior leadership is apparently just not good enough for the new leadership.

Just a few months ago, Speaker Pelosi told the American people that Democrats were committed to a new direction in the way our government does business. At a cost of $15,000 an hour it should go without saying that this is certainly a new direction, one which frankly disgusts all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, spending watchdogs should be part of the new Democrat majority's budget, and they should be watching themselves. This has been a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time we are adopting a rule that will allow Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to vote in the Committee of the Whole, does the rule allow for a separate vote on any question once the Committee rises?

As a point of clarification on the inquiry, so any question may be put to a separate vote once the Committee rises?

Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Under what circumstances will a separate vote not be allowed?

Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

When a vote is not decisive, but a question put loses, is there any opportunity for any Member, certified Member of the House, to ask for a separate vote?

On any question put?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, since the House is sitting as the Committee of the Whole, are the Delegates and Resident Commissioner permitted to vote on all matters in the Committee of the Whole House?

Further inquiry.

So I am correct in understanding that there are only some instances, namely the case

of an adoption of an amendment, where a Member may request a revote in the full House. Is that correct?

Further inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the Chair's indulgence, because this is the first time for a number of questions, and I appreciate the opportunity. If there is any question or if the amendment is defeated, is there any opportunity for a duly elected Member to request a revote in the full House?

Further inquiry.

It is my understanding that under the rules the House has adopted, that on any matter in which the votes of the Delegates are decisive in the vote taken in the Committee of the Whole, that those votes shall be retaken in the full House and that the Delegates and Resident Commissioner shall not be permitted to vote in the full House. Is that correct?

Further inquiry.

How is the Chair going to determine if the votes of the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are decisive?

Further inquiry.

I thank the Chair. If the Chair determines that the votes of the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are not decisive, but a Member believes that in fact they are, is it appropriate for a Member to lodge a point of order against the Chair's determination?

Further inquiry.

If the Chair determines that in fact the votes of the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are not decisive, will the Chair include those numbers when reporting the tally of the vote?

Further inquiry.

Given that, then it is my understanding, is it correct that the number of individuals allowed to vote in the Committee of the Whole shall be 440, and the number in the full House shall be 435?

Further inquiry.

So the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner may not vote in the full House; is that correct?

Further inquiry.

Do the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner count for the purposes of establishing and maintaining a quorum of the Committee of the Whole House?

Further inquiry.

If the Delegates and Resident Commissioner are allowed to vote on everything in the Committee of the Whole and they vote on procedural issues that may in fact affect the substantive nature of a bill, and if a procedural vote is lost within a decisive margin, is there a mechanism to have a separate vote in the full House on that procedural vote?

On that procedural vote?

I thank the Chair. Are the Delegates and Resident Commissioner permitted to vote on the question of the Committee rising?

I thank the Chair for his indulgence.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have just received a copy of this amendment, but I am somewhat bemused by the amendment. I guess that what the author means is that he is saying that he doesn't believe that the assistant administrator of the Office of Research and Development of the EPA would even consider these institutions.

It would be my belief and understanding that this individual would consider all institutions where there is appropriate research being done that could be helpful. I am somewhat bemused by it. I am tempted to offer an amendment that would have the individual look at institutions in my fair State that are doing wonderful work. In fact, each one of us could offer amendments that would identify particular institutions in our jurisdiction.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's comment. I assume that the gentleman would then believe that all 435 and now 440 of us ought to offer amendments to have the individual at EPA look specifically at the institutions in our jurisdiction. And doesn't that really do a disservice to the process that we are in in having the EPA look at the appropriate institutions that may have the greatest amount of knowledge?

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that.

Mr. Chairman, I remain amused and bemused. We all acknowledge the contributions of land grant institutions and historically black colleges and universities. We have those in our good State of Georgia. They make wonderful contributions, absolutely wonderful contributions. I think this amendment, however, points out kind of the folly of what is going on here with this bill.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, this legislation came through last year under suspension, passed by, as I understand it, unanimous vote. I think that we will all support this because it is motherhood and apple pie. But it doesn't add to the appropriate discussion of the real issue here, which is trying to make certain that we have an energy- independent policy for our Nation.

I think that we are just kind of playing on the margins, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, we have dealt with on the floor this morning now a second-order amendment. If, when we get to the point of voting, the recorded vote on the second-order amendment, if that vote passes, but it is not decisive, meaning that the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner don't make the difference, is there any way for a Member to get a revote on that second-order amendment once we go into the full House?

Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

That includes the specific second-order amendment that would have been offered; is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Texas. And I guess one of his comments that this bill would save $30 billion on a $10 million investment means that he would support dynamic scoring through CBO, which is something that we have been begging for for a long time.

So I know that you will endeavor to work with us as we move toward dynamic scoring for CBO.

But I find it amusing, distressing actually, that the other side continues to break promise after promise. I read now from ``A New Direction for America,'' which is what the majority party put out prior to the last election, and they said: ``Our new direction is committed to pay-as-you-go budgeting, no more deficit spending. We are committed to auditing the books and subjecting every facet of Federal spending to tough budget discipline and accountability, forcing the Congress to choose a new direction and the right priorities for all Americans.''

Well, fiscal discipline clearly is not the order of the day today nor is pay-as-you-go. The other side will tell you they have pay-as-you-go; but, in fact, it does not apply to this sort of bill. So it doesn't apply to authorization. So when rules are rules only when you want them to be rules, then they really aren't rules at all. So it really is not pay-as-you-go. It is go and spend, which is the program that the majority party has in place.

This is a great bill. This is a great bill. And I think probably $10 million is an appropriate amount of resources of the American people's hard-earned taxpayer money to spend on this kind of endeavor. However, we are charged with developing the priorities of the Federal Government, and, in fact, I believe this to be a priority. But the majority party is charged, when they bring a bill like this to the floor, to say, well, this is indeed a priority but something else has to go to the bottom of the list, in fact, fall off the list to the tune of $10 million. That is what PAYGO is. You say we are going to spend $10 million on this, but we are not going to spend it on this. Well, in fact, the majority party hasn't done that. What they have said is that we are just going to continue to spend and spend and spend and spend.

Mr. Chairman, that is not responsible. That is not responsible spending. That is not responsible use of the hard-earned taxpayer money. So I would hope that the new majority would, in fact, embrace the policy that they talk about, which is making certain that PAYGO rules are in effect. In fact, the promise was to have PAYGO rules be in effect for everything, for everything that came to the floor. Well, we haven't seen that, and I look forward to that because I think it is the appropriate way for us to budget and for us to spend.

I would be happy to yield to my good friend from Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for those comments.

And I too want to commend the gentleman from Illinois for bringing this issue forward. All of us, when we were out talking to our constituents running up to the last election, all of us heard that we needed to be responsible with the taxpayers' money. So I applaud him for bringing this bill forward so that we make certain, we make certain, that we prioritize in an appropriate way on something that is as important as this piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, during the Committee of the Whole, I had a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair about a second-degree amendment, and the response from the Chair may not have been accurate.

So in an effort to clarify for the House, in the Committee of the Whole, if a second-order amendment passes but it is not a decisive vote, meaning that the Delegates and the Resident Commissioners weren't decisive in that passing, can any Member call for a re-vote of a second-degree amendment in the full House?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

So as I understand your answer, Madam Speaker, there is no opportunity for a Member of the House of Representatives to receive a vote in the full House on a second-order amendment from the Committee of the Whole that passed by a nondecisive margin; is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from California for yielding and for organizing this and his leadership on this issue. I appreciate your perspective and your expertise as a CPA practicing before you came to Congress. I know that you have the knowledge that all of us should utilize as we talk about budget and the economy.

You know, I was sitting over in my office and listening to our good friends on the other side of the aisle as they were discussing their issues before. I could not help but being amused by their comments. And you sense that they are trying to lay the groundwork now for a budget that they are going to propose, and they are going to propose it obviously with more spending, because that is what our friends on the other side of the aisle do.

But I could not help but just be reminded of the Orwellian sense of how the folks on the other side of the aisle seem to govern. You know, they just seem to think that if they just say it, that it is so. All you have got to do is say it, then it is so. They passed a bill last week that they said did not have any earmarks or any special projects. In fact, it had hundred of millions of dollars of earmarks that they could have taken out; in fact, voted against taking them out.

But I did want to review very briefly, before I mentioned a word or two about the budget and the economy, these wonderful Six for '06 programs that they passed. And of course they are celebrating them as if they were law. However, the Senate has not acted on any of these, so, in fact, they have not become law. And thank goodness they have not become law, because what this highlights is the hypocrisy of our good friends on the other side of the aisle.

They talk about passing all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. In fact, that is not what they did. That is not what the bill did that they brought to the floor. In fact, they did not pass some of the most important recommendations that allow for communication between committees here that make it so all America would be safer.

They talk about the minimum wage increase. In fact, what they would do if they increased it in the way that they wanted to is to decrease the number of jobs on America and propose this unfunded mandate on American small businesses, which actually cuts the level of employment in our Nation. The Senate has recognized that, and they are working to try to correct the damage that the Democratic House has done.

They denied completely the proven results. I am a physician, practiced medicine for over 20 years before coming to Congress. And the Democratic majority here denied the proven results of adult and cord stem cell research on a bill that they passed here earlier. I suspect the Senate will have to correct the damage that they have done there as well.

As a physician I recognize the importance of doctors and patients making health care decisions by themselves without governmental intervention. And what our good friends on the other side of the aisle did was, in fact, work to fix prices in the area of Medicare prescription drugs, which would decrease the number of drugs available for seniors and, in fact, harm seniors, I believe, in the health care that they receive. And consequently I think the Senate is going to have to work on fixing that.

One of the remarkable hypocritical things that they did in their discussion points about decreasing student loans, in fact that is not what they did at all. What they did was pass a bill that kind of tracks down, decreases the interest on student loans, and then for 6 months

cuts the interest on student loans in half, not for students, though, for graduates; cuts it for 6 months, and then, bam, at the end of that 6 months, the interest rates pop right back up.

Then the most amazing thing that they have done is to tax domestic oil companies, not foreign oil companies, Mr. Speaker, not foreign oil companies. They tax domestic oil companies so that domestic oil costs more, foreign oil costs less. So what will happen is that Americans will be more reliant on foreign oil.

So it is a remarkable, remarkable culture of hypocrisy and misinformation, disinformation, I call it Orwellian government, that our good friends on the other side of the aisle have promoted.

I do want to mention some of economic issues that you had talked about before, the good news, remarkable news in the economy: economic growth, 3.4 percent growth in GDP over the last year; business investment up for 14 straight quarters; job growth of 7.2 million new jobs since the summer of 2003; low unemployment rate, 4.5, 4.6 percent unemployment rate. That is a rate lower than the average of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s combined.

Tax revenues, tax receipts are up. Deficit reduction you mentioned, Mr. Campbell, the latest numbers that are out on the 12-month rolling deficit, the budget deficit, down to $188 billion. That is the lowest that it has been since 2002. And a steady increase in labor productivity.

So one would think that if our friends on the other side of the aisle were interested in a good economy, they would look at this economy and they would say, well, how did that happen? What made that happen? Were there actions that were taken by the Federal Government and Congress that resulted in those good numbers?

Well, in fact, there were. And they happened in 2001 and 2003, as my friends know, and those were the tax reductions, the appropriate tax reductions on the American people, capital gains, dividends, tax reductions, and a decrease in income tax for the vast majority of Americans. What that did, as it did under President Reagan and as it did under President Kennedy, what that did was to stimulate the economy in a way that resulted in the numbers that we have seen.

And so our good friends on the other side of the aisle would do well to study history. They would do well to study history. They would do well to learn from history as they try to formulate their budget and make certain that they appreciate, as we do on this side of the aisle, that Washington does not have a revenue problem, it has got a spending problem.

We look forward to working with our good friends on the other side of the aisle in decreasing Washington's spending, solving those difficult challenges that we have, as my good friend from Iowa mentioned just a little bit ago, in the area of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all of those automatic spenders that are comprising more and more of the budget.

I look forward to working with him, I know that my friend from California does, and again I appreciate his leadership and the information that he has been bringing to the floor of the House today and to the American people. Because we are challenged with solving these problems and difficulties that we have as a Nation, we ought to do it together. We are proposing the kind of positive and uplifting messages that I think all America can embrace. I appreciate the time.

Exactly. I appreciate the gentleman's comments because they are absolutely true. That is why I call it Orwellian politics, bumper sticker politics, because just because they say it is so does not make it so. I appreciate your comments. I know we have got some other colleagues who are interested in shedding light and bringing truth and facts to the issues regarding the budget and the economy.

Mr. Speaker, in his novel, 1984, George Orwell presents this concept of doublethink, which is defined as, ``The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously and accepting both of them.''

I come to the floor today, Mr. Speaker, to review the repetitive lack of openness and accountability that we have seen on this House floor over the last month. Time and again, this new majority has governed on the premise that if you simply just say it, it will become true. It is Orwellian doublethink, an amazing concept.

They believe that if you simply just say you are lowering drug prices, poof, it's done, ignoring the reality that prices really won't be lowered and fewer drugs will be made available to our seniors.

They believe that if you just say you are implementing all of the 9/ 11 Commission's recommendations, it changes the fact that the bill that was passed here on the floor doesn't reflect the totality of those recommendations.

They believe that if you just say you are cutting interest rates in half for college students, it doesn't matter that in reality you've pulled a bait-and-switch, with the rate cut lasting just 6 months.

Mr. Speaker, saying it doesn't make it so. And Democratic doublethink does a disservice to this Nation.

Now this makes for great talking points and great press releases, but yields very little for the people back home. Rather than bold policy initiatives, people are starting to realize that the Democratic agenda has been more pop than fizz. And now, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are using this Orwellian newspeak, doublethink, in regard to spending Americans' hard-earned tax dollars.

On December 11 of last year, 2006, the two chairmen of the Appropriations Committee in the House and Senate, Obey and Byrd, said, and I quote, ``There will be no congressional earmarks in the joint funding resolution that we will pass.'' No earmarks. But sadly, once again, the facts just don't match the promises. Democratic doublethink is alive and well.

The majority used a loophole in the House rules to include millions of dollars of earmarks by simply saying that there were none. Clause 9 of rule XXI of the House rules says that it shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution unless the chairman of each committee of initial referral has a statement that the proposition contains no congressional earmarks. So the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, conveniently submitted to the record on January 29 that prior to the omnibus bill being considered, quote, ``does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.'' But, in fact, Mr. Speaker, this omnibus spending bill that the Democrats passed last week contained hundreds of millions of dollars of earmarks. Democrat doublethink.

If we follow this Democrat policy as long as you submit to the record that there are no earmarks, you can feel free to just load up any appropriations bill with as many earmarks as you like with absolutely no accountability.

Their actions completely violate the spirit of our earmarking rule, designed to bring greater transparency to our spending process. Rather than take the new rule seriously, the Democrat majority has used this sly interpretation that essentially allows for unlimited earmarks. In this new Democrat majority, if you just close your eyes and say there are no earmarks, miraculously millions of dollars of earmarks are wasted on things like rain forests in Iowa.

This isn't the type of open and honest government that our constituents expected in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, this doublethink is unacceptable to the American people, who work hard every day to provide for their families only to have Washington throw away their money, unsupervised, on pork projects.

There was a positive and honest and principled alternative to this spending injustice. Republicans offered an alternative eliminating these earmarks and targeting funds for military housing and drug enforcement. Our friends on the other side of the aisle chose to ignore it and throw money at their pet earmark projects.

For 12 years our colleagues on the other side blamed Republicans for every ill under the sun, and now that it is their time to govern, they hide behind bumper sticker and press release politics. Never before has such an enormous amount of taxpayer money been spent so quickly, over $400 billion in one hour.

If our friends on the other side of the aisle truly desired to clean up earmarks and bring greater transparency to our spending, why would they then make this their first act? Their actions simply don't match their rhetoric. The American people expect more than a wink and a nod that they have gotten so far from this Democrat majority. Democrat doublethink does a disservice to our Nation.

In George Orwell's 1984 Doublethink Newspeak, he said that the lie always was one step ahead of the truth; but the American people are catching up, Mr. Speaker. Just saying something doesn't make it so.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor again today and appreciate the confidence of my leadership in allowing me to organize this hour and come chat a little bit with our Members here and to point out some interesting information in another edition of the Official Truth Squad.

The Official Truth Squad is a group of individuals who try to come to the floor on this side of the aisle at least once a week in an effort to bring some truths and some facts to the items that we talk about on this floor. I know it won't surprise you, Mr. Speaker, but oftentimes some of the things we hear on this floor aren't necessarily the truth. So what we try to do is to point out items that are of importance in terms of information to the American people and how we on this floor ought to be making decisions on their behalf.

And in so doing, we have a number of individuals we like to point to as kind of leaders in the public arena, both present and past, who have had as one of their hallmarks making certain that they discussed truth and made certain that they used facts in developing their positions.

One of my favorite quotes comes from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former United States Senator from New York, and he had a quote that said: ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.'' I think that is incredibly important as we talk about this issue that we are discussing today, the economy and the budget and issues that relate to how Washington spends hard-earned taxpayer money.

One of the most important facts is it is the taxpayers' money, it is not the

government's. And there are many people who are here in Washington who believe that somehow, just by some miraculous nature, when the money is sent to Washington that somehow it becomes the government's money. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would hope you would agree with me that in fact it is the taxpayers' money and we need to spend it very, very wisely.

One of the other relative issues that I think has seen a lot of naysayers and a lot of misinformation is the state of our economy right now. If you ask folks, most people across this Nation will say that their own economic situation is pretty good and they feel pretty good about the future. If you ask them how the economy in the Nation is going, the majority of them say that it is not going well at all. And that, I believe, to be in large part due to much of the messaging that comes out of Washington. Our good friends on the other side of the aisle have been down-talking this economy for years, literally years.

So I was curious that over the weekend the Wall Street Journal had an editorial that they entitled: ``The Current `Depression,' '' and they used ``depression'' in quotes, because if you really look at the numbers, if you look at the facts, Mr. Speaker, they kind of belie the naysayers in what they have been saying: 110,000 new jobs in January, 41 straight months of job growth in this Nation. The average job growth in 2006 was 187,000 jobs; 2.2 million new jobs in 2006, and 7.4 million new jobs since 2003; 7.4 million new jobs since 2003.

When you compare this expansion to the expansion that all sorts of folks talk about as being the be-all and the end-all, and that is with the expansion of the 1990s, when you compare this expansion, the expansion that we are currently in, the economic success that we are currently in is better when you look at many, many parameters.

Unemployment, for example. The first six years of the 1990s, 1991 through 1996, had an average unemployment rate of 6.4 percent. The average unemployment rate for the first 6 years of this decade: 5.4 percent. And as you know, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment rate is at 4.6 percent. And the last time I looked, if the average unemployment rate is 4.6 percent, it means that 95.4 percent of folks are working.

Real wage growth. Our friends on the other side of the aisle often talk about, well, this is a recovery, an economy that isn't resulting in real jobs; the wage growth isn't occurring, people's wages aren't increasing. Well, if you compare it to the vaunted years of the early 1990s, real wage growth for those first 6 years averaged 0.6 percent per year increase. 2001 through 2006, real wage growth in this Nation up 1.5 percent, and last year it was 1.7 percent increase. And that is accounting for inflation. It is accounting for inflation, Mr. Speaker.

Now, one might want to ask, given the success of the current economy, how did that happen? What happened? How did that occur? How are we seeing the kind of results in the economy, the good news that we are currently seeing?

And I am fond of using charts because I think that they paint a picture that is oftentimes, at least for me, easier to comprehend and easier to get my arms around. This is a chart that runs from 2000 through 2006, and we are going to update the numbers for this most recent quarter. But what it shows here on this vertical line, this dotted green vertical line is when we began this remarkable expansion. And what occurred on that at that point was, you guessed it, Mr. Speaker, appropriate tax reductions for the American people. So when you decrease taxes, what happens is that the blue line, you get more jobs; the red line, you get increasing business investment; and, lo and behold, something that President Kennedy knew and President Reagan knew, when you decrease taxes, which occurred at the nadir of this graph here, what happens is that you increase government revenue.

It sounds counterintuitive, but in fact it isn't. If you decrease taxes, if you allow individuals to have more of their hard-earned money, what happens is that the economy grows and, because of that, tax revenue flows to the Federal Government.

Now, an individual who is joining us today for this edition of the Official Truth Squad, an individual who is a new member of our conference from California who knows a lot about taxes and a lot about the issue of taxes and how they affect us on a daily basis, I am pleased to ask my friend Kevin McCarthy from California to join us and give us some insight into exactly where those taxes come from and how often we are taxed. I think that is the kind of truth and facts you would like to bring to us today.

I thank the gentleman for coming and joining us today and helping out and bringing truth and facts to the issue of the economy and especially taxation, because oftentimes people don't think about the times that they do indeed pay tax.

I try to visit as many schools as I can in my district back in Georgia, and when I am in front of student groups, I oftentimes ask them, Do you pay any tax? And of course most often they say, Oh, no. We don't pay any tax. Our parents pay some tax, but we don't pay any tax. Then you ask them, Did you buy a pack of gum? Paid for any of your shoes lately? Have you bought any food? Anything that you buy, anything that you buy has taxes on it. So any consumable product whatsoever has taxes on it. So everybody contributes into it. And when individuals are able to keep more of their own money, what happens is that the economy is able to flourish to a much greater degree. So I appreciate the information that you brought about taxes.

I also want to point out that you mentioned that our good friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be moving in the direction of allowing the appropriate tax reductions that resulted in this success, to allow those tax reductions to go away, which means a tax increase for the vast majority of Americans all across this Nation. And if they do what they have basically said they are planning on doing, and that is allow those tax reductions to expire, allow taxes to go up, the marginal tax rate, that is the rate, the percentage of income that each and every American pays to government to run the services, will be over 50 percent for the first time since the late 1970s. And, Mr. Speaker, some of our Members may not remember the late 1970s, but I remember it and I know that my good friends here remember it, and that is that we had something called the misery index.

It was the last time that inflation and unemployment were just skyrocketing, both of them because of poor programs of the Federal Government.

So I fear that what will happen if our good friends on the other side of the aisle get their way is that we will revisit the misery index. So we are here to try to bring truth and fact and light to the issue of the economy and taxation and the budget.

I am so pleased to be joined by my good friend from Tennessee, the congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, who understands business, understands the economy and budgetary issues as well or better than the vast majority of folks in this Chamber. I look forward to your comments today as we talk about budget, economy and taxes.

I thank you so much for joining us again today and bringing light and truth to an issue that is so remarkably important because it gets to the bottom line for each and every American and each and every American family.

What we do at home, when we have discussions about our family budget, is that we determine how much money we have to spend and then we determine what our priorities are. Depending on what those priorities are, that is how we allocate money, and we try to make certain that we set aside some savings as well for a rainy day, for a difficult time. That ought to be what the Federal Government does, as you well know, but, sadly, that appears to be not the plan of the new majority here.

So it is important that we talk about family budgets, about how family budgets ought to parallel Federal budgets, government budgets.

I would be pleased to yield if you have a comment.

I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and for again pointing out how important it is to have our budget here at the Federal level compare or track what we do at home.

In fact, what we do at the State level, virtually every single State has a balanced budget because they cannot do what Washington does, and that is print money. Having served in the State legislature, we would spend days and weeks and months sometimes dealing with the hard-earned taxpayer money, again not government money, but hard-earned taxpayer money and make certain that our budget was balanced at the State level.

In fact, in Washington I am distressed that is not exactly what occurs. I am a strong supporter of a balanced budget, and what you will see on some of the charts and information that we currently have is that the tax policies that have been put in place and the program changes that have been put in place, something that is not well-known, is that the nondefense discretionary money, which is about 16 to 17 percent of our overall budget right now, has been actually decreasing as it relates to inflation. So Congress has been trying diligently to try to make certain that it reins in costs and spending. Because, Lord knows, we have not got a revenue problem; we have got a spending problem.

If you track out the budget itself, and this is with Congressional Budget Office numbers, they are not the kind of numbers that I think demonstrate the upside that we receive from tax reductions, but, in any event, what they do show is that at about 2011 the budget is balanced. The budget is balanced, and that is if we keep our current programs in place. Now, we can get to that point a lot sooner if we get more responsible on the spending side.

Now, my good friends on the other side of the aisle will tell you, well, we are going to balance the budget, too, and they can do that if they just left things alone. We would get to a balanced budget. But what they will tell you is we need to spend more in other areas, and so we need to tax Americans more. We are going to balance the budget, yes, but we are going to do it by taxing the American people more, and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the way in which we need to move forward.

We will talk about some other revenue items and some other aspects of a balanced budget, but I want to address what has been termed by many myths, 10, 12 number of myths about President Bush's tax reductions. These are the tax reductions, appropriate tax reductions, that our friends on the other side of the aisle say they have to end. They have to increase taxes on the American people.

The Democrat majority has to write a budget. They have to write a budget. Each year, the majority party has to write a budget, and the House has to pass a budget.

The new majority, the Democrat majority, has three options in that budget as to how they are going to deal with these appropriate tax reductions that were put in place earlier in this decade. They can extend them. They can continue the appropriate tax reductions, something that I and the vast majority of folks on our side of the aisle believe ought to occur. They could allow them to expire. Virtually all of them are slated to expire in 2011.

So, if no action is taken, then the other side will, in fact, increase taxes, or they can repeal them. They could increase taxes right way. So they have the responsibility of determining exactly what they are going to do with those appropriate tax reductions.

There are a number of myths that have grown up around these tax reductions that I would like to highlight. One is that the tax reductions themselves or the tax revenues themselves remain low. In fact, Mr. Speaker, as I have on a previous chart shown, the tax revenues are above the historical average, even after these appropriate tax reductions.

Tax reductions in 2006 were about 18.4 percent of the gross domestic product, which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year and 60-year historical averages. Now the inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest 2-year surge in tax revenue since 1965 and 1967. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The revenue to the Federal Government increased 20 percent over a 2-year period between 2004 and 2006, which is the largest increase in revenue to the Federal Government since 1965 and 1967. So claims that Americans and the American people are undertaxed according to history are simply patently false, absolutely untrue, and so it is important to remember that tax revenues are up because of a decrease in taxes, decrease in liability to the American people.

When you compare the tax revenues in the fourth fiscal year after each of the past recessions, it shows that the tax revenues were basically the same. So, in 1987, tax revenues were about 1.4 percent of gross domestic product; 1995, 18.5 percent; and 2006, 18.4 percent.

All of that is to say, Mr. Speaker, that when you decrease taxes, the revenue that comes into the Federal Government stays about the same as a percentage of the overall economy, but you decrease the number for each and every American because the economy is increasing and the revenue increases to the Federal Government. So tax reductions are good for the government. Tax reductions are good for the American people.

The second myth that I want to talk about and discuss as it relates to the appropriate tax reductions that were adopted by this Congress back in 2001 and in 2003, the myth that is out there is that these tax reductions substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit. Well, the fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

I am the first to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Federal Government, Washington, has been spending too much money, too much of hard-earned taxpayer money. That being said, I think it is important that our friends on the other side of the aisle, who say that they want to balance the budget, do so by doing the responsible thing and that is decreasing spending and not increasing taxes.

In the first place, if you increase taxes, what you do is, over the long term, you get less revenue to the Federal Government, but in terms of budget deficit, what you see is that you will decrease the deficit more rapidly by decreasing taxes and by decreasing spending.

Now critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998 through 2001 to a $247 billion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from what they call ``irresponsible'' tax reductions. This argument, however, ignores the historic spending increases that pushed Federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent of spending in 2006.

Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected. We have talked about that before. They were above the levels that were projected before the 2003 tax cuts.

Now, immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the 2006 budget deficit would be $57 billion. Yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. Now, the $190 billion deficit increase resulted from Federal spending, resulted from Federal spending that was $237 billion more than projected. So revenues were actually $47 billion above projections even after the $75 billion in tax cuts that the other side says hurt, hurt the bottom line and hurt the deficits.

So these myths, I think, are important to correct to point out the factual nature of what is going on as opposed to just flying by the seat of your pants, which is not the way folks do their family budget and certainly ought not to be the way that we do our Federal budget.

The next myth I want to talk about is the capital gains taxes; tax cuts do not pay for themselves. There is kind of this sense that folks say, well, if you keep capital gains low, those are the taxes that people pay on the profits that they made on investments.

I am in favor of doing away with them all together. But if you keep

them low, what happens is you don't get the same amount of revenue into the Federal Government. Well, the fact of the matter is that capital gains tax revenues doubled, doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Did you hear that? Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Now, whether a tax cut pays for itself depends on how much people alter their behavior in response to that policy. Investors have shown to be the most sensitive to tax policy because capital gains tax cuts encourage new investment to more than offset the lower tax rate.

This chart here is a demonstration of exactly that. What we see here is a chart that shows capital gains tax revenues that doubled following the 2003 tax cut. The yellow line here projected from 2003 through 2006, the yellow line demonstrates what the Congressional Budget Office said would be the taxes gained from capital gains tax revenue. The blue line which you see is significantly higher than that are the actual revenues that came into the Federal Government following the 2003 capital gains tax reduction.

So in 2003 capitalize gains tax rates were reduced from 20 percent to 10 percent, depending on income, to 15 percent and 5 percent. Now, rather than expand by 36 percent from the current $50 billion level to $68 billion in 2006, as the CBO projected, capitalize gains revenue more than doubled $103 billion, $103 billion, more than twice what was projected. Past capital gains cuts have shown similar results as well.

The fact of the matter is, remember, you can have your own opinions as you walk through this discussion of the economy and of tax policy and of budget policy, but it is important that we look at facts so that we are making appropriate decisions here on behalf of the American people.

The fact of the matter is that when you decrease capital gains taxes you increase investment in America and you increase the revenue to the Federal Government, which is demonstrated clearly by this chart that we see right here.

Another myth that I want to talk about is the myth that says that the tax deductions are to blame for the long-term budget deficits. In fact, that isn't true at all. Projections show that entitlement or automatic spending, automatic costs, will dwarf the projected large revenue increases of the current tax reductions. As you remember, the graph that I had up here had revenue to the Federal Government increasing because of the appropriate reductions in taxes to the American people.

However, those increases will all be eaten up by automatic spending that occurs here in Washington. Some folks call these programs entitlement programs. They are primarily Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

These are the automatic programs where the spending continues to increase based upon a formula.

I have a chart that I would like to share with you that demonstrates clearly the challenge and the problem that confront not just those of us representing Americans but all of America. These are three pie charts that demonstrate the mandatory or automatic spending that occurs, primarily again in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This is 1995. Those programs comprised approximately half of the Federal budget, 48.7 percent of the Federal budget.

Now, the percent of the Federal budget that was utilized at that time for interest on the debt was 15.3 percent, a point much greater than current, and then discretionary spending where we have all of the Federal programs that people think about in terms of transportation, national park programs, all of those kinds of things, in addition to defense, that portion, in 1995, was 36 percent.

Again, about 48.7 percent was the mandatory portion of the budget. In 2005, just 2 years ago, that portion had grown from 48.7 percent to 53.4 percent. Again, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, there were automatic spending increases over a period of time with those three specific programs.

If you track out to 2016, you get to 63.9 percent of the Federal budget. So those are the automatic programs that are in place, the automatic spending programs that are in place. This is clearly, clearly unsustainable. Spending of the entire GDP has kind of hovered around 20 percent for the past half century.

However, with the retirement of the baby boomers, this is the first year that baby boomers will begin to receive Social Security. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will see significant increases in the amount of revenue projected to increase over 10.5 percent over the next 10 years. What you see is an increase to 63.9 percent by 2016.

Clearly, clearly, these French-style spending increases, not tax policy, are the problem. In Washington, lawmakers, all of us, all of us have a responsibility and should focus on getting these entitlements under control, as opposed to raising taxes on the American people. That not only will not work, they may be good bumper sticker politics, but they will not work to solve the problem. This is hard work, significant challenges that confront all of us.

Next myth I would like to address very briefly is that raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue. There is kind of this general belief on the other side of the aisle that all you have to do to get more money is to raise more taxes.

As you know, tax revenues themselves correlate with economic growth, not with tax rates, so that as the government increases its revenue as the economy grows, many of those who desire additional tax revenues regularly call on Congress to raise taxes. But tax revenues are a function basically of two variables. One is tax rates and two is the tax base.

Since 1952, the highest marginal income tax rate has dropped from 92 percent to 35 percent, dropped from 92 percent to 35 percent. At the same time, tax revenues have grown in inflation-adjusted terms while remaining basically a constant percent of GDP. They are basically a perfect correlation between those two.

I think it is exceedingly important for all of us here and the American people to realize and appreciate that raising taxes doesn't raise tax revenue. In fact, as we saw from the previous charts, it is decreasing taxes that increase tax revenue.

One other myth that I would like to talk about very briefly is that there is this myth that reversing the upper income tax reductions, the upper income tax cuts, would raise substantial revenues. In fact, the lower income tax cuts reduced tax revenue more than the high income tax reductions.

I have a chart that will show that as well. This chart oftentimes comes as a real eye opener for the American people and for so many of my colleagues here, as a matter of fact. This chart shows the share of individual income taxes that are paid by different portions of our society, and I would like to just point to the last two bars, the last two bar graphs down there.

This one, the larger one, that demonstrates that over 96 percent of all tax revenue comes from folks in the upper half of the income bracket of this Nation, and that the bottom 50 percent, the lower 50 percent pay less than 4 percent of the tax revenue that comes into the United States.

Now, that is important because if you try to concentrate on just the middle-income folks, in fact, you will not generate the kind of money that you are talking about or that you need, and you also will significantly depress the economy.

Again, it is important to talk about facts. It is important to talk about truth as we talk about making certain that we have the right policy here at the Federal Government.

Finally, there is a myth out there that these reductions, tax reductions, haven't helped the economy. In fact, the economy has responded to the 2003 tax reductions in remarkable ways, as we have already pointed out. GDP grew at an annual rate of 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the tax reductions. The six quarters that followed the tax reductions, it grew at 4.1 percent; 1.7 percent before, 4.1 percent afterward. It is a fact.

Nonresidential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax reductions. Since then, it has expanded for 14 consecutive quarters. Down 13 quarters before, up 14 quarters afterward. It is a fact, not an opinion.

Standard & Poor's 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. After, increased 32 percent over the next six quarters; before, down 18 percent; after, up 32 percent. That is a fact, not an opinion.

The economy, six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts lost 267,000 jobs. In the six quarters after, increased 307,000 jobs, and, as you well know, since then we have burgeoned by having 7.3 million new jobs since the middle of 2003.

What we have tried to do today is try to bring to the American people some truth, some facts as we talk about the budget that will have to be laid out here over the next month to 6 weeks, pointing out the remarkable fallacy of so many of the arguments that are used on the floor of this House to say that, well, we have just got to raise taxes. You have heard some of the Presidential candidates out there on the stump, saying, we have just got to raise taxes. In fact, some of my good friends on the other side of the aisle say just that, nothing we can do except raise taxes.

You know and I know that the truth of the matter is that when you look at how the economy operates, how the Federal Government gains revenue, that, in fact, decreasing taxes, maintaining the appropriate tax reductions, allowing the American people to keep more of their hard-earned money is exactly what is the prescription that is necessary for America and for the economy to continue to flourish.

So I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I look forward to a spirited debate. I think the question really is, when you get right down to it, the question becomes who ought to decide; who should decide how the American people spend their hard- earned money. Should it be the government? Should it be more government programs? Regardless of whatever area of the society you want to talk about, is it the Federal Government and State governments that ought to be making those decisions?

Or should it be, as I and so many of my friends on this side of the aisle believe, that those decisions are better left to individual Americans? They make better decisions about what to do with their hard- earned money when they are allowed to keep their hard-earned money and not have it rolled into the Federal Government as tax revenue.

I am pleased to be able to provide hopefully a bit of light, a bit of truth, a bit of fact for this Chamber, and deal with the issues that are coming before us over the next 4 to 6 weeks. I look forward to this discussion on this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order today.