[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 2 (Friday, January 5, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H96-H100]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 EARLY ACTIONS OF NEW DEMOCRAT MAJORITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
McHenry) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, this is a nice occasion at the end of the 
week to wrap up what we have been doing and talk about how we have been 
active this week, but before I start, I would like to yield to the 
distinguished former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, my 
colleague from California (Mr. Hunter), to discuss points that he 
illuminated in his first 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend Mr. McHenry, and again, I thought 
it was important, as we move into this new era and my great friend Ike 
Skelton takes over the Armed Services Committee to reflect on where we 
stand and what we did in the last Congress.
  Again, just to reiterate, we culminated a 40 percent pay increase for 
the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the United States Marine Corps, and 
the National Guard in this last 8 years. Along with that, we increased 
family separation pay, which is the pay a family receives when the 
loved one is separated, maybe is in theatre, or maybe is deployed far 
around the world in this global war against terror. We increased that 
from $150 to $250 per month. We increased combat pay. We increased a 
number of our insurances. And also, Mr. Speaker, we increased TRICARE 
coverage for National Guard personnel and for their families.
  Along with that, we did something that was really the special project 
of the outgoing readiness chairman, Mr. Hefley of Colorado, which was 
to bring in to full flower this privatization of housing on military 
bases across the country so that military wives and family members 
could move into really great housing.
  I have to tell you, in visiting bases across America, it has been 
heartwarming to see these military families coming into wonderful new 
housing that often has an entertainment area in maybe a common area 
with a pool and tennis courts and reading rooms in the center of one of 
these housing projects where the families can go for entertainment and 
take their children for good quality time.
  So the quality of life for America's military families has been 
greatly increased over the last 8 years.
  Now, what have we done in terms of firepower? Mr. Speaker, I can tell 
you that beginning with this administration and meetings that we held 
with the Secretary of Defense and with the President, one concern that 
I had, and a number of members of our committee had, was the amount of 
what I would call precision firepower. That is the ability to deliver a 
smart bomb or a precise system. Instead of, for example, having to drop 
100 bombs on a bridge to knock a bridge out, to be able to send a smart 
bomb in, hit one strut on that bridge, and bring the bridge down.
  We all know now that this is the age of precision firepower, and we 
wanted to greatly expand our precision firepower because that gives the 
United States the capability to project enormous power around the world 
when we have to. So, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to report to the people 
of the House, to our great colleagues and to the American people that 
we have in the last 8 years more than doubled, more than doubled our 
precision firepower.
  A lot of that is manifested in what we call LGBs, or laser-guided 
bombs. A lot is manifested in what we call JDAMs, or joint direct 
attack munitions. But for our adversaries, that means that America has 
the power now to send in more than twice the firepower in precise 
places, at precise targets with enormous effect. That is very important 
for America's troops and for America's strength.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, also people have asked what have we done in terms 
of enlarging the size of the two ground elements of America's military, 
the primary ground elements, the United States Army and the United 
States Marine Corps? We have increased the size of the Marine Corps now 
from 175,000 personnel to 180,000 personnel. We have increased it right 
at, in fact, exactly 5,000 Marines. And the last time I checked, we 
were something like 100 Marines under that limit. But we have gone from 
175,000 Marines to 180,000 Marines. We are right at that exact number, 
a few people short, but we have those Marines actually on the ground, 
deployed, showing up for roll call each day in their particular 
position in the war against terror. So we have increased the size of 
the United States Marine Corps. Now, we may need further increases, but 
at least at this point we have a 5,000 troop increase.
  With respect to the Army, we took the Army end strength from 482,000 
to 512,000. That is a 30,000 person increase in the United States Army. 
Now, a number of us on the Armed Services Committee have done an 
analysis parallel to the QDR, the Quadrennial Defense Review, and we 
feel we may have to increase the Marine Corps and the Army further, and 
you can see those recommendations manifested in that report. But we 
have actually increased the Army and we have increased the size of the 
U.S. Marine Corps.
  Now, if you ask, and a number of people have asked since Ronald 
Reagan

[[Page H97]]

made that speech in 1983 and said, in essence, we are entering the age 
of missiles, and the United States, to secure its people, has to have 
the ability to shoot down incoming missiles, a number of people have 
asked us and asked regularly where are we in terms of missile defense. 
And I am pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that for the first time in the 
history of the United States, we actually have a very small, very 
limited, but nonetheless very real missile defense for the first time. 
It is manifested in the interceptor missiles that we have in place on 
the Pacific coast and Alaska that could handle, on a very limited 
basis, a rogue missile or several coming into the United States.
  Now, some people may say, well, that is not much. And my answer is, 
that is more than we have ever had in the history of this country. We 
have deployed a missile defense and we will be building on that 
deployment.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I just thought it was important to lay out some of 
the things that this Congress has done and that this Armed Services 
Committee has accomplished for the American people. A 40 percent pay 
increase for our troops, increasing the size of the U.S. Army and the 
U.S. Marine Corps, putting together the first missile defense in the 
history of the country, and more than doubling the precision firepower 
of our armed forces.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the President will be making a statement very 
soon about this adjusted policy on Iraq, and I just wanted to once 
again tell my colleagues the recommendation that I have made. I know a 
lot of us have made recommendations to the President and to the 
Secretary of Defense.
  Right now, there are 18 provinces in Iraq. And in half of those 
provinces, nine of those provinces, there are virtually no attacks 
taking place. They average less than one attack a day. In those quiet 
peaceful provinces, there are 27 battalions of Iraqi soldiers located 
and stationed. Twenty-seven battalions is a lot of soldiers, Mr. 
Speaker. It is a lot of firepower. It is a lot of personnel.
  My recommendation to the President and to the Secretary of Defense 
for the last several months, and I hope that this has been a part of 
their conversation, I have urged them, and a number of other of my 
colleagues have joined with me in urging them to take the 27 Iraqi 
battalions that we have trained and equipped and move them into the 
battle. Now, that means that the Ministry of Defense is going to have 
to give orders to those battalion commanders and those brigade 
commanders in the quiet peaceful sections of Iraq and tell them to 
saddle up their forces, get them on the trucks, and move them to 
Baghdad.
  They need to do that. That should be nonnegotiable. It should be a 
requirement by the American war fighting commanders that cannot be 
delayed, cannot be finessed, and cannot be put aside. That is something 
that should be nonnegotiable, especially against the backdrop of the 
enormous American effort that has given birth to this new government in 
Iraq.
  So I know the President is going to come out with his suggested 
policy soon, but I thought it was important to lay out this fact, that 
right now we have 27 Iraqi battalions in quiet areas which can be 
utilized in the fight, can be put into the fight. In my estimation, 
their value in an urban setting, especially one like Baghdad, where 
speaking the language is important, and where knowing the communities 
is important, their placement in those positions before we move any 
additional American troops into those urban situations is, I think, 
something that we should do, and that we should require of the Ministry 
of Defense of Iraq.

                              {time}  1445

  I want to thank Mr. McHenry for letting me come out and talk a little 
bit about these issues and take some of his valuable time. I certainly 
appreciate the gentleman's allowing me to come out and say a word or 
two.
  Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Hunter. I certainly appreciate my good 
friend from California, your friendship in my brief service in the 
House. It has been wonderful learning from you, and I appreciate your 
willingness to show national leadership and national involvement as 
well, far beyond these House walls. Thank you so much for your 
leadership and friendship.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank you. I also want to thank the gentleman for his 
great service on our committee. He did a wonderful job.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting moment in our Nation's 
history, an interesting moment indeed, with a new Democrat majority 
coming to these hallowed halls of Congress. The American people spoke 
in November and they wanted a change.
  As someone who was formerly in the majority party, now in the 
minority party, I respect the power of democracy to change our Nation 
and change the direction of our Nation in important policy areas. I 
think some of that is going to be beneficial to our economy, and other 
proposals that the new Democrat majority are putting forward are going 
to be hurtful to our economy and to our national defense and our family 
security. But I think it is important that we talk today about some of 
the early actions of this new Democrat majority.
  During the campaign season over the last few years, the last 2 years, 
the Democrats campaigned on openness and accountability. They 
campaigned on many things.
  In the opening days of Congress, we have seen a far different reality 
than what they campaigned on over the last 2 years. It is disheartening 
to me as an American citizen and someone who is hopeful and optimistic 
about this new Congress, hopeful that we can work on a bipartisan 
basis, and I think it is important that we talk about these opening day 
actions and the actions they have taken over the last 2 days of this 
new Democrat majority.
  The first action and the first course of business of this new 
Congress was to pass a very closed-off process for consideration of the 
so-called 100-hour agenda of the Democrat party put forward by the new 
speaker, Ms. Pelosi of California.
  What we see in this closed-off package is far different than when 
they campaigned on. They campaigned on an open process, open and fair 
debate, a dialogue across the aisle, so that we could work in a 
bipartisan way for the American people. The first action they took was 
to lock out all dissenting voices, even within their own party, but 
also among the Republicans represented here today. The Republicans 
represent 140 million Americans here in the U.S. House of 
Representatives. Their first action after campaigning on openness and 
bipartisanship was to close out dissenting voices, to close out the 
amendment process.
  I was surprised by this, because looking at then-Minority Leader 
Pelosi's words, I believed that Minority Leader Pelosi would be a very 
open Speaker Pelosi. What we see with her words and actions, and I have 
a visual aid here to that effect, now, Speaker Pelosi, then Minority 
Leader Pelosi, said a few things about the minority having rights here 
in this institution.
  Then-Minority leader Pelosi said in 2004, her Minority Bill of Rights 
includes fair principles. ``There is a very excellent chance that the 
Republicans will be in the minority next year, and what I am saying is 
this is the way the House should be conducted, in a bipartisan way, and 
whether he,'' meaning Speaker Hastert at the time, ``agrees to it or 
not, this is the course of action that I will take.''
  What is striking to me is the date on that is June 2004. We are in 
the second day of a Democrat majority and we have, instead of a 
Minority Leader Pelosi, a Speaker Pelosi. What is striking here is 
``that is the course of action that I will take.'' Those are the 
Speaker's words.
  To that end, I took the very letter that Minority Leader Pelosi wrote 
at the time and we filed that legislation and we offered it here on the 
House floor yesterday, and it was flatly rejected. Every Democrat to 
the person voted against it.
  It is striking to me that in their first day as a majority, as a 
Democrat majority, they are already going back on the words that they 
campaigned on, they campaigned on in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
  What did they say in 2005? Then minority leader Pelosi said, ``Mr. 
Speaker, I implore you to end the repeated abuses of the rules by the 
Republican majority to ram legislation through in such a secretive and 
unfair manner.'' That is 2005.

[[Page H98]]

  What we see today and yesterday by this new Democrat majority is that 
they have a secretive process, because it says that we cannot offer any 
amendments on the legislation that we will soon be able to see. We 
can't even see the legislation in their 100 hours. They have not let us 
or the American people or even many in their own party see the 
legislation which we will be voting upon and for which we gave initial 
approval to today. That is very striking to me, especially after the 
language and rhetoric used in 2004 and 2005 by Speaker Pelosi.
  ``Additionally, in 2006, so 3 years running, more than 2 years ago, I 
first sent Speaker Dennis Hastert Democrat proposals to restore 
civility to the Congress. I reiterate my support for those proposals 
today. We must restore bipartisanship to the administration of the 
House, reestablish regular order for consideration of legislation and 
ensure the rights of the minority, whichever party is in the minority. 
The voice of every American has to be heard.''
  Now, 2004, 2005, 2006, Minority Leader Pelosi talked about openness 
and bipartisanship. Speaker Pelosi, the first act of office, goes 
completely back on these very words. This rhetoric did not become 
reality on the first opening hours of the Democrat majority. I am 
hopeful, as all Americans should be, hopeful that there is openness 
tomorrow. As Americans, we are an optimistic people.
  I think it would be amazing, in fact, I think we would all be amazed, 
if their second act was for openness when their first act, their first 
principle, was closing off debate and closing off any input from rank 
and file Members of this body and the people that we represent at home.
  What I would say is that beyond just the words, we need to look at 
the values and the principles of this majority. We offered this 
minority bill of rights that then minority leader Pelosi proposed, and 
it simply says that legislation should be considered in the committee 
process and we should have full open debate and discourse.
  In essence, we outlined what all fifth graders in this great country 
are taught about the legislative process here in the House of 
Representatives, that a bill is filed, it is sent to committee, it is 
amended and debated and compromised there, it goes to the floor and 
goes through that same process, when in fact that is not always the 
course of operation of this House.
  So the problem is that it is not simply about the process. The issue 
today is that the process corrupts the policy. When you stack the deck 
on the outcome, you corrupt the policy of this House Chamber and the 
laws of this land. So process and policy are intertwined. When one is 
corrupted, so is the other. With the Democrats shutting down debate at 
a critical moment in our Nation's history, we have to question their 
judgment.
  There are a number of proper proposals they are putting forward in 
the initial 100 hours of debate here in the House of Representatives. 
One thing that is very important to Americans and our national security 
is the 9/11 Commission recommendations outlined in the fall and over 
the last few years. We have heard them very well.
  The Democrats campaigned that they wanted to and would, if they were 
given the majority, fully implement the 9/11 recommendations. No matter 
whether or not they were good public policy or not, they are going to 
implement all of them.
  Well, as it turns out, the Washington Post reported on November 30, 
2006, that ``With control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders 
have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would 
affect them most directly, a wholesale reorganize of Congress to 
improve oversight and funding of the Nation's intelligence agencies.''
  It is striking that just days after the election, they are already 
going back on their proposal to implement the 9/11 Commission's 
recommendations. Now they are saying that they will implement some but 
not all. It is kind of surprising, because the American people heard in 
an almost unanimous voice from Democrats that they were going to 
implement all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I didn't hear 
candidates out there and Members of Congress on the Democrat side 
saying some, but not all. No, they said all 9/11 Commission 
recommendations.
  Only through press reports do we know what this legislation says. 
They have not given this out, other than their allies on K Street and 
the lobbying community. But they haven't given this out for the 
American people and for the press and for all Members of Congress to 
see. So we have some concerns about this, because there are many of us 
who want to offer perfecting amendments, to make sure this policy is 
right and secures our Nation in a proper way.
  Thomas Kean, who is a former distinguished Member and Governor of New 
Jersey, was a cochair of the 9/11 Commission. He called these important 
overhauls in the congressional process of oversight and intelligence 
vital.
  What we have to do is make sure that the Democrats uphold their 
promise. We don't want broken promises. We don't want them to campaign 
on good ideas and be corrupted by an ugly process here that results in 
bad policy. National security is, of course, of key and utmost 
importance, and I am glad they are at least bringing that up in the 
first 100 hours.
  Additionally, many of us in this Nation are concerned about research 
and ensuring that we have medical cures that comfort, that our 
government policy upholds not just ethical and moral research, but 
lifesaving research.
  Next Thursday, from press reports, the Democrats will vote to enact 
legislation to expand Federal taxpayer funding for research that 
destroys human life and human embryos, and they call this stem cell 
research.
  Well, while I don't support the destruction of human life, I do 
support stem cell research, adult stem cell research that has led to 
cures. Unfortunately, due to the process that they have here in this 
new Democrat majority, we are not going to be able to offer amendments 
to ensure that life is not destroyed and that human embryos are not 
destroyed in this process of research.
  But if you look at embryonic stem cell research versus adult stem 
cell research, there have been wonderful cures coming out of adult stem 
cell research, but no cures coming out of embryonic stem cell research. 
And we are not even questioning whether or not embryonic stem cell 
research should come about. It is a question of whether our taxpayer 
dollars should be used to destroy human life, or what many Americans 
believe to be a destruction of human life.
  Even if not all of us agree on whether or not life should be 
protected at its most basic and precious moment, we should all agree 
that we shouldn't have unethical processes and research funded by our 
Federal taxpayer dollars. In fact, the National Institutes of Health 
spends roughly $600 million per year on stem cell research already, 
including $40 million for research involving certain types of embryonic 
stem cell research. But the type of research they conduct does not 
destroy human life.

                              {time}  1500

  Additionally, nearly 100 million of it is for nonhuman embryonic stem 
cell research. So this is already being done, yet it is a nice 
rhetorical device, just like the Democrats campaigning on implementing 
all the 9/11 Commission Report recommendations and just like openness 
and fairness. American people like the sound of that. But what is 
concerning, whether it is embryonic stem cell research, the 9/11 
Commission, or openness and fairness, is that it was only rhetoric. The 
Democrats didn't want to implement it and make it reality here in 
policy and in law for our Nation.
  Beyond that, we have another provision that we voted on today, and 
this is Pelosi's PAYGO legislation. Now, PAYGO is a shorthanded word 
for pay-as-you-go. It is a nice way that we talk about it here on 
Capitol Hill. We call it PAYGO. Now, it sounds very good. The American 
people want us to pay for government policies as we enact them, and so 
that is a great rhetorical device as well. Pay-as-you-go. Well, what is 
devilish about this proposal is that it will lead to a backdoor tax 
increase down the line.
  As the Wall Street Journal editorial said today: under Pelosi's PAYGO 
plan, new entitlement programs and all new tax cuts would have to be 
offset by either cutbacks and other entitlement programs or tax 
increases. This version of Pelosi's PAYGO is a budget trapdoor designed 
to control expenditures but to make it easier, easier, to raise taxes 
while blocking future tax cuts.

[[Page H99]]

  That is from today's Wall Street Journal.
  Now, the fundamental budget problem is not spending too little and 
taxing too little; it is the fact that right now in our country Federal 
revenues climbed by $550 billion over the past 2 fiscal years, and that 
is as a direct result of the economic support and economic growth of 
the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. As the economy grows and more people 
are employed, fewer people use government services. As fewer people use 
government services and are making money on their own, they actually 
begin to pay taxes. When people are paying taxes, revenue to government 
goes up. It is a basic process. And through this robust economic growth 
that has come out of these tax cuts, we have had more revenue come into 
government.
  So pay-as-you-go is a way for the Democrats to establish later the 
reasoning to go to the American people and say we need to raise your 
taxes. Now, I think it is a faulty and flawed policy, because the tax 
cuts of 2001 and 2003 have not limited income to government; in fact, 
what the American people must know, Mr. Speaker, is that the government 
revenue to the United States Government is the highest it has ever been 
in the history of our country. The highest revenue of any time in our 
country's history. Beyond that, actually to say it more broadly, we 
have more government revenue coming into the U.S. Treasury, your tax 
dollars coming into the U.S. Treasury. Even after tax cuts, we have the 
most government revenue in the history of man and the history of the 
Earth. No government has ever received as much in tax dollars as ours 
does today; yet, still, the Democrats put a proposal on the floor today 
that will let them raise taxes later.
  It is so shocking and so surprising that they would do this in their 
opening week in Congress. Now, I knew there were tax-and-spenders on 
the other side of the aisle, and that is a liberal focus, to grow the 
size of government, increase the revenue to government; but I didn't 
realize they would do this at the very beginning of their new majority 
in Congress. I think the American people should be shocked by that.
  But what this pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, proposal ignores is that all 
the appropriations we have made in the past, the current government 
programs that we have will not be under this rule. So we won't analyze 
the entitlement programs to see where they need to be reformed; we 
won't analyze existing government programs to see that they are getting 
the proper result or they are being efficient with their dollars. It 
will only apply to new spending.
  So let's look at the 100-hour plan and total up the tax value of it 
and the spending value of it. And what you see as a result of this plan 
is pretty simple: $800 billion of new spending in this 100-hour plan. 
Now, think about that. I think the American people should stop for a 
second, Mr. Speaker, and think about the fact that in 100 short 
legislative hours, over just a few days, the new Democrat majority will 
spend $800 billion. That is shocking.
  Now, I know that there are these free-spending ways in Washington, 
and as a conservative I am opposed to that, especially as someone who 
considers themselves a fiscal hawk. But to spend that much money in 
such a short period of time has got to strike the American people as 
egregious, especially when you campaigned as the Democrats tried to in 
the last election as fiscal conservatives and a party that wants to 
balance the budget. Yet, they are offering $800 billion worth of new 
spending in their first acts of office.
  So how do they get that money to pay as they go? They are going to 
come to our tax dollars, our personal tax dollars. They are going to 
ask more from every American. That means that when you get your 
paycheck, whether you work in my district in Hickory, North Carolina, 
or Mooresville or in Cherryville, where I am from, you are going to pay 
more out of that paycheck to fund the programs that the Democrats who 
are in control of this place want to implement. So the average working 
man and woman in this country will pay more under Democrat leadership 
than they will under Republican leadership.
  Beyond that, this 100-hour proposal completely, completely ignores 
some of the most pressing issues in our country, certainly ensuring 
that our troops in the field are funded fully. Now, that is very 
important. Completely ignored in the 100-hour plan in the Democrat 
agenda for this Congress. What about entitlement reform? Because, after 
all, that is the largest section of the budget of our Federal budget, 
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Very important programs. But we 
need to make sure that they are fiscally efficient, that they are 
fiscally sound, and it is clear that they are not either efficient nor 
sound.

  So we need to look at entitlement programs, yet the Democrat majority 
has completely ignored entitlement reform in their agenda. They have 
completely ignored making Social Security solvent for future 
generations. And as someone who is eligible for retirement the same 
year that Social Security goes finally broke, I am concerned about 
that, and my generation of Americans should be concerned about that as 
well as all generations of Americans.
  What else is missing? Well, obviously the cost of litigation on small 
businesses across this country, completely ignored that, certainly 
because the trial lawyers I think have helped write the Democrat agenda 
for this Congress and there is a big difference between what trial 
lawyers seek and what the average small businessman or the average 
family doctor in this country seeks. And so they have completely 
ignored reforming and limiting litigation and the cost of litigation on 
the American society. Completely ignored that.
  They have also ignored helping small businesses with health care 
either through health savings accounts where individuals can save tax 
free, something that we as Republicans have worked very hard, and free-
market conservatives like the idea of people being able to save tax 
free without Uncle Sam reaching into your savings and pocketing that 
money; or association health plans where small businesses can come 
together, link up, and increase their affordability and their buying 
capacity to give their employees health care. Completely ignored with 
the Democrats' agenda.
  In fact, the Democrats came on the floor, some of these that 
campaigned on the other side of the aisle as helping small businesses, 
one of their first votes was to vote against letting small businesses 
pool their resources to buy health care. That hurts. That hurts in the 
opening days of Congress.
  Beyond that, they have ignored border security. I think the American 
people have demanded border security and a sane immigration policy for 
this country. There are many leaders on my side of the aisle on the 
issue of border security, and I think we need to engage in that 
discussion on how we reform our immigration policy in this United 
States and how we plan to do that. I think most Americans agree that we 
must begin with the border, to ensure that we have an immigration 
policy that is enforceable, realistic, and real for this country.
  So though we are just in a few opening hours of this new Congress, 
some things are clear. Some things are very clear. The rhetoric that 
the Democrats campaigned on was good. It was good. The American people 
supported it. The American people put new Democrats in office, 
Democrats that campaigned some as fiscal conservatives, others as 
social conservatives, most certainly as moderates in this last 
election. But their opening hours, their opening hours go back on those 
pledges for fiscal sanity due to the high cost of their opening plan 
and proposals, $800 billion worth of spending in just 100 hours.
  It goes back on this openness concept. It goes back on fiscal sanity 
by covering up with this Pelosi PAYGO plan that will raise our taxes 
later in the year or later next year, certainly tax increases in the 
future, though. It fully ignores their proposal to fully implement the 
9/11 Commission proposals by kind of sort of doing a few of them that 
they think are politically palatable rather than following through on 
their promise. It uses a great rhetorical device of stem cell research. 
But when they come here and they vote, they ignore the cloning issue, 
whether or not we are funding human cloning, whether or not we are 
destroying human life.

[[Page H100]]

  So the rhetoric in the campaign is very much removed from their 
actions in this new Congress.
  They also ignore their pledge to work with all sides on issues of 
importance to the American people, to work in a bipartisan way. They 
even go back on their pledge and demand for minority rights here in 
this institution. So we see hypocrisy from the Democrat majority. Many 
would say it is ironic that you campaign as a conservative, yet come in 
and govern as a liberal, which we are already seeing in just two days 
of Democrat control.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I think the American people are an optimistic and 
hopeful people. We have a new week, we have a new day coming where the 
Democrats can change, and I am hopeful that they will, that they will 
go back to what they campaigned on that the American people endorsed in 
the last election for bipartisanship, for openness, for national 
security and the defense of our country, for good strong family values, 
and fiscal sanity. And when that happens, I will be happy to reach 
across the aisle and work with my colleagues in the Democrat majority 
to ensure that these things happen.
  But until that day comes, I will point out the fact that they are 
going back on their words to the American people, and I will not 
restrain myself from calling it as I see it, and I think as the way the 
American people should see it as well, that in order to govern 
effectively you have to fulfill your promises, you have to make sure it 
is not empty campaign rhetoric, that in fact it is a full 
implementation of the agenda that you sought in the election.
  I think the American people want change in Washington. I don't think 
they got change in the last two days, though. I think what you saw with 
this new Democrat majority is this same type of abuse of power that 
they had in 1993, in 1992, through the 1980s and the 1970s. The 
majority may be new today, but the Democrat chairmen are the same as 
they were 20 years ago, on the larger part of the Democrat majority and 
for the larger part of the committees that they have organized. And the 
policy proposals that they offer going forward after this 100-hour 
proposal will be much the same as they offered in the early 1990s and 
the 1980s and the 1970s.

                              {time}  1515

  Those policy proposals are pretty simple: Raise your taxes, weaken 
national defense, and go the opposite way on family values. But I hope 
that we can work with moderates on the other side of the aisle, 
moderates on the other side of the aisle that are willing to look at 
fiscal sanity, willing to stand up for traditional values and willing 
to do the right thing for the American people and will work together. I 
am very hopeful that we will have that opportunity after this 100-hour 
proposal is done. And hopefully, it will be done quickly.

                          ____________________