[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 139 (Wednesday, September 19, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H10609-H10616]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REPUBLICAN FRESHMEN THIRD QUARTERLY REPORT TO THE 110TH CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, tonight we are having our
third quarterly report to the 110th Congress. This is a quarterly
report for the newly elected republican freshmen. We came here to solve
problems. We came here to find partnerships. We came here to really,
what we listened about during the campaign, to make America better.
Tonight, I have a few freshmen joining with me.
The idea tonight is about accountability. What has gone on here in
Congress? I think every time we do this quarterly report, I go and I
check the Web sites. Again, today is a new record. Congress has the
lowest approval rating, at 11 percent, that it has in the history of
its taking a poll; lower than in the years of Watergate, lower than
during the years when we were rationing and being held hostage in Iran,
lower than the time of 1994 when the last time the parties switched
powers here. Tonight is the night we talk about what has gone on, the
accountability of what has happened here, and what has taken place.
To start us out tonight is a congresswoman from Minnesota, from St.
Cloud, Michele Bachmann. I yield to Mrs. Bachmann.
Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the great State
of California, Congressman McCarthy. What a wonderful leadership role
he is playing with our freshmen class.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, we are so grateful, as freshmen Members, to
be here with new ideas and a new perspective. Part of that perspective
is a positive outlook on life and a positive outlook on our country.
One thing about Americans, Mr. Speaker, is we tend to be happy people,
go-getter people, people that have ideas, innovation. We are
entrepreneurs. We always look over the next hill. We always look for
the next goal. We are forward-looking people.
One thing that I have been a little dismayed about in my time here in
the Congress is I have heard so much negativity on the floor. As a
matter of fact, in the previous Special Order, I was amazed at the
level of negativity that I heard. That is not representative of the
American people. It certainly is not representative of the people of
the Sixth District of the State of Minnesota. They are positive people
that are looking, as we Republican freshmen are looking, at new ideas,
at fresh perspectives.
I was so intrigued this weekend when I was home in my district, I had
the chance to read the Sunday paper. I found an article in that paper
that talked about the incredible progress we have made in recent years.
So much of that has to do, Mr. Speaker, with a lot of the very good
decisions that were made in the previous Congresses, particularly, Mr.
Speaker, the tax cuts that were passed in 2001, 2003. I say that
because I am a Federal tax litigation attorney. I hate high taxation.
If you speak with most Americans, they also detest high levels of
taxation. One thing that the Congress did so well was to reduce that
level in 2001 and in 2003. The one thing we don't want to see happen is
to have the country take a dramatic turn now under the Democrat
controlled House of Representatives and embrace tax increases. This
really concerns us because what we have seen so far is the Democrats
are now embracing what, you know, the argument is, will it be the
largest or the second largest tax increase in American history?
Whatever, it is a very large tax increase. But what the other formula
for success has brought about, Mr. Speaker, is prosperity.
{time} 1730
Prosperity not just for those who are the high income earners, not
even just the middle income earners. We have seen tremendous levels of
prosperity, even for those who we would consider the poor among us, who
government considers the poor among us, and if there is anyone who
deserves help up, a hand up, it is the poorest among us.
In this article I read this weekend, it is really a scorecard of
sorts on the Republicans and the great tax cuts that they put through
this Congress, and it is very good news.
If you dig into the numbers, as this author writes, his name is Jason
Lewis, he is a writer from the Twin Cities, and I want to quote from
this article, he writes, ``We now have a record number of Americans
with health insurance.''
I will tell you what. You would never know that, listening to people
speak on the floor of this House. You would think everyone is destitute
and no one has health insurance. We are at an all-time high in this
country with the number of people that have health insurance.
The doom-and-gloom focus says that most of those people who do not
have health insurance currently live in households with incomes that
are in excess of $50,000 a year. So even the people who don't have
health insurance in the United States are making over $50,000 a year.
In fact, many of them
[[Page H10610]]
today are eligible for government healthcare programs. They have just
simply decided or elected not to enroll in those programs.
The median household income, more good news is that adjusted for
inflation, the median household income today has risen in 2006 to over
$48,451 nationwide, and in the Twin Cities in Minnesota, median
household income today is at a robust $62,223.
This is great news. We should be talking about this great news. And
how did we get to this level of prosperity? It is because of the tax
cuts that came in 2001 and 2003, and that great investment is now
paying off.
Surprisingly, in August, the figures show the first significant drop
in poverty in a decade. This is great news. Shout it from the housetop,
which we are. This is the ``big House.'' We are shouting it. The
official rate declined from 12.6 percent in 2005 down to 12.3 percent.
That is great. We want to reduce the level of poverty in the United
States.
The Federal tax cuts of 2003 gave us an economy that added $1.3
trillion in real output. We have grown more than 3 percent annually,
according to Investors Business Daily.
Business spending, way up, adding 8 million new jobs to this economy.
Real labor compensation per hour has rebounded, because now wages have
advanced 3.9 percent from a year ago.
Those are statistics. But it really means things for American
families. As a woman, as a wife, as a mother of five children, we have
raised over 23 foster children, I will tell you what: When your wage
goes up, that means you can afford to pay the light bill at the end of
the month. You can afford to have groceries. You can take your kids and
buy them the clothes that they need for school. You can pay for the
field trips they have to go on. And you can pay for all the sports
activities that they love to do after school.
These are real benefits, when government doesn't have that money,
when normal real people have this money. That is what we want, to have
all households have that money, and the poorest families are the ones
that need to benefit even the most.
Mr. Speaker, even with the slight decline in job creation in August,
the Nation's unemployment rate remained in record low territory of 4.6
percent. Great news. Great news for today.
Robert Rector also just came out for the Heritage Foundation, and he
told us among the households considered poor in our country, of those
households that we call poor, 46 percent of those households in
America, almost half actually own their own home. That is something
that we don't always understand, that almost half of all poor people in
this country own a home. If you own a home, Mr. Speaker, that is your
greatest down payment on the next generation and on wealth creation.
Most people that are considered poor by our government own a car. In
fact, of people considered poor, 31 percent of poor households own two
or more cars. That is great, and we want to keep prosperity going for
the poor.
Seventy-eight percent of those who are considered poor by the
government have a DVD player or have a VCR player. In fact, 62 percent
have cable or satellite TV. One-third of poor households have both cell
phones and land line phones. And a stunning 80 percent have air
conditioning. This is really good news, significant, because as
recently as 1970, and I remember this, only 36 percent of all American
households had air conditioning. My family wasn't one of those. So I am
grateful that today 80 percent of the people that even the government
considers poor today have air conditioning. This is great news that we
have.
In fact, the study said that 89 percent of poor families themselves,
and this is very important, say that they have enough food. Boy, if
there is any measure of poor, it is, are you hungry? No one wants to
see one child, one older person, anyone go hungry in this country.
Eight-nine percent of people who themselves are categorized as poor say
that that they have enough food. Only 2 percent of that category say
that they don't.
That isn't to say, Mr. Speaker, that there are not serious problems
for those who live below the poverty line. Trust me. The foster
children that we took into our home, they were categorized in this
category. There are needs aplenty for those who are below the poverty
line. We need to address those needs.
That being said, there is good news out there. Let's celebrate the
fact that Census Bureau figures don't even include when they categorize
people that are poor the value of non-cash benefits. So if you are
poor, the government doesn't even include the fact of the amount of
money you receive in food stamps. They don't include the amount you
receive in housing subsidies, in Medicaid, or even the Earned Income
Tax Credit. That is to say, and this again is good news, that the gap
between the poor and average households is even smaller than sometimes
what it is stated to be.
That being said, we are now at a juncture, Mr. Speaker, when we are
looking at a turn. I know my colleagues that are also going to be
speaking in the freshman class are going to be talking about this turn.
I will end on this note, because I gave a lot of great news. The
negative news that we are looking at is that so far in this Congress,
the Democrat majority in the House has passed their budget, and their
budget included, again, the largest, or however you want to parse it,
the second largest tax increase in American history. I just want to say
that for the people of my district and the people for your district,
they will probably have to be paying an additional $3,000 a year for
every average American family, and that will negatively impact the
poorest among us the most.
So we have two choices in front of us: Do we want to continue with
lower taxes and prosperity, where the poorest among us have seen
actually tangible benefits? Or do we want to take the route that the
Democrats have proposed, and increase taxes knowingly $3,000 a year on
my family, on your family, on families in our districts? I can't abide
by that, especially for the low-income families in my district.
With that, I say let's do what our founders would want us to do, and
that is to embrace hope, prosperity, new ideas and a fresh perspective.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back to the kind gentleman from
California, Congressman McCarthy.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman
Bachmann for her talk. You can see from her enthusiasm, you can see
from being a mother of 23 foster children, that she brings hope, not
only to America, but to Congress. She brings a problem-solving idea,
trying to find some commonsense ways actually to make change here. We
are so proud to have you here.
As I said, this is the third quarterly report put on by the freshmen
Republicans on accountability of what has gone on here in Congress. We
want to bring it back to your house, Mr. Speaker, to let people know
what has gone on on this floor.
There is a reason why America has lost faith in their Congress. The
approval rating is now at 11 percent, the lowest in the history of any
poll on the approval rating of what has gone on in Congress. So tonight
we want to talk about what has happened here. But we want to also talk
about our future and how we can make things better, how we can find
common ground, how we can actually bring hope back to America and have
real change.
Tonight I have the honor of introducing one of the superstars in the
freshman class. He comes from the Sixth District of Illinois,
Congressman Peter Roskam from Wheaton, Illinois. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate Congressman McCarthy's leadership
this afternoon and this evening, this opportunity to have a
conversation and really to reflect on what it is that we have been sent
here to do. I know that I and my colleagues that join me here on the
floor, Mr. Speaker, are people that came here as problem solvers. We
didn't come here to fight partisan fights. We didn't come here to have
sharp elbows. We didn't come here to call people names. But we came
here to try to get something done.
We represent districts that are really commonsense districts, that
have a high expectation of this process. I know that all of us who are
on the floor today, we don't celebrate in the very low view that the
American public has
[[Page H10611]]
of the Congress under this current leadership. We don't celebrate in
that at all. In fact, we mourn that in many ways, because there has
been a real lack of leadership and a lack of an opportunity.
I think whenever you have conversations about how you are doing so
far, and this is our third quarterly report that the Republican
freshmen are participating in, it is always in the context of looking
at what the expectations were as the 2006 elections came about. What
was it that people said, that the American people trusted in, that the
American people believed in, that the American people cast their votes
for? What was it, that rhetoric that called people forth?
I think we don't have to go very far to really look at the rhetoric
from the 2006 campaign and look at the comparison to the
accomplishments in 2007, and you can see why 89 percent of the American
public says, ``that's not what I voted for.'' So let's kind of refresh
our memories.
First off was that we were going to be a very hard-working Congress.
The 109th Congress, we were told, was essentially lazy and wasn't
accomplishing anything. That was the characterization of the previous
Congress under the previous leadership. In fact, we were told that
during the next year, Members of the House will be expected in the
Capitol for votes each week by 6:30 p.m., and will finish their
business by about 2 p.m. on Fridays, we were told by then Minority Whip
Hoyer.
Well, as it has come into fruition, here we are, it is 5:40 p.m. in
Washington, D.C. There is plenty of time for us to be doing substantive
work, amending bills, debating bills, considering things. We could all
be in committees. And yet the House is quiet today, and here we have
this time to be reflecting on what the performance has been.
I regret that. My sense is that we are here to work, and we are
willing to work, and we are anxious to work. Yet the way that the
majority has structured the calendar, there is simply too much time. Of
the 21 weeks in session, only six have included five full days of work.
That is according to the official website of the Clerk of the House of
Representatives.
Or, we were told that the Members of the House would have at least 24
hours to examine a bill and a conference report text prior to floor
consideration. That is what the gentlewoman from California, Ms.
Pelosi, said in her publication, ``A New Direction For America.'' She
also said, and it was reported in the Washington Post, that she would
insist that bills be made available to the public at least 24 hours
before they would be voted on by the full House. Yet the reality, Mr.
Speaker, is far different than that.
You know, it is one thing to not make a big deal about something in a
campaign and then follow through and you keep things the way they are.
But it is an entirely different situation to create this overarching
sense of expectation, to create this sort of nirvana invitation, to
come to this new 110th Congress where everything is fantastic, and you
are just going to love serving here.
Yet the harsh reality is this: The following bills did not enjoy that
generous 24 hours notice: The following bills are H.R. 1, the very
first bill of this new Congress. H.R. 1 did not enjoy a 24 hour notice
period.
Now, let's think about it. Is 24 hour notice the biggest deal in the
world? No, frankly, it is not. It is not the biggest deal in the world.
There is a little bit of process argument to it and there is a little
bit of inside baseball feel to it.
{time} 1745
But the point is the current majority leadership created the
expectation that 24-hour notice was going to be the standard. So here
are just a few things: H.R. 1, H.R. 2, H.R. 3, H.R. 4, all of the first
bills, no 24-hour notice. H. Res. 35, the intelligence oversight
authority, not the ability to have 24-hour notice. H. Res. 296, H. Con.
Res. 63, and on and on and on, no 24-hour notice.
Or we were told by Mrs. Pelosi in the last election cycle, she is
quoted as saying, ``Rules governing floor debate must be reported
before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day.'' That
sounds great. But the problem, you see, is that the Democrat majority
leadership hasn't followed through on that.
According to this report which was put together fairly quickly, nine
bills with the twinkling of an aye haven't enjoyed that notice.
As we are moving forward and considering this, my district is sort of
interested in the process, Mr. Speaker, but they are really interested
in the substance of this Congress. This is a group that is now in the
leadership and now in the majority that made very clear promises about
what, fiscal discipline and fiscal responsibility. And those are things
that deeply resonate in the district I represent.
This is what Mrs. Pelosi said. She said, ``Democrats are committed to
ending years of irresponsible budget policies that have produced
historic benefits.''
Additionally, she said, ``We will work to lead the House of
Representatives with a commitment to integrity, to civility, and to
fiscal responsibility.'' That sounds fantastic.
You go door to door in the Sixth Congressional District in Illinois,
you go door to door in Mrs. Bachmann's district, you go door to door in
Mr. McCarthy's district in California, and you say I am going to stand
for fiscal responsibility, and they say, hip hip hurray, go to
Congress. You go do the right thing.
But where the breakdown has happened or the disconnect has happened
is when people say, hey, I voted for fiscal responsibility. I voted for
fiscal discipline. That's how I cast my vote last November. And now
they come into the third quarter of this year and all of a sudden they
realize that is not happening. That is not even close to happening. Oh,
they are spending money like there is no tomorrow. That is how this
majority has approached the budget situation.
Do you remember the conversation we had on the earmark process on
this House floor, Mr. Speaker? Earmarks are those abilities to sort of
put a little Post-it note in an appropriations bill, and the note says
this money is going to be spent on this particular program in this
particular way.
There are some people who say all earmarks are bad. I don't
necessarily think that is true, but I think all earmarks should be
transparent. People should have the ability to look at the Federal
budget, people should have the ability to look at the appropriations
bills and look at the work of Congress and say, who is behind that
spending item, what is motivating that person, and where is it going.
Well, what we were told is that these earmarks would be transparent.
In fact, we were told throughout the course of the 2006 campaign what
the Democratic leadership wanted to do was completely transcend the
earmark process and open it up to sunshine and goodness and light. But
the reality was much different than that.
The reality was it was the Republican minority in this Chamber that
had to fight tooth and nail on this floor to drive the appropriations
process open so that earmarks were transparent because the way it was
originally set up was that we were told that all we could do was simply
write a letter if we had an objection to an earmark to the chairman of
the Appropriations Committee. That is simply not good enough.
So as we are reflecting today and looking about at what is it, how is
it that an institution that is to be celebrated, an institution that is
to be admired, an institution that is to be respected, is now down at
an approval rating at an all-time low? I regret that. I am sad about
that. I don't celebrate in that.
I think what has happened is the American people have come to the
conclusion that the rhetoric of the Democrat majority, the rhetoric of
the leadership of the Democratic Party, the rhetoric of the last
campaign simply doesn't match with the reality of what they are seeing
in Congress. And so the promise to make this the most ethical group in
history hasn't come to fruition. The promise to be fiscally disciplined
has not come to fruition. The promise to make this process open and
accessible to all hasn't come to fruition.
I think that, Mr. Speaker, in large part is why we are now at this
historic low of 11 percent. I think we can do better. I think there are
some of us
[[Page H10612]]
who are on the floor this afternoon and evening who want to be problem
solvers. There are some of us who want to get things done. There are
some of us who understand that living within our means means making
fundamental choices and decisions.
We were elected as leaders, and yet sometimes there is a temptation,
which I sense on the majority side that they simply want to kick the
can down the lane and have another Congress make the tough decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I was sent here to make tough choices and I stand ready
with these good colleagues. We are here calling balls and strikes. We
don't come in as harsh critics of everything. We are not simply here
about donkeys and elephants necessarily, but we are here talking about
those things that ought to bring us together as Americans, and that is
the ability to work together towards solutions, to make the tough
choices now and not defer them to future generations.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Peter
Roskam. He makes a good point that you may campaign as a Republican or
a Democrat, but when you come here, you should come to the issues as
Americans. That is how we come to you tonight, looking for common
ground, and the place where we can actually solve problems. That is
what we campaigned on and made a promise to do, and that is why we are
before you.
Just as when you are back home sitting at your table with your
children, and I have mine, Connor, 13, and Megan, 11. I look for their
report cards. I look at their grades. Tonight we are going to talk
about Congress's grades.
The next speaker we have tonight is an individual from Ohio. He was a
State senator, kind of a star there as well as on match, a wrestler, an
NCAA champion. And currently, he is serving on Judiciary, Oversight and
Government Reform, and Small Business. He is also looking out after us
when it comes to the budget.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Let me thank the gentleman from California for
putting this together. I appreciate the chance to be with you and some
of my colleagues from the freshman class.
I particularly want to reference the tone that the gentlewoman from
Minnesota brought to the discussion this evening. She talked about the
optimistic can-do spirit that has always been a part of this country
and that is alive and well today. Frankly, we are going to need that
spirit when we confront the challenges that we face.
I call it the David attitude. You may remember the old story from
Scripture. When the Israelites were camped against the Philistines, and
every day the Philistine giant would walk out and issue the challenge.
He would ask: Who will fight Goliath?
The Israelites' response was: He is so big, we can never defeat him.
But David's response was: He is so big, I can't miss.
That is the attitude we need to confront the challenges we face. You
think about the challenges that America faces today, unprecedented in
our Nation's history.
First, we have the terrorist threat as real and serious as it gets.
We have this debate in our culture over whose set of values are going
to win. There is a core set of principles, a traditional set of
American values that made this Nation special. We should not be afraid
to defend and protect and promote those principles and values.
But the challenge I want to focus on tonight is fiscal discipline.
This is so, so important. Many of us have been back home over the last
6 weeks talking to all kinds of folks across our congressional
districts. Many times what I do when I am speaking in front of a group,
I say, you all may find this a surprise, but the Federal Government
spends a lot of money. Everyone starts to laugh. And I say, they spend
a heck of a lot of money.
The Federal Government spends $23,000 per household per year. We have
an $8 trillion national debt. We have spending that is out of control.
If we don't get a handle on that, what we are going to do to future
generations is going to be difficult and it is going to make it tough
for us as a Nation to continue to be number one economically.
I like to remind folks that the way the world works today, the
economic superpower is also the leader in the military area. The
economic superpower is the military superpower. Right now that is the
United States of America, and I believe the world is safer because of
that fact. We want America to lead diplomatically, we want America to
lead militarily, and we want America to lead economically. It is
important we do that. When America leads, the world is a safer and
better place. And we want to make sure that continues.
In order for that to continue, we have to get spending under control.
Over the course of the budget process, the budget that the majority
party brought forward would in essence raise taxes over the next
several years over $200 billion. When they look at scaling back the
good tax cuts that were put in place back in 2001 and 2003, that have
helped our economy respond to some of the hardships we faced after the
9/11 attacks and the recession that followed, we need to make sure that
we get spending under control.
We always hear about tax-and-spend elected officials, tax-and-spend
politicians. In fact, I would argue it is the opposite. It is spend and
tax. Spending always drives the equation. We have to get spending under
control.
In the appropriations process that we went through this summer, 12
different spending bills that finance the government over the course of
the fiscal year, of those 12 bills, nine are nondefense. To those nine
bills we offered a series of amendments that would have held spending
at last year's level. It wouldn't have been a cut. It would have simply
said to the government, the government that already spends $23,000 per
household, it would have simply said: We want the government to spend
what we spent last year. After all, all kinds of families have to do
that, and all kinds of taxpayers have to do that, and all kinds of
businesses have to do it from time to time. Why can't the Federal
Government do the same thing?
Yet we heard from the majority party we can't do that. If we would
simply spend what we spent last year, the sky would fall. The world
would end. We have to have more of the taxpayers' money. That is the
argument we heard. But it was not a cut; it was simply level spending.
If we would have been able to do that, we would have saved taxpayers
$20 billion and helped to begin to put us on a path to deal with the
financial problems that will come if we continue to deficit spend.
Don't take my word for it. A former governor on the Federal Reserve
Board, Dr. Edward Gramlich, said this: ``Budget deficits lead to less
economic growth and a lower level of economic activity than would
otherwise be the case.''
Mr. Walker, the comptroller general said, ``Today, we are failing in
one of our most important stewardship duties: our duty to pass on a
country better positioned to deal with the challenges of the future
than the one we were given.''
One of our fundamental challenges as people elected to public office
is to make sure that the next generation has it better than we did. If
you think about what has really allowed America to grow and prosper, we
are the greatest country in the world for all kinds of reasons and all
kinds of policies that we have, but in the end it is that parents have
been willing to sacrifice so that their kids can have life a little
better than they did. That kind of philosophy should be present in how
we run the United States Congress and how we run government and how we
spend taxpayer dollars.
Unfortunately, those amendments weren't passed and we were not able
to save over $20 billion to help to begin to put us on a path towards
greater fiscal responsibility. It is important that we do that, and it
is important that we do it for the future of Americans. But we are
going to get there.
The gentlewoman from Minnesota is right; Americans always figure out
a way to address the obstacles and hurdles that are in front of us, and
we will figure out a way to do this. We just need to keep talking about
it and stay diligent. If we do that, we will put our country on the
path that it needs to be fiscally so we continue to be that leader
economically, militarily and diplomatically.
I appreciate what the gentleman from California is doing in helping
to lead our freshman class and thank him for a chance to be a part of
this hour this evening.
[[Page H10613]]
{time} 1800
I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio because he is right. Many
people talk about the tax and spend, but really it is the spending that
drives it. Just from last year, with the bills that were passed on this
floor with the largest tax increase in American history, they increased
spending by 9 percent. A lot of people ask out there: What was the
spending on? How did you go about doing it? I think that is what we are
going to talk about tonight.
Before I get to our next speaker, I just want to show a couple of
little slides here about where we are going. First, you see the promise
that was made, that the gentleman from Illinois talked about, what
Speaker Pelosi had said: ``Democrats are ready to lead, prepared to
govern, and determined to make you proud.''
Today, we sit at an 11 percent approval rating of this new majority.
That is the lowest in the history that they have ever taken the poll.
Lower than in the years of Watergate. Lower than when we had to ration
gasoline during the years of President Jimmy Carter. Lower than in 1994
when the public decided after 40 years they wanted to change the
majority here and put the Republicans in charge. It is now at the
lowest level.
Why? And why is that spending taking place? I want to tell you an
example, and I actually saw this on the news the other day, and I
credit the news, Mr. Speaker, and CBS doing a story on this. What are
we spending our money on? You sit around that table and you decide
where you put your money away and where you go to save. Let me tell you
a little story. It happened right here on this floor.
I was sitting down here and I was watching, and one of those spending
bills, the Health and Human Services, there was $2 million put in. You
say was it put in for education? Was it put in to make America greater?
It was put in by a Member, Mr. Speaker, to name a library after
himself. Two million dollars was spent. What did it say within here
that it needed to be? You needed $2 million for the new Rangel
Conference Center, a well-furnished office for Charles Rangel and the
Charles Rangel Library. In the brochure, when you look at this library
for a college that the library is not even there yet, it will say it
will be as nice as President Clinton and as nice as President Jimmy
Carter. Well, those libraries were funded by private funds. Those
people were Presidents.
Now, what do you say? Maybe this is something that every chairman of
Ways and Means would do. It just so happens the Member that served and
represented Kern County, where I represent, was chairman of Ways and
Means just a year ago. What did he do with his papers? He didn't name a
library after himself. He took his papers to the junior college,
Bakersfield Junior College, and gave them to them, where the kids can
go and look and read.
Well, you know what happened? Just like Mr. Jordan had said, there
were many amendments on this floor, many amendments by this freshman
Republican class that said we want to get spending under control. There
was an amendment by a Congressman from California, John Campbell, Mr.
Speaker, that wanted to take that $2 million out. He thought that
wasn't the best way to go about it. Much as the Congressman from
Illinois said, earmarks. This is what an earmark is all about.
Well, just behold, the Congressman that had put this in, Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Rangel, came to this floor. He said he was proud of this. One of
the Congressmen asked him: ``Well, if it's going to name it after
yourself, should we name one after ourselves?'' He said: ``No, they
don't deserve it. They haven't been here long enough.''
Mr. Speaker, this is the monument to me, but it is the monument to me
paid by taxpayers. It is a monument to me, where not even the college
asked to name it after him. He asked to name it after himself.
I am proud to tell you that all 13 freshmen Republicans voted for the
amendment to strike out this earmark, to stop this type of activity.
This is why we ran, this is what we said we would do, and this is not
what the Democrats in the majority party said they would do when they
were in control.
This is what has got to stop. This is why spending is 9.3 percent
higher, and it's paid by taxpayers' money. I don't think the Members
across this country wanted this to take place, I don't believe this
person was the President of the United States, and I think individuals
that are chairmen of Ways and Means ought to look for the path of what
Congressman Bill Thomas did when he was chairman of Ways and Means, he
gave his papers to a junior college. He didn't put $2 millions in to
have nice furniture and an office and a librarian, to be as nice as the
presidential libraries are.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we have some more Members with us
tonight. We have an individual from Tennessee, the First District of
Tennessee. He served in the legislature back there. You may recognize
him. He is on the floor quite often talking about bringing America
back, finding solutions here.
I yield to Congressman David Davis.
Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. I thank my friend from California.
Thank you for your leadership tonight. Thank you for pointing out some
of our spending and taxing waste. I would like to thank my colleagues
that have spoken before me tonight.
I have been absolutely pleased with the group of freshmen Republicans
that I came in with, a group of men and women that are very honorable,
willing to work hard and do the right things. Thank you so much for
serving with me in Washington.
I look back at one of my favorite Presidents, a President that was
enjoyed by Republicans, conservative Democrats, independents, and that
President was Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan once said, ``We don't have a
trillion dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough. We have a
trillion dollar debt because we spend too much.'' It goes right back to
what we have been saying, spending then taxing.
There are many people sitting around their kitchen tables around
America tonight trying to decide just how they are going to put their
budget together, how they are going to make their car payment, how they
are going to send Junior to school, Sissy to school, how they are going
to pay for their health insurance. Those families are having to make
hard decisions. The Government, this Congress could learn from those
Americans sitting around kitchen tables.
I did come from the mountains of east Tennessee. Those people back in
the mountains of east Tennessee have a lot of common sense. They have
enough common sense to know that you can't spend more than you take in,
and you can't tax people to death and expect success. That is exactly
what this Congress is doing.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the President's
program of comprehensive tax reforms, President Bush's tax reforms and
the congressional Republicans when they were in charge, those tax
reliefs were well-timed to respond to a weak economy. My colleagues
have spoken about it. We had terrorist attacks. We have had natural
disasters.
That tax relief enacted in 2001 granted immediate tax rebates,
reduced marginal tax rates, and lowered the marriage tax penalty. It
actually allowed Americans to keep more of their money in their pocket
so moms and dads can take care of their families.
My wife and I have two children. We fundamentally believe that we can
take care of our children better than some bureaucrat in Washington,
D.C. I think it's just common sense. I think there are many people
across America, it doesn't matter what party you're part of, it doesn't
matter if you're Republican, Democrat or independent, I have just got
to feel that you believe you can spend your money better than
Washington can as well.
Then, to go on, the tax relief of 2003 accelerated the much-
anticipated and successful tax cuts of 2001. Those tax cuts of 2001 and
2003 actually strengthened our economy. The Republican tax relief has
seen nearly 4 straight years of economic growth, while adding 7.5
million new jobs into our economy. That is the success that Michele
Bachmann spoke about.
Things are going very well, and I am glad to see that. The
Congressional Budget Office confirmed that the tax cuts of 2003 helped
boost Federal revenues by 68 percent. Again, it's not partisan. It
works every time. When Democrat John F. Kennedy cut taxes, the tax
increase into the Federal Government increased. The economy got
[[Page H10614]]
stronger. It happened when Reagan did it, and it happened when Bush did
it. It is not partisan, it is just fact.
We must make the successful tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent. If
they are not made permanent, which I am convinced that this new hold-
on-to-your-wallet Congress is not interested in doing, here's what will
happen: 84 million women will see their taxes increase by $1,970. If
you're female and you're listening to me, this Congress is going to
raise your taxes by $1,970. Forty-eight million married couples will
see their taxes increase by $2,726. Forty-two million families with
children would see their tax bill go up $2,084. Twenty-six million
small business owners would see a devastating $3,637 tax increase, the
very small businesses that are creating the jobs in the economy. Five
million low-income individuals and couples will no longer be exempt
from individual income taxes.
We must make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. Unfortunately, I
am convinced that we will not see those tax cuts made permanent under
the spending I see going on on the floor of this House. When we see
those tax cuts start to be repealed, we are going to start to see the
economic growth actually come to an end.
Washington Democrats have passed a fiscal blueprint that raises taxes
by almost $400 billion on millions of Americans in one fell swoop. As
part of their ill-gotten budget, taxpayers in Tennessee will not be
allowed to deduct their sales tax from their Federal income tax. Taxes
on small businesses, as I said earlier, will go up. The child tax
credit will decrease from $1,000 to $500. The marriage penalty is
coming back.
Residents of the First Congressional District in Tennessee's average
tax expense is going up over $2,000. The definition of a small business
will decrease from $400,000 to $200,000. Dividends will no longer be
taxed at the personal gains rate, thereby increasing the double
taxation on dividends by as much as 62 percent.
People all across America voted for change, but they are not getting
the change that they wanted in the last election. Over the last quarter
there were a couple of bills we have talked about and passed on this
floor without my vote, and one of them was the energy bill. The energy
bill that we passed had plenty of taxes, very little energy.
The Democrat majority in the energy bill actually decided to tax
American oil producers at the level of 16 billion extra dollars.
American oil producers. If we take the ability for American oil
producers to produce oil, it makes us more dependent on foreign oil, on
countries that hate us and hate our freedoms. I think that is the wrong
direction for America. I don't think that is the change that the
American people voted for.
Then we had the SCHIP bill. It sounds good, giving poor children
health care. We all certainly want to do that. I am for continuing the
program at its current level. But at the level that passed on this
floor, the Heritage Institute said it will take 22 million new smokers
to pay for the bill. Now, is there anyone in America that wants to see
22 million new children have to take up the habit of smoking to pay for
a health care bill?
In addition to that, they decided that wouldn't be enough to pay for
it so they actually added a tax on your health insurance premiums. So
if you buy your own health insurance, your taxes will go up.
We have a choice between a bigger economy or bigger government. The
majority party has made a choice. They are for bigger government.
Congress has an approval rating down now to 11 percent, and I can
certainly understand why we have such a low rating. We need to hold the
line on spending, reduce earmarks, pass a line-item veto and crack down
on worthless pork-barrel projects and be good stewards of the taxpayer.
Remember, Ronald Reagan once said: ``We don't have a trillion dollar
debt because we haven't taxed enough. We have a trillion dollar debt
because we spend too much.'' I think we need to start running Congress
like the American family has to run their household budget.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. I want to thank the Congressman from
Tennessee, Congressman David Davis. I appreciate your talk directed to
the people back home, telling them we should run Congress much like you
run your house. It is not being done today.
As we heard earlier from the Congressman from Ohio about the
spending, we heard from Congresswoman Michele Bachmann from Minnesota,
we have found that we are not talking about hope here, we are talking
about the largest tax increase in American history, because that is
what has gone on on this floor, and we want to make a real change about
it.
I now have another freshman who is joining us. He comes from
Colorado, Colorado Springs, the home of the Air Force Academy,
Congressman Doug Lamborn.
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman from California.
It's a pleasure to be here with my fellow Republican colleagues as we
talk about fiscal responsibility. I rise today with new poll numbers in
hand regarding the performance in Congress under the Democratic
majority. According to a Reuter's/Zobgy poll released earlier today, a
measly 11 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing.
The American public is disappointed with their government, and
understandably so.
When the Democrats took charge in January, they promised to usher in
an age of fiscal responsibility. Instead, they propose to hit 115
million American families with new tax increases totaling $392.5
billion. That is almost $400 billion.
In addition, the Democratic Congress has also fallen short on their
promise to enact serious earmark reform. As a result, wasteful earmark
spending continues to be a problem. This is evident by Democrat
Congressman Charlie Rangel's $2 million earmark to pay for a building
to be named in his honor. You heard some about that earlier. Ninety-
seven percent of Democrats, who only a year ago told the American
people they would restore responsibility to government, voted in favor
of this self-glorifying measure at the taxpayers' expense.
In a time, Mr. Speaker, when the Federal Government faces an $8.8
trillion national debt, this Congress must demonstrate to the American
people that we can be fiscally disciplined and that we can spend their
hard-earned tax dollars responsibly.
I am proud to say that Republicans have been leading the fight for
this in the 110th Congress. Increasing the size of the budget and
allowing earmarks to go unchecked will not reduce the deficit. I look
forward to continuing my work on this effort with my Republican
colleagues as we attempt to restore sanity upon the out-of-control
spending practices of the Democratic majority.
{time} 1815
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would yield back to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman from Colorado, and
I appreciate his opportunity to come down and talk with us.
As I said earlier, as we talked about the accountability of what has
gone on on this floor and we said, why has spending increased by 9.3
percent from last year? And we talked about the majority here and how
they have had the ``Monument to Me,'' where they put $2 million in to
name a library after themselves.
When you talk about earmarks, when you talk about transparency, this
is what we are talking about. We can find ways that we can eliminate
waste, fraud and abuse. That is what the American people want to have
happen here. I don't believe the taxpayers of America think Members of
Congress deserve $2 million libraries with well-furnished offices and a
library for your papers and memorabilia, that taxpayers should be
spending their money on that. I think we should be spending their money
in the classroom teaching our kids to read and write English. That is
what we should be spending our money on.
But I will tell you, we have another Member, a brand new Member of
the freshman class. Unfortunately, there was a death after the election
by Congressman Charlie Norwood in Georgia, and that special election
has taken place and we have a new Member to join with us tonight. He
actually has some late-breaking news that he wants to share with us, so
I would like to introduce and yield what time he desires
[[Page H10615]]
to Congressman Paul Broun, representing Augusta and Athens.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I would like to thank Congressman McCarthy for
yielding me time to speak on the floor this afternoon.
This afternoon, it was reported that Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad sought permission from the City of New York and the United
States Secret Service to visit Ground Zero, the site of the September
11 attacks. This is an outrage, that this person would request to go to
the place that he and his terrorist brethren have caused such
destruction in this country.
President Ahmadinejad is coming to the United Nations as the
representative of a country, Iran, that the State Department has
declared the ``world's most active state sponsor of terrorism.'' His
presence at Ground Zero would represent a slap in the face not only to
those who were lost in the attacks on September 11, 2001, and to their
families, but to all Americans.
Make no mistake about it, Iran is a rogue nation that views America
and the Americans as their enemy. General Petraeus and Ambassador
Crocker just spent a significant amount of their time recently here on
the Hill detailing the Iranian efforts to come against our troops and
kill our boys and ladies in Iraq. To allow Ahmadinejad to abuse his
status as a diplomat to visit this site would send a signal that we
fail to take the threat that he and his country bring to this Nation
and to our people in a serious manner.
What kind of man is Ahmadinejad? Please let me read you some of the
public policy positions as compiled by the Jerusalem Post.
He denies the Holocaust. ``We ask the West to remove what they
created 60 years ago; and if they do not listen to our recommendations,
then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this
for them.''
``The real Holocaust is what is happening in Palestine, where the
Zionists avail themselves of the fairy tale of Holocaust as blackmail
and justification for killing children and women and making innocent
people homeless.''
``The West claims that more than 6 million Jews were killed in World
War II, and to compensate for that they established and support Israel.
If it is true that the Jews were killed in Europe, why should Israel be
established in the East, in Palestine?''
``If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe,
the United States, Canada, or Alaska to Israel? My question is, if you
have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of
Palestine pay for this crime?''
His quotes about threats against Israel: ``Anybody who recognizes
Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.''
``Remove Israel before it is too late, and save yourself from the
fury of regional nations.''
``The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny.
The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian
land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.''
``If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled.
As it has lost its raison d'etre, Israel will be annihilated.''
``Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day be destroyed.''
``Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one
storm.''
Late this afternoon, this very afternoon, the New York Police
Department indicated that they would not issue a permit to Ahmadinejad.
I hope they stand firm on this decision, and I applaud that decision.
However, we should go one step further. This despotic, Holocaust
denying madman should not be allowed in this country. I call upon the
State Department and the President to do the right thing; refuse
Ahmadinejad an entry visa.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the Congressman from Georgia
bringing forward exactly what is going on right now in America.
I would like to, as we have a few moments left, turn back to
Congressman Peter Roskam from Illinois and yield him the time that he
desires.
Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I think one of the things that is upon us is this time, Mr. Speaker,
that we are in as a country right now and we are really in,
essentially, a time of choosing. And there are great weighty issues
that are before us as a Nation. There are great challenges that we face
today, and yet this Congress is not taking up those challenges. Let me
give you an example.
Today, we have the free market. That is something to be celebrated
and something to be heralded and something to be defended, because the
free market has brought about more prosperity for this country, for
more people than the world has ever known. Yet, in many ways, the free
market is under attack. And so this Congress, if it chose to, could
stand up and defend the free market and celebrate the free market and
say we are going to stand by the free market. But, no, actually there
has been an attitude that has crept into this Congress that says, no,
no, no, the free market is something that brings people down. The free
market is something that is to bring suspicion on people and ought not
to be celebrated.
Or, that other thing that we are dealing with, and that is that
notion of energy independence. This Congress, if it chose to, could
come together in a bipartisan way and create the environment where we
strive towards energy independence, where we are not dependent on a
complicated and difficult part of the world, Mr. Speaker, and that is
the Middle East; where we are not dependent on them for our economic
vitality and, ironically, for our national security; where we are not
funding in many ways indirectly the very people that do us harm. This
is the time of choosing.
I think that the reason that we are seeing that this leadership is at
an 11 percent figure, and that is almost hard to do if you think about
it, to have almost 9 out of 10 people disapproving of you, is because
they have squandered this opportunity to deal seriously with these
issues.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the Congressman from Illinois,
Mr. Peter Roskam, and all those who have joined with us tonight.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, some of you may have
noticed that I have a different haircut. This past August, I kept a
promise to my local American Cancer Society chapter that I would shave
my head if they met their fundraising goal.
My promise was grounded in an effort to bring greater awareness to
the American Cancer Society's work on finding a cure for a disease that
some estimates show will claim more than 559,000 lives in 2007.
The statistics on cancer are mind numbing. Cancer strikes one out of
two men and one out of three women, killing 1,500 people every day.
Having been at the front lines of cancer research and services for
more than half a century, the American Cancer Society remains a pillar
of hope for millions of Americans facing this dreadful disease.
I encourage my colleagues to get out there and support the work of
organizations like the American Cancer Society. The war against cancer
is a war we must, and can win--but only together.
Well, it has been more than 9 months since the 110th Congress
convened under the leadership of Democrats who promised the American
people many things, but have since failed to deliver on many of their
commitments. This is most evident in recent approval ratings of this
Democrat-run Congress, which have reached historic lows.
These numbers say everything about the failed promises of this
majority. During the 2006 campaign, the Democrats pledged to rein in
spending, yet their budget proposal contains more than $217 billion in
tax increases, representing the second largest tax increase in American
history, and proposes spending $23 billion above the amount proposed in
the President's budget blueprint.
This is not the kind of reform promised by the new Democrat majority;
rather, it is very reminiscent of the old Democrat majority that took
more money out of the American taxpayers' wallets, while creating new
wasteful spending and sprawling government programs.
Now, if the numbers are too much to bear, perhaps we can look at a
particular issue of great concern to my constituents, my fellow
Floridians, and residents of disaster-prone regions throughout the
United States. That is the outrageous cost of homeowners' insurance.
Our national economy, and the quality of life for many Americans is
severely burdened by the fact that disaster-prone areas, like Florida,
continue to suffer from an insurance market that has overblown its
rates and refused to take the necessary risk to ensure that every
homeowner has access to affordable, quality homeowners' insurance.
[[Page H10616]]
Earlier this week, my Democrat colleagues took to the House floor to
proclaim their outrage over the troubles homeowners are currently
facing throughout the United States as a result of the tanking subprime
mortgage market.
I want you to know that the concern of this body should focus on
these same homeowners, in addition to the millions of homeowners who
can pay their mortgage, yet are not adequately insured. This disparity
is a tragedy of equal or greater measure.
You see, faced with increasingly expensive and limited insurance
options, Florida embodies the kinds of problems plaguing homeowners in
high-risk areas across the country.
Owning a home is fundamental to the ``American Dream.'' It should not
be an insurmountable burden. Sadly though, such a possibility is slowly
eroding under unbelievably high homeowners' insurance.
As we speak this week about improving the opportunities for existing
and future homeowners, we must not forget the next catastrophe is just
around the corner for millions of American homeowners. This catastrophe
is not limited to the prospect of home foreclosures, but also
hurricanes, flooding and other disasters both man-made and natural.
If the American homeowner cannot adequately protect themselves from
these dangers, then they are just as vulnerable to losing their homes
as those who are facing the sub-prime credit debacle.
I recently introduced legislation that would allow Gulf Coast States
to pool their resources and jointly coordinate responses and
preparation for major disasters. The Gulf Coast All-Hazard Readiness
Act would allow the Gulf Coast States to form an interstate compact to
mitigate, respond to and recover from major natural disasters.
Additionally, I have cosigned important legislation that would remedy
the skyrocketing cost of homeowners' insurance in disaster-prone
regions of the country. These bills, H.R. 91 and H.R. 330, will go a
long way to addressing a problem that is only getting worse.
I implore this body to act, and for this Democrat-led majority to
make good on their promise to protect American families. They can start
by allowing a vote on legislation that will help families adequately
protect their homes from future and almost certain disasters.
____________________