[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24784-24791]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 24785]]

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 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

[[Page 24786]]

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, DC. 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 6 have included 5 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 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

[[Page 24787]]

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.

                              {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

[[Page 24788]]

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, 
DC. 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

[[Page 24789]]

tax increase into the Federal Government increased. The economy got 
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.

[[Page 24790]]

  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 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.

[[Page 24791]]

  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.
  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.

                          ____________________