W. Akin

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. As America is becoming painfully aware, there has been a result of us not developing American energy. We have reports of police cars sitting idle because of the cost of gasoline; various assembly lines and automobile manufacturers closed down because of the fact that there's no demand for the type of vehicles that are being produced. We have a situation where parents have a hard time just putting enough gasoline in the tank to get the kids to school. And we have the AAA saying that the increase in motorists without gas has increased 15 percent. Since Speaker Pelosi took office, gasoline prices have skyrocketed 71 percent. Now, I am an engineer. The good news is there's a solution to this. It's called American energy. We need to stop looking at the American energy as something that is an environmental hazard and rather look at it as an asset that we can develop. The Democrats, year after year after year, 85 percent of the time, are voting against increasing supplies of American energy. We have to develop our own energy.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on a subject that is of great deal of interest to the Army, and that is what's called the Future Combat Systems. The Army has one basic modernization program, the only comprehensive modernization program that they've had in the last more than 30 years. So obviously this is of great interest to the Army, and the Army would like to see it funded at the level that it came across from the administration. And what we've done is we've cut over $200 million from Future Combat Systems. My amendment simply restores a portion, $100 million plus, of that $200 million cut. Now the thing that we have to understand about this is this is a very complicated program. And next year, at least in theory, there is a ``go, no go,'' either we're going to support this program or we're going to cancel it, and there is no fallback position. So here we are, 1 year before the final decision, and what we're doing is one more time inflicting a death of 1,000 slashes. Now, last year we tried to just slit its throat with $800 million, but this year we're simply cutting it a little over $200 million. It seems to be a very bad time when we are just 1 year away from making the final decision, go or no go, to cut money from it. Now, if there is one way that you want to make a scheduled slip, the best way to do it is cut money out because then you don't have as many people working on it, it causes delays in the program. So do we want to cause delays in the program? I think not. The one question might be, well, how do you fund this extra $100 million? Well, we're getting the money from the same place where we got $1 billion. The committee took $1 billion earlier, so this is a small amount more. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. AKIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Congressman Hunter, for yielding. Let me just take a moment to thank you also for your great leadership on this committee through the many years. What a fantastic teacher you've been to some of the newer members. I'm so thankful for your leadership, your patience. And also the gentleman from Mr. Everett's district, Mr. Saxton, great leadership. Then I would also like to say, Chairman Skelton, thank you very much. You make the people from Missouri proud for the way that you've continued the good tone of the committee. I think it was really a classy thing to name this bill after Congressman Hunter, and it just shows the quality of leadership that you've provided, and so I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, as well. As the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Dr. Snyder has been doing a great job. We've had a chance to look into a number of different subjects, particularly progress in the reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. This bill contains some of the things that we discovered particularly in the importance of Provincial Reconstruction Teams and the important work that's been done on that subcommittee. I would just like to say that there's a lot of criticism of Congress. In fact, I think our popularity rating publicly is maybe not too good. But on the other hand, I think what the public would really like to see is they'd like to see us stop bickering and just plain solve some programs. I think this committee and the subcommittees have been largely a good example of that, and that's because of the tone of the leadership that we've seen. As others have before, I have my opinions about how this bill could be improved, and there are several areas that I am concerned with. The first are the significant cuts to missile defense and particularly the missile defense that needs to be built in Poland and the Czech Republic. I believe that that missile defense is critical for the defense of our country from Iran and also some Western European nations from Iran. I think it's the wrong time to be cutting missile defense. We have just had a very successful demonstration of this technology, as we shot down a rogue satellite that had a lot of hydrazine in the fuel tank, and we were able to get rid of that threat very effectively. So aside from missile defense, there's one other area that I am distressed about, and that is the only comprehensive major Army modernization program in the last 30 or 40 years, which we now know as Future Combat System. That has also had a number of hundred million dollars removed from it. It's something we have discussed in committee. I think it's a wrong decision. Next year, we are going to make a go or no-go on this overall program, and to be continuing to slash and cut away at that budget, I think, is counterproductive. This said, my only other complaint is there's just not enough money in this budget to fund defense the way I wish we could. But if there are constituents who would like to see people who are just rolling up their sleeves and solving problems, all they need to do is come to the authorizing committee of the Armed Services.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, in accordance with House Republican Conference standards, and Clause 9 of Rule XXI, I submit the following member requests for the record regarding H.R. 5658, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2009. Project: C-17A Globernaster aircraft Account: Aircraft Procurement, Air Force Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The Boeing Company Address of Requesting Entity: 1200 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22209 Description of Request: Per Air Force Unfunded Priority List (UPL) #6, C-17 (+15 aircraft), $3.9B. procures 15 C-17s, keeping only active strategic airlift production line open. The C-17 is the world's most effective and flexible strategic/tactical airlifter. The C-17 has revolutionized the movement of troops and equipment into battle by allowing their delivery to parts of the world that was previously not accessible by conventional airlifters. Additional C-I7s are essential to the warfighter. Project: Hyperspectral Imaging for Improved Force Protection (HYPER- IFP) Account: Army RDT&E, (CERDEC, NVESD, Special Projects) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Clean Earth Technologies, LLC. Address of Requesting Entity: 13378 Lakefront Drive, Earth City, MO, USA Description of Request: Provide $5,400,000 to complete the design, assembly, integration, test and evaluation of the Hyperspectral Integrated Force Protection sensor system (Hyper-IFP). Approximately 40% will be used for engineering development modeling and simulation; 30% will be used for subsystems assembly and testing; 15% will be used for system integration and ground testing; 15% will be used for a deployed full system field test and evaluation. The request is consistent with the Army NVESD Special Projects office mission to develop advanced sensor systems that provide an operational advantage or that increase survivability of the warfighter. Taxpayer value is substantially enhanced by dual/multi use capacity to serve a number of Homeland Security (DHS) missions in addition to military force protection. Project: Short Range Ballistic Missile Defense Account: Defensewide RDT&E Legal Name of Requesting Entity: LaBarge Corporation Address of Requesting Entity: 9900 Clayton Road, St. Louis, Missouri 63124 Description of Request: $10M over the President's request of $44.9M to allow the program to get back on track for its planned 2010 IOC which will ensure US troops are protected as quickly as possible against the short range ballistic missile threat. This funding will allow the development team to accelerate design. development and testing that was lost due to past funding cuts; and will initiate concept development and risk reduction efforts to integrate the weapon into existing Army anti-missile systems. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Defensewide RDT&E account. Project: Heuristic Internet Protocol Packet Inspection Engine Account: Army, RDT&E. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: TechGuard Security, LLC. Address of Requesting Entity: 743 Spirit 40 Park Drive, Chesterfield, MO 63005. Description of Request: $3.5 million solely for the research, development and test of Heuristic Internet Protocol Packet Inspection Engine (HIPPIE). The advanced concept HIPPIE technology can be rapidly prototyped and deployed in a filtering appliance that sits in front of an existing firewall or router, and uses unique filtering algorithms to quickly classify large numbers of packets--i.e., the country of origin for an IP address--without using slow and CPU intensive rule sets. The objective of the program is to miniaturize the HIPPIE through the use of nanotechnology to the point where it can be placed on a chip and placed directly on a computer for offensive or defensive cyber warfare use. Project: Mission Execution Technology Implementation. Account: Army, RDT&E. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Westar Aerospace & Defense Group, Inc. Address of Requesting Entity: 36 Research Park Court, St. Charles MO 63304, U.S.A. Description of Request: Provide $10,000,000 for technology improvements urgently needed by combat units in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. This program will result in significant increases in mission effectiveness and safety for our war- fighters. Funding is required to continue development of enterprise- enabled, integrated Aviation tools and provide this ability to all Army Aviation systems to include UH-60 series, OH-58D, AH-64D, Fixed Wing and UAS systems. The complete integrated aviation solution includes implementing the automated maintenance test flight tool, automated weight and balance software, and integration with current logistics and Aviation Mission Planning systems. The Aviation community has consistently requested an enhanced, fully Automated Maintenance Test Flight Tool for in-cockpit use, eliminating manual and repetitive Maintenance Test Pilot tasks and significantly reducing the labor required to return aircraft to full service. This solution would also fulfill the Army directive for a paperless system, storing the maintenance test flight check-sheets into the Common Logistics Operating Environment, eliminating the paper form. Improved integration of automated weight and balance tools with the CLOE and the Aviation System of System infrastructure is critical, eliminating error-prone manual entries and expanding aircraft flight envelopes by eliminating manual lookup and interpolation of paper performance charts. The amount of time in calculating and recalculating loads during OPTEMPO will be greatly reduced from hours to mere minutes. This effort will include the application of commercial Aviation best-practices to data and data processes in support of air worthiness, and the development of processes to support air worthiness assessments of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). Air-worthiness of UAS will improve safety in training and combat operations as well as permit the routine use of these critical capabilities within national airspace during natural disasters and homeland defense operations. Project: Ultra-Wideband Reactive Waveform Modulator. Account: Army RDT&E. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: X-COM Systems, LLC. Address of Requesting Entity: 106 North College Avenue, Warrensburg, MO 64093. Description of Request: $1.5M to support the development and testing of an ultra-wideband reactive waveform modulator (UWB-RWM) for IED countermeasures at the Intelligence & Information Warfare Directorate (12WD), Fort Monmouth, NJ. The UWB-RWM will be a COTS solution designed to support and transition into current Joint Counter Radio Controlled Improvised Explosive Device Electronic Warfare (JCREW) efforts. By providing a significant performance improvement over currently available technology, the UWB-RWM's adaptability and scalahility will facilitate a future-proof capability for transmitting ever-evolving IED defeat waveforms of increasing complexity.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the last little more than a year, gasoline prices have gone up $1.33 cents a gallon. That's a larger increase than what we've had over the previous 5 years before that. The Democrat leadership said that they had a plan at that time, this is a year ago, to keep the gas prices from going up. Yet the gas prices have gone up. Now I don't think the American public wants us to bicker between parties. They want us to be solving problems. And I don't believe it's the Democrats' fault necessarily that the gas prices have gone up internationally. But what is a problem is that we're not dealing with the problem. What we should be talking about is how do we move off of our dependence on foreign oil to American energy? What we should be seeing would be movement in the direction, depending on which way people want to go, additional refinement capacity. There have been no new refineries built in over 30 years. Investment in new nuclear technology. Our nuclear technology is old, many, many years old. It's a good source of energy. The idea of getting liquid fuel from coal. We have tremendous coal resources. Shouldn't there be something being done in that area? But nothing in any of these areas. A lack of a plan is unacceptable. It's not the Democrats' fault that gas prices go up, but it is a problem when we don't have a plan.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Dr. Robert Fraley who was a recent recipient of the National Academy of Sciences' Award for the Industrial Application of Science. Every three years, the National Academy of Sciences recognizes one individual for original scientific work of both intrinsic scientific importance and with significant, beneficial applications in industry. This year, Dr. Fraley was honored with this important distinction for developing technologies that have enabled the production of the world's first transgenic crops. These modified plants have increased productivity, reduced chemical use, and profoundly changed global agriculture. Since the 1980s, Dr. Fraley has been involved in agricultural biotechnology. Often referred to as the father of agricultural biotechnology, Dr. Fraley currently oversees Monsanto's integral crop and seed agribusiness biotechnology and research. Throughout his distinguished career, Dr. Fraley has contributed to various significant agricultural development activities including authoring more than 100 publications and patent applications relating to technical advances in agricultural biotechnology. In 1999, Dr. Fraley received the National Medal of Technology from President Clinton and was awarded the National Award for Agricultural Excellence in Science by the National Agri-Marketing Association in 1995. Dr. Fraley has also been awarded the Monsanto Edgar M. Queeny Award in recognition of the discovery, development and successful commercialization of Roundup Ready' crops as well as the Monsanto Thomas and Hochwalt Award for recognition of the advances made in basic research in plant biology. Dr. Fraley is a shining example of the innovative ideas and great leadership that we have in Missouri. I thank Dr. Fraley for his service to the St. Louis community and beyond. I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating him on this important honor.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Principal Jill Ramsey and physical education teachers: Mr. Patrick Fine, Ms. Liesa Hartin, Mr. Mike Kaiser, and Mr. Steve Musial. Principal Jill Ramsey and the Chesterfield Elementary School has successfully renewed its STARS status. The criteria for STARS recognition is based on the National Standards for Physical Education, specifically, educationally and developmentally appropriate instructional strategies and teaching skills, adequate facilities and equipment that are safe and appropriate for the age and abilities of the students and that enable students to participate in the maximum amount of active time on task, and classes taught by certified physical educators. A quality school physical education program is the foundation for helping all children develop the knowledge, skills, and confidence that promote lifelong physical activity. By improving the quality of school physical education programs across the country, we will have a direct effect on the health of America's children. I want to thank the fine educators of Chesterfield Elementary School for their commitment to the health and education of our future generations and congratulate them on the successful renewal of their STARS status in 2008.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to welcome His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI on his first apostolic visit to the United States. Since April 2005, Pope Benedict XVI has led the Roman Catholic Church admirably, he has served his church faithfully, and focused strongly on the dignity and importance of human life, particularly for those who are often ignored: the elderly, the disabled, and the unborn. In his first papal visit to the United States of America, Pope Benedict will only be able to visit two cities, but citizens across the Nation, of all faiths and backgrounds, warmly welcome him to our country. Pope Benedict stands for both truth in the face of relativism and peace and love in the face of violence and hate--it is these strengths that make Pope Benedict's voice and message one that all Americans, and all people around the world, should be eager to hear. The theme of Pope Benedict's apostolic visit is ``Christ our Hope.'' In his latest Encyclical, Spe Salvi, Pope Benedict notes, ``. . . it is true that anyone who does not know God, even though he may entertain all kinds of hopes, is ultimately without hope, without the great hope that sustains the whole of life (cf. Eph 2:12). Man's great, true hope which holds firm in spite of all disappointments can only be God--God who has loved us and who continues to love us ``to the end,'' until all ``is accomplished'' (cf. Jn 13:1 and 19:30). Whoever is moved by love begins to perceive what ``life'' really is. . . . Life in its true sense is not something we have exclusively in or from ourselves: it is a relationship. And life in its totality is a relationship with him who is the source of life. If we are in relation with him who does not die, who is Life itself and Love itself, then we are in life. Then we ``live.' '' May all of us, as Americans, be open to Pope Benedict's message of hope this week. I welcome Pope Benedict XVI in this visit and hope he will return to our Nation again in the near future.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I was unable to participate in the following votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: March 4, 2008: rollcall vote No. 90, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, H.R. 816--To provide for the release of certain land from the Sunrise Mountain Instant Study Area in the State of Nevada and to grant a right-of-way across the released land for the construction and maintenance of a flood control project--I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall vote No. 89, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, H.R. 1311--To direct of the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Alta-Hualapai Site to the city of Las Vegas, Nevada, for the development of a cancer treatment facility--I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall vote No. 88, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, H.R. 1143--To Authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease certain lands in Virgin Islands National Park, and for other purposes-- I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Greg Prestemon, of St. Charles, Missouri, as the 2008 Non-Profit Executive of the Year at the 3rd Annual Honors Program organized by the Saint Charles Business Magazine. Since Greg's arrival at the Economic Development Center, EDC, in 1993, St. Charles County's population has grown from 232,360 to nearly 350,000 today. In fact, St. Charles County continues to be one of the fastest growing counties in the State of Missouri. As president and chief executive officer of the Economic Development Center of St. Charles County, Greg has served 15 successful years at the helm of the Economic Development Center, which is also celebrating its 15-year anniversary of their small business incubator facility in St. Peters, Missouri. Mr. Prestemon's nomination highlights the way that St. Charles County has grown and prospered, particularly through his work at the Economic Development Center and Partners for Progress. During Greg's tenure, the accomplishments of the Economic Development Center include more than $100 million of business financing, the creation and retention of nearly 5,300 jobs, more than 150 business graduates and 500 jobs from the EDC incubation program. These accomplishments do not even include the thousands who have attended EDC business training events, and Greg's involvement in countless special projects such as workforce housing, health care and education initiatives and the road tax campaign. I thank Greg for his service to the community. He is a shining example of the great leadership we have in Missouri and I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating him on his nomination.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 917. House Resolution 917 supports the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week, which will be celebrated this year in just a few days, starting February 17. The National Society of Professional Engineers established the first National Engineers Week in 1951. Through all of the next week, a wide range of activities are planned around the theme of ``Engineers Make a World of Difference'' in order to increase the understanding of and interest in engineering and technology careers and to promote K-12 literacy in math and science. These activities will also highlight the contributions that engineers have made to our society. Historically, Engineers Week is celebrated during the week of George Washington's actual birthday to honor his contributions to engineering as a military engineer and a land surveyor. As our Nation's first President, he put our Nation on the path toward technological advancements, invention and education. We continue down that path today, which has grown exponentially into multiple and complex highways of innovation. It is our engineers, literally and figuratively, who build those highways and help keep us ahead of the innovation curve. From landing a man on the Moon to designing bags to carry our groceries, engineers play a role in nearly every facet of our lives. Just a few weeks ago, the National Science Foundation released the 2008 Science and Engineering Indicators loaded with statistics on our Nation's engineering future. It's essential that we capitalize on opportunities such as National Engineers Week to raise awareness of the valuable work and contribution of engineers to society to attract young people of all ages to this rewarding profession. I support the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week, and I urge my colleagues to join me with their support. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I think it may be appropriate for me to add here a little interesting perspective that was not in the script today. It's an incident that occurred about 19-plus years ago. It seems like just the other day. I had just been elected to be a State legislator in the State of Missouri, and I was very pleased and proud of that. No one in my family had ever run for political office or slid that far down the totem pole of life, but I was still looking forward to serving as a State representative. And the first thing on my agenda was to go to an early morning breakfast with other legislators. I got to the breakfast, but it was so early I was there just a little bit late. Just about the time I was sitting down at the table, one of the prominent legislators at the table said, You know, we ought to have a law against engineers serving in the legislature because they are just way too rational for the legislative process. And I was just taking my chair when somebody said, You're not an engineer, are you? And I said, Yes, I am. So I'm thankful to be one of those seven or so engineers that serve here in the U.S. House. I do believe that there is always a use for the discipline of problem solving that engineering brings. So if there may be someone that's young and considering that career in engineering, I would advise them very strongly in favor of it, even though it involves a certain amount of suffering in undergraduate school. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AKIN

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

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 1834, the National Ocean Exploration Program Act. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, is the Nation's lead agency charged with conserving and managing our coastal and oceanic resources. As such, relevant and high-quality research and development is vital to NOAA's ability to better understand the marine ecosystems it manages. NOAA's ocean exploration efforts have been organized in a systematic and strategic manner in order to investigate the farthest depths of the Earth's oceans. NOAA's undersea research programs allow for direct access to undersea environments through submersibles and indirect observation through the use of robots and sea-floor observatories. These programs provide invaluable information that enables us to learn more about our environment that covers more than two-thirds of our planet. H.R. 1834 authorizes two existing ocean programs: the Ocean Exploration Program and the National Undersea Research Program. Under this authorization, NOAA is required to work with the National Science Foundation to map out a coordinated national exploration program that promotes collaboration with other Federal ocean exploration programs to prevent duplicative efforts. This bill also requires NOAA to conduct an undersea research, exploration, education, and technology development program that coordinates with similar efforts of the academic and marine and ocean science communities. Most of these research and exploration efforts are conducted by outside groups who receive grants and funding from NOAA. H.R. 1834 requires that such funding shall now be distributed through a competitive bid process. Competition for funding will encourage existing research centers to select their most valuable research projects and partner with each other on other research programs. This competition is essential to ensure that the best research programs and ideas are adequately funded, something that, unfortunately, has not always been the case in the past. Madam Speaker, at a time when our Nation is struggling to divide resources among a greater number of programs, we cannot afford to allow spending on research programs that do not provide pertinent information related to NOAA's important mission. The authorizing of these two programs and the competitive grant process that is established in this bill will ensure that NOAA is able to fund only the most useful projects and leverage taxpayer dollars in a way that provides the most useful information to understanding and managing our ocean environment. I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 1834. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield now such time as he may consume to my colleague Jim Saxton from the State of New Jersey. He has a long and very well-established reputation here, and, by the way, this is part of his legislation.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 966. It's fitting that this Congress is also considering the gentlelady from Texas', Mrs. Johnson's, resolution on the same day that we're celebrating National Engineers Week. H. Res. 966 honors African American inventors, past and present, for their leadership, courage, and significant contributions to our national competitiveness. Three of the men we honor today were engineers; the fourth, a renowned biologist. Their contributions to our Nation are many; their drive to achieve success, often in the face of adversity, admirable; and their recognition today, highly deserved. We owe a debt of gratitude to Garrett Augustus Morgan for the contributions he made to public safety with safety helmet, gas mask, and traffic signal inventions. Ernest Everett Just's cellular work to help find a cure for sickle cell anemia and cancer helped him become one of the most well-respected scientists in his field. Many of the roads we travel on in the D.C. area, including the Tidal Basin Bridge, the Whitehurst Freeway and much of the Baltimore- Washington Parkway, were designed by Archibald Alphonso Alexander. Considered an expert in heat transfer, ventilation, and air conditioning, David Nelson Crosthwait, Jr., invented numerous practical heating devices. These include an improved boiler, thermostat control, and differential vacuum pump for larger buildings, such as Radio City Music Hall and Rockefeller Center. These men are role models for our next generation of scientists and engineers. This Congress, through America COMPETES, has made great strides to ensure that our Nation continues to attract the best and the brightest to these admirable and important careers. I support H. Res. 966 and encourage my colleagues to do the same. With that, I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Well, thank you very much for yielding me some time here. I agree with you entirely that Congressman Hensarling from Texas really does us proud, and we think an awful lot of his constituents for sending Mr. Hensarling here. He is a great leader and really understands the basic principles and levers on what makes Congress work. Mr. Barrett from South Carolina, I appreciate your managing the time before us this evening, and your integrity and leadership, and the fact that you are pretty smart and on top of these issues. We need people like that here. The question before us tonight, do we want tax increases or tax decreases. It is a pretty simple choice: Tax increases or tax decreases. Historically there were two guys, one guy plugging each one. One was called little Lord Keynesian economics. That is the one that said what we want to do is we want to do tax increases. If the government just spends enough money, by golly, it is just like standing inside a bucket, grabbing the handle and lifting up, and we will just float our way out of any economic problems. So the idea is government will spend a lot of money and increase taxes. That is a Keynesian approach. The other approach was advanced a little later, after Keynes, and it was Milton Friedman. He said no, when you have your economy in trouble, you are starting to get into a recession, you want to do tax decreases. Now that might sound like a crazy idea because if you cut taxes, you think, I won't be able to pay for all of the things that government is doing. We already have a deficit, how can you cut taxes. Well, one of the ways to take a look at which one of these ideas is a better idea is take a look at how it has worked historically. We have a long record on that, actually. You can go back to the 1920s, and Calvin Coolidge cut taxes at a time when the economy was having a hard time, and the economy surged. In fact, they gave it a name, they called it the Roaring 20s. Next was FDR. Now FDR in his earlier years, he was in trouble politically, so he got a clever idea. He said I am going to take some Federal money and start building using Federal money in the States where I need some votes. He goes out and doubles and then triples the budget of the Federal Government. The Federal Government was only spending about 3 percent, and he took it up to 9 percent. That was the 1930s and 1940s. And, of course, the Great Depression was brought on by that extensive spending on the part of the Federal Government and the tax increases that were necessary to try to cover that. In 1960, and this is a place where we step a little out of the political pattern. In general, Republicans have been on the side of cutting taxes. But here was a Democrat, John F. Kennedy. In 1960 he said the economy is in trouble, and we need to cut taxes. JFK did that, and we had 7 or 8 years of very strong economy. So again, when you cut taxes, the economy surged and did better. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan was stuck with a very difficult economy. He did a huge tax cut. Everybody says Reaganomics, it was foolish to cut taxes, except it worked. We had a tremendously strong economy. It was that strong economy that allowed Ronald Reagan to spend money on defense and basically economically break the back of the Soviet Union, thus winning the Cold War. Then we came back with Bush I and Clinton. They went back to the raise-taxes formula. The economy gets in trouble. Bush II comes into office in 2000, and we have a recession starting. What happens, in 2003 he does a major tax cut particularly where it was necessary to help small businesses to help invest in the economy, and now we have had about 5 years of a very strong economy because of the tax cuts. Well, where are we today? The Democrats today are really into the idea of tax increases. Not only have they raised billions and billions in additional spending in 2007, but they have proposed the mother of all tax increases. That does make me scared around Thanksgiving when you hear about the mother of all tax increases, a $3-plus trillion tax increase. That is going to repeal all of the Bush tax cuts. So now you have the economy that is pretty shaky right now, and what are you going to do; you are going to slam it with massive tax increases, and that is the formula that goes right back to little Lord Keynesian that the Democrats are pushing. The question could be asked, we are not being able to cover all of our bills, how can you talk about cutting taxes, being responsible when you talk about cutting taxes, wouldn't you have to pay all of these bills for the government. Well, here is an interesting thing, and it is one that I heard talked about but I never really quite analyzed it. I would like you to picture in your mind that you are king for the day and your job is to try to raise some money for your government to do some programs. The only thing you get to tax is a loaf of bread. So you start to think this one out. You see this loaf of bread sitting in front of you, and you think, am I going to put a one penny tax on a loaf of bread, and you start calculating how many loaves of bread that we use in the country, and figure out what you raise. You think, why not charge $100 for taxes on a loaf of bread. Then you think maybe no one would buy the bread then. Common sense says somewhere between a penny and $100 there is some level of tax on the loaf of bread that if you increase it, you will lose tax revenue. And if you decrease it, you will lose tax revenue. So what is going on here is that there is some optimum level of taxing, and when you go beyond it, even though you raise taxes, you are actually crashing the economy and you are not going to collect as much money because the economy is going to die. You think about the fact in this last Bush administration people were complaining about the tax cuts and the cost of the war. The interesting thing is if you add the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the cost of the tax cuts, they don't equal as much as what the recession was costing us in the beginning of 2000. Recessions are very expensive. So if you drive your taxes too much, the economy slows and you don't get the tax revenue. You can raise taxes as much as you want, but if the economy is sick, you are not going to get revenue in. So that's the logic. It is like a loaf of bread. If you tax it too much, you actually get less revenue coming into the government. Now the thing that I find ironic about this whole thing, we have all of this history in America and we know that tax cuts are the medicine you need when you have a recession. We don't want excessive spending, and we cannot afford these huge tax cuts. And the ironic thing is that the socialistic Europeans have figured this out. We have the economists who figured it out, and yet we are not acting on the intelligence that we have. The Europeans, they figured hey, this is a good deal, we will cut taxes and our economy will grow. And so they whacked taxes 8 or 9 years ago, and their economy is going gangbusters. All of Europe asks, What did Ireland do? Oh, Ireland cut its taxes. And so good old socialistic Germany and socialistic France, they are working to cut taxes. They figured it out. And here we are, the people who actually came up under Milton Friedman with this understanding of economics, and what are we doing, we are talking about the mother of all tax increases. This is insanity. I can't understand why the Democrats want to do this. If I were a Democrat, I would want to hand out pork and programs to people; I would want a strong economy. I would want to cut taxes so I would have more money to spend. It doesn't make sense to pass these huge, massive tax increases. I think we could learn from history, or we could just learn from the Irish. I certainly appreciate the gentleman from South Carolina yielding me the time to talk about this. The question is are we going to do tax increases or tax decreases? If you care about the economy and if you care about the future of our children, the answer has to be that we have to use the Milton Friedman approach and we have to get control of our spending and we have to cut our taxes.