Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his leadership. I compliment him on the amendment. I urge its adoption. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, the sponsor of the amendment.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. If I was not clear, this amendment would save the American taxpayer $8 million. It would remove a duplicative program, according to OMB, the Rural Community Facilities Program. I don't need a minute to explain what the amendment does. That is it. I certainly apologize to my colleague if I was unclear as to the purpose of the amendment or how it operates.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have noticed that the last several speakers on the House floor were rather strident in their comments, engaged in ad hominem attacks and perhaps at least one of them could have had their words taken down. Having served in this body for several years, I have yet to discover any direct correlation between the stridency with which one delivers their message and the righteousness behind their cause. Many have come here to say that somehow House decorum demands that one speak to another Member before offering an amendment that somehow may be injurious to their district's interests. In all of the years I have served in this body, I have yet to have somebody come to me and explain to me ahead of time how their amendment, how it impacts the people in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. Yet every day we see something like the largest tax increase in history, which certainly has a terrible impact on the hardworking people of the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. Nobody sought out my permission before they brought that particular piece of legislation to the floor. We have pieces of trade legislation, or it should be called anti- trade legislation, coming to the floor, harming my cow-calf operators in the Fifth District of Texas. Nobody seeks my permission or acquiescence before that legislation is brought to the floor. We have legislation imposing death taxes on people who have worked their whole life to build small businesses in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. Nobody seeks my acquiescence or permission before bringing that legislation to the floor. I also noticed that an earlier speaker referred to the funds in this amendment as ``my money.'' Well, isn't that a fascinating concept, ``my money.'' I thought it was the taxpayers' money, many of whom reside in the State of New Jersey. Many of whom reside in the State of Texas. I am interested why we seem to have on top of all the other education funds we have, and it is not exactly like this is an area of Federal funding that has gone lacking, since 1995, the elementary and secondary education budget function has increased 147 percent. That is about the highest increase of any budget function in that period of time. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, maybe we ought to go out and create a special education fund for New Jersey and for Texas and for Arkansas and Maine and New Hampshire. Why don't we create one for all 50 States. Then what we can do is we can go ahead with the Democrats' plan for the largest tax increase in history, and we can take all of this money away from American families. Then Washington can keep, say, a third of it in administration cost and waste and inefficiency, and then we can design these programs with our State names on them, take credit for it, and then hand it back to the taxpayers, whose money it is in the first place. So I want to salute the gentleman from New Jersey for his courage, for his steadfast leadership on this issue, his dedication to education, his dedication to fiscal responsibility, and for coming and suffering these ad hominem attacks. That, Mr. Chairman, is what is truly shameful about this particular moment. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, if my ears did not deceive me, I think I heard the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee either observe or lament that with one exception, every amendment offered on this bill, its purpose was to increase spending. If that was a lamentation, I certainly share his angst. Not wanting to disappoint, I am coming to the floor with several amendments that are designed to do just the opposite, spend less of the people's money to try to save hardworking American taxpayers more, let them keep more of what they earned. Now, Madam Chairman, this is a modest amendment, but it represents a very, very important principle. Today, right now, the Federal Government is spending $23,289 per family. This is the highest level spent in real inflation-adjusted terms since World War II. Earlier this year, the Democrat budget resolution included the largest single tax increase in American history which when fully put in place would put $3,000, an average of $3,000, additional tax burden on the average American family. And now even if Congress were for some reason to just disband today and add no new government, just the government programs we have on automatic pilot threaten to double taxes on the next generation. So we need to find every opportunity that we can today to save the poor beleaguered taxpayer even more money. Madam Chairman, I do not myself know exactly how many Federal programs exist. I have seen one estimate, I believe, from the Heritage Foundation that we have over 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 different agencies. I defy any man, woman or child to tell me what each and every one of them does. Some of them I am sure do good things; but the question is given the fiscal challenges that we face, are they truly a priority. Madam Chairman, some may have even completed their mission. And some, perhaps like the amendment that I am offering today, are actually duplicative. This is a modest amendment that would save the American taxpayer $8 million. In this particular program, ostensibly, funding is used for training and technical assistance in developing and managing water facilities. But the Office of Management and Budget has recommended that this particular program be eliminated, stating that ``the program is duplicative of other Federal entities such as the Bureau of Reclamation's rural water program which is responsible for water and wastewater treatment facilities.'' That is from the Office of Management and Budget. So we ought to make sure that we are not simply engaging in legislation by symbolism. I know every single program has a lofty- sounding name to help some constituency that is important to us. But we have to look beyond that and see if it is actually achieving its purpose, are there other programs that are also achieving its purpose as well. And according to the Office of Management and Budget, this program is duplicative of other programs. So we have to ask ourselves a very important question. In light of the fact that the Federal Government has never ever spent since World War II so much money of the American family, $23,289, given that the Democrat budget resolution includes the single largest tax increase in history, given that although the national deficit has come down, not due to any spending discipline but due to the fact that we are awash in tax revenues, we still have a tax deficit. So it is a simple question: Do we want to fund a program that the administration considers duplicative given that if we don't, either the funds are coming from the Social Security trust fund, and many of my colleagues have pledged not to do that, if it is not coming from that, it is going to add to this $3,000-per-American-family tax burden, or more debt will be passed on to our children. I believe we ought to use this opportunity to eliminate one duplicative Federal program and return $8 million to the American taxpayer. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I listened intently to the distinguished chairman of the committee, as I do whenever he is on the floor. Apparently he does not like amendments that increase spending in this bill, and apparently he doesn't like amendments that decrease the spending in the bill. So apparently he doesn't like amendments. So that much is clear. Second of all, Madam Chairman, when I come down to the floor in efforts to try to save taxpayers money, let them keep more money for their education programs, their health care programs, their energy programs, sometimes we're told that, well, this is so draconian, you know, to try to save this much money. And then other times we're told, well, this is just a piddling little amount. Well, I'm reminded first of a famous quote from the late Senator Everett Dirksen, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we're talking about real money. I'm even talking about more modest amounts today. But there's a fundamental principle involved here, and the fundamental principle is that we have a Federal budget growing way beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it. Make no mistake about it, Madam Chairman, government will be paid for. It's either going to be paid for in the short term by continuing to raid the Social Security Trust Fund, which is what's going to happen if this particular amendment fails. It will be funded by the single largest tax increase in American history which my friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrat majority, has done in their budget, or perhaps it may even be funded by sending more debt to our children and grandchildren. I think we should look for every opportunity. Given the challenges that we face, the Comptroller General of America has said we are on the verge of being the first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living. Never happened before in the history of America. So, Madam Chairman, I make no apologies for, to use the distinguished chairman's term, droning on about what fiscal perils lay in wait for future generations if we don't start now. And then, again, it's a little bit like Goldilocks and the three bears. Either the porridge is too hot or the porridge is too cold. When is the porridge just right to try to save the family budget from the onslaught of the Federal budget? So when we have the Office of Management and Budget single out a number of different programs, and I certainly think that their expertise in this area is great, to single out certain programs that, one, have outlived their usefulness; number two, are not meeting their objective; or number three, are duplicative, I think amendments are in order for the people's House to save the people money. We have to quit engaging again in the fact of legislation by symbolism. It has a lofty name or it has a lofty purpose, well, let's look at what's actually happening to the money. So this is a modest amendment, and I admit it's modest. I've tried to save big chunks of money and haven't been terribly successful there, and so we're going to attempt to save little chunks of money and perhaps set a precedent here. So this amendment is designed to save the American taxpayer $5 million by hopefully zeroing out the account of a program which the Office of Management and Budget has said does not have performance standards. They do not have performance standards to assess their impact or are too narrowly focused to have a major benefit. They duplicate other Federal programs and award grants on a noncompetitive basis. Now, ostensibly this program is a job opportunities program for low- income individuals, but I happen to know that practically every single one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against the tax relief that has created 8 million new jobs in our economy, which is an undeniable fact. That's truly the best job opportunity program for low-income individuals. And I know that this body recently voted against the maximum opportunity to create an artificial wage to deny some people their opportunity to get on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. There's a lot of ways that we can help low-income people with job opportunities, but one more duplicative program that awards grants on a noncompetitive basis is not it. Let's not raid the Social Security Trust Fund. Let's not be a part of the largest single tax increase in American history. Let's save the American people $5 million.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, again we have another modest amendment aiming at saving the American taxpayer, in this case $21.4 million. Again, we have a program that has a very lofty name, Preventive Health under the Administration of Aging. But I think that, again, the program needs to be put in the larger context. We are being asked now to provide in this particular appropriations bill $152 billion in discretionary funding, one of the largest bills that will come to the people's House. It has, I believe, a 4.8 percent increase over last year, when I assure you, American families who are being asked to pay for this did not enjoy a 4.8 percent increase. We, once again, have another portion of the Federal budget growing beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for this. So we all know that this is a part of a plan that will increase an additional $26 billion for domestic programs under the budget resolution of the Democrat majority, on top of the $6 billion that has been added to the current year omnibus, on top of the $17 billion in nonwar emergency spending they have added to the Iraq war supplemental. Again, I recall the words of the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, referring to those of us who may drone on about attempting to save the Federal taxpayer money, but there are also those who seemingly use the same old argument that government knows how to spend money better than the American family. Somehow, if we take money away from American families, that's an investment. But if they somehow keep it, well, that's waste, or somehow that's going to bring down the government to its knees. I just don't buy that argument. Somehow we are supposed to believe in the roughly 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 different agencies, growing at roughly twice the rate of inflation, growing beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it, that somehow, somehow, every single penny of Federal expenditures is sacrosanct. Yet there is nothing sacrosanct about the money we take away from the American people to pay for that. Now, the funds in this particular program are awarded to States and territories that supposedly educate older Americans about the importance of healthy lifestyles, a very noble purpose. But I would note with the exception of, I think, two, maybe three States, every single one of them is running a surplus. We are granting money to 95, 98 percent of the States that are running the surplus, while the Federal Government continues to run a deficit. Although that deficit is coming down because we are awash in tax revenues, it certainly hasn't been from any spending disciplines. The bottom line is we are running a deficit, and we are handing out money to States that are running surpluses. Again, this is a program that the Office of Management and Budget says should not be funded: ``It is duplicative of services that States can provide to the Administration on Aging's community-based supportive services program.'' I have heard nobody address or take the opposite viewpoint of OMB and say the program is duplicative. So maybe they approve of duplication. If they think that OMB has got it wrong, I would be interested in hearing that particular argument or that particular debate. Furthermore, OMB says that AOA and visions integrating, prevention is an underlying principle in its core programs and that is better than the current mechanism of providing a small funding stream of unfocused seed money through the Preventive Health Services Program. Again, I feel we have too much legislation by symbolism. We should never forget, when we are talking about the lofty purposes, that this will provide in vital investments and health care. Let's remember the vital investments in health care that the American people have. I mean, they are going to have to pay for this. Again, I often hear from my constituents, like Joyce in Tennessee Colony, Texas, says, ``Please do what you can to stop the wasteful spending. I am retired and disabled. I am raising my three grandchildren and now one great grandchild. I sometimes can't afford my own medicine.'' So here we have a choice. We can take money away from Joyce in Tennessee Colony, take money away from her health care program, to engage in this particular program which OMB says is duplicative. I have heard from David in the city of Garland.

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

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, we have had a number of debates this evening over the subject of earmarks. I have been heard on that, and I have been happy to have been heard on this particular debate. And again, I know there are many worthy expenditures of funds when it comes to earmarks. I do not necessarily believe that they are all bad. And I must admit, until coming to the floor, I wasn't completely certain what the Minnesota Digital Public Media Archive was. Fortunately, the gentlelady from Minnesota was kind enough to come to me and explain to me exactly what the purpose of the earmark was. I enjoyed our conversation and I appreciated her courtesy, and I want to stipulate this is not a debate on whether or not the gentlelady has a noble purpose for these funds. As explained to me with her enthusiasm, I stipulate there is a noble purpose for these funds. I am not necessarily going to engage in a debate on whether or not the Twin Cities public television station in St. Paul can make good use of the money, the half a million dollars. I am sure they can, as explained to me by the gentlelady from Minnesota. And so I want to again make it very clear, and we don't have the time to debate each and every earmark, but every time we expend these funds we have to look at, number one, where is the money coming from, and number two, what is the fiscal health of our Nation. Already the Federal Government is spending over $23,000 per American family. This is only the second time since World War II that the Federal Government has spent so much money. And right now with just the Federal Government that we have, we are on a collision course to double taxes on the next generation. Don't take my word for it. Go to the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, or the conservative Heritage Foundation or the liberal Brookings Institute. They will all tell you the same thing. So we are sitting here with an explosion of spending. Some will say, relatively speaking, this is a small amount of money. Relative to the Federal budget, it is a small amount of money. I am happy to stipulate that. But I still believe that earmarks, although a small portion of the Federal budget, tend to be a large portion of the culture of spending. Again, I have no doubt this is a worthy project, but I do note that the PBS television station, I believe, gets almost 85 percent of its funding from donations and other public grants. I am led to believe, and if I am incorrect, I invite the gentlelady from Minnesota to correct me, that they receive rather generous support from the taxpayers of the State of Minnesota. But I don't quite know what the compelling Federal purpose is, Federal purpose, money from Federal taxpayers, to fund the Minnesota Digital Public Media Archive. Look, this isn't a debate on whether or not this is a noble purpose for the money. It is not a debate on whether or not the gentlelady's public television station could do something good with the money. But let's remember where the money is coming from. As long as this Nation is running a deficit, which it is, is this money going to come from raiding the Social Security trust fund yet again, even though I have introduced and supported legislation that would protect that trust fund? If we run a deficit, we are still borrowing money from the Social Security trust fund. Or as we know in the Democratic budget resolution passed earlier this year, we have the single largest tax increase in American history, over 5 years ramping up to an average of $3,000 per American family. More spending fuels more taxes. Are we going to increase that greater tax burden on present American families or are we going to pass on more debt to our children? Government will be paid for. This earmark will be paid for one way or another. And so the question is not whether or not there's a noble purpose. The question is not whether or not they make good use of the funds, but is it a compelling Federal purpose, worthy of sending debt to our children, worthy of taking money away from the Social Security Trust Fund, worthy of being a part of the largest tax increase in history, and I respectfully submit to my colleagues that I believe it is not. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I certainly thank him for his leadership in this institution on this very, very important subject. I will be supporting, I suppose, the chairman's amendment. He said he was not interested, I believe, in biasing the decision; so he will vote present, although I think that the distinguished chairman had voted against the gentleman from California's amendment yesterday on another bill. So I am not sure if the outcome hasn't already been prejudiced. Be that as it may, I have not been opposed to all earmarks. I understand the opportunity and constitutional responsibility that this body has. But as I have observed the process, the process, I believe, more often than not, has led to bad results. And particularly the bad result that I see and why I commend the gentleman from California for his leadership in this area is that I believe, more often than not, we help teach people to become more dependent upon the Federal Government. People who never thought about receiving a Federal earmark now come to their local Member of Congress. There was a time when many individuals would compete in the marketplace of ideas and compete in the marketplace for business and compete in the marketplace for charitable contributions, and now they are being taught they need to compete in the halls of Congress. I recall dealing with a large major medical research institute in my hometown of Dallas, Texas, that does world renowned science who was always happy to come and compete in a competitive bid process for research dollars at the National Institutes of Health, but they woke up one day and many other institutions instead were receiving earmarks; so now they went out and invested their money in a Washington lobbyist and they started receiving earmarks. I do not necessarily view this as a good thing. And I wish I had coined the phrase, but our colleague in the other body, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, once said that earmarks are the gateway drug to spending addiction. That may not be true in all cases, but it is certainly true in many cases. And more often than not, I fear that they represent a victory of special interests over the general interest. They represent a victory, often, of secrecy over transparency. Even now we are having trouble trying to put the dollar amounts with the Member, with the earmark. Certainly, I don't see the transparency that I thought that we would have seen from the committee on this matter.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HENSARLING. Again, I appreciate the gentlelady and her purpose for her amendment. When she spoke about the term ``wealthy,'' if there is an industry in America that is wealthy it is obviously Hollywood. I would hope that they would be able to train their own people. But as I spoke about earlier, Rose Flores of Garland, Texas, doesn't consider herself wealthy, and yet she is staring at an average increase in her taxes of $3,000 a year as she tries to put a child through college, the very first one in her family to ever graduate from college. Again, we must focus on the cost of these earmarks.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I do have a number of comments I would like to make about this particular earmark. But before I do, I do feel compelled to address some of the comments by the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I think the way to paraphrase what he just said is: You guys spend too much, so we will spend even more. I am not exactly sure about the logic of that particular argument. I also heard complaints about the war, something that has been debated on this floor, should be debated on this floor, will be debated on this floor. But I would note that the gentleman's party controls both the House and both the Senate; and if his party wants to end funding, they can do that tomorrow. His party is in control of this now. Last, but not least, the distinguished gentleman complains about tax relief. Last I looked, don't take my word for it, go to the United States Treasury, we are awash in tax receipts. Tax relief has brought us in more tax revenue, because when you let the American people save more and invest more, they go out and they create and they grow the economy. So I think the gentleman's comments were very much misplaced. Speaking to this particular amendment; one, this particular amendment would eliminate the earmark of $300,000 in funds to the West Los Angeles Times College. From the certification letter, this is to establish a first-of-its-kind entertainment industry craft and technician college job training program to respond to the film and television industry's immediate need for new trained employees. Previous to coming to floor, I did know a lot about this particular earmark. The sponsor of the earmark, the gentlelady from California, was kind enough to share with me information about it, and I became convinced of a couple of different propositions: Number one, that she has a very noble purpose for this earmark. Again, I want to stipulate to that. Number two, I came away, as I did with the last amendment, knowing that not only is there a noble purpose, I have no doubt that some good things could be done with this money. But like in many of these earmark debates, there tends to be great focus on the good that can be done with this money, but we don't spend a lot of time talking about the harm that can be done with this money. And I know that the gentlelady from California feels that low-income people within her district could benefit from this program. I have no doubt that that is true. But I might point out that there are very many worthy community colleges, for example, in the Fifth Congressional District, who could benefit from this money as well. Eastfield College, we need a lot of people trained for our high-tech industry, for jobs with companies like Texas Instruments, companies like Raytheon. These monies could be used by Trinity Valley Community College. There are several locations within the Fifth District of Texas. They could help in our burgeoning nursery industry. It is a very agricultural part of my district. So, again, education is good. But the education is going to the one particular district in this particular case, not going to the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. So there are many worthy competing goals for this particular money. But I really want us to focus upon the fact that although I have no doubt that good things can be done with these funds, all of government must be paid for. And so, again, I think we should use this debate as an opportunity to focus on who is paying the bill. And, again, as long as this Nation is running a deficit and it is down, thanks to the fact we are awash in tax revenues due to tax relief, we are still running a deficit. That means that any earmark, not just the gentlelady's from California, but any, is going to be raiding the Social Security Trust Fund as we continue, unfortunately, a practice from both parties of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. In addition, we know that more spending fuels more taxes. And I hear from constituents in my district who have to pay the bills for all these earmarks no matter how worthy they are. I hear from somebody like the Flores family in Garland, Texas. She writes, ``Dear Congressman, I am a divorced mother with a child in college and a child in daycare. An increase in taxes would wipe out hope of the first college graduate in the family. Please don't let this happen. Let's hold the budget down. There are a lot of things I can't afford, so I don't buy them. I need government to take the same attitude.'' Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have listened intently to the gentlewoman's debate. I would simply say that it sounds too good to be true. If the company is on the cusp of making such wonderful breakthroughs, I just wonder, then, why taxpayer funds are needed. It would seem like investors would be knocking on the door to have a part of this great technology that this company is about to produce. I would love to sometime be able to visit California, visit this particular company, although I am not sure how practical it is. And I would encourage the gentlewoman to come to the Fifth District of Texas and speak to the people who are having to pay for this bill.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment would strike the earmark for Nanosys, Inc. The funding would have been used to develop a fuel cell membrane electrode assembly to enable the production of lightweight fuel cells suitable for automotive applications and portable electronic devices. Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that that is a very worthy expenditure of funds. I, myself, prior to coming to Congress, used to be an officer in what most typically know is a green energy company. The issues surrounding fuel cells, the issues surrounding making energy more environmentally friendly, making America more energy independent are very, very important issues. But I wonder, I wonder about the wisdom, about earmarking funds to a specific, which I assume to be, for profit company, a private company. Otherwise why are they called Nanosys, Inc.? There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of companies across America, all trying to do good things, trying to feed our people, educate our people, clothe our people, heat their homes in the winter, cool them in the summer, help them with transportation. What isn't a priority here? And so now we give all the indication that, instead of having a company come and compete in some process, some kind of competitive bidding process, instead we have an earmark to a private company. Why is their fuel cell technology so superior to somebody else's? Back when I was affiliated with Green Mountain Energy of Austin, Texas, they were doing a lot of good things to produce power from wind energy and solar energy and biomass. Perhaps I should encourage some of my former colleagues of that particular private company to, instead of competing in the halls and competing in the marketplace, to come compete in the halls of Congress for an earmark. Now, again, this Nation desperately needs advances in fuel cell technology, but to start handing money, through earmarks, to individual companies, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe is the way to go. And furthermore, once again we face such fiscal challenges. Our energy challenge, our educational challenge are not the only challenges we face. We face a great fiscal challenge. To paraphrase the Controller General Walker, he has said, we are on the verge, in America, of being the first generation in our Nation's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living. It has never been done in the history of America. And we will do that if we don't stop the ways that we spend the people's money. So, again, I am faced with a bill here that spends 4.3 percent more than last year. I am faced with an earmark that is part of that process. I am looking at a Democrat budget plan, Mr. Chairman, that will be $21 billion over the President's request. I am looking at a Democrat budget resolution that is going to impose the single largest tax increase in America's history not only on the good people of the Fifth Congressional District of Texas but everybody. So, again, the relevant question is not can good things be done with the money. I am sure Nanosys can do a lot of good things with the earmark that they will mostly likely receive. But it is coming out of American families. It is coming out of their energy budget. It is coming out of their education budget. If we don't fund it through that, if we pass more debt on to our children, then what are they facing? They are facing doubling of their taxes and our generation passing on to them a lower standard of living. And, Mr. Chairman, I simply do not wish to be a part of that. So I urge adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.