Jim Jordan

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I will be brief and just point out this: we heard some of the terrible things that are going to happen if we keep the spending at the same level we had last year. The American people need to understand this, Madam Chair: $3.1 billion is what this bill spends. My amendment would say $3 billion, $3 billion to run the United States Congress. You ask American families that, they would probably say, you know, that is probably enough. They can probably get by on $3 billion versus $3.1 billion. That is all this does. As the gentleman from Texas pointed out, in the course of the appropriation bills we have been dealing with, this is fairly fiscally responsible. But $3 billion is enough to run the United States Congress. That is all this amendment would do, keep us where we are right now. Things are working fine now. Why can't we do that in the future?

Mr. JORDAN

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

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and the Congressman from Michigan for their work on this amendment and their longstanding commitment to protecting human life. This is about two fundamental issues that have been talked about here on the floor. First, taxpayer dollars shouldn't go to organizations, whether those dollars are cash or in-kind, shouldn't go to organizations that perform or promote the taking of innocent human life. Second, it recognizes the more fundamental principle, life is precious, life is sacred, and government's fundamental responsibility is to protect the weak from the strong, to protect those innocent individuals whose lives are being taken. This is good public policy. We should keep it in place. It's consistent, frankly, with our heritage and with our history. I always like to remind folks of what the founders said when they talked about that fundamental document that started this great experience we call America: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's interesting to note the order the founders placed the rights they chose to mention. Can you pursue happiness, your goals and dreams, if you first don't have liberty? And do you ever have true liberty, true freedom, if government does not protect your most fundamental right, your right to live? This amendment is consistent with the founders' vision, it's good policy, and we should adopt it.

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, I don't pretend to know exactly how the billions of dollars in the Foreign Operations bill should be exactly split up and allocated, that's the work of the committee. And I appreciate the work of the Chair, the ranking member and those Members of the Congress who are part of that important committee. What I do understand is this: Government spends too much money. In fact, if you would talk to the American people, go out and poll the American people, talk to the families across this country and ask the simple question, does government spend too little or does government spend too much, is government too small or is government too big, does government take too much of your money in taxes, my guess is the vast majority of Americans across this country would say government is too big, takes way too much of my money and spends way too much. This amendment simply says this: We're not going to cut anything. We're just going to say it's appropriate for government to live on last year's level, just like all kinds of individuals, all kinds of families, all kinds of businesses across this country have to do. Specifically it would do this: It would reduce the total appropriations in the bill by $2.9 billion, taking it right back, keeping it right where it is at last year's spending level, while providing discretion for the administration to avoid any reductions in funding for the State of Israel. In simple terms it says this: We understand that special bond that the United States has with the State of Israel, and we're going to protect that; but we also understand government spends too much money, and it's appropriate that we say enough is enough, we have to hold the line on spending. And here's why it's critical: There is a financial crisis around the corner waiting for the United States, the people of this great country. Read Pete Peterson's book, ``Running on Empty,'' talking about the entitlement problems, what's happening with us, if we don't get spending under control, what it's going to mean to our economy in the future. Read today's Washington Post, front page of the business section, the entitlement column has pictures of the six leading Presidential candidates, three from each party. It says, ``Stumping for Attention to Deficit Disorder.'' It talks about this very problem. There is a financial crisis around the corner that we have to deal with. It's important we start now by simply saying let's hold the line. Second big thing why this is so important. Spending inevitably leads to tax increases. Spend, spend, spend leads to tax, tax, tax. The American people are overtaxed, we don't want to tax them anymore. In fact, we need to lower taxes so we can compete in the international marketplace we're in right now. We've got to deal with the financial situation that confronts us. We've got to hold taxes down. That's why it's important for us to start here and simply say we're going to hold the line on spending. Millions of families, millions of individuals, millions of businesses across this country are doing that very thing. It's not too much to ask the United States Congress to do the same thing. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from the great State of Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I will just say I appreciate the gentleman's speech and his passion, even though it had nothing to do with the subject at hand. Mr. Chairman, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis).

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the minority whip from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The Acting Chairman. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be postponed. Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Wynn

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Yes, the Campbell amendment. Number 14.

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the Chair, and I also want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member. I have great respect for their work, particularly the ranking member, who is a friend, colleague and actually neighbor of mine. I appreciate his work over the years here in the United States Congress. This amendment is pretty simple. It takes spending levels in the bill back to the fiscal 2007 year levels; represents a $1.3 billion savings to taxpayers and families across the country. Mr. Chairman, government spends too much. And I said ``government.'' I didn't say Republicans or Democrats. Both parties need to work on this area when it comes to public policy. But today the Federal Government spends $23,000 per household. Excessive spending hurts America. Deficits hurt America, and a rising national debt hurts America. You don't have to take my word for it. Our staff went through and we looked at the Budget Chairman, Mr. Spratt's committee, some notes from their committee hearings on the budget. And I want to just quote from Dr. Edward Gramlich, former Governor of the Federal Reserve Board. He said this: ``Deficits represent negative public saving, which tends to drive down national saving. Lower national savings means a smaller stock of capital for the future, which reduces the productivity and wages of future workers. Budget deficits lead to less economic growth and a lower level of economic activity than would otherwise be the case.'' Excessive spending leads to deficits, leads to lower economic growth. Excessive spending leads to tax increases, all bad for our growing economy, all bad for American families. And it's particularly, I think, important to recognize why this is so crucial that we get a handle on it as we think about the marketplace we find ourselves in today, the changing international market. Just a couple of numbers. Four weeks ago the Wall Street Journal reported that China's economic growth rate, annual growth rate, is 10.4 percent. Now, think about this: one billion, 300 million people in China with a growth rate of 10.4 percent. That's what we're competing against. There was a point in the past where elected officials could maybe enact policies that weren't in our best interest or weren't good for our economic growth. But now, because of the fact that the competition is so stiff, it's important that public policymakers get it right. Keep taxes low, keep spending under control. In the end, Mr. Chairman, it's not just about deficits and the national debt and GDP. It's about people because, in the end, it's people who pay taxes. It's people who have to deal with this debt and the deficits that we're causing by spending at these levels. I want to also quote from the same document from Chairman Spratt's committee, from the Comptroller General, Mr. Walker. He said, ``Deficits matter for the world we leave our children and our grandchildren.'' Mr. Walker said this, and I quote, ``Today we are failing in one of our most important stewardship responsibilities, our duty to pass on a country better positioned to deal with the challenges of the future than the one we were given.'' And that's so true. This amendment is real simple. It's going to allow families and people across this country to keep more of their money to spend on their goals, their dreams. And it's simply taking us back to last year's fiscal level. There are all kind of families, all kinds of individuals across this country who are living on last year's budget. A simple, across-the- board amendment that says we're going to do what so many American families have to do all the time, and we're going to live within our means. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the folks on our side, we certainly care about the security of the United States, we care about the security of the homeland, but we also care about how the tax dollars of American families are spent. The previous speaker talked about the right to vote on earmarks and how some of those people are going to vote for these earmarks. But it's not just about the right to vote on earmarks. It's about the right of American families and American citizens to see what those earmarks are that their elected officials may vote for or against. I guess I look at this in this light, to paraphrase the line from the movie, ``show me the earmarks.'' Show me the earmarks. Because when you see the earmarks, then you are going to see where the money is going. That's what the American people want to know. We have talked about the term transparency a lot in this debate, because the reason it's so important is the lack of transparency inevitably leads to more spending. That's just the way it works. We have got to know what's going on. If we don't, more spending is going to occur. If you don't take my word for it, look at the numbers. This bill increases spending 13.6 percent. It's spending that always drives. Spending is the problem. We hear the term, the old cliche with politicians, tax-and-spend politicians. It's really the opposite. It's really the opposite. It's spend-and-tax politicians. Spending drives the equation. If you think about this, the spending contained in this bill, in the budget we passed that was passed a few weeks back, that spending inevitably will lead to higher taxes. Every single good tax cut that has been put in place over the last 6 years, under the Democrat spending plan, is going to go up, money that would be in the pockets of families to spend on their kids, their goals, their dreams, things that their kids care about, things that their family cares about, their business to reinvest it there. All those things that they would like to spend their money on, those taxes will go up, take money from the hardworking family of this country and give it to government. That's what we are talking about. That's why we are talking about some of these issues. We want you to show me the earmarks, show us what's there so we can see where ultimately the spending will go and the American people, more importantly, can ultimately see that. I am reminded of a debate that I had back in my days of the State House. There was a tax increase that was moving through our assembly, I was opposed to it, and I remember a reporter coming up to me and saying Jordan, you are so opposed to this tax increase, you think it's so bad for families and taxpayers across the State of Ohio, he said. But where's the outcry? Where are those families storming the State House to talk about this huge tax increase that you are fighting against? I said, you know, they're too busy working to pay those taxes to storm the State House. That's the truth. We have got to remember the families out there who have been working hard, making their businesses succeed, making their families reach their goals and dreams they've set. We have got to remember those as we go through this debate. I would be happy to yield to my colleague from North Carolina who is, I know, the sponsor of the second amendment.

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his work.

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Like H.R. 3, which we considered earlier this year, and H.R. 810, S. 5 would use taxpayer funds to destroy human life. Some of my colleagues claim that embryonic stem cell research is essential to finding cures to a range of diseases. This could not be further from the truth. On top of the fact that embryo-derived treatments have been fraught with problems, including the widespread occurrence of tumor formation, there is now a host of increasingly more successful alternative treatments that offer tangible results to suffering Americans and their families. Research has demonstrated that various forms of adult stem cell materials, umbilical cord blood and amniotic fluid are an excellent source of pluripotent stem cells. These materials have yielded highly successful, groundbreaking treatments for Brain Cancer, Breast Cancer, various forms of Lymphoma and Leukemia, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease, spinal cord injury, Sickle Cell Anemia and Krabbe Disease. Treatments employing umbilical cord blood have been particularly successful and the list goes on and on. Just recently, a new study by American and Brazilian researchers published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) demonstrated the use of stem cells taken from 13 patient's own bodies to reverse the symptoms of Juvenile Diabetes. These patients have been able to live so far without insulin- some as long as three years. Just this morning, the Associated Press reported a new report from three independent teams of scientists that have been able to produce the practical equivalent of embryonic stem cells in mice without destroying any embryos. Thus far, ethical forms of stem cell research have yielded treatments for over 73 different diseases while well-funded embryonic research has thus far only yielded tumors. Mr. Speaker, every time my colleagues in the house trumpet the necessity of destroying embryos, scientific studies come along to prove them wrong on point after point. Rather than forcing taxpayers to fund the destruction of human life, we should be putting our resources into the types of ethical research that are rapidly providing the treatments that Americans so greatly desire.

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I am honored today to pay special tribute to the outstanding women of the Lima Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. The chapter marked its 100th anniversary with a special reception on June 3, 2007. Chartered on April 10, 1907, the Lima Chapter has served the people of Lima in countless ways through the years. From their work in support of servicemembers and veterans to their committed work with the youth of Allen County, Ohio, the women of the Lima DAR have compiled a long and distinguished record of service in times of war and peace. Fifty-two women have served the Lima Chapter as Regent, starting with Mrs. Clara Paine Ohler. The chapter's membership through the years has included women from all walks of life who have distinguished themselves in numerous ways through their service. The Lima DAR is especially noted for its work in local schools to promote civic education, reflecting the group's love of country and its high regard for the gift of freedom that we all enjoy. They are true examples of the DAR's high calling to cherish, maintain, and extend the institutions of American freedom. Madam Speaker, I invite all of my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the Lima Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Our nation is better served through their hard work and diligence. We wish them all the best at their centennial celebration.

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I am honored to highlight the outstanding achievements of a group of young scholars from my congressional district. Last month, Findlay High School students Christina Back, Anthony Baratta, Kyle Collette, Meghan Gannon, Jessica Gephart, Bryant Hendriksen, Emily Janowiecki, Stephen Kostyo, Jaime Malloy, Debra McCaffrey, Jade Mummert, Will Olthouse, Nicholas Rackley, Michael Sears, Caroline Solis, Stephen Strigle, Rebecca Walter, and Matthew Wiseman represented the State of Ohio in the national finals of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program. They joined more than 1,200 students from across the country at this three-day competition in Washington. Authorized by act of Congress, the We the People program allows high school students to develop in-depth knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our republic. Students testify at mock congressional hearings before a panel of experts, answering questions that test their understanding of the Constitution and their ability to apply that knowledge. Columnist David Broder has described the national competition as ``the place to have your faith in the younger generation restored.'' These 18 students continue a long tradition of success for Findlay High School in this competition. I commend them for their hard work-- along with the efforts of their teacher Mark Dickman, who helped them prepare for the local, state, and national competitions. In addition, I salute the tireless work of Jared Reitz, the state coordinator for We the People, and district coordinator Libby Cupp. Madam Speaker, all of Ohio can take great pride in the performance of these scholars, who are excellent role models for their peers. They are perfect examples of all that is right in our education system today, and are to be commended for a job well done.