Doug Lamborn

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairman, how much time is left?

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Hensarling, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairman, today I rise to offer an amendment that recognizes the difficult fiscal situation facing our government. The Labor-HHS appropriations bill comes in at $7 billion over last year's level and $10.8 billion over the President's request. As I have and others have said during this process, taxpayers are being asked to pay more in taxes because Congress is not willing to make hard choices and balance our spending with our income. In fact, my Democratic colleagues feel it is necessary to burden the American taxpayer with the largest tax increase in history in order to fund these out-of-control and runaway spending bills. This amendment, in particular, would make the tough choice of maintaining fiscal prudence by eliminating funding in the bill for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, saving $420 million for the taxpayer. The President, in his budget request, asked for zero. The most recent appropriation a year ago was for $400 million. Now, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting gets 85 percent of its budget from sources other than this Federal budget, so only 15 percent of its budget is reliant on what is appropriated here. Also, the appropriation is made 2 years in advance. That's a curious situation. I don't know if it applies to very many other sectors in our budget, but with a 2-year advance notice, the corporation would have plenty of time to make the adjustments necessary to adjust to the zeroing out of this budget amount. Now, where could this money be made up from if the corporation needs that extra funding? There are many sources that it has available. It is very successful in its type of programming, for the most part. I believe that through further corporate sponsorship and commercial sponsorship, through using the popular programming like Sesame Street to generate some income like we do in the free market of our economy, that 15 percent could easily be made up. Lastly, let me make the constitutional argument, I see in the Constitution that there are enumerated powers that our Federal Government is supposed to be doing. The Federal Government is supposed to provide for the common defense. The Federal Government is supposed to regulate interstate commerce, coin money, do the U.S. mail, and there are things like that, but I don't see providing entertainment as part of our constitutional powers and responsibilities that the Federal Government is supposed to do. Hollywood is plenty good at doing that and other sectors of the private part of our economy. I just don't think that that's the Federal role for government, especially when the American taxpayer is being asked in this budget process that we're going through right now to come up with deficit spending. Already, the appropriations bills that have come before this House are $20 billion over what the President has asked, and we are looking at a large deficit in the next year as a result. I ask that this amendment be adopted. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas, Representative Gohmert.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the invaluable contributions made by Springs Rescue Mission to the Colorado Springs community. Over the past eleven years, through its tireless dedication to the teachings of Christ, Springs Rescue Mission has served more than one million meals, provided countless household goods, offered instruction, and ministered to the less fortunate. A member of the Association of Gospel Rescue Missions, the largest provider of free meals and shelter in the world, Springs Rescue Mission is funded entirely by the contributions of private citizens, corporations, and churches. It is through this generosity that the Mission is able to hold its annual ``Great Thanksgiving Banquet'' and Christmas dinner, boast the second largest food bank in Colorado Springs, and, through its Samaritans Kitchen feed the hungry with over 2,500 meals per week. In addition to providing food, clothing, and furniture, the Mission also offers career development and an opportunity for self-sufficiency. On July 20th, the Mission will open the doors of its newly renovated Resource Center which will provide no-cost emergency services to men, women, and children who lack the basic necessities of life. In addition to this center, the Mission also has an upcoming project to house as many as fifty men facing homelessness or substance abuse. Springs Rescue Mission welcomes those for whom hope seems lost--knowing that ``joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.'' (Luke 15:7). Through instructing participants about the love of God and the power of prayer, these programs provide the tools necessary for rebuilding lives. Today, I offer my sincere congratulations to the Springs Rescue Mission on this newest achievement. I am grateful for all that the organization has done for my constituents in Colorado Springs, and am pleased to see this wonderful institution growing and expanding to meet the needs of our community.

Mr. LAMBORN

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

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I hate to have to disagree with my colleague from Colorado on this issue, but I definitely do so. Oil shale resources in the United States, as was just stated, are tremendous. The potential is that there could be 2 trillion, not billion, 2 trillion barrels of oil in place in the oil shale bands of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. It is, therefore, a strategically important domestic resource that should be developed on an accelerated basis to reduce our growing dependence on politically and economically unstable sources of foreign oil imports. The Department of Interior has issued the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and is now working on regulations for a commercial leasing program. Stopping them now in their tracks would be a waste of taxpayer dollars. I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that the research and development of this important resource have been paid for by the private sector at no cost to the taxpayer. The Udall amendment is unnecessary, because oil shale provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 require approval of the governor before commercial leasing can go forward. So it is not yet entirely even in place. Therefore, this amendment would delay development of this important domestic resource. If we commercialize oil shale, that would provide significant public benefits, including increased fuels available, reduced risk of supply disruption, reduced imports, improved balance of payments, new Federal and State royalty and tax revenues, increased domestic employment and increased economic growth. Tremendous benefits will come from this. Further, oil from shale will place appreciable downward pressure on the world prices of crude oil, which would improve America's, and, indeed, the entire world's economies. Oil shale is highly concentrated and gives the greatest yield of oil per acre disturbed of any of the Nation's energy resources. The oil shale resources of the Nation, besides totaling 2 trillion barrels, would yield 750 billion barrels with a richness of 25 gallons per ton or greater with near-term adaptations of existing technology. It is possible that an oil shale industry could be initiated by 2011, with an aggressive goal of 2 million barrels a day by 2020, which would create 100,000 new jobs directly and indirectly, and ultimately the capacity could reach 10 million barrels a day, which is comparable to the oil sands up in Canada. So apart from the energy independence problems that this amendment would cause, that production of oil shale is close to starting, and, therefore, it is not right to pull the rug out from under the private sector companies that have been working on and investing in this resource. In summary, there is no proven need to delay the use of this exciting new source of domestic energy. The environmental concerns have been addressed in a responsible and careful way. Billions of gallons of oil will make our country freer from foreign pressure and our economy stronger, with more energy available, gasoline prices lower at the pump, and more jobs for our working families. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

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

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My wife, Jeanie, is an artist. I support, she supports, the arts. I agree with what you said about the importance of arts in our culture. The only question is who should pay for it. Should the taxpayer pay for it or the private sector? The $160 million budget in this bill is $35 million, or 29 percent, higher than last year's budget. Do we need a 29 percent tax increase? I think the arts are great, but let's support it in the private sector. I would urge adoption of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia for yielding 1 minute. The distinguished colleague who just spoke from New York made a good point about the deficit being too large. I agree with him 100 percent on that. But now is the chance to step up to the plate. Now is the chance we can do something about adding to the deficit. The bill in front of us goes $1.9 billion more than what the President has requested and $1.2 billion more than last year's amount. So we have a chance now to do something about building up the deficit. So if we're sincere about being concerned about it, now is the chance to actually do something. A 1 percent cut allows the committee to do the work of prioritizing and making sure that the money goes to the most critical programs and has the chance to reprioritize and take away some of the fat. And I would suggest that we do not need for the National Endowment of the Arts an increase of $35 million, or 29 percent; 29 percent more than last year. We have a lot of room to cut this bill.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that recognizes the difficult fiscal situation facing our government. The Interior Appropriations bill has the largest increase over the President's request of any of the spending bills, and I will support efforts to bring the costs down as these opportunities arise. At a time when our budget needs balancing, we must reprioritize our spending. That is why the amendment I am proposing now would eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. I am disappointed that my earlier amendment yesterday was not accepted as it would have directed some of the funding toward the PLT program, or payment in lieu of taxes by the Federal Government to compensate for lost revenues to local governments. But I still maintain that particularly in this budget environment, taxpayers should not be asked to fund the National Endowment for the Arts. Now opposition to the NEA should not be perceived as opposition to the arts. My wife is an artist, and I support the arts wholeheartedly. But I do feel strongly that it is something that the private sector can fully, and has in the past fully and wholeheartedly supported. True art can and does survive without Federal handouts. Artists have every right to be creative without forcing the taxpayer to fund it. The private sector is the appropriate venue to fund such projects. I know artists who refuse to take money from any level of government because they want to be independent. They don't want to have any strings attached. They don't want to be beholden to anybody, and they will refuse government funding. While there are certainly projects that the NEA does that are worthwhile, some are objectionable and have been over recent history. And at a time when fiscal restraint is crucial, we must examine closely how and where we are spending taxpayer money. It is not only appropriate but necessary to question some of the funding in this bill and see if it can be either reduced or directed to more worthwhile programs. My amendment would save taxpayers an immediate $150 million in budget authority spending in fiscal year 2008, and allows the remaining $10 million to be spent on shutdown costs. This still reduces the overall cost of this spending bill and sends a message that in this budget environment we are willing to tighten our belts here in Washington just as any American family or business would have to. It is disheartening to think there is an assumption of continued taxpayer support for every single discretionary program. Yet that is exactly what we are hearing today in this debate on funding for the NEA. There are arguments for why we must continue to spend money on an art program when we face budget constraints in trying to adequately provide necessary treatment for our returning veterans and all of the many priorities in our almost $3 trillion budget. I come from a commonsense perceptive that says when my bank account is low, I make tough decisions on where my money must be spent. None of my colleagues supporting this funding seem to fully appreciate this approach, and it is disappointing and it is in large part why we face the budget situation that we are in. I would note that the budget for this appropriations bill is I believe $1.9 billion over what the President has requested. I hear talk about how our deficit is going up every week, every day, every month. This is a great opportunity that we have to stop the hemorrhaging. We can stop the spending. I am disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are contemplating not extending the Bush temporary tax cuts. They want to end that in their budget plan. That would amount to the largest tax increase in American history. We have this opportunity now to take $160 million and save it for the taxpayer. So I just think this would be a well-considered thing. The arts are valuable in American life and culture. For anyone to say let's do this through the private sector as opposed to the taxpayers does not make them a member of the Flat Earth Society. The arts are valuable, but they are well supported in our society and culture. We just have so many other priorities. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairwoman, this amendment would eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and increase the funding for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, or PILT program. This amendment recognizes the difficult fiscal situation that our government is facing. Many of my colleagues and I are finding opportunities to reduce funding in areas to offset increases in others, and we are working to trim Federal spending wherever possible. The Interior appropriations bill has the largest increase over the President's request of any of these appropriations bills, and I will support efforts to bring the cost down as they arise. Now, the opposition to the NEA should not be perceived as opposition to the arts. True art can survive in the private sector without Federal handouts. The NEA did not even exist before 1965, and look at all the wonderful artists in American history who survived and thrived before that time. Artists have a constitutional right to be creative, but free speech does not mean that the taxpayer has to fund it. Even if I did support the NEA agenda, at a time when fiscal restraint is crucial, we must closely examine how and where we are spending taxpayer money. As such, I feel it is not only appropriate but necessary to question some of the funding in this bill and see if it can be either reduced or redirected to more worthwhile programs. Much of the land contained in the rural counties in Colorado and out west, including much of my congressional district in Colorado, is largely owned by the Federal Government. In fact, more than one-third of Colorado, 24 million acres, is owned by the Federal Government. This removes much of the land in these counties from any ability to generate revenue to pay for basic government services like law enforcement or fighting fires. At a time when we are facing record spending, this commonsense amendment simply lets Americans know that we are willing to make tough choices. My amendment would reduce all of the $160 million in funding for the NEA while offering a modest $52 million increase to this much-needed PILT program. This still reduces the overall cost of this spending bill by over $100 million and sends a message that in this budget environment we are willing to tighten our belts as any American family or business would. I know many of my colleagues support the NEA. I simply believe the government has no business funding art with taxpayer dollars, especially in light of our difficult budget circumstances. My colleagues that support the NEA should put their money where their mouth is by making private donations instead of doing so with the hard- earned tax dollars of working men and women. With that, Madam Chairman, I offer this amendment and I ask for support on it. point of order

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairwoman, I won't repeat the points that I just made a moment ago, other than to say that the dollar amounts have been changed in this subsequent amendment and I believe they answer the gentleman's point of order. It is offered for the same reason. Let's take NEA money that can be privately funded through the private sector and put it into the counties that are sometimes losing dollars when so much land is federally owned and let's improve the PILT program by $52 million.

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairwoman, I would ask for a ruling from the Chair because I believe that it is in order.

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chair, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chair, I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment and offer another one in lieu which I hope would satisfy that point of order.

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

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would have ensured that none of the funds made available in this bill under the West Bank and Gaza program may be made available to any individual or entity that does not expressly recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist. I brought this amendment to the floor to emphasize the strong sense of this Congress and the United States that the peace process in this region requires all participants to publicly acknowledge the fundamental right of the State of Israel to exist. Funding an organization that fails to recognize Israel is not acceptable and should not be tolerated by this Congress. While there have been many opportunities for the Palestinian Liberation Organization in particular to officially recognize Israel's right to exist, it has failed to do so. Until it is held accountable for its failure to make recognition of Israel a formal part of its charter, we as a Nation and in this Congress must be careful not to reward and enable this organization. Because Hamas controlled the Palestinian Authority after the recent elections, the last Congress felt the need to pass a law, the Palestinian Antiterrorism Act of 2006, to ensure that U.S. funds would not be provided to this terrorist regime. This law, however, does not go far enough, because it fails to make Israel's right to exist part of the law as it applies to the PLO. In contrast, my amendment would have created a simple formula for determining where to provide assistance and who would be eligible to receive funds by making the recognition of Israel's right to exist as well as refraining from terrorism a prerequisite for U.S. funding of all organizations. For the peace process to be successful, and everyone here sincerely wants this, it is imperative that all of the parties involved expressly understand and recognize the rights of the other parties. Until this happens, true peace, Mr. Chairman, cannot be achieved. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman and the gentleman, both from New York. Mr. Chairman, knowing that this amendment is vulnerable to a point of order because it goes beyond appropriating and into the legislative realm, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Unfortunately, I will shortly withdraw it, for reasons I will explain.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Smith- Stupak amendment. The Mexico City policy does not reduce family planning funding at all. It only requires that funds, support and supplies are directed to NGOs that do not promote abortion as part of family planning. U.S. taxpayers should not be forced to hand their hard-earned tax money over to organizations that practice policies that these taxpayers morally oppose. The Mexico City policy has established that clear bright line that allows us to provide assistance in a morally acceptable manner. President Bush has clearly indicated his intent to veto this bill if it weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion or that encourages the destruction of human life at any stage. Enough of us, myself included, have pledged to sustain this veto that it will, indeed, be sustained. We must ensure that taxpayer funds do not underwrite organizations that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. I urge my colleagues to support the Smith-Stupak amendment today.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Georgia yield for purposes of a colloquy?

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. And it is probably a concern to you, as it is to me, that the current appropriations bills, about 12 of them, that are going through the House have an excess of $23 billion over what the President has requested. And if it was me in the President's place, I might have even had that lower. But let's go with that as a base amount to start with. We are going $23 billion over that. And he has said that, with the exception of the military construction bill, he is ready to veto bills that go over his spending requests. So let's say eight or nine of those get vetoed. Doesn't that mean we are going to have to come back? You have been through this process a full cycle, and I have not. Doesn't that mean we are going to have to come back later this summer, go through these bills all over again, and start from scratch?

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you for that answer. And as a follow-up to that, I would have to say that in the absence of a balanced budget amendment, at least we have the possibility of sticking to the numbers that the President has given us. Those numbers are still in excess of the rate of inflation. He is asking some departments for a 6 or 8, 9 percent increase as opposed to 2 or 3 percent, which would be the inflationary rate. So his numbers are very generous just right there. But when our colleagues across the aisle are going $23 billion on top of that, I just see a chance for a little bit of fiscal restraint if they would back off $23 billion and say let's stick within what the President has recommended. There are still many things that can be done that are worthy projects within that amount. And I just see that we are missing a golden opportunity here, and I just think that until we have a balanced budget amendment, we have to do it by our own sense of fiscal discipline.