Randy Neugebauer

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with the chairman of the full committee that we do need to make sure that our first responders and teachers and people that we rely on to serve our communities be able to live in the communities that they are working in. I think this is a good amendment, and we are not opposed to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very good amendment. Accountability in any government program is always welcome, and I thank the gentleman for offering this. We need to make sure that, as we are passing out these monies, we want them to go as far as they can, we want them to go to people that can actually deliver what they said in their grant proposals and in their quest in their housing proposals, and so I support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), who is the former ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1983, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act, and encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. In 2003, with the collaboration of agriculture, pesticide manufacturers and public interest organizations, Congress established a new fee schedule and registration process timeline for the Environmental Protection Agency, This Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) was designed to improve pesticide registration and review, and PRIA has been extremely successful for all parties involved. As the Ranking Member of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture, which has jurisdiction over pesticide issues, I am pleased the stakeholders have again worked with Congress and the EPA This bill today continues and builds upon the successful pesticide registration process over the next five years. Before PRIA, applicants for pesticide registration had no certainty on how long the review process at EPA would take or how much they would need to pay in fees. The EPA was under pressure from the public interest community to reassess tolerances for pesticides already registered as required under the Food Quality Protection, Act. As a result, consumers who depend on effective and safe pesticide products were not always able to take advantage of new products. Delays impacted farmers' ability to access improved plant protection and pest products. PRIA worked because it set a firm fee schedule for pesticide registration applicants, giving the EPA resources needed to do reviews. In return, the EPA was held to specific timelines in its reviews and approvals. PRIA also enabled the EPA to complete tolerance reassessments for products approved in the past through product maintenance fees from manufacturers. By continuing the fees and increasing registration funding, S. 1983 provides the EPA with the resources needed to maintain this successful system. Additionally, the bill continues the periodic review of registered products, requiring the EPA to reassess each product every 15 years. The pesticide registration and review process must be based on sound science. Success also requires confidence in the regulatory system. This reauthorization and enhancement of PRIA helps ensure that the EPA is using the best science to review applicants. Timelines for reviews bring more transparency to the process, and this transparency gives confidence to pesticide users such as agriculture, manufacturers and the public interest community. I urge my colleagues to support continuation of this successful regulatory process that has brought effective and safe products to market not only for agriculture but for all consumers.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

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

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman. As I close, I just want to say, in many cases people bring problems to the United States Congress and we set out to try to solve those problems. In this situation, these agencies are working together already. They are bringing a commonsense solution to this issue. I think this is a good policy for our country and for the American people as we make sure that they fly safely in the future, and also make sure that they have an appropriate energy supply. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, this is a very straightforward amendment. Two important issues are going on in our country right now. One of those we are talking about on the floor of the House today, and that is Americans' safety in the air, making sure when our American citizens travel across the country they are doing it in a safe way. The other issue that is important to the United States Congress and to the American people is energy. One of the things that we know today is wind energy, a renewable source of energy, is becoming a predominant piece of the solution for the future. Several months ago I convened in Abilene, Texas, at Dyess Air Force Base, members of Department of Defense, Department of Energy, FAA and other agencies talking about how in the future, as we develop more renewable sources, particularly wind energy, how we make sure that there is a compatibility between air safety and providing energy for the American people. What we decided was that there needs to be a repository, a place where data is maintained on the effects of certain kinds of wind turbines on radar, where the proper placement is so they can continue to be a vital part of our energy supply, while at the same time making sure the American people are safe. This amendment provides for a study to study all of the components that need to go into that database and that repository to make sure that we have all of the bases covered. This is kind of a proactive step. What we are intending to do here, as people are planning these kinds of projects, there is a place where people can go where they can get the information up front rather than in hindsight after that project has moved along. There is a lot of support for this amendment from the Department of Energy, Department of Defense and other agencies thinking this is the right step. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, who has worked tirelessly for transportation issues over a number of years.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my sincerest birthday wishes to an American institution that has helped provide freedom and liberty for all of us that we enjoy today, and that is the Department of Air Force. It was 60 years ago, following the passage of the National Security Act of 1947, that W. Stuart Symington was sworn in as the Nation's first Secretary of the Air Force, chosen to lead an organization finally given its rightful place in the brand new Department of Defense. The Air Force has gone on to become one of the steadfast defenders on high, enabling us to live in relative peace and tranquility knowing that they are always there literally keeping a watchful eye on our Nation. Since its inception, the Department of the Air Force has been a global leader in perfecting and applying cutting-edge research and development. Whether it was the transition from the propeller to jet engines to the use of computer-aided weaponry incorporating satellite technology to today's use of unmanned aerial vehicles taking soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen off the battlefield, the Air Force has always been the leader in the ``Revolution in Military Affairs.'' Whether it's patrolling the desert skies during Operation Northern Watch or deterring looming Iraqi aggression during Operation Vigilant Warrior, both in the 1990s, the men and women of the Air Force are constantly reminded that peace is not always peaceful. Providing a multitude of services to their fellow warriors on the ground, along with dominating the skies against our enemies, they have played a critical role in not only defending America's interests abroad but being ambassadors of goodwill. Just ask the airmen who sit on constant alert in the Central Command ready to deliver relief aid, as they did last summer during the conflict between Lebanon and Israel, delivering more than 10 tons of food and supplies to the region. Foreign citizens and Americans alike were once again blessed by the humanitarian spirit of the Air Force. Today I rise not just as a proud American but as a Member of Congress who is blessed with the good fortune of representing the brave men and women of the 7th Bomb Wing and the mighty C-130 Hercules of the 317th Airlift Group at Dyess Air Force Base. Just last week I met with several of them before they deployed overseas, and I was swept away by their overwhelming courage and resounding spirit. Americans know that when airmen put on their flight suits, they are not just putting it on for themselves but for all Americans. They do it for others and they continue to do it so we can all live freely. In the relatively short time the Air Force has been in existence, its contributions to America's security have been historic. America owes the United States Air Force a debt of gratitude for all that they have given us and will continue to give us, without fear or hesitation. They are always the backbone of our projected forces. I wish them a very happy 60th birthday and best wishes for another successful 60 years.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Southwest Digest for 30 years of service in the Lubbock community. Over the past 30 years, the Southwest Digest has provided the African American community of Lubbock with news and current events. The newspaper has strongly advocated for economic and community development and against drugs and violence. Its editors have also focused on the special needs of senior citizens, young people, and the poor in the community. Eddie Richardson and T.J. Patterson co-founded the Southwest Digest in 1977. In addition to their work with the newspaper, both men have been active in serving the Lubbock community and state of Texas, and both also served their country in the U.S. armed forces. After working with Texas State Representative Al Edwards for many years, Eddie Richardson was appointed by the governor as a commissioner on Texas' Juneteenth Cultural and Historical Commission. T.J. Patterson's career in education included teaching in Lubbock and serving as Assistant Dean at the Texas Tech College of Business. He was also a leader in local government, becoming the first African American elected to the Lubbock City Council in 1984. He was named Mayor Pro-Tem in 1990 and stepped down from the Lubbock City Council in 2004. Under the leadership of Eddie Richardson and T.J. Patterson, the Southwest Digest has made many notable contributions to the Lubbock area. Some of these include participating in 85 marches against gangs, drugs and violence over the years. In 2002, the editors established the Southwest Digest Foundation to help support disadvantaged young people. Through the years, the Southwest Digest has continued to spread the message that drugs and crime should not be tolerated in the Lubbock community. This newspaper has had a positive impact on Lubbock for the past 30 years. I congratulate the editors on their work and wish the Southwest Digest continued success for many years to come.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3067, the Small Public Housing Authority Act. Like many of my colleagues, I represent a rural district where most of the public housing authorities operate in small communities. In fact, many of the PHAs in my district administer fewer than 200 housing units and some even have part-time directors or directors who split their time between public housing authorities. For many of those small public housing authorities, excessive paperwork requirements and outdated regulatory burdens continue to create an unnecessary distraction from their important work of providing affordable housing for underprivileged families. For example, the 1992 Public Housing Reform Act requires PHAs to submit both a 5-year and an annual plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. While the annual plans were designed to address changes to the 5-year plan, small PHAs are already required by law to submit any policy changes, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, to HUD for review and approval. This yearly report of unchanged plans and policy amounts to an unnecessary Federal mandate. While HUD has taken regulatory steps to streamline this annual reporting for small PHAs that are performing well, a recent example of one of the streamlined plans was 47 pages with attachments. So small public housing authorities just do not have the time and the staff and the resources to complete these annual plans by themselves and in many cases have to use outside vendors or contractors, expensive consultants to do the work that they don't have the computer software to do themselves to complete these annual plans. For this reason, I have introduced H.R. 3067, the Small Public Housing Act. This legislation would bring long-needed regulatory relief to our small PHAs by exempting those that are 250 fewer units and section 8 vouchers from continuing the requirement of an annual plan if there is no material change in the operations during that year. So if they have some material change they still have to do it, but if it is just business as usual, then they do not have to make that submission. They still have to submit their 5-year plan, as is required by law. H.R. 3067 only addresses, as I said, the annual plans. This legislation will provide an opportunity where they don't have to spend their much-needed resources and time away from doing what they need to be doing, and that is helping to provide affordable housing for our most needy folks. I would just want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his interest in public housing. This bill passed overwhelmingly in the previous Congress. Unfortunately, the time ran out, and we did not get that done from the other body. As a matter of fact, it passed 387-2; so I think there is broad support for this. I appreciate Chairwoman Waters' Housing Subcommittee as well as Ranking Member Biggert and, of course, Ranking Member Bachus for their support for this legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in strong opposition to the Udall amendment. This amendment singles out one commodity for reduction in order to increase an unrelated program. This bill already increases funding to enroll nearly 1 million new acres in the Grassland Reserve Program. That is a significant amount of land. Some might think this is a small change in direct payment. It doesn't seem like much; however, this bill does not make changes in any of the current direct payments, and this would single out only one commodity, that being cotton, for reduction in direct payments. The House Agriculture Committee has already made significant changes to cotton. The bill reduces cotton target prices and eliminates cotton loan storage credits. In addition, payment limit changes are more likely to affect cotton farmers than any other commodity. If you want to increase the grasslands program, the offsets should not come from one commodity that is already taking a fairly major change in this bill. Let's treat all commodities the same and oppose the Udall amendment.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chairman, I rise tonight in strong opposition to the Kind amendment. The Kind amendment may be kind to someone, but it is not to American farm families. You see, what is happening in America today is that we have already asked American farm families to make a reduction. Mr. Kind wants to reduce farm payments 40 percent. Well, that is on top of the 50 percent that they have already been reduced. For America to be competitive in the global marketplace, farmers and ranchers all across America have had to get larger. To be competing in this global economy, the efficiencies of running $150,000 farm machinery across small acreages is no longer feasible. And yet what Mr. Kind and his friends want to do is to make American agriculture not competitive. You see, to be competitive in this world, you have to find economic efficiencies, and these efficiencies have meant that many producers have had to get larger. And as they are trying to compete in a global marketplace where in many cases they are locked out because of trade restraints in these other countries, now we want to say to the American ranchers and farmers: Don't be efficient. Don't be competitive in this global marketplace. We want to take away the ability for you to be sustained in a global marketplace. That is not good policy for any business. We don't do that in any other area of our government today. We don't say to American companies, why don't you all get small and inefficient? We don't tell them to do that. We say, get strong and efficient. And yet the Kind amendment wants to say to American farmers don't be efficient. I urge members not to support the Kind amendment. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kind amendment. This amendment will reduce the safety net for U.S. farmers and result in a less secure and more expensive food supply for Americans. There has been a lot of discussion about the need for ``reform'' in farm programs. I suggest the so-called reformers out there get better acquainted with the facts: First, the portion of spending in the 2007 Farm Bill that goes to farm commodity programs has declined by half, to 14 percent of the spending in the bill. In the 2002 Farm Bill, the share of spending for commodities was 28 percent. Second, in 2002, commodity programs were projected to cost $94 billion over 5 years. As the 2002 Farm Bill comes to a close, actual spending will come in $21 billion less. Finally, because spending has been lower and is projected to stay low, the cost projection for the next 10 years for farm commodity programs is down nearly $60 billion compared to 2002. Farm programs have worked as intended, providing support when prices are low and pulling back when prices are high, as most currently are. Maintaining the farm safety net has a reasonable cost. Farm programs are the only area in H.R. 2419 in which spending is down. On top of these reductions, the Ag Committee took the additional step of reforming farm program payment policies and crop Insurance. The Kind amendment doesn't save any money. It simply puts what it cuts from farm programs into expanding other spending. A final reason for not cutting these programs off: maintaining U.S. leverage in trade negotiations. U.S. farmers' and ranchers' exports are currently shut out of markets around the world. Without a significant market access agreement in the WTO Doha round negotiations, U.S. producers will continue to be at a disadvantage. The only leverage our negotiators have to gain new market access is to offer to change farm programs. If Congress unilaterally reduces farm programs through the Kind amendment, our negotiators' efforts to gain market access are completely undercut and will be ineffective. Support U.S. farmers and consumers and oppose the Kind amendment.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chairman, I woke up on Monday this week very excited about the opportunity to bring this farm bill to this floor, but as you can imagine, my disappointment tonight because of the culmination of 2 years worth of hearings all across America, subcommittee hearings, 31 hours of markup in full committee working on a bill that is going to be good for America, good for American agriculture, working in a bipartisan way to make sure that all of agriculture has a bright future for this country, making sure that America will have a good source of food and fiber for the years to come and that it will not become dependent on importing food as we have become in importing energy in this country. And you can imagine my disappointment because we've worked in a very bipartisan way with the chairman, working on the safety net for American producers when the commodity prices were low and then working on a safety net when we have drought conditions, weather conditions, to provide an additional safety net for them. But unfortunately, we were duped, I guess is the best way I can say it. As we were working along with the leadership, they kept saying we are going to find some additional offsets so that they can expand these nutrition programs while at the same time asking American producers to take cuts in payments, but with the understanding that we weren't going to have any new taxes. Unfortunately, Madam Chairman, that isn't the way this farm bill was written up. Today, without any debate, without any discussion, the American people's farm bill was put in jeopardy. It now faces a Presidential veto. It now faces opposition from Members of this body that would have voted for this farm bill, but now they are not going to vote for this farm bill because it raises taxes. And what we've known and what we've tried to say to the American people over the last few months is we knew this was coming because this new leadership has started off on the old way they used to do business under the promise of doing business in a new way, by taxing and spending, taxing and spending. And it's unfortunate that we would bring that kind of politics to the American farm policy.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, this morning I come to the floor of this House to honor Army Sergeant Chris Davis. Sergeant Davis died Saturday defending liberty in Iraq. Serving in the United States Army was a life-long dream for Sergeant Davis. His 8 years in the Army included four tours of duty in Iraq. His devotion to America's security earned him numerous medals for his achievement, service and defense of his country. A native of Lubbock, Texas, Chris was a brave soldier, a devoted husband and a loving father. This morning, my thoughts and prayers go out to his family: His parents, Ray and Hermina, his three sisters, his wife, Debbie, the children, Kasey, Blade, Jacob, Taylor and Dillon. As we celebrate this Fourth of July week, may we remember the sacrifices of many that have gone before us and particularly this young brave soldier, Sergeant Davis from Lubbock, Texas.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And I was listening to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee talking about people not following the rules, people that are avoiding their income taxes. Quite honestly, I want to bring a point up tonight that is about not obeying the rules. So I rise in opposition to this rule. We spent a lot of time a few weeks ago talking about earmarks. Fortunately, we were successful in eliminating the secret slush funds of earmarks being reined in. So this is one of the ways we worked on controlling spending in an environment right now where the Democrats have already passed legislation that would increase spending by $50 billion this year, $20 billion in this current appropriations cycle. But when we were talking about earmark reform, we really were only talking about 1 percent of our spending. If we are going to win the battle on spending, we have to focus on more than just earmarks. One of the things that is very important is that we have a process in Congress. We say we are going to authorize programs, and then we say we are going to take time out and then fund them in the appropriations process. Tonight we are going to take up this bill, and it is called an appropriations bill. That is how we spend the money. But one of the things we said in the House rules is a project or program has to be authorized before it can be appropriated. But you know what the very first thing that we do is? We say, oh, Congress is not going to play by the rules during this appropriations process. We are going to fund projects that aren't even authorized. The American people understand the term ``authorization.'' Many of you have a credit card or a checking account. On your checking account, you have authorized signatures. On your credit card, you have authorized users. Unfortunately for the American people tonight, we are talking about using a credit card, because we are spending more money than we have. One of the things that is an alarming number to me is it was recently reported that Congress is going to appropriate over $100 billion of unauthorized expenses. I don't think the people back in America, the people certainly back in the 19th District of Texas, think Congress ought to be spending $100 billion on programs that aren't even authorized. Here are just a few examples of those. Tonight in this bill, for example, there is $23 billion worth of spending that is, what? Not authorized. Some of those projects are $100 million for a Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. That program was last authorized in 1998. There is $315 million for the Election Assistance Commission. That authorization expired in 2005. A lot of people say Congress may be just too busy to authorize these new programs. Well, you know what, if we are too busy to look at whether these current programs are relevant, whether they are efficient, or whether we should be doing them, then we are probably too busy. But by the way, we haven't been too busy to authorize just in 6 months over $600 billion in new programs. So what we are spending money tonight on is projects that we didn't take the time to evaluate whether these projects are worthwhile and worthy of spending the American taxpayers' money on. And in the meantime, we have been very busy passing brand new programs to the tune of $228 billion, which is why this Democratic leadership is going to hand the American people a gift of the largest tax increase in American history. If we are serious about leaving more money in the American taxpayers' pockets so that those families can pay for health care and gasoline and other things that are essential to those families, we are going to have to leave more money in their pockets, and we certainly can't do that by runaway spending. Spending money on projects that we haven't reviewed to determine whether those programs are worthwhile, relevant today, and whether some efficiencies could accrue in some of those programs and could be combined, and that we could do it better and spend less money. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of letting the American people have more of their money and against a rule that is going to appropriate money that we haven't even authorized.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, on Monday, June 25, I was absent from rollcall votes 549 and 550 due to a weather-related flight delay. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 549 in favor of H. Res. 189, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a ``Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day'' should be established. On rollcall 550 on passage of H.R. 2546, designating the Charles George Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the American taxpayers in opposition to this rule. A couple of weeks ago we had a lot of debate on this floor about earmarks. At the end of this agreement we were able to have a process that's more open and transparent for the earmark process, and so that was a victory for the American taxpayer. However, it's worth noting that when you look at the spending, for example in 2005, earmark spending was less than 1 percent. So even though the battle was won on earmarks, the war is still on against overspending of the American taxpayers' money. There are many causes for overspending in this country today, and one of those is the entitlement programs. Those are programs, unfortunately, that this body doesn't even get to vote on. And the fact that the new majority's budget now has an additional discretionary spending of $20 billion does not help the spending problem at all. I would argue that Congress is failing at another very important issue as well. According to a CQ Weekly article recently, $100 billion in appropriations this year that we will make aren't authorized. Now, the American people know what ``authorized'' means. If you go down and open up a checking account, people want to know if you're authorized to sign on that account. If you get a credit card, certain people are authorized to use the credit card. I wish we were using a checking account for the American taxpayers, but unfortunately we're using a credit card. What we're going to have in this bill today, the Interior EPA appropriations bill, is $7.29 billion that's not authorized. What does that mean? That means that the committees of jurisdiction have chosen either not to authorize this spending or to reauthorize this spending, yet the appropriation process is going to go ahead and spend $7.29 billion of the American taxpayers' money. Let me tell you where some of that unauthorized money is going to be distributed; $160 million to the National Endowment of the Arts was last authorized and it expired in 1993. The authorization for this expired in 1993. $1.8 billion of discretionary programs for the Bureau of Land Management. That authorization expired in 2002. $10.5 million for EPA State and Tribal Grants to Alaskan Native Villages. Authorization for this spending expired in 1979. These projects aren't on autopilot. In fact, there is not even a pilot in the cockpit. These are programs that no one has chosen to reauthorize in a number of years. As Members of Congress, we're entrusted to spend the taxpayers' money wisely. Congress is supposed to continually review these policies and programs to determine, one, are they working; secondly, do they need to be improved; or, third, should they be eliminated altogether. Get this: House rules require appropriations to go through the authorization program, yet each year the Rules Committee chooses to waive points of order authorizing spending. In other words, that means we have rules in this House to protect the American taxpayer by saying we're not going to fund projects that aren't authorized. But what is the first action that we take? We waive the rules. This is a practice both Republican and Democratic Congresses are guilty of. However, I think it's important to point out this shortcoming as we go into this very important legislative process. Now, some might argue, well, Congress is just too busy, doesn't have enough time to review all of these program. Well, quite honestly, if these programs aren't important enough for Congress to take the time to review them to determine whether they should be continued to be funded or if they're relevant today, we probably shouldn't be sending billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money for those programs. And to the argument, well, we're too busy, well, we haven't been too busy in the first 6 months of this Congress. In the first 6 months of this Congress we've authorized $828 billion in new programs. So if we have time to authorize $828 billion in new programs, it looks like to me we have time to go through these programs that are going to be funded today in this bill that are unauthorized. Clearly, Congress needs to do a better job. The first thing Congress needs to do is follow the rules. These were rules that were put in place to put checks and balances on how we spend the American taxpayers' money. And so I would encourage our Members today to vote against this rule and for Congress to follow its own rules, and that is, to make sure that we do not fund unauthorized projects.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission. This commission is a perfect example of Ronald Reagan's belief that the nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this Earth is a government program. Established more than 40 years ago, this commission has evolved into an inequitable and duplicative Federal program, yet it receives $35 million in next year's budget. Although most of ARC funding is spent building State roads, the agency also spends tax dollars on water programs, housing projects, business development, and health care. However, this funding is only available to 13 States. In other words, this is a bracketed bill. The ARC is a redundant layer of bureaucracy. Several other Federal agencies have similar missions as the ARC. For example, an Appalachian community applying for an economic development grant would be eligible to use 20 other programs across five other agencies and receive funding for the exact same purposes. For every ARC program, it is duplicated by another Federal program. According to the Department of Agriculture's Web site, USDA's Rural Development Agency supports such essential public facilities and services as water and sewer systems, housing, health clinics and promotes economic development. In other words, under the current Department of Agriculture programs, these communities could apply for these grants instead of having a separate bracketed amount of money. At the Department of Housing and Urban Development, there is a rural housing and economic development program within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Departments of Transportation and Commerce, for example, and even the Department of Defense, have programs whose mission is to help rural communities. Therefore, if we were to eliminate the ARC, applicants could still apply for countless other grants from other agencies that are already providing funding for rural communities. I represent a rural community, and so I understand the unique challenges facing rural America today. However, as we work to help communities overcome their challenges, we should do it in such a way that we are not wasting taxpayer dollars. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I was going to point out exactly the point that the gentleman made about the earmarks. There is $300,000 for central Pennsylvania's largest kitchen, $20,000 to renovate an abandoned hospital for a possible visual arts center, $7,000 to place 16 poster-size vignettes in culturally significant areas in Connellsville, Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, economic development is important to all America. It is important to rural America; but what is also important to America is fiscal responsibility, keeping taxes lower. If we keep spending money the way we are spending money now, we are going to have to raise taxes. In fact, the Democratic budget passed what is going to be the largest tax increase in American history. The government doesn't have an income problem; the government has a spending problem. When you look at the revenues over the last few years because we lowered taxes and let the American people keep their money and let the American people invest and let small businesses create jobs all across America, what happened? Well, the economy got better. What happened to tax revenues? Tax revenues are increasing at a fairly substantial rate. What we have to do is cut spending so spending is growing at a slower rate than the revenues. That is the only way we are ever going to be able to balance our budget. I urge support of my amendment.

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