Bill Sali

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I am dismayed by last week's votes on issues related to abortion and foreign aid. I joined with all but 12 of my colleagues on my side of the aisle and 25 Members of the Majority in voting against legislation that would overturn what commonly is known as the ``Mexico City'' policy. First enacted by President Reagan and sustained by the first President Bush, this policy has been, for the past 6 years, the policy of our country under our current President. Put simply, the policy says this: Federal resources provided to international family planning organizations cannot be used by them to pay for abortion or efforts to overturn pro-life laws in the countries where such groups operate. This is entirely consistent with the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of American taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions in our own country. Yet now, only 6 months into the new Congress, the majority has decided that tying federal funding of abortions in other countries to family planning assistance is somehow acceptable. Moreover, my friends across the aisle have enacted within the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill a provision that would make optional the requirement that 33 percent of all prevention funding be used for abstinence and marital fidelity programs. Mr. Chairman, abstinence and faithfulness to your spouse are the only sure ways of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS and a large number of sexually transmitted diseases. Yet now we are giving programs and groups that work against such diseases the opportunity to rely more on condoms than common sense and commitment to sexual probity. Additionally troubling is that the State/Foreign Operations bill contained $2.4 billion for the State of Israel. This funding is especially imperative given the fact that Hamas has just gained control of the Gaza Strip. I voted against the Foreign Operations bill because of its strange insistence that American taxpayers fund overseas abortions. That's morally wrong. It affronts the convictions of tens of millions of our fellow citizens. It is an expression of ideology, not sound foreign policy. Mr. Chairman, Israel has no stronger supporter in Congress than me. I have cosponsored legislation to counter Iran's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons and another measure recognizing the 40th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem and calling upon the President to begin the process of relocating the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. I have worked closely with my friends in Idahoans United for Israel and am proud of my association with supporters of Israel across the political spectrum. Mr. Chairman, I urge you to bring a clean bill to the House floor so that my colleagues and I can vote for Israel and for funding for our State Department and its vital mission and for so many other important foreign relations-related programs. The American people are weary of the legislative process being used to score political points. Both sides are guilty of this kind of maneuver and it needs to change. Support for Israel is too important for it to be held up by the vagaries of domestic politics. Let's have a clean bill and a clean vote.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of Fairbury, Illinois' most famous citizens, and that was Dr. Francis Townsend. He was an American physician best known for creating the Townsend Old-age Revolving Pension plan and for spurring social movement that advocated for benefits for the elderly during the 1930s. Dr. Townsend, the son of a farmer, grew up in Fairbury, Illinois, and attended Omaha Medical College in 1917. Shortly after becoming a physician, he served in the Army Medical Corps during World War I. After leaving the Army, he began a medical practice in Long Beach, California. When this was not successful, he obtained employment as the assistant city health director. Sadly, due to the Great Depression, he lost that job and was forced into retirement. In 1933, Dr. Townsend witnessed something extremely heartbreaking but not uncommon during the Great Depression when he saw three old ladies searching through trash cans in his back alley for food. This became a watershed moment for the doctor. In response to what he observed, and his inner drive to help others, he decided to become involved in politics. Later that year he created the Townsend Plan, which proposed creating a Federal pension of $200 a month for every citizen 60 years old and older on the condition that the money would be spent within 30 days in order to stimulate the economy. By 1934, through his leadership and determination to help the downtrodden, the plan generated a great deal of support and gave rise to the establishment of at least 5,000 ``Townsend clubs'' nationwide. At the height of popularity, membership in the clubs totaled over 2 million people. By 1935, an additional 25 million Americans signed petitions to Congress and the White House supporting the implementation of Dr. Townsend's plan. He became such a national celebrity by this time that he testified before Congress. Thanks to Dr. Townsend's efforts, his social crusades sparked a national antipoverty movement in 1933 that likely contributed to the expedited passage of Franklin D. Roosevelt's Social Security Act of 1935, one of the major initiatives of the New Deal. Dr. Townsend was a steadfast leader and original thinker. His efforts to fight poverty during our Nation's worst economic crisis and his exemplary civic activism are an example for us all. Naming the Fairbury, Illinois, post office after one of its most famous citizens during the sesquicentennial anniversary of Fairbury is a fitting celebration of both Dr. Townsend's contributions to the city and to this important milestone. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to imagine a time when national news took months and sometimes years to disseminate throughout the country. Today we get immediate news updates through various outlets. But it was over 2 years after President Lincoln gave the historical Emancipation Proclamation that the slaves of Galveston, Texas, learned that their long-deserved freedom had been won. It was on that date, June 19, 1865, when Union soldiers made their way southwest to spread the joyful news of their Civil War victory. Every year on June 19, commonly known as Juneteenth Independence Day, African Americans in the Southwest and around the Nation celebrate their emancipation, their culture and the historic significance of the civil rights struggles. It is critical that we educate our children not only of American history and the Civil War, but the tradition of Juneteenth Independence Day. By taking time to celebrate these anniversaries, we honor the richness, diversity and heritage of all races that form our great Nation. June 19th is a time to acknowledge a period of history that helped shape our Nation and continues to influence our society today. It is with great honor that I support the passage of House Concurrent Resolution 155. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, each year in June, we celebrate our strong relationship with the Caribbean nations and appreciate the value and diversity they bring to the United States. We value National Caribbean-American Heritage Month and encourage people from across the country to join with those of Caribbean-American roots in these celebrations. From as far back as the 17th century, citizens from the Caribbean have immigrated to the U.S. Many were slaves, who faced the same obstacles struggling for equality and independence. We are a Nation of immigrants, and this bill emphasizes the many contributions of Caribbean immigrants to our society. Over 5 million Americans proudly share the Caribbean heritage in promoting and attending Caribbean-style festivals around the country. These festivals appreciate the rich culture, history and diversity brought forth through the joining of these two nations. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of House Concurrent Resolution 148. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Major Scott Nisely, a father, athlete and musician, made the ultimate sacrifice for his country on the field of battle and deserves the honor of having his name on the post office in Marshalltown, Iowa, where he worked for 12 years. Scott was born in Syracuse, Nebraska in 1958, and excelled in track and cross country. He attended Doane College on a track scholarship and pursued a degree in biology. He showed a passion for his country and did not shy away from the duty of serving his Nation. While in college, he enlisted in the United States Marine Corps ROTC, and after completing his Bachelor's degree in 1981, he was commissioned an Infantry Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps. He rose to the rank of captain and commanded an infantry company during Operation Desert Storm. After his tour in Kuwait and Iraq, he returned to the Reserves, where he was promoted to the rank of major. Scott continued to serve his community even when out of the military. In 1994 he began working for the U.S. Postal Service in Marshalltown. He participated in his church's music ministry program and was active at the local tae kwon do. Above all, he worked tirelessly to serve others. Even with such an impressive record of service under his belt, he could not ignore the call of duty. When his country went to war again, he enlisted in the Iowa Army National Guard and accepted the rank of staff sergeant in order to do so. In 2005, he returned to Iraq with C Company of the Iowa National Guard's 133rd battalion. On September 30, 2006, he was providing security for a convoy in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, when his company came under insurgent small arms fire. He and a fellow member of the Guard were killed. His decorations include the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Bronze Star Medal, the Oak Leaf Cluster, the Purple Heart, the Army Achievement Medal, and a dozen others. Let us pay our respect to Major Scott E. Nisely and remember his commitment to serving this Nation by naming the Marshalltown post office in his honor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

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

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, to most residents of Rogers County, Oklahoma, and rodeo fanatics, the name Clem Rogers McSpadden is well recognized and much appreciated. Known as a ``son of Oklahoma,'' Clem Rogers McSpadden was born into the well-known Rogers family of which his home county is named. His great uncle is none other than the famous Will Rogers. But it is not his historical family background that we are here to speak about today. We rise to honor the achievements of Clem McSpadden during his life in politics, his military service, community leadership, and successful career in rodeo broadcasting. Clem McSpadden was raised on his two family ranches, Bushyhead Ranch near Chelsea, Oklahoma, and another in nearby Oologah. During his first year in Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College, he left to join the U.S. Navy. He served during World War II, and upon returning completed his education at Oklahoma A&M with a degree in animal husbandry. While at college, he and some friends formed a rodeo team. His strong interest in roping began at an early age, and over time he served as general manager for the National Finals Rodeo, the Old Timers Rodeo and the Indian National Finals Rodeo. He has been announcing for over 60 years and estimates he has announced over 1,400 rodeos. His esteemed career in politics came in 1954 when he was elected to the Oklahoma State senate, where he served until 1972. He went on to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives one term in the 93rd Congress. In 1983, he formed a consulting and lobbying firm McSpadden & Associates, which lobbies the Oklahoma Statehouse on a variety of issues. His powerful presence and influence continue to drive politics of his beloved Oklahoma. Nowadays, he spends his time more quietly at home on his vast cattle ranch enjoying retirement with his family. I urge Members to join me, Mr. Speaker, in passing H.R. 2127 to name this post office for Clem Rogers McSpadden. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, we have no other speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of Mr. Orval Allen Kelso. Today, deeply engaged in a war on terror, thousands of American civilians are working and serving in harm's way. Like the brave men and women serving in uniform, these patriotic citizens risk their lives everyday in an effort to rebuild a stronger future for the people of Iraq. However, they are not alone. American civilian contractors have been operating in combat theatres since as early as World War II, and I am here today to tell you about one of those. Orval Allen Kelso was a civilian working on Wake Island during the early 1940s. Hailing from Emmett, Idaho, Orval worked as a baker in his father-in-law's bakery before going on to pursue better wages working overseas. Mr. Kelso worked as a heavy machine operator throughout the Pacific until April 8, 1943, when he was captured and taken as a POW to Camp 18, Sesabo, Japan. Orval later died in that camp. His remains were claimed by his son in 1949, when they were brought back to rest on U.S. soil at the National Memorial Cemetery, Honolulu, Hawaii. It is fitting that we honor Mr. Kelso for his sacrifice and also be reminded of the many others who were taken prisoner or who paid the ultimate sacrifice working in harm's way. We often forget about the non-military Americans who gave their all for the freedoms we cherish in our great Nation. Let us help remedy that today by recognizing Mr. Kelso and the civilian POW's taken during World War II. They are an exemplary example of the selflessness displayed by Americans in an effort to bring peace and freedom to millions, and we thank them for their sacrifice.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of Mr. Tex Bjorklund. During the 1950's, Tex Bjorklund was a police officer with the Los Angeles Police Department. While on patrol, he received a call to respond to a shooting at a nearby location. Upon arriving at the scene Mr. Bjorklund discovered the body of a 7-year-old girl who accidentally had shot and killed herself with a handgun found in the glove compartment of a car. Deeply moved, Tex began working on a way to help prevent this kind of tragedy from recurring. As a result, he invented a device that would not only allow Americans to retain their right to keep and bear arms but also keep children from hurting themselves by using firearms. In fact, Tex was one of the first people to devise what we call today a ``trigger lock''. Unlike advocates of sweeping gun restrictions, Mr. Bjorklund realized gun-related problems were not the weapons themselves but rather those who misuse them. In the wrong hands a weapon can be misused by those too young to understand the deadly force guns possess or by those who mean to do us harm. Tex saw the need for a device that would ensure firearms are operated only for their intended use. Subsequently, Mr. Bjorklund began a quest to invent such a product. Today there are hundreds of different models of locks for many models of firearms. We will never truly know how many lives Mr. Bjorklund saved, but it is fitting we honor him today for his invention.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinctly American treasure: a burger done right. I have the privilege of housing in my district a burger joint that has been around for over a century and was recently chronicled in the Wall Street Journal's Raymond Sokolov's quest to find America's best burger. Hudson's, located in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, was founded by Harley Hudson in March 1907 and is run by his great grandson Steve Hudson. Hudson's best known burger, the Huddyburger is, as Sokolov reports, ``certainly the best $2 burger in creation,'' the ``Platonic ideal of burgerdom.'' Madam Speaker, my great state is known for many things: pristine rivers and lakes, gorgeous mountains, an abundance of natural resources, and hardworking citizens, but today I rise to recognize it for one of its lesser known gifts to this country: the Huddyburger. The Huddyburger and the Hudson family represent what is great about America: ingenuity, hard work, perseverance and dedication. I wish them the best and look forward to continued success by the people of Idaho.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 249 that would end the Bureau of Land Management's authority to sell wild horses. This is an important resource and wildlife management issue that affects our Nation's rangelands. Recognizing the need to ensure healthy herds and healthy rangelands, the U.S. Congress gave the administration the authority to manage, protect and control wild horses and burros with the enactment of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. The statute directs the agency to maintain populations at a designated appropriate managed level, based on wild herds and rangeland monitoring, to determine the number of animals, including livestock and wildlife, that the land can support. In spite of the removal of horses, as was mentioned by the gentleman from Utah, currently the population of wild horses on the range is more than 10,000 above the appropriate management level. The excess horse populations are causing significant resource and environmental damage. Even conservation groups such as the National Association of Conservation Districts, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Izaak Walton League, and a number of others have acknowledged the damage caused by this overpopulation of horses. Balanced management, respecting recreation, watersheds, wildlife and grazing must be restored to the public lands where these horses roam. I urge a vote against H.R. 249 to help protect the environment and ecosystems of the western States.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, under Democrat leadership, the year 1993 witnessed the greatest tax increase in American history, until recently. Just 3 months into this new Congress, the Democrats have shown their vision for America with a more than $400 billion budget increase, an increase which can only be paid for through a colossal scale of taxation that will reach nearly every American. The Federal Government has created a monster. Today, our Tax Code and regulations bulge at over 60,000 pages. I have yet to meet anyone who has read all of them. Americans pay billions of dollars to accountants and financial advisers just to comply with this labyrinth of rules. More than 50 percent of all taxpayers pay someone else to prepare their tax returns. Planning for the future is challenging enough without the added headache of complex taxes and confusing deductions, not to mention the uncertainty of how taxes may change from one year to the next. Congress has the moral responsibility to remove the obstacles it has created that punish Americans who are simply working hard to achieve their dreams. I encourage my colleagues in Congress to overhaul our cumbersome tax system.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 228 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman McCarthy. I appreciate the opportunity to give this report on this first quarter. I think it is very apt for us to let the folks back home know exactly what is going on from a Republican perspective. In the first quarter of the new Congress, the new Democrat majority has made its priorities clear by acting to impose higher taxes, more government spending and by attacking key aspects of the Idaho way of life. In the last 3 months, the majority has acted to impose the largest tax increase in more than a decade. In fact, within the first month of Congress this new majority passed H.R. 6, a bill to increase by $7.7 billion over a 10-year period, an increase that will effectively affect the price of gas at the pump and further our addiction on foreign oil. Instead of higher taxes and continued increasing reliance on foreign oil, my constituents need lower fuel prices, but in the first three months in Congress, this new majority has done nothing to lower fuel prices but to the contrary has acted to actually increase the price of gas. In the same 3 months, the new majority has passed a budget that includes almost $400 billion in increased Federal spending, a budget that failed to address the explosive growth in entitlement spending, spending that will consume over 60 percent of the Federal budget in 15 years. The Democratic majority has focused in the Natural Resources Committee on what they call the evolving West. Those of us who are actually from the West are calling it the war on the West. The majority has had countless hearings primarily to paint an inaccurate picture of the West and its issues. The reform of Federal forest land management policies should be their focus in these hearings. We have forests that are overgrown and are fire hazards to our communities. We lack access to our lands, and we are under constant attack from radical environmentalists. We need better forest management, and the Federal Government needs to be a better landlord instead of an absentee one. This should be the focus of their agenda in the Natural Resources Committee if they really want to help us in the West. The priorities of this new majority were further illustrated when they mandated the Commander in Chief, withdraw troops on an unprecedented and arbitrary timeline without any consideration of what is actually happening on the ground. The same new majority conditioned financial support for our troops on funding of unrelated and various pork barrel projects, including $5 million to study tropical fish and $74 million for peanut storage. In a time of runaway deficit spending, something needs to change dramatically. The change the new majority proposed in the first three months, however, is to proceed in the wrong direction, the direction of debt, deficit and defeat. We need to balance the budget. To do so, we must cut Federal spending. Congress' ongoing spending habits continue at the expense of our children, and we owe it to Americans and we owe it to our children and our grandchildren to cut spending. That is why I stood with my Republican colleagues and supported an alternative budget plan to balance this Federal budget by 2012 in just 5 years. Together with a balanced budget, I also joined my colleagues cosponsoring legislation to make permanent numerous tax cuts, numerous tax credits that affect average American families. The American taxpayer will work through April 30 this year just to pay their share of taxes. Well, change, indeed, must occur. My priorities for change are these: spending must be reduced, tax burden on American families and small businesses must be reduced, our natural resources in the West must be responsibly managed, the constitutional authority of the President must be respected. Unfortunately, the priorities of the new majority, as evidenced over the last 3 months, are not my priorities, and they are not the priorities that the people of Idaho hold.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Thank you, Congressman Franks. First of all, I would like to start off by saying how proud I am to be a new member of the Republican Study Committee and to be a part of that group that is about the business of changing the way that Congress does its business, the way that the law will affect the people of this country. I think that we are set to do good work in that group of 100- plus people, and I am very proud to be a part of that group. Mr. Speaker, tonight is a night of celebration. The Supreme Court has this day extended legal protection, a modicum of legal protection, to thousands of preborn babies. Many of my colleagues have given moving speeches about this victory for the little ones, and I am so pleased to add my voice to theirs. From my esteemed former colleague, Henry Hyde, to the tireless gentleman from New Jersey, Chris Smith, and countless thousands of Americans whose names will never really be known, to President George W. Bush, people of conscience and conviction have worked for years to end one of the most gruesome practices imaginable; and today, the Nation's highest court has vindicated the law this House passed repeatedly and that the President finally signed into law in 2003. Mr. Speaker, if we, as a culture, cannot defend the right to life, all of our other rights really become meaningless. So today's Supreme Court ruling is a great victory not just for preborn children, but just as importantly, for our culture. For 16 years in the Idaho legislature, I worked on protecting the most vulnerable among us, the unborn. That the highest court in our country would today extend this minimal protection to thousands of little ones, infants almost ready to be delivered, is very satisfying. With a great majority of Idahoans and of American people in general, I am gratified by this affirmation of our most basic right, the right to life. And yet I would temper my joy with a note of sadness. We have outlawed a single barbaric practice, but other types of abortions, an estimated 1.3 million per year, continue with full protection of the law. The fact that these abortions are performed through less startling, cruel and brutal procedures than partial-birth methods makes them no more morally acceptable. The impact is undeniable. Forty-five million Americans are dead from abortion. That is a full one-third of a whole generation, and we are well into one- third of now another generation, all lost to abortion. The challenge to end unrestricted access to abortion on demand will not end until every life, however small, is protected, until every person at whatever stage of life gains the protection of the law, until the Constitution of our beloved country is respected fully and, consequently, absurd notions like the idea that abortion is a protected right are jettisoned from our Federal law. Mr. Speaker, 9 years ago, in the Idaho legislature we passed a ban on partial-birth abortion. Because of activism in our courts, that bill was almost immediately enjoined. It didn't protect a single unborn child in the State of Idaho. I remember in my debate on that bill I questioned what could be going through the mind of a doctor who partially delivers that baby, feels that life moving in his hands and feels that little baby jerk as he takes his life. Mr. Speaker, I question what must be going through his mind. And I say, if we cannot end this barbaric practice, God help us, God help this country. And today, Mr. Speaker, that prayer was answered, that request for God's help was answered today. I close with this: Some of our friends across the aisle make a great effort of obfuscating the true issue of what we are dealing with by calling preborn children fetuses. That is fine with me, as long as we all understand that the term ``fetus'' is simply Latin for ``the young yet in the womb.'' Mr. Speaker, today was a great day for every fetus, for every young boy and girl still in the womb. May God be praised and may He be pleased so that His blessing is poured out upon our land.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor and express appreciation for Mr. David J. Lynch of Meridian, Idaho. Mr. Lynch is not only a great Idahoan, he is also a great American. He served our country as an enlisted member of the U.S. Navy and served in World War II on the USS Tappahannock. His life of service did not end with the war. He has continued to give his time and energy freely up until this very day as a grassroots volunteer for the Jade Bar-Shalom Books for Israel Project. As Rena Cohen, a co-founder of the Project has said: Mr. Lynch ``is a most extraordinary citizen of the United States and has done much to extend the hand of friendship and solidarity of the people of the United States to the children of Israel threatened by terrorism, and sadly, deprived of basic learning materials as funding for Israel's public school system has of necessity been diverted to defense during the last few years.'' Jade Bar-Shalom Books for Israel Project provides used English books that are still in good condition to school libraries in Israel and is an excellent example of what can be done when committed individuals sacrifice time and energy for the sake of a cause greater than themselves. Mr. Lynch should be honored for a lifetime of service not only to Idaho and the United States, but also to those in need in a very troubled part of the world. It is for that reason that I rise to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this fine American.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, today Members of Congress faced two budget resolutions. The choice is a clear one between bigger, more expensive and more intrusive government versus fiscal discipline based on key priorities. Now, fiscal discipline is hard, which is why it is not always popular. It is easy for some to vote to increase government spending, but ultimately someone must pay for it. It is common to hear about the ``government'' doing this project or that project. We hear a lot about the ``government'' spending money, but we must not allow the idea of ``government'' doing something to lead us to forget that, ultimately, ``We the People'' are the ones who have to pay for what government does. The nineteenth century economist Frederic Bastiat once said that ``government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.'' Although the Federal Government is not known for its fiscal discipline, we are now facing a budget that exceeds even the most fevered imaginings of history's biggest spenders. It would enact the largest tax increase in history--an almost $400 billion increase. This is one path, and it is the one down which the new Majority proposes to take us. We also had the opportunity to take another path, a roadway to a balanced budget without raising taxes on working Americans. The choice is clear. The Democratic budget would do serious harm to Idahoans, their families and their businesses. The Democratic budget would: Raise taxes on 436,000 Idahoans who benefit from the current 10 percent tax bracket; force 176,000 married couples in Idaho to pay for an increase in the marriage tax penalty; force 133,000 Idahoans with children to pay higher taxes because of the expiration of the current child tax credit; and raise tax rates on capital gains and dividends for 74,000 Idaho investors, including Idaho senior citizens. The Democrats are demanding that hardworking Idahoans further subsidize the already bulging government coffers. More than that, the reckless increases in entitlement spending included in their bill would require that generations to come pay for our present unwillingness to make tough decisions. As many know but few heed, the explosive rate of entitlement spending is simply not sustainable. If the current rate of federal entitlement spending remains unabated, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will consume 20 percent of the Nation's economy annually by 2040. If trends continue, entitlements will take up over 60 percent of the entire Federal budget in less than a decade. Our Nation is one of great prosperity, but no nation can expect to maintain economic and political greatness by feeding government programs at the expense of working families. Few will be untouched by this vicious money-grab. Seniors, married couples, parents, small business owners, lower-income earners--all will be forced to turn over more of their earnings to the Federal Government. In contrast, I support the Republican-offered substitute budget. The Republican budget reaches a balanced budget by 2012, but retains the important tax cuts adopted in 2001 and 2003. The Republican budget does not arbitrarily raise the 10 percent bracket to 15 percent; it preserves the current 10 percent rate. Lower-income earners need that money more than the government does. The Republican budget: Stops raiding the Social Security surplus; reins-in unsustainable, runaway entitlement spending by slowing the rate of annual entitlement spending growth, thereby saving money for the taxpayers; prepares for the future by budgeting in advance for national emergencies and crises; refines and strengthens the so-called ``pay as you go'' (PAYGO) rules to require that spending increases be offset with spending reductions instead of increasing taxes; caps discretionary spending through 2010 so Congress cannot simply throw more money at problems that require real solutions. In short, we in Congress are accountable to our constituents. We must remember that real people and their livelihoods are at stake back home. If we wish to help those back in our districts, we must bear in mind that we do not have all the answers here in Washington. Congress did not earn the money that we took in taxes. It was hard-working Americans that earned it. If we fail to make the direly-needed tough choices about runaway spending, we are merely fostering a tax-and-spend culture that demands our constituents make pay a greater sacrifice in their earnings. This is an unacceptable demand to make. Thankfully, the President has said he would veto the Democratic bill. Yet unless Congress begins to take seriously the need for economic growth, tax reduction for families and balancing the Federal budget, relying on the nation's Chief Executive to exercise his veto pen is like depending on a child to put his finger in the leak of a dyke. It will only work for a short time. We've got to do better, soon. Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Chairman, Federal budgets reflect our values as a nation. This Nation has rejected passing the monumental debt run up by this administration and past congresses on to their children. We are bringing a new fiscal direction to our budgeting process. Correcting the fiscal course of the country will not be easy, or fast. We did it before, but success only comes with the hard work of passing budget and appropriations bills every year . . . unlike the way past Congresses did it: not paying the bills, running up huge waves of debt in the form of higher taxes on our children. We're about to start doing this right. Our fiscal outlook deteriorated dramatically over the past 6 years. In 2001, the administration inherited a projected 10-year (2002-2011) budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. After paying for tax cuts for the richest among us, that surplus was gone. Between that and the 9-11 attacks, the United States accumulated a mountain of debt, adding $2.8 trillion to our Federal debt burden since 2001. Most of this debt has been purchased by foreign investors, making the U.S. economy more vulnerable to economic and political instability and political pressure from abroad. Deficits matter. It is our moral responsibility to start cleaning up the fiscal chaos wrought by the last Congresses and the President. Living beyond our means comes at a cost to our children and grandchildren who will have to pay off that debt. The irresponsible economic policies of the past 6 years have left a debt burden of $29,075 for a typical middle-income family of four in Texas. Deficits also hurt economic growth by slowing down national savings, which leaves us less to invest in our future. That means lower productivity and wages for future workers. The President's budget continued the fiscal approach that has brought us large deficits and growing debt. This budget is in sharp contrast to the trend of spending our children's money like mad. Today's budget takes the necessary steps to eliminate our long-term budget deficit by adhering to the pay-as-you-go principle, just as families at kitchen tables do every day across the country. A balanced budget must include balanced priorities. For the first time in 6 years, the congressional budget resolution will balance the Federal budget--in 2012--while also defending our country, delivering critical services to children and families, caring for our veterans, educating our children, and growing the U.S. economy. The 2008 budget is the blueprint for the new direction we are taking the American people. It provides greater deficit reduction than the administration in the first 5 years, leading to a budget surplus in 2012 . . . we pay for the budget as we go, not as we hope we'll have a windfall of money . . . I am particularly pleased at the matters affecting South Texas, including: The largest veterans' budget increase in American history--$3.5 billion more this year ($32 billion over the next 5 years) for veterans' health care than the President's budget. Greater investment in areas that deal with homeland security, rejecting the cuts to vital first responder and terrorism prevention programs included in the President's FY 2008 budget. Under the President's budget, the State Homeland Security Grant Program--which awarded $277,028,279 to Texas from 2003 to 2006--would be slashed by 52 percent. The Law Enforcement Terrorist Prevention Program (LETPP)-- which awarded $70,936,283 to Texas from 2004 to 2006--would be eliminated. Funds to begin implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations to make Texas and our nation more secure. Investments in a 21st Century Workforce for a growing economy and protects middle-class taxpayers. Increasing funding for State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--in Texas, where previous budget cuts left 1,366,710 children without health insurance. Rejecting the administration's proposal to cut Medicare funding by $1,586,784,434 for Texas hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and home health care providers. Providing substantially more funding for Texas' 4,365,200 children enrolled in public elementary, middle and high schools--providing nearly $8 billion more in 2008 and 11 percent more over the next 5 years for education and training programs than requested by the President. Increasing resources for No Child Left Behind, special education and Head Start--rejecting the harsh cuts and underfunding for these critical education programs in the President's budget. I urge my colleagues to adopt this budget, and begin a new era of fiscal sanity and investment in our greatest resource--Americans.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because of my serious concerns with section 4 of H.R. 1309. As I begin, let me emphasize that I support the intent of H.R. 1309. Transparency in government is an important priority. I campaigned on it and voted for the new ethics package that came before this House in early January with the hope that Congress might be more openly accountable to those who elected us. This is a government of, by, and for the people, and the people deserve to know what their government is doing. Except for critical issues of national security policy, there must be a much better level of openness in the conduct of the Federal Government and the access of the American people to information about it. However, section 4 of the bill before us, as it is currently drafted, appears to authorize Federal courts to award attorneys' fees to a plaintiff even when the opposing parties mutually reach and execute a settlement agreement. The policy of FOIA is, and should be, to expedite and streamline production of documents falling within the statute. My concern is that when a Federal statute provides attorneys' fees after the parties mutually reach a voluntary settlement, it runs contrary to that very goal. Resolution short of protracted litigation should be encouraged, not discouraged. The current proposed language of section 4 of H.R. 1309 may have a devastating, perverse effect. Second, the statute may further allow plaintiffs to receive attorneys' fees in almost any case they file so long as they can show that the defending government agency, for any reason, changed its position once the case had been commenced. While it is true that FOIA complainants often face an uphill battle when they deal with a Federal agency, the language, as proposed, invites litigation instead of resolving it. Additionally, the legislation, as drafted, may actually undermine the stated ``dominant objective'' of the act by giving an incentive by Federal Departments to avoid disclosure. The question this raises in my mind, Mr. Speaker, is that given the provisions of section 4 of the bill, why would any agency settle? As I read the bill, once a lawsuit is commenced, any change in position by a Federal Department or agency would be tantamount to an admission of liability for attorneys' fees. This would only encourage the filing of a myriad of lawsuits. If lawyers know they will make money no matter what the outcome, they will see this as a great opportunity to file, file, and file again. We will likely see a cottage industry for litigants who may not even care about the underlying documents. Because of the concerns I have that the current proposal provides incentives to prolong litigation, I cannot support this measure in its current form. I regret that because I want to vote for any bill that prudently opens the door of government to those whom government represents, our fellow citizens. But the law of unintended consequences is at play here, and unless we strike section 4, we will see massive new litigation that will only clog the Federal docket, hamstring legitimate functions of government, and cost taxpayers potentially untold millions of dollars.

Mr. SALI

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

Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would remove language from H.R. 985 that would prohibit dissent with respect to scientific research. I filed my amendment because I believe it is inappropriate to attempt to shoehorn the debate about public policy influencing science into this legislation, thus turning it into a personnel issue to be litigated in the courts. As set forth by section 13 of the bill, the dissemination of ``false or misleading technical information'' is deemed to be an ``abuse of authority'' upon which a Federal authority can make a protected disclosure. The problem is that on scientific issues, the question of what is false or misleading is often a difficult question on which reasonable people can disagree, and on which sometimes scientific authorities have a hard time making up their minds. Are eggs good for you or bad for you? Is milk good for you or bad for you? Section 13 of this bill has significant implications upon the development of scientific research conducted by the government, including research and development work at the Defense Department, as well as federally funded research on health and related issues. By including the science provisions in this bill, I am concerned that we are opening the door for debates in science to become the basis of litigation. Putting the threat of litigation on a healthy debate of science is not good public policy. Furthermore, this clause potentially makes the tension between ethics and science the subject of litigation. For example, federally funded scientific research on human cloning should be debated amongst policymakers and agency officials without fear of retaliation by scientists and researchers. If an agency or the administration disagrees with the findings of a particular scientist, we should not be opening up our judicial system for those disagreements to be litigated as Federal employee personnel issues. That hardly seems like a responsible policy. I urge my colleagues to oppose turning science into a personnel issue to be litigated in the courts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I would expect that the good gentleman that is debating against this amendment has policies in his office that allow him to control the message that comes out of his office, not to hide anything, I'm sure, but so that he will have a uniform message. That is important at times within government agencies. What we do not want to do, Mr. Chairman, is, we do not want to include a provision in this bill that will put scientific debate in the middle of personnel issues for the Federal Government. We do not want to put the results of scientific research, we don't want to take that out of the grasp of debate by policymakers for fear of retaliation by scientists and researchers who are doing work for the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, this is good public policy to have this amendment, to take this section out of the bill; and I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.