That, according to a recent CNN poll, is the low opinion most Americans have of the current health care debate in Washington.  It is also a testament to the lack of confidence that many Americans now have in the ability of Congress to address the most pressing problems facing our nation.

After a year of debate that was largely waged through the media, Congress has missed a historic opportunity to pass genuine health care reform.   Instead, we have been asked to accept a massive bill that costs far more than we can afford, creates dozens of new federal programs, subsidizes abortion, and does nothing to address the central problem in health care—out of control costs.

Congress should instead start over.  It is time to ditch the current bill developed among a few party insiders in Washington, and consider the many innovative ideas that have put been put forth.  I would like an opportunity to offer my own Patient’s Choice Act, a comprehensive measure that will increase access and lower costs without growing the government or adding to the national debt.

Unfortunately, Congressional leaders are signaling their intent to force through their controversial health care bill using Budget Reconciliation, a process reserved for fast track budget items that enjoy broad bi-partisan support and one that severely limits debate and the voice of the American people.

It is easy to see why the American people are so skeptical.

Congress is ignoring its own rules on deficit spending.

There is no clearer example of Washington’s betrayal of the public’s trust than recent pay-as you-go (PAYGO) legislation approved by Congress, which says every dollar in new spending has to be paid for with spending reductions or tax increases.

Upon passing the new provision about a month ago, the Senate Majority Leader heralded: “Let’s not kid ourselves: we are in this financial situation – and these pay-as-you-go rules are necessary – because we spent the last decade spending money we didn’t have.”

Yet, since the Senate passed PAYGO legislation three weeks ago, the Senate has passed nearly $120 billion in new spending that violates the new rule.

That is why earlier this week I offered an amendment to force transparency and accountability in Congressional spending habits.  My amendment will require the Secretary of the Senate to post on its website the total amount of spending passed by the Senate that has not been offset with spending reductions in lower priority programs, the total amount of spending authorized by the legislation, and the number of new government programs created.

My amendment passed 100-0.  Not surprisingly, Senate leaders are already working behind the scenes to strip my amendment before it reaches the President for final approval.

Last week, the leadership of the House of Representatives announced their intent to forego earmark spending directed towards for-profit companies.  Responding to that proposal, Republicans in the House have now committed to ban earmarks altogether.

I am encouraged by the debate that is now unfolding in the House of Representatives, and am hopeful similar discussion will occur in the United States Senate.

I have long said that earmarks are the gateway drug to spending addiction in Washington.  In the past decade, Congress has approved 90,000 earmarks to reward special political interests and doubled the size of government while making virtually no cuts in spending.  In comparison to legislation President Reagan vetoed in 1987 because it contained 121 earmarks, this year Congress saw fit to include 11,320 earmarks—totaling more than five times the annual budget of the State of Oklahoma. Banning earmarks is a long overdue, common sense step that will help Congress win back the trust of the public and tackle our mounting fiscal challenges.

From the half a billion dollars the Senate earmarked for bridges to nowhere in Alaska to the Cornhusker Kickback for Nebraska, earmarks demonstrate the misplaced, wasteful and even corrupt nature of Congress’ out of control spending that rewards special interests at the expense of the common good of our nation.

There is no question that the Constitution grants Congress a central role in appropriating tax dollars. The Founders also anticipated we would do it responsibly, for legitimate Constitutional functions, and do the oversight work necessary to hold the Executive Branch accountable to the law.

Cutting deals to allow individual senators or representatives to earmark for one constituency at the expense of other taxpayers does not meet this test.