Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, the Democrat congressional stimulus bill will add nearly $1 trillion to the Nation's debt. That is roughly $2,700 in additional debt for every man, woman and child in the United States. Republicans are hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that this stimulus bill will be considered openly so as to ensure there is no waste of taxpayer dollars.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the public has not been given an extra day to review the congressional Democratic proposal prior to committee consideration. Further, committees are rushing as we speak to consider their respective portions of the bill, completing markups in a single day.

Mr. Speaker, as has been announced, we are going to be hastily considering the bill next week. I would ask the gentleman from Maryland, will all Members and the American people be given 48 hours to review the committee report prior to a vote next week as the House rules dictate?

I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his response. I appreciate the spirit in which he responds to the inquiry and will set aside the supposition that perhaps we have to rush because of some policies that were in place over the last 8 years and would point out to the gentleman that, again, it is his party that has served in the majority over the last 2 years building up to the current situation that we are in.

But I would ask the gentleman, specifically does he know what day the actual stimulus bill will be considered on the floor of this House?

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama has actively solicited Republican ideas to be included in his stimulus package. I would like to ask the gentleman from Maryland, and I yield to him to respond to the question, will congressional Democrats allow all ideas to be considered as amendments on the House floor without restriction?

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would just respond by saying that perhaps because of the expedited nature of the process, given the severity of the crisis, that we would have an opportunity to change that tradition and open up Ways and Means bills. But I accept the gentleman's response, although I may not agree with the outcome.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama has asked that 40 percent of the stimulus bill be reserved for tax relief. Republicans agree on the need for fast-acting tax relief for families and small businesses. Unfortunately, it seems the Democrat majority in its proposal includes far less tax relief than what President Obama requested. Some estimates say there is only 10 percent tax cuts. The estimates that I have had that seem reasonable and accurate is that there is only 33 percent of this proposed bill that includes tax cuts and the rest, the 66 percent, is just pure government spending.

I'd also note that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that less than half of the spending on infrastructure in the congressional Democrat proposal will be spent by the end of 2010. That hardly seems stimulative. By contrast, Mr. Speaker, our position would be tax cuts can have an immediate impact.

So I would like to ask the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, will Democrats allow amendments to be considered for a vote on the floor that increase the tax relief in this bill, as President Obama has requested?

And I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

It's my understanding that the President has said he expects Washington to act differently, that we should and owe it to the public to have an open and transparent process, up-or-down votes in the light of day. That's simply our request, Mr. Speaker, that we be given an opportunity to propose and vote on our tax relief. Obviously, there are differences in what types of tax relief are appropriate in terms of a stimulus bill, and that's being the spirit of my question.

Mr. Speaker, the House just voted to stop the administration from spending another $350 billion in bailout funds. However, I would like to clarify the outcome of that vote for the people that elect us. Last week the Senate voted to allow the additional $350 billion to be spent. Therefore, the House and Senate are in disagreement about whether the $350 billion should be spent or not under the TARP program.

So I would like to clarify, even though the House voted against the $350 billion, the administration will still be allowed to spend that money. And I would ask the gentleman, is that correct?

And I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House passed a bill to provide further restrictions on this next $350 billion that, as the gentleman points out, the Senate has approved. Yet it is my understanding that the Senate has no intention of taking the House bill that was passed out yesterday.

So I would like to ask the gentleman, do you expect the bailout restrictions as passed by the House yesterday to become law?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to say in closing that I would hope that the standard of transparency and openness that should be applied to the expenditure of the TARP moneys can be applied to the conduct of the proceedings of this House over the next 2 years during the 111th Congress. I think we owe it to the American people. We owe it to the American people to know what the Members that they elect are doing, what they're voting on, which is why I again say to the gentleman I hope that the proceedings next week on this unprecedented amount of money in the bill that is currently being marked up, this unprecedented amount can come to this floor in the most open, transparent way possible, giving the minority, the Republicans on this side of the aisle, the ability to make their proposals known, to have votes on those ideas because, after all, that is the spirit in which we would like to work not only with the gentleman and his party but certainly with the new President.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker.

And I would like to bring the gentleman back to a conversation that we had last week regarding the SCHIP bill. Because, frankly, Madam Speaker, I'm a little bit concerned that the Democrat majority is not fulfilling President-elect Obama's calls for bipartisanship. Because I would say to the gentleman, last week you told the House that you were working towards having the SCHIP bill available to us for a full 48 hours before bringing it to the floor; and as the gentleman knows, that did not happen.

And I know the American people are not concerned about the process here in this House, but I do know that the public wants their Congress to function openly. This truly is about bipartisanship and transparency, and I believe that the American people deserve both.

And as we discussed, Madam Speaker, last week, there are 55 new Members of this House. Those 55 new Members had less than 24 hours to review a 285-page bill that spent $72 billion in American taxpayer dollars, and none of these Members were even allowed to offer an amendment.

So I would like to ask the majority leader if he would commit to allowing at least 48 hours for Members and the American public to review bills prior to a vote in the House.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman for that.

Madam Speaker, I would also ask the gentleman if he would commit to allowing both Republicans and Democrats the ability to offer amendments on a regular basis, especially as, in this instance, when a bill comes to the floor without committee consideration.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I would like to further inquire of the gentleman, along those lines, I know that we now are looking at next week, as you suggest, beginning the legislative process on the consideration of a stimulus bill. And I would note that two of the gentleman's chairmen, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and Mr. Obey from the Appropriations Committee, have released summaries of the House Democratic economic recovery package. However, both gentlemen have not publicly released legislative texts. And I would say to the gentleman it is one thing for us to have a summary of the bill; it is another when we are contemplating spending $825 billion of the taxpayers' money as to when the text of a reported stimulus bill could be made publicly available.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I further say that the Appropriations Committee on the Republican side of the aisle are extremely concerned, and they should be, that they will not be given the customary 3 days to review the text prior to any markup, and this is, after all, the committee rule. Our members are being told that today, Friday, and next Tuesday will count as the 3 days required under the committee rules; however, as we all know, on Tuesday almost no one will be allowed in the building due to the inauguration.

So, Madam Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, in his capacity as the leader and a former appropriator, can he ensure us and ensure the members of the Appropriations Committee that their markup will not begin before next Thursday?

I thank the gentleman for his remarks. I know that it's not customary for us to count holidays and weekends in those 3 days, but I do thank the gentleman for the intent of his remarks.

I would like to turn, Madam Speaker, to the issue of committee ratios. And I do know that there has been some progress made on the Energy and Commerce Committee. Essentially, Madam Speaker, my question to the gentleman is the ratio on the floor of the House is 59/41. And I am, as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, particularly puzzled how there is any justification for a ratio particularly on that committee where it is 63/37. And if he could allow me some insight as to how a ratio could be that different and what the reason for that would be.

Yes, I yield.

And I do say to the gentleman we appreciate the gesture on the part of the Speaker working with our leader to accommodate this disparity in the ratio on the Energy and Commerce Committee and hopefully in that spirit can continue to work together to try to slim down that disparity on the other committees in which it does exist.

Lastly, Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify what action the House will be taking next week on the bailout funds. As the majority leader has stated, he expects the House to vote on a resolution of disapproval. More plainly, for all the people of this country, this is a bill to block the remaining $350 billion in bailout funds from being spent.

So to clarify again, Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman to respond to the statement that voting ``yes'' would block the bailout funds and voting ``no'' would allow the bailout funds to continue to be spent; is that correct?

I yield.

So I ask a follow-up, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman that the process for consideration of that resolution is yet to be determined?

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to underscore that all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, desire to ensure that all children of low-income working families have access to high-quality, affordable health care. But at this time in our economy when deficits threaten to climb to $1.6 trillion, without Republican input or without any debate, the majority has rushed a bill to the floor that substantially expands the reach of this program beyond its original intended purpose. All the while, a substantial portion of the existing target population has never been reached.

It is with much disappointment that I stand in opposition to this bill today, because it could have had significant bipartisan support had the majority opened the process to our substantive ideas.

Before our ideas and solutions were shut out at the Rules Committee, we sent President-elect Obama and Speaker Pelosi a letter which outlined four central issues that we had hoped would be addressed.

First: We believe that the SCHIP bill should follow the original intent of the law. That is to cover children in low-income working families.

Second: We Republicans believe that expanding SCHIP should not shift children away from private health insurance options into government-run programs that are funded exclusively by the taxpayers. Instead, we should be providing families who are currently uninsured with more affordable options to better meet their needs, not a one-size-fits-all government solution.

Third: We Republicans believe that the legislation should include meaningful provisions to prevent fraudulent activity by those who seek to illegally gain access to this program.

Finally, Madam Speaker, when Congress reauthorizes the program, we must do so responsibly. The budget gimmicks included in this bill suggest that the majority is not seriously trying to comply with PAYGO. This bill will only put the States and the Federal Government into further debt. I don't think there is any question that many in this House want to do the right thing. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, I feel this bill doesn't quite reach this mark.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, I'd like to thank him for extending the gratitude he has this week to me. I'm very grateful for that, for his spirit of bipartisanship and his pledge to me to work with us on this side of the aisle. I look forward to building a constructive working relationship with the gentleman. This is our first colloquy together. I look forward to the successive colloquies. And at this time, I yield to my friend from Maryland, the majority leader, for purposes of announcing next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman. I will say to the gentleman that you have announced a bill, again, limiting the uses of the TARP funds. I know the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts, has also announced a broad outline for his bill and scheduled a hearing. I would ask the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, will the bill be marked up prior to coming to the floor and what sort of rule can we expect?

I thank the gentleman. I would like to ask specifically, would anything in Chairman Frank's bill prevent our Members from having a vote to stop the additional $350 billion in bailout funds from being spent?

I thank the gentleman for that.

I would ask the gentleman, Madam Speaker, regarding the SCHIP bill, does the Energy and Commerce Committee or the Ways and Means Committee plan on holding a hearing or markup on that bill?

I would ask, Madam Speaker, along those lines, if nothing else, the budget window has changed, as the gentleman recognized, and the costs will likely be more substantial. We do have, obviously, 55 new Members of this Congress that have not had a chance to vote on this bill or even be a part of the discussion, may not have any experience on this issue.

While we have very little time to review a multibillion dollar authorization, I would ask the gentleman if the bill is coming to the floor in the form of a suspension. He noted, Madam Speaker, that it was a bipartisan vote. It was maybe 40 Members on our side.

I think the majority of those Members on our side support the extension of the existing SCHIP program. I was wondering, again, if the bill is coming to the floor as a suspension, or will we have an opportunity to offer our amendments and suggestions under a rule?

I thank the gentleman for that.

The Republicans under the leadership of our leader, John Boehner, will be sending a letter later today outlining our ideas for improving the SCHIP program. I am hopeful that under the rule that we will have the ability to have those ideas considered on the House floor, just as President-elect Obama has advised us to proceed when the gentleman and I and several others met with him earlier this week.

Madam Speaker, I would now like just to make one additional inquiry to the gentleman that three suspensions were considered on Wednesday. I would say to the gentleman votes were over by 1 p.m.

Yesterday we counted electoral ballots for the historical election of Barack Obama. We were finished by 2 p.m.

Since no legislative business was conducted and no votes were taken after that, can we expect this to be the manner in which the floor will be scheduled each week?

I thank the gentleman. I would also like to just point out and make a comment and suggestion that we do promote the efficient operation of this House, because we have new Members who have inquired as to why we would be finishing up so early each day and not working more so that maybe we could return to our districts and be with our constituents on a day that perhaps we could save by working more on others.

There are 5 legislative weeks scheduled between now and President's Day. I would ask the gentleman if he could lay out the calendar, the legislative calendar for those 5 weeks.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the majority leader. I look forward to continuing this dialogue with him on a weekly basis, and I yield back my time.

I thank the gentlelady.

Madam Speaker, colleagues, I don't think there is any of us who would doubt a nation's right to defend its citizens and to defend its population. That's why I rise in support of this resolution. I thank the sponsors, the gentleman from California, the gentlelady from Florida, for bringing this forward.

At this time it is very, very important for us in the United States to stand tall in defense of our democratic allies, Israel's right to defend its borders, to defend its people.

I stand here in support of Israel because I have been there. I've seen Sderot. One of the most memorable visits to Israel that I've been on, I visited with a family, a family that lived in a town called Gush Katif. It was a town in the southern portion of the Gaza Strip. I visited with them almost 3\1/2\ years ago when it was just after Israel's unilateral pullout of the Gaza Strip.

This family had two children, parents--professional parents--who had just gone through the wrenching process of uprooting their family, leaving their home, in hopes of a better life. The parents said to me one of the most difficult jobs was to explain to their children why they needed to leave their life and their home. These parents said they told their children they were going to leave because they needed to be sure that Israel had every chance imaginable for peace so they could leave in peace.

I actually cannot imagine what those parents are going through now. Three-and-a-half years later they've settled in the area of Sderot, and life could not be any more frightening for them or their children.

When they moved out of the Gaza Strip, they joined the group of citizens of Israel who have to live by the 15-second rule. They have to know, their children have to know, where a safe spot is within 15 seconds of a siren going off. That's the unimaginable fear that they live in day in and day out. Even when these people take vacation and leave Israel, their children, immediately upon arriving at their destination, ask the question, Where is the safe place? Where do I need to run and hide from the rockets?

That's the mentality. That's the culture that has bred because of the incessant, tireless firing of rockets by Hamas aimed at civilians.

Madam Speaker, that is the issue. Israel has a foe on many of its borders, certainly to the south, that is determined to kill its civilians. I don't think any of us would want any of our population in this country to be subjected to that type of terror, nor would we sit here and allow it. That's why Israel has taken the action that it has.

After trying to stop the rockets through third-party negotiations, cease-fires, and even lodging complaints at the United Nations, Israel has taken defensive action. And today, we speak as one body in support of our democratic ally, Israel. We stand up to reaffirm the vibrant relationship that our two countries share, a relationship underpinned by shared values like respect for human life, democracy, and a relationship strengthened by our indispensable strategic interests.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, you don't have to look far to see that families across this country are gripped with a tremendous amount of fear and uncertainty. They fear for their jobs, if they have one. They fear for their future as they see their 401(k)s, their college savings accounts collapse. They fear that their elected leaders don't get it. They fear that this Congress may very well be incapable of change, incapable of producing the kind of results that they want and to get it right.

Under existing House rules, when a bill is brought to the floor that includes a tax increase, the minority has a right to offer a motion to strike that increase; and the Republican minority had done that on nearly half a dozen occasions over the past 2 years.

With this rule change now, though, House Democrats are trying to push through what we Republicans will no longer have, the ability to say ``no'' to higher taxes. We will not be able to simply strike a tax increase and demand an up or down vote. In fact, the only option we will have would be to replace one tax increase with another. There will be no ability for us to cut taxes to lighten the burden on the middle- class families that are hurting right now.

One can see that this rule change makes it a lot easier for the Democrat majority to in fact hide tax increases inside other larger bills. In fact, that is why all of us are sitting here scratching our heads. If the House Democrats feel a tax increase is necessary, then why wouldn't they allow for a full and open debate? Why not let the American people have a say? Why not let the hardworking people of this country hear why Washington is once again looking to take more of their hard earned money?

Either way, what is clear, this type of partisan rules change flies in the face of a new era of openness and transparency that President- elect Obama has promised. I take the President-elect at his word. I believe he wants transparency, openness, and debate. I believe he wants Washington to begin to do business differently. I believe he is serious in wanting Congress to work together for the good of all of our constituents. But apparently that word hasn't made its way down to the leadership of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I too rise with a lot of concern over what is about to happen on the floor of this House. Clearly, there are many in this country who are reeling because of job layoffs, insecurity in terms of their economic outlook, insecurity as far as their health care is concerned. We have got a set of problems, I think, unprecedented in this country, at least in our generation. We've got to remain focused on trying to solve problems.

And frankly, I think that the bill coming to the floor, otherwise known as the auto bailout, is just not the right way for us to go. I can't think of anything more nonsensical than replacing those in Detroit who have not been able to make a success out of the auto companies and replace them with, frankly, bureaucrats who are subject to the whim of the politicians here in Washington. It just doesn't make sense.

If private investors are not convinced of the Big Three restructuring plans, if they don't think they're realistic enough, then why in the world would we ask the taxpayers to step in to provide that kind of assistance?

The Big Three restructuring plan and the majority's proposal downright lack accountability. How do we know, what is the guarantee that the taxpayer money, that the restructuring promises will occur?

Once the taxpayers enter the game there will be a big incentive for the taxpayers to continue to prop up what could very well be a continuing failed enterprise. That's why we have to lock in the restructuring now. The restructuring shouldn't happen in a matter of months; it should happen in a matter of days or weeks.

And as the gentleman from Indiana spoke, there is certainly an ability for us to see this restructuring take place, concessions on the side of management, on labor, on the bondholders. And frankly, we've got a role here in Washington that, if the Big Three are serious in their restructuring efforts, we can provide an alternative, a backstop, a guarantee for debtor-in-possession financing if they were to enter some type of pre-packaged bankruptcy.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against consideration of the resolution because it is in violation of section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution provides that all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI. This waiver of all points of order includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes the resolution to be in violation of section 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Committee on Ways and Means certified that the underlying legislation contained no earmarks, and under the rules there is no other way to challenge that certification, which is one of the reasons why I stand before you today.

Provisions in H.R. 6899 calling for the restructuring of the New York Liberty Bonds is clearly an earmark. This earmark is worth $1.2 billion and stands to benefit one entity, which is New York City.

I have a letter, Mr. Speaker, dated October 30, 2007, from the chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation in which he determines that the New York Liberty Zone tax incentives is a limited tax benefit and therefore an earmark. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, according to House rule XXI, clause 9, and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, this earmark should have been disclosed along with the Member that requested the same.

From all reports, Mr. Speaker, instead of going through the proper procedure, disclosing that this was going to be included in the bill, this provision was air-dropped into the bill over the weekend at the last minute without any ability for any of the Members to know that this was in the bill.

Reports say that it is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Representative Rangel, that has requested this earmark. Yet how are we to know whether Chairman Rangel is the sponsor of this earmark, since there has been no transparency and no notification as required under the rule?

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this earmark produces no energy for American families, and the way that the majority plans to pay for this earmark is by raising taxes on job creation as well as energy production.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear a lot today during the debate about revenue sharing and the fact that many coastal States, including my State of Virginia, will not be able to share in any of the revenues resulting from energy exploration off our coast. In light of this, in light of the fact that there is no incentive whatsoever to produce energy in this bill, in light of that, when we see that the majority is channeling $1.2 billion to New York City for an earmark for a project that only benefits that locality, I think that we understand now what the intent of the majority is in bringing the bill to the floor in this form.

There is zero relationship between increasing American energy production and this earmark, Mr. Speaker, which again underlies my objection and is one of the reasons why I raise this point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would say in all respect to my colleague from New York, I still don't understand how the insertion of this earmark, this insertion of $1.2 billion, has anything whatsoever to do with this bill, has anything whatsoever to do with increasing American energy production, which is the purpose of this bill, which is the majority's stated purpose, that we want to increase American energy production.

But, instead, what the gentlelady talks about, again, is not at all responsive to what it was that I was raising. We don't have to have a vote on this issue if the gentlelady would accept unanimous consent to remove the earmark from the bill to go forward.

Again, why are we having this earmark, this $1.2 billion earmark? This is exactly what the American public is so upset with Congress about, the fact that we have a bill that is designed to increase American energy production to help us try and wean off of the incredible reliance that we have on foreign oil. Why? The public has to be asking why in the world would we be inserting $1.2 billion in directed funds to one locality. Why in the world would we be doing that?

It does not make any sense. The fact that the Ways and Means Committee has certified that this is not an earmark, to me, flies in the face of the open and honest way that the majority has said they would run this House.

Again, I have a letter from the chief of staff from the Committee on Joint Tax which says that the New York City Liberty Bonds and the provisions calling for their restructuring is an earmark. Again, I say to the majority, if we are going to be straightforward in our desire to solve the problem of American energy production, this earmark has no place in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert the letter I quoted from in the Record.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

If the gentleman says so.

But, again, reclaiming my time, I am not opining and standing up on the substance of what is behind the request for the Liberty Bonds.

What I am objecting to is the fact that this, the insertion of this item, is so far beyond the jurisdiction of a bill designed to promote American energy production that it just doesn't even pass the straight- faced test.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker. I have no additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask, does the gentlelady have an additional speaker, or is she ready to close?

Mr. Speaker, all I would say is the histrionics that we have already seen on the majority side of the aisle indicate the sensitivity of the matter of earmarks.

We, I think, all have noticed that the public has an increasing awareness of the way that this body operates, and they have a great dissatisfaction aimed towards this process. That's why we raise this issue. It is just completely unfair. It smacks of a smoke-filled room, behind-closed-doors dealings that is not befitting of this institution.

Frankly, it is not what the American people want, nor what they deserve.

That is the reason for raising this question surrounding the $1.2 billion that has been requested by what reports have said was Chairman Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee.

Again, on their own, liberty bonds should stand a test of this House; but it should not be a provision inserted in a bill that is meant to increase American energy production so that we can bring down gas prices.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas.

I also want to thank the gentleman from California, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for their cooperation with me and my office on this bill.

As our minority leader said, the scientific community as well as the general public is pretty well steeped in the dangers of smoking. I think all of us can agree it's a legitimate public policy to want to reduce the rate of smoking with our children. This bill, though, in addition to doing some of that, some of the aim behind it is to allow for it to pave the way and in fact to encourage legitimate attempts to make tobacco and tobacco products less harmful. The net result to all of us will be to increase the health outlook for consumers of tobacco and its products.

This bill is particularly meaningful to my district, as there are over 6,000 direct jobs related to the tobacco manufacturing. And there has been significant investment in my district and in the area from where I come made towards the research and development on how we make this product less harmful.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to congratulate Short Pump Middle School, located in Henrico County, VA, for their recognition as a School to Watch by the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform. This forum is an alliance of more than 60 educators, researchers, and officers of national associations and foundations dedicated to improving schools for young adolescents across the country. They have identified Short Pump Middle as a high-performing school that excels in many areas of education. Congratulations to the administration, teachers and students on this tremendous honor. National organizations recognize what we in Richmond already know--that Short Pump Middle is first rate. As the parent of 3 Short Pump Middle School alumni, I congratulate the teachers, parents, administrators and students on this outstanding recognition.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on the issue of the Federal budget and what we should be doing to ensure that we are stewards of the Federal budget just as all the families across this country are expected to be stewards of their own family budget.

Now, Madam Speaker, as a proud Virginian, I would like to point to a few of the origins of the earmark discussion that occurred many, many years ago, frankly, shortly after the founding of this country. And that great Virginian Thomas Jefferson, he wrote a letter to James Madison, another great Virginian, dated March 6, 1796, challenging Madison's proposition for improvements to roads used in the system of national mail delivery, and it was directed at the idea that we should be, as Members, actually directing public funds, taxpayer dollars, into our States.

President Jefferson wrote, in the context of directing Federal dollars, ``It will be a scene of eternal scramble among the Members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get most who are meanest.''

I think this shows that the debate around earmarks is not a new one, and I think also that the impression of then Mr. Jefferson is something that we ought to pay attention to and something that we ought to, frankly, pay heed when we are talking about the challenges that we are facing today in this country.

The gentleman from Texas talked about the tremendous lack of confidence that the American public has in this Democrat-controlled Congress. It is stunning to see the public opinion numbers of what the American public thinks about the performance of this Congress. Nothing to be proud of.

I believe that that dissatisfaction, frankly, is grounded, first of all, in the inability of this Congress and this majority to solve the problems that real people are facing in their lives each and every day in their communities. All they hear are solutions based on the premise that this government in Washington somehow needs more of their hard- earned dollars. And over and over again, we continue to hear the message, and we know that this town, that this Congress, and this majority is broken. We are not rising to the occasion, fixing the problems facing the American people. And yet we continue to see a steady stream of bills making their way to the floor where we continue to see proposals to raise taxes, to take people's hard-earned money, and then we see those dollars turned around and appropriated into the earmark process.

My friend from Texas was very accurate in his quotes, right on point. We have heard over and again Members of the majority leadership, when they were in the minority, when they have become the majority leadership, continue to pledge, ``We pledge to make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history.'' That was from then minority leader Ms. Pelosi in 2006.

She then went on to say, ``This is a place where we really need to throw up the shades and pull back the curtains.'' And she said, ``We have to have the fullest possible disclosure, and it has to be on earmarks in appropriations, in authorizations and in taxation. And it has to be across the board, with no escape hatches.''

There was another remark made, ``There has to be transparency. I'd just as soon do away with all earmarks, but that probably isn't realistic.''

Now, again, we need to dedicate ourselves to fixing the problems that this country has to try to address their distrust of this government. And the first thing that we ought to do is be mindful that the many, many earmarks that make their way through this Congress frankly are not out, shone in the light of day as the majority had promised. They are not being held accountable for some of these expenditures that are being made. This is at the crux of the public's distrust of Washington.

And again, while we are facing the prospects of $4 and $5 a dollar gas at the pump, while families have real issues and their pocketbook is being pinched, we continue to see the unbelievable, unprecedented torrent of billions of dollars going into special interest projects and into pork that, frankly, most American people don't approve of.

It should not be about pork. It should be about paychecks. We should be focusing our attention and we should be focusing the investment of taxpayer dollars towards job creation. We ought to be rewarding those people who invest their dollars and give them back more of their hard- earned money so that we can see more jobs created, because we do know that more jobs, longer lasting jobs and a stronger economy will stem from a strong private sector and a free-market system.

And with that, I want to again thank the gentleman from Texas for organizing this Special Order tonight on the very important topic of earmarks. And I yield back.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Barbara ``BT'' Taylor of Culpeper, Virginia on the occasion of her upcoming retirement from my Congressional staff and to thank her for her many years of service to the 7th Congressional District of Virginia.

BT is an active member of the Culpeper community, and as Outreach Director in my Culpeper District Office, she provides outstanding service to the citizens of the 7th District. She is a respected voice in the community with a true dedication to public service. BT plays an important role in developing relationships with constituents, local elected officials, businesses, schools, organizations, and community leaders. I know they will all miss her steady counsel and passionate advocacy.

As Members of Congress, we come to Washington with a passion for helping the people we represent. I can assure you that I am greatly aided in accomplishing that goal due to the tireless work and counsel of Barbara Taylor.

BT's passion and zeal for this country and for our Commonwealth is refreshing and unwavering. We would all do well to emulate her patriotic fervor and her passion for serving those around her.

While I will surely miss having BT as part of our official team, I am comforted in knowing that she will still be serving her community in many other ways. I am greatly privileged to have worked with BT over the years, but most importantly, I am honored to call her a friend.

Madam Speaker, I hope you will join me and my family in wishing BT, Charlie and the entire Taylor family all the best and in thanking BT for her contributions to the people of the Seventh District of Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise around this motion to instruct, which is centered on an objection that I have in the Senate-passed farm bill around one particular provision that certainly raises a lot of questions in my mind and should raise a lot of questions in the minds of my colleagues.

In the bill there is, without question, a $200 million earmark that benefits one wealthy landowner. Section 12808 in H.R. 2419, as passed by the Senate, provides for a tax credit bond program. There is a scheme in this bill that was so narrowly crafted that the bonds authorized thereunder can only be used for the acquisition of one, just one, piece of land in the entire country. This piece of land happens to lie predominantly in the State of Montana and is owned by timber giant Plum Creek. According to press reports, the Nature Conservancy would be allowed to issue $500 million in bonds under this bill and then use the proceeds to purchase the land from the timber giant. Even more egregious is that the provision does not even appear to require the protection of a single additional tree or a single additional fish. If this isn't a tax earmark, I don't know what is. Mr. Speaker, this is the ``bridge to nowhere'' of the farm bill.

Now, I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will argue that the Montana bond provision does not fit the definition of an earmark under House rules. Their reasoning will be that many taxpayers will potentially own the Montana bonds and then get tax credits from the Federal Government. But make no mistake. This provision is designed to facilitate one land sale by one landowner.

Now, Mr. Speaker, here's my question: What in the world are we doing here contemplating the expenditure of $200 million in U.S. taxpayer money to fund the purchase of a tract of land that benefits just one wealthy landowner, all the while American families are struggling with skyrocketing gas prices, food prices through the roof, plummeting home prices, and an economy that is barrel, barely growing?

It is time for us, Mr. Speaker, to say ``no'' to these types of backroom deals that have been struck in the middle of the night that benefit a wealthy few. It is time for us, Mr. Speaker, to say ``no'' to business as usual in Washington. And it's time, Mr. Speaker, for us to put the people first.

Think about it. Imagine what we could do with $200 million. It would go a long way to help solving the problems that so many people are facing across this country. This $200 million earmark is exactly what is wrong with Washington and why the American people are demanding change. It's time for all of us to insist that the Federal Government start working for the people again.

Mr. Speaker, my motion is a very simple one. It asks that the House instruct its conferees on the farm bill to reject section 12808 of the Senate-passed bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say that the Plum Creek Forest tax credit scheme is plumb wrong. This is the ``bridge to nowhere'' of the farm bill. This has no business being in the farm bill. This is clearly, as the gentleman from Louisiana said, an earmark directed at one wealthy landowner. And this is why the American people are sick and tired of the way this town does business.

We owe it to the public. They deserve better. Let's call this what it is. The Plum Creek Forest is plumb wrong. This is a ``bridge to nowhere'' in the farm bill. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct the House conferees.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

I would ask my good friend from North Dakota, what is the date on that article in the New York Times?

So clearly, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, I would imagine that the economic times surrounding that article 6, 8 months ago certainly may have been different than they are today. We have been on the floor all day, and will continue to be on the floor tomorrow, talking about the housing crisis and the plummeting real estate values.

Let's face it. If you have got 40,000 acres of land today, and that land was scheduled for development and sale of parcels, that land is not worth what it was in the fall of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I just have one additional comment to make.

I thank the gentleman. And I admire him for his valiant effort to defend this provision in the Senate-passed farm bill. He did a great job.

Mr. Speaker, I just still believe that if we were serious in wanting to preserve land adjacent to Federal forest and parkland, we would have a provision here, maybe not in the farm bill, but a provision in a program authorizing some legitimate awarding of bonds, wherever the program deemed appropriate, not so narrowly drawn that the $500 million could only be used to purchase one particular parcel.

I think anyone looking at this would have to conclude that the aim was to afford the current landowner the ability to sell the land in this difficult climate.

So Mr. Speaker, the Plum Creek Forest and the bond programs associated therewith is plumb wrong. This is a ``bridge to nowhere.'' This is where America, once again, will be let down by the actions of this House if this provision is allowed to stay in.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.