Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. Chairman, I am here to support the bill to terminate the FHA Refinance Program. This bill is not about programs that work. It's not about programs that have continually helped to create jobs and to help our faltering economy and our laggard job growth.

This bill is about a failed government program, because the FHA refinance program that went into effect in September of 2010 has failed to work properly. By the end of December of last year, of 2010, a mere 22 mortgages had been refinanced through the program at a cost of $50 million. That's an average of $2.3 million per mortgage. The conclusion is very, very clear. The program does not work and it's wasteful.

We are in an economic crisis. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Government is set to run a deficit for fiscal year 2011 of $1.5 trillion. If serious steps are not taken right now, we are set and ready to see in 2012 another trillion dollars added to our deficit.

This river of red ink is not sustainable. Americans are coming to grips with the fact that, if nothing is done, we will be the first generation in American history to leave for our children a legacy of insurmountable debt and economic stagnation.

And while there are a number of difficult decisions that we must make in the months and years ahead, common sense dictates that we can begin to get our spending under control by cutting programs that simply don't work, no matter how large or how small they are or no matter how beneficent they may sound. They just don't work. This one does not work.

Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle often think that we are just one government program away from solving our problems. But when you think that way, you end up piling one government program on top of another, wasting the taxpayers' money without even helping our fellow citizens who are struggling in this day and age.

The last 2 years have proven that government programs and government spending do very little in the way of stimulating jobs that we need most and economic growth. We in the Congress of the United States have a duty to be the stewards of the people's money, the people's tax dollars. The least we can do is tell our constituents that we are doing our job by cutting the stuff that does not work. This does not work.

Offered By: Mr. Canseco

Amendment No. 5: Page 4, line 22, after the period insert

the following: ``All such unobligated balances so rescinded

and permanently canceled shall be retained in the General

Fund of the Treasury for reducing the debt of the Federal

Government.''.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Burgess amendment.

Last August, as part of a $26 billion bailout bill for States, $10 billion was set aside to be distributed to the States for education. The State of Texas was set to receive $830 million as part of this education funding. As far as we are concerned, government spending does not create jobs or economic prosperity. Nonetheless, the money was appropriated for all States in the Union.

Yet tucked into this legislation was an amendment that was deliberately and maliciously slipped into it that imposed a restriction on the State of the Texas, and only Texas, so that for Texas to receive the money would force Texas to violate its constitution. The restrictive amendment required that Texas guarantee that spending levels for elementary and secondary education not dip below 2010 levels for 3 years.

This is troubling. To accept the funds, Texas would have to violate its State constitution.

Neither the Governor nor the State government branches are able to make budget decisions that bind future legislatures. This amendment is not about whether or not taxpayers' money will be spent or saved since the funds have already been appropriated. The amendment is about fairness, equal treatment for American taxpayers in one State, and malicious conduct in an arena involving Texas taxpayers and Texas schoolchildren where such legislative conduct is unconscionable.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It would eliminate Federal funding for the National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs grant program which the underlying continuing resolution funds at $4.5 million. This program provides noncompetitive grant funding for overhead costs to support artistic and cultural programs in the District of Columbia exclusively.

In his budget last year and this year, President Obama has requested that this program's funding be cut by 50 percent, which the underlying legislation does. In this year's budget, President Obama notes that ``in general, these institutions are also able to apply for Federal funding from other resources.''

I'm not here to debate the merits of the program. I'm not here to question whether or not the money has been used by the institutions to accomplish good things. What I'm here to do today is to debate and question why this program should be considered a priority and receive taxpayer funding when we're in a fiscal crisis. Make no mistake, we are in a fiscal crisis that threatens not only our economic security but our national security.

However, you don't have to take my word for it. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said, ``I think the biggest threat we have to our national security is our debt.'' Dr. Alice Rivlin, a former Office of Management and Budget Director under President Clinton and member of the President's Deficit Commission, said in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee last February, ``On any reasonable set of economic assumptions, the U.S. budget is on an unsustainable track. There is no disagreement among the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, and leading private forecasters on where the budget is headed if we do not change course.'' And she continued, ``The growing deficit will be more and more difficult and expensive to finance. Ultimately, we will not be able to borrow enough to finance the widening gap between spending and revenues.''

Even before the government's spending spree began that occurred under President Obama, then-Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid, our Nation was headed for a day of fiscal reckoning. They simply sped up the day our Nation will hurtle off the fiscal cliff, increasing non- defense discretionary spending by 84 percent in just 2 years. Under their leadership, Federal spending has risen to levels as a share of our economy not seen since World War II and resulted in the Federal Government borrowing approximately 40 cents out of every dollar we spend. Where is all this headed if we don't stop our spending?

If you followed the situation that occurred last year in Greece, you know that that nation had to make many painful choices very quickly because it had spent too much and investors were demanding higher interest rates to take on the risk associated with buying Greece's debt. If we don't get our fiscal house in order, what occurred in Greece is a preview of events to come to America. If we don't stop the spending and get our fiscal house in order, we will be the first generation of Americans to leave the next generation with a legacy of less freedom and prosperity. Do we want to leave our children and grandchildren a legacy of debt and limited opportunity?

We have two choices: we can either stop the spending that is driving our fiscal crisis, or we can continue the spending and one day become the next Greece.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Chair.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), and I have introduced a very simple amendment. Specifically, the amendment would eliminate the $10.716 million in funding for the East-West Center.

The East-West Center was established in 1960, according to its Web site, ``to foster better relations and understanding among the peoples of the United States, Asia, and the Pacific Islands through programs of cooperative study, training, and research.'' Last year, the Federal Government appropriated $23 million to the East-West Center. On top of the Federal funds it received, the East-West Center raises money from private sources.

I'm not here to debate the merits of the East-West Center. I'm not here to question whether or not the money has been used to do good things. What I'm here to do today is to debate and question why this program should be considered a priority and receive taxpayer funding when we're in a fiscal crisis.

Make no mistake, we are in a fiscal crisis that threatens not only our economic security but our national security. However, you don't have to take my word for it. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said, ``I think the biggest threat we have to our national security is our debt.''

Erskine Bowles, President Clinton's former Chief of Staff and cochair of President Obama's Deficit Commission, has said, ``This debt is like a cancer. It is truly going to destroy the country from within.''

Just how bad is our fiscal situation? Well, I've just run two back- to-back trillion dollar-plus deficits, and we are on track to run a third one. We're spending at levels as a share of the economy not seen since World War II. We are borrowing 40 cents on the dollar, driving our already $14 trillion in debt even higher.

Cutting spending is the solution to putting our budget back on a sustainable fiscal path. However, my friends on the other side of the aisle would have you believe that we do not have to cut spending. This just isn't the case. However, you don't have to take my word for it.

In his written testimony from his recent appearance in front of the House Budget Committee, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said, ``One way or another, fiscal adjustments sufficient to stabilize the Federal budget must occur at some point. The question is whether these adjustments will take place through a careful and deliberative process or whether the needed fiscal adjustments will come as a rapid and painful response to a looming or actual fiscal crisis.''

No doubt we are making tough decisions here today to begin putting our budget back on a sustainable fiscal path. Yet, as painful as some of these decisions are, it will be more painful for our children and grandchildren if we do not get our fiscal house in order. Failing to do so will mean that we will be the first generation to leave the next with less opportunity and less liberty. Is that the legacy we want to leave our children and grandchildren? I think not.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Canseco

Amendment No. 248: Page 321, line 9, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $10,716,000)''.

Page 359, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $10,716,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Canseco

Amendment No. 249: Page 282, line 7, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $4,500,000)''.

Page 359, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $4,500,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Canseco

Amendment No. 250: Page 281, line 25, insert ``(reduced by

$12,510,000)'' after the dollar amount.

Page 282, line 3, strike ``$130,700,000'' and insert

``$118,190,000''.

Page 359, line 13, insert ``(increased by $12,510,000)''

before the period at the end.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the H. Res. 72, the great engine of America for the last 235 years has been innovation. American ingenuity is a tremendous source of pride in our nation's history. Sadly, this aspect of American life is reeling today from a wave of new regulations that have been added on top of an already complex regulatory system that costs money, jobs, and growth across every sector in our economy. We've been told that more regulation is somehow ``good for us,'' that a select few know better than our citizens how to make the day to day decisions in our small businesses. But every time a teenager in our country is prohibited from entering the work force because his would-be employer has to comply with a new health law and can't afford his labor, we lose the chance for that teenager to learn valuable skills and perhaps create something special later in his life. Every time a small bank in West Texas is forced to comply with a law that came as a result of the irresponsibility of others, we lose the chance for that bank to extend a loan to an entrepreneur that is capable of creating hundreds of jobs in a small community. Mr. Speaker, Pecos County State Bank in Fort Stockton, Texas takes in 50 percent of the deposits of that town's residents. The cost to run their annual audit is now almost four times as much as it was before the onslaught of regulations we've seen passed in the last two years. We cannot keep placing these burdens on our small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I urge this Congress to begin the work of placing the responsibility and trust in our society back where it belongs--in the hands of the people. We must begin it now before it's too late.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of repealing the $2.6 trillion Washington takeover of health care.

I spent the past year speaking with thousands of Texans in the 23rd District. The message I received was explicit and distinct: Repeal and replace the jobs-destroying health care law.

We must reform health care in America. However, we must do so in a way that doesn't destroy jobs but ensures the American people can get the health care that they need when they need it, at a price they can afford, and doesn't put Washington bureaucrats in charge of America's health care.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in support of the underlying legislation, the repealing of the job- killing health care act.

Ten months ago, President Obama and his allies in the Democrat- controlled House and Senate committed legislative malpractice when they jammed through the Congress and into law a Washington takeover of health care. They did so despite the overwhelming opposition of the American people. Since its enactment into law, what was already a unpopular law has only continued to become more unpopular.

There is no doubt that we need to reform health care in America. However, it is not done by assaulting individual liberties guaranteed in our Constitution, bankrupting our children and grandchildren, and putting Washington bureaucrats in the personal relationships between our doctors and our patients.

Repealing the health care bill will also help encourage job growth to get our economy back on track. Our economy is not suffering from a capital crisis; it is suffering from a confidence crisis.

Policies enacted in Washington, like the health care bill, have injected uncertainty into our economy that has eroded the confidence of Americans to start new businesses or expand current ones to create jobs.

The American people have made it clear they want the health care law repealed and replaced with commonsense alternatives that will lower the cost of health care while also increasing quality and access. After meeting and speaking with thousands of Texans in the 23rd District over the past year, this is their message.

Repealing and replacing the health care bill is one of the promises made to the American people in the Pledge to America. Today, we are making good on that promise as we begin the work of repealing the health care law and replacing it to ensure that the American people can get the health care that they need, when they need it, and at a price they can afford--without the Federal Government coming between them and their doctor.

I support the rule.

``To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.''