Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, recently I met with dozens of doctors in east Texas to discuss health care, and, with only one exception, every one of them said that they had recommended to their children that they not follow in their footsteps and practice medicine. Health care is losing our best and our brightest due to its threatened takeover by the Federal Government.

Republicans have commonsense solutions to our health care challenges to ensure that all Americans have access to the high quality health care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford.

When it comes to health care decisions, no government bureaucrat should ever come between you and your doctor, and if you are happy with your current plan, Republicans want you to be able to keep it.

In contrast, Speaker Pelosi has proposed a government-run health care rationing system paid for by higher taxes on small businesses and borrowing yet more money from the Chinese, while sending the $1 trillion bill to our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, if you loved the government takeover of our banks, of our auto companies, of our mortgage companies and AIG, you will love the takeover of your family's health care.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of my resolution is as follows:

Whereas the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hensarling--along

with the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Conaway, the gentleman

from Georgia, Mr. Gingrey, and the gentlewoman from

Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn--submitted an amendment to the

Committee on Rules to H.R. 3288, the Transportation, and

Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act;

Whereas the said gentleman's amendment would have

encouraged the development and use of alternative fuels by

the federal government from resources found abundantly in the

United States and Canada such as oil sands and oil shale,

furthering our ability to become more energy independent,

reducing the federal government's energy costs borne by the

American taxpayer;

Whereas, this is especially important at a time of a record

deficit that has reached $1 trillion for the first time in

American history and a record debt that will be tripled in 10

years;

Whereas, the said amendment could help in the creation of

desperately needed jobs in an economy where the unemployment

rate is 9.5%--the highest unemployment rate in 26 years and

climbing--and 2.6 million people have lost their job since

February 2009;

Whereas, when campaigning for the presidency, then-Senator

Obama said that ``under my plan of a cap and trade system,

electricity rates would necessarily sky rocket.'';

Whereas, on June, 26, 2009, the Democratic Majority passed

such legislation in H.R. 2454, a national energy tax also

known as cap and trade, that experts have estimated will

result in American families paying anywhere from $1,500 to

$3,000 annually in additional energy costs;

Whereas, on December 6, 2006, then-Minority Leader Nancy

Pelosi said, ``[W]e promised the American people that we

would have the most honest and open government and we

will.'';

Whereas, according to then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's

New Direction for America, ``Bills should generally come to

the floor

under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate

consisting of a full amendment process that grants the

Minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a

substitute.'';

Whereas a similar amendment was adopted by the House in

2008 during consideration of H.R. 6599, the Military

Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2009 on

a bipartisan vote;

Whereas the gentleman's amendment complied with all

applicable Rules of the House for amendments to

appropriations measures and would have been in order under an

open amendment process, but regrettably the House Democratic

leadership has dramatically breached decades of House

precedent and historically reduced the opportunity for open

debate on this Floor; and

Whereas the Speaker, Mrs. Pelosi, the Democratic

leadership, and the chairman of the Committee on

Appropriations, Mr. Obey, prevented the House from voting on

the amendment by excluding it from the list of amendments

made in order under the rule for the bill: Now, therefore, be

it

Resolved, That H. Res. 669, the rule to accompany H.R.

3288, be amended to allow the gentleman from Texas' amendment

be considered and voted on in the House.

I have an amendment at the desk.

By any possible measurement whatsoever, spending is out of control in the Nation's Capital. Already, this Democratic- controlled Congress has spent $1.1 trillion on a government stimulus plan costing every American household $9,810. That included $100 million for an after-school snack program, $10 million for urban canals. The list goes on.

This Democratic majority in Congress has also passed an omnibus bill costing $410 billion, weighing in at roughly $3,500 per American household. That one included $150,000 for lobster research in Maine and $143,000 to develop and expand a comprehensive online encyclopedia.

Now we know, once again, after the President's press conference last evening, he and the Democrats in Congress will go forward on a government-controlled health care plan that even the Congressional Budget Office, appointed by Democrats, says will cost a minimum of a trillion dollars. Again, costing every American household roughly $9,000.

And what do we have for all this, Mr. Chairman? What do we have?

We now have the single largest Federal deficit that we have ever had in our Nation's history. It crossed the trillion-dollar mark. There was a time not too long ago we always talked in terms of billions; and now it's trillions are rolling off the tips of our tongues.

The Federal debt, the Federal debt under this spending program will triple, triple in the next 10 years. This Congress is on a trajectory to create more debt in the next 10 years than in the previous 220. We're borrowing forty-six cents on the dollar, mainly from the Chinese, and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Chairman, it is crushing not only to the next generation; it's crushing job growth. Since the President has come into office, an additional 2.6 million Americans have lost their jobs. At 9.5 percent, we're looking at the largest unemployment that we've seen in a quarter of a century. Enough is enough.

And so I want to take the President up on a challenge that he issued to Congress just a couple of months ago. He said, ``If we're going to rebuild our economy on a solid foundation, we need to change the way we do business in Washington. We need to spend money wisely.''

The President went on to say, ``That starts with the painstaking work of examining every program, every entitlement, every dollar of government spending and asking ourselves: Is this program really essential? Are the taxpayers getting their money's worth?'' Those are the words of our President, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, today I just want to focus on one program, one program out of an estimated 10,000 programs. It's called HOPE VI. Well, according to OMB--and you can look at their Web site--this is the program that has already accomplished its original objective. According to OMB, HOPE VI ``has completed its goal of contributing to the demolition of 100,000 severely distressed public housing units.''

Now, since achieving its original objective, OMB goes on to further say, The program is more costly than other programs that serve the same population. The program has accomplished its stated mission. And furthermore, I am told--and I hope that the distinguished chairman can shed some light on this. I'm told the program is sitting on almost $1 billion of unexpended balances.

I mean, we're shoving more money their way, Mr. Chairman, and they can't even spend the money that they already have. It's time for us to lead by example, terminate one program, and quit borrowing the money from the Chinese and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, the President of the United States says, Start the painstaking work of examining every program. Mr. Chairman, we have a program that, number one, has achieved its mission; number two, it is now effective; number three, it is duplicative of another program; number four, it has at least 5 years of appropriations in the pipeline; number five, we are looking at the single-largest deficit in the entire history of the United States of America. We have the largest unemployment rate in 25 years.

Mr. Chairman, out of 10,000 Federal programs, if you won't terminate one to quit borrowing money from the Chinese and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren, if you won't terminate this program, I mean, please, which one will you? Is there ever a point where you say, Enough debt is enough? Is there ever a point where you finally conclude that the

best housing program in America is a job? Let's create the jobs. Let's not destroy the jobs. I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that would strike a $2 million earmark requested by the Speaker of the House for the Doyle Drive Replacement Project in San Francisco. Apparently, this drive is owned and operated by the California Department of Transportation, known as Caltrans, which acquired it in 1945 and which charges tolls from vehicles coming across the Golden Gate Bridge.

According to the Web site, the money, among other things, would be used to ``raise the original profile of the southbound lanes to preserve the cultural landscape and retain the cultural relationship between the upper and lower portions of the Presidio.''

It would ``reconfigure the Girard Road interchange to preserve the Gorgas Avenue streetscape adjacent to the historic warehouses and to improve views to the Palace of Fine Arts.''

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm not here to tell you that all earmarks are bad. I'm not even here to tell you that somehow this is a bad use of somebody's money. I've never been a particular fan of the earmark system, but I don't come here to debate that today. I've heard a number of people say, ``Well, relative to the Federal budget, this is kind of pennies and nickels.'' Well, yes, maybe it is. I hope, number one, I'm never in Congress so long that I consider $2 million to be pennies and nickels, but if it is, you know, and if you don't start saving those pennies and nickels, how will you ever save the dollars?

Frankly, with the oppressive treatment we have at the Rules Committee, the amendments that Republicans would offer that would save billions of dollars somehow are never quite made in order.

So, Mr. Chairman, why is this important? I think it's important because we need to take stock of where we are as a nation. Since President Obama was elected, we have seen now the highest deficit we've ever seen in our Nation's history. It's over $1 trillion. Mr. Chairman, it's on its way to $1.8 trillion. That means, since the Democrats have taken control of this House, the Federal deficit has increased tenfold. The national debt is being tripled under their watch, under their budget--tripled--with more debt in the next 10 years than in the previous 220.

So, yes, maybe $2 million is small relative to that, but Mr. Chairman, again, if you don't change the culture of spending, how are you ever going to change the spending?

And I wish the Speaker of the House was on the floor now. I would pose a question to her that I've posed before. Early in her career when she was in the minority, she said, It is just absolutely immoral, immoral for us to heap those deficits on our children. And so I would respectfully ask the Speaker of the House, if it's immoral to do it, why are you doing it? This is $2 million, 2 million more dollars of deficit that, according to the Speaker of the House, is immoral.

The Speaker also has said, prior to becoming the Speaker of the House, I'd just as soon do away with all earmarks; you can't have Bridges to Nowhere for America's children to pay for. I would respectfully ask the Speaker of the House if she was on the floor

now, Madam Speaker, if you would just as soon do away with earmarks why don't you lead by example and quit asking for them?

It appears in this appropriations cycle that she has requested herself, or jointly with others, 30 earmarks worth $36 million. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, in the last appropriations cycle, Mr. Chairman, Speaker of the House Pelosi ranked 16th out of 435 Members of Congress on the number of earmarks she requested.

Again, at a time of trillion-dollar deficits maybe there's time to say ``no'' to one project today so we can say ``yes'' to our children's future tomorrow.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly concur with the gentleman from Iowa.

It was a fascinating history lesson that the gentleman from Massachusetts provided us with, but here are the facts.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, which happens to be appointed by Democrats, we have the largest deficit in the history of the Nation at $1 trillion, 1.8 estimated at the end of the year, and it is CBO that says that the 10-year budget will triple the national debt.

I would ask the gentleman, again, from Massachusetts if this funding is so important, why isn't it paid for by the State of California, the city of San Francisco, or how about those toll roads? And is it really worth borrowing the money from the Chinese and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren at this time? I think not.

I would urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated No. 4.

Mr. Chairman, this is an earmark designated for the Philadelphia Museum of Art, transportation improvement program, for three-quarters of $1 million, I believe requested by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who is on the floor.

There is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the Philadelphia Museum of Art is one of the great art museums in America. I've had the occasion to visit it actually on two occasions I believe. Many in America recognize the steps as the ``Rocky'' steps from the popular film ``Rocky.''

According to the sponsor's Web site, the earmark will be used for, ``Intermodal transportation improvement project to resolve pedestrian and vehicular issues at the convergence of Kelly Drive, Spring Garden Street, Art Museum Drive, Pennsylvania Avenue, and Fairmont Avenue.'' Sounds like a lot of avenues and streets coming together.

Again, Mr. Chairman, let's take stock of where we are: $1 trillion deficit, the largest in America's history. It will increase tenfold in just 2 years under this Democratic majority, a feat I do not believe that has ever been achieved in our Nation's history.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, again, appointed by Democrats, we will triple the national debt

in 10 years. More debt, more debt in the next 10 years, Mr. Chairman, than in the previous 220. Again, don't take my word for it; ask the Congressional Budget Office.

And so I have no doubt that this is a good use of money once again. I have no doubt that this great art museum could use this money, but I have a number of questions.

Number one, why is this a Federal responsibility? You know, why didn't this money go to the Dallas Museum of Art? How about the Museum of Modern Art in New York? How about the Art Institute in Chicago? How about the Legion of Honor Museum in San Francisco? How about the hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of other art museums in the Nation, are they not equally deserving, Mr. Chairman?

And if this is a Federal responsibility, is it really a Federal priority at a time when, under this Democratic majority, we now have the highest rate of unemployment that we've had in a quarter of a century--2.6 million more Americans unemployed since President Obama took office? Maybe, maybe our priority ought to be to try to create more jobs, and there are hundreds of thousands of small businesses, including many in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas that could benefit from that money and create jobs and preserve jobs.

And then, Mr. Chairman, if I concede the argument that somehow this is not only a Federal responsibility but a Federal priority, again, is it of equal priority to creating jobs? Is it of equal priority to the money that goes to the National Institutes of Health for cancer research? Is it of equal priority to setting up more rural clinics for our veterans' health care? I think not.

And although, again, I have no doubt that this is a good use of someone's funds, that at a time of $1 trillion deficit, at a time of the worst unemployment we have had in 25 years, you know, it just doesn't meet the test of the taxpayers and the struggling families in this Nation.

And, again, if we don't say ``no'' to somebody's project today, we cannot say ``yes'' to our children's future tomorrow.

And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect what the gentleman says, and he says that clearly I don't understand aspects of the project.

What he doesn't seem to understand is that the taxpayers in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, frankly, don't want to pay for his transportation projects, and they have transportation needs of their own.

If this is such a priority, why doesn't the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania take it out of their share of the Federal Highway Trust Fund? Why doesn't the State of Pennsylvania take it from their taxpayers? Why doesn't the City of Philadelphia take it from their taxpayers, or maybe the art museum has to charge a little bit more so that the struggling taxpayers of the Fifth District of Texas and all over America don't have to pay more in taxes or borrow more money from the Chinese to help the art museum in Philadelphia.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining and who has the right to close.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will just point out to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that, according to his own Web site, the recipient is the Philadelphia Museum of Art, again, one of America's great art museums.

But I don't want to borrow money from the Chinese to send the bill to my children and grandchildren at a time of a trillion-dollar deficit.

Start saving the pennies and nickels and perhaps the dollars.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad, sad day yet again on the House floor. I do want to add my voice, though, in agreement with so many of my other colleagues talking about the bipartisan respect that we have for the chairman of the Budget Committee. And I suppose it was because he has bipartisan respect, as opposed to partisan respect, that the Speaker of the House decided to bypass him and the Budget Committee in bringing this legislation to the floor. Perhaps it was an opportunity to actually enact commonsense legislation.

Unfortunately, we'll never know that. We'll never know that, Mr. Speaker. And so what I've heard is speaker after speaker on the Democratic side of the aisle tell us that PAYGO just means, When you spend a dollar, you save a dollar. I believe I heard the distinguished chairman say that. And the President of the United States, in adding his support for this proposition, said, Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the use of the term ``PAYGO'' suggests one thing. The practice of PAYGO is something completely different.

Mr. Speaker, you can see from this chart exactly what PAYGO means in practice. These are the spending increases that were subject to so- called PAYGO in the 2009 fiscal year: 2 percent. Two percent, Mr. Speaker, of all spending was subject to PAYGO, this commonsense proposal. I'm not sure it's common sense to the American people to tell them that you're going to be fiscally responsible and then exempt 98 percent of all spending.

I don't believe that's common sense, Mr. Speaker. I don't believe it's common sense at all and, once again, what it tells us is we don't have a serious policy for fiscal responsibility or fiscal sanity here. What we have is fiscal flimflam.

We have a bumper sticker slogan that substitutes for a policy that needs to save our children and grandchildren from a sea of red ink, and so all of this spending is either exempt or somehow PAYGO gets magically waived.

Under this proposal, Mr. Speaker, nondefense discretionary spending is going to increase 9 percent. PAYGO is not subject to it. Overall discretionary spending increases 8 percent. PAYGO doesn't apply to it.

All our entitlement programs that are just exploding, exploding, Mr. Speaker, guess what? They're exempt as well. So Social Security grows almost 5 percent, Medicare grows almost 4.3 percent. So the slogan, the slogan doesn't match the policy.

I have the greatest amount of respect for the distinguished chairman. I have the greatest amount of respect for our President. But, Mr. Speaker, if you were a private company selling a product called PAYGO and you told the

American people that it means ``when you spend a dollar, you save a dollar,'' you'd get sued for false advertising. You would be fined. You would be fined for saying that. It is not a real policy.

Now, let's say if it was a real policy. We know it's not, but, Mr. Speaker, what if it was a real policy? What if those who brought this legislation really designed legislation that did what it said it was going to do? Well, unfortunately, under this Democratic Congress, we know that spending is out of control by any standard known in the history of mankind.

Already, since the Democrats have come to control the White House and Congress, we have seen an administration sign into law a $1.1 trillion government stimulus plan, costing every American household $9,810, including $10 million for urban canals and $100 million for a new after-school snack program.

We've seen them pass a $410 billion omnibus bill, costing every American family $3,534, including $150,000 for lobster research, $143,000 to develop and expand a comprehensive online encyclopedia.

We see them continue the cycle of bailouts: $13 billion for Chrysler, $47 billion for GM, another $30 billion for AIG, and the list goes on.

And what we have seen, Mr. Speaker, is now a budget that is going to increase, increase the Federal debt by a factor of three. It's going to triple, triple the Federal debt in the next 10 years. More Federal debt in the next 10 years than in the previous 220.

And so we see all of the spending that is out of control and so we say, Okay, if you really want to control this spending or if you really want to have pay-as-you-go and you're unwilling to control the spending, well, Mr. Speaker, that just leaves us with one other option. That is a 60 percent increase of income taxes on the American people.

So either one. Which is it is? Is it false advertising or do you really want to increase income taxes on the American people by 60 percent? Which is it?

Again, what's happened since we've had this vaunted PAYGO? What's happened to deficits?

Well, I don't know how they manage to do it, Mr. Speaker, but in just 2 years under Democratic control we've seen the deficit go from $161 billion to now over $1 trillion. The first time, the first time in our Nation's history over $1 trillion, on its way to $1.8 trillion. That's already with having PAYGO in place, before we get the statutory version. I can't imagine how much worse it's going to be once somehow this gets enshrined.

So, again, what this is is an effort to put a bumper sticker on a huge problem. It's the Democrats going to the American people and saying, Please, stop us before we spend again. We just somehow can't control ourselves. And so this is supposed to be a Band-Aid on a fiscal life-threatening wound.

The American people deserve better, Mr. Speaker. They deserve the Republican alternative that puts real caps on spending and will save the American people.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we were certainly honored earlier when the Speaker of the House came to speak on this legislation. I tried to listen to her very carefully. I think I heard, ``We will not increase the deficit is now the congressional mantra.''

That's interesting. I really haven't studied mantras in the past, but what I do note is that since the Democratic majority has been the majority in this institution, the Federal deficit has gone from $161 billion to over $1 trillion for the first time in our Nation's history, on the way, according to the Congressional Budget Office, to a $1.8 trillion deficit, a tenfold increase in just 2 years. So I would say, with all due respect to the Speaker of the House, apparently the mantra is not working very well.

I also believe I heard the Speaker of the House say, ``We have a moral responsibility not to heap deficits on our children.'' Well, I take that very seriously. As a father of a 7-year-old girl and a 5- year-old boy, I think every single day about the deficits that are being heaped on our children and grandchildren.

So I guess I would ask the Speaker of the House, who is no longer present on the floor, if we have a moral responsibility not to do it, why did you do it? Why have you increased the deficit tenfold? Why is it that you brought a budget to the floor and passed it with the Democratic majority that will triple the national debt in the next 10 years and create more debt in the next 10 years than the previous 220? I would say, Madam Speaker, why did you do it?

Now, I know she also spoke with great pride of reinstituting the PAYGO rule when the Democrats became the majority. Well, it sounds nice. Again, it makes for a very good bumper sticker slogan, but, Mr. Speaker, facts are kind of pesky things. So when we look at when the Democrats came into Congress and reinstituted the PAYGO rule, all we see is a sea of red ink for as far as the eye can see. Deficit upon deficit upon deficit. Trillions of dollars of deficits. It's not exactly a plan, Mr. Speaker, I would take great pride in.

I must observe that the only thing that exceeds the Federal deficit is the credibility deficit that Democrats have on the issue of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, it's time to admit the failure of Obamanomics. Where are the jobs? Since we enacted the President's economic program, 2 million more are unemployed in this land--9.6 percent unemployment, the highest in a quarter of a century.

So what do we have to show for Obamanomics? $143 billion more dollars of taxpayer bailout money. The first trillion-dollar deficit in our Nation's history. We had the national debt to be increased, tripled-- triple--in the next 10 years.

We have found the historic debt, we have found the historic deficits, we have found the historic bailouts, Mr. Speaker. But where are the jobs?

You cannot bail out, borrow, and spend your way into prosperity. It does not work. It is time to put America back to work with tax relief for small businesses and American families. That's the Republican plan.

Madam Speaker, above your chair are inscribed the words ``In God We Trust.'' There is nothing more important that we in Congress do each day than seek His wisdom, guidance, and blessing upon our deliberations.

I am both grateful and proud that today my friend, Pastor Elizabeth Hanley, sought those gifts on our behalf.

Pastor Hanley, known to her flock as Pastor Liz, has led the Abiding Savior Lutheran Church in Cameron, Texas, since 2002. She's a lifelong Lutheran, a fifth generation Texan, and like my wife, she's a Baylor Bear.

I have had the opportunity to worship at Abiding Savior on a number of occasions. I know for a fact that through the love of her savior, Jesus Christ, Pastor Liz nurtures the youth of her congregation. She gives hope to the downhearted, she cares for the elderly, and she inspires all through her words of grace through faith.

Hope and unity are in abundance at Abiding Savior. And its parishioners will tell you Pastor Liz is truly deserving of the words, ``Well done, good and faithful servant.''

I thank Pastor Liz for being here today and leading our invocation.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated No. 1.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which would strike an earmark for a half a million dollars to the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. According to the sponsor's Web site, the money would be used, For needed conversion of various HVAC systems for obsolete and high energy consuming systems to direct digital control systems which will vastly reduce energy costs while allowing for greater conservation and use of existing energy within the building.

Mr. Chairman, I want to stipulate that I have no doubt that this would be a very valuable improvement for the Met. I have no doubt this is a good use of somebody's money, but Mr. Chairman, I have several questions about this.

And listen, let me also stipulate that the Metropolitan Museum of Art is one of the great art museums in the world. When I have the occasion to go to New York City, I love to go to the Met. I particularly love to go to the galleries that have the art of the various impressionists. I can spend hours, if not days, there.

So let me stipulate again, I have no doubt that this is a good use of somebody's money, but let me give you a little background, Mr. Chairman.

The spending that has been taking place in Washington, D.C., is at an unsustainable pace. Already this body has passed a $1.1 trillion government stimulus plan costing every American family $9,810, including $100 million for an after-school snack program, $1 billion for the census; an omnibus costing $400 billion, costing every American family $3,534, including $150,000 for lobster research in Maine, $1.9 million for a pleasure beach water taxi service in Connecticut; a $700 billion bailout program so that folks like Chrysler, GM, AIG and a host of others can get taxpayer dollars costing every American family $6,034.

Only 2 weeks ago, a new national energy tax passed by the House, where every American family that will deign to turn on a light switch, it will cost them between $1,500 and 3,000, and just yesterday, a new proposal by House Democrats for a government-controlled health care plan that will cost a minimum of $1 trillion, and the spending goes on and on and on.

And so given that backdrop, I ask several questions. Number one, is the money for the Met, is this really a Federal responsibility? I mean, according to the chief financial officer of the Met, 31 percent of their money comes from endowment, 28 percent from gifts, 14 percent from admissions. Is it really the responsibility of the Federal taxpayer to pay for this improvement in a heating, ventilation and air conditioning system?

And if it's a Federal responsibility, Mr. Chairman, is it really a Federal priority? Given that we just had reports that the national deficit exceeded $1 trillion for the first time in our Nation's history, I just ask the question, if it is a Federal responsibility, is it a Federal priority?

And if it's a Federal priority, is it equal to other Federal priorities? Is it as important for spending money for the National Institutes of Health to find the cure for cancer? Is it as important as spending money on our veterans health care system? And particularly in this economy, Mr. Chairman, is it as important as giving tax relief to small business, the job engine in America?

And if it raises to that level of importance, I ask one more question, and that is, is it worth borrowing money from the Chinese to send a bill to our children and grandchildren in order to give this improvement for the HVAC at the New York Met? And as great as the museum is, as great as this HVAC system is, Mr. Chairman, I do not think it rises to that level.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have left?

Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend, the gentlelady, I don't have the honor of representing Fort Worth in the Congress. My constituents appreciate the Kimbell museum. They appreciate the Met. More importantly, they appreciate the fact that they don't want to borrow a half a million dollars from the Chinese and send the bill to their children and grandchildren and future generations. Those are the taxpayers and the citizens of the Fifth District of Texas that I have the honor of representing.

Spending is out of control. Let's start somewhere. Let's say ``no'' to somebody today so we can say ``yes'' to our children's future tomorrow. I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated No. 2.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that would strike an earmark, also known as pork barrel spending, for Pier 36 removal in San Francisco California, reduce the overall account by $6.22 million. Apparently, Pier 36 is located along the Embarcadero in San Francisco Bay. Apparently, according to San Francisco's Port Authority, which owns the pier, removal of the pier is necessary to begin a new wharf project.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I would just ask several different questions about this particular earmark. Although I have no doubt that removal of this pier must be a good thing, I'm kind of curious why the San Francisco Port Authority doesn't pay for it itself. I don't think the Federal Government owns this particular pier.

Again, I'm not going to debate that it's not a good use of money. I, again, question whether or not it is a good use of the Federal taxpayer money at this time.

Again, Mr. Chairman, this amendment has to be put in context of the spending that goes on around here. Mr. Chairman, sometimes I just think: When will we stop the madness? When will it stop?

My Democratic colleagues from across the aisle have now brought us a budget which will triple--triple--the national doubt in 10 years. Triple it, Mr. Chairman. We will run up under their budget more debt-- more debt in the next 10 years than in the previous 220 years of our Republic combined. This is shocking, absolutely shocking.

Mr. Chairman, as you well know, for the first time in our Nation's history the Federal deficit has exceeded $1 trillion, and in just 2 years the Federal deficit has increased tenfold. We are borrowing forty-six cents on every dollar--borrowing it from the Chinese, from the Japanese, from the Russians--tin cup in hand, running around the world saying, Please, please, lend me money, because I can't stop spending.

I heard one of my colleagues earlier say, Well, you know, this is just nickel and dime kind of stuff. Number one, Mr. Chairman, I hope I'm never in Washington so long that I conclude that $6.22 million of the taxpayer money is not a lot.

Now, I know relative to the entirety of the spending explosion that's going on around this place, maybe it's not a huge amount. But, Mr. Chairman, you know, if you don't start saving the pennies and nickels, how will you ever save the dollars?

I have seen no attempt around this place to reform Medicare, reform Medicaid, reform Social Security. I mean, I'm told that somehow if we nationalize, federalize health care, that if we have a Federal bureaucrat somehow stand between people's families and their doctors, that somehow that's going to save money, when the Congressional Budget Office says it will cost at least a trillion dollars. And that's just a down payment.

I have never known the Federal Government to take something over and somehow it's going to cost less money.

Mr. Chairman, this goes to the culture of spending. Unless you change the culture of spending, you're never going to change spending.

And so, according to the Web site, this is a request of the Speaker of the House. She can lead by example. More so than any individual in this institution, she can lead by example. In November of 2006, she said, ``You can't have bridges to nowhere for America's children to pay for.'' Well, Mr. Chairman, apparently you can't have piers to nowhere for America's children to pay for.

The Speaker of the House once said, ``It's just absolutely immoral-- immoral for us to heap those deficits on our children,'' yet the Speaker of the House will heap an additional $6.22 million of deficit on our children. She, more than anybody else, can lead by example. And I'm disappointed this earmark was brought to us today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman. May I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, again, the Speaker of the House has said previously, in November of 2006, ``I'd just soon do away with all earmarks,'' which begs the question: Why is she bringing at least two of them today?

She has also said, ``It is absolutely immoral--immoral for us to heap those deficits on our children.'' Why is she asking us to heap another immoral $6.22 million of debt on our children?

It is time to lead by example. I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment designated No. 4.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that would strike another earmark. This one is for $500,000. According to the sponsor's Web site, funding would be used by the Borough of South River, New Jersey, to purchase and install automated remote electric and water meters for both of the utilities owned by the borough. These meters would provide bi-directional real-time information to both the utilities and the consumer.

Again, not unlike my previous amendments, Mr. Chairman, I will stipulate I assume this is very interesting, useful, cutting-edge kind of stuff for the Borough of South River, New Jersey. I'm sure that this would help the gentleman's constituents. Maybe it will help make them more energy efficient. I will just assume that this is good technology. Again, I assume it's a good use of somebody's money.

But I again question, is it a Federal responsibility, number one. Why the citizens of the Borough of South River, New Jersey? Why not the citizens of Provo, Utah; Missoula, Montana, Bangor, Maine; not to mention Mineola, Texas, which happens to be in my district. Should we buy these for every single borough, city, town, village in the Nation?

Again, Mr. Chairman, this has to be put in a backdrop of what is going on in our economy today. Since the President took office, what we know, Mr. Chairman, is that unemployment has gone up to 9.5 percent, an increase of just 25 percent since the President has been in office.

Since he's been in office, the economy has shed 2.6 million jobs. The public debt has increased 13.66 percent. The Federal deficit now exceeds $1 trillion, $1 trillion for the first time in our entire Nation's history.

And so I would again ask my colleagues: Where do you draw the line? Where do you finally say ``no'' to someone's project today so you can say ``yes'' to our children and grandchildren's future tomorrow? I would hope it would be here. I would hope it would be now.

Again, like another of my colleagues said, I wish we were talking about savings trillions of dollars today. Frankly, I, as other Members of the Republican side, have offered amendments that would save substantial amounts of money, but a funny thing happened on the way to the Rules Committee. Somehow those--those weren't found in order. And so we don't have the opportunity to debate those amendments on the House floor.

So I guess we're left to debate half a million dollar amendments instead of half a trillion dollar amendments like we would like.

You know, we've got to remember that dollars have alternative uses, Mr. Chairman. Every dollar that is spent on an automated remote electric water meter for the Borough of South River by the Federal taxpayer is $1--$1 that cannot be spent on cancer research at the National Institutes of Health; cannot be spent for a rural veterans health care clinic; cannot be spent for tax relief for small businesses--the job engine of America. That's the national priority now, is to get the economy moving again.

And I just ask, number one, is that a Federal priority? Is it a Federal responsibility? Why not other cities? Again, the critical question at a time where we're tripling the national debt

over the next 10 years, is it worth borrowing money from the Chinese and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren?

Mr. Chairman, I say ``no.'' I say ``no'' so that I can say ``yes'' to my 5-year-old son's future, my 7-year-old daughter's future, and the future of all the children and great grandchildren of our country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I saw that the gentleman from New Jersey was lamenting the high energy rates of his constituents. And although I don't have the House Record in front of me, I'm under the impression he recently voted for the national energy tax, which would cost his constituents anywhere from $1,500 to $3,000 a year.

Second of all, I believe in the value of demonstration projects as well. My constituents would like a demonstration project of fiscal sanity in the United States Congress. They have yet to see one. Here is a small demonstration project of fiscal sanity on behalf of our children and grandchildren by adopting this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a Fifth District newspaper, The Monitor, on the tremendous honors it received at the 2009 Texas Press Association Convention.

The Monitor is a fixture in Mabank, Texas, and it represented the community proudly in the Semi-Weekly Division of the annual Texas Press Association's Better Newspaper Contest.

Mr. Kerry Yancey, Editor of The Monitor, received 1st place in the Sports Photo category, 3rd place in Featured Photo and 4th place in Sports Coverage.

Ms. Pearl Cantrell, Managing Editor of The Monitor, and Mr. Yancey teamed-up to win 3rd place in News Writing.

As the Congressman of the Fifth District and subscriber to The Monitor, I am extremely pleased to see their hard work receive such deserving recognition. On behalf of the residents of the Fifth District of Texas, I would like to congratulate Mr. Kerry Yancey and Ms. Pearl Cantrell, as well as the entire staff at The Monitor, on these accomplishments.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 6.

This is an amendment that would strike an earmark, better known as pork barrel spending. Specifically, $200,000 requested by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for the Natural Biodiversity of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, for conservation strategy at the Kiski Basin.

If one goes to the Web site of Natural Biodiversity, they will learn that ``they control invasive, nonnative plants.''

``Holistic habitat management techniques are being used to restore riparian buffers on sites throughout the Kiski-Conemaugh and upper Juniata drainages.'' I hope I pronounced those properly.

Mr. Chairman, permit me to put this amendment into a broader context. Clearly, the national priority has got to be job growth, economic growth. And, by any standard, the economic policies of this Democratic Congress, the economic policies of this administration have been an abject failure: 2.6 million jobs lost since February--467,000 jobs lost last month alone; 9.5 percent unemployment throughout the land--the highest unemployment in a quarter of a century.

Mr. Chairman, what do we have to show for it? Nothing but debt. Mountains and mountains of debt in spending for our children and grandchildren, already. $9,810 per household to fund a $1.13 trillion government stimulus plan; $3,534 per household to fund a $410 billion omnibus; $31,000 per household to fund a $3.6 trillion 2010 budget.

Tripling, tripling the Federal debt in 10 years. More debt in the next 10 years than in the previous 220; billions for Chrysler; billions for GM; billions for AIG. Borrowing 46 cents on the dollar, borrowing it from the Chinese, sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. That's the context, Mr. Chairman.

So I ask one and only one thing. Here's an opportunity. Here's an opportunity for the taxpayers to maybe save $300,000. Not to borrow that money from the Chinese.

Now I have no idea--I have no doubt, I have no doubt that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is sincere. I'm sure good things can be done with this money by the Natural Biodiversity and their holistic habitat management program. I have no doubt that good things could be done with that money.

But let me tell you other good things that can be done with the money. That money could be used to go against the deficit so we don't borrow money from the Chinese, so we don't send the bill to our children and grandchildren. And if we're going to spend it, Mr. Chairman, maybe we ought to spend it on small businesses--small businesses that are capitalized with $25,000, on average, according to the SBA. We could save eight small businesses in America.

But, most importantly right now, we could tell America that we know what the priorities are--and it's not weed management by Natural Biodiversity in the Kiski River Basin. I have no idea how this became a national priority.

I'm sure, again, that important things can be done with the money, but is it worth borrowing the money from the Chinese and sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren? I think not.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, it was an interesting discussion, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure it's worthy of borrowing $200,000 dollars from the Chinese and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren.

I'm sorry that the gentleman from Pennsylvania couldn't make it here tonight. I know he is busy with many, many earmarks. According to the April 19 edition of the Washington Post, Murtha, dubbed the King of Pork by critics, consistently directs more Federal money to his district than any other Congressman--$192 million in the 2008 budget.

I don't know what the unemployment rate is in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, but around the rest of the Nation it's averaging 9.5 percent. And if he would choose not to spend $200,000 dollars for weed- whacking along this river basin, maybe we could have more jobs in the rest of America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I think it's very interesting to get a lecture from the gentlelady on fiscal responsibility, since she just voted for a budget that will triple the national debt over the next 10 years. When the deficit was $300 billion and falling, the majority leader Steny Hoyer called it fiscal child abuse. Here's an earmark to add $200,000 to fiscal child abuse.

We ought to cut it out. And I urge adoption of my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, since the Democrats have taken control of Congress, we have seen their idea to increase the deficit tenfold. We've seen their idea to triple the national debt in 10 years. We've seen their ideas to bail out AIG, GM, Fannie and Freddie, and the list goes on. And today's new idea, a new national energy tax costing every American family $1,500 to $3,000 a year, but only if they choose to turn on a light, cook a meal, or drive their children to school.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to the President of the United States, who said that under his plan, electricity rates would ``necessarily skyrocket.'' That's from our President. Estimates are our gas prices will go up about 77 cents a gallon at the pump.

Now, all of this is due to global warming concerns, and, Madam Speaker, these are legitimate concerns. We have a right to be concerned, and man-made activity does contribute. But is this a smart policy? You know, if India and China don't participate, it is for naught. Even our own Federal Government estimates, at best over a course of a hundred years, this may impact global temperatures \2/10\ of 1 degree. Frankly, that variance occurs naturally every single year.

Think about the severe job loss, millions and millions of jobs lost due to the competitive disadvantage we have.

There are smarter ways to deal with global warming, but we hear nothing about clean coal from the other side. We hear nothing about nuclear from the other side.

Think about the huge loss of national wealth that could have been used to cure cancer, send a generation to college, help launch millions of small businesses.

Now, Madam Speaker, some call it ``cap-and-trade.'' It will cap American opportunity. It will trade away American jobs. It's time to reject the new national energy tax.

Mr. Speaker, I move for reconsideration of the vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule.

Mr. Chairman, never in the history of Congress have so few voted so fast to spend so much and indebt so many. The Democrats are in a program to spend more money than we have seen in the history of this institution, and apparently they want very few speed bumps along the road to bankrupting America.

Thus, last night, almost three-quarters of the Republican amendments that would reform, improve government programs, make them more efficient, save the American taxpayer money were ruled out of order. But I suppose, in a modicum of respect for the democratic process, a handful of amendments were made in order. I suppose I'm happy that mine was one of them.

Mr. Chairman, recently, our President has said, Without significant change to steer away from an ever-expanding deficit and debt, we are on an unsustainable course. We have to take the painstaking work of examining every program, every entitlement, every dollar of government spending and ask ourselves, is this program really essential? Are taxpayers getting their money's worth? Can we accomplish our goals more efficiently or effectively some other way?

Why is this important? It's important because already we have seen spending out of control. We are seeing spending at levels that we have never seen before. The national debt will be tripled in 10 years. In just 10 years the national debt will be tripled. The Federal deficit has increased 10-fold, 10-fold in 2 years.

We've seen the taxpayer being forced to shoulder $6,000 per household to fund $700 billion of bailout money, $9,810 per household to fund a $1.13 trillion government stimulus plan, $3,534 per household to fund a $410 billion omnibus plan, and the list goes on and on and on.

Mr. Chairman, you cannot bail out, borrow and spend your way into prosperity. So, in the spirit of what the President said, when we're looking at a Federal Government that consists of roughly 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 agencies, at a time when American families are suffering in this economy, maybe, maybe we ought to take a look at a few and see if we can't sunset them so we can provide sunshine and morning to the budgets of the American family.

I believe the Legal Services Corporation is one such program. It hasn't been reauthorized in almost 30 years. The program has a history of waste, of fraud, abuse. Listen to a recent GAO report of last year: expenditures were insufficient in supporting documentation. Out of seven of the 14 grantees we visited, we identified systemic issues involving payments that lack sufficient supporting documentation that made it impossible to determine whether the expenditures were accurate, allowable, or appropriate.

Employee interest-free loans, one grantee we visited was using grant funds to provide interest-free loans to employees. Three grantees used legal services money to purchase alcoholic beverages. Lobbying fees, taxpayer money used for lobbying fees. This isn't me saying this, Mr. Chairman. It's the General Accountability Office. Again, a program of history of waste, fraud and abuse.

Now, I believe the line item in this budget, Mr. Chairman, is $440 million. Now, we've got a choice. One, it's a program that's been unauthorized since 1980, reported instances of waste, fraud and abuse. And should we actually be taxing taxpayers to force them to subsidize their neighbors to turn around and sue them? I don't think so. I don't think so, Mr. Chairman.

Dollars have alternative uses. We can use $440 million to save our children from this explosion of national debt, something, something that the majority leader once called fiscal child abuse. We could save small businesses at a time where we desperately need job creation, or the money could be put on automatic pilot, once again, and we could subsidize people so they could turn around and sue their neighbors.

Let's save the American Dream.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I heard the gentleman say that we all have concerns over the national debt. I must admit I haven't seen a lot of that concern on the other side of the aisle since they proposed a budget that will triple it in 10 years.

I didn't hear any answer to the charges of the Government Accountability Office about the waste, the fraud and abuse endemic in this program.

I would also point out to the gentleman, there are pro bono law firms, lawyers that work on contingent fees. There are other options besides taking money away from the Dublin family of Palestine, the Mock family of Athens, the Lilly family of Coffman that I represent in this institution. Their budget, their budget needs to be improved, not the legal services.

And I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 79.

Yes, I am.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that would strike an earmark in the bill for the Arts Center of the Grand Prairie in Stuttgart, Arkansas.

I'm not a big fan of earmarks, be they congressional earmarks or administration earmarks. That's not to say that all earmarks are bad. In fact, the gentleman from Texas to my left here, Mr. Chairman, has proposed several very worthwhile earmarks.

But, Mr. Chairman, we are not living in normal times. We are in severe economic stress in our Nation today. And as I look at what has happened in the United States Congress, what I have observed is that in the history of Congress never have so few voted so fast to indebt so many.

Already on top of a staggering, staggering national debt, we have seen a $700 billion bailout program that continues today, a $1.13 trillion government stimulus bill that does nothing to help our economy, a $400 billion omnibus bill chock full of even more earmarks. All of this is costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to hardworking American families.

Mr. Chairman, the President himself has said that he is losing sleep at night over the national debt. Well, I would love for the President to sleep better at night, and maybe he could quit proposing the bailouts. Maybe Members of Congress could quit proposing all of the earmark spending.

Now, this is relatively small as far as the dollars are concerned, $155,000 apparently to fund an afterschool and summer arts program.

But, Mr. Chairman, under this Democratic Congress, the national debt will triple in 10 years. The Federal deficit has gone up tenfold in just 2 years. We're borrowing 46 cents to spend $1 here. We're borrowing money from the Chinese, and we're sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren, which causes me to question, is this the best expenditure for $155,000 of the taxpayer money?

Mr. Chairman, I'm a veteran of many of these earmark battles. They have been going on for years. I know from history what we will hear. Number one, we will hear, Nobody knows my district like I do. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point. I do not know the gentleman from Arkansas' district like he does. I suspect I will hear that good things can be done with the money. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point. I'm not familiar with the Art Center of the Grand Prairie. My guess is they do wonderful, wonderful work, although I am unfamiliar with how it's necessarily related to Juvenile Justice. I will hear that Congress has the authority to spend this money. I concede the point. Congress has the authority to spend the money. It doesn't mean it's smart. It doesn't mean it's wise. It doesn't mean it's helpful. But yes, Congress has that power.

My complaints are twofold. Number one, again, when we're borrowing 46 cents on the dollar, borrowing money from the Chinese, sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren, encountering more debt in the next 10 years than in the previous 220 combined, we've never seen levels of debt since World War II. Is there any time that we decide, maybe something isn't a national priority? And as good as the work that they do at the Art Center of the Grand Prairie in Stuttgart, Arkansas, I would suggest to you that there are alternative uses for this money that would help families in America, and it is not a priority, and we must start this spending discipline somewhere.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am certainly not equipped to speak to the $3 radio generation, but I think I can speak somewhat to the $50 iPod generation because the $155,000 to be used for the gentleman's earmark will be borrowed from the Chinese and sent to that generation.

Now when the Republicans were in control and we had a $300 billion deficit, the now Majority Leader Steny Hoyer called that fiscal child abuse. Now we have a $1.8 trillion deficit. This earmark makes it $155,000 worse. Fiscal child abuse for the iPod generation. It should not be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Mr. Lewis of California to offer amendment No. 76 as printed in the Congressional Record.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would strike a $200,000 expenditure, another earmark, for the Maine Lobster Research and Inshore Trawl Survey.

I believe, if we've counted properly, there's roughly 1,100 different earmarks contained within this appropriation. Again, I want to make it very clear that all earmarks are not bad. But I'm not a fan of earmarks, be they congressional or administration. Too often in the earmark process, what we observe, what the American people observe is a triumph of special interest or local interest over the national interest or the public interest. Too often we see a triumph of seniority in political considerations over merit. Too often we see the triumph of secrecy over transparency, and all too often for this body, Mr. Chairman, the American people believe they see money coming in on one end of Capitol Hill and earmarks coming out of the other. The system is broken. The system must be reformed.

Again, Mr. Chairman, relative to the Federal budget, it may be a small portion of the total spending. It is a huge portion of the culture of spending. We need a culture of saving. You cannot earmark, bail out, borrow and spend your way into prosperity, no matter what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe. It cannot be done. We have seen no example in history whatsoever.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that this Maine Lobster Research and Inshore Trawl Survey is very important to the State of Maine. I have no doubt about that. I wonder, though, how much Federal money is already going into lobster research. I wonder if it is truly a Federal priority. How about catfish? How about pecans? How about research for yams and sweet potatoes? Are those, indeed, national priorities? And if it's not a national priority, if it's important for the State of Maine, why didn't the State of Maine pay for it? If it's important to these local communities, why don't the local communities pay for it? Why didn't the Chamber of Commerce pay for it? Why don't commercial companies pay for it? Why don't co-ops pay for it?

Somebody needs to explain to me why the Dublin family in Palestine, Texas, that needs money to pay their mortgage, why do they have to pay for it? Why does the Mauk family in Athens, Texas, when they need this money to put gas in their car, why do they have to pay for it? Why does the Lilly family in Kaufman, Texas, that need money to pay for their health care premiums on their insurance, why do they have to pay for it? I don't understand that, Mr. Chairman, and I don't think it's right. I don't think it is right at a time of economic crisis.

You know, we're losing small businesses by the thousands. The average small business is capitalized by $25,000. This $200,000 expenditure right here, that could mean the difference of saving eight small businesses and the jobs they represent in this great Nation of ours. But instead, it's going to be spent on the Maine Lobster Research and Inshore Trawl Survey. No doubt it's important to Maine. No doubt they're doing good work. But Mr. Chairman, again, is it worth borrowing money from the Chinese, sending the bill to our children and grandchildren, and maybe being the first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living? It's not fair. It's not smart. It's not right. It needs to be rejected.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, contrary to the gentlelady from Maine, I did not come here quite angry, but I do come here disappointed.

I'm sure that her motives are good and pure, but she has brought to us an earmark that takes $200,000 away from taxpayers in my congressional district in order to benefit people in her congressional district. Maybe she doesn't understand what $200,000 means to the working families of the Fifth Congressional District of Texas; and, ultimately, maybe she doesn't understand borrowing 46 cents on the dollar, borrowing it from the Chinese in order to send the bill to our children and grandchildren, something that Majority Leader Steny Hoyer once described in increasing the Federal deficit, fiscal child abuse. We must have priorities. We must reject this earmark.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 6: In title IV, strike the heading ``Legal

Services Corporation'' and both paragraphs under that heading

including their subheadings.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 38: Page 78, strike line 14 and all that

follows through line 5 on page 79.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 39: Page 79, strike line 6 and all that

follows through line 17.