Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it was about 2 weeks ago that the front page of the USA Today publication wrote, ``Taxpayers' Bill Leaps By Trillions.'' The first sentence says, ``The Federal Government's long-term financial obligations grew by $2.5 last year, a reflection of the mushrooming cost of Medicare, Social Security benefits.''

$2.5 trillion, Mr. Speaker, under the Democrat watch imposed upon the next generation. It just so happens that two members of the next generation that I'm very concerned about, my 6-year-old daughter and my 4-year-old son, are in the gallery today. And I take the matter very, very seriously that we have a Democrat budget before us today that is absolutely stone cold silent on the number one threat to their future of greater opportunity and greater freedom. And this budget, this Democrat budget does nothing to reform entitlement spending, to give us greater retirement security and better health care at a more reasonable cost.

Mr. Speaker, there is a tale of two budgets here. One, again, is stone cold silent on reforming entitlement spending that threatens to bankrupt future generations, including my children.

Let me tell you what it's not silent on. It's not silent on tax increases. This budget includes the single largest tax increase in American history. An average family of four working in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas--that I have the honor of representing--over the course of the next 3 years will see a $3,000-a- year tax increase at a time when they're having to go to the convenience store and making the decision, do I buy a gallon of milk or do I buy a gallon of gas?

What does this budget do? It raises taxes on a family of four by $3,000. The elderly will see their taxes go up $2,181. A single parent who has two children could see their taxes go up by over $1,600. People are wondering, how am I going to send my kids to college? How am I going to put gas into the pick-up truck? How are we going to commute the 25 miles to work every day? And what does this budget do, Mr. Speaker? It raises taxes, single largest tax increase in American history.

Here's another thing this budget does. It says, you know what? The pork barrel factory is alive and well. Let's just keep it going. Let's let Members of Congress continue to have monuments to themselves. Let's continue to subsidize fashion landscaping in the L.A. fashion district, and let's send the bill to the next generation and let's send it to the taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage, and for the sake of today's taxpayers who are struggling and for the sake of future generations, we must reject this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the champion against pork barrel spending in the United States, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I listened very carefully to the distinguished majority leader, who spoke eloquently on deficit spending. He should know much about it since, under his budget, the Federal Government's long-term financial obligations grew by $2.5 trillion last year, and we now have the single largest increase in the national debt.

As I listened carefully to the majority leader, I heard him say much. What I did not hear him deny was that his budget included the single largest tax increase in American history.

I would be happy to yield.

Perhaps the distinguished majority leader could get some additional time on his side.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize to Dr. Bob Iden for his 11 years of outstanding service to Lake Highlands High School and his community.

After graduating from Lake Highlands High School, Dr. Iden attended Kilgore College on a football scholarship and finished his bachelor's and master's degree at North Texas University. Upon graduating, he continued to use his athletic background as a coach and teacher for the Richardson Independent School District for nine years. After working for the administration, Dr. Iden was hired to be the principal at his high school alma mater, Lake Highlands High School.

During his eleven years as principal, Dr. Iden's school received numerous honors under his leadership. In 2002, Lake Highlands High School was named a Blue Ribbon School, one of the highest honors a school can receive. In addition to numerous students being named National Merit Scholars, this year one of his students was named a Rhodes Scholar. Dr. Iden has received national recognition in Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report for his achievements, and he has become a tremendously well-respected and valued member of the Lake Highlands community.

This year Dr. Iden will retire from his career in education. I would like to wish Dr. Iden the best of luck in his future endeavors. While his time as an educator has come to an end, the results of his hard work will no doubt continue to be seen for generations to come.

Madam speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize Dr. Bob Iden for his devotion to education and for helping to shape a brighter future for our community and our country.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I listened to the Speaker of the House who spoke so eloquently about the pain Americans are feeling at the gas pump. She and her party should know a lot about it. They helped cause it.

Since the Democrats have been in control here for almost a year and a half, we have seen prices at the pump go up about $1.50 a gallon. A barrel of oil is at the highest price we have ever seen. They have tried to sue their way into lower gas prices. Now they are trying to tax their way into lower gas prices. Yet they never think about producing American energy in America.

So now we have the so-called tax extender bills, Mr. Speaker. Well, isn't that an interesting concept. Why is it that spending is forever and grows exponentially, and yet tax relief to hardworking middle- income families is somehow temporary? It just kind of disappears. But the Speaker of the House tells us that this is somehow fiscally responsible.

If you read the front page of USA Today 2 days ago, it tells you that under the Democrats' watch we have an extra $2.7 trillion of unfunded obligations that are put upon our children.

Apparently the majority leader thinks that is a laughing matter. As the father of a 6-year-old and the father of a 4-year-old, I don't find it too funny.

What we have here is we are going to preserve tax relief for some by increasing taxes for others. Again, what an interesting concept. The bottom line is the job creation mechanism of America is taxed, taxed again when people's paychecks are shrinking. This isn't fair.

Now some people say, well, these particular provisions need reform. I am happy to reform the Tax Code. I have cosponsored the Taxpayer Choice Act of 2008. I invite my Democrat colleagues to cosponsor it so that we can present a two-tier flat tax system to the American people. But the bottom line is Washington is spending too much, and we don't need another tax increase bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report, but I certainly want to thank our ranking member for taking a product and making it better.

Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago the front page of USA Today talks about taxpayers' bill leaps by billions, long-term financial obligations of the Federal Government grew by $2.5 trillion last year, unfunded obligations that will be placed on our children and grandchildren.

Today we have a conference report for a farm bill that is going to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $700 billion. Now, I have heard it said, well, this bill is paid for. Yes, it is paid for. It is paid for by the auto mechanics in Garland, Texas. It is paid for by the guy that sweeps out the grocery store in Mineola. It is paid for by the guy who works at the counter at the hardware store in Canton, Texas, that I have the privilege of representing.

We have a farm program that in many ways is at odds with the poster child that is represented. Two-thirds of this bill isn't about agriculture. It is about nutritional programs, welfare programs, food stamps. And of the money that is going to agricultural production, two- thirds of agricultural production is not getting anything. And yet some of this money is going, as we know, to millionaires, at a time when middle-income family paychecks are shrinking.

Now, I must admit, Mr. Speaker, this is a debate that is somewhat personal to me. I grew up working on a family farm. I come from three generations of farmers. No one sought a subsidy from their neighbor. No one gave a subsidy. You can make a living in agriculture without asking your neighbor to give you a check.

We do need a farm bill, but what needs to be in a farm bill is tax relief, to prevent taxes from being increased. We need an end to the death tax. We need to increase trade opportunities. We could be exporting good Texas beef right now to Colombia.

We do need a farm bill, but not a farm bill that forces our neighbors to subsidize this program. Ninety-six percent of the world lives outside of America, and already we had the Democrat majority deny a trade agreement that could have opened up great trading opportunities for agriculture in America.

We need a respect for private property rights. We need regulatory relief. When we have an EPA out of control trying to somehow deign animal manure as part of the Superfund hazardous waste site, you know that something is out of control.

So our agricultural producers need help. But this is the wrong way to do it. Again, at a time of shrinking paychecks, at a time when $2.5 trillion of burden have been added to our children and grandchildren, why are we keeping alive a relic of the New Deal, not to mention at a time of the highest food inflation in almost two decades. And why we would take money away from some people to hand to millionaires is beyond me.

We ought to defeat this conference report.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize to Captain Curtis Fitzgerald for his distinguished military service and service to Texas veterans.

In 1969, Captain Fitzgerald began what has become a life-long service to his nation. Just thirty days after completing flight school, Captain Fitzgerald went to Vietnam with the 189th Assault Helicopter Company to fly Huey Helicopters. Captain Fitzgerald fought in major battles such as the Battle of Hamburger Hill, where he flew multiple re-supply missions and was shot down for the first time, but certainly not the last time.

During the Siege of Ben Het, Captain Fitzgerald's aircraft received 103 bullet holes during another re-supply mission. Despite the damage, he managed to complete the mission without a single casualty. In the 1600 hours he flew during combat, Captain Fitzgerald was shot down a total of six times.

In addition to serving as a Flight Leader, Captain Fitzgerald served as the Air Mission Commander for the initial invasion of Cambodia. It was during the on-going Long-Range Reconnaissance Patrols into Cambodia and Laos that Captain Fitzgerald was shot down again, this time while helping to identify enemy positions. He managed to not only identify their position, but return the damaged aircraft back to safety.

Captain Fitzgerald went above and beyond his call to duty when he volunteered to extend his deployment for six more months to ensure the incoming units had adequate experience. Considering all this, it is no wonder Captain Fitzgerald received a Silver Star medal, three Distinguished Flying Cross medals, three Bronze Star medals, nineteen Air medals, and one Purple Heart for his tour in Vietnam.

After completing his degree at the University of Houston, Captain Fitzgerald returned to Palestine, but his dedication to the military did not end. He has continued to work closely with the Veterans Administration, various Veterans Service Organizations, and has worked extensively with Palestine-area Post Traumatic Stress Disorder support groups. Fellow men and women in uniform tout Captain Fitzgerald's dedication to ensuring that those returning from war receive assistance.

In addition to his service-related activities, Captain Fitzgerald started a real estate firm specializing in farm and ranch sales, served on the Parks and Recreation Board, the YMCA Board, and founded the Anderson County Soccer Association.

He is a husband to his wife of twenty-eight years, Karen, and a grandfather to two grandsons.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am humbled and privileged to recognize Captain Curtis Fitzgerald. As Calvin Coolidge once said, ``The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten.'' I for one am committed to ensuring this nation never forgets.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Again, it's a travesty that we are on this floor yet again expecting our fighting men and women to carry other spending on their backs while they're trying to preserve our freedom. We've seen it before. There ought to be a clean up-or-down vote: do you support our troops; do you not support our troops.

Now as the ranking member said, Mr. Buyer from Indiana, we all support an increase in GI benefits. But do you want to do it in such a way that the Secretary of Defense and the Commander in Chief says compromises our all-volunteer Army? I am the son, I am the grandson, I am the brother of veterans. I honor these people. But to harm our all- volunteer Army is not the way to do it.

And then we have heard lectures about well, we have to pay for it. Well, why yesterday did this body hand out Federal subsidies to millionaire farmers and then today turn around and try and tax them. A tax on small businesses is the way we're going to pay for this? It's absurd.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule.

I find it fascinating that our Speaker, when she became our Speaker, said that we were going to have the most open democratic Congress in the history of America, and yet we have a rule coming to the floor that doesn't even allow dissenting voices to speak in general debate.

Our Speaker also at one time said the 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard, pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. But instead, we waive the PAYGO rule. And we baseline shop. I know that's inside baseball, but as the gentleman from California said, it's kind of like deciding you're going to pay last year's gasoline prices. Well, I wish we could do that.

And now we have the whole question of earmarks. Our Speaker at one time said that she would just as soon do without earmarks. Instead what we have are airdropped earmarks, secret earmarks coming in in a conference report that nobody can challenge, including one, apparently, according to press reports, that was requested by none other than the Speaker of the House.

And so for all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, this rule ought to be defeated. This is too important of legislation to come before us to be treated in such a frivolous manner.

Now, let's talk about the matter at hand, the actual substance of the bill. At a time when we're looking at some of the worst food inflation in the last two decades, what do we have coming before us, Mr. Speaker? A bill that will pay out billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies to a select group of farmers. You know, it kind of begs the question, Mr. Speaker: Why do we have a farm subsidy program?

You know, I'm thinking about all the people who are going to have to pay these billions of dollars in taxes to subsidize a select group of farmers. You know, I think about the auto mechanic in Mesquite, Texas; I think about the guy working at the grocery store in Mineola, Texas; I think about the school teacher or the factory worker in Garland; where is their government subsidy program? Why are we bestowing billions of dollars in subsidies on this one select group?

This is a relic of the New Deal. We are paying out money to millionaires. We are teaching more people to be reliant upon government programs. Now, Mr. Speaker, we need a farm program. We just don't need a farm subsidy program.

Let me tell you what farmers in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas that I have the honor of representing need. They need some relief in their energy cost. The energy that it takes to run their tractors, their combines, their farm equipment, and the cost of diesel, they need some relief there.

And yet there is absolutely nothing that our friends do on the other side of the aisle to produce any American energy, to get us any more independent, to have independent American energy.

Also, we benefit one set of farmers at the cost of another. This continues the ethanol mandates. It continues the tariff on imported ethanol. Now, if you've got a bunch of corn growers, it may be very good for them. I would say they're in high cotton, but I guess they're in high corn. But it's not too good for the cattle raisers, not too good for the poultry people. It's not too good for the hog farmers or the other livestock people who are all of a sudden seeing their feed prices almost triple. What are we doing for them?

Then let's talk about trade. Ninety-six percent of the world's consumers live outside of America, and yet this is an anti-trade Congress under Democrat leadership. You had the Colombian Trade Agreement totally one way. Farmers and ranchers want to export, and they're being disallowed the opportunity to do that.

So we need a farm bill that promotes trade, Mr. Speaker.

Next, we need death tax relief for our farmers and ranchers. Somebody in the Fifth Congressional District worked his whole life building a farm and told me, ``Congressman, after the government takes theirs, there's just not enough to go around.'' You shouldn't work your whole life building a family farm only to have Uncle Sam take 55 percent. We need income tax relief. That's what a farm bill needs to help the true agricultural producers. Not a subsidy program, an assistance program for those who work hard.

Madam Speaker, we come tonight to speak about the subject of pork barrel spending at a time when hardworking, middle- income American families are having to cut back on their spending. They're having to cut back on their spending because their paychecks are shrinking; they're shrinking with the high cost of energy; they're shrinking because of the high cost of food.

Since the Democrat majority took control of the economic policies of our Nation almost 18 months ago, gasoline has now approached $4 a gallon. Milk is already over $4 a gallon. And all over America people are driving to their convenience stores or driving to their grocery stores, making a decision about gasoline and milk.

It's tough times for hardworking, struggling, middle-income families. And yet, the Democrat majority, in their Budget Resolution, the conference report--which, of course, is the agreement between the Senate and the House--their budget today was passed that included a tax increase on these very same families of $3,000 for the average family of four to be phased in over the next 3 years, Madam Speaker. Again, while they're struggling to send their kids to college, struggling to make their mortgage payments, struggling to fill up their cars, this is what's happened.

Well, what is fueling the tax increase that the Democrat majority has imposed upon middle-income families throughout our Nation? Well, there's a culture of spending. They presented a budget that represents the highest amount spent in the history of America. There is a culture of spending, and it is fueled by irresponsible pork barrel spending, also known as ``earmarks.''

Now, when the Democrat majority was in the minority, they made a number of promises. They said earmarks were out of control under the Republican majority. And Madam Speaker, you know, to some extent they were right. But this is a Republican Conference that has learned its lesson. But commitments were made by the Democrat majority that have not been kept.

First of all, the Speaker of the House said we're going to come and we're going to cut earmarks in half. But instead, Madam Speaker, what did we get? Last year, 11,610 items of pork barrel spending put into spending bills by the Democrat majority, the second highest level ever in American history, totaling approximately $17 billion. Now, some people say, well, $17 billion isn't a whole lot of money. Well, Madam Speaker, I hope I'm never in Washington so long that I think $17 billion is not a lot of money. Millions of Americans could pay their annual gasoline bills with the money that's being spent on the pork barrel spending in Washington, DC. That's enough money to preserve the child tax credit, which under the Budget Resolution passed by the Democrat majority is going to disappear. And so I think that is a lot of money. And not only is it a lot of money, it represents waste.

And too often what we see in this pork barrel spending promulgated by the Democrat majority is that we see a triumph of secrecy over transparency, and we see a triumph of the special interests over the national interests, and we see a triumph of seniority and privilege over merit. Now, again, the Democrat majority said they were going to do things differently. Madam Speaker, then minority leader, now Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in USA Today that there has to be transparency. ``I would just as soon do away with all the earmarks,'' right here, USA Today, late 2006. And instead, if we read the spending bills, what we find out is, out of 435 Members of Congress, she's in the top 20, top 20 of pork barrel spending.

Then, chairman of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, Rahm Emanuel, said, ``Well, for far too long business as usual has involved individual Members doling out favors in appropriations and other bills through earmarks. The American people deserve to know more than who sponsored special interest legislation. They deserve earmark reform that puts an end to special interest earmarking and prevents the practice of earmark abuse.''

Now, Madam Speaker, that's what they said before they became the majority party here. But what do we see now? And don't just take my word for it, but let's look at what just happened today. Today, as the farm bill was passed, what do we have in there? We have, again, pork barrel spending that apparently appears out of nowhere. We have slush funds for ski slopes. We had the language slipped by the Democrat majority into the farm bill that would benefit a Democrat Senator in Vermont. It would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service to sell portions of the Green Mountain National Forest exclusively to the Bromley Ski Resort. And the ski resort advertises, ``Bromley's grooming and snowmaking are second to none, and with our 44 trails of varied terrain, from treed glades & true New England cruisers to sun soft expert mogul fields, everyone in your family will be smiling all day long.'' Well, Madam Speaker, I'm not sure the American people, who have to put up with this kind of earmark abuse, I don't think they're smiling. Now, maybe the people who own the Bromley Ski Resort in Vermont, they're smiling, you know, they got a nice little deal in the agricultural bill.

Then we had a quarter of a billion dollars slipped in for the Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Max Baucus, to help the Plum Creek Timber Company in Montana sell a parcel of land to the environmental group called The Nature Conservancy. Now, technically, they get to claim a $250 million tax refund even though they're a nonprofit institution and they don't actually pay taxes.

Now, the language was quite careful, Madam Speaker. It was very careful and clever. They wrote this language, they didn't name this particular earmark, but they wrote it in such a way that it only applies to one parcel of land in the entire United States of America, and that is that belonging to the Plum Creek Timber Company in Montana.

And then, Madam Speaker, we have $170 million for the salmon earmark requested apparently by our own Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. Clearly, there is something fishy in the farm bill.

Now, we were told again that we wouldn't have these earmarks, this pork barrel spending that just kind of drops down from the heavens in these conference reports. We never had a chance to vote on this in the House, Madam Speaker, it just kind of drops down. And so for a Speaker who is supposed to lead by example, who tells the American people that she would just as soon do without earmarks, that she wants an open and ethical and transparent process to slip a $170 million fishy earmark into the farm bill, this is something the American people need to know.

Why are their taxes being raised by $3,000 per family of four over the next 3 years? Well, part of the reason is, Madam Speaker, to pay $170 million for the salmon earmark in the farm bill, to help subsidize the Plum Creek Timber Company, to help the Bromley Ski Resort. So much for cleaning up the earmark process.

You know, we were also told that there certainly wouldn't be any more secrecy in this earmark process.

You know, the former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee told us that. Yet, that's not the case. Let me quote from the New York Times, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought, on one of the bills that came to this floor last year. ``Despite promises by Congress to end the secrecy of earmarks and other pet projects, the House of Representatives has quietly funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to specific hospitals and health care providers.'' ``Instead of naming the hospitals, the bill describes

them in cryptic terms so that identifying a beneficiary is like solving a riddle. Most of the provisions were added to the bill at the request of Democrat law makers.''

``Some Republicans have complained about what they call `hospital pork.' '' This is the New York Times reporting this. This, from a Democrat majority who said there would be no more secrecy. And instead, out of all the hospitals throughout the Nation that I'm sure can all use help, somehow the special privilege and secret pork barrel process practiced by the Democrat majority manages to somehow favor a special privileged few and does it in a cryptic secret manner. One more reason that hardworking, middle-income families who are trying to get that paycheck to go a little further are instead seeing that paycheck shrink to pay for more Democratic pork.

And, Madam Speaker, I'm very happy tonight that I am joined by one of the great leaders of fiscal responsibility in this House, one of the most principled Members, one of the most active Members, one of the most courageous Members that I have met in my congressional career. And I am proud that he is a fellow member of the conservative caucus, the Republican Study Committee, a man I am proud to call my friend.

And at this time, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price, for his comments.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for joining us tonight. And, again, I thank him for his leadership here in the House of Representatives in the area of earmark reform, clearly one of the great champions against pork barrel spending and for family spending.

Again, Madam Speaker, I think it's important for us to reflect upon what the Democrat majority said they were going to do and what they have actually done. One of the prominent Members of the Democrat leadership, the gentleman from Illinois, who was, in the last election, the chairman of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, where his job, obviously, is to find things for the Democrats to say to get elected. Well, one of the things that he said on behalf of the Democrat Party was, ``For far too long, business as usual has involved individual Members doling out favors in appropriations and other bills through earmarks. The American people deserve to know more than who sponsored special interest legislation. They deserve earmark reform that puts an end to special interest earmarking.''

But yet, Madam Speaker, the system appears to be alive and well. Now that the Democrats have become the majority party, what do we figure out? Well, let's read from a recent column in the New York Times dated January of this year:

``Representative John Murtha has procured eye-popping chunks of pork for contractors that he helped put in business in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Every one of the 26 beneficiaries of Mr. Murtha's earmarks in last year's defense budget made contributions to his campaign kitty, a total of $413,250, according to the newspaper Roll Call.'' This is the New York Times. Again, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought.

Now, Madam Speaker, I'm not here to imply that there is anything illegal about that activity. I'm not here to even imply that this in any way, shape, or form breaches House ethics rules. Now, perhaps it should. Maybe that's a debate for a different day. But you know what, Madam Speaker? It doesn't pass the taxpayer smell test. It doesn't do what the Democrats claimed they would do when they were in the minority. And now that they've been elected

to the majority, now that they've controlled this institution for almost 18 months, they are not practicing what they are preaching.

Here's another example. I quote from the newspaper Roll Call: ``A new political action committee, BEST PAC, created by the brother of House Intelligence Committee Chair Representative Silvestre Reyes, raised $50,000 this spring almost entirely from staff and clients of powerhouse lobbying shop PMA Group, and within weeks those same donors reaped millions of dollars in earmarks from Reyes and other Members of Congress closely affiliated with PMA . . . Most of the donations were made on May 7, 4 days before the intelligence panel approved the 2008 intelligence authorization bill, which included earmarks for several donors to the PAC . . . ''

Again, Madam Speaker, I don't imply that this was illegal. I don't imply that this somehow breached House ethics rules. And I'm familiar with the gentleman from Texas, and I believe him to be an honorable gentleman. But far too often what the American citizen sees is he sees his paycheck shrinking to pay for earmarks so that some Member of Congress can preserve his paycheck. And at a time when they are struggling to fill up their gas tanks, at a time when they are struggling to put bread on the table, it is an outrage, it is an outrage that this pork barrel spending continues on. And, unfortunately, Madam Speaker, what we are seeing under the Democrat majority is Members of Congress passing pork barrel spending, earmarks, whether recipients get it, and I guess they're showing their gratitude, and all of a sudden they come up with a campaign donation, and then the campaign donation ends up inuring to the benefit of that particular Member of Congress, and the cycle goes on and on and on. And, again, it may be legal. It may pass the House ethics test. It does not pass the American taxpayer smell test. And even though I've been a Member of Congress now for almost 6 years, I haven't lost my ability to be outraged, and this, Madam Speaker, is outrageous.

And now I'm very happy to say, Madam Speaker, that we have been joined by a distinguished member of our leadership, the chief deputy whip, a great leader in the earmark reform movement in the House, a man I am also very proud to call my friend, and I would be happy to yield now to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Again, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for coming down tonight and talking again about how the Democrat majority, unfortunately, seems to speak out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to pork barrel spending that is taking away from the paychecks of hardworking middle-income families so that Members of Congress can somehow keep their paychecks.

It is unfair.

And there's a big difference between the two parties. The Democrat party said they would do something about it. And they did. They put the pork barrel spending factory into high gear. The Republicans made mistakes when it came to earmark spending. That is one of the reasons that we lost in 2006.

But, Madam Speaker, we have learned our lesson. And that's why the Republican Conference supports a moratorium, a moratorium on this pork barrel spending, do away with this system and come up with a system that is more transparent and more accountable to the American people.

The Democrat majority hasn't called for anything like that. They are just

doing fine taking money away from middle-income families struggling to put food on the table, struggling to fill up their cars and pickup trucks, take that money away and spend it on monuments themselves and spend it on special interest favors for special interest groups. It has got to stop.

Madam Speaker, another great leader we have in the earmark reform movement in the United States House of Representatives, another fellow member of the Conservative Caucus of the Republican Study Committee is the gentlelady from North Carolina.

And I am happy to yield time to her at this time.

Again I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for coming here tonight to participate in this Special Order and to try to stand up for the hardworking middle-income American families that are seeing their paychecks shrink. And one of the great

reasons their paychecks are getting ready to shrink even further is because of a budget resolution conference report passed today that includes the single largest tax increase in American history, passed courtesy of the Democrat majority that will pose a $3,000 average tax increase on a family of four of America while they are struggling to fill up their cars and while they are struggling to put food on the table.

Why are taxes having to be increased? Well, Madam Speaker, part of the reason is because of the culture of spending fueled by these wasteful, pork barrel spending earmarks.

They continue to proliferate and explode under the Democrats.

I mean, what kinds of earmarks are the American taxpayer having to pay for? Well, one includes a monument that a single Member of Congress decided to dedicate to himself. It's called the monument to me, to benefit the chairman in the House Ways and Means Committee, Charles Rangel.

Let me quote from the Wall Street Journal. ``New York's Charlie Rangel provided smirks this week when news emerged that the Harlem congressman was humbly seeking a $2 million earmark to celebrate the `Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service' at the City College of New York,'' that much money so that one Member of Congress can build a monument to himself. These are tax increases on hard-working American families so that Democrat Members of Congress can build monuments to themselves.

Here is another one, let me quote from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. ``Representative Mike Doyle, a Forest Hills Democrat and staunch Murtha ally is an eager apprentice. One major achievement is the Doyle Center for Manufacturing Technology based in South Oakland. Mr. Doyle helped launch the center with a $1.5 million grant.'' Interesting. Here is another monument to another Democrat Member of Congress, and the list goes on and on and on.

Now, as the gentlelady from North Carolina said, not every earmark is bad, but the system is bad. The system fuels a culture of spending that is bankrupting hard-working American families as they are struggling to make that paycheck stretch. It is waste. It's an insult to these families to abuse their earnings in such a fashion.

I am very happy tonight also to see that we have been joined by one of the great conservative leaders in America, a former chairman of the House conservative caucus known as the Republican Study Committee and somebody who has been a mentor to me, a man I am proud to call my friend.

I am happy now to yield time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Would the gentleman yield?

You know, it's interesting, we sit here and assume that a lot of people know what an earmark is and what pork barrel spending is. Probably the best way to define it is money that Congress takes out of their pocket to give to a specific entity that doesn't have to be competitively bid. It can go to one particular corporation. It can go to only one entity, and it doesn't go through any competitive bidding process whatsoever.

As the gentleman said, well, some Members of Congress say I know my district the best, and I am supposed to bring the pork home.

Well, the people in the Fifth District of Texas, they are not so interested in me bringing the bacon home, they want to make sure that Congress doesn't take it out of their smokehouse in the first place.

As the gentleman ably points out, when somebody is getting something for nothing, there is somebody else who is getting something for nothing.

Well, as a matter of fact, we have clearly documented that earlier this evening, and it's not just us saying it, The New York Times has said it, and I quote again, ``Representative John Murtha has procured eye-popping chunks of pork for contractors he helped put in business in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.''

``Every one of the 26 beneficiaries of Mr. Murtha's earmarks in last year's defense budget made contributions to his campaign kitty, a total of $413,250,'' this from the New York Times.

If the gentleman will allow me, again, under this Democrat majority, what we see too often is that Members of Congress direct earmarks to special interest recipients. They turn around and give campaign donations to the campaign, and then the campaign helps re-elect the Member of Congress, and the cycle goes over and over under this Democrat majority.

If the gentleman would yield, it's a good time to point out again what a difference there is between the two political parties on this issue. The Democrats claim they would cut these earmarks in half but they didn't do it. Instead we end up with the second highest number of pork-barrel spending earmarks that we have seen in the history of America. They claim no more secrecy in the process. Yet we know that we have secret earmarks come in to benefit a select number of hospitals.

It has been well documented. They claim they would bring integrity to the system, and yet we continue to see earmarks coming out of this end of Washington D.C., and we see campaign contributions coming in the other end. How convenient.

Then they claimed that we can't continue to tax, we can't continue to have bridges of nowhere for America's children to pay for, but apparently we can have museums to honor Democrat Members of Congress, apparently we can have money going to the so-called Hippie Museum. Apparently we can send money to help the L.A. fashion district with their signage and streetscape improvements.

The Republican Party has called for a moratorium on earmarks. This process needs to be reformed. The Democrat Party likes the status quo as it is. The leader of our party takes no earmarks. The leader of their party claims she would just as soon do without them; and instead, she is in the top 20 recipients of earmarks.

The Republican presidential candidate says I will veto any spending bill with an earmark. And you look at their two presidential candidates, one is in the top 10, and the other, although only in the bottom half, has still managed $91 million of pork-barrel spending.

To add her perspective, I am happy we are joined by the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), and I yield to her at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I first come here somewhat amused at the lecture that some of us received from the majority leader last evening on abuse of process. I hear many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that we have a housing crisis and that this is one of the single most important bills to come to this floor in this Congress. And yet here we are, as the minority, not being allowed any amendments, not being allowed a substitute, not being allowed a motion to recommit, not even being allowed to have an up-or-down vote on the bill. And we're accused of an abusive process?

But enough of that.

Let's look at the substance of this. There is a great challenge in our housing markets. There is no doubt about it. And there are innocent people who have suffered, and they deserve to be helped. But this is the wrong plan.

What we need to do, Mr. Speaker, is, number one, we have to have better disclosure so that people understand the economic obligations they're undertaking. We need to enforce the laws that we have on the books. Mortgage fraud has been rampant on both the borrowers' side and on the lenders' side.

We need to prevent the automatic tax increase that has been included in the majority's budget that's going to impose a $3,000-a-year on the average American family tax increase phased in over the next 3 years. We need to do something about the skyrocketing cost of gasoline and food that has occurred on the watch of the majority. They've been in charge of the economic policies of this country for almost 18 months.

The shrinking American paycheck is our challenge. A huge bailout of Wall Street and borrowers, some who may be innocent victims and some who may be guilty, is not the answer, and using taxpayers' money to do it is simply an insult.

Number one, we ought to have the facts before we actually take on a major piece of legislation. The American people need to know. Over half of America rents their homes or owns their home outright. Of those who have an active mortgage, 95 percent are making their mortgage payments on time. You have roughly 2 percent who are in foreclosure. So now we're being asked essentially for 98 percent of America to bail out 2 percent of America.

Now listen. On the investors' side, these are a big bunch of boys and girls on Wall Street who made decisions about what they should invest in. We know from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network that mortgage fraud has been rampant: 1,400 percent increase over the last 6 years; 42 percent increase last year alone, with the majority of the fraud being borrowers who lied about their income, about their assets, about their occupancy; and yet we have a bill to help them out.

Let's hear from some of the people who are being called upon to do the bailout. I often ask people who reside in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas that I have the honor of representing what they think about legislation coming to the House floor. And I hear from people like the Sadler family in Mesquite, Texas, and they write:

``Congressman, 3 years ago my husband and I faced the loss of our home due to a decrease in the sales income. We cut our expenses as much as possible, but it was simply no longer affordable. We made the decision to put the home on the market before we faced foreclosure.

``I am adamantly opposed to my tax dollars going toward bailing anyone out of a mortgage crisis. If we didn't have to give up so much of our income to the government for taxes, we could have continued to afford our home.''

And what is the answer of the Democrat majority? Well, to the Sadler family in Mesquite, we're going to increase your taxes an extra $3,000 a year.

Mr. Speaker, I heard from Sergeant First Class Kenneth Adams of Frankston, Texas. He writes:

``Congressman, the mortgage crisis Congress is trying to fix is an insult. My house went unpainted until I could return from serving in Iraq. I'm a Sergeant First Class in the United States

Army with over 20 years active and reserve service. Some day I would like to use my VA house-buying benefits, but what a fool I was to earn those type of benefits when all I had to do was be irresponsible, overspend, and have the government bail me out.''

That's the answer that the Democrat majority brings to the floor, and it is an insult to 98 percent of Americans who did it right.

Mr. Speaker, we should reject this legislation.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

As the distinguished majority leader said, this is about people hurting. He should know. Since his Democrat majority came into office almost 18 months ago, we know that we have a $3,000 per family tax increase that has been approved, gasoline at almost $4 a gallon, milk over $4 a gallon. Yes. This is about people hurting, particularly the 98 percent that rent, that have paid off their mortgages and whose mortgages are current.

And if this bill is only going to cost the taxpayers $2.7 billion, why do we see $300 billion written in the bill?

With that, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona, Jeff Flake.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I've heard some very eloquent comments from my friends on the other side of the aisle about the pain the American people are feeling at this time. They speak with some credibility. They helped cause it.

After 18 months of being in control of the economic policies of our Nation, what do we have? We have gasoline approaching $4 a gallon, milk already over $4 a gallon, people struggling, struggling to put groceries on the table, and seemingly our friends on the other side of the aisle said that is unrelated to people trying to pay their mortgages and keep their home.

The biggest enemy that we have to the American Dream of homeownership is a shrinking paycheck. What has been done by the Democrat majority to shrink the paycheck?

Well, number one, they passed a budget that has the single largest tax increase in American history. Over a 3-year period, we will see an extra $3,000 tax burden put on a family of four while they're struggling to pay their mortgage payments.

We were told that somehow under their watch gasoline prices would come down. Instead, they have gone up. We see food prices absolutely unaffordable, and yet they see no connection to the home mortgage challenge that we have today.

Many of them have decried Wall Street bailouts, but what do they do? They bring a bailout bill to the floor, up to $300 billion of taxpayer exposure, and all a lender has to do is say, you know what, as long as he agrees to a 15 percent haircut, we will take his risk and put it on the taxpayers. When you're struggling to pay your own mortgage, you shouldn't have to bail out the speculators, those who engaged in mortgage fraud. You shouldn't have to bail out somebody else. There's a better way to do it, and it is not this humongous bailout bill.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I certainly rise in opposition to this bill. I have no doubt that it is certainly good-hearted but it is certainly wrongheaded.

There is a great challenge in our housing markets today, but I come here with some interest and amusement to see how many of my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle bemoaned the Bear Stearns bailout by the Federal Reserve, only to come here and offer a bill that, ultimately, using the States and localities as a conduit, is going to bail out Wall Street. It's going to bail out the investors, the people who own these properties in the first place, the people who made bad debts.

I wish somebody would introduce a bill to bail me out of my bad debts. Perhaps next time I invest in real estate or the stock market or the commodities, somebody will come here and say, if I failed, we will get the taxpayer to come in and bail me out.

Second of all, it misses the point of what the true challenge is. The true challenge in our housing markets is a shrinking paycheck, and I know as much as our friends on the other side of the aisle wish to come and blame all the economic woes of our Nation on us, the truth is elections have consequences. They've been in charge of the economic policy of this Nation for almost 18 months now. And what have they done in 18 months?

Number one, they passed a budget that has the largest single tax increase in American history, largest single tax increase in American history. After 3 years fully phased in, it's going to be a $3,000 average burden on the American family. That shrinking paycheck causes people not to be able to pay their mortgage bills.

We know what's happened to gasoline prices, almost $4 a gallon. Shrinking paycheck. Now supposedly they were going to bring the price of gas down when they were elected. The American people know differently, and it's not just gasoline that's $4 a gallon. Milk. I've got a 6-year-old and a 4-year-old back home in Dallas, Texas. They drink a lot of milk. Milk's expensive. The cereal they like, it's expensive, all happening under their watch. A shrinking paycheck.

How are people supposed to afford their mortgage when they're having to pay historic high gasoline prices, historic high food prices and pay an extra $3,000 in taxes? Madam Chairman, that's the real challenge that America's families are facing now.

And here's another problem with this particular piece of legislation that I find. It ignores the greater crisis in America, and that is the spending crisis, the one that is ignored on a daily basis here. Already we notice that when the new Member from Louisiana was sworn in today, we all saw that he had his baby in his arms, and, I don't know, it might have been a 1-year-old or 2-year-old child, but that child already has inherited a debt of almost $200,000 because Congress after Congress keeps on spending money and sends the burden to future generations.

So, you know, what is it? It's $7.5 billion for grants here and $7.5 billion for loans there. Well, Madam Chairman, sooner or later we're talking about real money.

We're on the verge of being the first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living. And it's not just me that's saying it, it's the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the General Accountability Office. And yet again, the Democrat majority ignores that true crisis.

I also find it quite interesting that while the Federal Government continues to be awash in the sea of red ink in passing on unfunded obligations to future generations, that almost every State and municipality in the Nation is running a surplus.

So we're taking money away from a treasury that has none to supplement treasuries that do have some. We have a great challenge in our Nation.

And clearly predatory lending took place, I might add, so did predatory borrowing. And so we need to help people, but the way to help them when people are struggling to pay their mortgages is not to raise their taxes and force them to pay the mortgages of their neighbor, particularly a number of neighbors and Wall Street investors who speculated, who might have engaged in fraud.

But Madam Chairman, back to the States and localities. For example, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts spends $11 million a year on their Office of Tourism. If we're having a great housing crisis, maybe they could cut back a little on the tourism budget and help the people in need for housing.

Again, if this is such a great priority for the States and they're crying out for these loans and grants, why does the State of Massachusetts continue to spend $760,245 for pools and spray pools under the control of the Department of Conservation and Recreation?

Michigan, $9.4 million to enhance public boating access and dock facilities. I have no doubt, Madam Chairman, that this is important. But again, if we have a housing crisis, maybe the good people of Michigan could cut back a little on their boating access facilities.

State of Ohio. They apparently have a wonderful ``Discover Ohio'' tourism and marketing campaign, $8.2 million. Maybe they could use some of that money to assist the people in their State.

How about some of the municipalities? According to the Daily News, Los Angeles spends a half a million dollars, $550,000 to be exact, for calligraphers to decorate proclamations and honors. I'm sure that those proclamations are very handsome, but again, if we're having a housing crisis, maybe people in Los Angeles can cut back on the calligraphy to assist the people in need. And yet the Democrat majority--and the gentlelady from California who perhaps

is familiar with the calligraphy--has decided instead to take the money away from the Federal Treasury, help raise taxes on hardworking American families while they're trying to fill up their cars to take their children to school, to try to go to work, so that ultimately we're subsidizing Ohio tourism, L.A. calligraphy, water boating access in Michigan, and the list goes on and on. Surely we can find something that is more fiscally responsible and more creative than yet another grant and loan program to States and localities that ultimately bail out investors and Wall Street.

This is bad legislation. It should be defeated.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

First, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the ranking member, the gentleman from Alabama.

Madam Chairman, I will yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member for his comments and again bringing up what is a very important issue here. And that is fundamentally what we have before us is a Wall Street bailout bill. Now we all know there are some very significant challenges in our housing markets. But the answer is not to be bailing out lenders. They may be good lenders who made bad bets, and maybe they are the predatory lenders that we hear so much about. This bill doesn't make any particular distinction.

The people who can stay in their homes, if they just get a little help, we need disclosure. We need to enforce the law against fraud. There has been a lot of mortgage fraud on the borrowers' side, on the lenders' side.

Most importantly now, Madam Chairman, we need to prevent the single largest tax increase in American history passed by the Democrat majority in their budget which means that people who are struggling to pay their mortgages are going to have to pay more taxes.

The rising fuel cost, that's happened under the watch of the Democrat majority; the rising cost of food happened under the watch of the Democrat majority. They've been in charge of the economic policy of America for almost a year and a half now. It is the shrinking paycheck of the hardworking American homeowner and taxpayer that's at the crux of this problem.

And so what this underlying bill does is take $15 billion of money away from the school teacher in Mesquite, Texas, struggling to pay his mortgage; the guy who works at the Pepsi bottling plant in Mesquite; the rancher out in Athens, Texas; takes money away from

them to bail out all of these bad investors who made these bad bets.

So you can't say that you were concerned about Bear Stearns and then all of a sudden turn right around and have this humongous Wall Street bailout bill.

My amendment is simple. Presently, you have a $15 billion bill, half of which are loans and half of which are grants. The purpose of the amendment is to turn this into strictly a loan program. Now, I don't believe in the purpose of the underlying bill. But, if you're going to bail out Wall Street and use taxpayer money, let's at least, at least try to make it a loan so that there is at least some chance, some chance that the taxpayer who's facing a $3,000-a-year increase in their taxes for a family of four over the next 3 years under the majority budget, that maybe, maybe they have some small chance of recouping some of that money from all of these cities and localities. And by the way, again, the last I looked, almost every single State and municipality in America is running a surplus.

Yet the Federal Government isn't, and so what does the underlying bill do? Hands out more grant money, more grant money on top of the $57 trillion of unfunded obligations that every man, woman and child in America already owes. Well, let's add some more grant money.

Well, if it's that important to States and municipalities, maybe they would want to fund it or maybe they could take the loan money and eventually pay it back so maybe the Democrat majority wouldn't have to raise taxes on the Federal taxpayers quite as much.

So, Madam Chairman, it's a very commonsense amendment. If you're going to do it, at least do loans and don't do grants.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Well, first, I would say to my friend from Georgia and other friends on that side of the aisle, if loans are so bad, why are they in the bill in the first place?

Second of all, this bill does nothing to stop foreclosures, not a thing. Quite the opposite. Instead, it will increase foreclosures.

What you have is an incentive for these investors to no longer do a workout with the struggling family, but instead, I can get bailed out. I can get bailed out by the Federal taxpayer. This is a bill that will help banks, Wall Street and States and does nothing for foreclosed families. It certainly does nothing for the taxpayer, and if we have a liquidity problem, which we do, let's cut the capital gains tax rate and you will see capital come into this market. I urge adoption.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, May 14th marks the 60th anniversary of the modern State of Israel. For six decades, America has stood by Israel's side as her partner in peace and defended her as a beacon of democracy in a region dominated by war, authoritarian regimes, and religious conflict.

In 1948, the United States became the first country to welcome Israel into the community of nations, and we have stood with and supported her as she has defended herself from those who seek her destruction each and every day.

Israel has been our staunchest ally in the Middle East, as well as a full partner in the global war against radical jihadists--individuals who attack our Nation, our children, our values, and the very existence of Western civilization.

The Old Testament teaches us the foundation of Israel's storied past. For three thousand years, the Jewish people have created a cultural, religious, and national identity, a connection rooted in their unbroken ties to the Holy Land. When the modern State of Israel was created 60 years ago, that Jewish heritage was renewed.

Madam Speaker, Israel has a legal, moral, and historical right to exist in peace with secure and defensible borders.

Make no mistake, Israel's challenges are vast. Each day Israelis face the verbal and physical threat of annihilation looming on the horizon. From Tehran. Damascus, and Hebron come unrelenting calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Meantime, rockets from Gaza rain down on the homes and schools of Sderot. Ashkelon, and other Israeli cities, all the while the United Nations sits idle and echoes anti- Israel, anti-Semitic proclamations. Israel remains a nation under siege.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, today I come to this floor, our own altar of democracy, to celebrate a nation that has turned adversity into triumph and took a dispersed population and made them whole. Like America, Israel is a country of immigrants and has opened its doors to every Jewish immigrant to become a citizen. This story has now united people from over 70 countries and has turned Israel into a society of multi-ethnic communities living side by side with one another.

As the world's oldest democracy, today we celebrate the success of a democratic relative. Israel exists in a part of the world that knows little democracy, yet Israel has displayed the hope and dignity that accompanies rule by the people and personal freedom. Although blessed with few natural resources, this young nation has seen the fruits of its labor pay off through an incredible amount of economic prosperity and cultural creativity.

Yet as Israel works for peace with security, we must not forget that peace can never be achieved by asking Israel to put at risk its sovereignty and the safety of its people.

We must constantly reaffirm our own ties to this democratic society in a part of the world so desperately in need of democracy. This is vitally important to our own security. And we must all realize this.

Thus, I will continue to support Israel and pray she one day will live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

I am honored to come to the floor today to celebrate the 60th anniversary of our ally, the nation of Israel.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize Boy Scouts of America Troop 343 and their sponsor, First United Methodist Church of Athens, as they celebrate their 80th anniversary.

Founded in 1928, Boy Scout Troop 3 began in Athens, Texas and, later became Troop 343. Over the past 12 months alone, Troop 343 has provided nearly 2,000 hours of community service on projects such as: collecting food for the Athens food pantry, picking up trash, and performing several flag retirement services and flag ceremonies. In addition, the Troop has partnered in service projects with the Henderson County Historical Society, Henderson County Center for the Performing Arts, and First United Methodist Church of Athens.

This Troop has not only remained devoted to preserving the ideals of Boy Scouts of America, they have done so with excellence. Seventy-four members from this Troop have achieved the rank of Eagle, Scouting's highest honor.

I also want to recognize Tommy Faulk, volunteer and former Boy Scout, for his integral role in providing a new facility for the Scouts of Troop 343.

In addition to teaching outdoor skills, Scouting also includes leadership training. Today's Boy Scouts are the leaders of tomorrow. Receiving my Eagle was one of the proudest moments of my life. The values, ethics, and morality boys learn through Scouting are critical not only for themselves, but to this nation as well.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize Troop 343 for their longstanding devotion to service, leadership, and citizenship.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating that the Democrat majority this week can find time to rename post offices, but somehow cannot find the time to vote on a trade agreement to help create more American jobs.

We're talking about a trade agreement to where over 90 percent of Colombian goods come into our country duty-free, yet only 3 percent of our goods go into their country duty-free. We're trying to level the playing field here, Mr. Speaker. We're trying to create more American jobs. What could be more fair?

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to sit down with the Fed Chairman this week. And as we talk about tough economic times, we ought to learn the lessons of history. And one of the lessons of history is that starting a trade war can bring about a recession, and that's what we see the Democrats doing. People are struggling to make their paychecks stretch. Why don't we create more jobs? Why don't we level this playing field?

Mr. Speaker, when we're talking about our ally, Colombia, Hugo Chavez wants this trade agreement to never see the light of day, and our Democrat colleagues agree.