Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize the Poteet High School Marching Band for winning the 2007 UIL Class

4A State Marching Title and the Honor Band for being named the 2008 Class 4A Honor Band for the State of Texas by the Texas Music Educators Association.

Last fall, the Poteet High School Marching Band secured the state championship title for its division for the second time in 3 years. The marching band received perfect scores from four of the five judges, placing them above 23 other elite bands.

Meanwhile, the Poteet High School Honor Band was named the 2008 Class 4A Honor Band for the State of Texas, the most prestigious honor for a high school concert band. For their achievement, the band will perform at the Texas Music Educators Association Convention in San Antonio, Texas.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize the Poteet High School Marching and Honor Bands, both the directors and students, for their talent, dedication to the arts, and their exceptional performance.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize community leader W.D. Lewis for being named ``Citizen of the Year'' by the Chandler-Brownsboro Chamber of Commerce.

A veteran of World War II and the Korean war, Mr. Lewis occupies his time today volunteering in his community. In addition to being an active member of the Kiwanis Club, Mr. Lewis mentors children at Brownsboro Intermediate School and helps the court appointed special advocates provide Christmas gifts to children. Last year, he raised enough money to give Bibles to 192 children.

Since moving to Brownsboro over two decades ago, Mr. Lewis has been a member of Leagueville Baptist Church and the Texas Freshwater Fisheries Center.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize Mr. Lewis for generously offering his time and talents to serve his community and for being selected ``Citizen of the Year.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership in this body, and I thank him for his friendship.

Madam Speaker, I know of no one in this body who represents greater integrity and greater honor than the gentleman from South Carolina. His district was very wise to send him to the United States House of Representatives. I want to thank the gentlelady from Tennessee who preceded me who is one of the most dynamic Members

we have in this entire body for the clarity and persuasion of her speech, a lady who knows how challenging it is for families to be able to put food on the table, put gasoline in the car, pay for their health care expenses, and knows that ultimately it is the family budget that ends up paying for the bloated Federal budget.

Now I didn't join the Budget Committee because I enjoyed numbers. In fact, I think probably the worst grade I ever made in my life was in an accounting course at Texas A&M University many, many years ago. But I joined the Budget Committee because ultimately the budget is about priorities. And, Madam Speaker, I came to this body because I believe America needs greater freedom and greater opportunity. And you can't have more freedom and more government. You have to choose between one or the other. And sometimes, Madam Speaker, especially at a time of challenging economic times, you have got to decide which is more important, a government check or a paycheck. And right now government increasingly is taking a bite out of that family paycheck to pay for bloated Washington spending.

Well, Madam Speaker, I don't know if the American people know it, but right now the Federal Government is spending over $23,000 per American family. It is the first time since World War II that the government has spent that much money, over $23,000. Madam Speaker, I wonder how many families that are listening to this debate tonight think they are getting their $23,000 worth out of the United States Federal Government.

Now some will say government has great needs. But you know what, it's not always how much money you spend in Washington that counts, it's how you spend the money. And I want a Federal Government that does a few things well, like guards my family and the families of all Americans against radical Islamic terrorists. I want a Federal Government that can control our borders. I want a Federal Government that will provide a social safety net for those who are too old, too young, and too disabled to help themselves. But outside of that, I want people to go out and have greater freedom and greater opportunity, and have the greatest welfare system known to mankind. And when I say welfare, I mean greater education, greater housing, greater nutrition. That program is called the American free enterprise system, and it is under assault. And one of the things that is assaulting it is the Federal budget.

Now let's talk about the fight that is taking place in Congress right now, and that is a fight about whether or not Americans ought to receive a huge automatic tax increase that our friends on the other side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, the Democrats, have passed into legislation.

Right now over the next 3 years there will be a huge automatic tax increase on the American people. Now is that what this economy needs now, when people are concerned about their job losses, when they are having trouble filling up their Ford F-150 pickup trucks, when they are having trouble buying milk at the grocery store? I have a 5-year-old and a 4-year-old and they're very thirsty and they drink that milk. And it is expensive.

And so the question right now is, should there be a huge automatic tax increase on the American people? Well, Madam Speaker, the Republicans think that there shouldn't be, that we shouldn't have a huge automatic tax increase. Let me tell you what the Democrats have passed.

Right now, if we don't change this, the top tax income bracket will go to 39.6 percent, an increase of 13.1 percent. Now why is that important? We always hear, well, you know, this is the wealthy and they need to pay more taxes. Well, you know who files at this rate, Madam Speaker, is small businesses. And, guess what, you can't have capitalism without capital. I used to be a small businessman. I signed the front of a paycheck. I used to sign the back of the paycheck, but I signed the front of the paycheck and I have risked capital. So now all of a sudden the Democrats have put into law a 13.1-percent tax increase on hundreds of thousands of small businesses across our Nation at the very time when they are trying to meet their payroll. What sense does that make, Madam Speaker?

Capital gains. The capital of capitalism. Democrats want to increase taxes on that 33.3 percent. If you want to talk about something that's going to send more jobs overseas, it's increasing the tax rate on capital gains. Dividends go up 164 percent. That's right, 164 percent, under the automatic tax increases that the Democrats are going to impose on us.

The death tax. You have already paid taxes on it once. You shouldn't have to visit the undertaker and the IRS on the same day, and yet that is going to go from zero up to 55 percent, Madam Speaker.

The child tax credit is going to get cut in half. And the lowest tax bracket for the lowest wage earners in America, their taxes are going to increase 50 percent. Under the Democrat plan, Madam Speaker, it is going to go from a 10 percent bracket to a 15-percent bracket.

Now is this the recipe that our economy needs? I don't think so. I don't think so. But yet Democrats tell us, well, we need more money because we've got to do all this Washington spending. Well, if you look in the rearview mirror, Madam Speaker, you will see that over the last 10 years government has grown by about 75 percent, and yet the family budget, which has to pay for that Federal budget, has only grown 30 percent.

Now ultimately something has to give. And so again our Democrat colleagues, Madam Speaker, tell us, well, we have to raise taxes. And all those tax increases that they want to impose right when the economy is having troubles, they say, well, we've got to raise taxes to somehow balance the budget.

Well, Madam Speaker, if people would look at this chart, we don't have a taxation problem, we have a spending problem. Right now the difference between this blue line and red line is this huge massive tax increase that the Democrats want to impose upon hardworking American families, on farmers, on teachers, on small businesses. And look at how much revenue it gains you. And this, Madam Speaker, not to get into too much inside baseball, is what we call a static analysis. This assumes that raising people's taxes has no impact on economic growth. We know that's not true.

So given the Democrats' every single assumption, if they do this massive tax increase which is going to amount to roughly $3,000 per American family over the next 3 years, it doesn't get anywhere close to the green line. That's the spending line. That is the line that represents the Federal Government on automatic pilot. That is if no new programs are added, that is how much is going to be spent. And what does that represent? Don't take my word for it; take the Comptroller General's word for it, the chief fiduciary officer in the United States Government. He says that line right there represents either, number one, a doubling of taxes on our children, or it represents a Federal Government that consists of almost nothing but Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. And anybody in charge of counting money for the Federal Government will tell you the same thing. Where is the ethic in that? Where is the morality in that? Imposing that kind of burden on the next generation? But, no, we have so many colleagues that care about the next election and not the next generation.

Almost 6 years ago I got in the next generation business because I have a 5-year-old daughter and a 4-year-old son, and I care desperately about their future. So we have to do something about out-of-control spending, and yet our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, every single day they add a new program, completely oblivious to the cost on our children and grandchildren, the least of these, those who cannot vote and those yet to be born.

If we are to work our way out of the economic challenges we have today, much less spare our children and grandchildren a doubling of their taxation to where we would be the first generation in American history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living, if we are going to keep our faith with our forefathers, if we are going to show fidelity to the future generations and be good stewards

of the American dream, we have to defeat these massive Democrat tax increases. We have to defeat their massive increases in spending.

Madam Speaker, it all starts with something we call earmarks, congressional earmarks. As a dear friend of mine in the Senate, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said, ``Earmarks are the gateway drug to spending addiction.'' There are too many bridges to nowhere, there are too many indoor rainforests. There are too many teapot museums. And the American people are waking up that all too often somebody in this body has taken a bite out of their paycheck so that some Member of Congress can keep his. The system is broken.

Republicans in this body have called for an earmark moratorium. They have called for a select committee to clean up this system where the American people too often see money going into campaign contributions. Money coming in one end of Washington, DC, and they see earmarks coming out the other end. The system is broken. It has to be changed, and all the Democrats have said is no, we are not going to join you. They have gone the complete opposite direction.

I am proud to be a member of this Republican conference that is trying to clean up this earmark mess, trying to control spending and control taxation so we can get this economy going and Americans can keep their jobs and have a brighter future for themselves and their children and their grandchildren.

I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his leadership, and thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize community leader Lewie Byers for being named ``Citizen of the Year'' by the Rusk Chamber of Commerce.

Lewie is a prominent member of the Rusk community and exemplifies what it means to be a model citizen. Lewie is the president of the Rusk branch of Texas National Bank, but manages to find time to serve his community in civic organizations including the Rusk Chamber of Commerce, the Rusk Industrial Foundation and is a member of the Rusk City Council. In addition, Lewie is a member of the Rusk Lions Club and was on the East Texas Council of Boy Scouts. Most importantly, Lewie is a devoted husband and proud father of four.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize Lewie Byers for generously offering his time and talents to serve his community.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize a talented and patriotic citizen, Nancy Hilton, for her efforts to honor and encourage our Nation's military.

Overwhelmed with the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform. Ms. Hilton sought a unique way in which she could personally honor the military. On a road trip to the East Coast, Ms. Hilton decided to hand- stitch an American flag and wasted no time in doing so. On the road with no pattern, she purchased a store-made American flag and created a self-made pattern. Three years later, after investing 214.5 hours and over 20 miles of yarn, Ms. Hilton proudly displays the 24-by-13 foot, 43 pound flag at her home in Athens, Texas.

In between stitching stripes, Ms. Hilton developed her crocheting ministry, The Love Stitchers. The Love Stitchers dedicate their time and efforts to making lap afghans for people in nursing homes and hospice centers. They also make special red, white, and blue starred and striped blankets for veterans. With 100 members in three cities, The Love Stitchers have made over 1,500 afghans.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize Ms. Nancy Hilton not only for her talent, but for her thoughtfulness and devotion in caring for our military, veterans, and seniors.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize an outstanding citizen and public servant, Chief Gary Westphal, in honor of his retirement from 35 years of service at the Mesquite Police Department.

In 1972, Chief Westphal started his service as a jailer and was promoted through the ranks until 2002, when he became Chief of Police for the Mesquite Police Department.

Chief Westphal pioneered several student, anti-drug campaigns such as ``Slama Bama Jama,'' ``What If,'' and the ``Cheese Anti-drug Initiative.'' Esteemed by his community and peers, Chief Westphal was named ``Hometown Hero'' by Town East Mall and ``Top Cop'' 2006 by the Texas Police Chiefs Association.

In addition to faithfully serving his community, Chief Westphal is a husband to Susan, a father of three children, and a grandfather.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize Chief Gary Westphal for his courage in protecting and serving the citizens of Mesquite.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in unenthusiastic support of this legislation. Perhaps it is a true sign of bipartisanship. I think if we were all honest with ourselves, we would say there was much about this legislation that disappoints us; yet most of us will support it.

Mr. Speaker, my own personal disappointment is I see very little economic stimulus in this so-called economic stimulus package. I see tax relief, income tax relief, for those who do not pay income taxes. I see tax relief for middle-income families, which is very important, very important, Mr. Speaker, at a time when their paychecks are squeezed with high energy costs, with high food costs, and high health care costs. But I don't confuse temporary tax rebates with economic growth.

Now, I did look closely, and there is some economic growth component of this legislation of which I approve. But ultimately, true growth doesn't come from temporary tax rebates. It comes from allowing entrepreneurs and families and capitalists to actually have their own capital to expand and grow the economy.

The last time our Nation was facing a recession, I went to a small factory in my district called Jacksonville Industries. They employed 21 people. They were an aluminum die cast business. Because of competitive pressures, they were on the verge of laying off two people. But because of the tax relief passed by this Congress, particularly expensing capital gains tax relief, they bought a new piece of equipment. And that new piece of equipment made them more competitive, and instead of laying off two people, they hired two new people.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the question, surely middle-income families, I know they need help, but this package, I fear, is more akin to helping them pay one month's worth of credit card bills at a time when people are getting laid off at the local factory when, instead, what they really need to know is that their paycheck is preserved and that they have opportunities to even grow that paycheck and that their employer can become more competitive and give them more opportunities to advance and grow that paycheck. And, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately those components are sadly lacking.

If we wanted those components in the bill, the first thing we would do, Mr. Speaker, is try to prevent all of these scheduled tax increases on families and the economy that our friends on this side of the aisle have put in place. The second thing we would do, Mr. Speaker, is try to make our business tax rate more competitive with our international competitors. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. That's what we need to do.

Now, Mr. Speaker, many people here come with their theories. I come with evidence. If you look early on in 2003, if you look to the Reagan administration, the Kennedy administration, when you're faced with a recession, lower marginal tax rates, lower capital gains rates, and you will grow people's paychecks. That's the economic growth that we need.

Madam Speaker, today I would like to rise to recognize Dallas Christian School and join with them in celebrating their 50th anniversary.

In 1957, Dallas Christian School was established with a mission to train students academically, physically, and spiritually. Five decades later, this nationally recognized Blue Ribbon School continues to accomplish its mission by supplementing its academic curriculum with daily Bible classes and chapel services, college courses, extracurricular activities, and an athletic department.

Located in Mesquite, Texas, 90 percent of Dallas Christian School graduates attend institutions of higher education, and since 1992, 20 seniors have qualified for the National Merit Scholarship.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize Dallas Christian School's 50th anniversary, and I would like to commend the students, board of directors, faculty, and staff for helping to shape a brighter future for our community and our country.

I certainly thank the gentlelady for yielding. I thank her for those kind words. And I must admit, at 5'6", I'm rarely referred to as a giant, but I certainly take it as a great compliment.

The gentlelady from Minnesota has done great work in this body. I'm honored to serve with her, and I hope her constituents are very proud of the work that she has done. She has been a leader on so many issues from day one, and I thank her especially on probably the most fundamental question we have in American society today, for helping lead this Special Order today on the whole question of life.

Mr. Speaker, I need not tell you that millions of people all across America are reflecting upon that Supreme Court decision of decades ago, Roe v. Wade. Many Americans are celebrating. Many others are mourning. I am mourning. I mourn that decision.

I'm not naive. I know this question represents one of the great political fault lines in America today, and I know many of my countrymen feel quite differently than I do. But I just believe in my heart, I believe in my head, that there is no more fundamental right that we have than the right to life. And it is enshrined in our very founding documents that we were created. Our creator brought us into this world with certain unalienable rights, including the right to life.

Now, again, Mr. Speaker, I can come to no other conclusion in my head, in my heart, than but life begins at conception. And I don't understand my countrymen who come to different conclusions. I don't hate these people. I don't disparage them. But I have great sadness about what has occurred because of their beliefs; that millions of our countrymen are not here today to take that first breath, to take that first walk, to go into that first dance recital, to hit that first baseball, to put together that first two plus two equals four, I did it daddy. Millions and millions of our fellow countrymen will

never experience that moment because of what I believe to be a very wrongheaded and a very unconstitutional decision made many, many years ago.

And so Mr. Speaker, a battle continues in this great body as a battle continues all across our land. And it's not just a battle to change laws. It is a battle to change the hearts and minds of our countrymen. And again, it's something that I take as an article of faith. But Mr. Speaker, if there's any parent in this body who has seen that sonogram when your baby is just weeks old, to see that beating heart, to see those little fingers, to see those little toes, and know that you have this great privilege that God Almighty has entrusted you with this gift to nurture this life, how you see that and turn your back on it is beyond me, is absolutely beyond me.

And so, Mr. Speaker, there have been others who have come here tonight who are far more eloquent than am I.

But, Mr. Speaker, I just want to, one, thank all of the fellow members of the Republican Study Committee that I have the great honor of chairing in this institution, really the conservative caucus in this House. I want to thank them for raising their voice on the single most important issue we face as a society, and that is the definition of the right to life. I want to thank them for coming to this body to do this.

And Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have a lot of blessings in life. I am not sure I will ever have a greater privilege than serving in the United States House. I enjoy coming to the floor of this institution and being able to talk about my beliefs and my vision for this great Republic.

Like some of us, we have the opportunity to occasionally meet with the President of the United States and tell the most powerful man in the world what our views are. We have opportunities to salute people who deserve recognition. We have all kinds of opportunities that give us a lot of self-satisfaction.

But no matter how many speeches I give on the House floor, no matter how many opportunities I have to meet with the President in the Oval Office, Mr. Speaker, those opportunities pale, absolutely pale in comparison to the opportunity that I have each week to fly home to Dallas, Texas, and have my 5-year-old daughter and my 4-year-old son run into my arms saying, ``Daddy, Daddy, Daddy. We missed you.''

And it's just one more reminder, Mr. Speaker, of how critical and how precious human life is, and it transcends all of the other debates that we have in this institution.

And so, again, I want to thank all of my fellow members of the Republican Study Committee. I want to thank the gentlelady from Minnesota adding her leadership and her eloquent voice here tonight. I wish I knew what I could say to reach out to my follow citizens and try to convince them to treasure human life and to understand how precious it is.

And often when we hear in the debate in this institution that we ought to do it for the least of these, truly, truly unborn life is the least of these. Let us recognize it. Let us hold it precious. And let us live up to our constitutional responsibilities, and let us live up to our responsibilities from the Creator and grant our follow citizens that precious right to life.

And so the battle goes on, Mr. Speaker. There has been some progress. There are fewer abortions in the land today than there was previously.

So I continue to be optimistic. I could not serve in this body unless I was an optimist. There is much work to be done. But I see a day, it may not be in my life, Mr. Speaker, but maybe in the life of my children, maybe in the life of my grandchildren, should I be blessed with any, that one day all Americans will somehow lock arms and lock hearts and decide that they will protect and defend that unalienable right to life; and I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize an outstanding citizen, Mr. Jess A. Laird, for being named Citizen of the Year by the Athens Chamber of Commerce.

Jess currently serves as president of First State Bank and as a board member for the Athens Chamber of Commerce. He devotes his time and efforts to not only serving, but also to leading the community through numerous civic organizations. In addition to serving as the former president of the Cain Center board, Rotary Club, Industrial Foundation and the American Heart Association, Jess has worked with the TVCC Foundation, ETMC board of managers, Salvation Army and United Way board.

In addition, Jess still finds time to be involved at First United Methodist Church, by singing with the Praise Team. More importantly, Jess is a devoted husband to Susan and a dedicated father to two sons, Blake and Rex.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to be able to recognize a constituent and good friend of mine, Jess, for being an invaluable leader and for generously offering his talents to improve his community.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, President Reagan once said that the nearest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program, and I don't think there is any better case study than perhaps the HOPE VI program. If there was ever a program that cried out for termination, it's this one; termination so that the money used for this program can be returned to hardworking American families.

Many of us are acquainted with the history of the program, begun in 1992 with a very noble purpose of taking 86,000 units of severely distressed public housing and replacing them, demolishing them.

Well, guess what, Madam Chairman; it achieved its mission. But somewhere along the line we had this thing in Washington known as mission creep. What we should have done is probably given all the employees of the program a bonus, throw them a big party and say thank you for doing something good and achieving the mission of your particular program. But instead, somehow the program goes on and on and on.

Now, the Office of Management and Budget has said that this program is ineffective. If you look at their part rating of the Office of Management and Budget and start to study it, they ask very specific questions about the program, one of which is: Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need? And the answer is no. The program has accomplished its primary goal to demolish 100,000 severely distressed public housing units by 2003.

Another question in the part rating of the Office of Management and Budget: Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any Federal, State, local or private effort? The answer again, no. HOPE VI is one of a select number of tools available to housing authorities to revitalize distressed or obsolete public housing.

So again, number one, we had a program that accomplished its original mission. We now have a program that is duplicative of other housing programs. And I know there are many who come to the floor who are very sincere and passionate in their belief that the only way to help low- income people is through government housing programs. I have a different philosophy. I have a different set of principles.

We already have 80-plus Federal housing programs, and the budget for Federal housing programs has almost doubled in the last 10 years, from $15.4 billion to more than $30 billion now.

And this percentage increase, almost double, is a rate, Madam Chairman, a rate of increase that is higher than veterans spending, education spending, energy spending, transportation spending, international affairs spending, and even Social Security over that same time period.

So, relative to our budget priorities, it's very hard to argue that somehow Federal housing programs have been shortchanged. I fear that HOPE VI simply compounds failure. We take failed housing projects, we start to demolish them, and then we fail to get rid of the program.

Again, I understand that some people and many on the other side of the aisle do not agree with my vision. They believe the only way to help is through other government programs, and if so, I would ask this, and I'm sorry that this didn't happen in committee.

I offered an amendment to transfer this money to the section 8 program. I think there are a number of challenges with section 8, but I certainly see it as a superior form of government assistance than these other programs.

And Member after Member on the other side of the aisle has complained that we have insufficient resources for section 8. Well, here's an opportunity. Now, unfortunately, that amendment was not ruled in order. I hope that one day maybe I can work with the majority in finding ways to take less effective government housing programs and perhaps transfer funds to more effective housing programs.

I also find it quite curious that many Members on the other side of the aisle complained about this program in hearings and in markups. So they complained about it and then sit here and reauthorize it.

And there are two other reasons that we should not support this. One is, it puts us on a trajectory to help double-spending to the next generation. Now, sometimes we have to make some tough choices. We are going to double taxes on the next generation if we don't do something about spending today.

And we should never forget that the best housing program is a job. And the greatest threat to jobs today is the threatened tax increases of the majority. That's where we ought to get our affordable housing.

Madam Speaker, Republicans have come to the floor this afternoon to prevent a huge Democrat tax increase from taking place on millions of working families across America.

Democrats have come to the floor to pay for their tax increase with yet another tax increase.

Now, Madam Speaker, they call it the PAYGO rule. It fits nicely on a bumper sticker. Now, supposedly it means if you increase spending here or you have tax relief there, somehow you pay for it. But when I look at the budget, I see that Medicare has grown by almost 9 percent. They didn't pay for that. It was exempt. I saw Medicaid grow almost 8 percent. That was exempt from their PAYGO rule. Social Security increased 5\1/2\ percent. That was exempt from their PAYGO rule. Discretionary spending, 38 percent of the budget, well, PAYGO doesn't apply to that, either. And now they bring a 1-year AMT delay bill that's also exempt from their PAYGO rule.

This proves that the Democrats' PAYGO rule has gone from a fig leaf to no leaf. Let's reject it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

It's a fascinating evening that we find ourselves in, to be asked to somehow, in less than a day, in fact, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, this bill was filed after midnight. So on the very same day we're being asked to consider a bill, which all of America can see here, which is over 3,000 pages long.

Now, when the Democrat majority came in, they said, well, this was going to be the most fair and democratic Congress that we've ever had, that somehow a new day was dawning, that they would do business in a different way. I have not been a fan of omnibus spending legislation when my party was in control. I voted against the omnibus. It's no way to run the railroad, Mr. Speaker. In fact, when my party was in control, if an omnibus was passed, I note, for example, if I look at the Congressional Record of January 4, 2005, that to bring an omnibus piece of legislation to the floor by waiving the 3-day rule was described as ``martial law'' by then-Minority Leader Pelosi, now Speaker Pelosi. It's in the Record, Mr. Speaker. Look it up.

So somehow when she's the minority leader, Mr. Speaker, it's not okay to bring this monstrosity; in fact, it's tantamount to martial law. And yet we've heard that this is going to be such an open and democratic and fair Congress. So what is it, Mr. Speaker? Is it martial law, is it not martial law, to expect Members who haven't even seen the bill, much less read the bill, to vote on it tonight?

I heard the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee come and speak to us about earmarks. Well, again, this was the leadership team that claimed that they would do better. And as I look at it, when you add in the earmarks in the one appropriations bill that was passed by regular order, you're still looking at the third highest amount of earmarks, I believe, in the history of the Republic.

Now, the Speaker herself said, and I don't have the quote in front of me, but something along the lines that she would just as soon do without earmarks. But as I've read the legislation, she doesn't appear to be leading by example in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, there are very few people who know what is in this bill. But what I do know is it spends the people's money with very little accountability. I was at a town hall meeting in my district, and I have the honor and privilege of representing the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. I was in Athens, Texas, and a constituent, a very wise man, came up to me and said, You know what? I don't think that any Member of Congress should be allowed to vote on a piece of legislation unless they've read the bill, which I guess might lend this evening's vote to one, maybe two, Members, maybe no Members. There's something to be said for that. A bad process can lead to bad outcomes, and this is a bad outcome. It spends too much of the people's money. It continues to grow the government budget faster than the family budget, the family budget that has to pay for it.

Mr. Speaker, I'm a member of the House Budget Committee. I see several of my colleagues on the Democrat side who are also serving on that Budget Committee. And we just heard testimony from the head of the Congressional Budget Office, which I might add

was an appointment under this majority, this Democrat majority, who said that if we don't change the spending patterns of the Federal Government that within a generation we're looking at doubling taxes on our children and grandchildren.

Now, you can go check the Record. And it's not just the head of the Congressional Budget Office; it's the head of OMB, it's the Comptroller General. And yet we are asked to vote on an omnibus piece of legislation that, once again, sets us on this path to double taxes on the next generation. It's just unconscionable. Again, it robs the family budget to pay for the Federal budget.

And here's something else that's unconscionable about this: in this omnibus, we're going to pay to fund some bureaucrat in the bowels of the Commerce Department, but we won't pay for the men and women in our Nation's uniform fighting for liberty in Iraq. Well, last I looked, they're part of this Federal Government as well. They're wearing our Nation's uniform. They get paychecks drawn on the U.S. Treasury. But somehow we can find the ability, in this 3,000-page bill, to pay for every bureaucrat in Washington; but we won't fund the men and women in harm's way in Iraq. Also unconscionable.

There are so many reasons, Mr. Speaker, that this rule should be voted down, as should the entire bill.

I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding.

There are so many different reasons, Mr. Speaker, that we should oppose this massive omnibus spending bill, not the least of which is the process. The process can lead to bad results.

When the Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, was the minority leader, she said this was a terrible process. In fact, I quote: ``The Republican leadership forced through a so-called `martial law' rule that required a same-day vote, preventing Members of Congress from having enough time to read legislation that spent hundreds of billions of dollars and was thousands of pages long. This arrogance of power is part of a pattern of abuse.''

Now, that's what the Speaker thought when somebody else was in control; but now that her party is in control, I guess it's perfectly appropriate to present a 3,565-page bill on the very same day, of which I'm told 692 pages are devoted to earmarks, and for us to spend approximately 60 minutes debating $515 billion. If I did the back-of- the-envelope math properly, we're debating $9.1 billion of the people's money each minute.

Where's the transparency here, Mr. Speaker? Where's the accountability? And this is a bill that still grows government at twice the rate of inflation. There's not one Member of this body who knows what is in this bill, and I'd include the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee. It defies logic that any one Member of this body knows what's in the bill. It should be rejected on that alone.

But, Mr. Speaker, ultimately this bill puts us on a path to double taxes on the next generation, and don't take my word for it. Listen to the director of the Congressional Budget Office appointed by the Democrat majority. Listen to the Comptroller General. They all say the same thing. Reject this monstrosity.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. And, again, I thank her for her leadership in this institution, a very clear, concise, conservative voice on this House floor, particularly when it comes to trying to save the family budget from the onslaught of the Federal budget.

As my colleague from Tennessee has pointed out, the House is completely broken. It is completely broken and felled under this new Democratic leadership. They said they would do better if they were in charge. So what do they bring us today? Today they bring us a 3,565- page spending bill which people have been able to see beside my colleague's speaking position over here, weighing in at 34.4 pounds, roughly the weight of my 5-year-old daughter.

It spends $515 billion of the people's money, and the Democrat majority brought it to the floor tonight and devoted less than 1 hour of floor time debating this omnibus bill. This body spent about a minute debating every $9.1 billion being spent in this bill.

Now, that is money if left in the hands of the families of America and the small businesses of America, who make the jobs and have to work hard to send their kids to college and put food on the table and put roofs over their heads, that money is coming from them; and we spent less than a minute debating $9 billion. The minutes went by, and all of a sudden this House passed a $515 billion bill.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when the Republicans were in charge, unfortunately, my party occasionally brought an omnibus bill to the floor, and I personally voted against each and every one because I don't believe that was the vision of the Founding Fathers. It is not the way we should run this government. In fact, I was at a town hall meeting in my district not too long ago and a gentleman from the Athens, Texas, in the 5th Congressional District of Texas, said: Don't you think we would have a much better government if Members of Congress were actually required to read the legislation before they vote on it?

What human being can read 34.4 pounds, 3,565 pages in one day? That is right, Mr. Speaker, this bill was just given to us today. In the early morning hours, this bill was laid upon this institution.

So there is no transparency here. It is interesting to me that when the majority party was in the minority, they screamed to the rafters about this process. Listen to what Speaker Pelosi, then minority Pelosi had to say about this process: ``The Republican leadership forced through a so-called `martial law' rule that required a same-day vote preventing Members of Congress from having enough time to read legislation. They spent hundreds of billions of dollars and it was thousands of pages long. This arrogance of power is part of a pattern of abuse.''

Now that is what Speaker Pelosi said 3 years ago when she was in the minority. Now that she is the Speaker, does this mean she is imposing martial law on this House with this process that she decried 3 years ago? Is she now bringing a spirit of arrogance to this institution which she decried 3 years ago? Is she part of the pattern of abuse that she decried 3 years by forcing Members of this institution to vote on this monstrosity?

So on process alone, this bill ought to be rejected. But it really ought to be rejected because it puts us on a path of extreme fiscal irresponsibility. Already today this government is on automatic pilot to force the largest single tax increase in American history on working families all across America. It was included in the Democrat budget. More spending fosters more taxes. And that's just the start, Mr. Speaker, because after imposing the single largest tax increase in American history in the Democrat budget, with their so-called ``mother of all tax increases,'' they are going to once again make history by imposing the single largest tax increase in American history yet again, perhaps twice in a 12-month period. I am sure that will break some kind of record here in the House of Representatives.

But don't take my word for it. Listen to the head of the Congressional Budget Office, the head of the Government Accountability Office, the Federal Reserve chairman. They are all going to tell you the same thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is without changing the spending patterns of the Federal Government of which this omnibus represents some of the worst, we are on automatic pilot to double taxes on the next generation. Double. And the average American family pays roughly $22,000 a year in taxes. That will go to $44,000. How many American dreams are going to be squashed by a tax burden of that magnitude, represented by that 34.4 pound omnibus spending legislation which will flatten the American taxpayer like a bus.

It is full of gimmicks from people who said they were going to bring the most honest and ethical Congress in the history of mankind to this institution. They take a rubber stamp and they stamp ``emergency spending'' on anything that moves because they have this little clever device that allows them to avoid any kind of budget discipline when they do that. They have this gimmick called ``advanced appropriations'' that would make an Enron accountant blush, but they use it to once again evade any spending discipline whatsoever in this institution.

They said they would clean up earmarks and this is chock full of earmarks. Mr. Speaker, if you look closely, maybe some of these earmarks pass the legal test. Maybe they even pass some ethical test, but all too often the American people are seeing campaign cash going into the institution on this end, and they are seeing earmarks coming out the other end. It doesn't meet the fiscal responsibility test, and it doesn't meet the American taxpayer smell test. And that bill is chock full of it. Out of 3,565 pages, 692 pages are devoted to individual congressional earmarks, which many of the American people believe serve no other purposes other than to get Members of Congress reelected.

Again, the Democrat majority said they would clean it up and there would be transparency and accountability. We haven't even had time to read the 692 pages. We don't know what is in there. Maybe there is another museum to a Member of Congress, as the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee managed to earmark $2 million to create a museum to himself.

One final point before turning this over to some of my other able colleagues from the Republican Study Committee. I want to harken back to a point made by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), ranking member of the Budget Committee. Earlier tonight the Democrat majority leader came to the floor and said, We have a responsibility to fund our government.

Well, I don't know everything that is in that bill, Mr. Speaker, but I know something that isn't in that bill. There is no funding for the men and women fighting for freedom in Iraq. Not one penny. Now how do you have a bill that ostensibly funds the United States Government and somehow you leave out the men and women who wear our Nation's uniform? They wear our Nation's uniform. They come from the small towns and factories and fields from all over America. Their paychecks come from the same United States Treasury that Members of Congress' do. Somehow the Democrat majority managed to put into their 34-pound bill thousands of earmarks. They managed to fund every single bureaucrat at the Commerce Department, but they can't find one penny for our brave men and women fighting on the front lines of freedom in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, maybe they don't believe in the cause, but don't they believe in the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines?

There is no way that any Member with any credibility can come to this floor and say we are presenting a bill to fund the Federal Government but, oh, we don't really consider members of our armed services fighting in Iraq to be members of our government. I just don't know what planet some of these people come from, Mr. Speaker, and that's just shameful. It is a shameful moment this year in the history of the House to present this spending abomination, chock full of earmarks that ignore our men and women in harm's way in Iraq. And it's one of the lowest points of this entire year for this Democrat Congress. And I hope that the American people are paying very special attention to what is going on here tonight.

I appreciate the gentlelady, again, for her leadership for taking the time to help elaborate on really this heinous piece of legislation that came to the floor earlier, and I want to thank her. And I want to thank all the members of the House Conservative Caucus, the Republican Study Committee, the largest caucus in the House, for always being ready and vigilant to fight for freedom and to work for less government and more freedom and more opportunity, and that's what the Republican Study Committee is all about. And I appreciate the opportunity to share in this Special Order, and I yield back to the gentlelady from Tennessee.