Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am reminded of a quote from late President Reagan, and perhaps I can paraphrase: The closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program.

Indeed, we have had speaker after speaker come before in this debate to tell us how TRIA was going to be a temporary program. And I see the able gentlelady from New York, the chairwoman of our Financial Institutions Subcommittee. I wasn't here in this body when TRIA was originally passed, but I took the time to review the record of the debate. At that time she said, ``We are simply working to keep our economy on track with a short-term program that addresses the new terrorist threat.''

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of our Capital Markets Subcommittee said, ``We wisely design the TRIA Act as a temporary backstop to get our Nation through a period of economic uncertainty until the private sector can develop models.''

And if you look at the Record, Mr. Speaker, of those who proposed TRIA in the first place, all said it would be a temporary program. Perhaps temporary is in the eye of the beholder. What started out as a 3-year program has since become a 5-year program. The House attempted to extend it 15 years. I think we are now looking at a 7-year extension. I believe for all intents and purposes, we are looking at giving birth de facto to a new Federal permanent insurance program to go along with the scores of others, few of which are financially sound.

So again, what was meant to be temporary, and I hope had I been in this body at that time I would have voted for it. I was here for the vote on the first extension, and I supported that extension. I believe there was, indeed, a great calamity in this marketplace. I believe that people in the marketplace needed time to react, to plan, to model. But again, is this something that is going to go on in perpetuity?

The question again is begged, and that is, Who can do a better job in the reinsurance market, the Federal Government or private industry? I have no doubt that private industry would love to have the subsidies that are represented by TRIA. Any time the government is going to hand out something free or at a subsidized rate versus the market rate, who wouldn't accept it? Such a deal. I certainly understand that they might be favoring this.

Now, I haven't heard in this debate, but in previous iterations of the debate I have heard many come and talk about the great tragedy of 9/11, and I want to let it be known again, we are talking about terrorism reinsurance. It does nothing to prevent terrorism in the first place. We are talking about coming in after the fact and providing this Federal backstop, which many of us don't believe is any longer necessary, putting the taxpayer on the hook at a time when markets could develop.

I would take the argument more serious if more people on the other side of the aisle would vote to strengthen, for example, the FISA legislation. Unfortunately, many of them are voting to make it even more difficult for our Federal Government to listen in on the conversations of known terrorists. Most of the Democrats, most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, in May voted against the Hoekstra amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Act which would have eliminated that section of the bill requiring the Director of National Intelligence to use resources, and I paraphrase him, to study bugs and bunnies instead of suspected terrorists. They have supported expanding the legal rights of terrorist detainees, holding up passage of the 9/11 Commission Recommendation Implementation bill to give union bargaining advantages to TSA screeners, and the list goes on and on.

So if we want to talk about terrorism, let's talk about what we can do to prevent it in the first place as opposed to what we can do to subsidize large insurance companies after the fact.

Another point I would like to make, and everybody is certainly entitled to their own opinion, and I have looked very carefully at the President's working group position on this, and they have observed what I have observed, and that is the availability and affordability of terrorism risk insurance has improved since the initial terrorist attacks. And despite increases in risk retentions under TRIA, insurers have allocated additional capacity to terrorism risk. Prices have declined. Take-up rates have increased.

I simply don't buy into the argument, Mr. Speaker, that we have a market failure here that somehow, some way the market can't create this particular insurance product.

I mean, how are we ever going to know, once again, if we're going to hand out something free or at a subsidized rate, as opposed to people having to buy it at the market rate?

And let me quote from the President's working group: ``The presence of subsidized Federal reinsurance through TRIA appears to negatively affect the emergence of private reinsurance capacity because it dilutes demand for private sector reinsurance.''

Now, some have said, well, again, that terrorism is a very unique risk. Well, of course it is. But our reinsurance industry has faced these challenges in the past. At one point they had to figure out how to model for the risk of loss of electronic data. At one time in our history they had to figure out how to model for airline crashes.

Many say that we will never have major construction in the United States unless we have a government, Federal reinsurance backstop for acts of terrorism. I simply don't observe that in real life.

And how, Mr. Speaker, during the Cold War, when thousands of nuclear weapons were poised, aimed at our Nation, how did construction take place during that time in our history? Yet there are those who will maintain that somehow it cannot take place today.

Again, I'm not saying that reinsurance is not an important aspect of our market. It is. But I disagree with those on the other side of the aisle who say that even after 5 years that the market is simply incapable of creating a product that those who wish it can pay for at an affordable rate.

Another point I would make is that even if this were a valuable program to the Nation, what are we going to do to

pay for it, and what are the long-term implications?

Again, as I mentioned earlier, Uncle Sam does not have a particularly stellar track record when it comes to running insurance programs.

Social Security, according to the latest report of the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, owes $6.8 trillion, trillion with a T, more in benefits than it's receiving in taxes, and has a long-term deficit of almost $9 trillion, not a particularly good track record there.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is currently running a deficit of $18.1 billion, with an additional off-balance sheet liability of $73.3 billion.

The National Flood Insurance Program has a shortfall of $1.3 billion a year over the long term and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, its current financial situation is unsustainable.

Medicaid, $317 billion a year. The National Governors Association says, ``The growth of a program that is unsustainable in its current form.''

The Federal crop insurance program requires Federal subsidies. The list goes on and on and on and on. As history is my guide, Mr. Speaker, forgive me if I don't share the enthusiasm and optimism of those on the other side of the aisle who say that somehow this is not going to prove painful for future taxpaying generations. I believe it will be.

I believe the private market can handle this. I think they will handle this if we give them the opportunity. I do not think the private insurance companies need this huge subsidy.

And when, Mr. Speaker, are we finally going to do something about the long-term financial implications of entitlement spending in these insurance programs?

Now, something's got to give. The Comptroller General has said that 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 because of out-of-control spending. Instead, we add burden on top of burden on top of burden.

Because of all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, I oppose this report and would urge the House to oppose it as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and he makes a very important point. As hard as I look at this bill, I can't find any tax relief in it. People who somehow think that by preventing a massive tax increase on the American people, that that's tantamount to relief, they need to talk to the schoolteacher in Mesquite, Texas. They need to talk to the rancher in Murchison, Texas.

Again, if you make the same amount of money next year that you made last year and you're paying the same amount of taxes, where's the tax relief?

This bill is misnamed. The AMT is misnamed. It ought to be called the alternative massive tax increase because it's a massive tax increase on the American people of $55.7 billion. The only thing that's alternative about it is who has the great honor and pleasure of paying for this tax.

Now, I've heard many speakers on the other side of the aisle come and say, well, we pay for it. Well, that will certainly come as a great relief to the teachers and the ranchers and the small business people of the 5th District of Texas to know that you're not going to increase their taxes because somehow you've paid for it.

You haven't paid for anything. You've put a massive tax increase on the American people, and in this particular case, you are putting it on investment. You're putting it on small businesses. You're putting it on the capital of capitalism, and you are threatening the paychecks of the American people.

Now, I've heard many people come here to the floor and say, well, we have to be fiscally responsible; this needs to be revenue neutral. Well, I agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle. It does need to be revenue neutral. It ought to be revenue neutral to the taxpayer, not the Federal Government. That's the revenue neutrality that we should attempt to achieve here.

I heard my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, say, well, we have to pay this or there's going to be this tax increase. Well, there's another alternative. There's several alternatives. One's the Taxpayer Choice Act, which would get rid of the AMT once and for all.

There's a clear choice before us. Who's going to get the $55.7 billion, Federal Government bureaucrats or American families? We vote for the American family.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for leading this Special Order this evening. I thank him for his leadership on behalf of the people of New Jersey and behalf of the people of New York. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) never loses an opportunity to fight for the family budget.

And we know that families are struggling during this Christmas season; we know that their energy bills have increased. We know the price at the pump is high. Home heating oil for those, particularly in the Northeast, not in my part in the country in Texas, they face challenges there. They face challenges in trying to deal with their health care costs.

And what is the answer of this new Democrat majority? Well, it is the same answer as all Democrat majorities: tax more and spend more.

I am unacquainted with any society in the history of the world that somehow has taxed its way into prosperity. And, ultimately, more spending leads to more taxation; and this is a Congress that continues to spend more and more and more. Already, the Federal Government is spending on average over $23,000 per family of four, Mr. Speaker. And this is the highest level, the highest level since World War II on an inflation-adjusted basis. And yet this Democrat majority wants to spend even more of the people's money.

Earlier in the year, in their budget they had the single largest tax increase in American history that, when fully implemented over a 5-year period, is going to add $3,000 per year for an average family of four.

Now, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what will that extra $3,000 in taxes taken away from American families to be given to the Federal Government, what is that going to do to the hopes and dreams of the average American family? How is that going to help them fill up their F-150 pickup trucks? How is that going to help them pay their home heating oil bills? How is that going to help them send a child to college? Well, the answer is that it is not.

Often, when we are having spending debates in the Nation's Capitol, Mr. Speaker, we are not really debating how much we spend, but we are debating who is going to do the spending. Is it going to be American families? Are they going to be allowed to keep what they have earned, what they have worked hard for? Are they going to be able to keep the bread on their table? Or are they going to have to give even a larger share to Washington? Notwithstanding the fact, notwithstanding the fact that they are already paying on average $23,000 per family of four.

Now, when you come to the floor of the House, you often hear our Democrat colleagues decry how we are not investing in this budget function or we are not investing in this budget function enough. Well, people are entitled to their own opinions; they are just not entitled to their own facts. And if you look over the last 10 years, for example, the international affairs budget has increased 130 percent; the energy budget, 293 percent. Now, transportation, 71 percent; health, 79.4 percent. And the list goes on and on. And in that same 10- year period, the family budget has grown by about 34, 35 percent. And so you have government on average growing over twice the rate of the family budget, and inflation over that same period has been just a little over 2 percent. So if you wanted to keep the same government that you had, you would have grown it at 2 percent a year; and, instead, it is being grown at closer to 6 to 7 percent.

Ultimately, American families will not be able to pay this bill. More and more taxes are being imposed on them. And so every time one of our Democrat colleagues comes to the floor to suggest another great new government program to be added to the other 10,000 programs, Federal programs that are already on the books, it puts pressure on the family budget. And, again, it is not fair to their dreams, their hopes, their aspirations for their families, on top of this $3,000 a year increase to the average family of four that will be phased in over 5 years in their budget. They have gone through and offered to increase taxes at least half a dozen times on American families and the American economy.

We passed H.R. 6, $7.7 billion over 10 years; H.R. 976, $1.3 billion over 10 years; H.R. 1562, $241 million over the next 10 years; H.R. 2419, $12.1 billion, and the list goes on and on and on.

Again, as Americans are striving to pay for their health care costs, their transportation costs, their education costs, why should they be giving more money to Washington, D.C.? And at this time when they are trying to make ends meet on top of the tax increase in their budget, on top of at least seven or eight tax increases propose this year, you have the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), propose what has now become known in the press as the mother of all tax increases.

He will put a huge, almost 30 percent tax on millions of small businesses all across this Nation. Ninety percent of all Americans will pay more taxes under this bill. It will bring in an estimated $3 trillion taken away from American families and American small businesses. This threatens millions of jobs.

If we truly care about the American family and the economic perils and struggles that they face, then we want to make sure, number one, they keep the job that they already have instead of sending jobs overseas through excess taxation, regulation and litigation. And again, all of this spending ultimately has to be paid for, and it has to be paid for by a larger tax burden on

the American family and a job-killing tax burden on American small business.

So here we are when most American families are trying to put together a budget so they can participate and make sure that all of the children and grandchildren are taken care of at Christmas, and here we have a Democrat majority in Congress who are trying to pass an even larger budget, the largest budget in the history of the Federal Government, taking more money away from their Christmases, taking away the goodies in their stockings to feed this ever-increasing, tax-and-spend beast that they have created.

Again, I am unfamiliar with any society in history that somehow has taxed its way into prosperity, and that's what all this spending is resulting in now. So I am happy to join the gentleman from New Jersey to come to the floor now and make sure that the American people are seeing what is happening.

There is a process, and process ultimately leads to policy. We had a process in place that was supposed to pass separate spending bills so Members of Congress could actually read the bills. Wouldn't that be a novel idea, that you actually have an opportunity to read the bill before you vote on it. And Democrats would absolutely come to the House floor and criticize and excoriate Republicans if they didn't pass these bills on time, and now they have passed one out of a dozen. So they are going to roll them all into this thing called an omnibus, and the only bus quality about it is it is a fiscal bus; it is going to flatten the American taxpayer.

So, soon we will be presented with a thousand-page bill that we have hours to read that will be filled with pork-laden special interest projects which this Democrat majority claimed they were going to clean up. But instead, they have made it worse with all of their special earmarks, be it the tribute to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee who takes $2 million of American family money to create a museum to himself; be it the gentleman from Pennsylvania who set up what the Wall Street Journal has referred to as Murtha, Inc., where now companies go out and hire lobbyists, and if they locate in his district, all of a sudden earmarks appear. There is no transparency there. There is no accountability there. But all of this is going to get wrapped up into one great big omnibus bill.

So when many of us would like to be with our families, and many of us have our families back home in our districts, not in Washington, D.C., instead we are here doing what we have to do, and that is protect the American families out there from this tax-and-spend machine that threatens their education and housing dreams, threatens their health care dreams, to ensure that the Federal budget does not grow beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it.

Already the unfunded obligations of the Federal Government are in excess of $144,000 per individual, and yet the Democrats keep on spending along. There will be a day of reckoning. And so I am sure that the Democrats will come to this House floor and say we are only debating $22 billion in this omnibus spending bill.

Number one, I hope I am never in Washington so long that I have concluded that $22 billion is not a lot of money. $22 billion is more than we are spending on veterans health care in this Nation. It is a lot of money. And due to this artifice called baseline budgeting, that is going to grow in 5 years to be a $200 billion figure, imposing again thousands of dollars of taxes on the average American family when they are struggling to make ends meet.

And so this debate is really about two different roads. One road leads us to the largest tax increase in American history to be followed by an even larger tax increase in American history, one that threatens our children and grandchildren with a lower standard of living. And that is not my words. Those are the words of the comptroller general, the chief fiduciary officer of the Federal Government. He said right now the government we have, and I paraphrase, the government we have, if left on automatic pilot, no new spending programs, no new benefit increases, threatens the next generation with either, one, a doubling of their tax burden or, two, a Federal Government that consists of little more than Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And yet the Democrats won't reform these programs. They keep on taxing and they keep on spending.

I don't plan to be a party to that. There is another path. It is a path to fiscal responsibility. It is a path to make sure that the Federal budget does not grow beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it. That is why Republicans will come to this House floor to make sure that this omnibus doesn't run over the American taxpayer and to make sure that the American people can have greater freedom and opportunity than we have had before. But to do that, we have to put America on the path of fiscal responsibility and to live within a budget.

Don't let the Federal budget grow beyond the family's budget to pay for it. You cannot grow government at 6 and 7 and 8 percent a year and have the family budget grow at 3 percent a year. You can't sit here and tax American families at 3 and 4 and $5,000 more per year and then somehow claim that you have the Nation's priorities right. The priority of this Nation ought to be protecting the pocketbooks and security and freedoms of the American family.

So again, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. He is one of the stellar leaders in this body in fiscal responsibility. He is a man who is always committed to principle, a real workhorse in this institution, and I am honored to be on the House floor tonight.

Would the gentleman yield on that one point?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that really a 1- percent reduction in the requested increase? And so, for example, the Democrats may have suggested that some account grow by 6.7 percent, and this amendment said no, let's let it grow at 5.7 percent instead. So what we are calling a reduction, was that not really a reduction in the requested increase? Because at the end of the day, the Federal budget was still going to grow.

Would the gentleman yield on that point?

It is interesting. Rarely do you come to the House floor that somebody says, don't you have compassion? Don't you want to take money away from this American family and hand it over to this program over here?

And, again, I want our society to spend more money on education. I want them to spend more money on health care. I want them to spend more money on housing. I'm just not indifferent as to who does the spending. I want American families to do the spending. They want the Federal Government bureaucrats to do the spending after taking a huge hair cut for all the waste and fraud and abuse and duplication that takes place in the Nation's Capitol.

What I hear from my constituents, and I have the great honor of representing the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, which is Dallas and east Texas, and I hear from people like the Kirkendahls in Garland who wrote me: ``Congressman, at this point, between taxes and utilities we are at the breaking point of being able to keep a home. If we have an increase of over $2,000 per year in taxes, it may well be the straw that broke the camel's back.''

Well, where is the Democratic compassion for the Kirkendahl family as they try to keep their home?

I heard from the Taylor family in Forney, Texas also in my district: ``Dear Congressman, I'm on the verge of foreclosure after 15 years in my house. I won't be able to make it if taxes continue to rise.''

Well, where is this Democrat compassion for the Taylor family in Forney? I'm having trouble seeing it.

And so they forget about the people who actually do the work and pay the taxes, because it's their dreams once again. And so compassion, I believe that compassion ultimately shouldn't be measured by the size of a government check. It ought to be measured by the size of a paycheck. And all this Democrat spending is fueling more taxes, which will kill the jobs, kill jobs in this American economy. We start replacing paychecks with welfare checks; there's no compassion in that.

And I'll yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding once again. And it is sometimes difficult for people to understand billions and trillions of dollars. But they certainly understand hundreds and thousands of dollars coming out of their paycheck. And so to put this in some kind of context, this largest single tax increase in history that was part of the Democrat budget resolution earlier this year, that equates to roughly $3,000 per year per family of four tax increase, $3,000. So I hope people all across America who are listening to this debate will listen very closely and write their Members of Congress, call their Members of Congress, e-mail their Members of Congress.

Do you really want that $3,000-per-year tax increase on your family? Can you afford that, to send more money to Washington, D.C. when they're already spending an average of $23,000 per family of four, the highest level since World War II?

I'd be happy to yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for yielding once again. And although I haven't kept a running tally, to the best of my knowledge, I'm unacquainted with any Federal program that has met its demise in this Congress. Instead, when you think about the 10,000 Federal programs that are already on the books, this Democrat majority is adding to them, with the exception of one agency in the Department of Labor that's supposed to provide accountability to labor union bosses to make sure that they don't misuse labor union funds. That was the only single agency that I'm aware of that has received a budget decrease of roughly 10,000 Federal programs, one to ensure the integrity of labor union funds to be protected from misuse and fraudulent use and criminal use by labor union bosses.

And so, again, the tax and spend machine goes on. And American families have to decide for themselves as they watch this debate during the holiday season what's going to be best for their families. Do they want to have a tax

increase in the neighborhood of $3,000 per family of four? Is that going to help them? Will sending that money to Washington help them with their fuel bills? Will sending that money to Washington better help them send their children to college? Will sending that money to Washington help them meet their mortgage payments, particularly if they have an adjustable rate mortgage and it resets?

We're talking about the here and now, but we also have to look at the future. As the gentleman was talking about, we hear the word ``compassion'' thrown on this floor frequently. People will quote scripture and talk about what have you done for the least of these. I always thought the least of these were those who do not vote and those who have yet to be born. They're the ones who tend to get ignored in this process.

So why now with all of this spending that the Democrat majority is doing, where is it leading us? Well, let me quote from the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke: Without early and meaningful action to address the growth of the Federal budget, particularly entitlement spending, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened with future generations bearing much of the cost. Again, where is the compassion there?

Let me quote from the Brookings Institution, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought: The Nation's fiscal situation is out of control and could do serious damage to the economy in coming decades, sapping our national strength, making it more difficult to respond to unforeseen contingencies and passing on an unfair burden to future generations. Again, the least of these.

The General Accountability Office: The rising costs of government are a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.

And these aren't my words. These aren't the words of the Republican minority. I mean, this is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the head of the General Accountability Office, the liberal Brookings Institution.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey in talking about how terrible these tax increases are going to be on the American family, but it will be not only in direct terms to having a lesser paycheck, it also threatens the very existence of their paycheck.

I toured a small business in my district about a year ago called Jacksonville Industries. They're kind of an aluminum dye cast manufacturer, and before we had passed tax relief, they were on the verge of having to lay off two people.

And when I look at what's happening in capital gains and dividends, which really help fuels job creation, you can't have capitalism without capital.

Because of the tax relief the Republican Congress has passed, they were able to go out and buy some new machinery. I don't recall what it's called, and I don't exactly know what it does, but it was big and it was noisy, and most importantly, it made them more competitive. And because they were more competitive, and I want to say they had about 20 workers, instead of laying off two workers, they hired two new workers, all because of tax relief. Tax relief allowed them to invest in the American free enterprise system.

And so instead of having four people who could have been on unemployment and four people who could have been on welfare and four people who could have been on food stamps, instead, you had four people who had jobs, who had a future, who put a roof over their head, who put groceries on the table because of a paycheck, and yet the Democrat tax increases threaten that very paycheck.

Now, they offer compassion. Oh, we have this welfare check over here. We're going to increase the government budget over here. But you cannot increase the Federal budget without decreasing the family budget, and that's what this debate is going to be about this week.

Which path do you want to be on? Do you want to be on the path of increasing the Federal budget, threatening future generations with bankruptcy, with this fiscal cancer that's going to grow throughout our Nation, or do you want to be on the path where the Federal budget doesn't grow beyond the family budget ability to pay for it, a budget that doesn't include tax increases at a time when American families are struggling to pay their health care bills, their heating bills, their housing bills?

That's what it really is. It's a debate about two different paths. Now, they may look small to Democrats. They claim $22 billion isn't a lot of money. Maybe $22 billion today, and that is a lot of money, but that's quickly going to grow to $200 billion, and within a generation that's going to cause a doubling of taxes on the next generation. And children and grandchildren of America, if we don't stop this and stop it this week, will have a lower standard of living, less freedom and less opportunity, and that's why it so's critical that we win this debate this week.

Would you be happy to tell the citizens of New Jersey who are fleeing the high taxes that they can come to the Lone Star State where we have low taxes and great economic growth? We'd be happy to have them.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I must admit I feel most inadequate to the task to find words to somehow adequately eulogize this great man, this colleague, this friend of ours whom we called Henry Hyde.

I guess the most important thing I can say about him in the time that I have served in Congress, I can think of no greater champion of human life and human freedom than Henry Hyde.

When I think about the Hyde amendment and what that means to human life, that accomplishment alone is worthy of an entire Congress, and it is really the work of one United States Congressman.

Tens of thousands live today because of Henry Hyde. There can be no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker. And often in debate we hear people come to the floor and talk about we need to pass this legislation or that legislation because we need to do it for the least of these. He, more than any other, understood in the depths of his heart that the least of these are the unborn. And because of that, he was a champion. And we do properly eulogize him tonight.

You know, in debate, Mr. Speaker, it can get quite contentious. One wonders sometimes why a civil society cannot have a civil Congress. But I have no doubt that although many occasionally may have thought him wrong headed, no one in this institution ever thought he was wrong hearted because he always acted out of the purest of motives.

And as I hearken back to a comment that the gentleman from Illinois made before me, it is interesting to note that Henry Hyde was one of the few Members of Congress that each of us would come to this floor and actually have a greater interest in listening to him than listening to ourselves. Very few Members of this body, Mr. Speaker, command that kind of attention. But when Henry Hyde spoke, people wanted to listen because he brought the force of his intellect, he brought his humor, he brought his grace, his kindness, he brought his civility, and he brought his humility to this floor. And because of it, Mr. Speaker, I know that I am a better person and I believe that every other Member of this institution is also better for having known Henry Hyde and being able to listen to him.

We regret his loss, but we thank his family. And I am well acquainted with his son Bob, who is a resident of Dallas, as I am, and I just want to thank them for loaning him to this great institution and this great country. And, again, I know I am a better Member of Congress and a better human being because I had an opportunity to meet Henry Hyde. And I know that as he meets his Creator, there is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that he has heard those words, ``Well done, good and faithful servant.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

I am very disappointed that one of the most substantial portions of the bill will not be able to be debated today as it was in committee. That has to do with the entirety of the issue of what is known as ``assignee liability.'' It's a very important part of the provision. It deserves to be fully aired on the floor of the House. I am disappointed that the Rules Committee did not find this particular amendment in order.

Mr. Speaker, I submitted two amendments to the Rules Committee, one of which I have been led to believe the chairman of the full committee is going to accept. So it's kind of interesting, the one of the more controversial nature, and actually one that is more substantive, unfortunately, was not found in order.

Mr. Speaker, we know how important it is that we have a vibrant secondary market to add liquidity to that market so that people can realize their dream, the American Dream of owning their own home. Nobody denies that we face great challenges in our subprime market, and I don't think anybody denies that it has the potential to have a great disruption in our economy. But many of us question whether this bill is going to make matters worse or make it better. I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is going to make matters worse.

And one of the matters in the bill that is going to make matters worse is assignee liability. People who choose to invest by having a piece of a group of mortgages and they buy that on what is known as the secondary market, all of a sudden they are going to have legal liability for what somebody else may or may not have done.

So investors not just all over America, Mr. Speaker, but all over the world are going to have options that they look at on where they want to invest their hard-earned money, and many of them are going to say all of a sudden there is all this murky uncertainty, Do I really want to invest in the secondary mortgage market when all of a sudden somebody could turn around and sue me? I didn't originate the mortgage. I don't know the homeowner. I don't even know the person who signed the loan documents. I'm just trying to have an investment for my family, and all of a sudden I can be held liable. Maybe I'll go invest in something else.

At a time when we need even more liquidity in the market this provision will lead to less liquidity.

And all of a sudden we have this murky legal standard. All of a sudden we have got loan originators having to identify loan products that are ``appropriate.'' Well, if you want to talk about a standard that's in the eye of the beholder, it's ``appropriate.'' We talk about ``net tangible benefit.'' Well, who is supposed to determine that? How is that going to be discerned? Loans with ``predatory characteristics,'' well, one person's predatory characteristics may be another person's homeownership opportunity.

We still have to remember, Mr. Speaker, that for all the subprime loans that have gone bad, millions and millions of Americans have had an opportunity to own their first home because of the subprime market. And

here we are again moving in the exact opposite direction. And I think that this assignee liability, this could prove to be a trial attorney's dream and a homeowner's nightmare. And I am very disappointed a major portion of this bill that was debated in committee will not be debated on the full floor.

For this reason, I would certainly oppose this rule and oppose the underlying bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to what I conclude to be a bad bill for homeowners in America. I do want to acknowledge, though, the efforts of the ranking member to take a bad bill and turn it into a less bad bill. There is no doubt that this Nation faces a great challenge in the subprime market, no doubt about it at all. I am convinced, though, that this piece of legislation is going to make it worse, make the situation worse, and not make it better.

The first thing we need to remember as legislators is first do no harm. What should Congress do to make sure this doesn't happen again? Clearly, there has to be enforcement. There's no doubt that fraud has taken place within the subprime market. But we also need effective disclosure so that consumers know the types of transactions in which they are entering. We need greater financial literacy. I agree, yes, that there must be mortgage broker registration. But what Congress should not do is essentially outlaw the American Dream for many struggling families who may be of low income, who may have checkered credit pasts. By bootstrapping more, more mortgage transactions into the HOEPA standard, that is what this bill does.

Also, by having assignee liability with all these amorphous legal doctrines and phrases that no one understands, you will drive investment away from the secondary market at exactly the time when it is needed more. As the market has perhaps even overcorrected, we need more liquidity. This bill takes us to less liquidity.

I heard from one of my constituents recently from Forney, Texas, a lady by the name of Connie Taylor. She wrote me and said: ``If it hadn't been for subprime lending, I wouldn't have my house now. My credit was destroyed because of divorce. I worked hard for 5 years to clean up that credit.''

Mr. Chairman, we shouldn't take away homeowner opportunity from Ms. Taylor in Forney, Texas, and all the other millions of people who may have checkered credit pasts. Because of that, I urge that we defeat this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to be concerned about the increased liability exposure that is being introduced into the market creating even greater uncertainty at a time that many of us believe that we need even more liquidity in the market as we're looking at facing all of these subprime adjustable resets.

So, again, I find it somewhat odd that when we look at the Federal Reserve that appears to be pushing on the accelerator, this committee wants to push further on the brake.

And anytime you add increased liability upon a standard that many of us believe to be highly subjective, dealing with such terms as ``appropriate,'' ``net tangible benefit,'' ``predatory characteristics,'' you are going to chase more people out of the marketplace. Fewer people are going to want to originate these mortgages. You are deciding de facto with this amendment that there is some portion of Americans who are going to be denied their homeownership opportunities. Now, I can't tell you what their names are. I don't know exactly who they are. But there are just millions and millions of Americans who are just barely going to qualify to be able to get into their own home or keep their own home. And I hear from them every single day.

I've heard from the Kirkland family in Athens, Texas, in the Fifth Congressional District that I have the honor of representing. They wrote to me: ``Dear Congressman, I think Congress should not ban subprime loans. I think it lets people buy a home, improve their life, and own a piece of the dream.''

Now, this bill doesn't outlaw all subprime loans. The amendment doesn't outlaw all subprime loans. But there is a universe of subprime loans that de facto are going to be outlawed by the increased liability exposure in this amendment, and people like the Kirkland family will no longer own their home, and that is wrong.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I too share great concern about this amendment. I've had concern about assignee liability in this legislation to begin with. But I at least recognized the benefit of having a so-called safe harbor provision.

As I looked at the safe harbor, I was somewhat fearful that there were still some dangerous reefs that were lurking beneath the waves. I'm fearful if this amendment is passed not only will those dangerous reefs be present, but any harbor will have disappeared as well.

Again, we need to step back and decide, on this entire issue of assignee liability, when we look at all the resets that are due to happen in the market, will this legislation add liquidity to the market? Will it subtract liquidity from the market?

For people who are trying to keep their homes, over and above whatever the market is providing, are the actions of us in this body going to exacerbate the situation and dry up even more liquidity?

I think this is a major amendment, that whatever balance was struck in this area completely removes that balance. And I think it will provide for an explosion of liability exposure that could be very, very damaging to the secondary market.

I've heard the distinguished chairman of the committee on a couple of occasions refer to Chairman Bernanke's comments on the subject. And I'm not sure I've seen where he's actually advocated assignee liability, although he has acknowledged that, under certain circumstances, in a very limited situation, it might be helpful.

But I also saw in his testimony before our committee, if I can quote from the chairman: ``We've seen from different States different experiences and there have been examples where assignee liability provisions have driven lenders out of the State.''

Let's not drive them out of the Nation. Let's reject this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, there are clearly many reasons why home loans go delinquent. The number one reason, we all know, is the loss of a job, or other bad luck like long-term illness or disability. Clearly a phenomenon that has been discussed at quite some length in committee and on the floor, predatory lending has played a significant role as well. And many of us have urged very robust antifraud provisions and increased resources for enforcement.

But I think we also shouldn't underestimate the role of another phenomenon in home loans becoming delinquent, and I call that predatory borrowing. People who knowingly take advantage of the system, who game the system, who give false information in their disclosures and their verifications. And making the risk-based analyses that lenders use to determine how much money a person should be responsibly lent makes that impossible. And there are borrowers, there are borrowers all across America who have knowingly exaggerated their incomes. They represented that they used a home for their primary residence, and they didn't. They acted as straw buyers in property-flipping schemes and used other scams to qualify for loans that otherwise they would not have qualified for and loans that they cannot pay back, and to a great extent many other people are now suffering.

And the result of this predatory borrowing is predictable: higher foreclosure rates; reduced availability of credit in the market; fewer homeownership opportunities for those low-income people, those people who may have a checkered credit past but who are honest, who are responsible, and who just need a second chance.

So, Madam Chairman, I think this is a very, very modest amendment today that would simply remove the civil liability of a lender and cancel the right of rescission for a borrower in instances where the borrower knowingly lied on their mortgage loan application.

Borrowers who have done this, who have misled lenders into giving them these loans, should not be able to turn around and then sue the lender and be able to rescind those loans to compound their deception with some kind of financial advantage. I hope that most, if not all, of us would hopefully conclude that that is an absurd and perverse result. One should not profit from their dishonesty.

I certainly appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me on this amendment. I have been led to believe that he supports it. And although I respect the views of everybody in this committee, I have clearly said that I do not believe this bill should pass. But if it does pass, if it does pass, there does need to be some minimal acknowledgment of the role of personal responsibility and of predatory borrowing. And I urge the adoption of the amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, I would like to claim the time in opposition although I am uncertain at this point whether I am actually opposed to the gentleman's second degree amendment.

Madam Chairman, although it has been many years, I had a short and unillustrious career as an attorney; so I'm somewhat familiar with the term ``knowingly'' as a legal term of art. I am less familiar with the phrase ``with actual knowledge.'' Hearing the gentleman from North Carolina's explanation, I think we are trying to get at the very same situation. So the only thing that made me somewhat nervous is I am unacquainted with the phrase as a legal term of art. I do believe that the gentleman and myself are trying to achieve the same thing. Perhaps it's innocuous.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I certainly take the distinguished chairman at his word, and I take the gentleman from North Carolina at his word, and I certainly withdraw any objection that I might have to the second-degree amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is very cleverly entitled the Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007. But there's no tax relief here; no tax relief at all. All they do is for one year postpone a huge automatic tax increase on some people and they combine that with a $76 billion tax increase on others. So maybe the ``temporary'' is accurate, the ``tax relief'' is not. All they are doing is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic tax ship. That is what this bill is all about. AMT ought to stand for ``automatic major taxation.''

When I hear my Democratic friends decry it, they have had opportunity to get rid of this bill in the past, and perhaps there are some freshmen here, if they haven't had an opportunity, I would invite them to cosponsor the Taxpayer Choice Act, which would permanently repeal this huge automatic tax increase.

But, wait, our Democrat friends say, well, you have got to have something that is revenue-neutral. Well, guess what? Fully repealing the AMT is revenue-neutral. It is revenue-neutral to the taxpayer, the one who counts; not revenue-neutral to the Federal Government, but revenue-neutral to the hardworking taxpayer, the teacher, the fireman, the person who's trying to send their kid to college, pay for their mortgage payment. And you take that away. That is wrong. Vote this bill down.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I certainly appreciate the gentleman from Arizona's leadership here. I did not realize until I came to the floor that somehow a 9 iron was a vital part of our national defense apparatus. I mean, this is clearly an outrage. The new majority who claim that they were going to clean up the earmark process and bring us unparalleled transparency and accountability have done neither, and their actions speak so much louder than their words. And so here we have air-dropped earmarks that were neither voted on by the House, by the Senate, appearing in the this bill in the dead of night with no accountability, no ability of a Member to come to the floor and challenge. It appears to be another callous effort to wrap pork in the American flag, to take our defense money meant for our war fighters and to hide pork in it. It is an outrage, and the majority ought to admit they have made no serious effort, no serious commitment whatsoever to bring accountability and transparency to the earmark process.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement. I regret that heretofore the 110th Congress has been a decisively antitrade Congress, and that is why I want to thank Majority Leader Hoyer and Chairman Rangel for at least bringing this free trade agreement to the floor for a vote. It represents a modest step in the right direction.

One thing is very clear tonight when you look at the facts, and that is if a Member will not support the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement, they will support no trade agreement. And as long as I have been a Member of Congress, I guess I never cease to be amazed, and I certainly have not been amazed that trade, still for some reason, seems to be controversial.

We have over 200 years of history teaching us that free trade delivers a greater choice of goods and services to our American consumers, and those greater choices mean more competition. More competition has helped lower prices, and this allows American families to buy more using less of their hard-earned paychecks. It means more money to make a down payment on a home. It means more money to send a child to college. It means more money to help a parent with long-term care.

According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, increased trade since World War II has helped boost U.S. annual incomes by over $10,000 per household; yet the forces of protectionism want to take that away from the hard-working American family. He goes on further to say that eliminating all remaining trade barriers could raise U.S. incomes anywhere from $4,000 to $12,000 a year. Another opportunity for hard- working American families being denied by the forces of protectionism.

Let's specifically look at the trade agreement before us. In 2006, 98 percent of Peru's exports to the U.S. came into our markets duty free. Let me repeat that just in case somebody didn't hear; 98 percent of Peru's exports to the U.S. came into our markets duty free. But U.S. exports to Peru still face high tariffs.

Under the free trade agreement before us, 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods will now enter Peru tariff free immediately, with the remaining tariffs to be phased out over the next 10 years.

I take particular note, representing the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, that this agreement is particularly good for American agriculture, whose success is heavily dependent upon the export market. Currently, 99 percent of Peruvian agricultural exports enter the U.S. duty free, again, 99 percent, while U.S. agricultural exports currently face an average tariff in excess of 16 percent.

Under this trade agreement, two-thirds of American agricultural exports will immediately enter Peru duty free, including beef, cotton, wheat and soybeans. And beef is particularly important to many of my constituents in the 5th Congressional District of Texas.

I simply don't understand the argument that claims that this trade agreement is somehow unfair. What's unfair is the status quo. That's what is unfair. The U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement turns what is currently a one-way trade street into a two-way street. And let's remember again, 98 percent of their goods already come to our country duty-free.

Mr. Speaker, competition works. Trade works. We have over 200 years of history to prove it. But beyond all of the obvious economic benefits of free trade, we must recognize that fundamentally this is an issue of personal freedom. Nations don't trade with nations, people trade with people. And with the exception of national security considerations, every American ought to have the right to determine the origin of the goods and services they want to purchase, and that includes a sweater made in Peru. Who in this Chamber is going to go tell a hardworking schoolteacher in Mesquite, Texas: No, you can't buy that $15 sweater from Peru, you have to buy that $31 sweater that is made in Oklahoma. That is the sweater you have to buy. And if you can't afford it, I'm sorry, but your little child is just going to have to do without that sweater.

Mr. Speaker, maybe this institution has the power to do that, but does it have the right? I don't think so, Mr. Speaker. This is the land of the free. Countless generations have fought and sacrificed for the blessings of liberty, and that includes the liberty of trade. To be anti-trade is to be anti-freedom. It's that simple.

Mr. Speaker, we have 200 years of history to show that America has benefited from free trade. We need to support this trade agreement.

Mr. Speaker, clearly, anyone who loses their job in America due to factors beyond their control deserve help. That's why we have the unemployment insurance program in the first place.

TAA, obviously, goes beyond that and says, if you lose your job because of foreign trade, then you're going to get extra benefits.

I would be even more enthusiastic about the program if I thought there was any agenda to promote trade by the Democrat majority. I see none. They have allowed the fast track to elapse. I have yet to see any trade agreement come to this floor. And I can say in Texas, the State that I hail from, one out of seven jobs is tied to trade. Trade is important. But I see no pro trade agenda here. What I do see is a massive expansion of another government program with a massive tax increase to go along with it.

Now, we know that roughly 3 percent of Americans will have their jobs displaced by trade. We know that trade will create far more jobs.

But again, I might be more enthusiastic about this legislation if I saw the Democrat majority step up to do something about those who lose their jobs due to frivolous litigation. And yet they've excelled at preventing any kind of tort reform in this economy whatsoever.

I might be more enthusiastic about this package if I saw the Democrat majority do anything to address those who lose their jobs due to excess taxation, particularly on small businesses, the job engine of America.

And yet we know that the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee just announced ``the mother of all tax hikes.'' Millions and millions of small businessmen all across America could see their taxes increase 25 percent. How many Americans are going to lose their job? Where's the sympathy for those people? Where is their particular special carve-out in the unemployment insurance program? I don't see it.

And yet again another current theme we see in all the Democratic legislation is let's somehow loosen up the standards of who can qualify here. Whether it be for housing benefits and agriculture appropriations, whether it be in SCHIP, what we see is language to make it easier for illegal immigrants to access these benefits. We see it each and every time that the bill comes to the floor. We see it yet again in this legislation. Clearly, the American people reject this. That's why this particular program needs to be rejected.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I especially thank him for his leadership in this area to try to make health care more affordable, more portable, high quality, and accessible for all of the children in America. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) has been a great leader in this effort. I also appreciate his leadership in the conservative caucus in Congress, the Republican Study Committee, and all he has meant to that group in advancing the cause of freedom and free markets in America.

People need to listen closely to this debate. The debate is not about whether or not we are going to have an SCHIP program, a State Children's Health Insurance Program. It is really a tale of two SCHIPs, if you will. People need to know, number one, when they hear America needs to provide health insurance for poor children, well, I am not sure that anybody disagrees with that in America. That is why we have something called the Medicaid program, for the poor in America. So that is a nonissue. That is totally a nonissue.

What we are talking about is health care for the working poor, those up to 200 percent of the poverty level, and the SCHIP program was actually started 10 years ago by a Republican Congress to provide health insurance benefits to, number one, the uninsured; number two, low income; number three, American; and, number four, children. Uninsured, low-income American children. That's what the program was supposed to do. And I don't believe there is one Member of this body on either side of the aisle who wouldn't vote to reauthorize this program today for uninsured, low-income American children. Even though I am a fiscal conservative, I would vote to appropriate more money to ensure that eligible children can be a part of this program.

But, unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the aisle have discovered some new poll or focus group results that say we have this great bumper sticker slogan, and maybe we can somehow put people in a box, maybe we can fool the American people as to what this is all about.

Well, Mr. Speaker, occasionally it is helpful to have the facts. Again, this is a program that was designed for people up to 200 percent of the poverty level, presently $40,000. Yet loopholes and exemptions allow families up to $83,000. I am not sure anybody is going to call that the working poor in America. It is not the working poor in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. But loopholes and exemptions allow people making up to $83,000 to get these benefits. What the Democrats are doing, they are doing nothing about the loopholes and exemptions; and they are expressly taking the program to 300 percent of the poverty level when there are still eligible children that haven't been enrolled.

So a program designed for the working poor, the Democrats are trying to transform to people making $83,000. And that is not right. It is not right at all.

Second of all, this was a program designed for children. It is called the State Children's Health Insurance Program. And yet we have 13 States that are insuring adults while 800,000 eligible kids aren't enrolled. What does the Democrat plan do? Well, bring on more adults. We have three States covering more adults than children already. So we have precious resources of our Nation instead going to adults, and the Democrats say let's insure more adults. Republicans say let's put the children first. Let's put the children first.

This was a program that was also designed for American children. American children. Now if anybody walks into any emergency room in any hospital in America and they have an emergency, I want them to be treated. We are all God's children. But to have illegal immigrants use emergency rooms and be able to access our health care system for their everyday health care when they are in this Nation illegally, while we still have 800,000 eligible children not enrolled, that is just a tragedy. That is a travesty. That is crazy.

Yet under the Democrat plan, what they do is they claim this isn't for illegal immigrants. Then I ask them why did they take away the proof of citizenship requirements? I mean, your words say something, but your actions are even louder than your words. When you take the proof of citizenship requirement out of the bill, you are de facto allowing more illegal immigrants to access this program.

That's correct. The American people shouldn't be fooled. Those at the poverty level in our Nation are covered by Medicaid.

It was designed for the working poor up to 200 percent of the poverty level.

Under the Democrat bill, they expressly take it from 200 percent to 300 percent. Yet, you have to read the fine print because even today there are so many exemptions and so many loopholes that there are States that are insuring people up to $82,000 income for a family of four, and they do nothing to bring this back to the working poor.

If the gentleman would yield, I have no doubt that 99 percent of this body, Democrat and Republican, today, this moment, this moment would vote to reauthorize a SCHIP program which provides health insurance benefits to the uninsured, to the working poor, to Americans, and finally to children. That's what the debate is about today. That is the main debate we are having today.

I thank the gentleman for his insight. And looking at all of the cigarette cartons in front of you, as somebody who used to serve on the board of directors in Dallas, Texas, of the American Cancer Society, I know how seriously devastating the habit of smoking can be to families. I have seen a lot of cancer in the families of friends, something I take very, very seriously.

And to think that now we are going to have a health insurance program ostensibly counting on 22 million more Americans to take up smoking is frankly beyond insulting. It is beyond ludicrous. For the life of me I cannot fathom why any type of system would be created, and then as an irony, and I make this point as an aside, the tax would go mainly to those who are making less than 200 percent of poverty level, the same people that ostensibly this program is due to help. Fifty-four percent of all smokers are in families making less than $42,000 a year.

Essentially, under the Democrat plan, you will be taxing people making less than $42,000 a year in order to give subsidies to those making up to $83,000.

Well, 54 percent of the smokers are in families making less than $42,000 a year. That is 200 percent of the poverty level in 2007. So under the Democrat plan, you would tax people making less than 200 percent of poverty in order to extend subsidies to families making up to $83,000 a year.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I certainly hope that the President would veto the bill.

And again, our Democrat colleagues know that last month, last week, last night, today, tomorrow, this body stands ready to reauthorize the SCHIP program, as long as it's really going to help the uninsured, as long as it's going to help the working poor, as long as it's going to help children, and as long as those children are American children.

So, a debate is taking place about that, but I'd like to harken back to another point that the gentleman made. As important as this debate is, we need to keep the focus on ultimately how are we going to get affordable health care, accessible health care, health care of high quality to all families across America.

And in many respects, this is not just an economic debate. In many respects, we're not debating how much money we're going to spend on children's health care in America, but we are debating who's going to do the spending.

So, under the Democrat plan, the Congressional Budget Office says that for all intents and purposes over 2 million children will be taken off their chosen health insurance plan and shoved into the government health insurance plan. And you might have seen in the newspaper ``The Politico'' that this was really Senator Hillary Clinton's plan from the first, that if she couldn't pass her Canadian-style, socialized health care system in one big bite, that she would do it in little bites.

So there's memos dating back, and I have the document right here, the document right here that's referred to in the article. And if I could quote from the October 2 issue of ``The Politico,'' ``Back in 1993, according to an internal White House staff memo, then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's staff saw Federal coverage of children as a precursor to universal coverage.

``In a section of the memo titled `Kids First,' Clinton's staff laid out backup plans in the event the universal coverage idea failed.''

And now we're seeing it. That failed, and so this is really the first step in taking us down that road in that Canadian-style, socialized health care system where ultimately, ultimately mothers in America won't be waiting hours to see a doctor to help their sick children. They will be waiting days. They may be waiting weeks, and it won't be the doctor of their choice. It will be the doctor of some government bureaucrat's choice, and I don't plan to stand idly by and allow that to happen to my children, much less the children in the Fifth District of Texas, much less the children in America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of his point of order.

I see that the distinguished Speaker of the House is on the floor, was on the floor; and although I don't have the quote in front of me, I know, as she took the gavel to become Speaker of the House, that she said that this would be something along the lines of the fairest and most democratically run House in the history of our country. I'm trying to see where the fairness, I'm trying to see where the democracy comes in, where most of us, most of us didn't even know of the existence of this almost-300-page bill until we arrived this morning. And so I'm having a little trouble seeing exactly where we're having fairness and democracy.

Specifically, Mr. Speaker, I think Speaker Pelosi said bills should generally come to the floor under procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.

Members should have at least 24 hours to examine the bill. That is certainly not true for this Member. I don't think it's true for the vast majority of Members here.

So the Speaker may say one thing, and I respect her words, but the actions are speaking far more loudly than the words are.

And I would think, with the great human tragedy that is taking place in California unfolding upon the television screens of almost everyone in America, I would think that if any Speaker would be sensitive to that human tragedy it would be this Speaker since she hails from the State of California.

Yet we have countless Members who need to return home to be about the business of their constituents, and they're not here. They're not present for a very, very important vote and a vote that could have obviously taken place months ago, a vote that could have taken place weeks ago, and a vote that can take place early next week when these people will return.

And yet, I fear, I'm not questioning the motives or the heart of any one Member, but the actions are such that people could be led to believe that this is simply a move to manipulate the outcome of a vote. And I'm not sure that's the appearance that we want to give the American people.

And, again, Republicans, Members on this side of the aisle, have stood ready for weeks and for months to reauthorize an SCHIP program. The vast majority will vote to support funding for every eligible child. But a program that was designed and passed by a Republican House to ensure health insurance benefits for uninsured low-income American children, that's been hijacked.

And again, yet again, the Democrat Congress will try to transform that program into something else; instead to give additional benefits to adults while we still have children that are not served, to give benefits to illegal immigrants while we still have Americans unserved, to give benefits to the uninsured while we have those who are insured and, finally, to give benefits to higher-income Americans before we serve lower-income Americans. That is not right. This is not fair. This is not democratic. It's not what the Speaker committed to. And this point of order should be sustained.

Madam Speaker, we're not having a debate today on whether or not to reauthorize SCHIP. What we're really having a debate about is a tale of two SCHIPs, because it was 10 years ago that Republicans created SCHIP to provide health insurance benefits to uninsured low-income American children. And every Republican stands ready today to reauthorize that program and fund that program.

But yet, again, Democrats are coming with their tale of SCHIP, an SCHIP that instead is transforming this program to give additional benefits to adults before children, illegal immigrants before Americans, the insured before the uninsured, and, finally, the higher- income before lower-income.

These are the facts. The program was designed for those up to 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. The Democrats will increase it explicitly up to 300 percent; but with all their loopholes, even wealthier families will qualify, shortchanging low-income, uninsured American children to subsidize higher-income families.

Although the program was designed for children, 13 States insure adults. Three cover more adults than children. Democrats continue this practice, shortchanging low-income, uninsured American children in order to subsidize adults.

Although the program was designed for the Americans, the Democrats still strip out proof of citizenship measures. Democrats shortchange low-income, uninsured American children in order to subsidize illegal immigrants.

Although the program was designed to help the uninsured, CBO reports that the plan will, in effect, take 2 million off of private health insurance. Democrats shortchange low-income, uninsured American children in order to subsidize the already insured.

Let's put the children first and the politics second. Let's reject this bill, and let's reauthorize the real SCHIP program for our children.