Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Ten years ago, a Republican Congress created SCHIP to provide health insurance benefits to children who are uninsured, who are Americans, and whose parents represent the working poor. Yet today, once again, this Democrat Congress will try to do something else, and that is, give these same benefits to adults, to illegal immigrants, to those who are already insured, and to some of the wealthiest among us. These are the facts.

Although the program was designed for those up to 200 percent of poverty, we know today there are families of up to $82,000 of income receiving these benefits. Although the program was designed for children, we know almost 20 States now serve more adults than children. Although the program was designed for Americans, the Democrats strip out proof-of-citizenship measures. And although the program was designed for the uninsured, CBO said this will have the effect of taking 2 million off and putting them on a government insurance program. That is wrong.

Madam Speaker, today I, along with Representative Ralph Hall, would like to honor retired Dallas Police Officer, Corporal Rex Post. Corporal Post has been a fixture in the Dallas Police Department for over 24 years. Along with his normal duties as a patrol officer, Corporal Post was also a class advisor at the police academy and, when he was off duty, he was neighborhood crime watch patrol officer in the Lakewood neighborhood of Dallas.

Corporal Post's outstanding character can best be seen in his interactions with his community. Last year a senior citizen in Corporal Post's neighborhood was robbed of her money by a stranger who had come to her door. Corporal Post not only made sure the neighborhood was safe, but he and his family also brought her gifts to lift her spirits.

Recently, Corporal Post was diagnosed with stage-four colon cancer, which is a life-threatening cancer. In a show of support, his family, friends, and community have rallied around him as he battles the cancer. He says it is faith and the love of his wife Janet and sons Rex III, Austin, and Jonathan that keep him strong.

Madam Speaker, as Representatives of the city of Dallas, Texas and Paris, Texas, it is our distinct honor to commend retired Dallas Police Officer, Corporal Rex Post, for his outstanding service to his community and his courageous attitude and faith.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize the Greater Dallas Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on the distinction of being named the ``National Hispanic Chamber of the Year'' by the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

As a six-time recipient of this award, the Greater Dallas Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has received this honor more than any other Hispanic Chamber in the Nation.

For the past 68 years, the chamber has promoted programs such as the Business Assistance Centers, the Viva Dallas Hispanic Expo, BizFest, and the Stars on the Rise Award & Scholarship Banquet and their newly created External Affairs Department.

I offer my congratulations to the general membership, past and present, along with the current board of directors and staff for this recent achievement. As one of the congressional representatives of the members of this organization, it is my distinct pleasure to recognize them today in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise today in favor of greater housing opportunities for working families. I also rise today against adding yet another new Federal Government housing program on top of the roughly 80-plus programs that HUD already administers, and I hold the list in my hand. And since it is called ``HUD,'' ostensibly, these programs have something to do with either affordable housing or urban development.

Mr. Chairman, what we have in front of us again is another classic liberal let's take money away from working families, send it to Washington, and then somehow throw a little bit back at the people. Throw money at the problem.

I might add, as the chairman brought out as a beneficial feature of this, that the money goes to the States. The last I looked, all but four or five are running a surplus. Unfortunately, there is still a deficit in the Nation's Capital.

Now, I appreciate the chairman's commitment to affordable housing. I agree with him, there is a need for greater affordable housing. He is very sincere in his passion, and I respect that. But I note that he and other Members on that side of the aisle, unfortunately, constantly vote against affordable housing. The greatest determinant in how affordable your housing is is a paycheck. It's a paycheck, Mr. Chairman.

And almost all the Democrats voted against the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Act of 2003, which created 8.2 million jobs and helped lead to one of the largest rates of homeownership in the entire history of our Nation.

The next biggest determinant in the affordability of housing is once you have that paycheck, how much of it does Uncle Sam take? What is your tax bite? Yet we know, Mr. Chairman, in the budget passed by the Democrat majority, it contains the single largest tax increase in history. We are talking about an average of $3,000 per year on every American family when it is imposed.

And I hear from some of these families. I hear from people like the Stephens family in Mesquite who wrote to me: ``Dear Congressman, I wanted to let you know that I am a single mom that does not receive any type of child support, and an increase of this amount,'' talking about the taxes, ``would break me. I would be at risk of losing my home with this type of tax increase.'' So much for making housing more affordable.

Also, many of our friends on the other side of the aisle do not support increased opportunities for trade. They want to put tariffs on the Canadian lumber or the Mexican concrete which leads to homes being less affordable.

Finally, there is the regulatory burden. Mr. Chairman, they almost all supported Davis-Bacon provisions which increases the cost of public housing by artificially raising wages. At almost every juncture, the Democrat majority is voting against affordable housing, and those are the facts.

So it really comes down to a choice: Do we want more opportunity housing or do we want more government housing? We should support opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I would like to honor the members of the Seago Family as they gather in Seagoville, Texas, for their annual family reunion.

The Seago family has had a long history in the United States. The family's presence in the United States was first recorded in 1740, when John Seago married Margaret Birmingham at St. Luke's Parish in Queen Anne's County, Maryland. From there the family moved to North Carolina and their descendants spread all over the country.

The city of Seagoville, Texas was founded in the 1870's by a descendant of John and Margaret Seago, Tillman Kimsey ``T.K.'' Seago. He opened a general store in 1876, which attracted people to the area. A small community formed there and later that year it became known as Seago. In 1910, the United States Postal Service changed the name of the town to Seagoville.

Each year the Seago family hosts an annual family reunion, which they have done for over twenty years. This year the event is particularly important because the family will be gathering for the first time in the city that was named for one of the ancestors, Seagoville, Texas. Family members will travel from every corner of this great nation to attend. The festivities begin on Thursday, as members start arriving, and continue through Sunday, when they begin to make their journeys home. The reunion will coincide with SeagoFest, a festival held each year in Seagoville.

Madam Speaker, as the Representative of the City of Seagoville, it is my pleasure to recognize the Seago Family for over 250 years in America and the City of Seagoville for the many contributions it makes to the Fifth District, the State of Texas, and the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentlewoman's leadership at the Republican Study Committee, Congress's conservative caucus. It is a very timely issue that we are discussing today since, indeed, today is the first day of the fiscal year for the Federal Government. I think for many of us it is easy to sum up the actions of the new Democrat majority; that is, they spend too much and they tax too much. It bodes ill for the future of our Nation.

I think that it is important that we step back for a moment and figure out just how much of the people's money is being spent. And it is the people's money. It is not the government's money. It is the people's money. Today, right now, the last figure I saw is that the Federal Government is now spending $23,289 per family of four. This is just about the highest level that has been spent since World War II. Since I have been on the face of the planet, since I was born, the Federal budget has grown four to five times faster than the family budget. Ultimately, it is the family budget that has to pay for that. Since we have been in this 110th Congress with the new Democrat majority, rarely does a day go by that there is not a new opportunity to begin a new government program on top of the roughly 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 agencies that already exist. It kind of begs the question: How much government is enough? Because we know that as government grows, our freedoms and our opportunities contract. This is supposed to be the land of opportunity. This is supposed to be the land of freedom. Yet, all we do under this new Democrat majority rule is add program after program after program.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately all of this new spending imposes a new tax burden on the American people. In the budget that the Democrat majority passed, they included in it the single highest tax increase in American history. When fully implemented over a 5-year period, this budget will impose approximately $3,000 of additional taxes on the average American family. Now, every single day we come to this floor and we debate. And our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, want to talk about great investments in education, great investments in housing, and great investments in nutrition that they are going to use all this money for. Well, the challenge is, though, that every time that they increase some Federal budget, they are having to decrease some family budget to take it, and right now to the tune of $3,000 per American family.

Madam Speaker, I often hear from people in the Fifth District of Texas that I represent. I take great pride in representing these people who have entrusted me with their representation in Congress. I hear from people like the Flores family in Garland, Texas. I heard this lady say, ``I am a divorced mother with a child in college and a child in day care. An increase in taxes of this magnitude would wipe out hope of the first college graduate in the family. Don't let this happen. Let's hold the budget down.''

So, again, what we have here is the Democrats are taking money away

from a family budget in order to give it to some Federal budget. We are not always debating how much money we are going to spend on these items, but we are debating who is going to do the spending. Democrats in Washington want the bureaucrats in Washington to do the spending. Republicans want families to do the spending, the people who actually roll up their sleeves and work hard. They work hard trying to make ends meet. They have got decisions that they have to make around the kitchen table. And this is just one example. I hear from lots of my constituents.

I heard from the Lopez family in Mesquite, ``I would like to let you know that if our taxes are increased, this may mean that we could not continue to finance our child's education.'' I heard from the Winters family in Tennessee Colony, ``Stop the wasteful spending. I am retired and disabled. I am raising three grandchildren. Sometimes I can't afford my own medicine.'' And here we are, this new Democrat majority wants to take $3,000 a year away from these hardworking families to fuel their budget, not these families' budgets, but the Federal budget.

Now, ultimately, though, it is not just the tax increase that we see right over the horizon that is so challenging. It is what is going to happen to future generations. And rarely does a day occur that somebody doesn't come to the floor and talk about the need to help the least of these. Well, I often think that the least of these are those who cannot vote and those yet to be born. They don't seem to have a say-so in this great debate that we are having today.

For example, don't take my word for it, but all this spending that we have seen in Washington, here is the result. Don't take my word for it, but we, right now, are literally on the verge of doing something to the next generation that has never been done before: imposing such a draconian economic burden on them, something that has never been done before, that according to the Comptroller General, the chief fiduciary officer in America, we are on the verge of being the very first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living.

As the father of a 5-year-old and a 4-year-old, I will not sit idly by and let that happen.

Again, Mr. Speaker, don't take my word for it. Listen to the words of our Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who said: ``Without early and meaningful action to address Federal spending, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost.''

Listen to the GAO, the General Accountability Office. They talk about government spending, particularly entitlement spending as a ``fiscal cancer'' that threatens ``catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.''

Listen to the famous economist, Robert Samuelson, who writes frequently in newspapers all across the Nation. He says: ``The rising cost of government retirement programs could either increase taxes or budget deficits so much that they could reduce economic growth, and this could trigger an economic and political death spiral.''

The Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the General Accountability Office, the liberal Brookings Institution, the conservative Heritage Foundation, they all agree that spending is out of control: And what is going to happen is in the next generation either the Federal Government will consist of nothing to speak of but Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; or you're going to have to double taxes on our children and grandchildren just to balance the budget.

Now we see that hurricane coming over the horizon, we see it coming towards us, and yet this Democrat majority every single day adds to the problem. Just last week the Democrat majority took an insurance program, the National Flood Insurance Program, that is already going broke, was supposed to be self-sustaining through premiums, it's $20 billion in the red, and they add additional coverage to it that could expose the taxpayer to $17 trillion, $17 trillion of new liability in just one program alone.

So that is why it's so important that we start tackling the pennies and the nickels and the dimes, because we are talking about the priorities of American families, we are talking about their opportunities, we are talking about their ability to send their children to college, we are talking about their ability to save that nest egg, to launch their version of the American Dream and start their new business. We are talking about their ability to pay for their health insurance premiums.

Again, Mr. Speaker, every time you increase the Federal budget, you're having to decrease some family budget. I just often wonder when will the madness stop. When will we finally figure out that this isn't investment in the future, that is divesting our children's future by spending all of this money? The Federal budget should not be allowed to grow beyond the family budget's ability to pay for it.

That is why conservatives in the Republican Study Committee, the House Conservative Caucus, support a limitation on the growth of the Federal Government, to force Congress to decide amongst some of these priorities among these competing 10,000 Federal programs. Mr. Speaker, I defy any man, woman or child in America to tell me what they all do; 10,000 of them. It reminds me of what President Reagan once said: ``There is nothing as close to eternal life on Earth as a Federal program.'' They all cost money, and they take away from our children's future.

So that is why I am so happy that members of the Republican Study Committee have gathered here this evening to talk about the challenges of spending for the future generations and to get together to ensure that we let the American people know that we are working to hold the line on spending, to bring more accountability, to bring more transparency, to try to stave off this tax increase of $3,000 per American family, and that's for the families today. And we are fighting just as hard, if not harder, to ensure that the children and grandchildren of today's taxpayers are not saddled with a doubling of their taxation so that they would see a lower standard of living. That is not the America that we grew up in. That is not the moral obligation we have. We cannot be that first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living.

That is why I am happy to join my fellow members of the Republic Study Committee who have come here to debate this important subject tonight. I especially want to thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for her leadership in this hour.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and earmarks are a very important part of the debate about spending in Washington, D.C. We know that the people are overtaxed and are overtaxed because Washington spends too much.

Now, some people say, well, earmarks are just a small portion of the Federal budget. You know, that may be true, but Mr. Speaker, if you look closely at the numbers today under this Democrat leadership, more money is being spent on congressional earmarks than it is the entirety of our veterans health care system. Now, that's a travesty. This body should be ashamed of that fact, that more money is going to these congressional earmarks than they are going for our veterans health care system. There are still needs in that system, but instead, under this Democrat leadership, the earmark machine continues to roll.

Now, when they became the majority party, they claimed they would do better. In fact, our Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, was quoted as saying she would just as soon do without earmarks; though, I've noticed in the latest copy of Congressional Quarterly Weekly she's in the top 10 out of 435 Members when it comes to digging in the trough for more pork, for more congressional earmarks.

Now, people understand that earmarks too often represent a triumph of seniority over merit. Too often they represent a triumph of secrecy over transparency, and too often they represent a triumph of special interest over the public interest.

Now, again, I'm not here to say that all earmarks are bad, but the process is broken. The Democrats claimed they would clean it up, but instead, they've created huge new loopholes in the system.

If you want to go on a pork lean diet, you just can't cut out the sausage. You've got to cut out the bacon and the ham as well, and so when people hear about appropriation earmarks and authorizing earmarks and tax earmarks, what they need to know is what the majority said they were going to do and what they did are two different things.

So I wish I were eloquent enough to have thought of this myself, but to quote a colleague on the Senate side, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Earmarks are the gateway drug to spending addiction. And that's why this fight is so important, and it's so disappointing when the Democrats, in some cases rightfully, criticized the Republicans in the last Congress, but we cleaned up the system. At a bare minimum, we brought transparency and accountability to the system, and they've rolled that back.

Now, it was mentioned earlier on the floor this evening that one of the first acts the Democrats had, they asked the entire House of Representatives to pass massive spending bills. They would hide in them earmarks and only later would they be revealed what the House voted on. Thankfully, under the Republicans, we came to the floor and we brought transparency to the debate, and the Democrats were forced to reverse themselves. So at least on a small portion of earmarks, known as the appropriations earmarks, there is at least a modicum of transparency now.

We need to have that great disinfectant of sunshine brought on to this system because earmarks are the gateway drug to spending addiction. They create the culture of spending, and we'll never be able to protect the family budget from the Federal budget until we deal with that culture of spending.

Earmarks, again by definition, have nothing to do with merit. They take merit, they take competition, they take competitive bidding out of the process, and instead what happens is senior Members, typically in smoke-filled rooms in the back of the Capitol, are somehow able to arrange these special earmarks.

Most recently, under the Democrat leadership, there was something like 30 Members of Congress managed to get a special funding stream for hospitals in their district that no one else, no other hospital in America was able to receive. Again, a triumph of seniority over merit, a triumph of secrecy over transparency.

It has to do with the culture of spending, and if we're going to save the next generation from having a lower standard of living than we have because we are on a pathway right now just with the government we have to double taxes in the next generation, unconscionable, immoral, and yet the Democrat leadership continues with this culture of spending.

The earmark machine is alive and well as represented by the cover story right here, Mr. Speaker, in Congressional Quarterly Weekly. I wish every American could read that to see what is happening in this earmark process.

Every time some Member of Congress comes to the floor requesting a new earmark, guess where that money is coming from, Mr. Speaker. Either they're taking it out of the Social Security trust fund, robbing seniors of the hard-earned money that they put into it, or it's going to be part of this $3,000 a year tax increase that the Democrats put into their budget, the single largest tax increase in American history. Or if they choose not to tax it, there's only one other thing they can do, Mr. Speaker, pass on the debt to our children and grandchildren.

And that's why I appreciate the gentlewoman from Tennessee. I appreciate

all the members of the Republican Study Committee coming to the floor tonight to add more transparency to this earmark debate, because unless we have transparency and accountability, we won't reduce the number of earmarks, and until we reduce the number of earmarks, we won't be able to change the culture of spending and be able to give the next generation greater freedom and greater opportunity than we've enjoyed.

Mr. Speaker, I hope people have watched this debate carefully, and for those who wish to know even more, I would invite them to go to the Web site of the Republican Study Committee that I have the honor to chair, at www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc, and learn a great deal more about the spending patterns of the Federal Government and how often the people's money is squandered and taken away from their future and their American dream.

But there's a better way. There's a better way under conservative principles to make sure that we do not allow the Federal budget to grow beyond the family budgets and be able to pay for it, that we don't pass debt on to future generations and that we reform these earmarks and make the Democrats remain good to their word.

So, again, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for her great leadership in the conservative movement in the House, with her eloquent and articulate voice for her leadership on this subject.

I thank my dear friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rarely come to the floor of the House to complain about process. It's a little bit like complaining about the refereeing in the football game. At the end of the day, it doesn't do a whole lot of good. But the irony, the irony of what I see today is so powerful, I must share it with my colleagues.

It was just in the last Congress that our now chairwoman of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York, said, ``Here we go again, another important issue, another closed rule. The majority is arrogant and out of control. Their unethical assault on our democratic values must stop.''

That is what the gentlewoman from New York, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, said when she didn't like closed rules when Republicans were in the majority. Well, here we have a closed rule. At least it's closed to Republicans. This Republican offered three amendments, three amendments that were very substantive amendments, none of which were found in order. So I am curious whether this closed rule, now that the Democrats are in the majority, Mr. Speaker, whether they consider it arrogant of themselves, whether they consider it an unethical assault on our democratic values to sit here and bring us a rule which is closed to Republicans.

I would certainly yield to the gentlewoman from California if she would like to answer whether or not it's arrogant and unethical to have a closed rule.

Apparently she doesn't wish to answer the question.

Our Speaker, before she became Speaker, said, ``We are going to have the most honest and open Congress in history.'' Nancy Pelosi, January 18, 2006. She also said, ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.'' Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

So I am curious, did she not mean it when she said it? Does she not mean it now? Is there some carefully crafted, clever little loophole by which we can explain the Speaker's rules why there is no full amendment process?

And I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California if she would like to explain if the Speaker doesn't mean her words.

Apparently she doesn't care to offer an explanation.

Let's get into the substance of the bill, Mr. Speaker. We are looking at an insurance program run by the Federal Government, not run particularly well, since supposedly premiums were supposed to support this program; and now, now it owes the taxpayers, $20 billion of which it admits it has no way, no chance whatsoever to pay back. None whatsoever.

We have a National Flood Insurance Program run by the Federal Government that subsidizes overtly certain properties, many of which are condos and vacation homes, not all, many of which are. And so we have this anomaly where a factory worker in Mesquite, Texas, in my district, who may be pulling down $50,000, $60,000 a year as a taxpayer, subsidizes the flood insurance for somebody who is making a half a million dollars and has a condo on the beach.

One, this is a program that is not fiscally sound. It is a program that is not fair. It is a program that screams out for reforms. And so what does the Democrat majority do? It wants to expand its coverage. It wants to create a huge, new mandatory wind policy. These are serious issues, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

I listened very carefully to the gentleman from Mississippi, and he may recall that I went to his hometown and I saw what was left of his home. I saw that devastation and I spoke to those people firsthand.

Although my family didn't feel quite that devastation, my in-laws lived in New Orleans and their home was severely damaged in Hurricane Katrina. My father-in-law was in the New Orleans Convention Center when all of the violence broke out. That is something that my family knows about, so I know there has been a lot of pain in that community. And I have no doubt that

the Federal Government, which has already rendered over $100 billion of taxpayer aid, can do more good; but I fear, I fear this is not the solution.

Now I look at the legislation and I understand it is designed to be actuarially sound. I understand that the taxpayers aren't supposed to have to pay more. I understand that factory worker in Mesquite, Texas, in my district, who generously gave to help fellow Americans in their time of need, he has come to me and said, ``Congressman, I want to be helpful, but tell me we don't have to do this again.''

Congress can't outlaw hurricanes, but what do we do to make sure that he doesn't have to pay again.

So now we have a program that is not actuarially sound. It was designed to be, but it is not. So on the coverages that we have, and I will admit under the chairman's leadership there have been a number of reforms put into the program that I support, but we are increasing coverages. We are upping coverages. We are adding wind on top of a program that already owes the taxpayer $20 billion that they have no way to pay for whatsoever.

I would note, we had other insurance programs that were supposed to be financially sound: Social Security, which now is a long-term deficit of $8.9 trillion; Federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is supposed to be fiscally sound, running a deficit of $18 billion, off- balance sheet liability of $73 billion. We have already talked about the National Flood Insurance Program, Federal crop insurance, Medicaid. I could go on and on.

Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt again that the people on the gulf coast continue to be in need. But we were told a little earlier this week, I believe by our Speaker, this is supposed to the Congress of the child. Well, let's look at the future of our children. When you look at the spending of the Federal Government already, we know that Chairman Bernanke has said, ``Without early and meaningful action, the U.S. economy will be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost.''

That's just with the government we have today. The GAO has said we're on the verge of being the first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with the lowest standard of living due to all of this spending. This program makes it worse. It must be rejected.

I thank my dear friend for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this rule. I find it somewhat ironic that apparently Members have 5 days to insert something into the Record, yet we have less than 24 hours to actually read a 300-page bill.

Mr. Speaker, maybe some people are confused about the debate. Those of us who have plowed through this bill are not. Make no mistake about it, this is a government-run, socialized health care wolf masquerading in the sheepskin of children's health care.

This is only the first battle in this Congress over who will control health care in America. Will it be parents, families and doctors? Or will be it Washington bureaucrats? That's what this debate is all about.

As one of my colleagues, the gentlelady from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin), said, and I'll paraphrase, the Democrats now want to turn over your health care, your family's health care to the same Federal Government that can't get you a passport, that can't keep illegal immigrants from crossing our border, and could not competently render aid after Hurricane Katrina. And that's who they want to give your family's health care to.

Now, again, the Democrats claim this is all about insuring low-income children. That debate is false because they know, Mr. Speaker, Medicaid takes care of the children at the poverty level in the current SCHIP program, takes care of the working poor. And today, the Democrats know they could get overwhelmingly bipartisan support if they would reauthorize that, but that's not what they're bringing to the floor. They're bringing us a program that will insure adults, insure families making up to $62,000 a year and in some cases $82,000 a year. And they do this by taxing working poor, by a massive tobacco tax that primarily falls upon families with less than $30,000 in income. That's right, Mr. Speaker, they're going to tax the working poor to give subsidies to those making up to $82,000 a year.

In order to finance this program, the Heritage Foundation has concluded they're going to need 22 million new

smokers over the next 10 years just to fund this program.

The Congressional Budget Office said that in effect they will also in this bill take family-chosen health care plans away from 2.1 million families and stick them with a government-run plan instead. They're taking children off of family-chosen health insurance and putting them in government-run plans.

Every American child deserves access to quality, affordable, accessible health care. They deserve the kind of health care that we in Congress and our children enjoy, but that's not what they're receiving here. Instead, in a matter of years, when mothers in America have sick children, they will wait weeks and months to see a marginally competent doctor chosen by a Washington bureaucrat that may or may not do anything to help their children. That's not the way it ought to be in America. We can do better.

Defeat this rule. Defeat this bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let nobody make a mistake about it. I know the Democrats are trying to cast this as a debate about insuring poor children. That's false. We have Medicaid. We could reauthorize the current SCHIP program now in the snap of a finger, but that's not what this is about.

Instead, this is a debate about who will control health care in America. Will it be families and doctors, or will it be government bureaucrats? This is a proxy fight for the Democrats to take that first step towards socialized, government-run health care in America. That's what this is all about, and there should be no mistake about it.

We've got a program for children that insures adults. We've got a program ostensibly to help the poor that can subsidize people making $82,000 a year, and they're going to do all this with a huge tax increase on smokers, and we're going to need 22 million new smokers in 10 years just to pay for it.

If this bill passes not today not tomorrow but at some time, the children of America will suffer. If this program passes, and I hope all the mothers of America are paying very careful attention to this, because if this passes, in the years to come they won't wait minutes or hours to see a doctor of their choice. They will wait weeks and months to see a doctor chosen by a government bureaucrat, and that doctor will not be the doctor of today. It will be somebody who is less competent, less able to take care of their child, and that's what this is all about.

If you care about the children, reject this bill tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding. I especially appreciate the gentleman's leadership, his principled leadership in this body. For the people of his district in New Jersey, Mr. Garrett is somebody who is truly committed to the principles of Constitutional government, limited government, fiscal responsibility. He is a voice of sanity on this floor. He is admired and respected by all of his colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly appreciate his leadership here tonight.

It is an important topic that he has introduced here tonight, and that is the topic of earmarks, which many people know as pork-barrel spending. I know perhaps pork-barrel spending has been around since the dawn of the Republic, but too often, too often the pork-barrel spending represents a waste of the hard-earned taxpayer money.

If you look at the Federal budget, and both myself and the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Speaker, serve on the Budget Committee, the dollars involved are still big. They are still big. We, in this Nation, and we should be ashamed of this, this body should be ashamed that it spends more money on earmarks than it does for the entire veterans health care system. Think about that. Think about that, Mr. Speaker. This is wrong.

In the last election, the Democrat party said they were going to be different. I agree with the gentleman from New Jersey. We are both Republicans. We were not always happy with the leadership that we saw in our party in dealing with earmarks, in dealing with the ``bridges to nowhere,'' in dealing with the ``indoor rain forest'' and all the other earmarks that have come to really represent fiscal irresponsibility. But my party finally awoke to the fact that the people would not tolerate this.

The Republican party at the end of the last Congress put in reforms to at least bring in the disinfectant of sunshine into this body, so we at least knew where the earmarks were coming from, who was the sponsor, and we had the ability, we had the ability to come to this floor, to come to the people's House and offer amendments to strike those earmarks.

Now, the Democrat party had in some respects rightfully criticized the Republican party. They said, well, if you will allow us to come to power, we will be different. We'll be different. The Speaker said, ``We pledge to make this the most honest, ethical and open Congress in history.'' She also went on to say, ``I would just as soon do away with all earmarks.'' Yet now we wake up and the Speaker of the House, I believe, now gets more earmarks than any other Member of Congress. If you are going to lead, you have to lead by example.

So what the Democrats have done, Mr. Speaker, is that they have rolled back the transparency, they have rolled back the accountability that the Republicans put in, albeit too late, in the last Congress.

This is how under Democrat leadership we end up with the $2 million earmark for the Rangel Center for Public Service requested by none other than Congressman Charles Rangel to provide himself with an office and a library. This is transparency? This is accountability? This is fiscal responsibility? One Member of Congress decides to take $2 million of the people's money and build a museum to himself? This is what the Democrats call responsibility? This is what they call fiscal responsibility?

There is $1 million for the Center for Instrumental Critical Infrastructure in Congressman Murtha's district? No one, including the chairman, no one, including the chairman who wrote the bill, could confirm that the organization even existed. But somehow they are going to end up with $1 million.

There is $231,000 for the Lincoln Airport Commission, an airport in Illinois that doesn't exist, and an airport that was supposed to come out of the private sector. And the list goes on and on and on.

Now, I am not here, Mr. Speaker, to say that every single earmark is a bad use of the people's money. But, more often than not, earmarking represents a triumph of seniority over merit. It represents a triumph of secrecy over accountability. And because of that, it wastes the people's money and it leads to the culture of spending.

The American people are not overtaxed. The Federal Government spends too much. We know, Mr. Speaker, already with just the government we have today, adding no new programs, no new benefits, just the government we have today is destined to bankrupt our children and grandchildren.

Don't take my word for it. The Comptroller General of America, the chief fiduciary officer of our government, has said that we are on the verge of being the very first America generation in American history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living. Think about that, Mr. Speaker. It has never happened in the entire history of America, that we could be the first generation to break faith with all those other generations that have left us with an America with greater freedom and greater opportunity. Now here we are spending the people's money, taking away from people who do not vote because they are children and those who have not yet been born, and because of the spending patterns of the Federal Government, we are due to leave them a lower standard of living.

It was just this week on Wednesday that my wife and I celebrated our son's fourth birthday. We have a daughter who is 5\1/2\. We have a great stake in America's future. I will not be a part, the gentleman from New Jersey will not be a part, the Republican Study Committee will not be a part, the Republican Conference will not be a part of leaving the next generation with that lower standard of living; restricting their freedoms, restricting their opportunities, leaving an America that is less than the America we know. We won't be a part of it.

It all starts with the earmarks. The earmarks are the culture of spending. I wish I had been creative enough or articulate enough to come up with the line from the Senator from Oklahoma, who said, ``Earmarks are the gateway drug to spending addiction.''

They teach people to become dependent upon the Federal Government. It totally, totally puts the value of merit aside, and, because of that, it is critical that we reform the process and restrict the number of earmarks.

Democrats, the Democrats who in the last election on some occasions again rightfully criticized the Republicans for our earmark practice, but instead they are rolling it back.

Now, it is a little bit of inside baseball, but in Washington you have what are known as appropriation earmarks. Ostensibly, the Democrats, our friends from the other side of the aisle, have given us some limited accountability there. But there is also something known as tax earmarks. There is something known as authorizing earmarks, more creative ways to spend the people's money. It is all pork. If you want to go on a lean pork diet, you just can't cut out the sausage. You have to cut out the bacon and the ham as well. The Democrats said they were going to do so much more, and they have done so much less.

We all know recently in what is known as the SCHIP bill, and, Mr. Speaker, we all know that Washington excels at acronyms, but in this particular bill, approximately 25 Members of Congress in the dark of night managed to cut some kind of deal in a smoke-filled backroom to get extra reimbursements for their hospitals that nobody else in America receives.

Supposedly we were supposed to have accountability. Supposedly we were supposed to have transparency. But not with all the loopholes that the Democrats have put in to their so-called earmark reform process.

So I would like to say that talk is cheap, but, unfortunately, talk is rather expensive here, costing billions and billions of dollars in earmarks that the Democrats refuse to clean up, that they claimed they would clean up in the 2006 election, and instead they keep on coming.

I remember introducing an amendment on the floor to restrict an earmark that was geared towards the Hollywood movie industry to help train people, train people for Hollywood, this struggling movie industry whose top ten box office hits from just a few weeks ago grossed almost $1 billion. Somehow the American taxpayer has to help them recruit people for their movie sets.

The list goes on and on and on. Nothing, nothing has been done. The dollars are still going to the Saint Joseph's College theater renovation in Indiana; $150,000 for the Kansas Regional Prisons Museum in Lansing, Kansas.

There is no accountability. There is no transparency. There is no reform here. And because of this, because of this, the next generation is looking at a lower standard of living.

That is why I am so happy that the gentleman from New Jersey has come to the floor to lead on this issue for all of the American people, and I am happy to yield back to him.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and this is a very important issue for this body to take up.

Again, the term ``discharge petition,'' what does it mean? It is something that shouldn't be necessary. What it says is we are asking Members to have the leadership schedule a vote on this bill so that the Democrats can't roll back the transparency and accountability reforms that the Republicans put in at the end of the last Congress. Again, we are talking about porkbarrel spending here.

Every single leader of the Democrat Party claimed they wanted more accountability. They wanted more transparency, and then they go and exempt two-thirds of the spending in what we call authorizing. So they left out huge categories of this. But we shouldn't be surprised because right after the election, when they were bringing spending bills to the floor, they actually wanted us to vote on the spending bill and then later, only later were they going to tell us what the earmarks were in the bill. They tried to hide them from us. We brought that to the attention of the American people and the American people said no. And we enjoyed a victory. Fiscal conservatives made the Democrats at least make good on that pledge and bring this transparency and accountability back here.

So this is a very important effort of the Republicans in the House, and we hope we will be joined by the Democrats who claim that they are committed to fiscal responsibility, who claim that they want to have earmark reform. They complained that the Republican earmark reforms didn't go far enough, and yet they rolled them back. All we are saying is bring us what we had at the end of the last Congress.

I will be happy to stay here as long as necessary to have the Democrat leadership commit to the words they made before the election and have their actions after the election comport with those words before the election.

And if I could, and I know that time is coming to a close, I would like to add, as you brought up, every Member who comes to this floor with an earmark says this is a good thing; the money can be used for a good cause. I don't doubt that. There are many good causes in America. The YMCA, the Girl Scouts, cut flowers. There are a lot of great causes. But the question is, number one: Is it a Federal priority and how do we pay for it today?

Today, since the Federal Government continues to run a deficit, although under our President's leadership with more tax revenue from economic growth, it is falling. But right now, the money for a earmark can only come from one of three sources. number one, by raiding the Social Security trust fund. Is the earmark worth taking money away from our seniors?

Under the Democrats, we now have a plan for the single largest tax increase

in history, almost $3,000 per family. More earmarks lead to more taxes. Is it worth putting a $3,000 tax burden on a family of four to pay for the Charlie Rangel Museum to himself? Or debt to our children and grandchildren? Is the Charlie Rangel Museum to himself, is that worth passing on $2 million of debt to our children and grandchildren? It is not worth passing on that debt to my children, and it is not worth passing on that debt to the children of the people of the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, much less the children of the people of America.

And so I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership, his principled leadership, in trying to reform earmarks.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I certainly thank him for his leadership in this area.

If I could paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program. And certainly the legislation that comes before us today helps prove this.

When TRIA was brought to the floor, and I, admittedly, was not here but I have read the Record, supposedly it was to be a temporary program at a time of great economic hardship to our Nation.

I just heard the gentlewoman from New York speak very eloquently on the subject. But I recall from the Record her own words: ``We are simply working to keep our economy on track with a short-term program that addresses the new terrorist threat.''

Now we are being asked for a 15-year extension on what has already been a 5-year program.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, who is now our chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee: ``We wisely designed the TRIA Act as a temporary backstop to get our Nation through a period of economic uncertainty until the private sector could develop models.''

Now, maybe those on the other side of the aisle have a different definition of ``temporary.'' I was here to vote for the TRIA extension, and I voted for it. I thought that the market needed some time to develop. But let's face it. If we vote for this, we are voting for a permanent, a de facto permanent, huge government insurance program on top of those that we already have, none of which, none of which, are financially sound.

And we have to remember when we are hearing debate on the floor about how critical it is in the fight against terror that we have terrorism reinsurance. I believe terrorism reinsurance is important, but I think even more important in fighting terror is prevention, ensuring it doesn't happen in the first place. And yet we have Member after Member after Member on the other side of the aisle that would make it more difficult for our government to monitor the conversations of suspected terrorists. We have Member after Member on the other side of the aisle voting to assure that a portion of our intelligence budget, to paraphrase the former Director of the CIA, goes to spying on bugs and bunnies instead of terrorists. Prevention is what is key in the fight against this terror.

Now, of course, reinsurance is important, and, again, as I said, I voted for another extension. But to hear those on the other side of the aisle, they would say, well, there is no way that the market can develop this. I'm not sure I agree with that, and I know that the President's working group on financial markets doesn't agree with that. They say that the availability and affordability of terrorism risk insurance has improved since the terrorist attacks. Despite increases in risk retentions under TRIA, insurers have allocated additional capacity to terrorism risk, prices have declined, and take-up rates have increased.

And let me quote here from this 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, the chairman, whom I certainly respect, and he is entitled to his own opinions, he doesn't believe the market could ever develop. Well, I would respectfully say to our chairman: How are we ever going to know? How are we ever going to know when you are giving away something for free that the market otherwise would charge for and all of the signs are there that the market can develop?

Some tell us this is a new risk that we don't know how to model for. Well, there was a time when the insurance industry didn't know how to model for airline catasrophes. They didn't know how to model for data processing collapses. And this is not the first time in our Nation's history that we have faced great threats. How did we model the Cold War when thousands of nuclear arms were pointed at us and somehow construction still took place in America?

Construction has taken place in New York based upon a 3-year extension, not a de facto permanent extension, but based on a 3-year extension with higher deductibles and with less government subsidy.

So I don't believe that building is going to come to a complete stop. But if there is a market failure, we could have worked on a bipartisan basis for something restricted that was temporary, dealing with nuclear, chemical, and biological, with large deductibles and large industry retentions.

Instead, we are going to create a massive new insurance program that threatens the taxpayer, another great threat to this Nation. We should oppose this bill.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, recently the Democrat majority in this institution sought to create yet another new government housing program, the Affordable Housing Fund. This is on top of the roughly 80 other programs that HUD administers for Housing and Urban Development. So, Madam Chairman, we are being asked today in the underlying bill to fund a new program, without terminating any of the other 80-some-odd programs that are presently on the books; although many have already achieved their mission, many are ineffective, many are duplicative and many are quite costly.

Madam Chairman, the so-called Affordable Housing Fund, as designed, will grant moneys to States for a variety of purposes. I know that the purposes are noble, but many of us believe that, unfortunately, this could become a de facto housing slush fund.

I furthermore note, as moneys are handed to the States, almost every State in our Union is presently running a surplus, yet we regrettably know the Federal Government continues to run a deficit. So how much sense does this make?

For those who tell us that the Federal housing function is underfunded, I might note that according to OMB, in a little over 10 years we have gone from $15.4 billion to $30 billion, roughly double. That rate is higher than the increase in veterans spending, education spending, energy spending, transportation spending, international affairs, and even Social Security over the same period.

Although the House has passed this ill-conceived program, there has been no Senate action. The President has signed no bill. So we are being asked, Madam Chairman, to fund a program that doesn't even exist, when hardworking Americans can't even fund the roughly 10,000 Federal programs that are already on the books.

My amendment is a simple one. It would remove this funding mechanism in this bill for the so-called Affordable Housing Fund. The funding mechanism shouldn't be in this bill. It has nothing to do with fundamentally reforming FHA. And the bill siphons money from the FHA through what I believe and many of us believe to be a back-door tax on the FHA premiums paid by 4.8 million families that are using FHA insurance. It does this by diverting part of the increase from a negative credit subsidy.

To try to speak English here, it appears that people are overpaying their premiums. If so, maybe that money ought to go back to the people who paid the premiums in the first place.

I know the creation of the fund has been a long-time goal for Chairman Frank. I appreciate his sincerity, and I appreciate the nobility of his purpose and his ideological consistency. But the fact remains that this is a back-door tax on low- and moderate-income Americans who use FHA.

This funding provision is unnecessary, it is unwise, it is unsound. The money ought to go back to the people who paid it. And if that is not the will of the House, it should at least, at least, be used for those who paid the premiums in the first place.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Madam Chairman, either there is a surplus or there is not a surplus. It is really that simple. So now the question is if there is a surplus, what do you do with it. We believe that surplus ought to go back to

the people who paid for it in the first place. And if it is not going to go back to them, it ought to serve them and it should ensure the solvency of this program, since we know Uncle Sam's track record on just about every other Federal insurance program is terrible. This should ensure the solvency of the program.

We do not need a funding mechanism for another housing program that does not exist on top of the 90, many of which are not working.

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

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 1: Page 64, strike lines 6 through 13.

I certainly thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for leading this hour. I want to thank the other members of the Republican Study Committee, the House's conservative caucus, for lending their voice here.

In the remaining time, I just want to make a couple of points, and that is, we see every night the cost of fighting this war, and it is a heavy cost. It's a heavy cost in terms of money and, much more importantly, lives. But we need to again remember the cost of losing this war and what that could mean and how serious the threat is.

I was home during the August recess, got to spend time not only with my wife and children, but with my parents. My mother reminded me of something that she said from time to time, and that is, sometimes life is full of lousy options. And yes, fighting this war is costly. But losing this war could be even costlier if Iraq becomes what Afghanistan once was, under the Taliban, a breeding ground, a training ground for terrorists that are bent on hurting our country.

And we have to remember these are people who have said they have the right to kill 4 million Americans. Two million of them are children and two of those 2 million are mine. We have to remember what the cost of defeat is.

So we finally have signs for cautious optimism. We all need to have an open mind when the report comes in.