Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I do want to speak in favor of the McHenry amendment. I think it is a vitally important amendment that we debate on this House floor today. Maybe the dollar amount is modest; the principle is huge. This is a body that spends too much of the people's money, and it has repercussions. And no matter how intensely our friends from the other side of the aisle want to prevent us from painting a picture for the American people on where their spending is leading, we feel compelled to speak out.

Mr. Chairman, already this body is spending over $23,000 per American household. In real terms, it's one of the greatest amounts since World War II. Every appropriations bill that has come to the floor, practically every single one is spending more money than last year, way beyond the rate of inflation and beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for the excess in the Federal budget.

So, now we have an Agriculture appropriations bill which is almost 6 percent above last year. I assure you, the American people didn't get a 6 percent raise, those who are expected to pay for it. And beyond the 6 percent increase, the bill expands mandatory spending. Now, supposedly PAYGO is supposed to apply to this, but it doesn't because we have a PAYGO loophole. And this is a big, big loophole, Mr. Chairman. And we need to pay attention to more mandatory spending. Because already, simply with the government that we have today, before our friends on the other side of the aisle add on a massive increase in an SCHIP program that's going to be funded with tax increases and Medicare cuts, before they do that, we're already on automatic pilot to double taxes on the next generation. We're either going to double taxes on the next generation or there is not going to be any Federal Government to speak of, except Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. There will barely be any funds for anything else.

And don't take my word for it, Madam Chair, take the word of the Office of Management and Budget, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the conservative Heritage Foundation, the liberal Brookings Institute. So there is this train wreck coming on entitlement spending.

We have a modest amendment that would reduce a little bit of spending in the Agriculture bill to take off that pressure, and instead the amendment is simply mocked. Well, we can't do that because we know if we don't pass this amendment, this modest amendment, to save money on the Agriculture appropriations bill, we know what it's leading to on SCHIP, a new permanent entitlement of almost $160 billion over 10 years. I mean, Madam Chair, this is unconscionable, unconscionable on top of the burden that is already going to be placed upon future taxpayers.

Now, we have so many Members who come to the floor and talk about, well, we have to be here for the least of these. Well, Madam Chair, I would posit that maybe the least of these are those who do not vote and those who have yet to be born. And so that is why we need the amendment passed by the gentleman from North Carolina to save this money, to take pressure off of creating this new huge permanent entitlement in SCHIP.

We also need this amendment in this Ag bill to take the pressure off this huge cut in Medicare that the Democrat majority is now planning, as they seek to pit grandparents against their grandchildren in this massive SCHIP tax-spend-debt spiral. I mean, they're going to increase taxes, the tobacco taxes. I'm not a smoker. I used to be a volunteer in the American Cancer Society, but last I looked, it's still a legal activity. So taxes are going to fall on low- and moderate-income Americans as they seek to take away private insurance from others and put them onto a public insurance plan.

We're looking again at cutting Medicare Advantage plans, almost 20 percent of the people. We're going to have pressure to cut Medicare.

Madam Chair, do I control the time? If so, I have not yielded to the gentleman from Illinois.

I would urge the adoption of this amendment so that we can save some money here and prevent this massive raid on the Medicare trust fund that is coming in in this SCHIP bill.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 26: Page 48, line 3, after the first dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $5,300,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 27: Page 48, line 12, after the first dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $8,910,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 26: Page 48, line 3, after the first dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $5,300,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 27: Page 48, line 12, after the first dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $8,910,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio, again, for his leadership in bringing this terribly needed amendment to the floor, his diligence in authoring this amendment on a number of these spending bills.

Again, although I wish we were debating other facets of the Federal budget today, I think it is very, very important to illuminate once again where we stand as a Nation on spending.

I was in a hearing earlier this morning in the Financial Services Committee. In that committee, we are talking about the possibility of a whole new Federal wind storm insurance program. I am not here to debate the merits of that, but it brought to mind that this Nation is facing a fiscal storm, and it's a storm that we see off our shore; but it is one that unfortunately, this body continues to ignore.

It continues to ignore this problem by growing the Federal budget at a huge multiple over inflation, growing the Federal budget way beyond the growth of the family budget. Ultimately, it's the family that has to pay for this, hardworking American families that are trying to pay for their transportation programs, trying to pay for their health care programs, trying to pay for their education programs.

I have no doubt that every single dollar in this bill can be used for a good purpose. There is not a doubt there, but when do we look at what happens in the aggregate? We have had spending debates going on for weeks and weeks now. Unfortunately, they do become somewhat similar.

But there are very important points that still need to be illuminated in this debate. Again, in every single spending bill brought to the floor, somebody can say, well, this is a good idea. But who goes back and looks at it in the aggregate? Whoever adds it all up and sees what we are doing to the least of these in our society, those who do not vote, and those who have yet to be born. I am speaking about future, future generations.

So all this amendment is asking to do, notwithstanding the language of the other side, this amendment seeks to cut nothing. This amendment seeks to level fund this particular appropriations bill, using the same funding last year that it will use this year.

Mr. Chairman, there are many people, many families all across America who would love the opportunity to make it on the same income they had last year, this year, this year to next year. So somehow we are trying to be convinced that something terrible and draconian is going on.

Frankly, our friends from the other side of the aisle always accuse us of cutting something. I wish, occasionally, that might be true.

But all spending is not created equal, and there needs to be priorities. There is no doubt that many items within this bill are a priority. But I don't believe it's a priority to impose an even greater tax burden on the American people, as the Democrats seek to do in their single largest tax increase in history. That shouldn't be a priority.

Nor should it be a priority to pass on debt to future generations, which ultimately I believe this bill will do. It

shouldn't be a priority to raid the Social Security trust fund, which, by definition, if we are running a Federal deficit, then any excessive spending continues to raid the Social Security trust fund.

So all we are asking is, is it easier to be on the road to fiscal responsibility and keep faith with future generations, or are you going to be on the road to fiscal irresponsibility and not keep faith? If you follow that road, here is what you are looking at. Listen to the words of our Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, who said: ``Without early and meaningful action'' to address government spending, particularly entitlements ``the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened with future generations bearing much of the cost.'' Those aren't my words. Those are the words of the Federal Reserve Chairman.

Now listen to scholars at the Brookings Institute, widely known as a liberal institution, no bastion of conservative thought: ``The authors of this book believe that the Nation's fiscal situation is out of control and can do serious damage to the economy in coming decades, sapping our national strength, making it much more difficult to respond to unforeseen contingencies and passing on an unfair burden to future generations.''

Yet week after week after week we have spending bills coming to this floor, growing government way beyond the rate of inflation, growing government way beyond the growth of the family budget, and it's the family budget that has to pay for Federal budget.

So here we have just one more chapter in this book of fiscal irresponsibility.

Now, again, I know there are many good programs in this bill. But why were so many of the other bills costing billions and billions and billions and growing these budgets 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 percent more than last year? Again, too often people are focusing on one individual aspect of this budget, and they are not focusing on the budget as a whole.

Let's listen to the words of the Comptroller General, the chief fiduciary officer in America, who said that the rising cost of government, again, particularly the entitlement spending, is a ``fiscal cancer,'' fiscal cancer that threatens ``catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.''

Again, these aren't my words. These aren't the words of one lone Member. These aren't the words of the Member from the Fifth District of Texas. These are words of the people who most know about the fiscal condition of this Nation.

The Comptroller General has gone on to say, and I paraphrase, that we're on the verge of being the very first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living.

Mr. Chairman, like many others on this floor, I'm in the next generation business. I've got a 5-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old son, and I am not indifferent as to leaving my children and the children of America with a lower standard of living. I can't sit idly by while this House week after week after week spends our children's future, spends them into bankruptcy, threatens to double their taxes. That's the magnitude we're looking at, doubling their taxes.

And so this is a very reasonable amendment. Frankly, I wish the gentleman from Ohio had done even more on his amendments. But level funding, that's all we're asking, Mr. Chairman. When you look at the consequences, can we at least take a bill and get a little smarter, a little wiser and spend the same amount of money next year that we did this year? And, frankly, it's the future of our children and our grandchildren that are on the line.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this has obviously been a spirited debate by men and women on both sides of the aisle who I respect. But I do think if the American people are watching this debate, and I hope they are, we need to dispose of one issue very clearly, and that is there is indeed a dictionary over on that part of the floor, and every amendment that was brought here today is either going to increase spending in this account or level funding. But according to the logic of our friends on the other side of the aisle, if you fund something at a lesser quantity than somebody else wants it, then you have a Draconian cut. Well, if they are increasing this bill 3.1 percent, that is a cut below 3.5 percent. It is a cut below 4 percent.

If all these programs are so good, why did you cut them? Why didn't you increase it 6 percent? Why didn't you increase it 8 percent? So let's dispose of that argument right now.

Again, the only budget that is being cut here, Mr. Chairman, is the family budget. And the family budget is being cut as part of this single largest tax increase in American history contained in the Democrat's budget resolution, which I know they tried to run away from. Now, they said earlier that: We know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Maybe they need to know the value of hard-earned paychecks in American families.

So they need to think about the Zapata family in Kaufman, Texas, because when they put their tax increase on them, let me tell you what the Zapatas have to say. ``If taxes on my family are increased that much, this could seriously affect my life. My mortgage is adjustable and will most likely go up. If the taxes go up, it would be devastating, and I could face foreclosure.''

They don't know the value of the paycheck to the Brooker family in Wills Point. ``No increase in taxes. My family is one breath away from losing our home as it is.''

Those are the budgets that are being cut today, Mr. Chairman, not only by the single largest tax increase in American history, but they are about to bring a tax increase to try to fund their farm bill by taxing jobs. They are saying somehow foreign companies are evil when they come to America and they invest and create jobs, in my district among other districts.

So there is a real choice here: Increase the family budget, or increase the Federal budget. We come down on the side of the family budget.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I rise tonight as one who typically comes to this floor to champion the cause of fiscal conservatism. But tonight, perhaps more importantly, I come here as the grandson of a farmer. I come here as the son of a farmer. I come here as one who grew up working on the family farm.

I have looked at the work of Mr. Flake and Mr. Kind, and I believe that this amendment is the one that is best for agriculture, and I think it is the one that is best for taxpayers. I don't like everything in this amendment. There is a lot I don't like about it. But I have got to ask myself, does it take me in a direction I want to go or does it take me in a direction I don't want to go? I think this work takes me in the direction I want to go, because it provides real reform. If you have got a program that's costing taxpayers $20 billion a year, maybe you need some reform.

If 10 percent of the recipients are receiving 33 percent of the egg, maybe you need some reform. If most of the subsidies are going to commercial farmers that have average incomes above $200,000, maybe you need some real reform.

Very importantly, for the agriculture producers in the Fifth District of Texas, our future is in exports. We want to export good Texas beef, and I'm afraid the committee bill is going to hurt trade. It will hurt trade.

We need to support this alternative.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of earmarks in this bill that are somewhat similar to this one. I will be the first to admit I don't know all that much about the Edmonds Center for the Arts. But as I follow these typical earmark debates, I know that soon there will be a Member to come to the floor to tell me he knows his district better than I do. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point.

He will also tell me that this body has the authority to provide for this earmark. Mr. Chairman, I once again concede the point.

I am sure they will come down here and say good things can be done with the money. Mr. Chairman, once again, I will concede the point.

They will also tell us well, it is a very small portion of the Federal budget. Mr. Chairman, I will concede the point.

But here is what I will not concede: the money is a very small portion of the Federal budget. But I fear again that earmarks in general, and perhaps this category in specific, become a larger portion of the culture of spending which is harmful to the Nation. We need to look at it very closely.

Often amendments are brought to the floor that many Members will say this is just draconian. We can't manage to spend less money here. Okay, so we offer earmark amendments and people say, well, it is just a small portion of the Federal budget. It is kind of like either the porridge is too hot or the porridge is too cold. When is the right time to offer an amendment to try to save taxpayers money?

So this is money that under the certification letter the funding would be used for renovation of the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Again, there are a number of earmarks that do this. I assume, frankly, there are Members of both parties that are requesting this funding. But it needs to be put in context because every time we so-called ``invest'' in a project like this, there is somebody out in America that is being divested in order to pay for the investment. So we have to look very closely at where this money is coming from.

Now, Member after Member comes to the floor to tell us we should do everything we can to preserve the Social Security trust fund. We know under our unified budget today that as long as we are running a deficit, and unfortunately we still are, it is declining due to lots of tax revenue, but we still have a deficit. We know that this expenditure is going to come ultimately out of the Social Security trust fund. Yet so many Members come to the floor to decry the practice. So is this money going to the Edmonds Center for the Arts worth raiding the Social Security trust fund? I believe not.

In addition, we know that the Democrats, Mr. Chairman, in their budget resolution, it contains the single largest tax increase in American history. Over 5 years if we don't figure out a way to stop it, the average American family will have an average $3,000 a year tax burden. That is money coming out of their pocket that they could have used for their arts, their entertainment, and their transportation; but they are being divested in order to invest in centers for the arts.

As I said earlier, I have no doubt that the sponsor of the earmark knows his district better than I do, just like I know my district better than he does. In talking to people in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, they think their tax money might be used for better purposes. And if it is going to go to art centers, they kind of prefer that Mesquite Art Center be funded. They prefer the Henderson County Performing Arts Center be funded. They prefer the Lake Country Playhouse in Mineola to be funded; and they prefer the Kaufman County Civic Theater in Terrell, Texas, be funded, and the list goes on.

Given that we are threatened with the single largest tax increase in history, a vote for this is to raid the Social Security trust fund. And already with the spending we have, we are due to double taxes on the next generation.

I know Congress has the right to do this. I don't question our authority; I question our wisdom in doing that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is aimed at limiting funding for parking facilities within this bill, which is not including Federal facilities that might be included within bills dealing with our military bases, GAO, national parks, what have you.

Mr. Chairman, apparently there are about 15 or so of these earmarks covering Members of both parties, and again, as I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, I know that the funds represented are probably a small portion of Federal spending, but I think it is good, I think it is wise that this House pause from time to time and look at the fiscal challenge that we are facing and to remember, if everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority.

So, again, I have no doubt that parking facilities are needed all over America, but I doubt the wisdom within the confines of this bill of using Federal taxpayer money today to pay for them.

Let's take a look at the challenge that we're facing, Mr. Chairman, and just don't take my word for the fact that we have a great fiscal challenge. Let's listen to our Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke. He said recently, without ``early and meaningful action'' to address spending in Washington, ``the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened; with future generations bearing much of the cost.''

Let's listen to the Brookings Institute, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought: ``The authors of this book believe that the Nation's fiscal situation is out of control and could do serious damage to the economy in coming decades.''

Let's listen to the General Accountability Office: The rising costs of government spending, specifically entitlements, are ``a fiscal cancer'' that threatens ``catastrophic consequences for our country'' and could ``bankrupt America.''

Let's listen again to the GAO: ``Absent policy changes on the spending and/or revenue sides of the budget, a growing imbalance between expected Federal spending and tax revenues will mean escalating and ultimately unsustainable Federal deficits and debt

that serve to threaten our future national security as well as the standard of living for the American people.''

The Federal budget continues to grow way beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it, and seemingly, the only standard for spending the people's money today is do we have a noble purpose, and can some good use be made of the money. But, Mr. Chairman, that standard is not sufficient. It's not sufficient when we're threatening future generations with a fiscal calamity. Sooner or later, this body needs to say enough is enough.

Almost every State in the Union, I think, save but two or three, are running a surplus. We're running a deficit, and what are we doing? We're funding local parking facilities.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm not here to debate the constitutionality of doing that, but, again, I'm here to debate the wisdom, given the fiscal challenges the Nation faces, and all too often I fear that this body is more focused on the next election and not the next generation. But the Comptroller General has said 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.

Mr. Chairman, fiscal responsibility has to be included in each and every bill, and we have a bill that's growing about 6.7 percent. Let's somewhere draw a line in the sand on behalf of American families, on behalf of American taxpayers, on behalf of future generations and just say, you know, today the Federal taxpayer and future generations are not going to have to pay for parking facilities. It's all this amendment is about, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this money's going to have to come from somewhere. So, again, I would invite the committee chairman to tell us, is this part of the largest tax increase in history? Is this coming out of the Social Security Trust Fund? Is this going to be debt passed on to future generations? Where is the money going to come from? Does it reach that purpose?

And I cannot believe that the only parking lots that are made available to those who are disabled are somehow coming from the Federal taxpayer. I just don't believe it.

With that, I would urge an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I must admit, every time I come to the floor and a Democrat lectures me on fiscal responsibility, I feel like I am having an Alice in Wonderland experience; and that is because the deficit is the symptom, it is spending that is the disease. And so we have Democrats come to the floor and say, well, when you Republicans were in power, you spent too much. Well, some of us Republicans agree. So what is your answer, Mr. Chairman? Well, they want to spend even more.

For the last 10 years, look at the record. Every time the Republicans offer one budget, the Democrats offer a budget that spends even more. And then they say it is fiscally irresponsible that the national debt went up from $5 trillion to $8 trillion. I don't like that a bit. But, guess what? Because the Democrats' budget was stone cold silent on entitlement spending, the national debt unfunded obligations is $50 trillion. So I will be glad to accept responsibility for $3 trillion when my friends on the other side of the aisle accept responsibility for their $50 trillion.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I have heard many interesting things from the other side of the aisle tonight. I am reminded that people are entitled to their own opinions, but they shouldn't be entitled to their own facts.

I hear a lot of accusations that we have amendments tonight that cut Federal spending. I kind of wish it were true. But last I looked, we had an amendment that level-funded this bill, that spent the same amount of money this year as last year. Now we had an amendment that would increase funding in this bill 5.7 percent. Now we have an amendment that would increase spending up to 6.2 percent. Now, it is less than what the gentleman from Massachusetts desires, and so I guess under his definition that if you spend less money than somebody in the universe desires, that is a cut. So I think, one, we ought to have the facts on the table.

Second of all, I have heard many Democrats bristle at the idea that

their budget resolution included the single largest tax increase in American history. Well, don't take my word for it, Mr. Chairman. The Washington Post, not exactly known as the leading conservative publication in America, wrote: ``And while House Democrats say they want to preserve key parts of Bush's signature tax cuts, they project a surplus in 2012 only by assuming that all these cuts expire on schedule in 2010.'' Now, that is the Washington Post, which most people view as one of the more liberal newspapers in America. That's what they say.

Now, my friends from the other side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, may say we are not raising taxes; we are just letting tax cuts expire. Well, Mr. Chairman, if you have the same salary or wage next year as you had last year, but somehow your tax burden is greater, I can tell you this much: Anybody in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas is going to call that a tax increase.

Now, something that my friends from the other side of the aisle don't seem to get, because they say that we need money for housing, we need money for transportation, we need money for this, we need money for that, there is another budget in America that funds housing, that funds transportation. Mr. Chairman, that is the family budget. And the only budget that is being cut tonight is the American family budget, and it is being cut by Democrat colleagues.

I talk to a lot of hard-working people in my congressional district, in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, and I hear from them because more spending like what is included in this bill fuels more taxes, the largest single tax increase in American history. And I ask them, how is this tax increase going to impact your family budget?

So I hear from people like the Peterson family in Van, Texas: ``If you divide the amount by 12 months of the year, this tax increase comes out to $229.58 per month. I am a widow, full-time college student, and single mother of a growing preteen boy. This amount would be impossible to squeeze out of my already overextended monthly income . . . This monthly amount is more than half of my monthly vehicle installment . . . A tax increase of that magnitude would mean that something would have to be given up in my household.''

That is the budget that is being cut here, Mr. Chairman. The Peterson family in Van, Texas, they are having their budget cut. They are having their transportation budget cut. They can't afford their monthly car payments because of this bill, which, even though they deny it, is part of the single largest tax increase in American history.

Or from the Jordan family in Forney, Texas, in my district: ``All of us have been affected by large increases in the price of gas for our cars, electricity rates, cost of water, and cost of food. My husband and I both drive older vehicles and turn up our thermostat to uncomfortable levels . . . This tax increase reinforces the feeling that elected leaders could care less about the struggles of families trying to avoid going into ever-increasing debt.''

Well, guess what? I agree, because once again we have a bill brought to the floor by the Democrat majority that is going to cut the family budget, that is going to cut the Jordan budget in Forney, Texas. And there are family budgets all across America that are going to be cut because this bill spends too much of the people's money. It takes away from their housing priorities, it takes away from their transportation priorities to fuel the government's, Washington's, view of their priority.

And that is why you are either part of the problem, or you are part of the solution. And the gentlewoman from Colorado's amendment is part of the solution, and we should adopt it.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 9: Page 34, line 17, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.

Page 34, line 19, strike ``2010,''.

Page 35, strike line 7 and all that follows through the

semicolon on line 8.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 10: Page 38, strike line 5 and all that

follows through page 41, line 18.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 11: Page 41, line 26, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $425,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 12: Page 43, strike line 22 and all that

follows through page 44, line 23.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 8: Page 5, strike line 18 and all that

follows through page 6, line 9.