Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 13: Page 72, strike line 10 and all that

follows through page 73, line 2.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 22: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

None of the funds in this Act may be used for the Edmunds

Center for the Arts, City of Edmunds (WA).

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 23: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

None of the funds in this Act may be used for the Alpine

Heritage Preservation (WV).

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 14: Page 74, strike lines 15 through 21.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 21: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 410. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used for parking facilities.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 18: Page 10, strike lines 22 through 25.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 19: Page 68, strike line 18 and all that

follows through page 69, line 3.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 20: Page 8, strike lines 1 through 13.

If the American people, Madam Chairman, are watching this debate, they've certainly seen a lot of name calling and a lot of shouting, and now we're having our motives questioned. I personally try to not go down that road. I assume my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I'm sure their purposes are noble. But I must admit in the 4\1/2\ years I've been here, I've certainly been called a lot of names. I think this afternoon's the first time I've been called part of the fringe. I thought fringe had more to do with curtains. But here we are as part of the fringe, I guess, because we believe that the government shouldn't grow faster than the people's ability to pay for it. And somehow that's being called a fringe opinion.

We believe that it's the people's money, and not the government's money. Yet we are being told by our Democrat colleagues that's a fringe opinion.

We happen to believe that the best housing program and the best education program is a paycheck, not a government check; but somehow our Democrat colleagues have chosen to tell us that that's a fringe opinion.

And then we hear lectures from our Democrat colleagues saying well, when you guys were in the majority you spent too much money. So Madam Chairman, their response is well, we're going to spend even more. That logic defies me.

Now, they focus a lot on their noble purposes, Madam Chairman, and they focus a lot on the benefits of all this spending that they care to do. And again, I would like to point out, this particular amendment says that this bill will grow by 3.8 percent instead of 4.8 percent. I suppose that's another fringe opinion as well.

But you know what, Madam Chairman? My friends on the other side of the aisle don't focus upon where this money is coming from, and so they talk about their investments on behalf of the American people. Well, Madam Chairman, maybe the American people want to make their own investments.

You know, I listen to the Ward family in my district from Garland, Texas, and they write, ``Dear Congressman, a tax increase in the spending is going to fuel the taxes, the largest tax increase in American history courtesy of the Democrat Party.'' So all this spending in this bill is fostering a tax increase on the American people. So the Ward family in Garland says, ``A tax increase this year would wipe out my ability to continue my daughter's education.''

Well, I've got a message for the Ward family in Garland. Don't worry. Don't worry about it. The Democrats have an investment that they're going to make on your behalf. So don't worry about the $3,000 a year they're going to take from you.

I also heard from the Kincaid family in Garland. ``In my particular case, an additional $2,200 in taxes would cut into the finances I use to pay for my son's education.''

The gentleman from Garland, Texas in my district goes on to say, ``I really believe that, given more money, Congress will spend more money. That's not the answer.''

Well, I guess we ought to tell the Kincaid family in Garland, Texas, don't worry about your son's college education. The Democrats are going to make an investment for you.

I heard from the Brock family in Dallas, Texas, also in my district. ``Dear Congressman, with this tax increase I could not pay for a semester of college for my daughter if I had to send $2,200 more to the government.''

Well, again, we have good news for them. Don't worry about all the money that they're taking. The Democrats have an investment for you.

So, again, Madam Chairman, what our friends on the other side of the aisle don't seem to realize is that all this great government spending and all these wonderful investments they have are coming out of the pockets of the American people. In many respects, we are not having a debate over how much this Nation ought to spend on health. We're debating who's doing the spending. It ought to be the family.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, after all of this debate, I still cannot believe that people don't understand what the word ``cut'' means. I took the opportunity to go look it up in my dictionary. I would urge my Democrat colleagues to do the same.

They might find a reduction in amount. Only in Washington would somebody call an increase of 4.6 percent a cut. People all over America would love to have their salaries cut if it would only increase 4.6 percent.

I think I just heard the previous speaker say that people who pay taxes ought to get some of their money back. Well, maybe it shouldn't be taken from them in the first place.

But let's go back to the term ``cut,'' because the only budgets that are being cut here today are the family budgets of hard-working Americans all across this land. It is their budgets that are being cut.

The budgets like the Flores family in Garland, who says, ``I am a divorced mother with a child in college and a

child in daycare.'' When you increase taxes, you are going to wipe out the hope of the first college graduate in the family. To my colleagues on the other said of the aisle, that is the budget they are cutting. They are cutting the Flores family budget. They are cutting their education program.

They are cutting the education program of the Mouton-Tedder family in Chandler, this largest tax increase in history, that they are imposing on the American people. They write in, ``If I have to pay more taxes, then I can't afford to go to school.'' Once again, Democrats cutting education budgets for families in America.

They are cutting the health budget as well. I heard from the Winters family in Tennessee Colony. ``Please do what you can to stop the wasteful spending. I am retired and disabled. I am raising my three grandchildren and one great grandchild. I sometimes can't afford my own medicine.''

The only budgets that are being cut here are the Democrats cutting the health budgets and the education budgets of the American family. It ought to stop.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, if my ears did not deceive me, I think I heard the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee either observe or lament that with one exception, every amendment offered on this bill, its purpose was to increase

spending. If that was a lamentation, I certainly share his angst. Not wanting to disappoint, I am coming to the floor with several amendments that are designed to do just the opposite, spend less of the people's money to try to save hardworking American taxpayers more, let them keep more of what they earned.

Now, Madam Chairman, this is a modest amendment, but it represents a very, very important principle. Today, right now, the Federal Government is spending $23,289 per family. This is the highest level spent in real inflation-adjusted terms since World War II.

Earlier this year, the Democrat budget resolution included the largest single tax increase in American history which when fully put in place would put $3,000, an average of $3,000, additional tax burden on the average American family. And now even if Congress were for some reason to just disband today and add no new government, just the government programs we have on automatic pilot threaten to double taxes on the next generation. So we need to find every opportunity that we can today to save the poor beleaguered taxpayer even more money.

Madam Chairman, I do not myself know exactly how many Federal programs exist. I have seen one estimate, I believe, from the Heritage Foundation that we have over 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 different agencies. I defy any man, woman or child to tell me what each and every one of them does. Some of them I am sure do good things; but the question is given the fiscal challenges that we face, are they truly a priority.

Madam Chairman, some may have even completed their mission. And some, perhaps like the amendment that I am offering today, are actually duplicative. This is a modest amendment that would save the American taxpayer $8 million. In this particular program, ostensibly, funding is used for training and technical assistance in developing and managing water facilities. But the Office of Management and Budget has recommended that this particular program be eliminated, stating that ``the program is duplicative of other Federal entities such as the Bureau of Reclamation's rural water program which is responsible for water and wastewater treatment facilities.'' That is from the Office of Management and Budget.

So we ought to make sure that we are not simply engaging in legislation by symbolism. I know every single program has a lofty- sounding name to help some constituency that is important to us. But we have to look beyond that and see if it is actually achieving its purpose, are there other programs that are also achieving its purpose as well. And according to the Office of Management and Budget, this program is duplicative of other programs.

So we have to ask ourselves a very important question. In light of the fact that the Federal Government has never ever spent since World War II so much money of the American family, $23,289, given that the Democrat budget resolution includes the single largest tax increase in history, given that although the national deficit has come down, not due to any spending discipline but due to the fact that we are awash in tax revenues, we still have a tax deficit. So it is a simple question: Do we want to fund a program that the administration considers duplicative given that if we don't, either the funds are coming from the Social Security trust fund, and many of my colleagues have pledged not to do that, if it is not coming from that, it is going to add to this $3,000-per-American-family tax burden, or more debt will be passed on to our children.

I believe we ought to use this opportunity to eliminate one duplicative Federal program and return $8 million to the American taxpayer.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

If I was not clear, this amendment would save the American taxpayer $8 million. It would remove a duplicative program, according to OMB, the Rural Community Facilities Program. I don't need a minute to explain what the amendment does. That is it. I certainly apologize to my colleague if I was unclear as to the purpose of the amendment or how it operates.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I listened intently to the distinguished chairman of the committee, as

I do whenever he is on the floor. Apparently he does not like amendments that increase spending in this bill, and apparently he doesn't like amendments that decrease the spending in the bill. So apparently he doesn't like amendments. So that much is clear.

Second of all, Madam Chairman, when I come down to the floor in efforts to try to save taxpayers money, let them keep more money for their education programs, their health care programs, their energy programs, sometimes we're told that, well, this is so draconian, you know, to try to save this much money. And then other times we're told, well, this is just a piddling little amount.

Well, I'm reminded first of a famous quote from the late Senator Everett Dirksen, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we're talking about real money. I'm even talking about more modest amounts today.

But there's a fundamental principle involved here, and the fundamental principle is that we have a Federal budget growing way beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it. Make no mistake about it, Madam Chairman, government will be paid for. It's either going to be paid for in the short term by continuing to raid the Social Security Trust Fund, which is what's going to happen if this particular amendment fails. It will be funded by the single largest tax increase in American history which my friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrat majority, has done in their budget, or perhaps it may even be funded by sending more debt to our children and grandchildren.

I think we should look for every opportunity. Given the challenges that we face, the Comptroller General of America has said we are on the verge of being the first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living. Never happened before in the history of America.

So, Madam Chairman, I make no apologies for, to use the distinguished chairman's term, droning on about what fiscal perils lay in wait for future generations if we don't start now. And then, again, it's a little bit like Goldilocks and the three bears. Either the porridge is too hot or the porridge is too cold. When is the porridge just right to try to save the family budget from the onslaught of the Federal budget?

So when we have the Office of Management and Budget single out a number of different programs, and I certainly think that their expertise in this area is great, to single out certain programs that, one, have outlived their usefulness; number two, are not meeting their objective; or number three, are duplicative, I think amendments are in order for the people's House to save the people money.

We have to quit engaging again in the fact of legislation by symbolism. It has a lofty name or it has a lofty purpose, well, let's look at what's actually happening to the money.

So this is a modest amendment, and I admit it's modest. I've tried to save big chunks of money and haven't been terribly successful there, and so we're going to attempt to save little chunks of money and perhaps set a precedent here.

So this amendment is designed to save the American taxpayer $5 million by hopefully zeroing out the account of a program which the Office of Management and Budget has said does not have performance standards. They do not have performance standards to assess their impact or are too narrowly focused to have a major benefit. They duplicate other Federal programs and award grants on a noncompetitive basis.

Now, ostensibly this program is a job opportunities program for low- income individuals, but I happen to know that practically every single one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against the tax relief that has created 8 million new jobs in our economy, which is an undeniable fact. That's truly the best job opportunity program for low-income individuals.

And I know that this body recently voted against the maximum opportunity to create an artificial wage to deny some people their opportunity to get on the lowest rung of the economic ladder.

There's a lot of ways that we can help low-income people with job opportunities, but one more duplicative program that awards grants on a noncompetitive basis is not it. Let's not raid the Social Security Trust Fund. Let's not be a part of the largest single tax increase in American history. Let's save the American people $5 million.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, again we have another modest amendment aiming at saving the American taxpayer, in this case $21.4 million. Again, we have a program that has a very lofty name, Preventive Health under the Administration of Aging. But I think that, again, the program needs to be put in the larger context.

We are being asked now to provide in this particular appropriations bill $152 billion in discretionary funding, one of the largest bills that will come to the people's House. It has, I believe, a 4.8 percent increase over last year, when I assure you, American families who are being asked to pay for this did not enjoy a 4.8 percent increase.

We, once again, have another portion of the Federal budget growing beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for this. So we all know that this is a part of a plan that will increase an additional $26 billion for domestic programs under the budget resolution of the Democrat majority, on top of the $6 billion that has been added to the current year omnibus, on top of the $17 billion in nonwar emergency spending they have added to the Iraq war supplemental.

Again, I recall the words of the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, referring to those of us who may drone on about attempting to save the Federal taxpayer money, but there are also those who seemingly use the same old argument that government knows how to spend money better than the American family.

Somehow, if we take money away from American families, that's an investment. But if they somehow keep it, well, that's waste, or somehow that's going to bring down the government to its knees. I just don't buy that argument. Somehow we are supposed to believe in the roughly 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 different agencies, growing at roughly twice the rate of inflation, growing beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it, that somehow, somehow, every single penny of Federal expenditures is sacrosanct.

Yet there is nothing sacrosanct about the money we take away from the American people to pay for that.

Now, the funds in this particular program are awarded to States and territories that supposedly educate older Americans about the importance of healthy lifestyles, a very noble purpose. But I would note with the exception of, I think, two, maybe three States, every single one of them is running a surplus.

We are granting money to 95, 98 percent of the States that are running the surplus, while the Federal Government continues to run a deficit. Although that deficit is coming down because we are awash in tax revenues, it certainly hasn't been from any spending disciplines. The bottom line is we are running a deficit, and we are handing out money to States that are running surpluses.

Again, this is a program that the Office of Management and Budget says should not be funded: ``It is duplicative of services that States can provide to the Administration on Aging's community-based supportive services program.''

I have heard nobody address or take the opposite viewpoint of OMB and say the program is duplicative. So maybe they approve of duplication. If they think that OMB has got it wrong, I would be interested in hearing that particular argument or that particular debate.

Furthermore, OMB says that AOA and visions integrating, prevention is an underlying principle in its core programs and that is better than the current mechanism of providing a small funding stream of unfocused seed money through the Preventive Health Services Program. Again, I feel we have too much legislation by symbolism.

We should never forget, when we are talking about the lofty purposes, that this will provide in vital investments and health care. Let's remember the vital investments in health care that the American people have. I mean, they are going to have to pay for this.

Again, I often hear from my constituents, like Joyce in Tennessee Colony, Texas, says, ``Please do what you can to stop the wasteful spending. I am retired and disabled. I am raising my three grandchildren and now one great grandchild. I sometimes can't afford my own medicine.''

So here we have a choice. We can take money away from Joyce in Tennessee Colony, take money away from her health care program, to engage in this particular program which OMB says is duplicative.

I have heard from David in the city of Garland.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, the sponsor of the amendment.

Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his leadership. I compliment him on the amendment. I urge its adoption.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I have noticed that the last several speakers on the House floor were rather strident in their comments, engaged in ad hominem attacks and perhaps at least one of them could have had their words taken down.

Having served in this body for several years, I have yet to discover any direct correlation between the stridency with which one delivers their message and the righteousness behind their cause.

Many have come here to say that somehow House decorum demands that one speak to another Member before offering an amendment that somehow may be injurious to their district's interests. In all of the years I have served in this body, I have yet to have somebody come to me and explain to me ahead of time how their amendment, how it impacts the people in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas.

Yet every day we see something like the largest tax increase in history, which certainly has a terrible impact on the hardworking people of the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. Nobody sought out my permission before they brought that particular piece of legislation to the floor.

We have pieces of trade legislation, or it should be called anti- trade legislation, coming to the floor, harming my cow-calf operators in the Fifth District of Texas. Nobody seeks my permission or acquiescence before that legislation is brought to the floor.

We have legislation imposing death taxes on people who have worked their whole life to build small businesses in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. Nobody seeks my acquiescence or permission before bringing that legislation to the floor.

I also noticed that an earlier speaker referred to the funds in this amendment as ``my money.'' Well, isn't that a fascinating concept, ``my money.'' I thought it was the taxpayers' money, many of whom reside in the State of New Jersey. Many of whom reside in the State of Texas.

I am interested why we seem to have on top of all the other education funds we have, and it is not exactly like this is an area of Federal funding that has gone lacking, since 1995, the elementary and secondary education budget function has increased 147 percent. That is about the highest increase of any budget function in that period of time.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, maybe we ought to go out and create a special education fund for New Jersey and for Texas and for Arkansas and Maine and New Hampshire. Why don't we create one for all 50 States. Then what we can do is we can go ahead with the Democrats' plan for the largest tax increase in history, and we can take all of this money away from American families. Then Washington can keep, say, a third of it in administration cost and waste and inefficiency, and then we can design these programs with our State names on them, take credit for it, and then hand it back to the taxpayers, whose money it is in the first place.

So I want to salute the gentleman from New Jersey for his courage, for his steadfast leadership on this issue, his dedication to education, his dedication to fiscal responsibility, and for coming and suffering these ad hominem attacks. That, Mr. Chairman, is what is truly shameful about this particular moment.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I certainly thank him for his leadership in this institution on this very, very important subject.

I will be supporting, I suppose, the chairman's amendment. He said he was not interested, I believe, in biasing the decision; so he will vote present, although I think that the distinguished chairman had voted against the gentleman from California's amendment yesterday on another bill. So I am not sure if the outcome hasn't already been prejudiced.

Be that as it may, I have not been opposed to all earmarks. I understand the opportunity and constitutional responsibility that this body has. But as I have observed the process, the process, I believe, more often than not, has led to bad results. And particularly the bad result that I see and why I commend the gentleman from California for his leadership in this area is that I believe, more often than not, we help teach people to become more dependent upon the Federal Government. People who never thought about receiving a Federal earmark now come to their local Member of Congress. There was a time when many individuals would compete in the marketplace of ideas and compete in the marketplace for business and compete in the marketplace for charitable contributions, and now they are being taught they need to compete in the halls of Congress.

I recall dealing with a large major medical research institute in my hometown of Dallas, Texas, that does world renowned science who was always happy to come and compete in a competitive bid process for research dollars at the National Institutes of Health, but they woke up one day and many other institutions instead were receiving earmarks; so now they went out and invested their money in a Washington lobbyist and they started receiving earmarks. I do not necessarily view this as a good thing.

And I wish I had coined the phrase, but our colleague in the other body, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, once said that earmarks are the gateway drug to spending addiction. That may not be true in all cases, but it is certainly true in many cases. And more often than not, I fear that they represent a victory of special interests over the general interest. They represent a victory, often, of secrecy over transparency. Even now we are having trouble trying to put the dollar amounts with the Member, with the earmark. Certainly, I don't see the transparency that I thought that we would have seen from the committee on this matter.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, we have had a number of debates this evening over the subject of earmarks. I have been heard on that, and I have been happy to have been heard on this particular debate. And again, I know there are many worthy expenditures of funds when it comes to earmarks. I do not necessarily believe that they are all bad.

And I must admit, until coming to the floor, I wasn't completely certain what the Minnesota Digital Public Media Archive was. Fortunately, the gentlelady from Minnesota was kind enough to come to me and explain to me exactly what the purpose of the earmark was. I enjoyed our conversation and I appreciated her courtesy, and I want to stipulate this is not a debate on whether or not the gentlelady has a noble purpose for these funds. As explained to me with her enthusiasm, I stipulate there is a noble purpose for these funds.

I am not necessarily going to engage in a debate on whether or not the Twin Cities public television station in St. Paul can make good use of the money, the half a million dollars. I am sure they can, as explained to me by the gentlelady from Minnesota.

And so I want to again make it very clear, and we don't have the time to debate each and every earmark, but every time we expend these funds we have to look at, number one, where is the money coming from, and number two, what is the fiscal health of our Nation. Already the Federal Government is spending over $23,000 per American family. This is only the second time since World War II that the Federal Government has spent so much money.

And right now with just the Federal Government that we have, we are on a collision course to double taxes on the next generation. Don't take my word for it. Go to the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, or the conservative Heritage Foundation or the liberal Brookings Institute. They will all tell you the same thing.

So we are sitting here with an explosion of spending. Some will say, relatively speaking, this is a small amount of money. Relative to the Federal budget, it is a small amount of money. I am happy to stipulate that. But I still believe that earmarks, although a small portion of the Federal budget, tend to be a large portion of the culture of spending.

Again, I have no doubt this is a worthy project, but I do note that the PBS television station, I believe, gets almost 85 percent of its funding from donations and other public grants. I am led to believe, and if I am incorrect, I invite the gentlelady from Minnesota to correct me, that they receive rather generous support from the taxpayers of the State of Minnesota. But I don't quite know what the compelling Federal purpose is, Federal purpose, money from Federal taxpayers, to fund the Minnesota Digital Public Media Archive.

Look, this isn't a debate on whether or not this is a noble purpose for the money. It is not a debate on whether or not the gentlelady's public television station could do something good with the money. But let's remember where the money is coming from. As long as this Nation is running a deficit, which it is, is this money going to come from raiding the Social Security trust fund yet again, even though I have introduced and supported legislation that would protect that trust fund?

If we run a deficit, we are still borrowing money from the Social Security trust fund. Or as we know in the Democratic budget resolution passed earlier this year, we have the single largest

tax increase in American history, over 5 years ramping up to an average of $3,000 per American family.

More spending fuels more taxes. Are we going to increase that greater tax burden on present American families or are we going to pass on more debt to our children? Government will be paid for. This earmark will be paid for one way or another.

And so the question is not whether or not there's a noble purpose. The question is not whether or not they make good use of the funds, but is it a compelling Federal purpose, worthy of sending debt to our children, worthy of taking money away from the Social Security Trust Fund, worthy of being a part of the largest tax increase in history, and I respectfully submit to my colleagues that I believe it is not.

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I do have a number of comments I would like to make about this particular earmark. But before I do, I do feel compelled to address some of the comments by the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I think the way to paraphrase what he just said is: You guys spend too much, so we will spend even more. I am not exactly sure about the logic of that particular argument.

I also heard complaints about the war, something that has been debated on this floor, should be debated on this floor, will be debated on this floor. But I would note that the gentleman's party controls both the House and both the Senate; and if his party wants to end funding, they can do that tomorrow. His party is in control of this now.

Last, but not least, the distinguished gentleman complains about tax relief. Last I looked, don't take my word for it, go to the United States Treasury, we are awash in tax receipts. Tax relief has brought us in more tax revenue, because when you let the American people save more and invest more, they go out and they create and they grow the economy. So I think the gentleman's comments were very much misplaced.

Speaking to this particular amendment; one, this particular amendment would eliminate the earmark of $300,000 in funds to the West Los Angeles Times College. From the certification letter, this is to establish a first-of-its-kind entertainment industry craft and technician college job training program to respond to the film and television industry's immediate need for new trained employees.

Previous to coming to floor, I did know a lot about this particular earmark. The sponsor of the earmark, the gentlelady from California, was kind enough to share with me information about it, and I became convinced of a couple of different propositions:

Number one, that she has a very noble purpose for this earmark. Again, I want to stipulate to that.

Number two, I came away, as I did with the last amendment, knowing that not only is there a noble purpose, I have no doubt that some good things could be done with this money.

But like in many of these earmark debates, there tends to be great focus on the good that can be done with this money, but we don't spend a lot of time talking about the harm that can be done with this money. And I know that the gentlelady from California feels that low-income people within her district could benefit from this program. I have no doubt that that is true. But I might point out that there are very many worthy community colleges, for example, in the Fifth Congressional District, who could benefit from this money as well.

Eastfield College, we need a lot of people trained for our high-tech industry, for jobs with companies like Texas Instruments, companies like Raytheon. These monies could be used by Trinity Valley Community College. There are several locations within the Fifth District of Texas. They could help in our burgeoning nursery industry. It is a very agricultural part of my district. So, again, education is good. But the education is going to the one particular district in this particular case, not going to the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. So there are many worthy competing goals for this particular money.

But I really want us to focus upon the fact that although I have no doubt that good things can be done with these funds, all of government must be paid for. And so, again, I think we should use this debate as an opportunity to focus on who is paying the bill. And, again, as long as this Nation is running a deficit and it is down, thanks to the fact we are awash in tax revenues due to tax relief, we are still running a deficit. That means that any earmark, not just the gentlelady's from California, but any, is going to be raiding the Social Security Trust Fund as we continue, unfortunately, a practice from both parties of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund.

In addition, we know that more spending fuels more taxes. And I hear from constituents in my district who have to pay the bills for all these earmarks no matter how worthy they are. I hear from somebody like the Flores family in Garland, Texas. She writes, ``Dear Congressman, I am a divorced mother with a child in college and a child in daycare. An increase in taxes would wipe out hope of the first college graduate in the family. Please don't let this happen. Let's hold the budget down. There are a lot of things I can't afford, so I don't buy them. I need government to take the same attitude.''

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Again, I appreciate the gentlelady and her purpose for her amendment. When she spoke about the term ``wealthy,'' if there is an industry in America that is wealthy it is obviously Hollywood. I would hope that they would be able to train their own people. But as I spoke about earlier, Rose Flores of Garland, Texas, doesn't consider herself wealthy, and yet she is staring at an average increase in her taxes of $3,000 a year as she tries to put a child through college, the very first one in her family to ever graduate from college.

Again, we must focus on the cost of these earmarks.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor the 50th wedding anniversary of Lowell and Carolyn Daughtry.

Lowell was born in Titus County, Texas. He attended Mt. Pleasant High School and graduated from University of Texas at Tyler. After college, Lowell worked in the accounting office at the Continental Can Plant for fourteen years. He then worked in sales at Tyler Pipe for three years. Lowell rounded out his career working at the United States Post Office in Azalea Station, finally retiring in 2002.

Carolyn is a native of Tyler, Texas. She graduated from Tyler High School in 1957 and went on to the University of Texas at Tyler. Carolyn worked for Coca Cola in the marketing department, where she advanced from head bookkeeper to Manager of Automatic Buffet/Coca Cola, becoming the first female

manager. She then went to work for Buford Television/Friendship Cable as Vice President and General Manager, responsible for building over 40 television systems for Buford. While there, she bought, sold, and managed over 60 franchised areas. In 1991, Carolyn left Buford to work for Harron Cablevision as their Texas manager, overseeing 60 systems. Through Harron, she negotiated and bought the rights to Direct Television in 13 counties.

Lowell and Carolyn had two daughters; Rhita and Mikki. Rhita lives with her family in Canton, Texas. Sadly, Mikki passed in March, 1993 leaving behind her husband Kyle and their two sons Ross and Luke. Her memory is cherished by all those she left behind.

Lowell and Carolyn can be found working on their farm, happily tending their garden and traveling. I might note that Lowell now serves as Elder at the Chandler Church of Christ and Chaplain for the VanZandt AARP, for whom Carolyn is President.

As the Congressional representative of Ben Wheeler, Texas, it is my distinct pleasure to honor the 50th wedding anniversary of Lowell and Carolyn Daughtry today in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment would save the taxpayers $1.5 billion. This would

strike the funding for the South Carolina HBCU Science and Technology initiative.

Let me say at the outset that I have no doubt that good use could be made of these funds by this institution in South Carolina. Let me also stipulate I have no doubt that the gentleman from South Carolina, who has offered this earmark, knows far more about the good work they do at this institution than do I.

But I do believe that it is critical that every single penny of Federal spending be put in the context of its impact, not only on the taxpayer, but of future generations. I think if you are going to lead, you have to lead by example.

Now, I wish we had the opportunity to come to the floor each and every day and debate what will happen to future generations if we don't alter the spending patterns that we presently have in Congress today.

In fact, the chairman of the Federal Reserve has recently spoken, ``Without early and meaningful action to address the rapid growth of entitlements, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened with future generations bearing much of the cost.''

A report from the Government Accountability Office, the rising cost of government entitlements are a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.

I know that principally our spending patterns are driven by entitlement spending. But as the late Everett Dirksen once said, $1 billion here, $1 billion, we are starting to talk about real money. By one estimation, we already have 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 agencies, and it seems like week in, week out, we just add, add to those particular programs.

The question I have here today again is when we look at this one expenditure, and, yes, earmarks are a small part of Federal spending, but I believe that they are a large portion of the culture of Federal spending. I am not religiously opposed to earmarks.

Again, maybe good things can be done with this money. But looking at the fact that the Federal budget is going way beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it, at what point do we say that maybe, maybe the Federal taxpayer shouldn't be asked to spend money that goes to, I believe in this case, a private college.

Again, as I understand it, the funding would be used for math and science research at the respective institutions.

Well, we have got some of these institutions in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. I am sure they could use the money at Eastfield College. I am sure they could use the money at Trinity Valley Community College. I am sure my alma mater, Texas A&M University, which is not in my district, could use this money as well.

But out of the hundreds of thousands of institutions of higher learning, why are we deciding that the taxpayer is supposed to fund this one? Is there any good purpose, any good program, any good project in America that shouldn't receive a Federal subsidy? That's kind of the question that we have here today.

When I see a group of earmarks that are going to institutions in Members' districts, and I reflect upon the fact that we are now on a collision course to either double taxes on the next generation, or, for all intents and purposes, have no Federal Government, save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, we have got to start saving the pennies. When we start saving the pennies, eventually, the dollars will take care of themselves.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just add, there is a number of amendments I have, not just simply those in the gentleman's district, I suppose I could be here all day speaking about them.

I might also add that I am pleased to have a historically black college in my district, Jarvis Christian College in Wood County, Texas. Last I looked they don't have any money in this particular bill.

But the question again is, if we are going to help people with education, doubling taxes on the American families, which the budget resolution has done, which this bill is a part of, is no way to help an education.

I would urge adoption of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue on somewhat with some of the themes that were touched upon in the last amendment. But before I do, I do want to say a few words about the overall bill.

I do want to say that I think a lot of good work was done by the committee, by the chairman, by our ranking member. It is my understanding that the dollar value of the earmarks has declined substantially from the last bill. I am going to say that I view that as progress. But I also want to say that when we are approaching as a Nation a very nasty fiscal fork in the road, and in this institution unfortunately there is a nasty habit of just kicking that can down the road as I mix my metaphors; but, again, don't take my word for it, look at the analysis of the Congressional Budget Office, look at the analysis of the General Accountability Office, look at the Office of Management and Budget.

Just dealing with the government that we have today, if Congress just disappeared and created no new government, we are going to reach this fiscal fork in the road in the next generation, where we are either going to have to double taxes on our children and grandchildren, or for all intents and purposes there will be no Federal Government save Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

It is not my analysis. Look at the analysis of these other bodies. And so I believe again that, unfortunately, although earmarks today are a small portion of the Federal budget, they are a large portion of the culture of Federal spending.

Another reservation I have is my fear that too often they teach people and teach institutions to become dependent upon the Federal Government. I come from Dallas, Texas, and a part of the Fifth Congressional District takes in the eastern part of the City of Dallas. I was dealing not long ago, taking a tour with one of the very revered and esteemed medical institutions within the City of Dallas that said that for years and years and years they were always happy to competitively bid through the NIH process or other processes for their research grant money. But they have awakened to the dawn of a new day now to where so many of their other competing medical education, medical research institutions were receiving their Federal funding via the earmark track. And so finally, after all these years, they broke down and invested in a Federal lobbyist. Now, they were happy with a competitive system, but they have realized that, unfortunately, that is increasingly not where this Congress is headed.

And so I believe that that is a bad thing, again, to try to somehow move away from what should be a more competitive process into one that does something else. Now, again, I think there is a lot of wonderful earmarks here. I have no doubt about it. But, unfortunately, more often than not we see earmarks representing a victory of the special interests over the national interests, a victory of seniority over merit, and too often a victory of secrecy over transparency.

I am glad that the Democrat leadership recently reversed themselves to allow the transparency that we see today, and I believe that that is a good thing. But two things we have to remember as we hand out money to one specific educational institution, and in this particular case the Environmental Science Center at the University of Dubuque. Maybe good things can be done with that money, but how about the good things that the taxpayers who fund this, how about the good things they could have done?

I recently received some correspondence from a lady in my district, Joyce of Tennessee Colony, Texas: ``Dear Congressman, please do what you can to stop the wasteful spending. I am retired; I am disabled. I am raising three grandchildren and now one great grandchild. I sometimes cannot afford my own medicine. It takes everything I have to get us from month to month. Gas has become a problem. I can't go to church at the end of the month because I don't have gas to get to town.''

So here we are, Mr. Chairman, in an energy and water bill, and we are harming the energy program of American families to put energy earmarks in this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in specific, this amendment would strike the earmark that would fund the computer and science equipment at Emmanuel College Center for Science Partnership.

Again, following up on some of the debate in the earlier amendments, I simply question why, at a time when our Nation continues to face great fiscal challenges in the future, that although these individual earmarks may be small amounts, I almost feel like the story of the three bears, whether the porridge is too hot or too cold. You come to debate spending on the floor, and sometimes people will tell you, well, that program is so big it is a sacred cow, you can't touch it. And then other times, Mr. Chairman, you hear, well, we are dealing with a very small amount of money here, so why are we bothering with that? You almost believe it is part of the NIMBY syndrome, the ``Not in My Back Yard.''

And, again, I will say I am sure the sponsor of this earmark knows far more about it than I do, knows far more about the educational institutional, and I have no doubt that good things could be done with that money. But that is not really the relevant question. The relevant question ought to be, number one, is this something the Federal Government ought to be doing in the first place, given all the other challenges and needs that we have.

Second of all, is this a priority? Is this a priority? Because we know now that as, recently, Congress voted to increase the debt ceiling, continues to raid the Social Security fund. Is it worth taking money out of the Social Security trust fund to fund this particular earmark or any other particular earmark? And that is what Members have to decide.

And although I am sure the sponsor of the earmark can make a very good defense and tell us all the wonderful good ways that this money will be used, and I am sure he will tell us that he knows his district better than anybody else, I stipulate that. I stipulate that. But, Mr. Chairman, I think I know my district, the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, better than anybody else in this institution; and I am fearful that every time the people of the Fifth Congressional District are called upon to fund somebody else's earmark somewhere else across the Nation, because, again, as we are trying to fund Federal energy and water programs, we are taking away from family energy and water programs, including in many of those in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas.

Recently, I heard from Ken of Mabank, Texas. He was concerned about this single largest tax increase in the history that was passed as part of the Democrat budget. And as you spend more money, you have to tax more money. And so we know that the average American family in the next 5 years is going to be faced with an extra tax burden of about $3,000 a year, and part of it pays for earmarks like these. I heard from Ken in Mabank, and he said: ``Dear Congressman, any increase in taxes will hurt my family budget and cause us to cut back in other key areas. The rising gas prices have already made us cut back on spending. Why does the Federal Government continue to have an open checkbook based on the backs of the taxpayer, me?''

Well, I get letters like these every day, Mr. Chairman. And, again, we have to be cognizant as these so-called investments are made in Washington, we are taking away the ability of families including those in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas to make their investments in energy, their investments in water. And, again, I have no doubt that the sponsor of this amendment believes that good things can be done with the money, but is every good thing in America due to receive a Federal subsidy? Shall we start to subsidize Girl Scout cookies? How about cut flowers in everybody's home? My children, who are age 3 and 5, are just now learning to swim. Maybe we should subsidize swimming pools in every community across America. Where does it all end? Where does the madness stop?

This kind of spending fuels the single largest tax increase in history and threatens, threatens, to double taxes on our children. I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, now, I have never met Sister Janet, but I have heard from Melanie in Chandler, who said: ``If I have to pay more taxes, then I can't afford to go to school.'' I have heard from Rose in Garland who says: ``I am a divorced mother with a child in college. An increase in taxes would wipe out hope of the first college graduate in the family.''

Fueling earmarks like these take away from family education programs, Mr. Chairman. And that is why I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike the earmark used to fund the equipping of two laboratories, creating 48 state-of- the-art work stations at Roosevelt University Biology Laboratory.

Again, Mr. Chairman, there are so many great colleges, so many great universities across our Nation. How do we get into the business of subsidizing some and not subsidizing others?

Again, there are many worthy colleges in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, Jarvis Christian College, Eastfield College, Trinity Valley Community College, and a much greater list beyond that. And so somehow, the students who attend those colleges in the Fifth District of Texas, either they or their peers are being asked to take money that would be destined for their education programs and send them somewhere else, in this case Illinois, to fund somebody else's education, somebody else's research.

I again stipulate that I have no doubt that good things could be done with this money. I don't know what. I'm sure the gentleman who sponsored the earmark would be happy to let us know the good things that can be done with this money.

But too often, Mr. Chairman, we seem to forget whose money it is in the first place. And so that's why I bring these letters, this correspondence from people from the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, because we should never ever forget that as we're plussing up some Federal program, be it in energy or water or education, you're taking away from some family's program where they're trying to fund their energy, their water, their education.

And again, Mr. Chairman, I just don't know how people can be aware of the fact that this Nation is on a collision course for a fiscal calamity. Just the government we have today threatens to double taxes on the American people. Now, a lot of those people today can't vote. Some of those people aren't even born yet. But we know it's going to happen.

Go to the Congressional Budget Office. Go to the Office of Management and Budget. Listen to the Federal Reserve Chairman. Let me quote from some other sources. I quoted earlier from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, that without early and meaningful action, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost.

CBO, either a substantial reduction in the growth of spending, a significant increase in tax revenues relative to the size of the economy, or some combination will be necessary to promote the Nation's long-term fiscal stability.

A famous economist, Robert Samuelson, the rising cost of government retirement programs, mainly Social Security and Medicare, increase taxes or budget deficits so much that they could reduce economic growth and this could trigger an economic and political death spiral.

And so what I hear from too many of my colleagues is, well, this is just a few dollars in my particular district. Well, the challenge is great. The challenge is great. We must lead by example, and by leading by example, we shouldn't be bringing a bill to the floor, number one, that has a 4.3 percent increase over last year, 3.7 percent over the administration's request, and quite often they request too much, that I believe contains 5.6 billion in earmarks. Where does it all stop?

Is this truly a Federal priority? Or should the priority be to assure that we leave the next generation with greater freedom and greater opportunity?

That fight starts today. I know too often the focus in the Nation's capital is on the next election and not the next generation. We ought to put it on the next generation because if we don't there'll be no money for them to fund their education programs. There'll be no money at all. And so we need to start today, and in this area of earmarking funds to these private educational institutions is a good start.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure we're having a debate over how much money we're going to spend over education. We are certainly having a debate over who should do that particular spending.

I'm sorry that the gentleman from Illinois doesn't see the logic of American families who are working hard trying to save money, trying to put their children through college, and yet he has an earmark that is helping being funded by the largest tax increase in American history.

I heard from Joy in Dallas, ``I could not pay for a semester of college for my daughter if I had to send $2,200 more dollars to the government.'' We can ask her about the logic of the gentleman's earmark.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment would strike the earmark for Nanosys, Inc. The funding would have been used to develop a fuel cell membrane electrode assembly to enable the production of lightweight fuel cells suitable for automotive applications and portable electronic devices.

Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that that is a very worthy expenditure of funds. I, myself, prior to coming to Congress, used to be an officer in what most typically know is a green energy company.

The issues surrounding fuel cells, the issues surrounding making energy more environmentally friendly, making America more energy independent are very, very important issues. But I wonder, I wonder about the wisdom, about earmarking funds to a specific, which I assume to be, for profit company, a private company. Otherwise why are they called Nanosys, Inc.?

There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of companies across America, all trying to do good things, trying to feed our people, educate our people, clothe our people, heat their homes in the winter, cool them in the summer, help them with transportation. What isn't a priority here?

And so now we give all the indication that, instead of having a company come and compete in some process, some kind of competitive bidding process, instead we have an earmark to a private company. Why is their fuel cell technology so superior to somebody else's?

Back when I was affiliated with Green Mountain Energy of Austin, Texas, they were doing a lot of good things to produce power from wind energy and solar energy and biomass. Perhaps I should encourage some of my former colleagues of that particular private company to, instead of competing in the halls and competing in the marketplace, to come compete in the halls of Congress for an earmark.

Now, again, this Nation desperately needs advances in fuel cell technology, but to start handing money, through earmarks, to individual companies, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe is the way to go.

And furthermore, once again we face such fiscal challenges. Our energy challenge, our educational challenge are not the only challenges we face. We face a great fiscal challenge. To paraphrase the Controller General Walker, he has said, we are on the verge, in America, of being the first generation in our Nation's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living.

It has never been done in the history of America. And we will do that if we don't stop the ways that we spend the people's money.

So, again, I am faced with a bill here that spends 4.3 percent more than last year. I am faced with an earmark that is part of that process. I am looking at a Democrat budget plan, Mr. Chairman, that will be $21 billion over the President's request. I am looking at a Democrat budget resolution that is going to impose the single largest tax increase in America's history not only on the good people of the Fifth Congressional District of Texas but everybody. So, again, the relevant question is not can good things be done with the money. I am sure Nanosys can do a lot of good things with the earmark that they will mostly likely receive. But it is coming out of American families. It is coming out of their energy budget. It is coming out of their education budget. If we don't fund it through that, if we pass more debt on to our children, then what are they facing? They are facing doubling of their taxes and our generation passing on to them a lower standard of living. And, Mr. Chairman, I simply do not wish to be a part of that.

So I urge adoption of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have listened intently to the gentlewoman's debate. I would simply say that it sounds too good to be true. If the company is on the cusp of making such wonderful breakthroughs, I just wonder, then, why taxpayer funds are needed. It would seem like investors would be knocking on the door to have a part of this great technology that this company is about to produce. I would love to sometime be able to visit California, visit this particular company, although I am not sure how practical it is. And I would encourage the gentlewoman to come to the Fifth District of Texas and speak to the people who are having to pay for this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 41: Page 58, line 21, after the dollar

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

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 50: Page 82, line 6 after the first dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $23,533,000)''.