Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 47: Page 80, line 2, after each dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $33,907,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 48: Page 80, line 2, after each dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $7,596,000)''.

Page 80, lines 17, after each dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $7,596,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 49: Page 82, line 6 after the first dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $10,695,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 35: 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 South

Carolina HBCU Science and Technology initiative (SC).

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 36: 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

Environmental Science Center, University of Dubuque, IA.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 37: 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 Emmanuel

College Center for Science Partnership, MA.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 38: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

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

University Biology Laboratory Equipment (IL).

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 39: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

None of the funds in this Act may be used for Nanosys, Inc.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his outstanding leadership on this floor and within the Republican Study Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to come to the floor today and debate this resolution with my fellow members of the Republican Study Committee. But if press reports are to be believed, I am disturbed by the reason that we are here, and that is, is this a poll driven resolution?

We all know that our Democratic colleagues now have one of the lowest congressional approval ratings in almost 50 years. We know they don't want to spend time on this floor debating how little has been achieved in their tenure, and perhaps they want to spend even less time talking about what they have achieved; the single largest tax increase in American history, a secret earmarking plan gone awry, and a spendorama, spending millions and millions on peanut storage, NASA and dairy products, put into a

bill to support our troops in harm's way.

Putting polls aside, why are we here? Make no mistake about it. What we are debating today is whether or not to declare defeat in Iraq, the battlefront in our war against radical Islam.

Everyone knows that fighting this battle in Iraq is costly, but losing this battle in Iraq is even costlier.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes life presents us with lousy options, but that is a reality with which we must deal. Iraq must be seen in the larger context of our war with radical Islam. The battle lines are drawn; and whether or not we like it, they are drawn in Iraq.

Don't take my word for it. Take the word of Osama bin Laden: ``The epicenter of these wars is Baghdad. Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all of their wars.'' And we have to soberly reflect upon the enemy that we are facing. Listen to the number two in al Qaeda, al Zawahiri: ``Al Qaeda has the right to kill 4 million Americans, 2 million of them children.''

Mr. Speaker, two of those children are my children. And I take this very, very seriously.

Al Qaeda has further vowed to expel the Americans from Iraq. They have vowed that they will ``launch a jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.''

Again, this is the enemy we face and we face him foremost in Iraq. If we leave Iraq before subduing him, he will follow us here to our shores. And make no mistake about it. The consequences are immense. Read the National Intelligence Estimate. Read the report of the Iraq Study Group. Precipitous withdrawal declaring defeat will not end this war. Instead, it will make it worse. It will send it to neighboring countries. It may lead to genocide.

Now, I have listened to the debate of my colleagues carefully. Some still complain about the decision to go in. It's a moot point. Many want to complain about mistakes or incompetence of 3 years, 2 years, or perhaps 1 year ago that may or may not be accurate. Today they are irrelevant.

The question is what do we do now? We have a new commander. We have a new strategy. We have a report due in September. We have signs of hope. Let's give it a chance. There is too much at stake to declare defeat today.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I rise today to offer an amendment with my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who just offered the previous amendment, and I certainly associate myself with his efforts on the previous amendment.

This amendment represents what many of us consider to be a very, very important principle, and that fundamental important principle is if you're an able-bodied adult under the age of 62 receiving means-tested Federal assistance, you ought to be on the road to self-sufficiency. That's what this amendment is all about, and that's what the principle is. This, we believe, will further encourage people to make the transition from dependency upon section 8 rental assistance to self- sufficiency. Not only is that important to them, it's important to the taxpayer who we're asking to pick up the tab. And this is, I believe, over a $2 billion bill.

Now, specifically, our amendment would require people receiving section 8 rental assistance for 7 consecutive years to perform a certain amount of work-related activities, which includes work, looking for work, job training, education and a host of other activities that are reflected in the TANF statute, which we mirror. There are a number of exemptions. It exempts those under age 18, over the age of 62, blind, disabled, those already working, already exempt under TANF, single parents of children under six who are unable to find appropriate child care.

Over 10 years ago, the Nation embarked on a bold new experiment with TANF, and we said that Federal assistance should be temporary and based on work and self-sufficiency and responsibility and personal dignity. That is a principle. Now many naysayers then said that it was mean. They said it was unworkable. Some even implied it was racist. Well, they were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Under TANF, the number of families receiving cash welfare steadily declined from a peak of 5.1 million families in March of 1994 to 1.9 million families. Child poverty has fallen dramatically. The employment of young single mothers has doubled, and the employment of mothers who have never been married is up by more than 50 percent.

Now, the lessons are clear. But we didn't finish the job 10 years ago, and we should finish it. Again, this is a vote on a very simple principle. If you're an able-bodied adult receiving means-tested Federal assistance, should you be on the road to self-sufficiency? I believe the answer is yes.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Section 8, if the gentleman will yield.

Will the gentleman yield for an explanation?

I'm sorry. Would the gentleman repeat the question?

If the gentleman will yield?

I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

This particular amendment mirrors the TANF statute, and so there may be confusion there.

Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is left on my side?

In that case, Madam Chair, I would like to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for coming down to support this important amendment.

I continue to fail to see what is mean-spirited about asking people, after 7 years, who get means-tested assistance, to be on the road to self-sufficiency, something good for them, something good for the taxpayer.

I must admit, I really regret, Madam Chairman, that the gentleman from Georgia chose to characterize this as ``bigoted.'' Perhaps I could have taken his words down. I sense when you run out of anything else to say, you characterize someone else's motivations and you use the term ``bigoted.'' And that, I regret.

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

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this might possibly be the single most fiscally irresponsible bill to come to the floor this year, and it has had a lot of healthy competition. Why? Because this bill would create nine, count them, nine, Mr. Speaker, new entitlement programs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know what entitlement programs are; sometimes the American people don't. These are the programs that we put on automatic pilot that get very little oversight. And these nine new entitlement programs are going to be on top of almost 10,000 other Federal programs that are already on the books. And we know that it is entitlement spending that is threatening future generations and threatening their educational opportunities.

As the ranking member on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin talked about, we've heard from our chairman of the Federal Reserve, ``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 costs, costs that could have been used for their educational opportunities.''

We've heard from Comptroller General Walker, ``The rising costs of government entitlements are a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.'' And what does this bill do, Mr. Speaker? It ignores this greatest fiscal threat to our Nation, a threat to educational opportunities, and dumps nine new entitlement spending programs on top of it.

Now, I have no doubt that the bill's sponsor will claim that this saves money, but it uses gimmicks. It claims that these entitlements will expire. Well, Mr. Speaker, we see Haley's Comet more frequently than we ever see an entitlement program expiring in the Nation's Capitol. It's got interest rate snapbacks. And we all know that once these entitlement seeds grow, the cost will be borne by future generations.

One thing I want to make very clear, Mr. Speaker, is that the worst part of this program is that it will ultimately lessen educational opportunities for hardworking American families. And it will because it is all part of a Democratic spend-and-tax program. Programs like these necessitate the largest single tax increase in American history, which they put into their budget, which takes away from families' opportunities to spend on their educational opportunities.

I heard from Melanie in Chandler, Texas, who's in my district. She wrote, ``Congressman, if I have to pay more taxes, then I can't afford to go to school. If taxes are raised, I won't have a choice but to quit school and go back to work.''

I heard from Rose in Garland, Texas, also in my congressional district. ``I'm 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.''

I heard from Bruce 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 college education. I really believe that given more money, Congress will spend more money, so that is not the answer. A control in reduction of spending is what is needed.''

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are very few opportunities that are as wondrous and as fundamental to the American Dream as education. And so I want to make it very clear again today, we're not having a debate over how much we're going to spend as a Nation on education, but we are having a very fundamental debate on who does that spending.

This bill, brought by the Democrat majority, would put all of the control in government. It would reduce opportunities. It would reduce choice. It would reduce innovation for families trying to finance education. And ironically, as part of the largest single tax increase in American history, it takes money away from families. But if people beg for it, maybe they'll get a little bit of it back.

We should reject this bill.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Did the gentleman support the Democrat alternative that cost even more, as scored by CBO?

Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor Mayor Ronald Jones of Garland, Texas, winner of the mayoral runoff election on Saturday, June 16.

Mr. Jones has served in public administration for 29 years. He has served as assistant city manager for more than 5 years and as city administrator before that, showing his devotion to the City of Garland.

Mayor Jones has served in Christian ministry and pastoral administration for over 40 years. He was an adjunct professor in the Dallas County Community College District, teaching business management courses, and is a published author. Working in the private sector, Mayor Jones directed several entrepreneurial endeavors. He is a certified mediator and a negotiator--a skill that will no doubt serve him well at City Hall.

Most importantly, however, Mayor Jones has been married to Peggy for forty years, and they are the proud parents of Ronald E. Jones, II, a practicing attorney, and Reverend Daryl L. Jones. They also have six grandchildren.

Mayor Jones recently described his own approach to public service: ``We are just stewards. . . We are here for a particular time, and then we are gone. All I want to do is to leave things better than I found them. That's what it means to me. And I think it means a lot for the Garland community.''

Madam Speaker, as a Representative of the City of Garland, it is my pleasure to congratulate Mayor Jones on his election victory.

I thank my friend from Arizona for yielding. I want to thank him for his amendment.

What we have before us is an earmark that is in a family of earmarks, where somehow we in Congress think it is advisable to take money out of local communities, give it a big haircut, and then send it back as local economic development. I question what does the Federal Government know about economic development to begin with. I am going to support the gentleman from Arizona's amendment, but I did want to say something about the gentleman from North Carolina. But for his leadership in coming to the floor to fight for transparency and accountability, he wouldn't have to be here today defending the earmark, and I wanted to congratulate the gentleman for being willing to submit his earmark to this process. Now, I don't think his earmark meets the taxpayer test of efficiency or accountability, but I did want to applaud his leadership in improving the process and bringing transparency and accountability to the floor.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership.

Mr. Chairman, there is no greater guarantor of our democracy and our freedoms than the first amendment. There is no greater threat to our first amendment, freedom of speech, than the resurrection of the so- called Fairness Doctrine. The use of the term ``fairness doctrine'' would make George Orwell blush. The use of the program would make Hugo Chavez jealous.

Fairness, fairness particularly, as defined and policed by government, is the absolute antithesis of freedom.

It is patently unfair, and there was a time in our Nation's history when liberals proudly spoke out and jealously guarded our first amendment rights, and now, as we have heard from others, they seek to shut it down.

If, in doubt, colleagues err on the side of freedom.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Again, I want to thank him for his leadership on this House floor in attempting to bring fiscal sanity in a place that desperately needs it.

Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to the gentleman from New York and his comments, and I certainly appreciate the wit that he brings to this debate. Perhaps with the exception of him, I am somewhat curious from time to time why so many Members on this side of the aisle appear to be so grumpy, since they did win the last election.

The gentleman said that early on that he wasn't sure if we cared. We certainly care about the gentleman from New York. We just care even more about hard-working taxpayers in our districts.

He talks about the devastating cut that an amendment to level-fund this bill would be to the government. A devastating cut, when you are giving them exactly the same amount of money this year that you gave them last year. Webster must be spinning in his grave. I have actually looked up the definition of ``cut'' and it means ``to reduce.'' So for level-funding this bill, I fail to see this thing called a cut.

What I do know is being cut is the family budget, because, as the gentleman from Ohio has aptly pointed out, there is all of this spending, a 9.9 percent increase, and somehow it is devastating, devastating, anything less than a 9.9 percent increase in this agency.

Well, how about the $3,000 a year largest tax increase in history that this is part of? This spending, this 9.9 percent increase is being funded with this largest tax increase in history.

That is where the devastating cut is coming, Mr. Chairman, in the family budgets of American families all across the Nation. And that is what we are trying to prevent, and that is what we care about, and it is indeed a very serious subject.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

First, clearly the gentleman from New York is listening to a different debate than I am listening to. I very much did enjoy hearing his story, a story I was unacquainted with. I certainly honor all of those who come from common circumstances and can better themselves.

But there are many of us on this side of the aisle who think that the best housing project, the best educational project, the best health care project is a job, and that is what the Republican budget helps create.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, the Republican Conference Policy chairman, Mr. McCotter.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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

Mr. Chairman, I think it's very important that we focus on exactly what the question is before us. The question before us, with the amendment from the gentleman from Georgia, is will we grow the Financial Services appropriations by 9.9 percent or will we grow it by 8.9 percent? So when you hear the discussion of the devastating cuts and what this will do to all these fundamental government programs, how many families in America would love to have a cut that resulted in an 8.9 percent increase in their family income?

Even more fundamental, Mr. Chairman, this amendment will set us on two paths. One path, if we reject this amendment, leads to the largest tax increase in American history, $3,000 per American family. The other path will lead us to a balanced budget, the Republican budget, without raising taxes on hardworking American people.

Let's support and approve the amendment from the gentleman from Georgia.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank him for his leadership. He is one of the outstanding freshmen Members that we have on this side of the aisle. His leadership in helping protect the family budget from the Federal budget is noted. It is noted in this body, and certainly noted in his district and increasingly being noted nationwide. So I thank him for his leadership in bringing this amendment to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very, very important amendment, and I listened carefully to chairman of the committee and his words. I think again, as I said yesterday on this House floor, that much good work has been done on this legislation.

But I do take exception when he uses the term that this amendment amounts to a devastating cut. Again, people are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. This amendment simply says this appropriations bill will be funded at last year's level.

Now, last I looked at Webster's, and looked up the definition of cut, it means to reduce an amount. We are simply asking, in extraordinary times, that government somehow not increase its budget. We are not talking about a decrease here. We are simply saying try to live on the same budget that you lived on last year.

Now, I do believe there is a place where the phrase ``devastating cut'' is applicable.

As the gentleman from Ohio aptly pointed out, more spending fueled more taxes. Again, that is a very simple nexus, but more spending will fuel more taxes. It's one of the reasons that we have seen within the Democrat budget the single largest tax increase in American history.

Now, that tax increase, when fully implemented over 5 years, is going to amount to roughly $3,000 for every American family. That is a devastating cut. That is a devastating cut to the family budget.

I hear from these families. I hear from families in my district, the Fifth District of Texas, that I have the honor and pleasure of representing. I hear from people like Bruce in Garland who writes, ``Congressman, in my particular case, additional taxes would cut into the finances I used to pay for my son's college education. I really believe that given more money, Congress will simply spend more money. That is not the answer.''

I hear from Joy in Dallas, ``Congressman, I could not pay for a semester of college for my daughter if I had to send $2,200 more to the government.''

I hear from Linda, also, in the City of Garland that I represent, ``If we had to pay an additional $2,200 each year, it would make us have to decide between food or medicine.''

The list goes on and on and on. That is a devastating cut, the largest tax increase in American history fueled by more spending, some of which is contained in this bill, those are devastating cuts. Those are devastating cuts to hard-working American families. It's cutting their education program, it's cutting their health care program, it's cutting their American dream.

I certainly commend the chairman. Relative to some of these bills, this is a more reasonable approach.

But when we look at the largest tax increase in history, when we look at the looming entitlement crisis, and I was very grateful to hear the chairman acknowledge its existence in debate yesterday, but given all of those facts, can't we somehow raise the bar on how much we are going to spend on this Federal legislation and protect the family budget from the onslaught of the Federal budget?

There are two paths we can go down. One path leads us to an extra $3,000 of tax increases on the American family.

The other path tells the Federal budget, live with as much as you have lived with last year, and we will protect the American family from devastating cuts in their budget.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I thank him for his leadership in the Republican Study Committee and his leadership for fiscal sanity in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee is no longer on the floor. I have listened to his comments carefully. He alluded to some of the debate being part fiction. Well, I must admit, when I have my Democrat colleagues come to the floor and lecture on the subject of fiscal responsibility, I do feel like we are in the midst of a chapter in ``Alice in Wonderland.'' We hear our friends from this side of the aisle lecture us, well, it was you Republicans who voted for these budgets that increased spending.

Well, Mr. Chairman, again, you are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts. Look at the record. Every time that the Republicans offered a budget that spent more money, Democrats offered a budget that spent even more. It spent even more. Look at the record. You have Democrats come to the floor, Mr. Chairman, and say, well, the Republicans are responsible for this very expensive prescription drug benefit program.

Well, they are right. But guess what? Their program cost even more. It cost even more. Then they say, well, under your watch, the national debt went up by $3 trillion. Well, the unfunded obligations, the debt that will be imposed on our children and grandchildren for their refusal to do anything about out-of-control entitlement spending, is $50 trillion. $50 trillion.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would be more than happy to take responsibility for $3 trillion when my friends from the other side of the aisle will take responsibility for the $50 trillion. They had nothing, absolutely nothing, stone-cold silence on entitlement spending in their budget, something that the Comptroller General says we are on the verge of being the first generation of American history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living. When will the madness stop?

Then I hear about these devastating cuts. How about the devastating cuts to the American family when their largest tax increase in American history is imposed? How about those devastating cuts? Then we hear about this meat-cleaver approach of an across-the-board cut. Well, my friends from the other side of the aisle didn't have any problem with a meat-cleaver cut of the American family budget of $3,000 per American family. How about that meat-cleaver cut?

What I am essentially hearing here, and I know much good work has been done on this bill, but I am hearing ``NIMBY.'' Sure, maybe there is a big entitlement crisis here, but ``not in my backyard.'' It needs to begin today.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First I want to thank the chairman of the committee. I especially want to thank the ranking member, my friend from Kansas, for all their good work on this bill. I know a lot of good work went into this.

For one, I am still concerned that our overall spending levels in growing this bill are roughly twice the rate of inflation, I think 7.6 percent over the President's request. But I know a lot of good work has gone into this.

My amendment specifically would ensure that none of the funds in the bill would go to fund the Clover Bend Historic Site in Clover Bend, Arkansas, which, again, is one of the earmarks that is place in the bill. I don't mind admitting before this House that I am not a huge fan of earmarks. I am certainly not here to say they are all bad. Many are worthy. Many do good things.

But too often, as I look at the earmarking process, too often we see a triumph of the special interest over the public interest. Too often we see a triumph of seniority over merit. Mr. Chairman, up until recently, too often we saw a triumph of secrecy over transparency.

I will be the first to admit that this particular amendment and earmarks, in general, are a very small portion of the Federal budget. But, Mr. Chairman, I fear they are a very large portion of the culture of spending in this institution.

Mr. Chairman, I've been a veteran of several of these earmark debates. They tend to follow several different lines of argument. Typically a Member will come to the floor to defend his earmark and say he knows his district better than anybody else. That is true. They typically come to the floor. They will say, well, good things can be done with this money.

I am prepared to concede both of these points. I know the Member who offered this project knows his district better than I do. I know good things could be done with this money.

But let's put this expenditure in context, Mr. Chairman. We still have a deficit. It is declining, but we still have a deficit, which means that until we balance the budget, we are raiding the Social Security trust fund. In addition, spending is exploding. Look at what is happening in entitlement spending, which threatens to bankrupt future generations. Right now, we are on a fiscal path to either double taxes on the next generation or to have little Federal Government besides Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Yet, as I look around, almost every single State in the Union is running a surplus.

So, Mr. Chairman, I ask myself a simple question. There are a number of earmarks submitted in this bill. Again, I am sure good things can be done with this money. But can we continue, given this context, to fund earmarks of this type simply because, one, we have done it before, simply because we are creative and we can think of these things, simply because it is a good project?

I am not here to necessarily say it is a bad project. But given the entitlement crisis, given the fact that our Democratic colleagues in their budget resolution voted for the single largest

tax increase in American history, I just ask myself this question, is it truly a priority? Not is it bad, not is it wasteful, but is it truly a priority? Because every time we plus up some Federal budget, we are having to lower some family budget.

Again, I know the gentleman from Arkansas knows his district better than I do, but I know my district better than he does. Taxpayers from the Fifth District of Texas are going to have to help fund this particular earmark.

Mr. Chairman, I just fear that if we end up saying yes to everyone's program today, it is just a matter of time before we end up saying no to our children's future tomorrow. It is a small step. It is a small earmark. I understand this. But if you are going to lead, you need to lead by example. This is one small step we can take for fiscal sanity.

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 restrict funding for the St. Joseph's College theater

renovation located in Indiana. Again, I want to follow up on some of my earlier comments and address comments that the chairman made. If he was listening to my earlier comments, I started out complimenting much of what I see in the bill, and to the extent I see a reduction in the number of earmarks, I take that to be a very good thing.

But I was elected by the people of the Fifth District of Texas, and with all due respect to all of my colleagues, I yield my voting card to no one or my judgment to no one. So I am not here to impugn the judgment of the chairman, but I may have different concerns, and the people of the Fifth Congressional District of Texas may have different concerns as well.

I believe that historical preservation is a very good thing, but I know that much of the funding that has come from the Save America's Treasure program, what started out ostensibly geared toward Betsy Ross and the Declaration of Independence, has ended up funding so many other different projects.

Do you know what? I have got a lot of worthy historical and cultural projects in my own district, in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. I am just not sure, at a time when Members, many who have come to this floor and said they would not raid the Social Security trust fund; as long as we are running a deficit, and we are doing that; recently the Democrat majority in their budget resolution voted to increase the debt ceiling; in their budget resolution, they voted for the single largest tax increase in history; all I question is, given all that background, government will be paid for. Sooner or later, government will be paid for, either by this generation or the next.

So I am not saying these are necessarily bad projects, but I do question whether or not, given the context, particularly the entitlement spending crisis that is looming, if they are truly a priority. Clearly they are a priority in the mind of the chairman, and I sincerely respect his opinion, but they are not necessarily a priority to me or the people of the Fifth District of Texas.

In my district, I have the Grand Saline Salt Palace. It sits on top of one of the largest salt mines in the entire United States of America. It is a very unique museum, actually made of salt. They give away free salt samples so people won't go and lick the walls. This is something that is unique in America, but is it truly a priority that we should have Federal funding for? I don't necessarily think so.

Now, there has been a debate in this body before about the history of the hamburger. Well, in the State of Texas, they say the birth of the hamburger was in Athens, Texas, which happens to be in the Fifth Congressional District that I have the honor of representing. It was invented in the 1880s by Mr. Fletcher Davis at 115 Tyler Street in Athens. Maybe that is something that is worthy of Federal expenditure to preserve this.

The Texas State Railroad that takes people on an old steam locomotive throughout beautiful Piney Woods of east Texas has been in existence since the 1800s. It has some funding challenges. It is something that I think is worthy of preservation. But, again, given the context of the largest tax increase in American history, given that people are still raiding the Social Security trust fund, it is not something I personally feel comfortable coming to this body and requesting that we use Federal funds for these purposes.

These are great historical and cultural locations within my district, but I am not sure they rise to the occasion to meet the National Treasures Act language, particularly when, again, all this spending has to be paid for.

So, I understand that people are experts on their district, that they want to defend their projects. But, again, it is taxpayers from, among other places, the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, that are having to pay for all this. Therefore, they start to lose their American treasures, their ability to buy a home, their ability to send their children to college, their ability to start a new business. I am still working to preserve those American treasures, and that is why I submitted this amendment, and I urge its adoption.

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 prohibit funds in the bill from being used for Maverick Concert Hall preservation located in Woodstock, New York. I think the committee report provides $150,000 for this particular local project.

Again, the debate that I want to present now is similar to one I presented on some of the other earmark funds. I do want to address some of what I have heard earlier in the debate.

I would like to make it very clear to the chairman of the committee and to all my colleagues, I do not question the right to spend this money. I don't question the right of this body to expend these funds. I simply question the wisdom of expending these funds given that the Nation continues to run a deficit, given that we have a looming entitlement spending crisis. The Comptroller General of America has stated we are on the verge of being the first generation in American history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living.

I question the wisdom of the expenditure, given the fact that we just had a budget resolution passed, against my vote, passed against, contrary to the debate I offered on the floor, that would present the largest tax increase in American history, an average of roughly $3,000 per American family.

Now, I heard one gentleman early on, in defending his particular earmark, say it was a small amount of money. Relative to the Federal budget, I am sure it is a small amount of money. But for those of us who have consistently throughout our careers come to this floor to debate protecting the family budget from the Federal budget, to come to this floor and debate more freedom and less government, you got to start somewhere.

I don't understand the argument. It is either, well, this is such a small amount of money, why are we bothering, or I hear the argument sometimes, it is such a huge sum, we can't do that. That would be Draconian.

I kind of feel like, well, especially since I have small children and I read them bedtime stories, it is kind of like Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Either the porridge is too cold or it is too hot. When is the amount just right?

I heard one of the earlier speakers talk about responsibility to future generations. I agree. I spend a lot of time thinking about future generations. Again, I am the father of a 5-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old son, and I know everybody in this body loves their children and loves their grandchildren. But I think a lot about the debt and the tax burden that is going to be passed on to future generations. And, again, I fear that although earmarks represent a small portion of the Federal budget, they represent a large portion of the culture of spending that has now led to over $50 trillion of unfunded obligations in the Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs alone.

So, where do the steps, the baby steps towards fiscal responsibility, start?

I just believe again that with this looming entitlement crisis, that we need to do more. We need to set even a higher standard. We need to set even a higher bar for the expenditure of these funds. And I am sure these are interesting and worthy sites, although I haven't visited them. I am not sure if they are worthier or are more interesting than many of the sites in my own district.

Again, I start to think about the people who will have to pay this. I think about their American treasure. I think about a guy named Bruce in Garland, Texas, in my district. And when I asked him what is this tax increase going to do, and it is going to be a tax increase or debt that is going to pay for these earmarks, he said, ``Congressman, in my particular case, an additional $2,200 in taxes would cut into the finances I use to pay for my son's college education. I really believe that given more money, Congress will spend more money, so that is not the answer. A control and reduction of spending is what is needed.''

And so I think about Bruce in Garland and about all of the Bruces in Garland. You are talking about $100,000 here and $100,000 there, and to paraphrase the late Everett Dirkson, pretty soon you're talking about real money.

When we are helping each other out, let's think about future generations who are going to end up paying for all of these earmarks.

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 prohibit funds in the bill from being used for the Bremerton Public Library Restoration Project in Bremerton, Washington. The supplement to the committee report provides $150,000 for this project.

According to a 2001 article in the Kitsap Business Journal, restoration of the building previously received a $100,000 grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. An equal amount was provided by the local government. The building is described in the same article as being a unique art deco style building. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has an endowment apparently of over $30 billion, and as of April 2007, the State of Washington was projected to have the eighth largest surplus in the country at $1.23 billion.

So, again, I question not that good things can't be done with these Federal funds, not that this is not a project worthy of preservation and restoration, I simply question the wisdom again of using Federal taxpayer funds on such a project given the background. And I will respectfully disagree with the gentleman who spoke before me, the gentleman from New York, given the largest tax increase in history. He may not believe it is the largest tax increase in history, but The Washington Post, not exactly a bastion of conservative journalism 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 of these cuts expire on schedule in 2010.''

It may be an expiration to the gentleman from New York, but to the people of the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, it smacks of a big tax increase.

And as I look at all of the different projects that have been brought forth tonight, I just ask myself a question: Is there any good project back home that apparently is not worth a Federal subsidy? If we say ``yes'' to all of these projects today, I fear we will be saying ``no'' to our children's future tomorrow.

Again, where is this money coming from? Government will be paid for. Either you are increasing taxes on the American people through the largest tax increase in American history, or you are going to pass on taxes even further by not doing anything to reform entitlement spending. That is the real fiscal tragedy. That is where the real scandal is. It is in the $50 trillion of unfunded obligations and not one word, not one word, Mr. Chairman, in the Democrat budget about what to do in entitlement spending.

Instead we have, again, local project after local project after local project. Maybe we have fewer than we had last year, and I assume the chairman is accurate when he says that and I salute him for that. But still, given the fact that the Federal Government is spending roughly $23,000 per American family, the largest level since World War II, given that the Democrat majority, over the course of 5 years, is about to impose a $3,000 increase in taxes on those same families, and given that we still have a Federal deficit that I have fought against since I have been here, often battling with my own party leadership, something I wish some of the people on the other side of the aisle who espouse a similar philosophy, I wish they would raise their voices occasionally.

Again, I would like to say that as worthy as many of these projects are, America's true treasures are the treasures to be found in the family, those dreams that are discussed around the kitchen table. That dream of launching that first small business, that dream of being able to finally send the first child to college. That dream of actually being able to afford the health care premiums to make sure that the family

is well. Those are America's true treasures, and those are the treasures that I am trying to preserve.

We have to go further in changing the culture of spending and not expending funds for any purpose simply because we think of it or because we say good things can be done. Better things can be done when the taxpayers keep their own money.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.