Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 73: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 74: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand the passion behind this debate, for I, too, have friends and loved ones who have been stricken with debilitating diseases who are longing for hope.

But in listening to the debate, Mr. Speaker, I fear not one in 100 understand what it is truly about. This is not a debate on whether stem cell research is legal in America. It is. It's not even a debate on whether or not embryonic stem cell research is legal in America. It is. It is not even a debate on whether the Federal Government will be permitted to fund embryonic stem cell research. It does, to the tune of roughly $40 million a year.

What this debate is about, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not, going forward, should taxpayer funds be used to destroy what many consider to be human life for research purposes. And this is especially, especially highlighted when we know that there are ethical alternatives and promising alternatives, such as adult stem cells, umbilical blood cord, amniotic fluid and, today, headlines, banner headlines all around the Nation about the promise now of skin cells. Let's fund stem cell research, but let's fund it ethically. And, Mr. Speaker, when this body takes on such profound issues, let's always err on the side of life.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and when my friends from the other side of the aisle do something that I think is laudatory, I want to laud them for it.

They have taken a budget that contained the single largest tax increase in American history and turned it into a budget that has the second largest tax increase in American history, but before I get too effusive with my praise, they have something in there called a trigger which tells the American people that somehow, if you can prevent us from spending all of your money, maybe, maybe you can get a little of it back. So I suspect, Mr. Speaker, we are again looking at the single largest tax increase in American history.

Now, speaker after speaker on the other side get up and tell us, oh, we're balancing the budget, we're increasing spending that they call investments, but no, no, no, we're not raising taxes. Mr. Speaker, this is Orwellian double-speak. The numbers don't add up. I have got a 5- year-old daughter who can perform better math than that, and she's not very good at it. You can't balance the budget, increase spending and then claim you're not raising taxes. It's shameful.

Mr. Speaker, this is an easy conclusion that the Americans should draw. If they believe that the growth of the Federal budget is more important than the growth of their family budget, they should support this Democrat budget. And if they can sleep well at night knowing that this budget is going to double the taxes of their children and grandchildren, they should embrace that budget. But if they want freedom and opportunity for the next generation, reject this budget.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on this bill.

I also wish to thank our chairman who, although I have deep philosophical differences with, was certainly fair in his deliberations and more than fair in the amendments that he has allowed here this evening.

Indeed, I think that the conflict today comes down to the so-called Affordable Housing Fund. Many on this side of the aisle do not feel that in this bill, which is supposed to provide a strong regulator for Fannie and Freddie, that we need to be expanding big government.

And regardless of the rhetoric on the other side, according to OMB, Federal housing assistance has grown 73.8 percent in the last 10 years. Yet, this bill creates another new housing program on top of the 90 other HUD programs ostensibly designed to make housing more affordable.

Meanwhile, the Democrat majority earlier this afternoon made housing less affordable by imposing the single largest tax increase in American history on the American people, threatening the home ownership of millions.

Next, this fund is supposed to be transferred to some shadowy, amorphous, ill-defined housing trust fund, which to many of us appears nothing less than a new entitlement spending program for the 21st century. This is on top of the entitlement spending that threatens to bankrupt the next generation, will force them to double their taxes, will shatter their dreams of home ownership, and yet we appear to be adding yet another entitlement spending program.

Next, the fund represents a dangerous precedent and another surreptitious tax increase. On top of the single largest tax increase in American history, now our friends from the other side of the aisle are going to impose a home mortgage tax on the American people, using the Federal nexus to levy a special tax on Fannie and Freddie, which due to their duopoly status in the marketplace they can effectively pass on to home buyers in the way of higher mortgage interest so that this can be conduited into third party groups.

This bill ignores the greatest affordable housing program known in this country, a good job and a low tax rate. The bill imposes new mortgage taxes on Americans and must be rejected.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I'd like to yield 30 seconds to the ranking member.

Reclaiming my time.

Mr. Chairman, I heard the gentleman from Georgia earlier read some correspondence from a bishop. I don't have any correspondence from a bishop this evening, but I do have some correspondence from some hard working families in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas talking about what we could do to make their housing affordable. And I think it's particularly important when we think about my friends from the other side of the aisle earlier today, literally just a couple of hours ago, passing the single largest tax increase in American history that will amount to roughly $2,700 a year on the families in the Fifth District of Texas.

I heard from the Freeman family in Mesquite, and they wrote me, that ``With the extra $2,700 being forced to pay to Washington, my family could lose our home, or we may be forced to give up education because the money won't be there to pay for it. It is really unfair that the low man on the totem pole is always having to give everything up. These extra taxes are not needed.''

Well, one way we can make housing affordable is not tax people with homes in the first place.

I heard from the Kirkendoll family in Garland, Texas. ``Dear Congressman Hensarling, I am unemployed on Social Security and my wife works. At this point, between taxes and utilities, we're at the breaking point of being able to keep a home.''

You know, one of the greatest ways that a home is affordable is you don't take money away from the family in the first place. And so, besides the single largest tax increase in American history that the Democrat majority passed earlier today, now they want to pass on a mortgage tax on hard working families struggling to make ends meet as well.

I heard from the Stevens family in Mesquite, Texas. ``Congressman Hensarling, I wanted to let you know that I'm a single mom that does not receive any type of child support, and a tax increase of this amount would break me. I would be at risk of losing my home with this type of increase. I'm writing to ask your help to keep this from happening. This will be devastating to middle income families and families in my situation.''

Mr. Chairman, I have many more letters like this. And so we've heard so much rhetoric from our friends on the other side of the aisle that somehow we don't care about affordable housing. The greatest affordable housing program in the history of this Nation is a good job and a low tax rate. And yet, with the single largest tax increase in American history passed by the majority earlier today, they threaten the almost 8 million new jobs empowering people to buy homes. You take the tax relief away. You increase taxes on capital dividends, capital gains, you start taking those jobs away.

And then you pass on this roughly $2,700 a year on hard working families all over America, you've got a double whammy. You start taking their jobs away, and then you start taking their ability to pay for these mortgages.

I listened very closely to the chairman of the committee earlier when he accused the gentleman of New Jersey from, I guess, subscribing to naive economics. I will admit, it's been a number of years ago, but I actually studied economics. I have a degree in economics. I spent 10 years in private business. And what I know about economics is that when you have a government sanctioned duopoly, as opposed to an atomistic competitive marketplace, they have a great ability to pass on costs to their customers, in this case, ultimately, the homeowner.

So I guess the gentleman, our chairman, has studied a different economics than I do. And I did listen when the chairman said that it's the shareholders that will pay. So I'm offering an amendment later this evening that says this so-called affordable housing fund will go away if the regulator determines that interest rates go up. And since the chairman believes that only shareholders will pay, I look forward to him accepting that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I actually had alluded to this. I hope that the chairman was able to listen at the time. This goes further into the discussion of the mortgage tax that those of us on this side of the aisle believe is being imposed upon the American people by this so-called Affordable Housing Fund.

Earlier this evening the chairman said that he believes that this will be paid by the shareholders. We believe on this side of the aisle that, due to the duopoly power, the Fannie and Freddie, that they already control roughly 80 percent of the market in which they operate, that a substantial portion of the cost of the so-called Affordable Housing Fund will, indeed, be imposed upon homeowners in the form of higher mortgages, indeed, functionally a mortgage tax, a new mortgage tax on the American people.

I was heartened to hear, although I disagree with his economic analysis, that the chairman has concluded that this will be paid by the shareholders.

My amendment is fairly simple. It amends the section dealing with having the regulator suspend the program. Now, we know that within the language the program can be suspended, essentially, dealing with systemic risk of the economy. What my amendment does is, if the regulator finds out that, contrary to the chairman's opinion, that there is a mortgage tax, that indeed it has an adverse impact upon the cost of housing in America, that mortgages rise, that the program will be terminated.

So, again, I hope I understood the chairman correctly when he said that he thought this cost would go to shareholders. If he does, I would hope that he would accept the amendment. And if the chairman chooses not to accept the amendment, and I am sure the gentleman will let us know soon, then I guess what we are admitting is that, indeed, there is a mortgage tax to be imposed on hardworking homeowners, some of which we heard from earlier this evening from the Fifth District of Texas, and we know how an additional tax is going to adversely impact them in the ability to keep their homes.

So I hope the chairman is right that shareholders, as opposed to homeowners, end up paying this if we are going to be stuck with this particular program.

So this is a very simple amendment that says if we have a mortgage tax, the program is suspended. If we are confident there is no mortgage tax, then there shouldn't be any opposition to this particular legislation.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I request an ``aye'' vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I want to make it very clear; I have agendas, I don't have hidden agendas. I want to make it very clear, I do disagree with this program. But if we are going to have the program----

Again, I thank the chairman for yielding.

I simply said that you seem to imply that this was designed to somehow kill the program. I just wanted to make it very clear that any way I could get rid of this program, I would. But I would ask the chairman for a clarification.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I was going to ask the chairman for a clarification. What I heard earlier in the evening is that shareholders will pay the cost of the Affordable Housing Fund. And what I think I'm hearing now is that the shareholders will pay substantially most of the housing fund, which leaves some portion paid by somebody else.

So I am asking the chairman, in his opinion, if it is no longer being paid totally by the shareholders, doesn't that mean that some portion is indeed being paid by the homeowner? Thus, we can debate the quantity of the mortgage tax that will be imposed upon the homeowner. But it seems to me if we've gone from total shareholder payment to substantial shareholder payment, there is a mortgage tax. And I might request the gentleman from Georgia to yield to the chairman for clarification.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Louisiana. I, too, wish to raise my voice loud and clear on the issue, but certainly in a far less articulate manner than the gentleman from Louisiana who is well versed on this issue.

In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, the only thing worse than a regulated monopoly is an unregulated monopoly. I don't necessarily trust private companies. I trust competitive marketplaces, and wherever Fannie and Freddie goes, I feel the competitive marketplace leaves.

Since I have been on the committee 4\1/2\ years now, we have heard frequently from our past Federal Reserve chairman and our present Federal Reserve chairman. Their voices could not be more clear on the matter that they believe the GSEs pose a very significant systemic risk to our economy.

Now in a competitive marketplace, you are punished for misleading accounting. In a competitive marketplace, you are punished for bad business decisions. In a competitive marketplace, you are certainly, certainly punished for fraud. We no longer have an Enron. We no longer have a WorldCom. We no longer have an Arthur Andersen. We no longer have a New Century.

A competitive marketplace, before they could lead to systemic risk, took care of those who may have engaged in faulty accounting, fraud, or poor business decisions.

But that is not the case with Fannie and Freddie. And now where we finally have empowered the regulator to do something, the first thing we do is clip his wings. I just feel on this matter, I am going to listen to Chairman Greenspan and I am going to listen to Chairman Bernanke, and I don't totally know the impact of the language of the people who offered the amendment, including my dear friend from Texas, completely, I don't know if I completely understand its impact, but what it seems to do, all of a sudden it seems to say well, the regulator can make sure that Fannie and Freddie can't harm themselves, but they can't make sure that they don't harm the rest of us. That is my interpretation of this amendment.

So again, if we are going to sanction a government, if we are going to create essentially a duopoly, and the last time I looked at the records controlled 80 percent of the market in which they operate, and as opposed to retrenching, they seem to prosper when they misstate their earnings, when they have billions and billions of misstated earnings, when they mislead the government and when they mislead their investors, when they couldn't produce audited financials in years, and, I believe, hold more debt than the publicly held debt of the Federal Government, I think we ought to err on the side of strengthening the regulator's ability to protect us by the systemic risk of what we, we in Congress, have created in the first place.

So I, too, wanted to raise my voice loud and clear on this issue. I certainly appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with the gentleman from Louisiana and others of us on the committee who are very concerned about the potential systemic risk posed by the activities of Fannie and Freddie.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I tried to listen carefully to my friend from Georgia, his comments. I am not going to follow with the juice analogy and I don't care to put words in his mouth, but what I think I heard was he described the gentleman from New Jersey's amendment as perhaps the worst one that had been offered this evening, that would essentially gut the ability of Fannie and Freddie to achieve their affordable housing mission, or to achieve the mission that Congress has set up for them, and the gentleman is certainly entitled to his own opinion.

But when it comes to the use of the portfolio holdings of Fannie and Freddie, which we know, number one, according to the last two, the present and the past Chairmen of the Federal Reserve, creates huge systemic risk to our economy, which ultimately can bring down housing opportunities for all.

But if I could quote from a speech from Chairman Greenspan, who said, ``The Federal Reserve Board has been unable to find any credible purpose for the huge balance sheets built by Fannie and Freddie other than the creation of profit through the exploitation of the market- granted subsidy.''

To paraphrase, ``Their purchase of their own or each other's mortgage-backed securities with their market-subsidized debt do not contribute usefully to the mortgage market liquidity, to the enhancement of capital markets in the United States, or to the lowering of mortgage rates for the homeowners.''

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am sure the gentleman from Georgia can get plenty of time from his side. All I am saying is the gentleman from Georgia is entitled to his own opinion, former Chairman Greenspan seems to have a different opinion of the use of the portfolio holdings in the housing mission. So in this particular case, I prefer to take the word of Chairman Greenspan and of Chairman Bernanke as opposed to my colleague from Georgia's expertise on the matter.

These portfolios have nothing, nothing to do with their mission and have everything, everything to do with systemic risk. And if we are going to leave them in place, they ought to at least be dedicated, somehow dedicated, to low income housing purposes, which ostensibly is what the purposes of Fannie and Freddie were in the first place.

Again, these are not operating, the GSEs are not operating in a competitive marketplace. They are operating in a government-sanctioned duopoly to where they have 80 percent of the market. There is not effective competition, there is not a check here, and we should approve the gentleman's amendment from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is quite simple, and that is to keep the status quo with respect to the conforming loan limits. The underlying bill would raise it to 150 percent in what are known as certain high-cost areas. I think there are several reasons, Mr. Chairman, why I think the underlying bill contains misguided policy.

Number 1, when you look at why were the GSEs chartered in the first place, they receive a panoply of Federal benefits that we are all familiar with. But supposedly, they received these benefits from the Federal Government for a specific purpose, to support the purchases of mortgages made to low- and moderate-income families, mortgages on properties located in underserved areas, mortgages made to very low- income families and low-income families in low-income areas.

I do not believe that the charter was to help subsidize housing by the government for the wealthiest in our society. That's not why they were chartered. The Conforming Loan Limit right now, I believe, is already too high. To qualify for the $417,000 mortgage right now, a family would have to earn at least $130,000, more than twice the median family income in this country, not by the standards of the Nation, a low or moderate income.

But in the House bill to increase the conforming loan limit by 50 percent to $625,000 in any area where the average home price is over the limit, to qualify for that mortgage, a family's income on an 80/20 LTV would have to be $180,000, almost three times the national median, and that ranks at roughly the top 5 percent of all family incomes in America.

According to OFHEO, the regulator, of the GSEs, using data supplied by the National Association of Realtors in 2007, there were only seven areas that would be affected by this, and that would be comprised of areas in about eight or nine different States, which means that 40 to 42 other States would gain nothing by this and arguably might lose something.

The other argument that I would pose is that after all the behavior of the GSEs, all of the misrepresentations to the public, misrepresentations to investors, misrepresentations to Congress, billions and billions of dollars of accounting misstatements, earnings being manipulated so that executives could receive bonuses, what does Congress do? We reward them. We expand their market share. We give them an opportunity to make even greater profits.

I mean, it leads one to believe that if Enron had been clever enough to change their name to the Enron Housing Corp. we might have done something to still keep them in business. We are expanding their market share.

Another point to make is that, and I will grant that any time you have a Federal subsidy, certainly you can lower the price, but the arguments that somehow people can't get in a home without increasing the loan limits to 150 percent, I don't understand.

The industry experts have estimated the rate on the spread on the rate to be about 20 basis points, and a current 30-year rate fixed mortgage, that amounts to about $80-a-month difference we are talking about. At least under one scenario, CRS, we are looking at about $28 a month. I am having a hard time believing that knowing how competitive the marketplace is, in almost all communities in the jumbo market area, that this is somehow preventing people from getting into a home.

Now, some will speak to a disparity, and I agree. There is the disparity, but I don't think raising the conforming loan limits to 150 percent in only a limited number of areas in the Nation is the solution to that particular challenge.

So I have great reservations about expanding the conforming loan limits. But having said that, given the lateness of the hour, given the outcome of this particular amendment in committee, I do think these were important points to be made.

But at this point, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the first thing I'd like to do is really thank the chairman of the full committee. There are many on this side of the aisle who talk a lot about making this the most open and democratic and fair Congress. Many of their deeds do not match their words. But I want to congratulate the committee chairman for this open process this evening and

his commitment to the institution, his commitment to democracy and permitting these amendments to be offered. And although I have two remaining, Mr. Chairman, I have decided to only offer one. The amendment I offer at this moment, No. 30, achieves one very simple purpose.

I understand that our side has lost on the creation of the so-called affordable housing fund, but in the underlying legislation, there is a place holder for something called an affordable housing trust fund. And apparently, if this fund, which is rather ill-defined, is created at some later time, the bill would authorize funds to be transferred from the affordable housing fund to the housing trust fund. I've been pretty diligent in my attendance of our subcommittee and committee hearings. I don't recall a hearing on the housing trust fund. I don't remember a markup on the housing trust fund. And I don't know exactly what the housing trust fund is, but I'm nervous about it. I'm nervous about it because when I look at almost every other government trust fund, what I see is an entitlement. Entitlement spending, Mr. Chairman. And the last thing we need to do is to be authorizing spending for a yet to be created entitlement spending fund.

The number one fiscal challenge in the Nation is to reform entitlement spending. And I believe the Chairman's passion about wanting to create affordable housing. I have profound philosophical differences with our chairman, but I don't doubt his passion. I don't doubt his sincerity.

But I have my passion. I have my passion. And right now, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Reserve chairman, we are on the road to bankrupt the next generation. Ask anybody who has looked at the long-term spending patterns of entitlement spending in America today and they're going to tell you, we're facing a fiscal fork in the road. In one generation, in one generation, either there will be almost no Federal Government except for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, there will be no HUD. None of these housing programs will exist. And the other fork in the road, Mr. Chairman, is that we're going to have to double taxes, on the next generation just to balance the budget. Don't take my word for it. Go to the Web site of OMB, GAO, CBO. They're all going to tell you the same thing.

And yet here we are tonight deciding that we are going to transfer funds to this yet-to-be-created housing trust fund, create yet another entitlement spending.

I am a Member of Congress, but let me tell you something else. I also happen to be a father of a 5-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old son who are already looking at paying for unfunded obligations in this entitlement spending of $50 trillion and now we are going to add to it. And I have heard many speakers on this side of the aisle eloquently speak about the least of these among us. Well, I maintain the least of these among us are those who cannot vote and those who are yet to be born. So I don't particularly care to take it on trust or faith that I am not somehow enabling the next new entitlement to hopefully hasten the bankruptcy of next generation.

The Comptroller General of America has said we are on the verge of being the very first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living. I myself will not sit idly by and allow that to happen.

So perhaps the chairman has a good idea of what he intends to with the housing trust fund. I do not and I will not create another entitlement program.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And, again, I guess the chairman has a whole lot more confidence on the attributes of an ill-defined housing trust fund than I do. I have read earlier comments that the chairman has made: ``The placeholder would similarly preserve from this bill to the next bill our ability to spend money on a housing trust fund.'' And I know that the chairman, I believe in the same markup of March 28, in responding to a question: ``Would the gentleman be willing to accept an amendment that explicitly states that it would be subject to PAYGO?'' the chairman replied, ``No.''

So knowing that PAYGO, as the Democratic side has defined it, applies to new entitlement spending and to tax relief, it makes one a little bit suspicious thinking maybe there could be a new entitlement here. The housing trust fund does not appear to be defined; so maybe it is an entitlement; maybe it is not an entitlement. But if it is defined, I don't know. I just happen to be very passionate about not wanting to be part of an effort that might ultimately lead to helping create a new entitlement program and exacerbate the number one fiscal challenge in America. But I don't know how the chairman can say with such great definition if we are going to potentially create a funding stream for a housing trust fund, we don't define it, that he knows absolutely it will not or ever have the attributes of an entitlement.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 28: Page 141, line 9, strike ``and''.

Page 141, line 17, strike the period and insert ``; and''.

Page 141, after line 17, insert the following:

``(5) in the case of any recipient who is not a for-profit

entity or a government agency or authority, the organization,

agency, or entity--

``(A) has as its primary purpose the provision of

affordable housing, as defined by the Director;

``(B) has made such assurances to the grantee as the

Director shall, by regulation, require to ensure that such

affordable housing fund grant amounts--

``(i) are used only to supplement, and to the extent

practical, to increase the level of funds that would, in the

absence of such affordable housing fund grant amounts, be

made available from other sources for the recipient to carry

out activities of the type that are eligible under subsection

(g) for funding with affordable housing fund grant amounts;

and

``(ii) are not in any case used so as to supplant any funds

from other sources that are made available for such

activities of the recipient; and

``(C) does not, at the time during the period that begins

12 months before submission of an application for funding

from the affordable housing fund grant amounts of the grantee

and ending upon the expiration of the period referred to in

paragraph (4)--

``(i) engage in any Federal election activity, as such term

is defined in paragraph (20) of section 301 of the Federal

Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(20)), except

that, notwithstanding the 120-day limitation in subparagraph

(A)(i) of such paragraph, such term shall include voter

registration activity during any period;

``(ii) make any expenditure for any electioneering

communication (as such term is defined in section 304(f)(3)

of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.

434(f)(3));

``(iii) make any lobbying expenditure, (as such term is

defined in such section 501(h)(2)), except that this clause

shall not apply to any such expenditure by an organization

described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code

of 1986 that is exempt from taxation under subsection (a) of

such section 501, to the extent that such expenditure does

not exceed the amount under such Code for which such

exemption may be denied; or

``(iv) maintain any affiliation with any organization,

agency, or other entity that does not comply with clauses

(i), (ii), and (iii) of this subparagraph.

Page 141, before line 18, insert the following:

For purposes of this subsection:

``(I) A recipient organization, agency, or entity shall be

considered to be affiliated with another entity, for purposes

of subparagraph (C)(iv), if such recipient entity controls,

is controlled by, or is under common control with such other

entity.

``(II) The existence of any of the following relationships

between a recipient entity and another entity shall indicate

that control exists for purposes of clause (I):

``(aa) Iindividuals serve in a similar capacity as

officers, executives, or staff of both the recipient entity

and the other entity.

``(bb) The recipient entity and the other entity share

office space, staff members, supplies, resources, or

marketing materials, including Internet and other forms of

public communication.

``(cc) The recipient entity receives more than 20 percent

of its total funding from such other entity or provides more

than 20 percent of the total funding of such other entity.

``(dd) The recipient entity or such other entity exhibits

any other indicia of substantial overlap or common control as

may be set forth in regulation by the Director.

``(III) The term `for-profit entity' means any entity any

part of the net earnings of which inure to the benefit of any

private shareholder, member, founder, contributor, or

individual.''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 29: Page 128, line 22, strike

``temporarily''.

Page 129, line 4, strike ``or''.

Page 129, line 7, strike the period and insert ``; or''.

Page 129, after line 7, insert the following:

``(D) are contributing to an increase in the cost of

mortgages to homebuyers.''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 30: Page 153, line 14, after the period

insert close quotation marks and a period.

Strike line 15 on page 153 and all that follows through

line 6 on page 154.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 32: Strike line 23 on page 85 and all that

follows through line 15 on page 86.

Strike line 19 on page 87 and all that follows through line

10 on page 88.

Strike line 12 on page 90 and all that follows through line

9 on page 93.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. What happened to the most open and transparent and fair process that was supposed to occur in the history of Congress? We have a closed rule on top of a closed rule on top of a closed rule.

And now what we see is, yet again, the Democrats bringing a bill to the floor that our Secretary of Defense says is even worse than the last one they brought to the floor as far as tying the hands of our troops as they attempt to protect our freedom.

Once again we have a slow-bleed strategy for our troops in Iraq. Once again we still have a pork-laden supplemental.

Let's talk for a second about the ag bill. Now there is legitimate debate, and there may be legitimate reasons, and I agree that drought assistance may be necessary in certain parts of the country. But this is supposedly the PAYGO Congress? I have looked at this. Number one, where is the emergency? The drought took place last year. That is when the emergency was. Why isn't this going in regular order? Where is the offset?

Had there been an open rule, I would have been happy to offer an offset amendment. Once again, I don't know how anyone on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, can call this the PAYGO Congress. There are so many holes in this PAYGO it looks beyond Swiss cheese. This is one of the worse rules that I have seen brought to the floor, and every Member should rise in opposition and defeat this rule.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have listened very carefully to the previous speaker talk about rhetoric. And indeed, the rhetoric I hear from the other side of the aisle is pure Orwellian; up is down, black is white, victory is defeat and the largest tax increase in American history is somehow actually tax relief.

You cannot state good intentions and then instead act with cruel actions. The numbers of this budget lead to the largest single tax increase in American history. And Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the Washington Post again, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought, I will quote from their March 29th edition, ``And while House Democrats say they want to preserve key parts of Bush's signature tax cuts, they project a surplus in 2012 only by assuming that all these cuts expire on schedule in 2010.'' And then they somehow say that we contrive temporary tax relief. Well, as the chairman knows, he has had plenty of opportunities to make this tax relief permanent, but he and everyone else on that side of the aisle have declined that opportunity.

And again, it's a matter of priorities. Democrat friends decide to prioritize the Federal budget over the family budget. But let's look at how their single largest tax increase in American history is going to impact family budgets. Let's hear from Joan from Mesquite, who wrote, ``An additional $2,200 raise in taxes for my husband and me would mean that we would not be able to meet our budget obligations. I drive an 11-year-old car. And sometimes it breaks. And it costs me more to fix than what it's worth. I was hoping to buy a newer car, but if taxes go up, I won't be able to do that.''

Let's hear from Robert of Garland. ``I'm unemployed on Social Security and my wife works. At this point, between taxes and utilities, we're at the breaking point of being able to keep our home. If we have an increase of over $2,000 per year, it may well mean the straw that broke the camel's back; we would lose our home.'' That's how the single largest tax increase in American history is affecting that family.

Let's see how it affects Linda in Rowlett. ``It would mean the difference of whether my daughter or husband would be able to purchase a car or not. For my husband and I, it helps us continue with his radiation treatments for his prostate cancer and allows us to continue providing in-home assistance for my elderly parents. Please allow us to retain this money for our needs. Please don't let government take additional tax dollars from us.''

That's the cruel actions. It's not the Orwellian rhetoric that we want to somehow preserve the tax relief. They are imposing the single largest tax increase in American history, a cruel hoax on American families as they try to meet their education budgets and their transportation budgets.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my friend from Virginia. The only thing that is being cut here is the family budget, and it is being cut by the Democrats. If you look at the numbers of the Republican budget, government grows each and every year. Now, it doesn't grow as fast as the Democrat budget. And the way the Democrat budget grows is by imposing the single largest tax increase in American history on hard-working Americans.

An average in my district, the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, an average of $2,700 a year, Mr. Speaker, is going to be imposed on those hard-working people as they try to send their children to college, as they struggle to try to meet the healthcare payments for elderly parents, as they try to make payments on their healthcare premiums, as they try to put together that capital to launch their American dream and to buy their first home.

The cutting that is going on here is the cutting out of the heart of the family budget by the Democrat budget, imposing the single largest tax increase in American history. And as bad as that tax increase is, $392 billion over 5 years, it is a pittance compared to the taxes that they are going to impose on the next generation, because, Mr. Speaker, their budget is silent, absolutely silent, on the number one fiscal challenge facing America, out-of-control entitlement spending.

The Republicans are being responsible in trying to ensure that the next generation doesn't see a doubling of their taxes, which we all know will happen.

So this is the kick-the-can-down-the-road budget of the Democrats, when they know that our children and grandchildren will see their taxes doubled from roughly 20 percent of the economy to 40 percent. Now, how many of our children and grandchildren will ever be able to own a home, start a business or send their children to college?

This is the idea of the Democrats' fiscal responsibility, doubling taxes on the American people? I want no part of it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to this underlying resolution.

I have listened to my chairman carefully, the gentleman from South Carolina, and I wish to add my respect along with that of the gentleman, ranking member from Wisconsin. He conducts our committee in a very fair-minded manner, and I appreciate and respect him for that. And I take him at his word when he says that he believes that he is putting forth on this floor a fiscally responsible budget. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a distinct difference in our philosophies. How you look the American people in the eye and impose upon them the single largest tax increase in American history and call that fiscally responsible is simply beyond me. Our chairman has a different definition.

Now, I believe that what we need to do is try to help protect the family budget from the Federal budget. Already, Mr. Speaker, we are awash in Federal tax revenues. And we've heard the gentleman from South Carolina and many other people from this side of the aisle extol the virtues of their balanced budget. Okay. If they have a balanced budget, did they cut spending to get there? No. There is only one other option, and that is that they increase taxes.

And don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Go, for example, to the Washington Post, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought in our Nation. They have said that the only way the Democrat budget will achieve balance is they assume the tax relief goes away, and thus it imposes the single largest tax increase in American history.

Now, I have heard our chairman and other people from this side of the aisle, different colleagues get up and say, well, we're not really raising taxes on the American people, we're just letting the tax relief expire.

But if you make the same paycheck last year that you made this year and your tax bill is higher, that is going to be a distinction that is lost on the American people.

Is it letting tax relief expire if it is a tax increase? I have to tell you, if the people in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas have to pay a larger tax bill, they call it a tax increase, and the sooner that we in this body recognize that fact, the better off America will be. Under the Democrat's budget resolution, the average family, the average family in Texas will have a $2,700 a year tax increased phased in over 5 years.

Something else we need to remember, Mr. Speaker, is that every time you are taking money away from the American family to plus-up some Federal budget category, you are having to subtract from some family budget category; $2,700 a year is a lot of money to Texas families. How many families can no longer send a child to college because of the single largest tax increase in American history that the Democrats are trying to impose upon us? How many American families will not be able to find their American dream, to put together their savings and invest in that first small business because the Democrats are imposing the single largest tax increase in American history? How many families will no longer be able to afford their healthcare premiums because the Democrats are imposing the single largest tax increase in American history? $2,700 a year.

First, the working poor under this plan would have their taxes increased 50 percent, from the 10 percent bracket to the 15 percent bracket. The child tax credit would be cut in half. The death tax would come up to where Uncle Sam could take as much as 55 percent of your estate.

Mr. Speaker, as bad as this budget is for what it does, it is even worse for what it doesn't do, because I know the chairman presided over the hearings that I attended with the Federal Reserve Chairman, with the head of OMB, with the Secretary of the Treasury, with CBO, who all said the same thing: The single largest fiscal challenge in this Nation is out of control entitlement spending, and this budget is stone-cold silent on that number one challenge.

As bad as the tax imposition is going to be on this generation, if we don't act, if we kick the can down the road, if we avoid leadership, the next generation will see their taxes double. There is nothing fiscally responsible about doubling taxes on the next generation, nothing fiscally responsible about taking their dreams away.

Mr. Speaker, we must defeat this rule and defeat this budget. Again, Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why you would avoid dealing with the number one fiscal challenge in the Nation.

I know the chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina, said this isn't the place to do it. Well, I will ask a question that was asked by a very famous President: If not us, who? If not now, when?

I am curious as to what advantage we have by somehow kicking this can down the road to some other body or to some other bill or to some other institution. At least in the last two Republican Congresses, we had two budgets in a row from the House, from the House, that actually made steps toward reforming entitlement spending.

Now, it is a huge challenge, I admit, but every year we avoid it. In Social Security alone, we run up an extra $400 billion of debt, of unfunded obligations to pass on to the next generation. And yet the Democrats turn their back on this once again. That is another reason to defeat this.

Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor the Mesquite Independent School District Education Foundation for their dedication to the Mesquite community where they enrich the education and development of the city's 35,000 children. The Foundation promotes community awareness and student development, provides educational funding and encourages creativity. Their work has supplied valuable funds through grants for programs to supplement school budgets. Their efforts help students in Mesquite have access to the best educational experience possible.

The Foundation has been instrumental in financing many programs that kids enjoy today. Such funds have been used to purchase ``hands-on consumable science lab materials'' to provide students with interactive laboratory equipment. Other grants have secured reading materials for pre-school children to increase pre-kindergarten reading readiness levels.

To date, the Foundation has raised over $800,000 and has awarded more than $200,000 in grants to campuses and individuals. Soon, the Foundation will be formally announcing their next round of grants totaling an additional $200,000.

As the Congressional representative of Mesquite, Texas, it is my distinct pleasure to honor the Mesquite Independent School District Education Foundation today in the United States House of Representatives.