Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, for the past five years, the greater Mesquite area has embraced the opportunity to honor many exceptional women in the community through the Women In Service and Enterprise (WISE) Award Luncheon and Style Show, Today I would like to honor this year's award recipient, Judy Trammell, who is a shining example of strong, capable and dedicated leadership. I would also like to recognize honorees Sammie Motley Coats, Officer Cheryl Gregg and JaLinda Grimland for their valuable service and commitment to their community.

Judy Trammell is a personal friend and is actually one of the first people I met in Mesquite. She has always been extremely helpful to me and I have had the chance to work first-hand with her on several occasions. Recently the Mesquite Service League was the recipient of a very kind charitable donation, and I was able to be there, with Judy, to witness the generosity and appreciation of the Mesquite community.

Judy is the Business Development/Marketing Director for Jefferson Bank in Mesquite. Since moving to Mesquite in 1985, she has held positions with Mesquite Savings and Loan, Mesquite National Bank and Colonial Bank.

Judy has served on numerous boards in the greater Mesquite community including: American Heart Association Mesquite, Exchange Club of Mesquite, Mesquite Chamber of Commerce, Mustanger Chamber of Commerce, Mesquite Service League, Advisory Board of Boys and Girls Club of Dallas--Mesquite Division, member of Main Street Mesquite and Mesquite Social Services.

In addition to being active in the community and holding leadership roles, Judy has also been recognized for her service. She has received the American Heart Association Regional Volunteer of the Year award in 1998, the Distinguished Service Award in 1999, and was awarded a research grant in her honor. She received the Mesquite Chamber of Commerce 2002 Volunteer of the Year award and the 2005 Committee Chair of the Year award.

Judy is not only constantly on the go at work and with community service activities, but she is also an energetic mother of two daughters and the proud grandmother of grandsons, Mason and Cameron. Judy truly embodies the ideals of a great volunteer; she knows how to lead, encourage others to follow and ``get her hands dirty.'' Judy's impact on our community is great and far-reaching and exemplifies an outstanding woman in service and enterprise.

Past WISE Award winners have served in a variety of ways, but they are united by the long-lasting impact they have made on their community. Their service, community involvement and dedication to enterprise also inspire younger generations. This year, Mesquite Social Services and the Mesquite Service League are, once again, partnering to honor six Junior WISE scholarship recipients: Phylecia Burk, Christine Nguyen, Renu Matthews, Cari Wheat, Bianca Rodriguez and Makiala Fivecoat. These six young ladies, who are graduating from local high schools in Mesquite, have all indicated their desire to attend college and enter a service-oriented field of study.

Today, I would like to recognize Judy Trammell and all of the WISE honorees for their outstanding service and congratulate them on their awards. Thank you, ladies, for helping make our community and country a better place.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Major General (Retired) William A. Becker, a distinguished veteran of World War II and Vietnam.

A Kaufman County native, William Becker was born on his family homestead in 1919. He graduated from Kaufman High School in 1936. He later attended Texas A&M College, where served as cadet corps commander during his senior year. Upon graduation in 1941, he was given a diploma, a commission as 2nd Lieutenant of field artillery, and orders to report within eight days to the 1st Calvary Division at Fort Bliss, Texas.

Maj. Gen. Becker was sent to fight in the Southwest Pacific Theater during WWII, and in four years, he advanced from the rank of 2nd Lieutenant to Lieutenant Colonel.

Maj. Gen. Becker also served in Vietnam. Over his 30-year career he had a variety of other commands and assignments. His last active duty assignment was to the Pentagon with the Office of the Secretary of the Army, as Chief of Legislative Liaison, working with the United States Congress from 1968-1971.

During his years of service he was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal twice with one Oak Leaf Cluster, Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Clusters, Bronze Star with one Oak Leaf Cluster, and the Air Medal with 10 Oak Leaf Clusters.

Upon retirement from the Army, Gen. Becker returned to his home community with his wife, Fran, and their four children. In the early 1970's he established a real estate brokerage and is still active with that business. He also served as President of the Kaufman-Van Zandt Board of Realtors and Director of the Texas Association of Realtors.

President Calvin Coolidge once said, ``The Nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten.'' As a veteran, Gen. Becker understands that better than most Americans. On behalf of the grateful citizens of the Fifth District of Texas, it is my pleasure to honor Maj. Gen. Becker today in the United States House of Representatives. It is because of his service, we are able to enjoy freedom, peace, prosperity, and the many other blessings that God has bestowed upon this great land, the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Mr. John Matthews McDonald, the first known Mayor of Athens, Texas. John Matthews McDonald (1827-1883) was born in North Carolina but came to Texas in 1848 and lived first at Larissa, Cherokee County and then Mound Prairie, Anderson County, where his brother Murdoch earlier settled. Two years later, he moved to the young town of Athens and became a teacher and a lawyer.

He also served as the town's first mayor. He wed Mary Ann Elizabeth Pinson (1842-1931) in 1858, and the couple had ten children. During the Civil War, McDonald fought with the Confederate Army as part of Hood's Texas Brigade.

Active in public service, he held the offices of Justice of the Peace, County Judge and State Representative. His pioneer leadership proved vital to the early development of this adopted home.

On behalf of the citizens of Athens and the Fifth District of Texas, it is my pleasure to honor John Matthews McDonald in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Mr. Jerry DeFeo and his work with the National Exchange Club. Mr. DeFeo joined the Noon Exchange Club of Garland, Texas as a charter member in 1982 and went on to serve in numerous offices at the club, district and national levels, culminating with his term as President of the National Exchange Club this past year.

Jerry DeFeo has devoted his time, talent and energy promoting the Exchange Club and it's mission: to make our communities better places to live through programs of service in Americanism, community service, youth activities, and its national project, the prevention of child abuse.

Mr. DeFeo is an accomplished member of the Garland Noon Exchange Club and has served the National Exchange Club Foundation board of trustees from 1987-88 and is a volunteer field representative (VFR). He has received multiple recognitions throughout his involvement, including the first ever VFR of the Year Award in 1997. He was also awarded the National Master Recruiter Award and he has recruited more than 350 members and built 15 Exchange Clubs.

Mr. DeFeo received a bachelor's degree in engineering management from the University of Texas at Arlington, and is the founder and president of DeFeo & Co. Enterprises, which specializes in a variety of architecture and construction. Jerry and his wife Mary Defeo reside in Garland and have four grown children and five grandchildren.

Still active in his community, DeFeo is serving his 12th year on Garland's Board of Adjustments, a zoning appeals board. He has also been involved with the Stars for Children Child Abuse Prevention Center, the Garland Chamber of Commerce, YMCA Indian Guides, and Crimestoppers and Scouting.

Over the course of his career, Jerry DeFeo has demonstrated a unique commitment to the Exchange Club and his community. Today I would like to recognize his outstanding service to his dedication to the people of Texas and the mission of the Exchange Club.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor the Martins Mill Lady Mustangs basketball team who recently won the Texas University Interscholastic League 1A Division State Championship. On Friday March 3, 2006 the Lady Mustangs competed at the University of Texas in Austin's Frank Erwin Center (UTAFEC) for the Girls Basketball State Championship.

I would like to recognize teammates Cara Chaney, Courtney Gregory, Rebecca Hensley, Jordan Barncastle, Hayley Butler, Taylor Daniel, Brittney Perkins, Alexis Popelar, Ashley Tarrant, Jennifer Tindle, Christa Williams, Lynzi Williams, and Kim Wilson as well as team managers Carlee Alsobrook, Kati Clark, Joanna Daniel, Ashlee Milner, and Emily Williams.

The outstanding team performance of the Martins Mill Lady Mustangs earned them the number one ranking in the state from start to finish this season. At the State Championship game in Austin the Lady Mustangs defeated

Elkhart Slocum 61-30 to claim the Class 1-A Division 1 Title in front of a crowd of 3,500 people.

Jordan Barncastle was named Most Valuable Player, and Offensive Most Valuable Player was awarded to Lynzi Williams and Christa Williams. Additionally, state team selections went to Taylor Daniels, Jennifer Tindle and Kim Wilson, and Ashley Tarrant. Cara Chaney, Brittney Perkins, and Hayley Butler also received honorable mention recognition. I would also like to honor Martins Mill Head Coach Doug Barncastle and Assistant Coach Don Tarrant, who were named Coaching Staff of the year.

As the congressional representative of the families, coaches, and supporters of the Martins Mill Lady Mustangs, it is my pleasure to recognize their tremendous victory and outstanding season.

Well, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I especially appreciate her leadership in this body on issues of spending, on issues of budget and trying to protect the family budget from the Federal budget. Certainly she is one of the most powerful and articulate Members that we have, helping lead this charge.

Mr. Speaker, it is that time of year again for the United States House of Representatives to consider its budget. To some people, this is about kind of green eyeshade accounting. It is about numbers. Frankly, it is a lot more than that. It is about numbers. But, more important, Mr. Speaker, it is about values.

There are going to be a number of budgets that are going to be introduced by different caucuses, different groups. I myself have written a budget. But at the end of the day, I think, as usual, if history is our guide, this is going to come down to two budgets: The one that was passed by the House Budget Committee, and the Democrat alternative, and this body, and really the American people, are going to be faced with two very different choices that represent fundamentally two very different sets of values.

One budget, our budget, the Budget Committee, the House Republican budget, is going to value the family budget over the Federal budget, because every time somebody grows a Federal program, Mr. Speaker, it takes away from some family program.

Ours will be a budget that values more freedom. Theirs will be a budget that values more government. And we know, as one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, once said, that as government grows, liberty yields.

We want a budget about opportunity that empowers people to go out and use their God-given talents in this wonderful land that we call America, to be able to put food on their table, to put a roof over their head.

Now, many people will say this is the debate about how much we are going to spend on health care and how much are we going to spend on nutrition programs and how much are we going to spend on education programs. To some extent, it is a debate about those subjects.

But the Democrats only value government spending, only government spending. We, Mr. Speaker, value family spending. We want families to do the spending, not government, and we know the difference. So, there will be two very different sets of values that are present presented in this budget debate.

You are going to hear a lot of things in this budget debate. You are going to hear about which budget is the more compassionate of the two. Well, Mr. Speaker, they are going to present essentially a status quo budget, only worse.

Right now, we are facing a fork in the road. If we don't change things, we know that the great entitlement programs of Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are growing way beyond our ability to pay for them.

The Democrats will present their vision, and they will claim they want to balance the budget, but yet all they want to do is increase spending.

Mr. Speaker, if that is true, if they want to balance the budget, if they want to increase spending, if they refuse to reform any programs, and, Mr. Speaker, we know, we know, we can get better health care, we can get better retirement security at a lower cost. That is a different debate for a different night. If they want to increase government spending, if they refuse any reforms, if they want to balance the budget, well, Mr. Speaker, the General Accounting Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, the liberal Brookings Institution, the conservative Heritage Foundation, anybody in America who has looked at this dynamic will tell you that we are on the road to double taxes on the American people if we follow their budget. Double taxes in one generation.

So that is something, Mr. Speaker, as the American people follow this debate, they have to look at quite carefully.

Now, you will also hear a lot about budget cuts. Well, recently I went to Webster's dictionary and looked up the word ``cut.'' It actually means to reduce. That is what it means everywhere in America except Washington, D.C. In Washington, D.C., when we listen to the Democrats, it seems to mean something else. In Washington, D.C., what it means is some program is not growing quite as fast as a big government bureaucrat liberal wants it to grow.

Mr. Speaker, I know you are going to hear a lot about how somehow government spending has been cut over the last few years. Well, don't believe me. Go to the historic tables of the Office of Management and Budget. What you will discover is over the last decade, international affairs has grown by 89.1 percent; science, space and technology spending at the Federal level has grown 49.5 percent; natural resources and environmental spending at the Federal level has grown 43.8 percent; Federal agricultural spending has grown 118.1 percent; Federal transportation spending has grown 83.5 percent. The list goes on and on and on.

Mr. Speaker, over this same time period, guess what? Median family income grew by 33 percent and inflation grew by 25 percent. In other words, government, just over the last decade, just over the last decade, government has been growing far faster than family income.

We are growing the Federal budget way beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it, and if all we wanted to do was keep government that we had 10 years ago, we would have grown it by inflation. We are growing it at twice the rate of inflation.

So, Mr. Speaker, when we start hearing all these accusations about cuts, we have to remember how America defines that term and how liberal big government Democrats define that term, and those are two very, very different things.

Mr. Speaker, something else you are going to hear as this debate ensues is nowhere in a $2.8 trillion Federal budget can we find any savings whatsoever for the American people. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is just absurd. Not only is it absurd, we have to find the savings. If we don't find the savings, again, we will either place massive debt on our children or they will be looking at a massive tax increase.

Recently, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government could not account for $24.5 billion that it spent just a couple of years ago. It just kind of disappeared into thin air. Federal auditors who are currently examining all Federal programs have reported that 38 percent of them examined have failed to show any positive impact on the populations they serve. Thirty-eight percent are not meeting the stated goals of when Congress published them.

It wasn't that long ago that the Department of Defense wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets and never bothered to collect the refunds, even though the tickets were refundable. Mr. Speaker, if it is your money or it is my money, my best guess is we are going to go out and get that refund. But, you know, there is a truism, and that is we are never as careful with other people's money as we are with our own.

The Federal Government spends almost $25 billion annually on what is known as earmarks, pork projects, including the infamous bridge to nowhere, grants to the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Hey, I love rock & roll, but, you know what? The last I looked, it was a fairly profitable industry and probably didn't need subsidies from the Federal Government. We had the infamous $800,000 outhouse, the rain forest in Iowa, and the list goes on and on and on.

In the last year of the Clinton administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development couldn't account for $3.3 billion in overpayments. Ten percent of their entire budget just disappeared, 10 percent of their budget. There is no family in America, there is no small business in America, that could just watch 10 percent of their revenues disappear and expect to survive.

We have the Conservation Reserve Program paying farmers $2 billion annually not to farm their land. We spend over $60 billion on corporate welfare versus a smaller amount on homeland security.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on all evening, but I have given you this list just to illustrate a handful of items where we could go out and we could find savings.

Again, Mr. Speaker, what is at stake here? What is at stake here is really the kind of America we are going to leave the next generation. Are we going to go with a budget that would take this Nation from $8 trillion in debt to, who knows, $11 trillion, $12 trillion? Or, if we are not going to go the debt route? Are we going to increase taxes on our children, double taxes?

The average American family is paying $20,000 a year combined in their Federal taxes. That is what we are paying. Are we going to expect our children to pay $40,000? How are they going to buy a first home or send a kid to college or buy that second car to get that parent to work? Is this the kind of America we want to leave our children?

Mr. Speaker, this is what this debate is all about. You are going to hear a lot about compassion, but, Mr. Speaker, I don't see any compassion in doubling taxes on our children. I see no compassion there whatsoever.

You are going to hear a lot again from the Democrats about how we have to increase this Federal program and that Federal program. I want to remind you, these are the people who voted against any tax relief whatsoever for American families and small businesses.

When we back in 2003 enacted tax relief for small businesses and families, guess what, Mr. Speaker? Five million new jobs were created. Yet the Democrats in their budget, what they want to do is, they believe that somehow paychecks are not about compassion, and yet welfare checks are. The compassion of our society should be defined by how many paychecks we create, how many opportunities there are for men and women to use their God-given talents and to go out and find good productive careers. That is how our budget is going to define compassion.

Their budget is going to define compassion by how much dependency they can create, what kind of labyrinth, what kind of tangled labyrinth of welfare can they make people more dependent upon. We want to empower people. We want to get people off of welfare and on to work so that they can have careers, so they can have opportunities, so they can have freedoms that previously they haven't been able to dream of.

And those are the two different values that are going to be represented in this debate, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. It is a very important point that we are going to have in this debate. Number one, there is no doubt that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be talking about tax cuts are bad; we can't have any more tax cuts.

Well, first, Mr. Speaker, nobody is talking today about any more tax cuts. Unfortunately, in this very odd budget process we have in Washington, tax relief is temporary and spending is forever. The only thing we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is make sure that the American people don't have a huge automatic tax increase brought about by the Democrats.

They will tell you, my Lord, if we allow the American people, if we allow small businesses to keep more of what they earn, that is going to cost government. Well, number one, Mr. Speaker, it is not the government's money, it is the people's money.

Second of all, we have given tax relief to American families and small businesses. And, guess what? The deficit starts to come down. Revenues are up. Again, don't take my word for it, go to the United States Treasury and here is what they will tell you. We cut marginal rates in 2003. We helped small businesses. We helped families. We cut tax rates. And guess what? We ended up with more tax revenue. More tax revenue.

Individual tax receipts were up 14.6 percent. Corporate tax receipts were up 47 percent. A huge boon of revenue. That brings the deficit down because people are going out and they are saving and they are working and they are rolling up their sleeves and they are building new businesses. In just this year, in the first few months of this fiscal year, corporate tax receipts are up 29.6 percent. Again, don't take my word for it, go to the U.S. Treasury.

I would be glad to yield to my friend from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his courage in offering this amendment because I know how easy it is to misrepresent what his intentions are.

I agree with the previous speakers, and I am disappointed that these two bills have not been separated out. I am here to agree and admit, as one who has actually been to the gulf coast, that perhaps more Federal funding may be needed. I have seen the human misery. I have family that was there. My in-laws were there. They were among the lucky ones; they lived through it. Their home, although significantly damaged, was not totally demolished. My heart goes out to these people.

But the answer to the human tragedy is not an unlimited check drawn upon the checkbook of the Federal taxpayer.

Many speakers act like nothing has been done already to help the gulf coast, but $100 billion in tax incentives and in other direct relief has gone to the gulf coast. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a lot of money.

And let us also not ignore the fact that although there was a great tragedy that occurred on the gulf coast, there are many other tragedies that occur in this Nation every day, but CNN is not there to capture them on a day-to-day basis.

Mr. Chairman, 38,000 Americans die each year in a car crash, and we are asking their families to be taxed to send more money to the gulf coast; 1.4 million Americans are going to be diagnosed with cancer this year, and yet we want to tax them to send more money to the gulf coast.

There are almost a half a million homes that burn each year, and we want to tax those families to send more money to the gulf coast. Perhaps more money is justified, but until we see the plan, until we see more accountability where we do not have trailers rotting in the Arkansas mud and Gucci purses being bought on debit cards, until we figure out the precise Federal role versus the State role versus the local role versus the role of able-bodied individuals under the age of 65, until we come up with reforms, and most importantly, until we come up with offsets, it is time that we prioritize our spending. And maybe we shouldn't be funding the citrus canker program and Radio-Free Europe if money is needed at the gulf coast. I support this amendment and hope it passes.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I also thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for graciously yielding this time and his good work on the Rules Committee.

I want to associate myself with the gentleman from Indiana's comments. These are extraordinary times calling for extraordinary remedies. We must have a remedy for being able to vote for fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank Chairman Oxley for his great commitment to this legislation and his critical leadership in tackling this important topic lo these many years. And I also want to thank Chairman Bachus for his outstanding leadership on the subcommittee level. And finally, I want to thank the ranking member (Mr. Frank of Massaschusetts) and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for their bipartisan efforts in ensuring that we help reduce the regulatory burden on our Nation's financial institutions.

With thoughtful regulatory relief, Congress can free up more capital for small businesses and families. Excessive, redundant, costly regulations can make credit more expensive and less accessible. These regulations can keep Americans from obtaining their first mortgage, buying their first car, financing a child's education, or starting a small business that creates needed new jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Federal regulatory burden falls particularly disproportionately on our smaller banks and credit unions. For example, the total number of small community banks has declined by almost a third in just one decade. Now, I am sure there are a number of reasons for all of these consolidations and mergers that have taken place, but from speaking to folks in my home State of Texas, certainly the burden and cost of Federal regulation rank among the top reasons, and certainly one of the top challenges to their continued profitability and their continued viability.

Furthermore, since 1989, bank regulators have promulgated over 850 new regulations. That is about 50 new regulations a year. Can we really expect our small, community-based financial institutions to keep up with this pace? I do not believe we can, and I do not believe we should.

This is worrisome because I believe it is these small, independent financial institutions that continue to be the economic lifeblood of many of our rural communities and a number of our inner-city neighborhoods. Let me offer one example from my home congressional district, First State Bank of Athens, Texas. This bank makes 50 to 75 charitable contributions each year to community groups in Henderson County, Texas, the American Heart Association, Meals on Wheels, Disabled

American Veterans, and the East Texas Arboretum, to name a few. This bank has funded a local employer, Texas Ragtime, that has 90 employees, not to mention the jobs that they helped create at Nelson's Henderson County Door and Futurematrix Medical Devices. Last year they made 503 small business loans and an additional 314 small agricultural loans.

Yet we need to know that with burdensome regulatory compliance, every dollar they spend on regulatory compliance is a dollar they cannot spend on Meals on Wheels or to create new jobs at Ragtime. The same is true for every other small financial institution across our Nation. We in Congress can never lose sight of this fact.

This same bank in Athens, Texas, like thousands across the Nation, spends close to half a million dollars a year combined each year on BSA compliance, Reg B, Reg E, Reg D, CRA, HMDA, HOEPA, Reg O, Reg X, and Reg Z, just to name a few.

If Congress cannot determine a compelling reason for any existing regulation in a modern marketplace, I believe we have a duty to modify or eliminate that regulation.

Now, I am particularly pleased about the relief this bill offers for currency transaction reports. Unfortunately, the environment we are in today has led many banks to file their CTRs, cash transaction reports, and their suspicious activity reports in a highly defensive manner. Under this legislation I believe the majority of the 13 million-plus CTRs filed annually would stop, saving many, many hours and many, many thousands of dollars in savings in filling out these forms. This would also, perhaps more importantly, allow our law enforcement officials to better direct resources and help properly evaluate the suspicious activity reports, and thus better fight crime and terrorist financing.

Mr. Speaker, finally, this bill has received rare unanimous support when it was reported out of the Committee on Financial Services. It represents the hard work of Members on both sides of the aisle. I do believe that this bill will provide substantive regulatory relief for our financial institutions, and that will put more money, more capital, in the hands of those on the front lines of community lending and help American families realize their dreams.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert the following letter into the Record of the debate on S. 2275, National Flood Insurance Program Enhanced Borrowing Authority.

Washington, DC,

February 14, 2006.

Hon. Dennis Hastert,

Speaker of the House, The Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Majority Leader, The Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner: As you

know, the President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget requests a $5.6

billion increase in FEMA's borrowing authority because its

flood insurance program, the National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP), is unable to cover current claims against it from the

unprecedented losses resulting from Hurricane Katrina.

Since 1968, the NFIP has offered property owners in coastal

and river areas federally subsidized flood insurance. It

currently insures approximately 4.7 million homeowners,

renters and other policyholders, who pay premiums for

coverage. Total insured assets are above $800 billion with

some 20,100 communities participating. In heavy loss years,

when losses exceed its premiums, FEMA is authorized to borrow

from the U.S. Treasury up to $1.5 billion. This borrowing has

historically been repaid with interest within very short time

periods from NFIP premiums and fees.

However, the catastrophic damage and losses resulting from

the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes is far exceeding the available

resources in the National Flood Insurance Fund. Consequently,

Congress last year eventually raised FEMA's borrowing

authority to $18.5 billion. But despite this, flood damage

claims from the 2005 hurricanes are now estimated to be in

excess of $20 billion and growing, surpassing all combined

payments in the program's history. This will again

necessitate Congress raising the limit on FEMA's borrowing

authority to pay these claims. And, if additional flooding

occurs in 2006, these costs will only grow higher.

Unfortunately, this new borrowing will likely never be

repaid by the beneficiaries. According to CBO, it ``is highly

unlikely that the program will be able to repay that amount

of borrowing out of its income from premiums and fees.'' It

is estimated that the interest expenses alone from these

loans would consume a large portion of the program's annual

revenues for the foreseeable future. It would take decades to

repay these costs, assuming no other flooding--undoubtedly,

these payouts will be forgiven at some point.

Lacking this ability to repay within a reasonable period,

we view deficit-financed spending from any additional FEMA

borrowing above its current $18.5 billion level to be

essentially identical to those of a conventional federal

spending program. Therefore, spending flowing from additional

federal borrowing authority should be fully paid for by

spending reductions elsewhere in the federal budget.

In addition, any long-term extension must include

comprehensive structural reforms to the program. The

hurricanes of 2004 and 2005 have made it clear that

legislative action is urgently needed to make the NFIP

actuarially sound and able to build sufficient cash reserves

to cover higher than expected losses. For instance,

comprehensive reform would better align premium rates with

the policyholder's associated risk while reducing direct

subsidies of over $1.3 billion annually, starting with the

elimination of all subsidies for vacation homes, and address

the repetitive loss problem, where subsidies flow to homes to

be rebuilt over and over after multiple flood losses, while

ensuring proper flood mitigation measures and mapping are in

place, enforced and used to reduce losses from future floods.

We believe these and other reforms are critical to reducing

the taxpayers' risk exposure while strengthening and

improving the flood insurance program.

This week, Congress is scheduled to extend FEMA's borrowing

authority through April. While this spending should be

offset, we appreciate your work with House conservatives to

ensure this a short-term extension that will allow

substantial time for a vigorous and comprehensive reform of

the flood insurance program over the coming months. If this

imperative reform effort falters, we will oppose any future

increases to FEMA's borrowing authority that are not fully

offset.

We look forward to working with you and committee

leadership to ensure that this component of federal

assistance is both timely and fiscally responsible, and that

any package of reforms continues to meet core federal

responsibilities.

Sincerely,

Mike Pence,

Member of Congress.

Jeb Hensarling,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Our Nation has had to respond to the attacks of September 11th in many different ways, including providing Federal support for our terrorism insurance market.

While I can understand support for an extension of TRIA, I have many concerns about the piece of legislation we will be voting on shortly. Let me highlight a few of them.

First, this bill greatly expands the TRIA program, going so far as to provide Federal assistance for individual lines of insurance, rather than just covering a company's losses in the event of a terrorist attack.

This bill even goes so far as to include a group life insurance component, a sector of the insurance marketplace that has shown no sign of failure.

Allowing this type of line-by-line coverage pushes the government into competitive, private insurance markets where it does not belong. A system of this nature will inevitably expose taxpayers to more risk sooner in the process, while at the same time allowing insurance companies to obtain government assistance before it may be necessary.

Further, this bill continues to maintain a very low trigger for when the government would step in. While $50 million is higher than the current trigger level--set shortly after September 11th--the Department of Treasury had requested a number closer to $500 million. For a program that was designed to be triggered for catastrophic events only, this higher threshold is perfectly applicable.

While the bill before us is only a two-year extension, it allows for a third year without Congressional approval. I am hard pressed to believe that this will be the final extension proposed.

The Federal Government consists of thousands and thousands of Federal programs created by Congress. Many of these, I am convinced, were started with the intention that they would be temporary. To quote President Reagan, ``No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.''

At some point, after some reasonable transition, either the market demands terrorism reinsurance or it does not. Our opinion should not be the relevant one. The relevant opinion is that of the market.

If the market is not interested in terrorism reinsurance, Congress should not force the matter. If the market does demand this product, we should not assume that the Federal Government needs to be a permanent fixture.

Modifying or eliminating regulations, reducing corporate income tax rates, and preventing the abuse of our legal system are all important factors that, if addressed, would free up massive amounts of capital for insurers and re-insurers.

This additional capital would help to increase the supply of terrorism insurance, leading to a reduction in premium rates, and minimizing the need for a Federal backstop program or Federal involvement at all.

Unfortunately, until we rid the world of the terrorists who seek to destroy us, terrorism insurance will continue to be a fact of life for businesses in this country. Until then, I have faith in our markets and their ability to respond accordingly to the challenges posed by domestic and international events.

Regrettably, I cannot support this legislation but I plan to reluctantly support it.

Mr. Speaker, yet again we consider this historic piece of legislation, and it is historic because today we can begin the process of reforming out-of-control government spending. What happens if we listen to our Democrat friends who tell us we should fail to act?

Retiring Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said, ``As a Nation, we may have already made promises to coming generations of retirees that we will be unable to fulfill.'' That is the Democrat plan.

The Brookings Institution has said expected growth on entitlement programs along with projected increases in interest on the debt and defense will absorb all of the government's currently projected revenues within 8 years, leaving nothing for any other program. No more veterans programs, no more Federal student loans, no more low-income housing programs. That is the Democrat plan.

The General Accountability Office has said that without reforms that we are going to have to double taxes on the next generation just to balance the budget. That is the Democrat plan.

Mr. Speaker, during this debate we are hearing a lot about budget cuts. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

I looked up ``cut'' in the dictionary. It means to reduce. Yet, under this modest set of reforms, we see that Federal spending will grow at 4.3 percent a year. What we call entitlement spending will grow 6.3 percent a year. Medicaid will grow 7.5 percent a year. TANF and other welfare programs will grow at 8.5 percent a year, and the list goes on and on and on.

What we will cut if we do not pass this legislation is the family budget. It will be cut by $40 billion. That is $40 billion that could help nearly 2 million families to make a down payment on a new home. $40 billion could help almost 1 million families put a child through college. We need to realize that every time we increase the Federal budget we are cutting the family budget. Democrats want to cut the family budget, double taxes on our children and call that compassion.

We need to adopt this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight to debate a very historic bill, although I do not believe the rhetoric from the other side is necessarily historic.

We are hearing a lot tonight about cuts and compassion, but when I look at this bill, all I seem to see is increases in spending. So I am trying to figure out where the reductions in spending have actually taken place. Mr. Speaker, people are entitled to their own opinions. They are just simply not entitled to their own facts.

After this set of reforms is passed, Federal outlays are going to grow 4.3 percent. Mandatory is going to grow 6.3. Medicaid is going to grow 7.5. I am still looking for the cuts.

I think maybe, Mr. Speaker, I have found those cuts now that I look, and that is every time we increase a program of the Federal budget, we are having to decrease some program of the family budget.

This is a very historic piece of legislation because tonight we start that process, those first few steps towards reforming out-of-control government spending. We know what that future is, Mr. Speaker, if we do not do something about it.

Already Chairman Greenspan of the Federal Reserve has said, ``As a Nation, we may have already made promises to coming generations of retirees that we will be unable to fulfill.''

The Brookings Institution has said, Expected growth in our entitlement programs along with projected increases in interest on the debt in defense will absorb all of the government's currently projected revenue within 8 years, leaving nothing for any other program. So no veterans program, no student loans, no housing programs.

Where is the compassion in this, Mr. Speaker, if we follow the Democrat plan and do nothing for reforming our entitlement spending?

The GAO says that we will have to double taxes on our children just to balance the budget if we do not begin this process of reform. Now, where is the compassion there?

And when people start to lecture us about the least of these, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the least of these are those who are too young to vote and those who have yet to be born. Who represents them here this evening? Who speaks out for them?

Let us have compassion for the next generation and let us enact this rule, let us enact this underlying bill, and let us save this next generation from a fiscal calamity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today and urge my colleagues to defeat this motion to instruct. All of us know that America still faces a number of fiscal challenges, although under our economic policies, we have made a lot of great strides. With over 4 million new taxpaying jobs created and the deficit coming down, we have made a lot of great progress, but there is a lot of work to be done.

This really comes down to a debate about two different visions for America's fiscal future. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that we have a fiscal challenge because the American people are undertaxed. We believe our Nation faces a fiscal challenge because Washington spends too much and too unwisely.

Now, Mr. Speaker, during this debate, we have already heard a lot about cuts and compassion. Well, let us talk a little about those. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. If one would look up the word ``cut'' in Webster's Dictionary, one would discover it means to reduce an amount. Yet under this modest, very modest, set of reforms, we see that total Federal outlays will grow by an average of 4.3 percent a year. What we call mandatory spending will grow 6.3 percent a year. Medicaid will grow 7.5 percent a year. TANF and other welfare programs will grow at 8.5 percent a year. And the list goes on and on and on.

Mr. Speaker, it is not how much money you spend in Washington that counts; it is how you spend the money. When we talk of cuts, we need to realize that every time we increase some program, some budget in Washington, by definition, we are cutting some family budget. This money has to come from somewhere. So when we feed the Federal budget, we cut the family budget.

We have a modest set of proposals that over 5 years would save us approximately $45 billion over what we call the baseline. I mean, that is almost 2 million down payments for homes for the American people. It is almost a million 4-year college educations. That is who is being cut if we follow this motion to instruct; it is the family budget.

And let us talk about compassion, compassion for the least of these. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the least of these are those who are too young to vote and those who have not yet been born. If we follow the Democrat plan, let us look at what the General Accountability Office has said; if, right now, we do not change the spending patterns that we have in order to balance the budget, in just one generation, we are going to have to double taxes on the American people.

Where is the compassion there, Mr. Speaker, in taking away their jobs, in taking away their hope, taking away their opportunities? We would be the first generation perhaps in American history to leave our children a lower standard of living than we enjoy. There is no compassion there, Mr. Speaker.

Let us defeat this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize the outstanding achievements of Mr. Carey Hobbs. I have had the pleasure of knowing Carey Hobbs for more than 20 years. He is a man who loves his country and cares deeply about his community. He is selfless and unassuming. He is a dedicated family man and a devoted Christian, and I am very proud to call him my friend.

Following his graduation from high school in Abilene, Texas, Carey Hobbs began his lifelong association with Texas Tech University as an undergraduate student. After earning his degree, Carey Hobbs joined the military in 1958 and received a commission in the United States Marine Corps. During his five years of active duty, he flew jet fighters and also served as a test pilot.

Over the course of his professional career, Carey Hobbs has become a successful small business owner and a leader in the textile industry. He is a true entrepreneur, who has helped drive innovation and job creation. Since 1972, he has been the President and CEO of Hobbs Bonded Fibers in Waco, Texas. He holds several patents and has served on board of directors for both the National Association of Nonwoven Fabrics Industry and the National Cotton Batting Institute. For eight years, he was a member of the U.S. Department of Commerce Industry Sector Advisory Committee for Trade Policy Matters for Textiles and Apparel. In 1988, Carey Hobbs was named Small Business Person of the Year for the Dallas District.

Through the years, Carey Hobbs has remained a steadfast supporter of his alma mater, Texas Tech University, and higher education in Texas. He has served on the Texas Tech Board of regents and was President of the Texas Tech Alumni Association National Board of Directors. He has also dedicated his time to enriching higher education through his service on the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and as a participant in Texas A&M University's Visiting Executive Program.

Carey Hobbs is an important and positive role for the youth of Texas. He is an active member of the Stonegate Community Church in Waco. He serves on the board of WorId Hunger Relief and the International Medical Education Foundation, which is working to build a hospital in the Ukraine. Carey Hobbs is also a devoted family man. He and his wife Brenda have five children: Larry, Terri, Angela, Andy and Cindy.

As the Congressman for the Fifth District of Texas and a longtime friend of Carey Hobbs, it is my honor to recognize him for his outstanding achievements in business and in life. Carey Hobbs has truly made his community and his country a better place.