Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I would like to call up my amendment, made in order under the rule, to shift $50,000 from Office of the Chief Economist at USDA to the Economic Research Service (ERS).

The goal of this amendment is to have the Office of the Chief Economist work jointly with the Economic Research Service and the Foreign Agriculture Service to conduct a study on the potential growth in U.S. agriculture exports that would result from implementation of the pending trade promotion agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea within 90 days of this legislation becoming law.

Additionally, USDA would also report on the potential impact on U.S. agriculture exports if these agreements are not implemented.

In each case, USDA would analyze the impacts of changes in exports on agriculture sector employment, wages, farm income, and commodity prices.

As I am sure you know, each of these countries has signed or is negotiating trade agreements with several countries that are major competitors for U.S. farmers and ranchers. I know we are all concerned about the potential loss of competitiveness the families and workers in our agriculture sector would face if the pending trade agreements are not implemented.

Previous studies by the International Trade Commission show the benefits of these agreements. Taken together, they could increase all U.S. exports by over $12 billion. This new study would give us an opportunity to update this information and focus specifically on the U.S. agriculture sector.

In these difficult economic times, Congress, now more than ever, must pursue policies to enhance the competitiveness of America's farmers and ranchers. Since 95 percent of all consumers are outside of the United States, increasing exports are a vital component of that effort.

The analysis conducted as a result of my amendment would help Members of Congress understand the importance of leveling the playing field for America's farmers and ranchers by implementing the pending trade agreements.

Mr. Chair, I commend Mr. Lewis for his leadership and work to reduce spending increases in this bill and other appropriations bills this year.

But I do have concern about the consequence of limiting funding for the World Bank's International Development Association. Doing so I believe could harm American credibility and leadership abroad. The Bank is doing critical work to help the world's poorest nations weather the global economic crisis, limit hunger, and provide for greater security in volatile areas of the world.

In Afghanistan, the World Bank helped build and reform the nation's telecommunications sector. This helped to attract $500 million in private investment, accounting for 60% of all foreign direct investment in Afghanistan. The Bank also helped train health care workers in Afghanistan, to help increase access to health care there.

As we seek to cut the deficit and prioritize funding, we must also consider that we may ultimately lose leverage over the priorities and direction of the World Bank should the U.S. fail to live up to its commitments.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill contains an unnecessary and, I think, counterproductive provision banning the importation of poultry from China. The provision has no food safety basis but puts at risk American jobs and puts at risk at least $350 million of American poultry sales to China that that country will reportedly block in retaliation.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) offered an amendment to strike this dangerous provision, but the majority refused, unfortunately, to make it in order. This provision will effectively close off a huge export market for our farmers while leaving unchanged the amount of poultry we import from China--zero, by the way--because of our already strong food safety protections.

Even America's poultry industry doesn't support this provision. Even those who would benefit, supposedly, don't support this provision. I would like to submit for the Record a letter from a wide range of associations opposed to this language because of the impact here on American jobs. The White House has registered concerns as well with the provision.

I support science-based oversight of food safety, but this provision will backfire. It will hurt American farmers without any impact on food safety. At a time when our country is struggling with the economy, this Congress taking actions that hurt American jobs and hurt American farmers is exactly the wrong way to go. This provision should be left out of the final bill.

April 30, 2009.

Hon. Barack Obama,

President, United States of America, The White House,

Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President: We are writing to urge you to oppose

any provisions in the annual appropriations bills that may be

inconsistent with our trade obligations under the provisions

of World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. In particular,

we urge your Administration to actively oppose a provision

that would bar implementation of a U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

regulation governing the importation of cooked poultry

products from China. We respectfully request that your

Administration work with Congress to amend the Omnibus

Appropriations Act of 2009 to eliminate the current

application of this provision and to help prevent its

inclusion in future Appropriations measures.

We agree that the U.S. Government must effectively regulate

the safety and quality of food products sold in this country.

However, to maintain the effectiveness and integrity of the

food safety system, such regulations must be based on sound

science and an appropriate risk assessment. Laws and

regulations must also be crafted such that the U.S. does not

ignore its international trade obligations--obligations that

the U.S. Government has helped to develop and in particular,

to prevent other countries from adopting protectionist, non-

science based measures against U.S. food and agriculture

exports under the guise of food safety. At a time when U.S.

producers are seeking to sell their goods and services abroad

during a difficult global economic crisis, it is vital that

we uphold our trade obligations, lest we find access to vital

overseas markets cut off to American products.

Section 727 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009

forbids funds from being used to ``establish or implement a

rule allowing poultry products to be imported into the U.S.

from the People's Republic of China.'' Similar provisions

have been included in annual appropriations since FSIS issued

a final rule on cooked chicken imports from China in 2006 and

another prohibition is to be proposed for the bill for Fiscal

Year 2010.

Section 727 and its predecessors effectively bar FSIS from

conducting a necessary and appropriate risk assessment on

whether imports of cooked chicken from China pose any risk to

American consumers. Because the provision specifically

targets imports from only one country, it conflicts with the

U.S. obligation to treat trading partners equally. Indeed,

the People's Republic of China has already filed a dispute

settlement case against the U.S. at the WTO on this matter.

If there are concerns about the safety of cooked chicken

imports from China--and we should note that this includes

poultry that originates in the U.S.--they should be addressed

through sound science in the regulatory channels, not through

ad hoc legislation or appropriations bills. Section 727,

however, precludes scientific analysis from being conducted,

therefore adversely affecting U.S. credibility and

potentially hindering U.S. market access overseas.

If the U.S. cannot uphold the basic rules of international

trade, our trading partners may take similar actions against

U.S. exports, which will ultimately harm American workers,

farmers, businesses and the U.S. economy as a whole.

Respectfully,

Advanced Medical Technology Association, Agri Beef

Company, AJC International, Incorporated, American Farm

Bureau Federation, American Meat Institute, Animal

Health Institute, Butterball, LLC, Cargill,

Incorporated, DGM Commodities, Corporation, Edwards

Lifesciences, Elanco, Emergency Committee for American

Trade, Fieldale Farms Corporation, Grocery

Manufacturers Association, Grove Services,

Incorporated, Hormel Foods Corporation,

Interra International, Incorporated, JBS S.A., Keystone

Foods, LLC, Kraft Foods, Incorporated, Maritime

Products International, Mar-Jac Poultry, Incorporated,

MetaFoods, LLC, Michigan Corn Growers Association,

Monsanto Company, National Cattlemen's Beef

Association, National Chicken Council, National

Fisheries Institute, National Foreign Trade Council,

National Meat Association, National Pork Producers

Council, National Retail Federation.

Mr. Chairman, I call up my amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to shift $50,000 from the Office of the Chief Economist at the USDA to the Economic Research Service.

The goal of this amendment is to have the Office of the Chief Economist work jointly with the Economic Research Service and the Foreign Agriculture Service to conduct an independent, objective study on the potential growth in U.S. agriculture exports that would result from implementation of the pending trade promotion agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea within 90 days of this legislation becoming law.

Additionally, the Department of Agriculture would also report on the potential impact of U.S. agriculture exports if these agreements are not implemented.

In each case, the USDA would analyze the impacts of changes in exports on agriculture sector jobs, wages, farm income, and commodity prices.

As many of you know, each of these countries have signed or are negotiating trade agreements with several countries that are major competitors for America's farmers and ranchers. I know we are all concerned about the potential loss of competitiveness that families and workers in our agriculture sector would face if the pending trade agreements are not implemented.

While there has been some analysis of the impact of the pending trade agreements on American farmers and ranchers, much of this analysis is outdated. For example, the study by the U.S. International Trade Commission on the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement was published in December 2006 and relied on trade data from 2005. Obviously, conditions have changed since then.

In these difficult economic times, Congress, now more than ever, must pursue policies to enhance the competitiveness of America's farmers and ranchers. And since 95 percent of all consumers live outside the United States, increasing exports, finding new customers for American farmers and ranchers, are a vital component of that effort.

The analysis conducted as a result of this amendment will help Members of Congress understand fully the importance of leveling the playing field for America's farmers and ranchers by considering and implementing the pending trade agreements.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Yes, Madam Chairman, we were very respectful of the House rules on those issues. Clearly an intent of this discussion tonight is to have this study conducted, but we were very respectful of the House rules.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have two young children, so the environment is very important to me, but I question the benefits of this bill and strongly oppose its devastating cost.

This bill won't impact the natural cycle of the Earth's temperature. It will cost Texas families dearly in bigger utility bills, higher energy costs, and losing nearly 200,000 jobs, many of them in southeast Texas in our energy refining, paper, steel, and ag industries. And with China and India not likely to go along, this will have no environmental benefits at all.

The protectionist trade measures added in secret at the 11th hour are so rigid, they undermine our ability to reach an international agreement on carbon emissions, which is the best way to protect American jobs here. And they are written so poorly, it will be difficult to defend the measure against trade challenges by our competitors. And I should point out, that

WTO report referenced earlier today doesn't even deal with the border measures that are under consideration in this bill.

Instead of rushing this 1,200-page bill through Congress with no time to read it, a better solution is for both parties to get serious about increasing cleaner-burning fuel, like nuclear and natural gas, accelerating research.

That makes more sense, creates jobs and produces real environmental results without the devastating cost to families and businesses from cap and trade.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present for several votes on Tuesday, June 23, 2009 due to a personal situation I needed to attend to in Texas. Nevertheless, I would request that the record indicate that I would have voted ``yes'' on each of the bills considered in the House had I been present. Specifically, S. 407, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2009; H.R. 1016, the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009; H.R. 1211, the Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act; and H.R. 1172 are each common sense reforms that will improve the health and education benefits provided by the Veterans Administration. Our veterans and their families sacrifice so much on our behalf, it is important that Congress continue to do all it can to ensure that they receive the respect and support they deserve.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2996-- Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Kevin Brady, Texas 8th Congressional District

Bill Number: H.R. 2996--Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Project: Big Thicket National Preserve

Account: National Park Service, Land Acquisition

Requesting Entity: The Conservation Fund, Texas Office

Address of Requesting Entity: 101 W 6th Street, Suite 601, Austin, TX

The Big Thicket National Preserve is one of America's ecological treasures. It is an unusually shaped preserve whose boundaries include land once owned by major timber companies. This request enables the National Park Service to acquire critical land within the congressionally authorized boundary of the Big Thicket National Preserve to diversify the economic potential of southeast Texas through increased tourism opportunities. This project works only with voluntary, ``willing-seller'' landowners.

The $5,000,000 included in this bill for this project combined with previous funding will allow the National Park Service to purchase over 2500 acres of land on 23 tracts acquired from willing sellers or by voluntary donation. When funded in full, this request represents the final year in a seven-year land acquisition program.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2847--Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Kevin Brady, Texas 8th Congressional District

Bill Number: H.R. 2847--Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Project: Sam Houston State University Regional Crime Lab

Account: Office of Justice Programs, Byrne Discretionary Grants

Requesting Entity: Sam Houston State University

Address of Requesting Entity: 1803 Avenue I, Huntsville, TX 77341

Law enforcement agencies in rural communities experience long waits and backlogs when requesting services from major cities like Houston. This request allows Sam Houston State University--one of the nation's foremost criminal justice universities--to use its expertise in forensic science to begin operations of the Regional Crime Laboratory started with funding I previously secured. This lab will provide important forensics services to local law enforcement such as identification of controlled substances, toxicology screening and finger print matching. The lab will be able to service communities in a 75-mile wide area.

The $1,000,000 included in this bill for this project will be allocated to staff the SHSU Regional Crime Lab and make it operational for serving regional law enforcement agencies. Specific budget items include: capital outlays (54%); salaries and benefits for laboratory staff (37%); lab supplies (8%); and subcontracts for staff training (1%).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill due to the last-minute addition of the Pakistan Afghanistan Recovery Opportunity Zone bill.

While I commend Congressman Van Hollen for his hard work and his strong commitment to this very important legislation, I am concerned the bill fails to encourage significant investment in the Afghan and Pakistan regions under the new trade program. And I say that as someone who believes that trade can be a powerful tool to help developing countries lift themselves up out of poverty. Unfortunately, I believe this bill will discourage economic development and investment because it includes some dangerous eligibility criteria that will drive away investment and require each firm, including U.S. firms, there

to meet labor standards that could exceed U.S. law in such a way that will create a dangerous precedent that could be applied to our own free-trade agreements, making U.S. labor laws vulnerable to challenge from foreign countries.

And the scope of the eligible products in the bill, unfortunately, have been whittled down--I know there have been difficult negotiations to try and broaden that--and it imposes fees on certain Pakistan products in return for sales of others; again, sort of, I think, a tradeoff that has been difficult to swallow.

I am concerned that this measure, despite its excellent intentions-- and again, very hard work from Congressman Van Hollen--will fall short of its objectives to bring economic stability to this very difficult region.

I would point out, too, we are doing a lot to open up America to foreign countries. We've had six votes to open up America to foreign sales, but no votes to open up other countries to what we sell. It's not enough to buy American; we need to sell American products throughout the world. And in this economic recession, we have three pending trade agreements that would allow us to sell $11 billion of American products around the world to create jobs here in the United States that are being held up, not brought to a vote on the floor. We need to get our priorities right. As we help lift countries up, let's lift American jobs up as well.

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mica, Chairman Oberstar, today I rise reluctantly in opposition to the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009.

I have several concerns about the bill that I believe undermine the international competitiveness of the American airline industry.

Section 425(e) of this bill would sunset in 3 years the antitrust immunity for U.S. air carriers that participate in international alliances. This provision could threaten the viability of our U.S. airline industry and hurt customers.

At a time when the economy is struggling and people are traveling less, it's not wise to further impair American carriers' ability to deliver the best possible service. Unfortunately, that's exactly what this provision does, and I

hope it is removed before the bill is presented to the President.

Alliances help better serve Americans traveling both at home and abroad, and allow airlines to pool resources to better deliver customer service. When airlines partner together, consumers have improved booking and connecting options, industry competition is increased, and lower fares are more accessible.

If U.S. carriers lose these benefits because of a shortsighted sunsetting of immunity, American jobs will be at stake. The Air Transport Association estimates that we may lose as many as 15,000 U.S. airline jobs if this sunsetting occurs. With the economy as it is today, we cannot afford losing these good American jobs.

Thank you. I appreciate you leading this discussion tonight with the American public. I'm glad to join my other friends, conservative friends, who, frankly, are worried about what the first 100 days mean to our country. I didn't move to Washington. I live in Texas with my family and just commute to work each week to Washington. Continental has given me my 1 million miles flown card, which is a lot of keeping in touch.

Sometimes you wonder, you know, the people up in Washington, they seem to be in a bubble. It's just so disconnected from the real world. I asked some of our Facebook friends what they thought of President Obama's first 100 days, sort of an out-of-Washington look at the Nation.

Rachel, who is a Sam Houston State University alum, said she was really disappointed to see all of the spending on unnecessary programs that do not help the economy but, rather, put a further strain on it.

Norma expressed her disappointment to the taxpayer-funded spending spree. She said, It's a disaster. She wrote, At the current spending rate, the deficit is going to be an anchor around not only our necks but our grandchildren's as well.

Norma, you're right.

Melody said if she were to grade this President, it would definitely be a flunking grade. In the debates, he promised to cut spending and reduce the size of the deficit. Ha. I am sickened by the wasteful spending. It is like watching a train wreck happen.

I will come back in a minute and tell you a little more about my thoughts. But that's just an inkling of what real Americans think about this first 100 days.

I agree exactly with what has been said today. And I can tell you from the Ways and Means perspective, from the tax perspective, the President isn't keeping that promise. We saw that right off the bat. The second bill he signed was an increase on a lot of low-income and middle class families to the children's insurance program. And the budget that was rushed through Congress today that I will bet not one Member who voted for it actually read this multi- trillion dollar budget--again, this first 100 days has been a rush to bad legislation--it includes tax increases of $1.5 trillion, the highest in American history.

As the gentlemen from Louisiana and Texas and as you pointed out, in addition to the national energy tax, you're looking at increased taxes on professionals and small business people; increased taxes on independent, small energy companies, the ones that drill 90 percent of the wells here in America; so we're going to outsource our American energy jobs. The climate change national energy tax. Increased taxes on capital gains and dividends, a source of a lot of revenue for our seniors in America and a source of capital. New taxes on real estate partnerships. On U.S. companies headquartered here who are trying to sell their products around the world, we're actually going to penalize them for selling American-made products around the world. It is crazy the number of tax increases.

The promise was: ``Under my plan no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.'' That promise has already been broken. And the budget we passed today ensures that it will be broken even further.

What everyone knows is with this spending, there's no free money. Someone is going to have to pay for this record deficit. It's going to be middle class families. It's going to be small business people. It's going to be people that make a whole lot less. And a good example, look at the stimulus bill. It started phasing out all of these benefits if you make $80,000 a year. That's what it started to do, including the Making Work Pay tax credit, that measly $1.10 in your paycheck. They start phasing it out at $80,000. That's who this White House believes is wealthy. We've already seen the model.

I wanted to answer the question, what does this double quarters of 6 percent mean? What it means for average Americans is that America is going to go much deeper into debt and our kids are going to have a burden that they can barely carry.

What's interesting is that the President's budget, the one that was rushed through the House again and Senate today, it based its assumptions and its huge deficits on a contraction this year, a shrinking of our economy, of 1 percent. They've used such rosy economic indicators.

By 1.2 percent this year.

Six point one percent and on top of 6.3 percent last quarter.

I'm glad you raised that. The President said this is the most honest budget ever presented to Congress.

Well, they're bad numbers. And I think that's why it was rushed through Congress so that people couldn't ask those questions. But the truth of the matter is the result of that, of cooking the books with rosy numbers that don't exist that no one agrees with, is that we will face close to a $2 trillion deficit just this year.

There are trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. So when Judge Carter said we may not see another balanced budget in our lifetime, that's no exaggeration. We may not see a balanced budget in our lifetime.

Let me make one correction that I hear, I guess if you repeat something often enough people believe it, but you often hear up here Democrats who say President Clinton gave President Bush a surplus, and President Obama inherited a huge deficit.

That's awfully misleading. The truth of the matter is that the surplus that was given to President Bush wasn't created by Democrats in Congress but by Republicans in Congress who sat down with President Clinton and said we are going to balance this budget. And I was here on a night like this night where we passed the balanced budget agreement.

And guess who voted against it? Democrats.

And then, when you talk about the deficit President Obama inherited, that didn't come----

And congressional Democrats voted against the

balanced budget agreement. So that's the first part of the equation. The second one is President Obama did inherit a big deficit, but he inherited it from congressional Democrats who held power for the last 2 years. They didn't even send President Bush a budget because they knew he would spend less.

And so my point of that is that you can't take credit for a surplus you didn't create and avoid blame for a deficit you did. That's one of the big, I think, misperceptions, the big lies in Washington, D.C.

I agree with other conservatives that Republicans, I think, got fired because we didn't control spending well enough, even though we whittled that deficit down, and we are learning from those mistakes. That deficit now is 10 times greater, and we are in a mess we may never recover from.

Almost $2 trillion just for this year.

There is so much truth in what you say. I was referring back to, again, one of our Facebook followers, Melody from my district in east Texas, that she wrote that if she were to grade our new President and Democrats in Congress, she said it would definitely be a flunking grade. It is like watching a train wreck happen.

It's interesting. President Obama is very sincere when he says, I was elected to change the direction America could go, and he is very up front about it. I give him credit for that.

But from my way of thinking, in the Eighth District of Texas, we believe he

is wrong on spending. He is wrong on nationalizing so much of our free market. He is wrong on Guantanamo. He is wrong on the CIA memos. He is wrong on this new national security threat of our veterans and our pro- life and our States' rights people.

I think just generally he is wrong in the belief that you can tax and spend and borrow our way back to prosperity. It won't work. I would say this. You always want to be helpful as a Member of Congress, so my advice to the President on this 100th day is, one, stand up to Nancy Pelosi and the Senate leaders in Congress. Be your own man and don't let them run the show as they have done for your first 100 days.

Extend a hand to Republicans who have got some great ideas on how to lower taxes, how to help small businesses create jobs, how we really get out of this economy and we are willing to work with you.

The final piece of advice is do less press conferences like tonight and more working meetings with Members of Congress who want to work across the aisle to solve these problems without going into a debt so staggering that we can never hope to get out. There are some great ideas up here, but so far for the first 100 days, it's been the congressional Democrats show.

Really, it's time for the President to follow through on his promise to change the way we work in Washington.

Well, thank you, sir. Most people in my district know that I was raised in a small business. I was a Chamber of Commerce manager my whole life. So I ran a small business, made payroll, had to cut staff in the recession and work with other small businesses. So I know how hard it is for them these days.

But there are three ideas Republicans came forward with, I think better ideas. In the stimulus, in that stimulus bill, billions and billions of dollars, there was more money to buy public art in America than to help small businesses survive.

The line item for the National Endowment for the Arts was $50 million. The line item to help small businesses to buy new computers and equipment was smaller, $41 million.

What we said as Republicans was, we said, look, let's create a 20 percent income tax reduction across-the-board for small businesses so they can keep more of their money, keep good workers on the payroll, maybe buy that new computer or piece of equipment, or just survive through this recession. We thought that was a better idea.

On housing, the government has come up with this new $2 billion pool of money to buy foreclosed homes in your neighborhood and mine. The Republicans said wait a minute. Given a choice between having the government buy a home in our neighborhood or our neighbors buy that home, maintain it, keep it up and sell it once the market recovers, we created incentives that said, look, if you look around your neighborhood and community and you buy one of these distressed homes, foreclosed or someone who is in trouble, it is abandoned, we will treat it just like your own home. If you keep it up and maintain it, when you sell it, you can keep the profit.

Now, who is going to keep better care of a home in your neighborhood? Uncle Sam, or one of your neighbors?

Absolutely. Then on health care, they are looking at this big government-run health care system. Many Republicans, including me, are proposing this backpack, where for the first time workers get an option where they can choose a health care plan that is right for them, just like Members of Congress do. They can put it in a backpack and take it with them throughout their life, from business to business or to home to raise the kids, or if you are going to start your own small business. Basically you get the same tax breaks businesses get. But you have one that you choose. It is your doctor, your relationship, the hospitals you choose to go to.

It is. Instead of government one-size-fits-all, why don't we give more freedom and more incentives for people to have a health care plan that fits their needs?

We have great ideas. My colleagues here tonight I guarantee you could spend a lot of time with these new ideas. But we need a President who will be open. We need a Democrat Congress who will quit rushing bills through this Chamber and give a chance for those good ideas to come forward.

Well, I think the way you started this, and the issue is freedom, Thomas Jefferson said a government big enough to supply all your needs is big enough to take everything you have. It is important we keep that in mind as this country grows deeper, deeper, deeper into debt.

Thank you, Mr. Carter. Again I want to thank you for your leadership in the Republican Conference here in Washington, as well as the fact that you bring out issues that I think average Americans, middle class Americans, want to talk about these days.

To be fair, I don't know if 100 days into the administration is a very good gauge of how successful or unsuccessful they will be. It is sort of more like a PR date. It is like getting your high school graduation grade in the first grade. You know what I mean?

Here's the very beginning. We'll see how it goes. I guess some things that worry me are that so much of this administration has been basically designed, or the foundation is to blame President Bush for everything. And it just seems to me that this is President Obama's stimulus. It is President Obama's budget. It's President Obama's bailout. And at some point, you have to start taking responsibility for your own leadership. And I think that's important for our new President to do.

And I also take issue with the often-stated fact, supposedly, from the White House, that President Clinton inherited a surplus and President Obama a deficit, which is only partially true. What they don't say is that President Clinton inherited a surplus from a Republican Congress. And President Obama inherited a deficit from a Democratic Congress.

I was here in 1997 on this floor, about this time of the night, when Republicans sat down with President Clinton, worked out the balanced budget agreement that led to that surplus. And Democrats voted overwhelmingly against that balanced budget agreement. So the surplus that President Bush received didn't come from Democrats; it came from Republicans.

Admittedly, Republicans, especially led by the President, spent way too much. But I'd point out that the deficit when the Republicans left the majority in Congress they had whittled down to about $160 billion a year; still way to high, but the compass was moving in the right direction.

Here we are 2\1/2\ years later, under Democratic control of the House and Senate, the deficit is now 10 times that much, $1.18 trillion, the most in American history. And that's what worries our folks, Congressman Carter, the most, you know, that we are on the biggest spending spree in American history; trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars of debt that seemingly can never be repaid; $1 billion extra new funding an hour in the first 50 days of this new administration. And the question they have for me is, who's going to pay for all this? I mean, they realize there is no free lunch. There is no free money. Someone somewhere is going to have to pay for it. And it won't be the wealthy. It's going to be middle class families and small businesses, our children and grandchildren, who ultimately will pay for all this massive spending.

I serve as the ranking House Republican on the Joint Economic Committee, and our economists pointed out that the stimulus bill really was a spending bill, had very little to do with creating jobs, would have very little to do with the economy recovering and may, in fact, be a drag on our economy in the out-years as we attempt to pay back where interest rights rise to catch up with all the monetary policy and fiscal policy occurring in Washington today.

We also worry, our economists believe that our debt, national debt, may not just double in the next 4 years, may well triple in the next 4 years, in that inflation could go to 8 to 10 percent a year, which really eats away at people's pocketbooks, families' paychecks, really is one of the greatest, I think, damagers to our economy.

And we see this spending. We see this national debt, all of it again blamed on President Bush. And I look forward to the day when our new President says, you know, this is my administration, this is my leadership.

And I see the mistakes that are being made on proposing tax increases on professionals and small businesses, tax increase is major on our independent energy producers in America. Tax increases, utility increases on every American as a result of this cap-and-trade scheme.

We see taxes on people who want to give charitable deductions or deduct their own mortgage rates from what they owe Uncle Sam, higher taxes on capital gains and dividends, which a lot of our seniors rely upon in their retirement days as well. And it just seems to me you cannot tax, borrow and spend your way to prosperity; that we're

going to see massive tax increases, but even then, you cannot tax your way back to a balanced budget.

In fact, I think and I believe that this budget that will be rushed through Congress this week, Congressman Carter, if it is allowed to pass, I don't know if we'll even have time to read it, just like the stimulus bill may be rushed through Congress. If it passes, we may well not see a balanced budget again in our lifetime. It sets the path so far from what a balanced budget is.

In fact, you could double the taxes on every American, every taxpaying American in our country, you still wouldn't balance the budget under the Obama budget that we're looking at here this week. So all this debt, all this spending is scary, the direction we're headed.

I'm convinced there are some issues, perhaps, that the President would like to work with Republicans on. I know that we're anxious to do that. So far it's been highly partisan in Washington. But I think there are issues that, if the President says to the Speaker and the Senate majority leader, I really do want to find consensus, rather than just jam everything through, I can tell you there are a lot of Republicans who are willing and eager to sit down with him. That's not been the case so far. As a result, I think our country is worse off for it.

And I'd yield back again to the leader of this discussion.

And if the gentleman would yield.

I think you make an important point there because that issue wasn't decided on what was best for the children. That was just a political agenda that was being exercised. And yet you have--I'm one of these believers that we need to invest in and lift up public schools all across this country with accountability, with resources, helping them do their job.

But while we're improving the very worst of these schools, like in Washington, DC, you have to give those parents a choice, an option of getting their kids into a school, because if you're going to take, 5, 6, 7, 8 years to get a school up to standards, look, when you have little kids like we do, in kindergarten and fourth grade, my wife and I do, every year matters. You can't have them in a school that's still failing for 5 or 6 or 7 more years. And those parents who last week were told, yes, we're going to continue it, and then a day later it was yanked out from under them, you know, all they said was, all they were saying is, while you improve our schools, give us a chance to get our kids a better education while you're doing it. So trying to do it both at one time. But we've seen this a lot. Common sense, I think, principles and values, that seem to be ignored.

Last week, the Joint Economic Committee held a hearing with the Special Inspector General over the bailout funds. And he's very direct. And, basically, Barofsky, former prosecutor, respected, a lot of credibility, he said--he made two points at the hearing, Congressman Carter. One was that he said, despite their repeated requests to the Treasury Department that all the money from the bailout be accounted for, and then banks put in place controls so you can continue to monitor, again, Treasury Department, time and time has said no, we'll not do that. We don't want to know and hold accountable where those bailout dollars are going.

And, secondly, they had just finished this, Inspector General, Special Inspector General, just finished a review of this new, some of the new programs, including taking these bad loans off the banks' books. And they said, it is ripe for abuse, collusion, conflict of interest, money laundering. They made a series of commonsense recommendations on how to prevent that from occurring. And to date, the Treasury Department still has not agreed to those commonsense protections of our tax dollars.

And we're seeing that, whether it is in lower income people who want their kids to have a good education, whether it is taxpayers who just want to know where their bailout money went, and they want to prevent abuses before they begin, whether it is--a lot of Americans are not convinced that a government-run health care system is the way to go in America, but they already feel like it's being shut, they're being shut out and it's being rammed through.

Same with this global warming cap-and-trade scheme. Again, rushed to the floor, rushed through Congress. We know, from the AIG bonuses and that fiasco of legislation that was on the House floor, when Congress rushes these things to the floor, when there is no debate, when it's shut off, when there's a gag rule where we can't even read the stimulus bill, and the public doesn't know about it, at the end of the day, America loses.

And I think that that's one of the reasons, Congressman, that this President, for all his personal skills, for all, I think, his sincere desire to do a good job, his poll numbers, while high, are the most polarizing in four decades. The country has never been this divided over what direction we're going. He can play, I think, a more important role in leading. And I just hope that he's not, you know, manipulated or directed by those around him; that he's able to step forward, because I think there is an opportunity to work together. But so far, the first 100 days have been very, very disappointing from that regard.

And I would yield back.

Congressman Carter, thank you for your leadership on this issue.

Look at the board that you're standing next to. They are basically saying--our government is saying that right-wing extremists in the United States fall into two groups: those who hate others, hate- oriented groups, and those who are anti-government. So those who hate people and those who just don't think we ought to have a big government--according to our Department of Homeland Security--there is no difference. None. What kind of country are we becoming?

I, like you, was in front and participated in two of our TEA parties in Montgomery County. Hundreds of people attended downtown Conroe, thousands in the Woodlands at Creekside Park waiting hours to get to the park. Average people. Americans. The type that built this country.

I took a good look at this crowd and didn't see an extremist in the bunch. And don't you know I was looking for it after reading all about Secretary Napolitano's memo who paints them as the new national security threat in our country.

But let me tell you what I did see. I saw Americans who are fed up with the government spending their money hand-over-fist, Americans who live within their means and pay taxes to a government that, starting this Saturday, will run out of money for the entire year. We just paid our taxes on the 15th. The government is already out of money, living on a credit card. They are asking why. What is extremist about that?

I saw Americans who want secure borders, Americans who welcome immigrants who are seeking a better life. They are just asking that they come in through the front door of legal immigration rather than the back door of illegal immigration, just like generations of Americans before them.

I saw veterans, veterans from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, veterans home from Iraq and Afghanistan. They didn't look extreme or maladjusted or dangerous. They looked concerned for a country they put their lives on the line for. As Mrs. Bachmann said, they put their lives on the line. And now this country is at a crossroads, and these veterans who are willing to fight for it overseas, they are also willing to fight for their country here at home by speaking out. And my brother, who I am so proud of, a master sergeant in the Army, served in Iraq, has been deployed overseas as well, he's not extremist. He's my hero.

And I would say that goes for every family that has someone who served in our wars; they are not the threat to America, man, they are the solution for America.

I think Americans are waking up all across this country--we saw this this past week--they want to know if Congress, they want to know if Washington hears them. And it seems to me that not only do they not believe they are extreme, they believe the Constitution gives them the right to disagree, respectfully and forcefully, with their government, that the Constitution actually allows them to question these decisions, to question reports like you, Congressman Carter, have brought to light, rightfully so. They want and are speaking out for lower taxes. They are speaking out for families. They are speaking out for the unborn. They want all the rights afforded them in the Constitution under the Bill of Rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, and they simply ask that it be protected.

In case anyone hasn't noticed, there are a lot of people in America who think that solutions to our country come from individuals, families, neighborhoods, local communities, even States. And they don't get anointed from Washington and then passed on to--Washington doesn't know best. And just because people believe in those rights, they shouldn't be labeled as extremists.

The Secretary's comments were offensive. She apologized to veterans, sort of.

Not much, not much at all. And she absolutely ignored everyone else. And it seems to me that she should recant this report forcibly. She should apologize to everyone who was offended. As you said, 80 percent of Americans are now a national security threat. She should apologize to them. She should commit to the American people that she will not confuse the patriots within our country who want to build it up with extremists outside who want to tear it down. There is a huge difference. And if our government doesn't know, I really am frightened. Some pundit said, you know, maybe the snake is out of the box. Maybe this really is the attitude of our government about those who simply disagree with it. If it is, then the TEA parties will only continue to grow to be more valuable, to be critical to where we go.

I appreciate Congresswoman Bachmann, Congressman Burgess--you, especially, Congressman Carter--for bringing this issue to us tonight so the American public can see that we are as outraged and angry at this report as they are, and we intend to hold those accountable who drafted and support it.

With that, I would yield back.

Congressman Carter, again, I appreciate your leadership on this issue, but it begs the question of the discussion tonight; in America, we don't tolerate racial profiling, so why are we tolerating values profiling? Why are we allowing this government to profile people based on those who believe in smaller, limited government, who believe in pro-family issues, who believe in their constitutional right, the second amendment, or who just believe they ought to be able to disagree with their government? Why is our government profiling those with values at a time when we ought to be encouraging all Americans to raise their values, to speak out, to be engaged? It seems to me we have got the gun pointed at ourselves when we really ought to be, again, protecting this country against the real terrorists who threaten our way of life, not those inside who are trying to preserve it.

I just want to thank you and our other speakers tonight for their very insightful remarks on this issue.

I would yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, this evening reminds me of my first session of Congress in 1997. It was a night like this, and we were struggling with a budget that was out of control. We had a Democrat President and a Republican Congress, and while it was a hard fight and we had to make a lot of tough decisions, Republicans in this House and President Clinton together passed a balanced budget agreement that succeeded. It got spending under control. It lowered taxes. It didn't raise them. Not only were we able to balance the budget, but we were able to pay off almost a half a trillion dollars worth of national debt.

I remember because almost no Democrats voted for that. They claim credit now for balancing the budget, but they voted against the law that balanced our budget and allowed us to pay off that national debt. Tonight feels like that because, I think, we have the opportunity, unfortunately, to go the other direction. My worry is that this Obama- Democrat budget guarantees red ink for decades and that we may never see a balanced budget in our lifetimes if this budget passes.

The Americans I know, the Texans I know, are growing increasingly worried about our unprecedented spending spree. You know, the President's budget and the Democrat budget we're talking about tonight raises taxes. It explodes spending, and it heaps on mountains of new debt for the next decade. It's clear America's finances are on the wrong track. We need to change the

path now. We need to change it today or risk never seeing a balanced budget in our lifetimes, and I worry from an economic standpoint that all of this new debt is going to drag our economy down further and that, eventually, it will lead to higher inflation, which really hurts and hits families and their paychecks by eroding those paychecks and their nest eggs.

We can't spend, tax and borrow our way back to prosperity. Congress has a responsibility to get on a more responsible path that leads back to a balanced budget, and we've got a Republican alternative, a Republican Study Committee alternative as well, that, I think, starts us down in that direction.

I oppose strongly the budget that's proposed today that increases spending by $3 trillion over the next decade. Just think about it: Federal spending under this Democrat budget would increase nearly $1 trillion in the next year alone. $1 trillion in the next year alone. Think about that. Economists tell us that $1 trillion is represented by this: If you'd started a business on the day Our Lord was born and you'd lost $1 million every day since, we still would not be to that first $1 trillion. We're going to add more than that in new spending just in the next year. We're going to spend twice as much as that in new debt added to the Federal debt. Those are staggering numbers, amounts of debt I never dreamed I would see in my lifetime. It gets worse. Under this budget plan and budget path, over the next 10 years of debt held by the public, it will triple to over $17 trillion. Again, it's an amount that most people never dreamed we would see.

According to the Joint Economic Committee, the debt, as a share of our economy, will almost double during that period. Some economists think it will go up even faster. According to a recent study of many financial crises by Professors Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart, it has become an instant classic. U.S. national debt can be expected to increase by $8 trillion to $9 trillion just over the next 3 years. During that period, inflation of 8 to 10 percent, something most of us haven't seen since the '70s, is more than likely the way the government will end up paying for this huge run-up in Federal debt. These economists compare the coming economic environment to the '70s, which had rising inflation, weak economic growth, rising unemployment, and what we called the misery index. Unfortunately, that may be what we're heading for.

Because this budget and the President's budget cooks the books and uses faulty economic assumptions in its forecast, it has a variety of accounting gimmicks that really hides the true cost of these dangerous budget priorities. As the Washington Post said last week--and it's not exactly a conservative newspaper--``In this budget, Congress deals a blow to honest budgeting.''

The Democrats now are attempting to shoehorn expensive administrative proposals based on unrealistic economic assumptions, and the budget uses gimmicks to mask spending. So we're going to see much higher debt and, eventually, higher taxes. The fact is the U.S. can't afford to engage in this spending spree on top of a stimulus, on top of a budget just passed, huge spending on top of the new bailout dollars, and now this budget hitting Americans straight in the face. You would think we'd be listening to warnings from China and from others of our creditors to remind us that there are limits to the appetite for U.S. Treasury securities.

We are on a dangerous path. What we see in this budget are tax increases on small businesses, on professionals, on exporters, and on entrepreneurs. We see huge, new cap-and-trade taxes and costly new entitlements that will drive us deeper into debt and that will really raid the pocketbooks of most American families.

Before I reserve my time, the question is: Who pays for all of this? Because there's no free money in Washington. Someone eventually has to pay for it, and it won't be just the wealthy.

It's going to be the middle class. It's going to be professionals. It's going to be hardworking families. It's going to be the elderly. We're going to see higher capital gains and dividends taxes, a lot of which our seniors live off of in their retirement. They've already seen their retirement portfolios devastated. Now we're going to tax them if those gains go back up.

There will be tax hikes on charitable donations. At a time when more and more people need local charity services and contributions are down, we're actually going to discourage our professionals and small businesses from giving to our local charities. I guess they think they can use the money more wisely here in Washington.

You're going to see a carbon tax, an energy tax, that in Texas will drive energy bills up 100 percent in some areas, 50 percent in others. It will be a huge cost to families on their utility bills. The taxes on small business in a number and in a variety of ways are going to destroy jobs. The marriage penalty comes back in a major way. You're going to increase the income taxes on professionals and small businesses by at least 20 percent. What's interesting is this small group of professionals and small businesses makes up about 5 percent of the taxpayers in America. They already pay 60 percent of the taxes. They carry 10 times the load. This budget is going to tax them more.

So the signal we're going to send to people is, if you go to college and get a degree, if you develop a skill, if you start a new business, if you build up your life, we're going to punish you for it. We're going to punish you for it in higher taxes. We're going to discourage you.

This budget brings back the death tax. Can you imagine working your whole life to start a business or to run the family farm, and at the very end, Uncle Sam swoops in and takes up half of what you've earned? You intended to give it to your children or to your grandchildren, but Uncle Sam comes in and takes it. It's the number 1 reason most small businesses aren't able to hand their businesses down to their children. It's the number 1 reason family farms don't survive. Today, we're seeing more women-owned and minority-owned businesses that are facing the same death tax. They aren't going to survive. The death tax needs to go away permanently as it did under President Bush and the Republican tax relief measures.

Finally, coming from an energy State, we see unprecedented increases on America's energy industry. The very people who develop our oil and gas. Onshore, small and independent energy companies will face devastating tax increases, including one where it actually punishes them and treats them like they're foreign investors. It punishes them for drilling and for exploring here in America. It makes no sense at all.

At this point, we have several members of the Joint Economic Committee and others who would like to share their thoughts on this budget and on the condition of America's financing.

With that, I would like to reserve, Madam Chair, the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would yield 5 minutes to a member of the Joint Economic Committee for more than 6 years, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ron Paul.

Madam Chairman, I would like to grant 30 seconds to Mr. Paul to conclude.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentlelady is right. The President did inherit a $1.2 trillion deficit, but he inherited it from a Democratic Congress that had the purse strings for the past 2 years. In fact, the Democratic Congress didn't even send President Bush a budget because they wanted to spend more than he did. So just because--I will tell you, Republicans, we didn't do a good job with controlling spending. When we left control, the deficit was about $160 billion. The deficit under this budget will be 10 times that much. And ours is bad enough. This is unthinkable.

With that, I would like to yield 5 minutes to another member of the Joint Economic Committee and an expert in health care reform, the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.

I yield Dr. Burgess an additional 30 seconds to conclude.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Small Business Committee himself.

parliamentary inquiry

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

At this time I'd like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a gentleman on the Armed Services Committee, an engineer--he knows his numbers--the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

I would yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, let me thank the gentlelady from New York, the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, for not just the tone of tonight's debate, but the tone of your leadership on the Joint Economic Committee. I truly enjoy serving with you.

While we're sitting here, I got an e-mail from a constituent who asked, How do you make debt go away by spending 10 times as much? Are they trying to sell America magic beans?

Sounds funny, but the truth of the matter is this isn't funny times. America's finances are on the wrong track. We need to change that path now or we risk never seeing a balanced budget in our life time.

We can't spend, tax, and borrow our way back to prosperity. The Republican alternative I like focuses on job creation through small businesses; doesn't raise taxes--it lowers them; it creates incentives to hire and keep workers; encourages private investment rather than bailout; and it starts whittling down this debt so that we will see a balanced budget again.

Madam Chair, we are at a historic moment in America's history. We have a path of bigger debt and higher taxes and huge loads on our children. Or we can get back on the right path again. The Republican alternative does that.

We urge a ``no'' on this fiscally irresponsible Democrat budget. Let's work together--both parties--to get back to balance the budget. The first start is the Republican alternative.

I yield back the balance of my time.

There's no question everyone wants these bonuses returned. That isn't an issue before us today. Taxpayers have a real simple question: When did the White House know about these bonuses, and why didn't they stop them?

The government owns AIG, for heaven's sake, so don't tell me they couldn't have stopped them if they truly would have wanted to.

The bill before us today really is a diversion--an attempt to shift the blame from Democrats who, at the last moment, got approval for these bonuses snuck into the stimulus bill. For our folks back home, the President has said honestly, he didn't know this provision is in the bill. Yet his own White House made the request and they complied with the bill.

Let's not cover up the truth here. Let's get the real answers. That's what taxpayers deserve.