Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the recognition, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening to speak with our colleagues and certainly to have a conversation with the American people about what has transpired on the floor of this House today.

I know most families are beginning to look toward the Christmas season, and they are looking toward a winter holiday and spending time with family and with friends. And many of them have worked diligently to meet their deadlines to be certain that they have time set aside for such an observance.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that the leadership of the House has worked that diligently and is focused on meeting those deadlines so that we would all be spending that time with our families. But indeed, we have found that is not the case. In unusual moves and through an unusual process, we are still at work, because we find that a budget has not been passed that should have been done before the 1st of September but didn't.

So, what happens with this the process when you don't get your work done, when you don't meet your deadlines, when you disregard what you are charged to do and the duty that you are to fulfill? You find that you get backed into a corner. And, Mr. Speaker, when that happens, then you have to start working your way out of it.

Well, in the House of Representatives, when we are backed in that corner and we are unable to fulfill our work in a timely manner, instead of passing our appropriations bills and funding our government one bill at a time, we decide we are going to roll it all together, and then we have what is called the omnibus. And it is a great big spending bill, a great big spending bill, Mr. Speaker, where you throw everything into this that your heart could possibly desire. It is better than any Santa sack in town.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to be certain that everyone realizes this big bill, this 3,565 pages of bill that weighs 34.4 pounds is indeed a Santa's sack loaded with pork and with earmarks, over 9,200 earmarks.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is fair to say that this also is a symbol. It is a symbol of the broken process that this House has gone through in arriving at a budget. It is a symbol of the broken priorities that exist. And, indeed, it is a symbol of the broken promises of the leadership of this House to not only the body of the House but the American people.

I have some colleagues joining me tonight to talk a little bit about what we find in this 34.4 pounds, 3,565 pages. And, Mr. Speaker, I know we are going to talk about energy and the environment. I am saddened to know that we have had a lot of trees give their life to print these bills this week.

I would like to recognize the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, for some remarks on this legislation.

I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for coming and speaking. We are members of the Republican Study Committee. If you want to find out a little more about what is in this bill, you can go to our Web site, which is House.gov/hensarling/RSC, and find out a little bit about the details in this bill.

As the gentleman from Wisconsin pointed out, this is serious business. We are responsible for the budget process of the House. The House holds the purse strings for the Federal Government; and it is a duty that we, many of us, take very, very seriously.

Mr. Speaker, it is of tremendous concern to us when a bill is filed at 12:30 a.m., the dark of night, this bill gets filed and within 24 hours this 3,565-page bill is voted out. And as the gentleman said, there is no funding for our troops on the ground in Iraq who have been making steady, consistent progress. What a disservice to the troops and to the American people.

I want to recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who is chairman of the Republican Study Committee. His Web site, House.gov/ hensarling/RSC, that is where you can get a copy of what is in this bill; the $515 billion that is contained in here, plus you can find out where some of those gimmicks, budget gimmicks are; plus, you can take a look at some of the emergency/nonemergency spending that is also in here just so that the majority can spend a little bit more money.

But I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas who chairs the Republican Study Committee, Mr. Hensarling.

I thank the gentleman from Texas. And again, Mr. Speaker, if someone would like to pull down the summary and get the information on this bill, house.gov/Hensarling, H-E-N-S-A-R-L-I-N-G, / RSC, and they can pull down our summary here. H.R. 2764 is the omnibus. Not a minibus. It is a great big omnibus, all 3,565 pages, and they can see for themselves a little bit about what is contained in here and what is not contained.

And as the gentleman from Texas said, the fact that we are a Nation at war and we have men and women in the field in Iraq who are fighting for our freedom, fighting for our ability to be here and to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives, fighting for our security so that we can safely and peacefully celebrate Christmas and the holiday season, and we do not honor their service by funding that work. It is a serious error. It is a serious omission.

At this time, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), who has been chairman of the RSC in times past. He serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee. He is one of the leading fiscal conservatives in this body, and I yield to him for his comments on the omnibus.

I thank the gentleman and I thank him for his comments on this.

Mr. Speaker, I think that it is just one of these occurrences that has happened tonight that you just find almost inconceivable, that the majority could have filed a 3,565-page bill in the middle of the night and then bring everybody back to Washington and vote it.

Now, as the gentleman from Arizona said, the fiscal year started September 1. This is something that should have been done last summer. But, instead, they wait until Christmas week. They file this bill in the middle of the night. They don't give people time to read it. And then, as we do begin to read it, we find what we thought at first was going to be about 7,000 earmarks, read a little more, the number is growing to 8,000. Then, Mr. Speaker, lo and behold, we get up to 9,000. Then it goes to over 9,200. We find that 300 of those earmarks had not been discussed by anybody. They just appeared out of thin air, like magic. They just appeared and got written in to this bill that passed the House tonight.

That is not fiscal responsibility. That, Mr. Speaker, is what you call fiscal irresponsibility. It is the symbol of a broken process, with broken priorities, and it is broken promises. That is something that is very troubling to us as we are here this Christmas week hard at work defending the American taxpayer. And the American taxpayer has no better individual standing to defend them than the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Westmoreland has worked with and chairs the Floor Action Team for us in the minority and does a wonderful job in that capacity. He is an active member and a part of the leadership of the Republican Study Committee. And I yield to him for his comments on the legislation.

I think that this is such an important part of this bill because we have talked a good bit about our troops in Iraq not being funded in this bill, and then when we talk about the gimmickry, and just I hate to even use the term. It's almost like a sleight of hand.

Smoke and mirrors, it is indeed, where they come in and they're going to make it very difficult to build the fence.

You know, they have $2.7 billion for border security funds in the homeland security accounts, and then they have another $225 million for GSA related to the border fence. Then they turn around and there is $10.5 million for defender services for illegal immigrants. And we know that what they've done is to go in and make it very, very difficult.

The bill releases $650 million of this funding for the border fence only after, and that is where they're setting up roadblock, only after the Appropriations Committee is satisfied with the Department of Homeland Security's expenditure plan and that 15 conditions listed in the bill are met.

Now, as the gentleman knows, every time we do a town hall meeting people are so concerned about the loss of this Nation's sovereignty, about the loss of security in our communities. Because the illegal immigration issue is not addressed, every State's a border State, and every town is a border town, and now we see that they're playing tricks. They're going to say, well, we're going to go under emergency money and we're going to put it in here that it could be released if we decided it was an emergency, and oh, by the way, we're going to release part of it only after the Appropriations Committee is satisfied.

Well, what's satisfied one person's requirements may not satisfy another because it is subjective, and that will be released at that time. And then you have got 15 conditions. Well, you can make it impossible to ever satisfy a list of conditions, Mr. Speaker, if your goal is to block something. If your plan is to fail, you can develop a plan to fail, and that is what we see in this 3,565 pages of a budget document is how to fail.

And I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and you know, I think it is so important that, once again, I remind individuals at house.gov/hensarling/rsc you can get a little bit of a summary of the bill.

Of course, you know, it's one of these things where, Mr. Speaker, we have had it for only a very short period of time because it was less than 24 hours ago that it was even put up on-line for Members to be certain that they had the chance to look at it. I was one of those Members up. I was at home working away, trying to get things finished to get some of my Christmas cooking done and my Christmas ironing done and ready for the holiday season with my family. And I will tell you, it is of such concern to me that we see the manner in which this has been constructed and pulled together.

I do hope that the American people will sit down and look through some of this and see where this money is going. My goodness, when you see $11 billion for emergency designated spending and then you see that the budget's criteria for emergency spending is sudden, unforeseen, temporary, urgent, et cetera, and that is where you see some of the gimmickry begin to come in.

Of course, these are things that we all agree with. There's money for drought relief, which that's been very difficult, but $20 million for farm service agency salaries and expenses, that should have been something that was anticipated.

Eight million dollars for Department of Justice administrative review and

appeals; $10 million for legal activities, salaries and expense; $7 million for U.S. attorneys, salaries and expenses; $15 million for U.S. marshals, services, salaries and expenses; $143.5 million for FBI salaries and expenses; $2 million for Drug Enforcement Agency, salaries and expenses; $14.5 million for Court of Appeals, salaries and expenses. Mr. Speaker, salaries and expenses should be something that was anticipated. I'm not certain that meets the criteria of emergency. Emergency should be something that is unforeseen, that we didn't know was going to happen. Now, if we have people on our payroll and we do expect them to get a paycheck, then that salary and the related expenses and benefits are something that we should be planning for.

Then there's the $10.5 million that the gentleman from Georgia and I have discussed where you set aside the money for illegal immigrants to be able to have attorneys to defend them. And then there's the ruse of the border fence with the money that's being appropriated but then you can't get to it.

There's $300 million for wildfire suppression and $195 million for the Minnesota bridge accident, which occurred many months ago.

And here is $100 million for Presidential security at political conventions.

Mr. Speaker, it may be a news flash. This may be totally new to many people, but we have a political convention every 4 years. This is something we should be planning for. It should not be an emergency expense that we are going to have to have Presidential security at the political conventions. Cities go to great lengths to bid to get these conventions, to be able to hold them. We know that every 4 years we are going to have a Presidential election. This is something that is anticipated. It is not an emergency that is unexpected.

I will gladly yield.

Reclaiming my time, that is what we have found. That is all a part of the emergency spending component. That's why I think it's so interesting when you go through and read the summary on this bill because you find that in order to carry out the ability to spend a little more on programs where they want to spend more, what they have done is to shift the cost. And so if you can put it under emergency spending and then not have to submit it to the PAYGO rules, then it allows you to be able to spend a little bit more.

It is more of the smoke and mirrors, and I am sure it was concocted in a smokefilled room. But it just doesn't make good sense, and it's just not common sense in the way it ought to be done when you look at your different allocations and your different lines. And certainly there are many people listening to this who sit on county commissions and city councils and they are in State legislatures and they are listening to this and they are pulling down this budget document and they are saying, We could never get away with something like this.

Yes. Reclaiming my time, the next segment that I have here is after the emergency spending, which I was reading through, then we get into the budget gimmicks, and you see how they have pulled in $10.2 billion in gimmicks that are being used to artificially lower the cost of the bill. And it goes through this with some transportation funds; the crime victims fund; advanced appropriations, which sounds just a little bit sneaky there. It increases some funding for the BRAC account, and there's a way that's kind of shifted and moved around.

And then following that we get into each of the individual Departments, each of the appropriations bills, with the Agriculture bill, Commerce-Justice-Science, Energy and Water. We go through each of these and list where some of the provisions are and some of the increases. There is an increase in here for salaries and expenses at the Food and Drug Administration from $1.57 billion to $172 billion. An increase for conservation programs. The Legal Services Corporation, the LSC, it gives $350 million for them, $1 million over the fiscal year 2007.

Now, the Legal Services Corporation is free legal aid. They represent individuals that sue the government. So we are going to increase their funding, but we are not going to fund our troops, and we are not going to get that fence built and secure that border. So in here is increased funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs from $1.47 billion to $1.72 billion.

And there again you see that we are increasing that. We are increasing the Department of the Interior programs, but we are not funding our troops. We see increased funding for the IRS. They are going from $10.60 billion to $10.89 billion, and it is an increase of $295.3 million or 2.8 percent over their fiscal year 2007 numbers. So we are going to increase money for the IRS, but we are not going to get that money to our troops.

I will gladly yield.

When I go back and say they were going to increase funding to the IRS and it would be $10.89 billion, my constituents are going to say that's why you need to get rid of the IRS, and that's why we need to have a fair tax.

And that is what we will hear from our constituents.

And the list goes on and on, as you can see. I have got plenty of pages that we could flip through. We even have title X and family planning money that is increased by $300 million. And I find it so very interesting that they go in and they increase the title X and the Family Planning money, but guess what? What they didn't do was to increase the money for the abstinence education program. Now, how about that, Mr. Speaker? That funding was held level. It was held level. And Family Planning and Planned Parenthood will get big increases, but abstinence education will not.

Well, Mr. Speaker, as I have said several times tonight, budgets are about priorities. Budget documents tell you where you want your emphasis to be. And what we see from this majority is a budget process that is broken, with priorities that are broken, and promises that are broken. And we have a 3,565-page bill that weighs 34.4 pounds when you print it out. It contains over 9,200 earmarks. There are lots of pet projects, lots of pork in this big Santa sack. What is missing is funding for the troops on the ground in Iraq.

I find it very sad, very sad indeed, that it is the men and women who defend this great Nation who are left out in the cold this Christmastime. They are the ones that should be at the very

top of the list, Mr. Speaker. We should think of them first. We should honor them in the way that we do our jobs. We are a Nation at war. We know that. That is something I think most people in this body agree with. And we pass a budget that does not include them and does not include the funding to meet their needs.

Mr. Speaker, you and I would not be able to stand in this Chamber and have this debate if it were not for the men and women of the U.S. military. We should honor them. They should have been Title I, Page 1. And instead they are nowhere to be found in 3,565 pages. That is a serious oversight.

And, once again, we can talk about all the other things. We can talk about the illegal immigrants being able to get funding for attorneys. We can talk about roadblocks to having the borders secured, things that are purposely placed there; but the most egregious oversight is the fact that it does not fund our troops.

As I close, I will say God bless those troops. God bless their families. And, Mr. Speaker, my prayer is that this House will reverse itself and will put them first in this budget document.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 56 minutes p.m.), under its previous order and pursuant to House Resolution 880, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, December 18, 2007, at 9 a.m., for morning-hour debate, as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late Honorable Julia Carson.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to my colleagues' remarks from last week that ``technically, the troops are funded right now,'' as if the bottom line on the budget report is sufficient for some in this chamber to ensure that our war fighters have all the resources that they need.

Well, war is a serious business, Mr. Speaker, and we are indeed a Nation at war. Our men and women in harm's way don't have time for our political games or ``technicalities.'' Clever word play isn't going to turn DOD ink from red to black. There is nothing ``technical'' about the risk our war fighters face every day. They are not fighting an enemy that ``technically'' wants to do us harm. Instead, they are fighting a lethal terrorist network actually bent on spreading real Islamist totalitarianism in Iraq and across the globe.

Mr. Speaker, the success of the surge strategy in Iraq is not making things ``technically'' better. We are seeing actual results and real improvement on the ground. Even the most liberal newspapers admit that the improvement is real. IED attacks are not ``technically'' down; they are actually fewer in number, fewer bombs being placed to attack our troops and Iraqi allies. Casualties rates are not ``technically'' down. We are actually losing fewer Americans as the security conditions improve.

These improving conditions are not ``technically'' creating reconciliation. Iraqis across the country are really beginning to bridge age-old divides as they unite to secure their future. By playing political games with vital war funding, we are not ``technically'' sending a message to our war fighters in harm's way, we are actually putting all of the progress that they have made in very real jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, is that a message we choose to send?

My own constituents, civilian and soldiers alike, work at Fort Campbell, home of the 101st Airborne. This holiday season, two brigades of the 101st are serving in Afghanistan and two more in Iraq. They are supported by the men and women at Fort Campbell, and their families are embraced by the citizens of Clarksville and Montgomery County, Tennessee.

This Christmas, if we don't actually provide DOD the funding they need, my constituents will begin to get furlough letters in the mail. There is nothing ``technical'' about being laid off. There is nothing ``technical'' about being told that in 60 days you won't get a paycheck. It is very real.

Before this Chamber actually adjourns so that we can spend happy and comfortable holidays with our families, I would ask my colleagues to please remember these constituents of Clarksville, Tennessee, who are actually in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan and who are actually worried about being laid off next year.

I urge my colleagues not to return home until we actually give the troops the very real funding that they need. Our men and women are not ``technicalities,'' they are indeed our sons, our daughters, our neighbors, our constituents. They are the bravest among us. They need our support and they deserve a Congress who will honor their service and who will do our job.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot today about H.R. 3915 and how it is a dramatic departure from current law that I believe will have an unintended negative impact on banks and creditworthy home buyers.

I think it's the opinion of many in this Chamber, certainly it's my opinion, that in an attempt to improve conditions in the housing market, this bill instead will likely prevent more hardworking Americans from obtaining a mortgage in a market that is already feeling the pinch. They need more help; they do not need roadblocks.

The legislation before the House today may do more harm than good. Yet reasonable people, which we are in this Chamber, can choose to disagree on issues, and this is one of those where we are in disagreement. I respect my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their varying positions on this legislation, but there is disagreement.

I believe most of my colleagues cannot disagree with the following proposition, and it is this: American creditors should not be able to extend any credit in connection with a residential mortgage loan unless they verify the identity and legal immigration status of a potential debtor and verify the status with only a secure ID.

Mr. Speaker, this recommittal makes good, solid common sense. The American people do not believe that illegal immigrants and other individuals without proper identification are entitled to the same benefits, privileges and services as U.S. citizens and legal aliens. To extend such benefits only reinforces their notion that the laws of this land exist only on paper.

This motion to recommit will help preserve the faith the American people have left with this government and show that we are serious about denying services to those who are not entitled.

It is quite simple. The motion, number one, requires creditors to verify the identity of an individual seeking to obtain a loan for a residential mortgage; and, number two, prevents a creditor from accepting, for the purpose of verification, any form of identification other than a Social Security card with photo ID, a REAL ID identification card, a passport, or a USCIS-issued photo ID card.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have spoken out loud and clear on this issue. They do not believe that illegal immigrants, international criminals, and those who may wish this Nation harm should have access to American financial markets. That is why I had previously introduced H.R. 1314, the Photo ID Security Act. The legislation responded to plans and actions by firms in the financial services sector to affirmatively target this population by accepting insecure identification. My office was flooded with phone calls, e-mails, letters from across the country; many included credit cards that people had cut up in protest to their bank's decisions.

The motion to recommit adopts much of the language that was found and cosponsored in a bipartisan basis in H.R. 1314 and will provide American citizens the reassurance they need that the American financial services sector is, indeed, secure. It doesn't solve all the problems of the underlying legislation, but it is certainly a start.

Let's take one step forward for the security of the financial services market, Mr. Speaker, and let's all support this motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Well, here we go again.

Instead of getting down to business and tending to the people's business, the majority wants to play a political game. So to do it, they are going to tie temporary funds for our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan to a timetable for withdrawal. No amendments can be offered. Once again, the leadership of the House is set to embark on a legislative gamble to force the hand of U.S. military leadership. This is their 41st Iraq vote.

But the suspense comes. Will the Houses of Congress, the President, and the American people take their bluff? I think it is very highly unlikely.

The Democrat leadership seems content to write legislation that they know is going to fail. Now, why would you write something you know is going to fail?

Let's get past this. Let's give up the games. Let's take care of the people's business. Let's pass clean legislation to ensure the safety of our troops.

Madam Speaker, it is a rare opportunity to rise in support of commonsense decisions coming out of the other body, so it gives me great pleasure to rise in full support of the majority's decision on the other side of this Capitol to separate the Labor-HHS approps bill from legislation that funds our military installations and veterans health care. I certainly hope the majority on this side is paying attention.

While the other body has said ``no'' to politicizing veterans health care, ``no'' to putting the security of our military installations at risk, and ``no'' to budget-busting pork, it appears that the majority on this side is, well, a little tone deaf.

So, Madam Speaker, our veterans and men and women in uniform deserve better. They deserve quick action from the leadership in this House to pass a clean veterans bill and provide the funds they need. Let's leave the politics of disrespect behind. Let's pass a clean veterans bill.

Madam Speaker, if my grandmother were standing here today, she would say your actions are speaking so loudly I cannot hear one single word you are saying. And she would be saying that about the mistreatment of our veterans by this majority.

It has been over 140 days since the House passed the MilCon-VA approps bill and 8 weeks since the slow-moving Senate passed it. The bill has strong bipartisan support and the President has poised his pen ready to sign that bill.

Well, now the Democrats have decided they are going to delay it. They are going to play politics with it. They are going to pile on other things around it. And they are doing it to use it as a political tool. How very, very sad we find this situation.

We need to make certain that a political tool is not made of our veterans and our men and women in uniform. They have sacrificed so much for this country. It is imperative that we move

the bill forward as a stand-alone bill. As we go into Veterans Day, let's honor those who served by the actions they see us take.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 1023, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 1021, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 1022. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to recognize and honor the 2006-2007 President's Challenge State Champion schools named by the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. In particular, I would like to recognize two Tennessee schools, Percy Priest Elementary School in Nashville and Bartlett Elementary School in Bartlett, TN.

These two Tennessee schools have set examples that others would do well to follow. They have shown commitment to educating students on the benefits of physical activity and maintaining healthy lifestyles. Across the state of Tennessee, these two schools had the highest proportion of students scoring at or above the 85th percentile on the President's Challenge Physical Fitness Test for the 2006-2007 school year.

To promote overall health and well-being, the President's Challenge program encourages all Americans to make being active part of their everyday lives. Percy Priest and Bartlett Elementary embraced these goals and in so doing succeeded in obtaining State Champion status.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the President's Challenge State Champions for being role models for other schools and for improving the overall health and well-being of their students.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to be able to stand here and talk for a few moments about the SCHIP proposals, or I should say the health care proposal, the expansion of health care that has been brought under the name of SCHIP. It is, indeed, unfortunate that a fine program that is there to help underprivileged children has been hijacked, if you will. And on its back, on the backs of our Nation's children, on the backs of the children of the working poor has been placed this expansion of health care. It truly shows a level of disrespect toward the children of this country.

I appreciate the leadership that the gentleman from Arizona shows, not only on this issue, but the leadership he brings to our Republican Study Committee. And those of us who are speaking on the issue tonight are members of the Republican Study Committee.

Mr. Speaker, on the topic of this SCHIP, you know, one of the things that the American people said was, we want to change the way things are being done in Washington. We want smaller government, we want government to spend less money. So, we saw some changes take place last November. And the new majority went into control in January and they've authorized nearly $1 trillion in new spending since the time that they took over. And, of course, we are hearing that there are tax increases. One of the chairmen of Ways and Means calls it the ``mother of all tax increases.'' I take a little bit of offense to that, being female. And also, when you talk about the mother of something, you worry about what the offspring are going to look like, Mr. Speaker. And so we are worried about what that tax bill will look like.

But on SCHIP, as I said, unfortunately for America's children, the liberal leadership of this House decided that they were going to put on their back the burden of carrying this enormous expansion of health care and changing a block grant program into an entitlement. That's not the kind of change the American people voted for. Just like the American people didn't vote to have the single largest tax increase in history take place.

Now, one of the interesting things about all of this is the SCHIP proposals that have come out include allowing illegal immigrants to get health care. And I know we hear from the majority, oh, that's not going to happen. We have eligibility requirements. But, Mr. Speaker, I would direct my colleagues to either section 211 or section 605 of the bill where it plainly states, and you can read it for yourself, anyone watching could read that for themselves. They can look up H.R. 3963 or H.R. 976 and see what is contained in that bill.

We know that this would result in $3.7 billion in new spending over a 10-year period of time if the new liberal majority had its way. You can go into the allocation section, section 102 of the bill, and you can look at what is going to take place when you get mid-year 2012. Do you know what happens, Mr. Speaker? All of a sudden, no money. So what are you going to do, throw 80 percent of the people off the

bill? We all know that is not going to happen.

But, Mr. Speaker, my question is why would anybody support a bill, support a program, that they are setting up to fail. Why would they have that level of disrespect for this program, that they would pass legislation that would plan for it to fail. Then, as my colleague has said, we have the problems with spending more, insuring less children, and not making available to the children truly that are eligible for the program the opportunity to have that access to affordable health care.

We could go on and on with the problems with this bill. I just find it so unfortunate that in this day and in this age that we would have the new majority and the new leadership take a block grant program that is working well, that the States like and change it to an entitlement program that is put on auto pilot when we know some of the greatest pressures we have on our budgeting process are on our entitlement spending.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding. I appreciate his leadership on the health care issues. I appreciate his concern for how our constituents continue to access health care in this country.

Yes. If the gentleman will yield, and indeed that is correct. What you see is a play on words and how unfortunate that we have this disingenuous approach to this issue, have a play on words with the eligibility requirements and allowing, putting something in words and then allowing a loophole. As I said, the two sections, sections 211 and 605, with that we can look at the income disregards.

Now, Mr. Speaker, how many people have ever said let's have the income disregards when they are trying to decide who goes on to a program? Well, I had one of my constituents in my district come up, and they said, Tell me what is an income disregard? I said, Do you know what, an income disregard is when you do not consider the income. And they said, How can that be for the sake of considering SCHIP which is to be for children of the working poor? And I said, Because you don't want the income to matter. And if you don't want the income to matter and you want to make it available to what the IRS calls ``high-income earners,'' you establish that doubletalk with income disregards.

Mr. Speaker, it seems like we have a fact and fiction problem that is taking place right here in the body of the House. It is about SCHIP 2.0 that is coming before us today. Well, here are the facts. SCHIP 2.0 will not prevent illegal immigrants from receiving children's health care benefits. It will not prevent adults from receiving children's health care funding, and it will not prevent the government from crowding out 2 million people from the private health care market.

The bill actually covers 400,000 fewer children than SCHIP 1, and it spends 500 million, yes, a half billion dollars more and still leaves out 800,000 eligible children. Yet under SCHIP 2, adults will constitute 10 percent of all SCHIP enrollees in fiscal year 2012 when the program has a major funding problem. Under SCHIP 2.0, 2 million people would lose their health care coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Let's get straight on the facts. Let's vote against SCHIP 2.0 and make certain we put the children of the working poor first.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I don't think anyone opposes providing health care for poor children and children of the working poor. That is not what our argument is about today.

What we do oppose is having a bill before us that covers 400,000 less kids in SCHIP than previously. We do oppose having a bill that has a funding cliff in 2012 where you just plan to run out of money. Now the question is: Why would you vote for a bill where you plan on having a program fail?

Another thing we see in this bill before us, it is going to spend a half billion dollars more than SCHIP version one, and it is going to cover less kids. So there are plenty of reasons to oppose this bill.

In addition, you have the issue with illegal immigration. CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, projects that section 211 of this bill will result in spending $3.7 billion in increased spending on health care for this population over the next 10 years.

And then you get to the issue of adults. Well, what you are talking about is getting childless adults off the program, not all adults, just childless adults.

Madam Speaker, I think we as parents expect our children to grow up and expect them to take responsibility. This is not Never Never Land, and all adults need to be removed from this program.

SCHIP, as it was put in place in 1997, is there for poor children, children of the working poor. The list could go on and on. We also know there is a massive redistribution of taxes within this bill. We have all seen those figures.

On top of that, you look at what goes to the east coast and it is harming those children in the middle of the country. I oppose the bill.