Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6276, the Public Housing Disaster Relief Act. This legislation will repeal section 9(k) in the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, and clears the way for public housing authorities in need of repair following a disaster to be eligible for FEMA section 406 funds under the Stafford Act.

Today, there are two programs that are designed to assist public facilities and private nonprofit facilities in times of disasters. Section 9(k) within HUD was set up to provide natural disaster grants to public housing authorities. Section 406 of the Stafford Act permits the use of FEMA funds for repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of public facilities and private nonprofit facilities, as well as associated expenses.

Since the 2000 appropriations, Congress has repealed section 9(k) and separately appropriated a set-aside amount within the Public Housing Capital Fund for emergencies and natural disasters. Congress has reduced this fund over the past 8 years. The funding has gone from a high of $75 million from 2000 through 2002 to a low of $16.8 million last year.

In 2004, four hurricanes struck Florida, completely depleting the $39.7 million available in funding for that year. In 2005, hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the gulf coast, and that year's funding of $29.8 million was not adequate to restore public housing that was damaged or destroyed.

In 2006, Hurricane Wilma came ashore in Florida during the first month of the fiscal year, using much of the $16.8 million funding for 2006.

Despite the lack of funding available under the section 9(k) emergency reserve account, public housing developments have remained ineligible for FEMA funds under section 406.

While current law is intended to prevent duplication by both HUD and FEMA for public housing facilities, it has put public housing facilities at a distinct disadvantage relative to other types of housing in disaster areas.

In testimony before a joint subcommittee hearing on June 4, 2008, with the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity and the Emergency Communications, Preparedness and Response Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee, HUD testified that it did not believe that Congress intended to limit the ability of public housing authorities to access Stafford Act funding by providing funding under section 9(k).

Specifically, HUD's testimony, stated this: ``In recent years the President has proposed eliminating both the portion of section 9(k) that provides the disaster grant funding and the set-aside for disaster grants in an attempt to alleviate the confusion about disaster assistance and make it possible for housing authorities to have access to section 406 Stafford Act funding.''

HUD went on to suggest several ways to resolve this current situation: ``One potential solution to disaster funding shortfalls for public housing authorities would be the permanent repeal or amendment of section 9(k).''

H.R. 6276, the Public Housing Disaster Relief Act, clearly paves the way for public housing authorities in need of repair following a disaster to be eligible for FEMA section 406 funds under the Stafford Act.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we're today talking about making sure that, in the event of a disaster, that we have the funds and we don't have to go through a lot of red tape to make sure that we can restore this housing, when it's repairable, in a feasible way, and to make sure that we continue to provide the shelter for some of our very needy Americans.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there aren't bills on the floor today. There should be bills on the floor, and there should be a bipartisan bill that works on another disaster that is impacting a lot of needy Americans today, and that's the fact of the rising electric costs, utility costs for many of the people that live in these housing authorities. The mass transit that they use to go to and fro work is going up. They're having to raise their fares. Even gasoline for them to go to their work and back.

And so, Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill which certainly we support, I support. I would hope that we would bring some other bipartisan bills to the floor that would address probably one of the most looming disasters for many of these families, as well as families all across the country.

I get to thinking about the fact that today America had to write a check for about a billion dollars to provide energy supplement for the energy that we already produce in this country. I think about the fact that $170 million of that went to Hugo Chavez. I think about what we could do together if we were to begin to have an energy policy in this country today where we were investing $170 million in America every day rather than investing $170 million in a dictator from Venezuela, that we can create jobs, and that maybe many of the folks that are in the housing authorities around America today, with those jobs, that they could move into conventional for-rental housing, or even experience the American dream of owning their own home.

So while I support this bill, I would hope that we could take this same bipartisan spirit, working in the future, to solve America's energy needs instead of solving the financial needs of many folks or countries around the world that don't really care whether our folks in public housing have a nice, clean, safe place to live or not.

But we care, and we need to show the American people that we care about them, not just the people that are in public housing, but the families all across America today that are struggling with double the price of a tank of gasoline.

Just the other night I was on the phone with some constituents back in Texas, and this gentleman was on the phone. He said, ``Congressman, I have to go get dialysis three times a week. I have to drive over 100 miles to do that. And now I'm down to making a decision whether I'm going to be able to afford gasoline, groceries, or the rent.''

That's not a decision we want people in America making. And so certainly, in the future, I hope that we will be able to not only address some of these important housing issues, as we've done in the Financial Services Committee, but I hope, also, that we would remember that part of the American dream is also having the ability to have a nice place to live, but also to be able to have an economy where we can grow and prosper and make, hopefully, some of our subsidized housing a temporary spot for American people and not a permanent spot. But with these rising costs of utilities and gasoline, I'm afraid we may be locking them into a scenario from which they would like to get out.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I was going to inquire to see if the gentleman has other speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I would like to say I think this does go a long way to probably eliminate some confusion between these two agencies. It makes sense to do this.

I want to welcome the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cazayoux) to the committee and thank him for his willingness to participate in this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong support of this legislation of this bill sponsored by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) which honors those who have sacrificed so much so that we may live in peace, and this is long overdue that we build a memorial for them.

This legislation, as the gentleman mentioned, passed in the House on April 15 of last year by a margin of 416-0 and comes back to us from the other body with that minor amendment describing the coin's design that is totally acceptable, and I urge immediate passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), one of the co-authors of this bill and someone I have a great deal of respect and I know has worked tirelessly for the great men and women who have served in the past and are currently serving in our country such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, just a little over 5 years ago, on June 5, 2003, I stepped on the floor of this House to take the oath of office to be only the fourth Member of Congress from the 19th Congressional District, the 236th Texan, to ever serve in the United States Congress.

But what I really want to talk about, Mr. Speaker, is the hour before I stepped on the floor of this House and took that oath. I met in the Speaker's office. And while we were standing around waiting for the floor to open, the House to open up its daily prayer and Pledge, one of the Speaker's staff members came over to my wife and I and said, ``Congressman, would you like a few minutes alone, some quiet time before you're sworn in? We said, well, that would be great. I brought my own personal Bible with me. And so that lady led me around to a room that I don't know that a lot of people know that is in this Capitol, and that's our chapel, that's just around from the Speaker's lobby. And I didn't know exactly where she was taking us, but she opened the door, and to my wife's surprise, and myself, we saw that we were in a chapel in our Nation's Capitol. She closed that door behind us, and we walked over and knelt at the front of that chapel. And we just sat down as a couple and we began to pray because we realized what an awesome responsibility that the people in the 19th Congressional District of Texas had given us. And so we knelt there, and we began to pray. And we just said, Lord, we are about to embark on a journey that you have brought us here. We ask for Your guidance, we ask for Your direction, we ask for Your wisdom, and Father, all of those things that we're going to need to know in order to serve the American people.

And as we prayed there as a couple, it was a very special moment. And as I was sitting there and we were praying, I began to think about 232 years ago this July 4th, we thought about those men that got up and had this Declaration of Independence that started this great country called America. And I always recall the way they ended that declaration because they said, ``We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.'' You see, Mr. Speaker, they signed their death warrant for Dana and I to be able to sit there and kneel in the Nation's Capitol and exercise our right to pray to our Lord and Savior.

And I thought about the men and women over the 232 years that have served this Nation, that have given their lives and their service to protect the right for us to do that. I think about just a few hundred feet from where we are tonight, Mr. Speaker, I think about the church services that used to be held right in our Nation's Capitol and what a privilege and honor that must have been to come over to the Nation's Capitol and not only to see the center of freedom and democracy known around the world, but to worship your Lord and Savior.

And so, Father, tonight--Mr. Speaker, tonight--and really I guess that we're talking to our Heavenly Father tonight, and we're talking to you, too, Mr. Speaker--we've been talking about an important part of America, an important part of the foundation and the values of these men that started this great Nation, the foundation of the men and women that have kept this great freedom and democracy alive over these years and how important that is, and what a shame it is going to be if we don't protect that for future generations. Unfortunately, we've seen some Federal judges try to take away what these gentlemen pledged their lives to do. I hope we never let that happen.

And so just 2 weeks ago I reflected back on that very special day that right here in our Capitol there was an opportunity to get down on our knees and pray. But what's more important is that weekly this Congressional Prayer Caucus, these men and women from both sides of the aisle, believe in America and believe in the founding principles.

More importantly they understand that Who is the ultimate leader of this universe.

And so Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this time to talk tonight about a very important part of America, and that is the ability to praise our Lord and Savior.

Mr. Speaker, I would just echo what my colleague from South Carolina said. Where is the plan?

If the Democrats do not have a plan to lower energy costs for the American people, please bring some of the Republican proposals that we have already designed and which will begin to bring immediate relief.

The other night I had a teletown hall meeting and I was listening to the people in the 19th Congressional District of Texas. One person said, Congressman, I have to drive 100 miles every day to go to my job. She said, my gasoline has gone up, but my paycheck has not.

The most disturbing news was the gentleman who said, Congressman, I have to get dialysis three times a week. I have to drive 70 miles each way. He said, now I am down to trying to decide whether I am going to be able to buy food, gasoline, or the treatment for my diabetes.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Democratic majority, who promised the American people a plan, to bring that plan to this House floor, instead of important legislation like we voted on yesterday, supporting the goals and ideals of the International Year of Sanitation. I know the American people are going to be very comforted that this body took up that legislation, and not energy legislation that would have brought relief for high energy costs.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I missed rollcall Vote 401, a vote on referring H. Res. 1258 to committee.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall Vote 401.

Well, I thank the gentleman from Michigan. I also want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, because he makes a very good point. And when he says we are importing thousands of dollars, actually it is billions of dollars. Every day America gets up and writes a check for $1 billion-plus to buy enough energy to run this country for 1 day.

What does that mean? That means that it takes $365 billion currently for America to buy enough energy just to run our country on an annual basis, $1 billion every day. And do you know what? Unfortunately, some of that money is going to some folks that aren't all that friendly to the American people. One of those people is Hugo Chavez.

I want to read you what Hugo Chavez thinks about America. He said, ``What we do regarding the imperialist power of the United States, we have no choice but to unite. We use oil in our war against neo- liberalism.'' He also said, ``We have invaded the United States, but with our oil.''

So every day as the American people go to the pumps all across America, what I want them to visualize is that every day we write Hugo Chavez, who calls us imperialists, a $170 million check. That is $62 billion a year. What would happen if we could invest $1 billion a day in America developing America's energy resources, creating jobs for Americans? Think about it. Instead of writing Hugo Chavez a check for $172 million, that we write America a check for $172 million?

I think of the people I know in the 19th Congressional District of Texas, which is a big district, 29,000 square miles, 27 counties, teachers having to drive 60, 70 miles a day to go and teach our young people, that now are looking at doubling the cost of making that commute across the district.

I think about the man last night that I was talking to in my district. He said, ``Congressman,'' he said, ``I have to drive three times a week 30 miles each way to get dialysis so that I can be treated for diabetes.'' He said, ``Congressman, I am down to the point now of having to choose whether I can afford dialysis, afford gasoline, or afford food.''

Madam Speaker, it is time to say yes. We have heard you say no; no to new drilling, no to building additional power plants in this country; no to new refineries. America is wanting you to say yes, because America is tired of writing checks to Hugo Chavez for $160 million every day.

I thank my friend from Michigan tonight for hosting this hour. I hope that somehow the American people realize that there is a willingness on behalf of many Members of Congress to say yes and to move forward and to do something proactive, instead of doing something that is called nothing.

Madam Speaker, it's not working. The policy of ``no'' to producing America's resources is not working for the American people. Today, America will write a check for $1 billion to buy enough energy to run our economy for one day. Let me repeat that. Today, America will write a check for $1 billion to run our economy for one day. That means for the year, it takes $365 billion to export to other countries that have said ``yes'' to developing their resources.

Think about what we could do with $1 billion if we invested that in developing American resources; the jobs that it would create, the fact it would make America more independent and less dependent on those other countries.

The policy of ``no'' is not working. We need to say ``yes'' to producing more of America's resources; ``yes'' to drilling in areas where we have found abundant resources; ``yes'' to using a 250-year supply of coal; ``yes'' to building new nuclear power plants; ``yes'' to developing America's resources, reinvesting in America.

Madam Speaker, I ask you to bring legislation to the floor that will help America build a stronger energy independence.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia for not only the time, but for his leadership, as well as the chairman, Mr. Peterson, on this important farm bill.

I heard some of my colleagues say this is not a good farm bill. But, do you know what? Seventy-five percent of our colleagues here in the House thought this was a good farm bill. Eighty-five percent of the Members in the Senate thought this was a good farm bill. And do you know why they thought it was a good farm bill? It is because they understand how important American agriculture is to our country.

One of the things that we were listening to today, oil prices again set another record price today. Why? Because there is not enough oil to meet the demand for our country. There is a mentality going around here that maybe if we just don't produce things, things will just show up. But if we are going to eat feed and clothe America, we have to produce something. If you are going to get something, you have to produce something.

So what this farm bill does is it allows American agriculture to continue to do what it has been doing for hundreds of years, and that is produce the highest quality, the most affordable food and fiber in the world. It is the reason today demand for a lot of American agricultural products are at an all-time high. With the cheap dollar, you can buy the best for a lot less.

What is important here is that we have a future for American agriculture, because we don't want to be in the same shape we are today. We had to wake up today and figure out who is going to supply energy for America. The American people don't want us to have to wake up tomorrow and say who will feed us, who will clothe us, because we have let American agriculture die in America.

So this bill, the reason I support it and why I encourage my colleagues to override this presidential veto, is because it is a good bill. Yes, it is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill. A lot of bipartisan work and bicameral work was done to bring this product to the floor, and that is the reason it is important now that we do what American agriculture has been waiting several months for us to do, is finally put in place permanent policy for American agriculture. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.

There have been a lot of figures and a lot of terms thrown around in this room today about payment limits and adjusted gross income, but let's really talk about what this bill is about, and what this bill is about is feeding and clothing the American people, to making sure that they continue to have access to the safest, highest quality products in the world. By the way, they are also the most affordable.

Now, one of the things that some people talk about is all of these rich farmers. Now, I will tell you it's very interesting. If it is as lucrative as everyone says, why is the number of farmers in America dropping? Go to a Farm Bureau meeting some evening in west Texas and see how many young farmers are dying to get into the farming business, or even have the capacity to get into the farming business.

I think it's also interesting, when we look at this bill, that about 70 percent of this bill has to do with providing an opportunity for those people that need a little extra helping hand to make sure that they do have a quality meal during the day, and that is in some of our food stamp and nutrition programs. Yet only 12 percent of this bill has anything to do with growing something.

Now, let me tell you that if you are going to feed and clothe people, I want everybody to know that those things just don't show up at the department store and the grocery store. Somebody actually has to produce it. We have hardworking farm families all over America that are fulfilling that commitment.

Let me tell you, it's difficult, the prices that some people have been talking about, well, the prices of these commodities are up. Yes, they are up, but let me tell you, look back 2 or 3 years ago when a lot of people wouldn't plant certain commodities because they couldn't make any money doing it.

The other question about this bill is, yes, it's about making sure Americans have quality agricultural products, but it's also about who is going to provide it.

We have to make a decision today. In this energy situation this country is in, we are relying on other people to provide energy for America. Are we going to let American agriculture die so we have to let other countries feed and clothe America? I don't think the American people want that.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 317, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to support the final conference report that was just brought to this House of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.

As a conferee, I participated in many hours of bipartisan and bicameral negotiations at which point we reached a bill that will be good for American agriculture, and it will be good for the American consumer.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we have a strong agricultural industry in this country today. We've already seen the implications of having other countries furnish our energy needs on a daily basis, and the last thing in the world that we need to happen is to rely on other countries to feed and clothe the American people.

That's the reason, Mr. Speaker, it is so important that we get this important piece of legislation passed, sooner rather than later. Many producers all across America, farmers and ranchers, have already planted crops, and they do not have any policy to operate under.

And so I urge my colleagues, when this bill comes to the floor this week, to vote positively for American agriculture and the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield so much time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, Mr. Bachus.

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services Committee mentioned that this is a shell. Maybe it's a shell game. I'm not sure. But for energy bill being the underlying bill, I think the American people wish we were on the floor today discussing an energy future for America.

It's now my distinct pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee, Mrs. Biggert from Illinois.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to my colleague and friend from the great State of Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I've spent nearly three decades in the housing business. And over those three decades the housing market has gone up and the housing market has had its soft moments, and one of the soft moments we're experiencing today. I liken it to the fact that the housing market has a cold. And when you go to the doctor and you talk to the doctor about a cold, what does he usually tell you? He says, you know, you're going to have to let it run its course. And quite honestly, over the years as these housing downturns have happened, that exactly what we've had to do is let these markets run their course. And what we do know is that when they run their course, that they come back a lot stronger.

We have just come off an unprecedented run in housing where the rise in home ownership has risen to record levels. And how did we do that? Well, we did it with the marketplace.

One of the things about this bill that bothers me is that we leave people with the understanding that if their house goes down, the government will come in and make up the difference. We can't do that. People buy stocks, people buy bonds, people buy other assets. They go up, they go down. But it's not the role of the Federal Government to create a profit opportunity for people.

One of the things that we know is that, as the ranking member, I think, pointed out, is that we have 110 million people that are already meeting their own housing needs. Some of them are having problems, yes, they are, and we're sorry about that. We know about 51 million people in America have mortgages. And a lot of those folks are taking second jobs and doing things to make sure that they meet their rental payments and meet their housing payments. And you look at the fact that 94, 95 percent of those people are making those payments, not only are they making them in full, but they're making them on time.

What we can't let the Federal Government be is the piggy bank when things don't go exactly the way we planned. I would like to go back over my 30 years in the real estate business and wish the Federal Government could have been my piggy bank when I bought property that didn't go in the right direction. Some of it went down, some of it went up. But what I do know is that it is important that the Federal Government not get into the business of trying to manipulate markets.

Markets are very efficient. In fact, they're a lot more powerful than the Federal Government. I know everybody here feels like they may be a powerful person and part of a powerful government, but quite honestly, these free markets are much more powerful than the Federal Government and they're much more efficient and they're much better able to deliver a housing market that the American people can sustain and count on.

And so that's one of the reasons that I rise in opposition to this bill today is, as I look across America--and I wish you could have been at a town hall meeting with me the other day where people weren't asking about mortgages, Mr. Speaker, they were asking when is this Congress going to finally do something about getting a comprehensive energy strategy for America? When are we going to open up the ability to drill in these other areas? And when are we going to be able to come up with more nuclear power plants?

Mr. Speaker, the American people don't want to make their neighbor's payment when they're having a hard time making their own.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Speaker, now it is my honor to recognize for 3 minutes the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), who is also a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to introduce another member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to introduce another distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), and I yield to him 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's my honor now to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake), who has an extensive amount of experience in the housing industry and brings great expertise to this process.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to introduce the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) who is also on the Committee on Financial Services, and I yield 2 minutes to her.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. I

think we have had a good discussion here today. Unfortunately, it was a discussion only and there was not opportunity for our side, or really any other Members to participate in this process of offering amendments that could have most likely made this a better piece of legislation.

There are several reasons I oppose this bill. Number one is the flawed process. In my tenure in Congress, I have never had a major piece of legislation like this where I am not even going to get an opportunity to cast my vote. I know people who are watching this process are wondering, you mean we have been talking all day about this important piece of legislation that the other side says is very important to the American people, yet their Member of Congress is not going to get a vote on this process. It is a flawed process.

We brought an energy bill over, stripped all of the energy provisions out of it, and we are putting housing into an energy bill. I still don't understand the mechanics of that, and maybe someone later on can explain that to me.

This is also about not saddling the American people who are already struggling to make their own house payments, to make their own rental payments, to pay the highest gasoline prices in the history of this country, and the highest electricity costs and natural gas costs, it is about saddling them now with the payments for their neighbor.

What the 110 million people who are doing the best they can and want the United States Congress to do is to leave them alone and really start addressing the major issues that are important to the American people.

It's about not rewarding bad behavior. We have some lenders, and we have some borrowers that went out and bet that the housing market was going to go up. It didn't go up, and, in fact, unfortunately, in some places, it went down. And now people are faced with a negative equity or a smaller equity in their home. And we are sympathetic to that.

As I said earlier, I've been in the real estate business for a very long time. I've seen the markets go up. I've seen the markets go down. And sometimes it causes a situation where people don't have as much equity.

But what you have to understand is a lot of people went into this process with no equity. And now this bill says, you know what? We've got a deal for you, because now we're going to help create equity in your house by putting your neighbors at risk.

This is a bad bill. I encourage Members to vote against this bill. I'm sorry. We can't vote against it. Vote against the amendments.

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

Madam Speaker, for nearly 35 years prior to coming to the United States Congress, I was involved in the housing business in one form or the other. I've built housing for sale, I've built housing for rent. And one of the things that you learn very quickly and housing and how to make sure that the American people have safe, affordable housing, whether it's to own that housing or to rent that housing is you have jobs and opportunity because when people, the American people have jobs and opportunity, they don't have trouble making their payments or making their rental payments.

And so I would think that the 110 million people that are paying their rent or making their house payments today are wondering why this Congress is not down on the floor today debating an energy policy that lowers the cost of gasoline, that lowers the cost of electricity so that American families can have more money, so that they can have more money to pay on their rent or pay on their mortgage payment.

But more importantly, they will wonder why we're not down on this floor talking about how we have a tax code in this country that promotes jobs and opportunity that allows small businesses to thrive and to create jobs. Small businesses are our number-one job creators. You know what? When people have jobs, they're able to make their mortgage payments. When people have jobs, they're able to make their rental payments.

So it's frustrating to me and others to see we have a process today, as other Members have pointed out, that lock us out of the process. We swore in two new Members of Congress in the last 24 hours. Unfortunately, neither one of those gentlemen will be able to participate in this debate because they've been locked out of thoughtful consideration of this bill.

Madam Speaker, we need to be down on this floor doing policy that will impact the American people. Fifty-one million Americans have a mortgage in this country, 94 percent of them are making their mortgage payments. The 110 million people that are scraping and making sure that they are a step up and make their payments, are wondering why we're down on the floor asking them to make the payments for those who can't.

Madam Speaker, before I came to Congress, I had an opportunity to serve my constituents in a different way. I was a home builder, a land developer, and even a mortgage lender. I know firsthand some of the problems that the real estate industry and the housing industry is facing today.

Ninety-four percent of the American homeowners are paying their mortgage

payments on time and in full. Are some people having a hard time making these mortgage payments? Of course they are. Can the government help? Yes, in some cases. But I urge my colleagues to be very careful here. We do not need for the Federal Government to be the piggy bank for folks that made poor decisions or to bail out the lenders that made loans to people that really didn't have the capacity to pay it back. It is not fair to penalize those folks that made good decisions and played by the rules by taking their tax money and rewarding those who didn't.

For many of my constituents, they are having a hard time just making their own mortgage payment. What we shouldn't be doing is taking their tax money to pay their neighbor's payment.

Madam Speaker, I encourage folks to be very cautious about these bail-out programs.