Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House. The form of my resolution is as follows: Whereas the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hensarling--along with the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Conaway, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Gingrey, and the gentlewoman from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn--submitted an amendment to the Committee on Rules to H.R. 3288, the Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act; Whereas the said gentleman's amendment would have encouraged the development and use of alternative fuels by the federal government from resources found abundantly in the United States and Canada such as oil sands and oil shale, furthering our ability to become more energy independent, reducing the federal government's energy costs borne by the American taxpayer; Whereas, this is especially important at a time of a record deficit that has reached $1 trillion for the first time in American history and a record debt that will be tripled in 10 years; Whereas, the said amendment could help in the creation of desperately needed jobs in an economy where the unemployment rate is 9.5%--the highest unemployment rate in 26 years and climbing--and 2.6 million people have lost their job since February 2009; Whereas, when campaigning for the presidency, then-Senator Obama said that ``under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily sky rocket.''; Whereas, on June, 26, 2009, the Democratic Majority passed such legislation in H.R. 2454, a national energy tax also known as cap and trade, that experts have estimated will result in American families paying anywhere from $1,500 to $3,000 annually in additional energy costs; Whereas, on December 6, 2006, then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said, ``[W]e promised the American people that we would have the most honest and open government and we will.''; Whereas, according to then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's New Direction for America, ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''; Whereas a similar amendment was adopted by the House in 2008 during consideration of H.R. 6599, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2009 on a bipartisan vote; Whereas the gentleman's amendment complied with all applicable Rules of the House for amendments to appropriations measures and would have been in order under an open amendment process, but regrettably the House Democratic leadership has dramatically breached decades of House precedent and historically reduced the opportunity for open debate on this Floor; and Whereas the Speaker, Mrs. Pelosi, the Democratic leadership, and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey, prevented the House from voting on the amendment by excluding it from the list of amendments made in order under the rule for the bill: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That H. Res. 669, the rule to accompany H.R. 3288, be amended to allow the gentleman from Texas' amendment be considered and voted on in the House.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HENSARLING. By any possible measurement whatsoever, spending is out of control in the Nation's Capital. Already, this Democratic- controlled Congress has spent $1.1 trillion on a government stimulus plan costing every American household $9,810. That included $100 million for an after-school snack program, $10 million for urban canals. The list goes on. This Democratic majority in Congress has also passed an omnibus bill costing $410 billion, weighing in at roughly $3,500 per American household. That one included $150,000 for lobster research in Maine and $143,000 to develop and expand a comprehensive online encyclopedia. Now we know, once again, after the President's press conference last evening, he and the Democrats in Congress will go forward on a government-controlled health care plan that even the Congressional Budget Office, appointed by Democrats, says will cost a minimum of a trillion dollars. Again, costing every American household roughly $9,000. And what do we have for all this, Mr. Chairman? What do we have? We now have the single largest Federal deficit that we have ever had in our Nation's history. It crossed the trillion-dollar mark. There was a time not too long ago we always talked in terms of billions; and now it's trillions are rolling off the tips of our tongues. The Federal debt, the Federal debt under this spending program will triple, triple in the next 10 years. This Congress is on a trajectory to create more debt in the next 10 years than in the previous 220. We're borrowing forty-six cents on the dollar, mainly from the Chinese, and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. Mr. Chairman, it is crushing not only to the next generation; it's crushing job growth. Since the President has come into office, an additional 2.6 million Americans have lost their jobs. At 9.5 percent, we're looking at the largest unemployment that we've seen in a quarter of a century. Enough is enough. And so I want to take the President up on a challenge that he issued to Congress just a couple of months ago. He said, ``If we're going to rebuild our economy on a solid foundation, we need to change the way we do business in Washington. We need to spend money wisely.'' The President went on to say, ``That starts with the painstaking work of examining every program, every entitlement, every dollar of government spending and asking ourselves: Is this program really essential? Are the taxpayers getting their money's worth?'' Those are the words of our President, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, today I just want to focus on one program, one program out of an estimated 10,000 programs. It's called HOPE VI. Well, according to OMB--and you can look at their Web site--this is the program that has already accomplished its original objective. According to OMB, HOPE VI ``has completed its goal of contributing to the demolition of 100,000 severely distressed public housing units.'' Now, since achieving its original objective, OMB goes on to further say, The program is more costly than other programs that serve the same population. The program has accomplished its stated mission. And furthermore, I am told--and I hope that the distinguished chairman can shed some light on this. I'm told the program is sitting on almost $1 billion of unexpended balances. I mean, we're shoving more money their way, Mr. Chairman, and they can't even spend the money that they already have. It's time for us to lead by example, terminate one program, and quit borrowing the money from the Chinese and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, the President of the United States says, Start the painstaking work of examining every program. Mr. Chairman, we have a program that, number one, has achieved its mission; number two, it is now effective; number three, it is duplicative of another program; number four, it has at least 5 years of appropriations in the pipeline; number five, we are looking at the single-largest deficit in the entire history of the United States of America. We have the largest unemployment rate in 25 years. Mr. Chairman, out of 10,000 Federal programs, if you won't terminate one to quit borrowing money from the Chinese and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren, if you won't terminate this program, I mean, please, which one will you? Is there ever a point where you say, Enough debt is enough? Is there ever a point where you finally conclude that the best housing program in America is a job? Let's create the jobs. Let's not destroy the jobs. I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, this is an earmark designated for the Philadelphia Museum of Art, transportation improvement program, for three-quarters of $1 million, I believe requested by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who is on the floor. There is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the Philadelphia Museum of Art is one of the great art museums in America. I've had the occasion to visit it actually on two occasions I believe. Many in America recognize the steps as the ``Rocky'' steps from the popular film ``Rocky.'' According to the sponsor's Web site, the earmark will be used for, ``Intermodal transportation improvement project to resolve pedestrian and vehicular issues at the convergence of Kelly Drive, Spring Garden Street, Art Museum Drive, Pennsylvania Avenue, and Fairmont Avenue.'' Sounds like a lot of avenues and streets coming together. Again, Mr. Chairman, let's take stock of where we are: $1 trillion deficit, the largest in America's history. It will increase tenfold in just 2 years under this Democratic majority, a feat I do not believe that has ever been achieved in our Nation's history. According to the Congressional Budget Office, again, appointed by Democrats, we will triple the national debt in 10 years. More debt, more debt in the next 10 years, Mr. Chairman, than in the previous 220. Again, don't take my word for it; ask the Congressional Budget Office. And so I have no doubt that this is a good use of money once again. I have no doubt that this great art museum could use this money, but I have a number of questions. Number one, why is this a Federal responsibility? You know, why didn't this money go to the Dallas Museum of Art? How about the Museum of Modern Art in New York? How about the Art Institute in Chicago? How about the Legion of Honor Museum in San Francisco? How about the hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of other art museums in the Nation, are they not equally deserving, Mr. Chairman? And if this is a Federal responsibility, is it really a Federal priority at a time when, under this Democratic majority, we now have the highest rate of unemployment that we've had in a quarter of a century--2.6 million more Americans unemployed since President Obama took office? Maybe, maybe our priority ought to be to try to create more jobs, and there are hundreds of thousands of small businesses, including many in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas that could benefit from that money and create jobs and preserve jobs. And then, Mr. Chairman, if I concede the argument that somehow this is not only a Federal responsibility but a Federal priority, again, is it of equal priority to creating jobs? Is it of equal priority to the money that goes to the National Institutes of Health for cancer research? Is it of equal priority to setting up more rural clinics for our veterans' health care? I think not. And although, again, I have no doubt that this is a good use of someone's funds, that at a time of $1 trillion deficit, at a time of the worst unemployment we have had in 25 years, you know, it just doesn't meet the test of the taxpayers and the struggling families in this Nation. And, again, if we don't say ``no'' to somebody's project today, we cannot say ``yes'' to our children's future tomorrow. And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad, sad day yet again on the House floor. I do want to add my voice, though, in agreement with so many of my other colleagues talking about the bipartisan respect that we have for the chairman of the Budget Committee. And I suppose it was because he has bipartisan respect, as opposed to partisan respect, that the Speaker of the House decided to bypass him and the Budget Committee in bringing this legislation to the floor. Perhaps it was an opportunity to actually enact commonsense legislation. Unfortunately, we'll never know that. We'll never know that, Mr. Speaker. And so what I've heard is speaker after speaker on the Democratic side of the aisle tell us that PAYGO just means, When you spend a dollar, you save a dollar. I believe I heard the distinguished chairman say that. And the President of the United States, in adding his support for this proposition, said, Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere. Now, Mr. Speaker, the use of the term ``PAYGO'' suggests one thing. The practice of PAYGO is something completely different. Mr. Speaker, you can see from this chart exactly what PAYGO means in practice. These are the spending increases that were subject to so- called PAYGO in the 2009 fiscal year: 2 percent. Two percent, Mr. Speaker, of all spending was subject to PAYGO, this commonsense proposal. I'm not sure it's common sense to the American people to tell them that you're going to be fiscally responsible and then exempt 98 percent of all spending. I don't believe that's common sense, Mr. Speaker. I don't believe it's common sense at all and, once again, what it tells us is we don't have a serious policy for fiscal responsibility or fiscal sanity here. What we have is fiscal flimflam. We have a bumper sticker slogan that substitutes for a policy that needs to save our children and grandchildren from a sea of red ink, and so all of this spending is either exempt or somehow PAYGO gets magically waived. Under this proposal, Mr. Speaker, nondefense discretionary spending is going to increase 9 percent. PAYGO is not subject to it. Overall discretionary spending increases 8 percent. PAYGO doesn't apply to it. All our entitlement programs that are just exploding, exploding, Mr. Speaker, guess what? They're exempt as well. So Social Security grows almost 5 percent, Medicare grows almost 4.3 percent. So the slogan, the slogan doesn't match the policy. I have the greatest amount of respect for the distinguished chairman. I have the greatest amount of respect for our President. But, Mr. Speaker, if you were a private company selling a product called PAYGO and you told the American people that it means ``when you spend a dollar, you save a dollar,'' you'd get sued for false advertising. You would be fined. You would be fined for saying that. It is not a real policy. Now, let's say if it was a real policy. We know it's not, but, Mr. Speaker, what if it was a real policy? What if those who brought this legislation really designed legislation that did what it said it was going to do? Well, unfortunately, under this Democratic Congress, we know that spending is out of control by any standard known in the history of mankind. Already, since the Democrats have come to control the White House and Congress, we have seen an administration sign into law a $1.1 trillion government stimulus plan, costing every American household $9,810, including $10 million for urban canals and $100 million for a new after-school snack program. We've seen them pass a $410 billion omnibus bill, costing every American family $3,534, including $150,000 for lobster research, $143,000 to develop and expand a comprehensive online encyclopedia. We see them continue the cycle of bailouts: $13 billion for Chrysler, $47 billion for GM, another $30 billion for AIG, and the list goes on. And what we have seen, Mr. Speaker, is now a budget that is going to increase, increase the Federal debt by a factor of three. It's going to triple, triple the Federal debt in the next 10 years. More Federal debt in the next 10 years than in the previous 220. And so we see all of the spending that is out of control and so we say, Okay, if you really want to control this spending or if you really want to have pay-as-you-go and you're unwilling to control the spending, well, Mr. Speaker, that just leaves us with one other option. That is a 60 percent increase of income taxes on the American people. So either one. Which is it is? Is it false advertising or do you really want to increase income taxes on the American people by 60 percent? Which is it? Again, what's happened since we've had this vaunted PAYGO? What's happened to deficits? Well, I don't know how they manage to do it, Mr. Speaker, but in just 2 years under Democratic control we've seen the deficit go from $161 billion to now over $1 trillion. The first time, the first time in our Nation's history over $1 trillion, on its way to $1.8 trillion. That's already with having PAYGO in place, before we get the statutory version. I can't imagine how much worse it's going to be once somehow this gets enshrined. So, again, what this is is an effort to put a bumper sticker on a huge problem. It's the Democrats going to the American people and saying, Please, stop us before we spend again. We just somehow can't control ourselves. And so this is supposed to be a Band-Aid on a fiscal life-threatening wound. The American people deserve better, Mr. Speaker. They deserve the Republican alternative that puts real caps on spending and will save the American people.

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we were certainly honored earlier when the Speaker of the House came to speak on this legislation. I tried to listen to her very carefully. I think I heard, ``We will not increase the deficit is now the congressional mantra.'' That's interesting. I really haven't studied mantras in the past, but what I do note is that since the Democratic majority has been the majority in this institution, the Federal deficit has gone from $161 billion to over $1 trillion for the first time in our Nation's history, on the way, according to the Congressional Budget Office, to a $1.8 trillion deficit, a tenfold increase in just 2 years. So I would say, with all due respect to the Speaker of the House, apparently the mantra is not working very well. I also believe I heard the Speaker of the House say, ``We have a moral responsibility not to heap deficits on our children.'' Well, I take that very seriously. As a father of a 7-year-old girl and a 5- year-old boy, I think every single day about the deficits that are being heaped on our children and grandchildren. So I guess I would ask the Speaker of the House, who is no longer present on the floor, if we have a moral responsibility not to do it, why did you do it? Why have you increased the deficit tenfold? Why is it that you brought a budget to the floor and passed it with the Democratic majority that will triple the national debt in the next 10 years and create more debt in the next 10 years than the previous 220? I would say, Madam Speaker, why did you do it? Now, I know she also spoke with great pride of reinstituting the PAYGO rule when the Democrats became the majority. Well, it sounds nice. Again, it makes for a very good bumper sticker slogan, but, Mr. Speaker, facts are kind of pesky things. So when we look at when the Democrats came into Congress and reinstituted the PAYGO rule, all we see is a sea of red ink for as far as the eye can see. Deficit upon deficit upon deficit. Trillions of dollars of deficits. It's not exactly a plan, Mr. Speaker, I would take great pride in. I must observe that the only thing that exceeds the Federal deficit is the credibility deficit that Democrats have on the issue of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, it's time to admit the failure of Obamanomics. Where are the jobs? Since we enacted the President's economic program, 2 million more are unemployed in this land--9.6 percent unemployment, the highest in a quarter of a century. So what do we have to show for Obamanomics? $143 billion more dollars of taxpayer bailout money. The first trillion-dollar deficit in our Nation's history. We had the national debt to be increased, tripled-- triple--in the next 10 years. We have found the historic debt, we have found the historic deficits, we have found the historic bailouts, Mr. Speaker. But where are the jobs? You cannot bail out, borrow, and spend your way into prosperity. It does not work. It is time to put America back to work with tax relief for small businesses and American families. That's the Republican plan.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, above your chair are inscribed the words ``In God We Trust.'' There is nothing more important that we in Congress do each day than seek His wisdom, guidance, and blessing upon our deliberations. I am both grateful and proud that today my friend, Pastor Elizabeth Hanley, sought those gifts on our behalf. Pastor Hanley, known to her flock as Pastor Liz, has led the Abiding Savior Lutheran Church in Cameron, Texas, since 2002. She's a lifelong Lutheran, a fifth generation Texan, and like my wife, she's a Baylor Bear. I have had the opportunity to worship at Abiding Savior on a number of occasions. I know for a fact that through the love of her savior, Jesus Christ, Pastor Liz nurtures the youth of her congregation. She gives hope to the downhearted, she cares for the elderly, and she inspires all through her words of grace through faith. Hope and unity are in abundance at Abiding Savior. And its parishioners will tell you Pastor Liz is truly deserving of the words, ``Well done, good and faithful servant.'' I thank Pastor Liz for being here today and leading our invocation.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which would strike an earmark for a half a million dollars to the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. According to the sponsor's Web site, the money would be used, For needed conversion of various HVAC systems for obsolete and high energy consuming systems to direct digital control systems which will vastly reduce energy costs while allowing for greater conservation and use of existing energy within the building. Mr. Chairman, I want to stipulate that I have no doubt that this would be a very valuable improvement for the Met. I have no doubt this is a good use of somebody's money, but Mr. Chairman, I have several questions about this. And listen, let me also stipulate that the Metropolitan Museum of Art is one of the great art museums in the world. When I have the occasion to go to New York City, I love to go to the Met. I particularly love to go to the galleries that have the art of the various impressionists. I can spend hours, if not days, there. So let me stipulate again, I have no doubt that this is a good use of somebody's money, but let me give you a little background, Mr. Chairman. The spending that has been taking place in Washington, D.C., is at an unsustainable pace. Already this body has passed a $1.1 trillion government stimulus plan costing every American family $9,810, including $100 million for an after-school snack program, $1 billion for the census; an omnibus costing $400 billion, costing every American family $3,534, including $150,000 for lobster research in Maine, $1.9 million for a pleasure beach water taxi service in Connecticut; a $700 billion bailout program so that folks like Chrysler, GM, AIG and a host of others can get taxpayer dollars costing every American family $6,034. Only 2 weeks ago, a new national energy tax passed by the House, where every American family that will deign to turn on a light switch, it will cost them between $1,500 and 3,000, and just yesterday, a new proposal by House Democrats for a government-controlled health care plan that will cost a minimum of $1 trillion, and the spending goes on and on and on. And so given that backdrop, I ask several questions. Number one, is the money for the Met, is this really a Federal responsibility? I mean, according to the chief financial officer of the Met, 31 percent of their money comes from endowment, 28 percent from gifts, 14 percent from admissions. Is it really the responsibility of the Federal taxpayer to pay for this improvement in a heating, ventilation and air conditioning system? And if it's a Federal responsibility, Mr. Chairman, is it really a Federal priority? Given that we just had reports that the national deficit exceeded $1 trillion for the first time in our Nation's history, I just ask the question, if it is a Federal responsibility, is it a Federal priority? And if it's a Federal priority, is it equal to other Federal priorities? Is it as important for spending money for the National Institutes of Health to find the cure for cancer? Is it as important as spending money on our veterans health care system? And particularly in this economy, Mr. Chairman, is it as important as giving tax relief to small business, the job engine in America? And if it raises to that level of importance, I ask one more question, and that is, is it worth borrowing money from the Chinese to send a bill to our children and grandchildren in order to give this improvement for the HVAC at the New York Met? And as great as the museum is, as great as this HVAC system is, Mr. Chairman, I do not think it rises to that level. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated No. 1.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that would strike another earmark. This one is for $500,000. According to the sponsor's Web site, funding would be used by the Borough of South River, New Jersey, to purchase and install automated remote electric and water meters for both of the utilities owned by the borough. These meters would provide bi-directional real-time information to both the utilities and the consumer. Again, not unlike my previous amendments, Mr. Chairman, I will stipulate I assume this is very interesting, useful, cutting-edge kind of stuff for the Borough of South River, New Jersey. I'm sure that this would help the gentleman's constituents. Maybe it will help make them more energy efficient. I will just assume that this is good technology. Again, I assume it's a good use of somebody's money. But I again question, is it a Federal responsibility, number one. Why the citizens of the Borough of South River, New Jersey? Why not the citizens of Provo, Utah; Missoula, Montana, Bangor, Maine; not to mention Mineola, Texas, which happens to be in my district. Should we buy these for every single borough, city, town, village in the Nation? Again, Mr. Chairman, this has to be put in a backdrop of what is going on in our economy today. Since the President took office, what we know, Mr. Chairman, is that unemployment has gone up to 9.5 percent, an increase of just 25 percent since the President has been in office. Since he's been in office, the economy has shed 2.6 million jobs. The public debt has increased 13.66 percent. The Federal deficit now exceeds $1 trillion, $1 trillion for the first time in our entire Nation's history. And so I would again ask my colleagues: Where do you draw the line? Where do you finally say ``no'' to someone's project today so you can say ``yes'' to our children and grandchildren's future tomorrow? I would hope it would be here. I would hope it would be now. Again, like another of my colleagues said, I wish we were talking about savings trillions of dollars today. Frankly, I, as other Members of the Republican side, have offered amendments that would save substantial amounts of money, but a funny thing happened on the way to the Rules Committee. Somehow those--those weren't found in order. And so we don't have the opportunity to debate those amendments on the House floor. So I guess we're left to debate half a million dollar amendments instead of half a trillion dollar amendments like we would like. You know, we've got to remember that dollars have alternative uses, Mr. Chairman. Every dollar that is spent on an automated remote electric water meter for the Borough of South River by the Federal taxpayer is $1--$1 that cannot be spent on cancer research at the National Institutes of Health; cannot be spent for a rural veterans health care clinic; cannot be spent for tax relief for small businesses--the job engine of America. That's the national priority now, is to get the economy moving again. And I just ask, number one, is that a Federal priority? Is it a Federal responsibility? Why not other cities? Again, the critical question at a time where we're tripling the national debt over the next 10 years, is it worth borrowing money from the Chinese and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren? Mr. Chairman, I say ``no.'' I say ``no'' so that I can say ``yes'' to my 5-year-old son's future, my 7-year-old daughter's future, and the future of all the children and great grandchildren of our country. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment designated No. 4.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, again, the Speaker of the House has said previously, in November of 2006, ``I'd just soon do away with all earmarks,'' which begs the question: Why is she bringing at least two of them today? She has also said, ``It is absolutely immoral--immoral for us to heap those deficits on our children.'' Why is she asking us to heap another immoral $6.22 million of debt on our children? It is time to lead by example. I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I saw that the gentleman from New Jersey was lamenting the high energy rates of his constituents. And although I don't have the House Record in front of me, I'm under the impression he recently voted for the national energy tax, which would cost his constituents anywhere from $1,500 to $3,000 a year. Second of all, I believe in the value of demonstration projects as well. My constituents would like a demonstration project of fiscal sanity in the United States Congress. They have yet to see one. Here is a small demonstration project of fiscal sanity on behalf of our children and grandchildren by adopting this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman. May I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that would strike an earmark, also known as pork barrel spending, for Pier 36 removal in San Francisco California, reduce the overall account by $6.22 million. Apparently, Pier 36 is located along the Embarcadero in San Francisco Bay. Apparently, according to San Francisco's Port Authority, which owns the pier, removal of the pier is necessary to begin a new wharf project. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would just ask several different questions about this particular earmark. Although I have no doubt that removal of this pier must be a good thing, I'm kind of curious why the San Francisco Port Authority doesn't pay for it itself. I don't think the Federal Government owns this particular pier. Again, I'm not going to debate that it's not a good use of money. I, again, question whether or not it is a good use of the Federal taxpayer money at this time. Again, Mr. Chairman, this amendment has to be put in context of the spending that goes on around here. Mr. Chairman, sometimes I just think: When will we stop the madness? When will it stop? My Democratic colleagues from across the aisle have now brought us a budget which will triple--triple--the national doubt in 10 years. Triple it, Mr. Chairman. We will run up under their budget more debt-- more debt in the next 10 years than in the previous 220 years of our Republic combined. This is shocking, absolutely shocking. Mr. Chairman, as you well know, for the first time in our Nation's history the Federal deficit has exceeded $1 trillion, and in just 2 years the Federal deficit has increased tenfold. We are borrowing forty-six cents on every dollar--borrowing it from the Chinese, from the Japanese, from the Russians--tin cup in hand, running around the world saying, Please, please, lend me money, because I can't stop spending. I heard one of my colleagues earlier say, Well, you know, this is just nickel and dime kind of stuff. Number one, Mr. Chairman, I hope I'm never in Washington so long that I conclude that $6.22 million of the taxpayer money is not a lot. Now, I know relative to the entirety of the spending explosion that's going on around this place, maybe it's not a huge amount. But, Mr. Chairman, you know, if you don't start saving the pennies and nickels, how will you ever save the dollars? I have seen no attempt around this place to reform Medicare, reform Medicaid, reform Social Security. I mean, I'm told that somehow if we nationalize, federalize health care, that if we have a Federal bureaucrat somehow stand between people's families and their doctors, that somehow that's going to save money, when the Congressional Budget Office says it will cost at least a trillion dollars. And that's just a down payment. I have never known the Federal Government to take something over and somehow it's going to cost less money. Mr. Chairman, this goes to the culture of spending. Unless you change the culture of spending, you're never going to change spending. And so, according to the Web site, this is a request of the Speaker of the House. She can lead by example. More so than any individual in this institution, she can lead by example. In November of 2006, she said, ``You can't have bridges to nowhere for America's children to pay for.'' Well, Mr. Chairman, apparently you can't have piers to nowhere for America's children to pay for. The Speaker of the House once said, ``It's just absolutely immoral-- immoral for us to heap those deficits on our children,'' yet the Speaker of the House will heap an additional $6.22 million of deficit on our children. She, more than anybody else, can lead by example. And I'm disappointed this earmark was brought to us today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated No. 2.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend, the gentlelady, I don't have the honor of representing Fort Worth in the Congress. My constituents appreciate the Kimbell museum. They appreciate the Met. More importantly, they appreciate the fact that they don't want to borrow a half a million dollars from the Chinese and send the bill to their children and grandchildren and future generations. Those are the taxpayers and the citizens of the Fifth District of Texas that I have the honor of representing. Spending is out of control. Let's start somewhere. Let's say ``no'' to somebody today so we can say ``yes'' to our children's future tomorrow. I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have left?