Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I certainly regret I didn't have an opportunity to negotiate a Popsicle with the gentleman from Massachusetts. I am sure that would have been an interesting experience; about as interesting as this experience is in debating a bill which I feel has a lot to do with feel-good politics, a bill that is particularly unworkable, I fear may lead to de facto price controls, and really takes our attention off of the challenge that we face, and that is to increase American production of American energy. As much as Members of Congress might like to do it, in over 200 years I have yet to see the ability to repeal the laws of supply and demand. And so again, I am sure the gentleman from Michigan is very sincere, and I know that he has worked on similar legislation for quite some time, but when we talk about price gouging and an emergency situation, what are we doing to bring down the price of gas at the pump today. Instead, we have a piece of legislation that is going to allow Federal regulators, bureaucrats that according to the gentleman from Massachusetts, appear to be the savior of the Nation, to tell us what is, quote, ``unconscionably excessive,'' and ``taking unfair advantage'' related to ``an energy emergency to increase prices unreasonably.'' So now we are going to have a Federal bureau come in and tell us what are reasonable prices and reasonable situations. The FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, after Katrina researched this issue. They could find very little evidence of it. We have unconscionably high gas prices in America, but it has everything to do with a Congress that wants to put its head in the sand and produce no energy. Our friends from the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, since taking over the energy policy of the Nation, since taking over the economic policy of the Nation 18 months ago, have overseen gas prices that are now 75 percent higher. They have attempted to beg their way, beg OPEC to somehow produce more and bring down the cost of energy. Well, if we can't beg them, maybe we should sue them. We have had legislation to sue OPEC. We are going to sue for lower prices at the pump. Well, if that doesn't work, maybe we can tax. Let's tax oil producers. Well, Mr. Speaker, the only challenge with that is once you tax them, they turn around and put it in the price of the product, and the poor, beleaguered consumer who is going to the convenience store trying to decide do I buy a gallon of milk or do I buy a gallon of gas, he ends up paying for it. I mean, these are policies that are out of the 1970s. President Carter and a Democrat Congress tried them; they failed. We became more dependent using these types of policies on foreign sources of energy.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Houston White on the 60th anniversary of his participation in the establishment of the Rotary Club of Rusk, Texas. If you've ever wondered what made individuals from the ``Greatest Generation'' so exceptional, one must look no further than to Mr. White. Ninety-five years old, Mr. White recalls surviving the Great Depression by spending his days picking cotton in West Texas. During World War II, Mr. White volunteered for the Navy, but that was just the beginning of his volunteerism. Mr. White, a graduate of Jacksonville High School and Jacksonville Baptist College, helped establish the Rotary Club in Rusk, Texas in 1948. Since then, Mr. White has been an active member and was selected to serve as District Governor for Rotary District 5910, one of the highest offices a Rotarian can achieve. Mr. White's public service includes countless civic projects, volunteer efforts, and participation in Rusk city government. In addition, Mr. White has served as a deacon and Sunday school teacher at First Baptist Church. Mr. White is a husband to Freddye Banks Dear, a father to George White, and grandfather to Christopher White. Abraham Lincoln once said, ``In the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years.'' Well, Mr. White has certainly made the past ninety-five years count. Madam Speaker, I am honored to recognize Mr. Houston White as a resident in the fifth district of Texas and would like to thank him for his tireless service to Cherokee County, Texas, and this great nation.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today to honor those defenders of liberty who do not get the honor, the respect, and the recognition that they are due. Because, Madam Speaker, as hard as we try we can never adequately repay those disabled while fighting for our freedom. I am often reminded of a quote from President Calvin Coolidge, who was known as ``Silent Cal'' because he said very little. But when he spoke, people listened. One of the things he said was that ``a nation that forgets its defenders will soon itself be forgotten.'' So, one of the things I try to do as a member of Congress is to ensure that we never forget our defenders of freedom and that I find opportunities to celebrate their achievement and to celebrate their sacrifice. That is why we are here today, to defend disabled veterans for their sacrifice. One quality unique to disabled veterans is the continuous sacrifice they make each and every day. After the war is finished, their battle is not over. These veterans and their families will forever have a reminder of the price they paid for our freedom. Madam Speaker, I am humbled and privileged to represent these individuals in the U.S. House of Representatives and as long as I am serving in this body, I am committed to ensuring that this nation never forgets these heroes.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. HENSARLING. Perhaps the distinguished majority leader could get some additional time on his side. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HENSARLING. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I listened very carefully to the distinguished majority leader, who spoke eloquently on deficit spending. He should know much about it since, under his budget, the Federal Government's long-term financial obligations grew by $2.5 trillion last year, and we now have the single largest increase in the national debt. As I listened carefully to the majority leader, I heard him say much. What I did not hear him deny was that his budget included the single largest tax increase in American history.

Mr. HENSARLING. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the champion against pork barrel spending in the United States, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. HENSARLING. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, it was about 2 weeks ago that the front page of the USA Today publication wrote, ``Taxpayers' Bill Leaps By Trillions.'' The first sentence says, ``The Federal Government's long-term financial obligations grew by $2.5 last year, a reflection of the mushrooming cost of Medicare, Social Security benefits.'' $2.5 trillion, Mr. Speaker, under the Democrat watch imposed upon the next generation. It just so happens that two members of the next generation that I'm very concerned about, my 6-year-old daughter and my 4-year-old son, are in the gallery today. And I take the matter very, very seriously that we have a Democrat budget before us today that is absolutely stone cold silent on the number one threat to their future of greater opportunity and greater freedom. And this budget, this Democrat budget does nothing to reform entitlement spending, to give us greater retirement security and better health care at a more reasonable cost. Mr. Speaker, there is a tale of two budgets here. One, again, is stone cold silent on reforming entitlement spending that threatens to bankrupt future generations, including my children. Let me tell you what it's not silent on. It's not silent on tax increases. This budget includes the single largest tax increase in American history. An average family of four working in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas--that I have the honor of representing--over the course of the next 3 years will see a $3,000-a- year tax increase at a time when they're having to go to the convenience store and making the decision, do I buy a gallon of milk or do I buy a gallon of gas? What does this budget do? It raises taxes on a family of four by $3,000. The elderly will see their taxes go up $2,181. A single parent who has two children could see their taxes go up by over $1,600. People are wondering, how am I going to send my kids to college? How am I going to put gas into the pick-up truck? How are we going to commute the 25 miles to work every day? And what does this budget do, Mr. Speaker? It raises taxes, single largest tax increase in American history. Here's another thing this budget does. It says, you know what? The pork barrel factory is alive and well. Let's just keep it going. Let's let Members of Congress continue to have monuments to themselves. Let's continue to subsidize fashion landscaping in the L.A. fashion district, and let's send the bill to the next generation and let's send it to the taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage, and for the sake of today's taxpayers who are struggling and for the sake of future generations, we must reject this conference report.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize to Dr. Bob Iden for his 11 years of outstanding service to Lake Highlands High School and his community. After graduating from Lake Highlands High School, Dr. Iden attended Kilgore College on a football scholarship and finished his bachelor's and master's degree at North Texas University. Upon graduating, he continued to use his athletic background as a coach and teacher for the Richardson Independent School District for nine years. After working for the administration, Dr. Iden was hired to be the principal at his high school alma mater, Lake Highlands High School. During his eleven years as principal, Dr. Iden's school received numerous honors under his leadership. In 2002, Lake Highlands High School was named a Blue Ribbon School, one of the highest honors a school can receive. In addition to numerous students being named National Merit Scholars, this year one of his students was named a Rhodes Scholar. Dr. Iden has received national recognition in Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report for his achievements, and he has become a tremendously well-respected and valued member of the Lake Highlands community. This year Dr. Iden will retire from his career in education. I would like to wish Dr. Iden the best of luck in his future endeavors. While his time as an educator has come to an end, the results of his hard work will no doubt continue to be seen for generations to come. Madam speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize Dr. Bob Iden for his devotion to education and for helping to shape a brighter future for our community and our country.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I listened to the Speaker of the House who spoke so eloquently about the pain Americans are feeling at the gas pump. She and her party should know a lot about it. They helped cause it. Since the Democrats have been in control here for almost a year and a half, we have seen prices at the pump go up about $1.50 a gallon. A barrel of oil is at the highest price we have ever seen. They have tried to sue their way into lower gas prices. Now they are trying to tax their way into lower gas prices. Yet they never think about producing American energy in America. So now we have the so-called tax extender bills, Mr. Speaker. Well, isn't that an interesting concept. Why is it that spending is forever and grows exponentially, and yet tax relief to hardworking middle- income families is somehow temporary? It just kind of disappears. But the Speaker of the House tells us that this is somehow fiscally responsible. If you read the front page of USA Today 2 days ago, it tells you that under the Democrats' watch we have an extra $2.7 trillion of unfunded obligations that are put upon our children. Apparently the majority leader thinks that is a laughing matter. As the father of a 6-year-old and the father of a 4-year-old, I don't find it too funny. What we have here is we are going to preserve tax relief for some by increasing taxes for others. Again, what an interesting concept. The bottom line is the job creation mechanism of America is taxed, taxed again when people's paychecks are shrinking. This isn't fair. Now some people say, well, these particular provisions need reform. I am happy to reform the Tax Code. I have cosponsored the Taxpayer Choice Act of 2008. I invite my Democrat colleagues to cosponsor it so that we can present a two-tier flat tax system to the American people. But the bottom line is Washington is spending too much, and we don't need another tax increase bill.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. We do need a farm bill, but not a farm bill that forces our neighbors to subsidize this program. Ninety-six percent of the world lives outside of America, and already we had the Democrat majority deny a trade agreement that could have opened up great trading opportunities for agriculture in America. We need a respect for private property rights. We need regulatory relief. When we have an EPA out of control trying to somehow deign animal manure as part of the Superfund hazardous waste site, you know that something is out of control. So our agricultural producers need help. But this is the wrong way to do it. Again, at a time of shrinking paychecks, at a time when $2.5 trillion of burden have been added to our children and grandchildren, why are we keeping alive a relic of the New Deal, not to mention at a time of the highest food inflation in almost two decades. And why we would take money away from some people to hand to millionaires is beyond me. We ought to defeat this conference report.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report, but I certainly want to thank our ranking member for taking a product and making it better. Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago the front page of USA Today talks about taxpayers' bill leaps by billions, long-term financial obligations of the Federal Government grew by $2.5 trillion last year, unfunded obligations that will be placed on our children and grandchildren. Today we have a conference report for a farm bill that is going to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $700 billion. Now, I have heard it said, well, this bill is paid for. Yes, it is paid for. It is paid for by the auto mechanics in Garland, Texas. It is paid for by the guy that sweeps out the grocery store in Mineola. It is paid for by the guy who works at the counter at the hardware store in Canton, Texas, that I have the privilege of representing. We have a farm program that in many ways is at odds with the poster child that is represented. Two-thirds of this bill isn't about agriculture. It is about nutritional programs, welfare programs, food stamps. And of the money that is going to agricultural production, two- thirds of agricultural production is not getting anything. And yet some of this money is going, as we know, to millionaires, at a time when middle-income family paychecks are shrinking. Now, I must admit, Mr. Speaker, this is a debate that is somewhat personal to me. I grew up working on a family farm. I come from three generations of farmers. No one sought a subsidy from their neighbor. No one gave a subsidy. You can make a living in agriculture without asking your neighbor to give you a check. We do need a farm bill, but what needs to be in a farm bill is tax relief, to prevent taxes from being increased. We need an end to the death tax. We need to increase trade opportunities. We could be exporting good Texas beef right now to Colombia.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize to Captain Curtis Fitzgerald for his distinguished military service and service to Texas veterans. In 1969, Captain Fitzgerald began what has become a life-long service to his nation. Just thirty days after completing flight school, Captain Fitzgerald went to Vietnam with the 189th Assault Helicopter Company to fly Huey Helicopters. Captain Fitzgerald fought in major battles such as the Battle of Hamburger Hill, where he flew multiple re-supply missions and was shot down for the first time, but certainly not the last time. During the Siege of Ben Het, Captain Fitzgerald's aircraft received 103 bullet holes during another re-supply mission. Despite the damage, he managed to complete the mission without a single casualty. In the 1600 hours he flew during combat, Captain Fitzgerald was shot down a total of six times. In addition to serving as a Flight Leader, Captain Fitzgerald served as the Air Mission Commander for the initial invasion of Cambodia. It was during the on-going Long-Range Reconnaissance Patrols into Cambodia and Laos that Captain Fitzgerald was shot down again, this time while helping to identify enemy positions. He managed to not only identify their position, but return the damaged aircraft back to safety. Captain Fitzgerald went above and beyond his call to duty when he volunteered to extend his deployment for six more months to ensure the incoming units had adequate experience. Considering all this, it is no wonder Captain Fitzgerald received a Silver Star medal, three Distinguished Flying Cross medals, three Bronze Star medals, nineteen Air medals, and one Purple Heart for his tour in Vietnam. After completing his degree at the University of Houston, Captain Fitzgerald returned to Palestine, but his dedication to the military did not end. He has continued to work closely with the Veterans Administration, various Veterans Service Organizations, and has worked extensively with Palestine-area Post Traumatic Stress Disorder support groups. Fellow men and women in uniform tout Captain Fitzgerald's dedication to ensuring that those returning from war receive assistance. In addition to his service-related activities, Captain Fitzgerald started a real estate firm specializing in farm and ranch sales, served on the Parks and Recreation Board, the YMCA Board, and founded the Anderson County Soccer Association. He is a husband to his wife of twenty-eight years, Karen, and a grandfather to two grandsons. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am humbled and privileged to recognize Captain Curtis Fitzgerald. As Calvin Coolidge once said, ``The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten.'' I for one am committed to ensuring this nation never forgets.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Again, it's a travesty that we are on this floor yet again expecting our fighting men and women to carry other spending on their backs while they're trying to preserve our freedom. We've seen it before. There ought to be a clean up-or-down vote: do you support our troops; do you not support our troops. Now as the ranking member said, Mr. Buyer from Indiana, we all support an increase in GI benefits. But do you want to do it in such a way that the Secretary of Defense and the Commander in Chief says compromises our all-volunteer Army? I am the son, I am the grandson, I am the brother of veterans. I honor these people. But to harm our all- volunteer Army is not the way to do it. And then we have heard lectures about well, we have to pay for it. Well, why yesterday did this body hand out Federal subsidies to millionaire farmers and then today turn around and try and tax them. A tax on small businesses is the way we're going to pay for this? It's absurd.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Again I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for coming here tonight to participate in this Special Order and to try to stand up for the hardworking middle-income American families that are seeing their paychecks shrink. And one of the great reasons their paychecks are getting ready to shrink even further is because of a budget resolution conference report passed today that includes the single largest tax increase in American history, passed courtesy of the Democrat majority that will pose a $3,000 average tax increase on a family of four of America while they are struggling to fill up their cars and while they are struggling to put food on the table. Why are taxes having to be increased? Well, Madam Speaker, part of the reason is because of the culture of spending fueled by these wasteful, pork barrel spending earmarks. They continue to proliferate and explode under the Democrats. I mean, what kinds of earmarks are the American taxpayer having to pay for? Well, one includes a monument that a single Member of Congress decided to dedicate to himself. It's called the monument to me, to benefit the chairman in the House Ways and Means Committee, Charles Rangel. Let me quote from the Wall Street Journal. ``New York's Charlie Rangel provided smirks this week when news emerged that the Harlem congressman was humbly seeking a $2 million earmark to celebrate the `Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service' at the City College of New York,'' that much money so that one Member of Congress can build a monument to himself. These are tax increases on hard-working American families so that Democrat Members of Congress can build monuments to themselves. Here is another one, let me quote from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. ``Representative Mike Doyle, a Forest Hills Democrat and staunch Murtha ally is an eager apprentice. One major achievement is the Doyle Center for Manufacturing Technology based in South Oakland. Mr. Doyle helped launch the center with a $1.5 million grant.'' Interesting. Here is another monument to another Democrat Member of Congress, and the list goes on and on and on. Now, as the gentlelady from North Carolina said, not every earmark is bad, but the system is bad. The system fuels a culture of spending that is bankrupting hard-working American families as they are struggling to make that paycheck stretch. It is waste. It's an insult to these families to abuse their earnings in such a fashion. I am very happy tonight also to see that we have been joined by one of the great conservative leaders in America, a former chairman of the House conservative caucus known as the Republican Study Committee and somebody who has been a mentor to me, a man I am proud to call my friend. I am happy now to yield time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, we come tonight to speak about the subject of pork barrel spending at a time when hardworking, middle- income American families are having to cut back on their spending. They're having to cut back on their spending because their paychecks are shrinking; they're shrinking with the high cost of energy; they're shrinking because of the high cost of food. Since the Democrat majority took control of the economic policies of our Nation almost 18 months ago, gasoline has now approached $4 a gallon. Milk is already over $4 a gallon. And all over America people are driving to their convenience stores or driving to their grocery stores, making a decision about gasoline and milk. It's tough times for hardworking, struggling, middle-income families. And yet, the Democrat majority, in their Budget Resolution, the conference report--which, of course, is the agreement between the Senate and the House--their budget today was passed that included a tax increase on these very same families of $3,000 for the average family of four to be phased in over the next 3 years, Madam Speaker. Again, while they're struggling to send their kids to college, struggling to make their mortgage payments, struggling to fill up their cars, this is what's happened. Well, what is fueling the tax increase that the Democrat majority has imposed upon middle-income families throughout our Nation? Well, there's a culture of spending. They presented a budget that represents the highest amount spent in the history of America. There is a culture of spending, and it is fueled by irresponsible pork barrel spending, also known as ``earmarks.'' Now, when the Democrat majority was in the minority, they made a number of promises. They said earmarks were out of control under the Republican majority. And Madam Speaker, you know, to some extent they were right. But this is a Republican Conference that has learned its lesson. But commitments were made by the Democrat majority that have not been kept. First of all, the Speaker of the House said we're going to come and we're going to cut earmarks in half. But instead, Madam Speaker, what did we get? Last year, 11,610 items of pork barrel spending put into spending bills by the Democrat majority, the second highest level ever in American history, totaling approximately $17 billion. Now, some people say, well, $17 billion isn't a whole lot of money. Well, Madam Speaker, I hope I'm never in Washington so long that I think $17 billion is not a lot of money. Millions of Americans could pay their annual gasoline bills with the money that's being spent on the pork barrel spending in Washington, DC. That's enough money to preserve the child tax credit, which under the Budget Resolution passed by the Democrat majority is going to disappear. And so I think that is a lot of money. And not only is it a lot of money, it represents waste. And too often what we see in this pork barrel spending promulgated by the Democrat majority is that we see a triumph of secrecy over transparency, and we see a triumph of the special interests over the national interests, and we see a triumph of seniority and privilege over merit. Now, again, the Democrat majority said they were going to do things differently. Madam Speaker, then minority leader, now Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in USA Today that there has to be transparency. ``I would just as soon do away with all the earmarks,'' right here, USA Today, late 2006. And instead, if we read the spending bills, what we find out is, out of 435 Members of Congress, she's in the top 20, top 20 of pork barrel spending. Then, chairman of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, Rahm Emanuel, said, ``Well, for far too long business as usual has involved individual Members doling out favors in appropriations and other bills through earmarks. The American people deserve to know more than who sponsored special interest legislation. They deserve earmark reform that puts an end to special interest earmarking and prevents the practice of earmark abuse.'' Now, Madam Speaker, that's what they said before they became the majority party here. But what do we see now? And don't just take my word for it, but let's look at what just happened today. Today, as the farm bill was passed, what do we have in there? We have, again, pork barrel spending that apparently appears out of nowhere. We have slush funds for ski slopes. We had the language slipped by the Democrat majority into the farm bill that would benefit a Democrat Senator in Vermont. It would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service to sell portions of the Green Mountain National Forest exclusively to the Bromley Ski Resort. And the ski resort advertises, ``Bromley's grooming and snowmaking are second to none, and with our 44 trails of varied terrain, from treed glades & true New England cruisers to sun soft expert mogul fields, everyone in your family will be smiling all day long.'' Well, Madam Speaker, I'm not sure the American people, who have to put up with this kind of earmark abuse, I don't think they're smiling. Now, maybe the people who own the Bromley Ski Resort in Vermont, they're smiling, you know, they got a nice little deal in the agricultural bill. Then we had a quarter of a billion dollars slipped in for the Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Max Baucus, to help the Plum Creek Timber Company in Montana sell a parcel of land to the environmental group called The Nature Conservancy. Now, technically, they get to claim a $250 million tax refund even though they're a nonprofit institution and they don't actually pay taxes. Now, the language was quite careful, Madam Speaker. It was very careful and clever. They wrote this language, they didn't name this particular earmark, but they wrote it in such a way that it only applies to one parcel of land in the entire United States of America, and that is that belonging to the Plum Creek Timber Company in Montana. And then, Madam Speaker, we have $170 million for the salmon earmark requested apparently by our own Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. Clearly, there is something fishy in the farm bill. Now, we were told again that we wouldn't have these earmarks, this pork barrel spending that just kind of drops down from the heavens in these conference reports. We never had a chance to vote on this in the House, Madam Speaker, it just kind of drops down. And so for a Speaker who is supposed to lead by example, who tells the American people that she would just as soon do without earmarks, that she wants an open and ethical and transparent process to slip a $170 million fishy earmark into the farm bill, this is something the American people need to know. Why are their taxes being raised by $3,000 per family of four over the next 3 years? Well, part of the reason is, Madam Speaker, to pay $170 million for the salmon earmark in the farm bill, to help subsidize the Plum Creek Timber Company, to help the Bromley Ski Resort. So much for cleaning up the earmark process. You know, we were also told that there certainly wouldn't be any more secrecy in this earmark process. You know, the former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee told us that. Yet, that's not the case. Let me quote from the New York Times, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought, on one of the bills that came to this floor last year. ``Despite promises by Congress to end the secrecy of earmarks and other pet projects, the House of Representatives has quietly funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to specific hospitals and health care providers.'' ``Instead of naming the hospitals, the bill describes them in cryptic terms so that identifying a beneficiary is like solving a riddle. Most of the provisions were added to the bill at the request of Democrat law makers.'' ``Some Republicans have complained about what they call `hospital pork.' '' This is the New York Times reporting this. This, from a Democrat majority who said there would be no more secrecy. And instead, out of all the hospitals throughout the Nation that I'm sure can all use help, somehow the special privilege and secret pork barrel process practiced by the Democrat majority manages to somehow favor a special privileged few and does it in a cryptic secret manner. One more reason that hardworking, middle-income families who are trying to get that paycheck to go a little further are instead seeing that paycheck shrink to pay for more Democratic pork. And, Madam Speaker, I'm very happy tonight that I am joined by one of the great leaders of fiscal responsibility in this House, one of the most principled Members, one of the most active Members, one of the most courageous Members that I have met in my congressional career. And I am proud that he is a fellow member of the conservative caucus, the Republican Study Committee, a man I am proud to call my friend. And at this time, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price, for his comments.

Mr. HENSARLING. You know, it's interesting, we sit here and assume that a lot of people know what an earmark is and what pork barrel spending is. Probably the best way to define it is money that Congress takes out of their pocket to give to a specific entity that doesn't have to be competitively bid. It can go to one particular corporation. It can go to only one entity, and it doesn't go through any competitive bidding process whatsoever. As the gentleman said, well, some Members of Congress say I know my district the best, and I am supposed to bring the pork home. Well, the people in the Fifth District of Texas, they are not so interested in me bringing the bacon home, they want to make sure that Congress doesn't take it out of their smokehouse in the first place. As the gentleman ably points out, when somebody is getting something for nothing, there is somebody else who is getting something for nothing.

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for joining us tonight. And, again, I thank him for his leadership here in the House of Representatives in the area of earmark reform, clearly one of the great champions against pork barrel spending and for family spending. Again, Madam Speaker, I think it's important for us to reflect upon what the Democrat majority said they were going to do and what they have actually done. One of the prominent Members of the Democrat leadership, the gentleman from Illinois, who was, in the last election, the chairman of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, where his job, obviously, is to find things for the Democrats to say to get elected. Well, one of the things that he said on behalf of the Democrat Party was, ``For far too long, business as usual has involved individual Members doling out favors in appropriations and other bills through earmarks. The American people deserve to know more than who sponsored special interest legislation. They deserve earmark reform that puts an end to special interest earmarking.'' But yet, Madam Speaker, the system appears to be alive and well. Now that the Democrats have become the majority party, what do we figure out? Well, let's read from a recent column in the New York Times dated January of this year: ``Representative John Murtha has procured eye-popping chunks of pork for contractors that he helped put in business in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Every one of the 26 beneficiaries of Mr. Murtha's earmarks in last year's defense budget made contributions to his campaign kitty, a total of $413,250, according to the newspaper Roll Call.'' This is the New York Times. Again, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought. Now, Madam Speaker, I'm not here to imply that there is anything illegal about that activity. I'm not here to even imply that this in any way, shape, or form breaches House ethics rules. Now, perhaps it should. Maybe that's a debate for a different day. But you know what, Madam Speaker? It doesn't pass the taxpayer smell test. It doesn't do what the Democrats claimed they would do when they were in the minority. And now that they've been elected to the majority, now that they've controlled this institution for almost 18 months, they are not practicing what they are preaching. Here's another example. I quote from the newspaper Roll Call: ``A new political action committee, BEST PAC, created by the brother of House Intelligence Committee Chair Representative Silvestre Reyes, raised $50,000 this spring almost entirely from staff and clients of powerhouse lobbying shop PMA Group, and within weeks those same donors reaped millions of dollars in earmarks from Reyes and other Members of Congress closely affiliated with PMA . . . Most of the donations were made on May 7, 4 days before the intelligence panel approved the 2008 intelligence authorization bill, which included earmarks for several donors to the PAC . . . '' Again, Madam Speaker, I don't imply that this was illegal. I don't imply that this somehow breached House ethics rules. And I'm familiar with the gentleman from Texas, and I believe him to be an honorable gentleman. But far too often what the American citizen sees is he sees his paycheck shrinking to pay for earmarks so that some Member of Congress can preserve his paycheck. And at a time when they are struggling to fill up their gas tanks, at a time when they are struggling to put bread on the table, it is an outrage, it is an outrage that this pork barrel spending continues on. And, unfortunately, Madam Speaker, what we are seeing under the Democrat majority is Members of Congress passing pork barrel spending, earmarks, whether recipients get it, and I guess they're showing their gratitude, and all of a sudden they come up with a campaign donation, and then the campaign donation ends up inuring to the benefit of that particular Member of Congress, and the cycle goes on and on and on. And, again, it may be legal. It may pass the House ethics test. It does not pass the American taxpayer smell test. And even though I've been a Member of Congress now for almost 6 years, I haven't lost my ability to be outraged, and this, Madam Speaker, is outrageous. And now I'm very happy to say, Madam Speaker, that we have been joined by a distinguished member of our leadership, the chief deputy whip, a great leader in the earmark reform movement in the House, a man I am also very proud to call my friend, and I would be happy to yield now to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule. I find it fascinating that our Speaker, when she became our Speaker, said that we were going to have the most open democratic Congress in the history of America, and yet we have a rule coming to the floor that doesn't even allow dissenting voices to speak in general debate. Our Speaker also at one time said the 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard, pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. But instead, we waive the PAYGO rule. And we baseline shop. I know that's inside baseball, but as the gentleman from California said, it's kind of like deciding you're going to pay last year's gasoline prices. Well, I wish we could do that. And now we have the whole question of earmarks. Our Speaker at one time said that she would just as soon do without earmarks. Instead what we have are airdropped earmarks, secret earmarks coming in in a conference report that nobody can challenge, including one, apparently, according to press reports, that was requested by none other than the Speaker of the House. And so for all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, this rule ought to be defeated. This is too important of legislation to come before us to be treated in such a frivolous manner. Now, let's talk about the matter at hand, the actual substance of the bill. At a time when we're looking at some of the worst food inflation in the last two decades, what do we have coming before us, Mr. Speaker? A bill that will pay out billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies to a select group of farmers. You know, it kind of begs the question, Mr. Speaker: Why do we have a farm subsidy program? You know, I'm thinking about all the people who are going to have to pay these billions of dollars in taxes to subsidize a select group of farmers. You know, I think about the auto mechanic in Mesquite, Texas; I think about the guy working at the grocery store in Mineola, Texas; I think about the school teacher or the factory worker in Garland; where is their government subsidy program? Why are we bestowing billions of dollars in subsidies on this one select group? This is a relic of the New Deal. We are paying out money to millionaires. We are teaching more people to be reliant upon government programs. Now, Mr. Speaker, we need a farm program. We just don't need a farm subsidy program. Let me tell you what farmers in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas that I have the honor of representing need. They need some relief in their energy cost. The energy that it takes to run their tractors, their combines, their farm equipment, and the cost of diesel, they need some relief there.

Mr. HENSARLING. And yet there is absolutely nothing that our friends do on the other side of the aisle to produce any American energy, to get us any more independent, to have independent American energy. Also, we benefit one set of farmers at the cost of another. This continues the ethanol mandates. It continues the tariff on imported ethanol. Now, if you've got a bunch of corn growers, it may be very good for them. I would say they're in high cotton, but I guess they're in high corn. But it's not too good for the cattle raisers, not too good for the poultry people. It's not too good for the hog farmers or the other livestock people who are all of a sudden seeing their feed prices almost triple. What are we doing for them? Then let's talk about trade. Ninety-six percent of the world's consumers live outside of America, and yet this is an anti-trade Congress under Democrat leadership. You had the Colombian Trade Agreement totally one way. Farmers and ranchers want to export, and they're being disallowed the opportunity to do that.

Mr. HENSARLING. So we need a farm bill that promotes trade, Mr. Speaker. Next, we need death tax relief for our farmers and ranchers. Somebody in the Fifth Congressional District worked his whole life building a farm and told me, ``Congressman, after the government takes theirs, there's just not enough to go around.'' You shouldn't work your whole life building a family farm only to have Uncle Sam take 55 percent. We need income tax relief. That's what a farm bill needs to help the true agricultural producers. Not a subsidy program, an assistance program for those who work hard.