Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and this is a very important issue for this body to take up. Again, the term ``discharge petition,'' what does it mean? It is something that shouldn't be necessary. What it says is we are asking Members to have the leadership schedule a vote on this bill so that the Democrats can't roll back the transparency and accountability reforms that the Republicans put in at the end of the last Congress. Again, we are talking about porkbarrel spending here. Every single leader of the Democrat Party claimed they wanted more accountability. They wanted more transparency, and then they go and exempt two-thirds of the spending in what we call authorizing. So they left out huge categories of this. But we shouldn't be surprised because right after the election, when they were bringing spending bills to the floor, they actually wanted us to vote on the spending bill and then later, only later were they going to tell us what the earmarks were in the bill. They tried to hide them from us. We brought that to the attention of the American people and the American people said no. And we enjoyed a victory. Fiscal conservatives made the Democrats at least make good on that pledge and bring this transparency and accountability back here. So this is a very important effort of the Republicans in the House, and we hope we will be joined by the Democrats who claim that they are committed to fiscal responsibility, who claim that they want to have earmark reform. They complained that the Republican earmark reforms didn't go far enough, and yet they rolled them back. All we are saying is bring us what we had at the end of the last Congress.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I certainly thank him for his leadership in this area. If I could paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program. And certainly the legislation that comes before us today helps prove this. When TRIA was brought to the floor, and I, admittedly, was not here but I have read the Record, supposedly it was to be a temporary program at a time of great economic hardship to our Nation. I just heard the gentlewoman from New York speak very eloquently on the subject. But I recall from the Record her own words: ``We are simply working to keep our economy on track with a short-term program that addresses the new terrorist threat.'' Now we are being asked for a 15-year extension on what has already been a 5-year program. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, who is now our chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee: ``We wisely designed the TRIA Act as a temporary backstop to get our Nation through a period of economic uncertainty until the private sector could develop models.'' Now, maybe those on the other side of the aisle have a different definition of ``temporary.'' I was here to vote for the TRIA extension, and I voted for it. I thought that the market needed some time to develop. But let's face it. If we vote for this, we are voting for a permanent, a de facto permanent, huge government insurance program on top of those that we already have, none of which, none of which, are financially sound. And we have to remember when we are hearing debate on the floor about how critical it is in the fight against terror that we have terrorism reinsurance. I believe terrorism reinsurance is important, but I think even more important in fighting terror is prevention, ensuring it doesn't happen in the first place. And yet we have Member after Member after Member on the other side of the aisle that would make it more difficult for our government to monitor the conversations of suspected terrorists. We have Member after Member on the other side of the aisle voting to assure that a portion of our intelligence budget, to paraphrase the former Director of the CIA, goes to spying on bugs and bunnies instead of terrorists. Prevention is what is key in the fight against this terror. Now, of course, reinsurance is important, and, again, as I said, I voted for another extension. But to hear those on the other side of the aisle, they would say, well, there is no way that the market can develop this. I'm not sure I agree with that, and I know that the President's working group on financial markets doesn't agree with that. They say that the availability and affordability of terrorism risk insurance has improved since the terrorist attacks. Despite increases in risk retentions under TRIA, insurers have allocated additional capacity to terrorism risk, prices have declined, and take-up rates have increased. And let me quote here from this working group: ``The presence of subsidized Federal reinsurance through TRIA appears to negatively affect the emergence of private reinsurance capacity because it dilutes demand for private sector reinsurance.'' Now, the chairman, whom I certainly respect, and he is entitled to his own opinions, he doesn't believe the market could ever develop. Well, I would respectfully say to our chairman: How are we ever going to know? How are we ever going to know when you are giving away something for free that the market otherwise would charge for and all of the signs are there that the market can develop? Some tell us this is a new risk that we don't know how to model for. Well, there was a time when the insurance industry didn't know how to model for airline catasrophes. They didn't know how to model for data processing collapses. And this is not the first time in our Nation's history that we have faced great threats. How did we model the Cold War when thousands of nuclear arms were pointed at us and somehow construction still took place in America? Construction has taken place in New York based upon a 3-year extension, not a de facto permanent extension, but based on a 3-year extension with higher deductibles and with less government subsidy. So I don't believe that building is going to come to a complete stop. But if there is a market failure, we could have worked on a bipartisan basis for something restricted that was temporary, dealing with nuclear, chemical, and biological, with large deductibles and large industry retentions. Instead, we are going to create a massive new insurance program that threatens the taxpayer, another great threat to this Nation. We should oppose this bill.

Mr. HENSARLING

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, either there is a surplus or there is not a surplus. It is really that simple. So now the question is if there is a surplus, what do you do with it. We believe that surplus ought to go back to the people who paid for it in the first place. And if it is not going to go back to them, it ought to serve them and it should ensure the solvency of this program, since we know Uncle Sam's track record on just about every other Federal insurance program is terrible. This should ensure the solvency of the program. We do not need a funding mechanism for another housing program that does not exist on top of the 90, many of which are not working. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, recently the Democrat majority in this institution sought to create yet another new government housing program, the Affordable Housing Fund. This is on top of the roughly 80 other programs that HUD administers for Housing and Urban Development. So, Madam Chairman, we are being asked today in the underlying bill to fund a new program, without terminating any of the other 80-some-odd programs that are presently on the books; although many have already achieved their mission, many are ineffective, many are duplicative and many are quite costly. Madam Chairman, the so-called Affordable Housing Fund, as designed, will grant moneys to States for a variety of purposes. I know that the purposes are noble, but many of us believe that, unfortunately, this could become a de facto housing slush fund. I furthermore note, as moneys are handed to the States, almost every State in our Union is presently running a surplus, yet we regrettably know the Federal Government continues to run a deficit. So how much sense does this make? For those who tell us that the Federal housing function is underfunded, I might note that according to OMB, in a little over 10 years we have gone from $15.4 billion to $30 billion, roughly double. That rate is higher than the increase in veterans spending, education spending, energy spending, transportation spending, international affairs, and even Social Security over the same period. Although the House has passed this ill-conceived program, there has been no Senate action. The President has signed no bill. So we are being asked, Madam Chairman, to fund a program that doesn't even exist, when hardworking Americans can't even fund the roughly 10,000 Federal programs that are already on the books. My amendment is a simple one. It would remove this funding mechanism in this bill for the so-called Affordable Housing Fund. The funding mechanism shouldn't be in this bill. It has nothing to do with fundamentally reforming FHA. And the bill siphons money from the FHA through what I believe and many of us believe to be a back-door tax on the FHA premiums paid by 4.8 million families that are using FHA insurance. It does this by diverting part of the increase from a negative credit subsidy. To try to speak English here, it appears that people are overpaying their premiums. If so, maybe that money ought to go back to the people who paid the premiums in the first place. I know the creation of the fund has been a long-time goal for Chairman Frank. I appreciate his sincerity, and I appreciate the nobility of his purpose and his ideological consistency. But the fact remains that this is a back-door tax on low- and moderate-income Americans who use FHA. This funding provision is unnecessary, it is unwise, it is unsound. The money ought to go back to the people who paid it. And if that is not the will of the House, it should at least, at least, be used for those who paid the premiums in the first place. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I certainly thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for leading this hour. I want to thank the other members of the Republican Study Committee, the House's conservative caucus, for lending their voice here. In the remaining time, I just want to make a couple of points, and that is, we see every night the cost of fighting this war, and it is a heavy cost. It's a heavy cost in terms of money and, much more importantly, lives. But we need to again remember the cost of losing this war and what that could mean and how serious the threat is. I was home during the August recess, got to spend time not only with my wife and children, but with my parents. My mother reminded me of something that she said from time to time, and that is, sometimes life is full of lousy options. And yes, fighting this war is costly. But losing this war could be even costlier if Iraq becomes what Afghanistan once was, under the Taliban, a breeding ground, a training ground for terrorists that are bent on hurting our country. And we have to remember these are people who have said they have the right to kill 4 million Americans. Two million of them are children and two of those 2 million are mine. We have to remember what the cost of defeat is. So we finally have signs for cautious optimism. We all need to have an open mind when the report comes in.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor the Murchison and LaPoyner Independent School Districts in Henderson County, Texas for excellence in education. Education is a fundamental part of the development of our Nation's youth. The Texas Education Agency recently released the 2007 annual performance ratings for schools across Texas. It is notable that the Murchison and LaPoyner school districts were able to increase their rating to ``recognized''--which is the second-highest possible rating. Their performance illustrates the commitment and dedication of the administrators, teachers, and staff who provide students with a quality education. In particular, I would like to recognize the work of Superintendents Scott Beene and Eugene Buford. Madam Speaker, as the Representative for Henderson County, I would like to commend the Murchison and LaPoyner Independent School Districts for their continued achievements in education.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor the Mabank Independent School District in Kaufman County, Texas for excellence in education. Education is a fundamental part of the development of our nation's youth. The Texas Education Agency recently released the 2007 annual performance ratings for schools across Texas. It is notable that the Mabank Independent School District was able to maintain its rating of ``recognized''--which is the second-highest possible rating. Their performance illustrates the commitment and dedication of the administrators, teachers, and staff who provide students with a quality education. In particular, I would like to recognize the work of Superintendent Russell Marshall. Madam Speaker, as the representative for Kaufman County, I would like to commend the Mabank Independent School District for its continued achievements in education.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor Mr. Robert Ayers Gould, Sr. on the occasion of his retirement after twelve years of service on the City Council of Athens, Texas, where he has overseen many projects benefiting his community. After graduating from Athens High School in 1957, Robert joined the United States Navy where he served aboard the USS Coral Sea. Following an Honorable Discharge, he returned to Athens where he opened the Gould Insurance Agency in 1962, which he has owned and operated for over forty years. Among his many civic activities, Robert has been the Director and Vice-President of the Athens Chamber of Commerce, Co-Founder of the Texas High School Basketball Hall of Fame, and the Charter Director for the Henderson County YMCA. He has also received many awards from his community including the Roadhand Award from the Texas Highway Commission and the Athens Citizen of the Year Award in 1984. Robert is married to Mrs. Peggy Lorene Lubben Gould, and they have four children: Robert Jr., Joseph, Patricia, and Mary. Madam Speaker, as the representative of the City of Athens, Texas, it is my pleasure to congratulate Mr. Robert Ayers Gould, Sr. on his retirement from the City Council.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor the Richardson and Sunnyvale Independent School Districts in Dallas County, Texas for excellence in education. Education is a fundamental part of the development of our Nation's youth. The Texas Education Agency recently released the 2007 annual performance ratings for schools across Texas. It is notable that Richardson Independent School District was able to maintain its rating of ``recognized''--which is the second-highest possible rating--and the Sunnyvale Independent School District was able to increase its rating to ``exemplary''--which is the highest possible rating. Their performance illustrates the commitment and dedication of the administrators, teachers, and staff who provide students with a quality education. In particular, I would like to recognize the work of Superintendents David Simmons and Doug Williams. Madam Speaker, as a representative for Dallas County, I would like to commend the Richardson and Sunnyvale Independent School Districts for their continued achievements in education.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor the Canton, Martins Mill, and Fruitvale Independent School Districts in Van Zandt County, Texas for excellence in education. Education is a fundamental part of the development of our Nation's youth. The Texas Education Agency recently released the 2007 annual performance ratings for schools across Texas. It is notable that the Canton, Martins Mill, and Fruitvale Independent School Districts were able to maintain their rating of ``recognized''--which is the second- highest possible rating. Their performance illustrates the commitment and dedication of the administrators, teachers, and staff who provide students with a quality education. In particular, I would like to recognize the work of Superintendents Jerome Stewart, Todd Schneider, and Bruce Congleton. Madam Speaker, as the representative for Van Zandt County, I would like to commend the Canton, Martins Mill, and Fruitvale Independent School Districts for their continued achievements in education.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I would like to honor the Johnson Chapel A.M.E. Church in Malakoff, TX, as they celebrate more than a century of worship. The Johnson Chapel A.M.E. Church has a very storied past. It was first organized in a creek bottom on Abe Johnson's Farm in 1897 and has experienced many changes in more than a century of existence. Six months after its inception, the congregation constructed their first permanent structure. Oak planks nailed to blocks were used as benches and lighting was provided by kerosene lanterns. The Church would move to a new location on a nearby farm in 1915 and continue to meet in that location until 1926. In that year the congregation was forced to divide due to the threat of flooding as well as poorly constructed roads, which made travel to the church difficult. The remaining members stayed until 1938, when they moved to their present location. In 1944 and then again in 1968, the church was destroyed by inclement weather; however, after each misfortune the congregation was able to band together and rebuild. Today, the Johnson Chapel A.M.E. Church continues to worship and serve the community of Malakoff. In September of 2005, the congregation saw another milestone when they appointed the Reverend Cynthia Cole as their first female pastor. Madam Speaker, as the representative of Malakoff, TX, it is my honor to congratulate the Johnson Chapel A.M.E. Church for its more than one hundred years of existence as a place of worship.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor the Cayuga, Elkhart, Frankston, and Neches Independent School Districts in Anderson County, Texas for excellence in education. Education is a fundamental part of the development of our Nation's youth. The Texas Education Agency recently released the 2007 annual performance ratings for schools across Texas. It is notable that the Cayuga, Elkhart, Frankston, and Neches Independent School Districts were able to maintain their rating of ``recognized''--which is the second-highest possible rating. Their performance illustrates the commitment and dedication of the administrators, teachers, and staff who provide students with a quality education. In particular, I would like to recognize the work of Superintendents Rick Webb, Glenn Hambrick, Austin Thacker, and Randy Snider. Madam Speaker, as the representative for Anderson County, I would like to commend the Cayuga, Elkhart, Frankston, and Neches Independent School Districts for their continued achievements in education.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor the Alba- Golden Independent School District in Wood County, Texas for excellence in education. Education is a fundamental part of the development of our Nation's youth. The Texas Education Agency recently released the 2007 annual performance ratings for schools across Texas. It is notable that the Alba-Golden school district was able to maintain its rating of ``recognized''--which is the second-highest possible rating. Their performance illustrates the commitment and dedication of the administrators, teachers, and staff who provide students with a quality education. In particular, I would like to recognize the work of Superintendent Bill Steward. Madam Speaker, as the representative for Wood County, I would like to commend the Alba-Golden Independent School District for its continued achievements in education.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor the Mesquite Independent School District's new teachers for the 2007-2008 school year. An excellent education is fundamental to the growth and development of our Nation's youth. With over 35,000 children in the Mesquite community, it is imperative that we continue to acquire high-quality teachers. As a father of 2 young children, I understand and appreciate the impact teachers have on the lives of our children. We are gratefully indebted to them for enriching the lives of our students. Our teachers can make a difference in the lives of each and every child they teach. As the Congressional representative of Mesquite, Texas, it is my distinct pleasure to honor Mesquite's newest teachers in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership. I know of no other Member who is kinder or wiser than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), and I appreciate that. I also appreciate the earlier comments of the gentleman from Georgia who sits beside me. I want to assure, Mr. Speaker, all the people of Georgia that he is one of the great leaders of fiscal conservativism in this body, and his fellow fiscal conservatives understand if he is wrong once a year. I somewhat reluctantly rise in opposition to this conference report. The goals contained within this conference report are very lofty goals. I know that many good things could be done with this money and that there are many good programs contained within it. But I have to ask a most inconvenient question, which I frequently find myself asking on this House floor: How are you going to pay for it? Mr. Speaker, we continue to run deficit, which means now, by definition, when you are running a deficit, the first money is coming from raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. Is this program worth that? I have Members coming to the floor to decry, well, we are borrowing money from China. Well, if you are floating T-bills and they are buying that debt, yes, then you are borrowing money from China. Is this worth borrowing money from China? We know within the budget resolution passed by the Democrat majority, it contains the single largest tax increase in American history, which, over the course of 5 years, can amount to a $3,000 per American family tax burden. Is that where we are going to take the money from? Mr. Speaker, there are already 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 agencies; and since I have been here for almost 5 years, we are adding them at an alarming rate, and I see very few go away. How are we going to pay for it? We are on the road right now to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living if we don't correct our spending ways. Let's get rid of some of the old programs before we add some new programs, no matter how worthy they may be.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise to oppose this particular bill. But before I do, I do want to say I think there are a number of good things, a number of good provisions in the bill. As one who has come to the floor on numerous occasions to attempt to champion fiscal responsibility and earmark reform, I do take note that under the chairwoman's leadership, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, that the number of earmarks are actually reduced in this bill. I consider that progress, and she should be commended for that. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I also note that the bill increases spending over last year by 5.9 percent, 5.9 percent. Now the people who are ultimately going to be called to pay for this bill, my guess is their salaries didn't go up 5.9 percent. And I know throughout this debate we always point out all the good things that are in the bill, and occasionally we have to point out this very inconvenient question, and that is, who's going to pay for it all? Who's going to pay for it all? Right now, the Federal Government is still spending roughly $23,000 per family. It's one of the largest levels in our Nation's history and the largest since World War II. Although it's down, the deficit is still very high, and Member after Member comes to the floor to decry raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, but we know if we're going to grow the Federal budget, including this bill, way beyond the growth of the family budget, that you continue to raid the Social Security Trust Fund. Members come to this floor to decry borrowing money from China to pay for the national debt, but, again, if we increase this spending 5.9 percent, it's exactly what this body is going to do. Now, we've already had a robust debate over the farm bill last week, and I know that many provisions in this bill will help rural America, and as one who represents six rural east Texas counties, I'm glad for that. As somebody who comes from three generations of people who made their living from agriculture, I appreciate the challenges in agriculture. But I might observe that if we were really, really serious about trying to help all the different people involved in agriculture, maybe what we'd do is end the death tax, something our friends from the other side of the aisle have fought every step of the way. Somebody works their entire life to put together a ranch or a farm, Uncle Sam can come in and take 55 percent. Maybe we would stand up for private property rights and let these people dispose of their livestock as they wish. Maybe we would actually work to open up more markets for all of our food and fiber. But, no, instead, we're going to increase spending 5.9 percent. That's the wrong approach, Mr. Chairman. We should defeat this bill.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that may be modest in the dollars involved, but I believe it is very, very important in the principle that underlies it. The amendment would simply level fund the Community Facilities Grant Program, level funding. It would spend the same amount of money next year that we have spent last year. Instead, what we see in this appropriations bill is that the amount is going to be increased 37 percent, 37 percent. Now, again, the people who are going to be expected to pay for this, I seriously doubt that they saw their paychecks increase 37 percent. Now, I have no doubt that good things can be done with this money. Those who want to spend more of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars always have some very good rationale for doing it. But the question is, any time you create a Federal investment, by definition you are going to be creating a family divestment, because somebody has to pay for this. In this particular case, when it is the Heritage Foundation, as is noted, by at least one count we have 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 different agencies. I defy any human being to tell me what they do. The Office of Management and Budget has noted in their budget report: ``This program is redundant with other Federal programs at the Department of Commerce and Housing and Urban Development.'' Now, my reading of this bill, and I would certainly let the chairman correct me if I am wrong, I don't think one single program is terminated in this particular bill. Everybody is going to get more money except the people who have to pay for it, and that is the poor beleaguered taxpayer. I have a lot of respect for the chairman of the subcommittee, and we serve on the House Budget Committee together. I know she hears the same testimony that I hear. That testimony is this Nation has a huge spending problem. Already with the government that we have, we are on track to double taxes on the next generation or, for all intents and purposes, there will be no Federal Government in the next generation, save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. I know it's a problem that doesn't manifest itself tomorrow, but how long is this Congress going to kick the can down the road? I mean, we have heard the testimony. Our Comptroller General has said that the rising cost of government is ``a fiscal cancer'' that threatens ``catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.'' Yet here we have a bill increasing one program 37 percent and terminating none, none. I mean, where does it all stop? Now, I know the subject matter is important. I have the honor and privilege of representing a fair amount of rural Texas in the Fifth Congressional District, but those are the same people who are being asked to pay for this. They are the ones who are going to be subjected to the single largest tax increase in American history of roughly $3,000 per family. So here we have out of 10,000 Federal programs one that OMB has said is redundant, does the same thing that other programs do. Unfortunately, the committee's response is to increase it 37 percent. Now, maybe the savings is modest to the taxpayer, but the principle is huge, because ultimately the Federal budget cannot grow beyond the family's budget ability to pay for it. There is a very important precedent that could be set here. Let's take one program and tell the American people who have to pay for it, know what, it can do with the same amount of money last year that it had this year. Let's protect, let's protect the family budget from the Federal budget. Let's adopt this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. No, I do not.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is, frankly, identical to the purpose of the previous amendment; and that is, let's show the American people that, out of these 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 different agencies, that maybe one of them, one of them can do with the same amount of money next year that they had last year. Instead, this particular program that is involved, the Broadband Grants program, in H.R. 3061, spending on the program has doubled, increased 100 percent. Again, are people who are expecting to pay for this, did their family income go up 100 percent? And I have listened carefully to several of the previous speakers, and I will be measuring my comments. But, Mr. Chairman, I grew up working on my father's family farm. I am the son of a farmer. I am the grandson of a farmer. I am the great grandson of a farmer. I grew up in rural communities in Texas like Slaton and Naples and Lingelville. So, Mr. Chairman, I don't take a back seat to anybody to my commitment to rural America. It is where my roots are. And so maybe some of the people on the other side of the aisle, maybe their constituents are a little different than mine. Maybe the people they grew up with and their surroundings and circumstances were different than mine. But I spend a lot of time talking to people in rural Texas in the counties that I have the pleasure of representing, those counties that help comprise the Fifth District of Texas. And they would love to all have broadband. They would love to have it. And do you know what else they love even more? They would love not to have the single largest tax increase in American history imposed upon them. They would love to get rid of the death tax that can take away the family farm or ranch it took generations to build. That is what they would love. They would love the ability to be able to dispose of their private property, as they struggle to make their family farms and ranches successful. Each one of these has been opposed by the Democrat majority. That is what rural America needs. That is what people on the farm and ranch need. Now, again, the goal of helping bring broadband to rural America is a very worthy goal. It is a very lofty goal. And I am sure in just a couple minutes we will hear how the entire rural America will come to a complete halt if we don't have any Federal, a Federal Government program dealing with broadband, notwithstanding the fact that the Office of Management and Budget has already noted, ``This program is duplicative of the Broadband Loan Program authorized in the 2002 farm bill. The areas eligible for grants are also eligible for low-cost broadband loans through the RUS.'' The program is already there. So what are we doing spending double on this program, being completely oblivious to the people who have to pay for it? Again, there is great, great focus on the benefits of this program. But where is the focus on the cost? Again, I know the gentlelady from Connecticut hears the same testimony I do in the Budget Committee, but already we are on track, we are on track to double taxes for the next generation. The Comptroller General has said that we are on the verge of being the first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living. And so what do we do? We don't even sit idly by. We double spending on this particular program, completely oblivious to those who have to pay for it, especially future generations. If there is anybody who qualifies today for the least of these in the political process, it is future generations. And because of that, although the principle is large, the sum is modest, I encourage adoption of the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.