Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize Johnnie Bendy for receiving the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Mineola Chamber of Commerce. Johnnie Bendy, named after her father who passed away weeks before she was born, is known for the impact she has made in her community. Ms. Bendy's grandmother and elderly neighbors influenced her love for nature and education by taking her fishing, teaching her to identify medicinal herbs, and explaining the intricacies of nature. Being raised by a single mother in the 1930s inevitably led to difficult times, and Ms. Bendy recalls going hungry for days. After attending grade school in Mineola, Ms. Bendy worked to pay her way through school at Texas College. After graduating, Ms. Bendy taught at McFarland School until 1964 when she began her career as a librarian at Mineola Middle School, a post she held for 38 years. In addition to teaching, Ms. Bendy devoted her time volunteering and serving on the city planning and zoning commission, the Kindness Cottage, the Mineola Chamber of Commerce, the Community Chest, United Way, the East Texas Council of Government, and is a former president of Friends of the Library. Ms. Bendy has been recognized both locally and nationally as a Distinguished Teacher, Volunteer of the Year, and 1998 Woman of the Year. In 2007, Mineola Mayor Pete Smith dedicated a historical marker to Ms. Bendy in the Mineola Nature Preserve on the Sabine River that now marks a trail leading to the International & Great Northern Rail Road where she spent her childhood playing outdoors. In the midst of all this activity, Ms. Bendy sang in her church choir and devoted time to organizing and serving on various church committees. Ms. Bendy's perseverance and selfless attitude in the face of cumbersome obstacles qualifies her to receive this lifetime achievement award. Her work helped Mineola become a better place to live, work, raise a family, and realize the American dream. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize Johnnie Bendy for earning the Lifetime Achievement Award and for sharing her passions to inspire those around her.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize Suzanne Lindley for her dedication to inspiring cancer patients and survivors and for courageously fighting her own battle against colorectal cancer. In 1998, after receiving a bleak diagnosis that she had advanced metastatic colorectal cancer, Mrs. Lindley reached out to fellow patients in an attempt to gain emotional and medical support. Nine years later, thousands are looking to Mrs. Lindley for inspiration. In addition to being involved in eight different associations, Mrs. Lindley is a co-founder and president of Yttrium-90 Microspheres Education and Support, and serves on the Colorectal Cancer Coalition steering committee for Cover Your Butt. Mrs. Lindley also works with the American Cancer Society as the online chair for Van Zandt County Relay for Life, the ACT District 5 chair, a Cancer Action Network member, and a Cancer Support Network member. Through her own experience, Mrs. Lindley learned the importance of support groups for both patients suffering with cancer and their families. But rather than focusing on herself, Mrs. Lindley organized survivor advocacy to support cancer patients. With a desire to bring hope to others, Mrs. Lindley took her personal story to the national stage and courageously shared it with magazines, radio and television hosts. During her appearance on the TODAY Show, Katie Couric referred to her as a ``Medical Matchmaker'' for promoting the ``buddy system'' while fighting this disease. Today, I have the privilege of meeting with Mrs. Lindley. However, this is not Mrs. Lindley's first trip to Washington, DC. Desiring to take a proactive approach, Mrs. Lindley has spent much time with lawmakers, both back home and in Washington, to petition Congress for their help in the fight against cancer. Cancer is a devastating disease that has touched many lives. As a former volunteer and board member of the American Cancer Society of Dallas, I have seen how cancer impacts a family. As a husband and father, I share a deep commitment to the fight against cancer. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize Suzanne Lindley for her selfless spirit in the face of a consuming disease.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, more than 4,500 rockets and mortar shells have been fired at Israel from the Gaza Strip by Hamas and other terrorist organizations since Israeli forces withdrew from there in 2005. Nearly 1,000 of these rockets and mortar shells have been launched into Israel just since New Year's Day this year. The near daily rocket fire has been targeted primarily and intentionally at civilian communities in Israel, such as Sderot and Ashkelon, and the rockets being used are getting bigger and traveling farther. Some rockets have blown through living room ceilings, crashed through classrooms and downed power lines. And as a result, Israel has suffered dozens of casualties, hundreds of shock victims, thousands of traumatized children. I've heard from Ruthie Eitan, a professor at Sapir College in Israel, just a mile from the Gaza Strip, who told us how the entire campus lives in constant terror. It would be like any college town in America, except this college has been hit with hundreds of rockets since the year 2000, and the barrage is not stopping. In fact, just last week, one of the students died shortly after sustaining massive wounds to his chest from a rocket in a parking lot on campus. Ruthie tells us that many of Sapir's classrooms and auditoriums are unusable, either because of past rocket damage or from being in the line of future rocket fire. But somehow life attempts to go on. But for Ruthie and thousands like her, we introduced this resolution to condemn in the strongest possible terms the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and to support the sovereign right of the Government of Israel to defend its territory and to stop the rocket attacks on its citizens. And perhaps most importantly, Mr. Speaker, we reaffirm the strong and unyielding friendship between the governments and the people of Israel and the United States. I strongly urge support of all my colleagues for H. Res. 951.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize an outstanding citizen and public servant, Chief I. D. Smith, in honor of his retirement from 16 years of service with the Seagoville Police Department. In 1971, Chief Smith began his law enforcement career as an officer with the West Tawakoni Police Department. Before coming to Seagoville, Chief Smith gained experience serving as a Deputy Chief, Captain, Investigator, and finally Chief for five different police departments. Chief Smith will be remembered for bringing the police department into the 21st century by improving hiring standards and overseeing the implementation of contemporary law enforcement methods and technology. In addition, he achieved the always difficult, but highly admired, task of providing quality service and protection on a lean budget. In addition to faithfully serving his community, Chief Smith is a husband to Shirley and proud father and grandfather. I've been told that Chief Smith plans to spend a lot of time playing golf and fishing in retirement. I hope that he hits all the greens in regulation and that his livewell is always full. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize Chief I. D. Smith for his courage in protecting and serving the citizens of Seagoville.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Well, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I certainly appreciate her leadership in helping illuminate for families all across America exactly how this process of the Federal budget works. It is very important, Madam Speaker, that people pay attention to this Federal budget because at the end of the day, it is the family budget that pays for the Federal budget. Unfortunately, there is no free lunch. Somebody has to pay for this. And all of government will be paid for, and it is paid for out of the family budget. It is especially important today, Madam Speaker, as families all across America are struggling to fill up their gas tanks. They are struggling to pay their health care premiums. They are struggling to send their kids to college. And every single dollar that is used to plus up a Federal budget has to come out of some family budget. If you are going to plus up the Federal budget, you are going to decrease the family budget. And so it is important that families pay attention to how their money is spent. So I applaud the gentlewoman from Tennessee for organizing a series of Special Orders on the floor of the United States House in order to help educate and enlighten the American people about this budget. The first thing that the American people need to know about the budget is that, contrary to almost every single thing we do in this body, the budget doesn't even have the force of law. That's right, Madam Speaker. At best, it is a mere suggestion. Now, it takes an act of Congress to change the name of a post office, but somehow, the United States budget, the United States budget doesn't bear the force of law. It is a suggestion. Now, many Republicans have come to this floor to try to say, at a bare minimum, the budget ought to be honest. And when we set a budget, it's supposed to be a ceiling on how much money we take away from American families, how much bread we take off of their table, how many opportunities we take away from them to give to government. There at least, at some point, has to be a ceiling where we say no more, we are not going to take any more away from American families. But instead, it is just a suggestion. And so if we look in our rearview mirror, Madam Speaker, we unfortunately discover, just look for the last 5 years, 10 years, every time there has been a Federal budget, ultimately, Congress spent more money than what that budget provided. And so legislation has been brought by members of the Republican Study Committee, the Conservative Caucus of the House, to change that. But unfortunately we have yet to meet with success. But we will continue to ensure that there is a limit to how much money is taken away from American families. Well, today how much money is taken? Over $24,000 per family is what the Federal Government is spending. Now, whether it is paid for by cash or credit card, ultimately all government will be paid for. And this is, Madam Speaker, only the first time since World War II that the Federal Government has spent so much of the people's money. And that is an inflation adjusted number. Over $24,000. Madam Speaker, I just wonder how many people who are listening to this debate this afternoon really think they are getting their $24,000 worth out of the Federal Government. Now, clearly there are many good things that the Federal Government does. But there has been an explosion of government, an explosion of government that, again, ultimately has to be paid for by the family budget. Over the last 10 years, Madam Speaker, the Federal budget has grown by 66 percent; yet the family budget, as measured by median family income, has only grown 30.2 percent, less than half that. So families who have to pay for it are having to take a bigger bite out of their paycheck in order to write out that IRS check. Well, Madam Speaker, how long can this go on? How long can the Federal budget exceed the spending of the family budget? American families need to know that. And that is why it is important that these Special Orders have been organized by the Republican Study Committee to let the American people know just how much money is being spent of theirs and how that money is being spent. Now, some will say, and we often hear it, this budget is being cut and that budget is being cut. I wish for once it were true. But there is this thing in Washington, and it is a little bit of inside baseball, called ``baseline budgeting,'' which as this series continues we will speak about more, Madam Speaker, but baseline budgeting is an accounting concept that would make an Enron accountant blush. It automatically inflates all the numbers of the Federal budget. Now, people all across America believe that if you spend the same amount of money on something next year as you did this year, but that is not a cut, but under the concept known as ``baseline budgeting'' and something called the ``current services budget,'' government automatically inflates all of these government accounts. And then say, for example, if you don't increase the Housing and Urban Development budget by 2.7 percent, say you only increase it 2 percent, that is a cut. That is what ``baseline budgeting'' means. Again, Republicans representing the Republican Study Committee have come to the House floor to try to introduce honest accounting and transparency on this House floor. Unfortunately, we have not had any cooperation by our friends on the other side of the aisle who want to continue with this thing called ``baseline budgeting'' that inflates the government budget at the expense of the family budget. And just listen to some of these budgets, Madam Speaker. Over the last 10 years, the international affairs budget has grown 128 percent. The energy budget, what we call budget function number 270, has grown 229 percent. The transportation budget, Federal transportation budget has grown 88 percent. Community and regional development, 132 percent. And the list goes on and on. And again, over the last 10 years, the family budget, which has to pay for it, has only grown a little over 30 percent. So government, the Federal budget, is growing at a huge multiple over the family budget, and yet the family budget has to pay for it. And it is that family budget, that family paycheck that is getting stressed. And so it is another reason why the American people need to pay very close attention. Now, how is all of this government paid for? We have the single largest budget that is about to be proposed by the Democrats in the history of America. It is going to weigh in at over $3 trillion, continuing the exponential growth of government at the expense of the family budget. Well, how is it paid for? Well, two different ways: cash and credit. And the cash is taxes. Now, my friends and I on the other side of the aisle will say, well, all we need to do to balance the budget is raise taxes. Well, they hadn't balanced it yet. But they certainly, certainly have done an excellent job of raising taxes. Already, Madam Speaker, it is very important that the American people know this, but there are huge automatic tax increases that are scheduled, courtesy of our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats. Right now, the single largest tax increase in American history is due to be imposed upon the American people over the next 3 years. This is written into law. The American people need to know what kind of bite is going to come out of their paycheck to inflate the Federal budget at the expense of the family budget. Already, with these scheduled Democrat tax increases due to take place over the next 3 years, the average family in America is going to be socked with an additional tax burden of over $3,000 per family. That's right, Madam Speaker, over $3,000 per American family courtesy of our friends on the other side of the aisle. What is going to happen? Well, at the bracket, ordinary income, the top bracket will go from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, which is an increase of 13 percent. Now, some say, well, that is the wealthy. Let's go tax the wealthy. Well, Madam Speaker, how many people in America when they hear that really believe it? Anytime you hear that phrase, it is time for middle-income people to grab their wallets, because it means that Washington is going to go on another money grab. Also, Madam Speaker, it is important to note that approximately over 70 percent of those people who file at that rate are small businesses, the backbone of the American economy. We on this side of the aisle want to help ensure paychecks. Paychecks are more important than welfare checks. So here it is: The Democrat party is getting ready in their budget to once again increase taxes on small business. The capital gains tax, the ``capital'' of capitalism, the fuel of free enterprise, that tax is due to increase 33.3 percent over the next 3 years. Dividends are due to increase, a 164 percent tax increase on dividends, courtesy of our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats. The death tax. You have already paid taxes on the income once; but yet under the death tax, American people, Madam Speaker, are compelled to visit both the undertaker and the IRS on the very same day. That is just an outrage. That tax is due to go from zero to up to 55 percent. People in the Fifth District of Texas, Madam Speaker, can work their entire lives trying to build a ranch, trying to build a farm, trying to build a small business, having the American Dream of thinking maybe one day I can leave that to my children or my grandchildren, only to see Uncle Sam come in and take 55 percent. The Democrats' budget proposals will gut the American Dream. They will just take away any opportunity to leave that farm, that ranch, that small business. I talked to a rancher in my district who said, Congressman, once Uncle Sam takes his piece, there is not enough left for the family. That shouldn't happen in America. I would be happy to yield back to the gentlelady from Tennessee.

Mr. HENSARLING. That is right. If the gentlewoman will yield, over the next 3 years, on average, the average American family will see their tax burden increase by $3,000 per family to pay for the spending spree of Big Government by our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I would like to recognize the Lake Highlands Exchange Club and Lake Highlands Military Moms for their dedication in honoring the men and women in uniform who defend our Nation. Recently, the Lake Highlands Exchange Club and the Lake Highlands Military Moms joined together to ensure that our service men and women are receiving the local recognition they deserve for their heroic efforts. The members of the Lake Highlands Exchange Club and Lake Highlands Military Moms created posters, similar to the posters for athletes, cheerleaders, and band members in area high schools, featuring photographs of 54 military men and women from Lake Highlands' community in training or serving our Nation in uniform. With already 250 posters on display in Lake Highlands area schools, churches, libraries, and businesses, the Exchange Club is trying to fulfill the high demand by printing additional copies. I would like to specifically recognize two individuals that had a key role in this project: Bill Duhman, for designing the posters, and Rhonda Russell, the Exchange Club's publicity director and founder of Lake Highlands Military Moms. In 2005, Ms. Russell began collecting the names of military mothers and formed the support group known as Military Moms. Today, Military Moms meets once a month to exchange stories, updates and photographs of their children overseas. Ms. Russell's son, Lee Russell, returned from service in Iraq in 2005 and is currently working in military intelligence. America owes our service men and women a huge debt of gratitude. It is through their sacrifice and patriotism that we have the security, prosperity and freedom that we enjoy today. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to be able to recognize the Lake Highlands Exchange Club and Lake Highlands Military Moms for their continued efforts in honoring the brave Americans that have gone into harm's way so that we could enjoy the blessings of liberty and prosperity. As President Calvin Coolidge once said, ``the nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten,'' and these groups are working hard to ensure that America's service men and women receive the honor and recognition they deserve.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize the Poteet High School Marching Band for winning the 2007 UIL Class 4A State Marching Title and the Honor Band for being named the 2008 Class 4A Honor Band for the State of Texas by the Texas Music Educators Association. Last fall, the Poteet High School Marching Band secured the state championship title for its division for the second time in 3 years. The marching band received perfect scores from four of the five judges, placing them above 23 other elite bands. Meanwhile, the Poteet High School Honor Band was named the 2008 Class 4A Honor Band for the State of Texas, the most prestigious honor for a high school concert band. For their achievement, the band will perform at the Texas Music Educators Association Convention in San Antonio, Texas. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize the Poteet High School Marching and Honor Bands, both the directors and students, for their talent, dedication to the arts, and their exceptional performance.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize community leader W.D. Lewis for being named ``Citizen of the Year'' by the Chandler-Brownsboro Chamber of Commerce. A veteran of World War II and the Korean war, Mr. Lewis occupies his time today volunteering in his community. In addition to being an active member of the Kiwanis Club, Mr. Lewis mentors children at Brownsboro Intermediate School and helps the court appointed special advocates provide Christmas gifts to children. Last year, he raised enough money to give Bibles to 192 children. Since moving to Brownsboro over two decades ago, Mr. Lewis has been a member of Leagueville Baptist Church and the Texas Freshwater Fisheries Center. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize Mr. Lewis for generously offering his time and talents to serve his community and for being selected ``Citizen of the Year.''

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership in this body, and I thank him for his friendship. Madam Speaker, I know of no one in this body who represents greater integrity and greater honor than the gentleman from South Carolina. His district was very wise to send him to the United States House of Representatives. I want to thank the gentlelady from Tennessee who preceded me who is one of the most dynamic Members we have in this entire body for the clarity and persuasion of her speech, a lady who knows how challenging it is for families to be able to put food on the table, put gasoline in the car, pay for their health care expenses, and knows that ultimately it is the family budget that ends up paying for the bloated Federal budget. Now I didn't join the Budget Committee because I enjoyed numbers. In fact, I think probably the worst grade I ever made in my life was in an accounting course at Texas A&M University many, many years ago. But I joined the Budget Committee because ultimately the budget is about priorities. And, Madam Speaker, I came to this body because I believe America needs greater freedom and greater opportunity. And you can't have more freedom and more government. You have to choose between one or the other. And sometimes, Madam Speaker, especially at a time of challenging economic times, you have got to decide which is more important, a government check or a paycheck. And right now government increasingly is taking a bite out of that family paycheck to pay for bloated Washington spending. Well, Madam Speaker, I don't know if the American people know it, but right now the Federal Government is spending over $23,000 per American family. It is the first time since World War II that the government has spent that much money, over $23,000. Madam Speaker, I wonder how many families that are listening to this debate tonight think they are getting their $23,000 worth out of the United States Federal Government. Now some will say government has great needs. But you know what, it's not always how much money you spend in Washington that counts, it's how you spend the money. And I want a Federal Government that does a few things well, like guards my family and the families of all Americans against radical Islamic terrorists. I want a Federal Government that can control our borders. I want a Federal Government that will provide a social safety net for those who are too old, too young, and too disabled to help themselves. But outside of that, I want people to go out and have greater freedom and greater opportunity, and have the greatest welfare system known to mankind. And when I say welfare, I mean greater education, greater housing, greater nutrition. That program is called the American free enterprise system, and it is under assault. And one of the things that is assaulting it is the Federal budget. Now let's talk about the fight that is taking place in Congress right now, and that is a fight about whether or not Americans ought to receive a huge automatic tax increase that our friends on the other side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, the Democrats, have passed into legislation. Right now over the next 3 years there will be a huge automatic tax increase on the American people. Now is that what this economy needs now, when people are concerned about their job losses, when they are having trouble filling up their Ford F-150 pickup trucks, when they are having trouble buying milk at the grocery store? I have a 5-year-old and a 4-year-old and they're very thirsty and they drink that milk. And it is expensive. And so the question right now is, should there be a huge automatic tax increase on the American people? Well, Madam Speaker, the Republicans think that there shouldn't be, that we shouldn't have a huge automatic tax increase. Let me tell you what the Democrats have passed. Right now, if we don't change this, the top tax income bracket will go to 39.6 percent, an increase of 13.1 percent. Now why is that important? We always hear, well, you know, this is the wealthy and they need to pay more taxes. Well, you know who files at this rate, Madam Speaker, is small businesses. And, guess what, you can't have capitalism without capital. I used to be a small businessman. I signed the front of a paycheck. I used to sign the back of the paycheck, but I signed the front of the paycheck and I have risked capital. So now all of a sudden the Democrats have put into law a 13.1-percent tax increase on hundreds of thousands of small businesses across our Nation at the very time when they are trying to meet their payroll. What sense does that make, Madam Speaker? Capital gains. The capital of capitalism. Democrats want to increase taxes on that 33.3 percent. If you want to talk about something that's going to send more jobs overseas, it's increasing the tax rate on capital gains. Dividends go up 164 percent. That's right, 164 percent, under the automatic tax increases that the Democrats are going to impose on us. The death tax. You have already paid taxes on it once. You shouldn't have to visit the undertaker and the IRS on the same day, and yet that is going to go from zero up to 55 percent, Madam Speaker. The child tax credit is going to get cut in half. And the lowest tax bracket for the lowest wage earners in America, their taxes are going to increase 50 percent. Under the Democrat plan, Madam Speaker, it is going to go from a 10 percent bracket to a 15-percent bracket. Now is this the recipe that our economy needs? I don't think so. I don't think so. But yet Democrats tell us, well, we need more money because we've got to do all this Washington spending. Well, if you look in the rearview mirror, Madam Speaker, you will see that over the last 10 years government has grown by about 75 percent, and yet the family budget, which has to pay for that Federal budget, has only grown 30 percent. Now ultimately something has to give. And so again our Democrat colleagues, Madam Speaker, tell us, well, we have to raise taxes. And all those tax increases that they want to impose right when the economy is having troubles, they say, well, we've got to raise taxes to somehow balance the budget. Well, Madam Speaker, if people would look at this chart, we don't have a taxation problem, we have a spending problem. Right now the difference between this blue line and red line is this huge massive tax increase that the Democrats want to impose upon hardworking American families, on farmers, on teachers, on small businesses. And look at how much revenue it gains you. And this, Madam Speaker, not to get into too much inside baseball, is what we call a static analysis. This assumes that raising people's taxes has no impact on economic growth. We know that's not true. So given the Democrats' every single assumption, if they do this massive tax increase which is going to amount to roughly $3,000 per American family over the next 3 years, it doesn't get anywhere close to the green line. That's the spending line. That is the line that represents the Federal Government on automatic pilot. That is if no new programs are added, that is how much is going to be spent. And what does that represent? Don't take my word for it; take the Comptroller General's word for it, the chief fiduciary officer in the United States Government. He says that line right there represents either, number one, a doubling of taxes on our children, or it represents a Federal Government that consists of almost nothing but Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. And anybody in charge of counting money for the Federal Government will tell you the same thing. Where is the ethic in that? Where is the morality in that? Imposing that kind of burden on the next generation? But, no, we have so many colleagues that care about the next election and not the next generation. Almost 6 years ago I got in the next generation business because I have a 5-year-old daughter and a 4-year-old son, and I care desperately about their future. So we have to do something about out-of-control spending, and yet our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, every single day they add a new program, completely oblivious to the cost on our children and grandchildren, the least of these, those who cannot vote and those yet to be born. If we are to work our way out of the economic challenges we have today, much less spare our children and grandchildren a doubling of their taxation to where we would be the first generation in American history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living, if we are going to keep our faith with our forefathers, if we are going to show fidelity to the future generations and be good stewards of the American dream, we have to defeat these massive Democrat tax increases. We have to defeat their massive increases in spending. Madam Speaker, it all starts with something we call earmarks, congressional earmarks. As a dear friend of mine in the Senate, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said, ``Earmarks are the gateway drug to spending addiction.'' There are too many bridges to nowhere, there are too many indoor rainforests. There are too many teapot museums. And the American people are waking up that all too often somebody in this body has taken a bite out of their paycheck so that some Member of Congress can keep his. The system is broken. Republicans in this body have called for an earmark moratorium. They have called for a select committee to clean up this system where the American people too often see money going into campaign contributions. Money coming in one end of Washington, DC, and they see earmarks coming out the other end. The system is broken. It has to be changed, and all the Democrats have said is no, we are not going to join you. They have gone the complete opposite direction. I am proud to be a member of this Republican conference that is trying to clean up this earmark mess, trying to control spending and control taxation so we can get this economy going and Americans can keep their jobs and have a brighter future for themselves and their children and their grandchildren. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his leadership, and thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize community leader Lewie Byers for being named ``Citizen of the Year'' by the Rusk Chamber of Commerce. Lewie is a prominent member of the Rusk community and exemplifies what it means to be a model citizen. Lewie is the president of the Rusk branch of Texas National Bank, but manages to find time to serve his community in civic organizations including the Rusk Chamber of Commerce, the Rusk Industrial Foundation and is a member of the Rusk City Council. In addition, Lewie is a member of the Rusk Lions Club and was on the East Texas Council of Boy Scouts. Most importantly, Lewie is a devoted husband and proud father of four. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize Lewie Byers for generously offering his time and talents to serve his community.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize a talented and patriotic citizen, Nancy Hilton, for her efforts to honor and encourage our Nation's military. Overwhelmed with the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform. Ms. Hilton sought a unique way in which she could personally honor the military. On a road trip to the East Coast, Ms. Hilton decided to hand- stitch an American flag and wasted no time in doing so. On the road with no pattern, she purchased a store-made American flag and created a self-made pattern. Three years later, after investing 214.5 hours and over 20 miles of yarn, Ms. Hilton proudly displays the 24-by-13 foot, 43 pound flag at her home in Athens, Texas. In between stitching stripes, Ms. Hilton developed her crocheting ministry, The Love Stitchers. The Love Stitchers dedicate their time and efforts to making lap afghans for people in nursing homes and hospice centers. They also make special red, white, and blue starred and striped blankets for veterans. With 100 members in three cities, The Love Stitchers have made over 1,500 afghans. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize Ms. Nancy Hilton not only for her talent, but for her thoughtfulness and devotion in caring for our military, veterans, and seniors.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in unenthusiastic support of this legislation. Perhaps it is a true sign of bipartisanship. I think if we were all honest with ourselves, we would say there was much about this legislation that disappoints us; yet most of us will support it. Mr. Speaker, my own personal disappointment is I see very little economic stimulus in this so-called economic stimulus package. I see tax relief, income tax relief, for those who do not pay income taxes. I see tax relief for middle-income families, which is very important, very important, Mr. Speaker, at a time when their paychecks are squeezed with high energy costs, with high food costs, and high health care costs. But I don't confuse temporary tax rebates with economic growth. Now, I did look closely, and there is some economic growth component of this legislation of which I approve. But ultimately, true growth doesn't come from temporary tax rebates. It comes from allowing entrepreneurs and families and capitalists to actually have their own capital to expand and grow the economy. The last time our Nation was facing a recession, I went to a small factory in my district called Jacksonville Industries. They employed 21 people. They were an aluminum die cast business. Because of competitive pressures, they were on the verge of laying off two people. But because of the tax relief passed by this Congress, particularly expensing capital gains tax relief, they bought a new piece of equipment. And that new piece of equipment made them more competitive, and instead of laying off two people, they hired two new people. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the question, surely middle-income families, I know they need help, but this package, I fear, is more akin to helping them pay one month's worth of credit card bills at a time when people are getting laid off at the local factory when, instead, what they really need to know is that their paycheck is preserved and that they have opportunities to even grow that paycheck and that their employer can become more competitive and give them more opportunities to advance and grow that paycheck. And, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately those components are sadly lacking. If we wanted those components in the bill, the first thing we would do, Mr. Speaker, is try to prevent all of these scheduled tax increases on families and the economy that our friends on this side of the aisle have put in place. The second thing we would do, Mr. Speaker, is try to make our business tax rate more competitive with our international competitors. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. That's what we need to do. Now, Mr. Speaker, many people here come with their theories. I come with evidence. If you look early on in 2003, if you look to the Reagan administration, the Kennedy administration, when you're faced with a recession, lower marginal tax rates, lower capital gains rates, and you will grow people's paychecks. That's the economic growth that we need.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize an outstanding citizen and public servant, Chief Gary Westphal, in honor of his retirement from 35 years of service at the Mesquite Police Department. In 1972, Chief Westphal started his service as a jailer and was promoted through the ranks until 2002, when he became Chief of Police for the Mesquite Police Department. Chief Westphal pioneered several student, anti-drug campaigns such as ``Slama Bama Jama,'' ``What If,'' and the ``Cheese Anti-drug Initiative.'' Esteemed by his community and peers, Chief Westphal was named ``Hometown Hero'' by Town East Mall and ``Top Cop'' 2006 by the Texas Police Chiefs Association. In addition to faithfully serving his community, Chief Westphal is a husband to Susan, a father of three children, and a grandfather. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize Chief Gary Westphal for his courage in protecting and serving the citizens of Mesquite.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I would like to rise to recognize Dallas Christian School and join with them in celebrating their 50th anniversary. In 1957, Dallas Christian School was established with a mission to train students academically, physically, and spiritually. Five decades later, this nationally recognized Blue Ribbon School continues to accomplish its mission by supplementing its academic curriculum with daily Bible classes and chapel services, college courses, extracurricular activities, and an athletic department. Located in Mesquite, Texas, 90 percent of Dallas Christian School graduates attend institutions of higher education, and since 1992, 20 seniors have qualified for the National Merit Scholarship. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize Dallas Christian School's 50th anniversary, and I would like to commend the students, board of directors, faculty, and staff for helping to shape a brighter future for our community and our country.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I certainly thank the gentlelady for yielding. I thank her for those kind words. And I must admit, at 5'6", I'm rarely referred to as a giant, but I certainly take it as a great compliment. The gentlelady from Minnesota has done great work in this body. I'm honored to serve with her, and I hope her constituents are very proud of the work that she has done. She has been a leader on so many issues from day one, and I thank her especially on probably the most fundamental question we have in American society today, for helping lead this Special Order today on the whole question of life. Mr. Speaker, I need not tell you that millions of people all across America are reflecting upon that Supreme Court decision of decades ago, Roe v. Wade. Many Americans are celebrating. Many others are mourning. I am mourning. I mourn that decision. I'm not naive. I know this question represents one of the great political fault lines in America today, and I know many of my countrymen feel quite differently than I do. But I just believe in my heart, I believe in my head, that there is no more fundamental right that we have than the right to life. And it is enshrined in our very founding documents that we were created. Our creator brought us into this world with certain unalienable rights, including the right to life. Now, again, Mr. Speaker, I can come to no other conclusion in my head, in my heart, than but life begins at conception. And I don't understand my countrymen who come to different conclusions. I don't hate these people. I don't disparage them. But I have great sadness about what has occurred because of their beliefs; that millions of our countrymen are not here today to take that first breath, to take that first walk, to go into that first dance recital, to hit that first baseball, to put together that first two plus two equals four, I did it daddy. Millions and millions of our fellow countrymen will never experience that moment because of what I believe to be a very wrongheaded and a very unconstitutional decision made many, many years ago. And so Mr. Speaker, a battle continues in this great body as a battle continues all across our land. And it's not just a battle to change laws. It is a battle to change the hearts and minds of our countrymen. And again, it's something that I take as an article of faith. But Mr. Speaker, if there's any parent in this body who has seen that sonogram when your baby is just weeks old, to see that beating heart, to see those little fingers, to see those little toes, and know that you have this great privilege that God Almighty has entrusted you with this gift to nurture this life, how you see that and turn your back on it is beyond me, is absolutely beyond me. And so, Mr. Speaker, there have been others who have come here tonight who are far more eloquent than am I. But, Mr. Speaker, I just want to, one, thank all of the fellow members of the Republican Study Committee that I have the great honor of chairing in this institution, really the conservative caucus in this House. I want to thank them for raising their voice on the single most important issue we face as a society, and that is the definition of the right to life. I want to thank them for coming to this body to do this. And Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have a lot of blessings in life. I am not sure I will ever have a greater privilege than serving in the United States House. I enjoy coming to the floor of this institution and being able to talk about my beliefs and my vision for this great Republic. Like some of us, we have the opportunity to occasionally meet with the President of the United States and tell the most powerful man in the world what our views are. We have opportunities to salute people who deserve recognition. We have all kinds of opportunities that give us a lot of self-satisfaction. But no matter how many speeches I give on the House floor, no matter how many opportunities I have to meet with the President in the Oval Office, Mr. Speaker, those opportunities pale, absolutely pale in comparison to the opportunity that I have each week to fly home to Dallas, Texas, and have my 5-year-old daughter and my 4-year-old son run into my arms saying, ``Daddy, Daddy, Daddy. We missed you.'' And it's just one more reminder, Mr. Speaker, of how critical and how precious human life is, and it transcends all of the other debates that we have in this institution. And so, again, I want to thank all of my fellow members of the Republican Study Committee. I want to thank the gentlelady from Minnesota adding her leadership and her eloquent voice here tonight. I wish I knew what I could say to reach out to my follow citizens and try to convince them to treasure human life and to understand how precious it is. And often when we hear in the debate in this institution that we ought to do it for the least of these, truly, truly unborn life is the least of these. Let us recognize it. Let us hold it precious. And let us live up to our constitutional responsibilities, and let us live up to our responsibilities from the Creator and grant our follow citizens that precious right to life. And so the battle goes on, Mr. Speaker. There has been some progress. There are fewer abortions in the land today than there was previously. So I continue to be optimistic. I could not serve in this body unless I was an optimist. There is much work to be done. But I see a day, it may not be in my life, Mr. Speaker, but maybe in the life of my children, maybe in the life of my grandchildren, should I be blessed with any, that one day all Americans will somehow lock arms and lock hearts and decide that they will protect and defend that unalienable right to life; and I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize an outstanding citizen, Mr. Jess A. Laird, for being named Citizen of the Year by the Athens Chamber of Commerce. Jess currently serves as president of First State Bank and as a board member for the Athens Chamber of Commerce. He devotes his time and efforts to not only serving, but also to leading the community through numerous civic organizations. In addition to serving as the former president of the Cain Center board, Rotary Club, Industrial Foundation and the American Heart Association, Jess has worked with the TVCC Foundation, ETMC board of managers, Salvation Army and United Way board. In addition, Jess still finds time to be involved at First United Methodist Church, by singing with the Praise Team. More importantly, Jess is a devoted husband to Susan and a dedicated father to two sons, Blake and Rex. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to be able to recognize a constituent and good friend of mine, Jess, for being an invaluable leader and for generously offering his talents to improve his community.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Madam Chairman, President Reagan once said that the nearest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program, and I don't think there is any better case study than perhaps the HOPE VI program. If there was ever a program that cried out for termination, it's this one; termination so that the money used for this program can be returned to hardworking American families. Many of us are acquainted with the history of the program, begun in 1992 with a very noble purpose of taking 86,000 units of severely distressed public housing and replacing them, demolishing them. Well, guess what, Madam Chairman; it achieved its mission. But somewhere along the line we had this thing in Washington known as mission creep. What we should have done is probably given all the employees of the program a bonus, throw them a big party and say thank you for doing something good and achieving the mission of your particular program. But instead, somehow the program goes on and on and on. Now, the Office of Management and Budget has said that this program is ineffective. If you look at their part rating of the Office of Management and Budget and start to study it, they ask very specific questions about the program, one of which is: Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need? And the answer is no. The program has accomplished its primary goal to demolish 100,000 severely distressed public housing units by 2003. Another question in the part rating of the Office of Management and Budget: Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any Federal, State, local or private effort? The answer again, no. HOPE VI is one of a select number of tools available to housing authorities to revitalize distressed or obsolete public housing. So again, number one, we had a program that accomplished its original mission. We now have a program that is duplicative of other housing programs. And I know there are many who come to the floor who are very sincere and passionate in their belief that the only way to help low- income people is through government housing programs. I have a different philosophy. I have a different set of principles. We already have 80-plus Federal housing programs, and the budget for Federal housing programs has almost doubled in the last 10 years, from $15.4 billion to more than $30 billion now. And this percentage increase, almost double, is a rate, Madam Chairman, a rate of increase that is higher than veterans spending, education spending, energy spending, transportation spending, international affairs spending, and even Social Security over that same time period. So, relative to our budget priorities, it's very hard to argue that somehow Federal housing programs have been shortchanged. I fear that HOPE VI simply compounds failure. We take failed housing projects, we start to demolish them, and then we fail to get rid of the program. Again, I understand that some people and many on the other side of the aisle do not agree with my vision. They believe the only way to help is through other government programs, and if so, I would ask this, and I'm sorry that this didn't happen in committee. I offered an amendment to transfer this money to the section 8 program. I think there are a number of challenges with section 8, but I certainly see it as a superior form of government assistance than these other programs. And Member after Member on the other side of the aisle has complained that we have insufficient resources for section 8. Well, here's an opportunity. Now, unfortunately, that amendment was not ruled in order. I hope that one day maybe I can work with the majority in finding ways to take less effective government housing programs and perhaps transfer funds to more effective housing programs. I also find it quite curious that many Members on the other side of the aisle complained about this program in hearings and in markups. So they complained about it and then sit here and reauthorize it. And there are two other reasons that we should not support this. One is, it puts us on a trajectory to help double-spending to the next generation. Now, sometimes we have to make some tough choices. We are going to double taxes on the next generation if we don't do something about spending today. And we should never forget that the best housing program is a job. And the greatest threat to jobs today is the threatened tax increases of the majority. That's where we ought to get our affordable housing.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, Republicans have come to the floor this afternoon to prevent a huge Democrat tax increase from taking place on millions of working families across America. Democrats have come to the floor to pay for their tax increase with yet another tax increase. Now, Madam Speaker, they call it the PAYGO rule. It fits nicely on a bumper sticker. Now, supposedly it means if you increase spending here or you have tax relief there, somehow you pay for it. But when I look at the budget, I see that Medicare has grown by almost 9 percent. They didn't pay for that. It was exempt. I saw Medicaid grow almost 8 percent. That was exempt from their PAYGO rule. Social Security increased 5\1/2\ percent. That was exempt from their PAYGO rule. Discretionary spending, 38 percent of the budget, well, PAYGO doesn't apply to that, either. And now they bring a 1-year AMT delay bill that's also exempt from their PAYGO rule. This proves that the Democrats' PAYGO rule has gone from a fig leaf to no leaf. Let's reject it.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding. There are so many different reasons, Mr. Speaker, that we should oppose this massive omnibus spending bill, not the least of which is the process. The process can lead to bad results. When the Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, was the minority leader, she said this was a terrible process. In fact, I quote: ``The Republican leadership forced through a so-called `martial law' rule that required a same-day vote, preventing Members of Congress from having enough time to read legislation that spent hundreds of billions of dollars and was thousands of pages long. This arrogance of power is part of a pattern of abuse.'' Now, that's what the Speaker thought when somebody else was in control; but now that her party is in control, I guess it's perfectly appropriate to present a 3,565-page bill on the very same day, of which I'm told 692 pages are devoted to earmarks, and for us to spend approximately 60 minutes debating $515 billion. If I did the back-of- the-envelope math properly, we're debating $9.1 billion of the people's money each minute. Where's the transparency here, Mr. Speaker? Where's the accountability? And this is a bill that still grows government at twice the rate of inflation. There's not one Member of this body who knows what is in this bill, and I'd include the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee. It defies logic that any one Member of this body knows what's in the bill. It should be rejected on that alone. But, Mr. Speaker, ultimately this bill puts us on a path to double taxes on the next generation, and don't take my word for it. Listen to the director of the Congressional Budget Office appointed by the Democrat majority. Listen to the Comptroller General. They all say the same thing. Reject this monstrosity.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It's a fascinating evening that we find ourselves in, to be asked to somehow, in less than a day, in fact, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, this bill was filed after midnight. So on the very same day we're being asked to consider a bill, which all of America can see here, which is over 3,000 pages long. Now, when the Democrat majority came in, they said, well, this was going to be the most fair and democratic Congress that we've ever had, that somehow a new day was dawning, that they would do business in a different way. I have not been a fan of omnibus spending legislation when my party was in control. I voted against the omnibus. It's no way to run the railroad, Mr. Speaker. In fact, when my party was in control, if an omnibus was passed, I note, for example, if I look at the Congressional Record of January 4, 2005, that to bring an omnibus piece of legislation to the floor by waiving the 3-day rule was described as ``martial law'' by then-Minority Leader Pelosi, now Speaker Pelosi. It's in the Record, Mr. Speaker. Look it up. So somehow when she's the minority leader, Mr. Speaker, it's not okay to bring this monstrosity; in fact, it's tantamount to martial law. And yet we've heard that this is going to be such an open and democratic and fair Congress. So what is it, Mr. Speaker? Is it martial law, is it not martial law, to expect Members who haven't even seen the bill, much less read the bill, to vote on it tonight? I heard the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee come and speak to us about earmarks. Well, again, this was the leadership team that claimed that they would do better. And as I look at it, when you add in the earmarks in the one appropriations bill that was passed by regular order, you're still looking at the third highest amount of earmarks, I believe, in the history of the Republic. Now, the Speaker herself said, and I don't have the quote in front of me, but something along the lines that she would just as soon do without earmarks. But as I've read the legislation, she doesn't appear to be leading by example in that regard. Mr. Speaker, there are very few people who know what is in this bill. But what I do know is it spends the people's money with very little accountability. I was at a town hall meeting in my district, and I have the honor and privilege of representing the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. I was in Athens, Texas, and a constituent, a very wise man, came up to me and said, You know what? I don't think that any Member of Congress should be allowed to vote on a piece of legislation unless they've read the bill, which I guess might lend this evening's vote to one, maybe two, Members, maybe no Members. There's something to be said for that. A bad process can lead to bad outcomes, and this is a bad outcome. It spends too much of the people's money. It continues to grow the government budget faster than the family budget, the family budget that has to pay for it. Mr. Speaker, I'm a member of the House Budget Committee. I see several of my colleagues on the Democrat side who are also serving on that Budget Committee. And we just heard testimony from the head of the Congressional Budget Office, which I might add was an appointment under this majority, this Democrat majority, who said that if we don't change the spending patterns of the Federal Government that within a generation we're looking at doubling taxes on our children and grandchildren. Now, you can go check the Record. And it's not just the head of the Congressional Budget Office; it's the head of OMB, it's the Comptroller General. And yet we are asked to vote on an omnibus piece of legislation that, once again, sets us on this path to double taxes on the next generation. It's just unconscionable. Again, it robs the family budget to pay for the Federal budget. And here's something else that's unconscionable about this: in this omnibus, we're going to pay to fund some bureaucrat in the bowels of the Commerce Department, but we won't pay for the men and women in our Nation's uniform fighting for liberty in Iraq. Well, last I looked, they're part of this Federal Government as well. They're wearing our Nation's uniform. They get paychecks drawn on the U.S. Treasury. But somehow we can find the ability, in this 3,000-page bill, to pay for every bureaucrat in Washington; but we won't fund the men and women in harm's way in Iraq. Also unconscionable. There are so many reasons, Mr. Speaker, that this rule should be voted down, as should the entire bill.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. And, again, I thank her for her leadership in this institution, a very clear, concise, conservative voice on this House floor, particularly when it comes to trying to save the family budget from the onslaught of the Federal budget. As my colleague from Tennessee has pointed out, the House is completely broken. It is completely broken and felled under this new Democratic leadership. They said they would do better if they were in charge. So what do they bring us today? Today they bring us a 3,565- page spending bill which people have been able to see beside my colleague's speaking position over here, weighing in at 34.4 pounds, roughly the weight of my 5-year-old daughter. It spends $515 billion of the people's money, and the Democrat majority brought it to the floor tonight and devoted less than 1 hour of floor time debating this omnibus bill. This body spent about a minute debating every $9.1 billion being spent in this bill. Now, that is money if left in the hands of the families of America and the small businesses of America, who make the jobs and have to work hard to send their kids to college and put food on the table and put roofs over their heads, that money is coming from them; and we spent less than a minute debating $9 billion. The minutes went by, and all of a sudden this House passed a $515 billion bill. Now, Mr. Speaker, when the Republicans were in charge, unfortunately, my party occasionally brought an omnibus bill to the floor, and I personally voted against each and every one because I don't believe that was the vision of the Founding Fathers. It is not the way we should run this government. In fact, I was at a town hall meeting in my district not too long ago and a gentleman from the Athens, Texas, in the 5th Congressional District of Texas, said: Don't you think we would have a much better government if Members of Congress were actually required to read the legislation before they vote on it? What human being can read 34.4 pounds, 3,565 pages in one day? That is right, Mr. Speaker, this bill was just given to us today. In the early morning hours, this bill was laid upon this institution. So there is no transparency here. It is interesting to me that when the majority party was in the minority, they screamed to the rafters about this process. Listen to what Speaker Pelosi, then minority Pelosi had to say about this process: ``The Republican leadership forced through a so-called `martial law' rule that required a same-day vote preventing Members of Congress from having enough time to read legislation. They spent hundreds of billions of dollars and it was thousands of pages long. This arrogance of power is part of a pattern of abuse.'' Now that is what Speaker Pelosi said 3 years ago when she was in the minority. Now that she is the Speaker, does this mean she is imposing martial law on this House with this process that she decried 3 years ago? Is she now bringing a spirit of arrogance to this institution which she decried 3 years ago? Is she part of the pattern of abuse that she decried 3 years by forcing Members of this institution to vote on this monstrosity? So on process alone, this bill ought to be rejected. But it really ought to be rejected because it puts us on a path of extreme fiscal irresponsibility. Already today this government is on automatic pilot to force the largest single tax increase in American history on working families all across America. It was included in the Democrat budget. More spending fosters more taxes. And that's just the start, Mr. Speaker, because after imposing the single largest tax increase in American history in the Democrat budget, with their so-called ``mother of all tax increases,'' they are going to once again make history by imposing the single largest tax increase in American history yet again, perhaps twice in a 12-month period. I am sure that will break some kind of record here in the House of Representatives. But don't take my word for it. Listen to the head of the Congressional Budget Office, the head of the Government Accountability Office, the Federal Reserve chairman. They are all going to tell you the same thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is without changing the spending patterns of the Federal Government of which this omnibus represents some of the worst, we are on automatic pilot to double taxes on the next generation. Double. And the average American family pays roughly $22,000 a year in taxes. That will go to $44,000. How many American dreams are going to be squashed by a tax burden of that magnitude, represented by that 34.4 pound omnibus spending legislation which will flatten the American taxpayer like a bus. It is full of gimmicks from people who said they were going to bring the most honest and ethical Congress in the history of mankind to this institution. They take a rubber stamp and they stamp ``emergency spending'' on anything that moves because they have this little clever device that allows them to avoid any kind of budget discipline when they do that. They have this gimmick called ``advanced appropriations'' that would make an Enron accountant blush, but they use it to once again evade any spending discipline whatsoever in this institution. They said they would clean up earmarks and this is chock full of earmarks. Mr. Speaker, if you look closely, maybe some of these earmarks pass the legal test. Maybe they even pass some ethical test, but all too often the American people are seeing campaign cash going into the institution on this end, and they are seeing earmarks coming out the other end. It doesn't meet the fiscal responsibility test, and it doesn't meet the American taxpayer smell test. And that bill is chock full of it. Out of 3,565 pages, 692 pages are devoted to individual congressional earmarks, which many of the American people believe serve no other purposes other than to get Members of Congress reelected. Again, the Democrat majority said they would clean it up and there would be transparency and accountability. We haven't even had time to read the 692 pages. We don't know what is in there. Maybe there is another museum to a Member of Congress, as the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee managed to earmark $2 million to create a museum to himself. One final point before turning this over to some of my other able colleagues from the Republican Study Committee. I want to harken back to a point made by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), ranking member of the Budget Committee. Earlier tonight the Democrat majority leader came to the floor and said, We have a responsibility to fund our government. Well, I don't know everything that is in that bill, Mr. Speaker, but I know something that isn't in that bill. There is no funding for the men and women fighting for freedom in Iraq. Not one penny. Now how do you have a bill that ostensibly funds the United States Government and somehow you leave out the men and women who wear our Nation's uniform? They wear our Nation's uniform. They come from the small towns and factories and fields from all over America. Their paychecks come from the same United States Treasury that Members of Congress' do. Somehow the Democrat majority managed to put into their 34-pound bill thousands of earmarks. They managed to fund every single bureaucrat at the Commerce Department, but they can't find one penny for our brave men and women fighting on the front lines of freedom in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, maybe they don't believe in the cause, but don't they believe in the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines? There is no way that any Member with any credibility can come to this floor and say we are presenting a bill to fund the Federal Government but, oh, we don't really consider members of our armed services fighting in Iraq to be members of our government. I just don't know what planet some of these people come from, Mr. Speaker, and that's just shameful. It is a shameful moment this year in the history of the House to present this spending abomination, chock full of earmarks that ignore our men and women in harm's way in Iraq. And it's one of the lowest points of this entire year for this Democrat Congress. And I hope that the American people are paying very special attention to what is going on here tonight. I appreciate the gentlelady, again, for her leadership for taking the time to help elaborate on really this heinous piece of legislation that came to the floor earlier, and I want to thank her. And I want to thank all the members of the House Conservative Caucus, the Republican Study Committee, the largest caucus in the House, for always being ready and vigilant to fight for freedom and to work for less government and more freedom and more opportunity, and that's what the Republican Study Committee is all about. And I appreciate the opportunity to share in this Special Order, and I yield back to the gentlelady from Tennessee.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and he makes a very important point. As hard as I look at this bill, I can't find any tax relief in it. People who somehow think that by preventing a massive tax increase on the American people, that that's tantamount to relief, they need to talk to the schoolteacher in Mesquite, Texas. They need to talk to the rancher in Murchison, Texas. Again, if you make the same amount of money next year that you made last year and you're paying the same amount of taxes, where's the tax relief? This bill is misnamed. The AMT is misnamed. It ought to be called the alternative massive tax increase because it's a massive tax increase on the American people of $55.7 billion. The only thing that's alternative about it is who has the great honor and pleasure of paying for this tax. Now, I've heard many speakers on the other side of the aisle come and say, well, we pay for it. Well, that will certainly come as a great relief to the teachers and the ranchers and the small business people of the 5th District of Texas to know that you're not going to increase their taxes because somehow you've paid for it. You haven't paid for anything. You've put a massive tax increase on the American people, and in this particular case, you are putting it on investment. You're putting it on small businesses. You're putting it on the capital of capitalism, and you are threatening the paychecks of the American people. Now, I've heard many people come here to the floor and say, well, we have to be fiscally responsible; this needs to be revenue neutral. Well, I agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle. It does need to be revenue neutral. It ought to be revenue neutral to the taxpayer, not the Federal Government. That's the revenue neutrality that we should attempt to achieve here. I heard my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, say, well, we have to pay this or there's going to be this tax increase. Well, there's another alternative. There's several alternatives. One's the Taxpayer Choice Act, which would get rid of the AMT once and for all. There's a clear choice before us. Who's going to get the $55.7 billion, Federal Government bureaucrats or American families? We vote for the American family.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am reminded of a quote from late President Reagan, and perhaps I can paraphrase: The closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program. Indeed, we have had speaker after speaker come before in this debate to tell us how TRIA was going to be a temporary program. And I see the able gentlelady from New York, the chairwoman of our Financial Institutions Subcommittee. I wasn't here in this body when TRIA was originally passed, but I took the time to review the record of the debate. At that time she said, ``We are simply working to keep our economy on track with a short-term program that addresses the new terrorist threat.'' The gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of our Capital Markets Subcommittee said, ``We wisely design the TRIA Act as a temporary backstop to get our Nation through a period of economic uncertainty until the private sector can develop models.'' And if you look at the Record, Mr. Speaker, of those who proposed TRIA in the first place, all said it would be a temporary program. Perhaps temporary is in the eye of the beholder. What started out as a 3-year program has since become a 5-year program. The House attempted to extend it 15 years. I think we are now looking at a 7-year extension. I believe for all intents and purposes, we are looking at giving birth de facto to a new Federal permanent insurance program to go along with the scores of others, few of which are financially sound. So again, what was meant to be temporary, and I hope had I been in this body at that time I would have voted for it. I was here for the vote on the first extension, and I supported that extension. I believe there was, indeed, a great calamity in this marketplace. I believe that people in the marketplace needed time to react, to plan, to model. But again, is this something that is going to go on in perpetuity? The question again is begged, and that is, Who can do a better job in the reinsurance market, the Federal Government or private industry? I have no doubt that private industry would love to have the subsidies that are represented by TRIA. Any time the government is going to hand out something free or at a subsidized rate versus the market rate, who wouldn't accept it? Such a deal. I certainly understand that they might be favoring this. Now, I haven't heard in this debate, but in previous iterations of the debate I have heard many come and talk about the great tragedy of 9/11, and I want to let it be known again, we are talking about terrorism reinsurance. It does nothing to prevent terrorism in the first place. We are talking about coming in after the fact and providing this Federal backstop, which many of us don't believe is any longer necessary, putting the taxpayer on the hook at a time when markets could develop. I would take the argument more serious if more people on the other side of the aisle would vote to strengthen, for example, the FISA legislation. Unfortunately, many of them are voting to make it even more difficult for our Federal Government to listen in on the conversations of known terrorists. Most of the Democrats, most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, in May voted against the Hoekstra amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Act which would have eliminated that section of the bill requiring the Director of National Intelligence to use resources, and I paraphrase him, to study bugs and bunnies instead of suspected terrorists. They have supported expanding the legal rights of terrorist detainees, holding up passage of the 9/11 Commission Recommendation Implementation bill to give union bargaining advantages to TSA screeners, and the list goes on and on. So if we want to talk about terrorism, let's talk about what we can do to prevent it in the first place as opposed to what we can do to subsidize large insurance companies after the fact. Another point I would like to make, and everybody is certainly entitled to their own opinion, and I have looked very carefully at the President's working group position on this, and they have observed what I have observed, and that is the availability and affordability of terrorism risk insurance has improved since the initial terrorist attacks. And despite increases in risk retentions under TRIA, insurers have allocated additional capacity to terrorism risk. Prices have declined. Take-up rates have increased. I simply don't buy into the argument, Mr. Speaker, that we have a market failure here that somehow, some way the market can't create this particular insurance product. I mean, how are we ever going to know, once again, if we're going to hand out something free or at a subsidized rate, as opposed to people having to buy it at the market rate? And let me quote from the President's 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, some have said, well, again, that terrorism is a very unique risk. Well, of course it is. But our reinsurance industry has faced these challenges in the past. At one point they had to figure out how to model for the risk of loss of electronic data. At one time in our history they had to figure out how to model for airline crashes. Many say that we will never have major construction in the United States unless we have a government, Federal reinsurance backstop for acts of terrorism. I simply don't observe that in real life. And how, Mr. Speaker, during the Cold War, when thousands of nuclear weapons were poised, aimed at our Nation, how did construction take place during that time in our history? Yet there are those who will maintain that somehow it cannot take place today. Again, I'm not saying that reinsurance is not an important aspect of our market. It is. But I disagree with those on the other side of the aisle who say that even after 5 years that the market is simply incapable of creating a product that those who wish it can pay for at an affordable rate. Another point I would make is that even if this were a valuable program to the Nation, what are we going to do to pay for it, and what are the long-term implications? Again, as I mentioned earlier, Uncle Sam does not have a particularly stellar track record when it comes to running insurance programs. Social Security, according to the latest report of the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, owes $6.8 trillion, trillion with a T, more in benefits than it's receiving in taxes, and has a long-term deficit of almost $9 trillion, not a particularly good track record there. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is currently running a deficit of $18.1 billion, with an additional off-balance sheet liability of $73.3 billion. The National Flood Insurance Program has a shortfall of $1.3 billion a year over the long term and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, its current financial situation is unsustainable. Medicaid, $317 billion a year. The National Governors Association says, ``The growth of a program that is unsustainable in its current form.'' The Federal crop insurance program requires Federal subsidies. The list goes on and on and on and on. As history is my guide, Mr. Speaker, forgive me if I don't share the enthusiasm and optimism of those on the other side of the aisle who say that somehow this is not going to prove painful for future taxpaying generations. I believe it will be. I believe the private market can handle this. I think they will handle this if we give them the opportunity. I do not think the private insurance companies need this huge subsidy. And when, Mr. Speaker, are we finally going to do something about the long-term financial implications of entitlement spending in these insurance programs? Now, something's got to give. The Comptroller General has said that we're on the verge of being the first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living because of out-of-control spending. Instead, we add burden on top of burden on top of burden. Because of all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, I oppose this report and would urge the House to oppose it as well.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey in talking about how terrible these tax increases are going to be on the American family, but it will be not only in direct terms to having a lesser paycheck, it also threatens the very existence of their paycheck. I toured a small business in my district about a year ago called Jacksonville Industries. They're kind of an aluminum dye cast manufacturer, and before we had passed tax relief, they were on the verge of having to lay off two people. And when I look at what's happening in capital gains and dividends, which really help fuels job creation, you can't have capitalism without capital. Because of the tax relief the Republican Congress has passed, they were able to go out and buy some new machinery. I don't recall what it's called, and I don't exactly know what it does, but it was big and it was noisy, and most importantly, it made them more competitive. And because they were more competitive, and I want to say they had about 20 workers, instead of laying off two workers, they hired two new workers, all because of tax relief. Tax relief allowed them to invest in the American free enterprise system. And so instead of having four people who could have been on unemployment and four people who could have been on welfare and four people who could have been on food stamps, instead, you had four people who had jobs, who had a future, who put a roof over their head, who put groceries on the table because of a paycheck, and yet the Democrat tax increases threaten that very paycheck. Now, they offer compassion. Oh, we have this welfare check over here. We're going to increase the government budget over here. But you cannot increase the Federal budget without decreasing the family budget, and that's what this debate is going to be about this week. Which path do you want to be on? Do you want to be on the path of increasing the Federal budget, threatening future generations with bankruptcy, with this fiscal cancer that's going to grow throughout our Nation, or do you want to be on the path where the Federal budget doesn't grow beyond the family budget ability to pay for it, a budget that doesn't include tax increases at a time when American families are struggling to pay their health care bills, their heating bills, their housing bills? That's what it really is. It's a debate about two different paths. Now, they may look small to Democrats. They claim $22 billion isn't a lot of money. Maybe $22 billion today, and that is a lot of money, but that's quickly going to grow to $200 billion, and within a generation that's going to cause a doubling of taxes on the next generation. And children and grandchildren of America, if we don't stop this and stop it this week, will have a lower standard of living, less freedom and less opportunity, and that's why it so's critical that we win this debate this week.