Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

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

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

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would restrict funding for the St. Joseph's College theater renovation located in Indiana. Again, I want to follow up on some of my earlier comments and address comments that the chairman made. If he was listening to my earlier comments, I started out complimenting much of what I see in the bill, and to the extent I see a reduction in the number of earmarks, I take that to be a very good thing. But I was elected by the people of the Fifth District of Texas, and with all due respect to all of my colleagues, I yield my voting card to no one or my judgment to no one. So I am not here to impugn the judgment of the chairman, but I may have different concerns, and the people of the Fifth Congressional District of Texas may have different concerns as well. I believe that historical preservation is a very good thing, but I know that much of the funding that has come from the Save America's Treasure program, what started out ostensibly geared toward Betsy Ross and the Declaration of Independence, has ended up funding so many other different projects. Do you know what? I have got a lot of worthy historical and cultural projects in my own district, in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. I am just not sure, at a time when Members, many who have come to this floor and said they would not raid the Social Security trust fund; as long as we are running a deficit, and we are doing that; recently the Democrat majority in their budget resolution voted to increase the debt ceiling; in their budget resolution, they voted for the single largest tax increase in history; all I question is, given all that background, government will be paid for. Sooner or later, government will be paid for, either by this generation or the next. So I am not saying these are necessarily bad projects, but I do question whether or not, given the context, particularly the entitlement spending crisis that is looming, if they are truly a priority. Clearly they are a priority in the mind of the chairman, and I sincerely respect his opinion, but they are not necessarily a priority to me or the people of the Fifth District of Texas. In my district, I have the Grand Saline Salt Palace. It sits on top of one of the largest salt mines in the entire United States of America. It is a very unique museum, actually made of salt. They give away free salt samples so people won't go and lick the walls. This is something that is unique in America, but is it truly a priority that we should have Federal funding for? I don't necessarily think so. Now, there has been a debate in this body before about the history of the hamburger. Well, in the State of Texas, they say the birth of the hamburger was in Athens, Texas, which happens to be in the Fifth Congressional District that I have the honor of representing. It was invented in the 1880s by Mr. Fletcher Davis at 115 Tyler Street in Athens. Maybe that is something that is worthy of Federal expenditure to preserve this. The Texas State Railroad that takes people on an old steam locomotive throughout beautiful Piney Woods of east Texas has been in existence since the 1800s. It has some funding challenges. It is something that I think is worthy of preservation. But, again, given the context of the largest tax increase in American history, given that people are still raiding the Social Security trust fund, it is not something I personally feel comfortable coming to this body and requesting that we use Federal funds for these purposes. These are great historical and cultural locations within my district, but I am not sure they rise to the occasion to meet the National Treasures Act language, particularly when, again, all this spending has to be paid for. So, I understand that people are experts on their district, that they want to defend their projects. But, again, it is taxpayers from, among other places, the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, that are having to pay for all this. Therefore, they start to lose their American treasures, their ability to buy a home, their ability to send their children to college, their ability to start a new business. I am still working to preserve those American treasures, and that is why I submitted this amendment, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank him for his outstanding leadership on the issue of fiscal responsibility, coming to the floor and offering this series of amendments. I do want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member. Certainly relative to many other appropriations bills that we have seen and will see on this floor, relatively speaking, this is a more fiscally responsible bill. But we can never forget that this is not our money; this is the people's money. And every time we are increasing some aspect of the Federal budget, we are taking it away from some family budget. We are taking it away from some family that had a dream of having a down payment on their first home. We are taking it away from some family who was putting that money away for college tuition for one of their children. So contrary to the debate we hear and the rhetoric about cuts, what this amendment does is say, you know, let's lead by example. In the big scheme of the Federal budget, I know this isn't a huge amount of money. But when you think about having to save us from the single largest tax increase in history that the Democrat majority put in their last budget, shouldn't we lead by example? Is this apocalyptic vision that we hear, is this going to happen if we give the legislative branch the same money they had last year? Somehow there are families all across America who are having to make do on the same income they had last year. Now, again, relative to other bills, this is more fiscally responsible. But it comes down to a simple choice: Do you want to put us on the path for the largest single tax increase in American history that would impose $3,000 of additional tax burden on American families, or do you want to put us on the path of fiscal responsibility? We should support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding and I thank him for his leadership. Again, how amazing. What an amazing place this is, when you are debating whether or not you are going to increase something called Foreign Operations 9.5 percent versus 8.5 percent growth, and somehow that is called a cut. Only in Washington, D.C. can you call an 8.5 percent increase a cut. Now, the only thing that I see that is being cut is the family budget of hard working American families as our friends on the other side of the aisle want to enact the single largest tax increase in American history. The average family in America, when this tax increase plan is complete, will have to pay an extra $3,000 a year in taxes. Mr. Chairman, that is a cut. Mr. Chairman, somehow I have heard that this amendment, the gentleman from Georgia is irresponsible for offering such an amendment. People who work hard for their paychecks in America would be lucky to have an 8.5 percent increase. We are dealing with Foreign Operations here. Maybe we ought to be thinking about family budget operations. Already the Federal Government is spending $23,289 per American family. Our friends on the other side of the aisle now, as we are debating this appropriation bill, have a plan to spend an extra $23 billion in non-defense discretionary, on top of the $6 billion in the omnibus, on top of the $17 billion in the war supplemental, all to be paid for by the single largest tax increase in history. And it is irresponsible to only increase Foreign Operations 8.5 percent? Let's protect the family budget from the Federal budget and support this amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Smith-Stupak amendment to restore the pro-life Mexico City Policy protections that were effectively stripped from this bill. Human life is a precious commodity and around the globe it is still too often taken for granted. Like millions, in my heart and in my mind, I believe that life begins at conception. And as a Member of this body, I feel I have an obligation to protect the right to life wherever I can. The most effective way to do that now, today, is to support the Mexico City Policy which would prevent our international aid from going to foreign organizations that support or promote abortions. This policy is based on the simple idea that American taxpayers should not be forced to export abortions with their money. Again, we're talking about taking money away from the American taxpayer and using it to subsidize foreign abortions. For most, this defies common sense. It defies fiscal sense. And it is reprehensible to the millions who believe in the fundamental right to life. I urge all Members to support the Smith-Stupak amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I was happy to yield to the gentleman, and I want to thank him for his leadership. Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage the House to adopt this amendment. Right now on the heels of our Democrat colleagues enacting the single largest increase in history, we should leave no stone unturned in trying to find more ways that we can help the poor beleaguered taxpayer, who actually pays for all of these programs. Now, I have no doubt that there are many good things in this legislation, and I know we in Congress are only limited by our imagination on how we can spend the taxpayers' money. Already, just with the programs that are already on the books with the Federal Government before people create new programs, we're on a collision course. We're on a collision course to either, one, have taxes doubled on the next generation, just to pay for government we have, or within one generation there is only going to be, for all intents and purposes, a Federal Government consisting of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Now, many people don't understand how the institution works, but already so much of the Federal spending is on automatic pilot, so-called entitlement spending. This is actually one of the few opportunities that Members have to come to the floor of the House and actually try to save taxpayers' money. Now, we know that the President has issued a veto threat, and there is a $23 billion savings that he's trying to achieve. For many of us, we believe the President is trying to spend too much money. But the President is the President, and the President is the one who has the veto pen. If we would adopt the gentleman's amendment, the gentleman from Georgia, we would at least take one small step towards the pathway of saving that $23 billion and maybe, maybe take one small step towards saving the next generation from that nasty fiscal fork in the road to where either, one, they are going to have their taxes doubled, right on the heels, again, of the single largest tax increase in American history that the Democrats have brought to us, or we are going to see a Federal Government consisting of little more than Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. What's ironic about this, Mr. Chairman, is if we don't start taking steps to save money today, and this amendment would save $30 million, if we don't start taking these steps today, tomorrow there might not be an Energy and Water appropriations bill. All the money would go somewhere else, and we continue as an institution to kick the can down the road. Now, some in this body say fiscal responsibility simply means balancing the budget no matter what the cost. Well, for those who are going to have to have their taxes doubled in the next generation, they may differ with that assessment of what fiscal responsibility is. Again, as the gentleman from Georgia has said, the Corps already has a large background of ongoing construction work. We know that; all Members know that. By limiting the Corps investigations, this amendment would help ensure that current Corps projects are completed. Again, it's one very, very small step; but we cannot send this country again under Democrat leadership into some kind of tax-and-spend economic death spiral. We have to take every step possible to save the American people from, number one, the single largest tax increase in American history that threatens to impose over a 5-year period up to $3,000 of taxes per family. We have to save them from that. Then we have to save them from the other spending. So this is a very modest amendment that would put us on a pathway to ensure that the President doesn't veto this bill and that we achieve some level of fiscal responsibility. I urge the House to adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Again I want to commend the gentleman from Georgia for his amendment in this series of amendments, which, as I understand it, would bring the funding to the President's level, which, in most cases for many of us, is still too much. As I stated earlier in the debate, Mr. Chairman, I am still concerned that although clearly good cases are made for how these funds can be used, I look at the larger picture. We still have a bill before us that is growing this part of government at over twice the rate of inflation. Again, we are asking American families to somehow do more with less, and sometimes you wonder if government isn't doing less with more. This is on top of the pressure that has been put on the family budget by the new Democrat majority's enacting the largest single tax increase in American history in their budget. This is on top of the Democrat majority that is trying to increase what we call nondefense discretionary spending by $23 billion above the level of last year. This is in addition to the $6 billion, Mr. Chairman, that they added to the omnibus spending bill at the first of the Congress and the $17 billion in nonemergency spending that they tried to put into the emergency supplemental to support our troops that somehow we all know ended up with funding for peanuts and spinach and many other items that many Americans would consider being part of a pork-barrel spending effort. So, again, I would have more sympathy with those who oppose the bill if I saw any indication whatsoever that the new Democrat majority was trying to save the family budget from the Federal budget. And, instead, I see this explosion of spending, and I haven't even included what the gentleman from Georgia aptly observed, that we hadn't even completed 6 months of the year but already the new Democrat majority, on top of all the old spending, has now authorized over the next 5-year budget window an additional $105 billion of new spending. And you wonder where does it all end? Where does it all end? I said earlier that I wish we could be debating on this floor opportunities to actually reform entitlement spending. We are dealing with a smaller portion of the Federal budget now, but we know that the longest journey starts with the first step. And, Mr. Chairman, we need to observe, and don't take my word for it, about what is going to happen to the American family and the American economy if we don't take some small steps to try to reduce the rate of growth of government. Let's listen to our Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, who was quoted in a House Budget Committee. Without ``early and meaningful action'' to address the growth in entitlement spending, ``the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost.'' Let's listen to the Comptroller General, our chief fiduciary officer in the United States. He said, ``The rising costs of government entitlements are a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.'' Instead, this body kicks the can down the road. And now we have a bill before us which, although it does many worthy things, is increasing the rate of spending of this part of government twice the rate of inflation; again, taking money away from American families after the single largest tax increase in history, threatening to double taxes on their children. And so, we've had three amendments here in a row that would take incredibly modest steps to try to reduce the rate of growth of government. You don't even have to cut government, you just have to reduce the rate of growth to bring some fiscal sanity from this new spending and tax economic debt spiral that the Democrats seem to want to foist us into. So, I would urge the House to adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia. I wish we could do more, but it is a modest start on a very, very long journey.

Mr. HENSARLING. Again, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership and trying to bring some level of fiscal sanity and fiscal accountability back to this body. And I'm not unsympathetic to what I just heard our ranking member say. But I guess I get somewhat frustrated when I see spending bill after spending bill after spending bill, and I see the largest single tax increase in American history enacted by the new majority. I see absolutely no effort on the part of the new majority to do anything to rein in out-of-control entitlement spending. Unfortunately, there are few opportunities to try to save the poor, beleaguered, American taxpayer some of his funds. And again, I'm not sure that this bill is being shortchanged. It does exceed the President's request. It does provide funding above last year, in this case, increasing funding by roughly twice the rate of inflation. There are many American families who don't have the luxury of seeing their incomes go up by twice the rate of inflation. Why are we expecting families to do with less so that government can do with more? And again, I'm not unsympathetic to what the ranking member had to say. But there are so few opportunities. And I understand good things can be done with these funds. But occasionally, Mr. Chairman, we have to stop and we have to take a look at where this funding is coming from. And I talk about the poor, beleaguered, American taxpayer who, if the Democrats have their way and the largest single tax increase in American history is allowed to be imposed upon the American people, will see their taxes go up by roughly $3,000 a year. And I hear from some of those taxpayers from around the country. I heard from Debbie in Lake Zurich, Illinois. She writes, ``I cannot survive a $3,000 tax hike. I am a single, 53-year old woman living in Lake Zurich who is drowning in taxes. Because of taxes I've been forced to put my house on the market. Any more tax increases will create a huge financial burden.'' I heard from Rose in Turnersville, New Jersey. ``As an older adult still in the work force, I'm living paycheck to paycheck. Between property taxes and all the other taxes I pay, I will soon give up my home. Just affording gas to get to work in my car is now a trial. Please keep the tax cuts we already have.'' As we talk about things we're going to do to safeguard people's homes, how ironic it is, with the largest tax increase in history we're going to spend the money and help take their homes away.

Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. HENSARLING

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, again, this amendment, as some previous amendments have, attempts to make a very, very modest step towards saving the family budget from the single largest tax increase in American history. Specifically, over the requested level or the level in the bill, this would reduce funding for Interior's Water and Related Resources account to the President's request from roughly $871 million to $816 million, representing a $55 million savings to the American taxpayer. This account has been a traditionally earmarked account for certain water restoration activities in 17 Western States. The bill's current funding level represents a 6.7 percent increase over the President's request. Again, I am sure this account funds many worthy projects. But we need, I believe, a number of us believe we need a road map to try to bring fiscal sanity to the House in an appropriations bill that is already increasing spending twice the rate of inflation. So now we are having a debate over $816 million, as proposed by the administration, which I am sure many in this body might think is an overly large number when we recognize that money is coming from hardworking American taxpayers, but a difference of $816 million versus $871 million. Again, as the majority in their budget resolution enacts the single largest tax increase in American history, they are asking American families to somehow do more with less. Don't we believe that the Federal Government ought to try to do more with less, and, in this case, we still have an increase, 6.7 percent increase over the President's request. As I have taken to the floor on other occasions during this debate, we should never, ever forget that although something good can be done with the taxpayers' dollars in this account, I have no doubt, we have to remember the hardworking American families back home and how the single largest tax increase in history, which is funding this third appropriation bill, still twice the rate of inflation, we have to remember, we have to remember how this bill impacts them. I sent out a letter to my constituents asking them how this tax increase of the Democrat majority would impact them. I heard from Bruce in Garland. Garland's a city in my district. He said, ``In my particular case, an additional $2,200 in taxes would cut into the finances I used to pay for my son's college education. A control and reduction of spending is what is needed.'' Again, Mr. Chairman, what we realize is as we plus-up some Federal account, we are downsizing some family account. In this case, we're affecting a family's education account. I heard from Joy in the city of Dallas. I represent the eastern part of the city of Dallas. She writes, ``I could not pay for a semester of college for my daughter if I had to send more money to the government.'' So as this account's getting plussed up by twice the rate of inflation, here are two individual families, just two out of millions across America, who are having their education accounts gutted by the plus-up in this particular bill. I heard from Linda, also from the city of Garland. ``If we had to pay an additional $2,200 each year, it would make us have to decide between food or medicine.'' I've got a whole host of these letters, Mr. Chairman, to remind every Member in this body that as we talk about all the noble purposes we have for the American taxpayers' money, they too have noble purposes. They have health care programs in their family, they have education programs in their family, they have energy bills and programs in their family, paying their heating bills, their cooling bills, filling up their automobile. So certainly we could take one modest step in saving the taxpayer $55 million and plus-up the water and related resources account, a traditionally earmarked account. And we had a very vigorous debate over earmarks here recently, their transparency, their accountability. But surely we could agree to hold to the President's level and try to save the family budget from the onslaught of the Federal budget.

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

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. First I'm heartened that nobody has risen to oppose the amendment. I've heard many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in a different context criticize the administration for not always having what they considered to be a sufficient competitive bidding process on contracts, and so I'm a little curious how this language ended up in the bill in the first place. But why wouldn't we want more competition? Again, after our colleagues on the other side of the aisle helped put in place the single largest tax increase in American history, and then start to spend that money in our third appropriations bill that will again grow government way beyond the rate of inflation, we had better look for savings everyplace we can find it. How can you criticize the administration for no-bid contracts, and then here's an opportunity here for competitive bidding, to somehow turn it down? So I don't know why this language is in the bill in the first place, but I want to congratulate and commend the gentleman from Texas for his amendment. It has, I think, the potential to save the poor, beleaguered taxpayer millions, if not billions, of dollars. Is there anything not more ingrained in the American character than competition? We ought to try to make these contracts as competitive as possible. Again, we have to put this whole piece of legislation in context. It's the third appropriations bill arising from a budget resolution that calls for the single largest tax increase in American history, approximately $3,000 of increased taxes for hardworking American families as they try to meet their education needs, as they try to meet their health care needs, as they try to meet their housing needs. So I know there's a number of good programs that are contained within this legislation. In many respects, we're not having a debate today about how much money we're going to spend. We are debating who's going to do the spending, and there are many of us on the floor today who want to make sure that American families get to do more of that spending. We continue to kick this can down the road. It's simply unfair to place such a tax burden on the American people. The average American family already pays $22,000 a year combined in Federal taxes, and now as the Democrat majority is promising to impose an additional $3,000 a year in taxes, and then, even worse, because their budget resolution from which this appropriation bill follows is silent on the issue of what to do with out-of-control entitlement spending, which is putting our sons and daughters, our grandchildren, on automatic pilot to have their taxes doubled so they will never be able to afford their own homes, send their kids to college, start their own business. As the Comptroller General said, and I paraphrase, we are on the verge of being the first generation in American history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living. Now, I wish there was a lot more that we could do today within this piece of legislation, but at least by adopting the amendment of the gentleman from Texas, we will take a few small steps in doing what every other American considers to be common sense, and that is to ensure a maximum of competitive bidding, we would take at least a few small steps towards trying to save the American people from this increased tax burden that, again, subtracts from their dreams of their first home, their dreams of launching a small business. This is all part, again, of a budget that imposes the single largest tax increase on the American people in history. After trying to spend an additional $23 billion over the level spent last year, $6 billion that was added to the omnibus, $17 billion added to the war supplemental in nonemergency spending, the Democrat majority now is going to allow unlimited emergency spending, giving Members practically the ability to rubber-stamp anything with ``emergency.'' And not only does their budget not do anything to reform entitlement spending, it creates reserve funds that promises more entitlement spending, Mr. Chairman, to make the problem even worse. So we should all adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Texas. I applaud his leadership. It's a small step, a commonsense step to try to save the family budget from the Federal budget.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like to associate myself with the comments of the ranking member of the Budget Committee. What is of great concern here and why once again I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) for these series of amendments to at a minimum look at various spending levels and try to at least keep to the President's level, which so many of us already consider to be overinflated, particularly when we look at the fact of how much more the Federal budget has grown over the family budget. Since I have been on the face of the planet, the Federal budget has outgrown the family budget by a factor of about five to one. This cannot continue. And so the gentleman from Georgia offers several amendments, all that would at least put us on the path to avoid the Presidential veto and spend less than what the new Democrat majority, tax-and-spend majority, wants to do. Again, I think it's very important that we focus on the fact that this is part of a larger plan that we see unveiled in the budget resolution. This is our third appropriations bill that puts us on the course to spend the funds that will arise from this single largest tax increase in American history. Mr. Chairman, for all those who are watching the proceedings of the House today, it might be interesting to note for them that the last time the Democrats had the majority, they enacted the single largest tax increase in American history. So they are at least consistent in what they are trying to do. The big debate in Washington is whether you want to tax more and spend more or whether you want to try to constrain the growth of the Federal budget to where the family budget can actually afford it. I have heard other speakers rise and somehow point the finger at Republicans for fiscal irresponsibility. I must admit on occasion that perhaps is correct, but, Mr. Chairman, since I have been here and since I look in the rearview mirror, every time the Republicans have brought a budget to the floor, the Democrats have brought even a larger budget to the floor. They have decried the prescription drug benefit program of the Republicans for being overly expensive, but their alternative cost even more. And now already in just the first 6 months of this 110th Congress, we have the Democrats wanting to increase nondefense appropriations by $23 billion of taxpayer money, we should never forget that it's the taxpayers' money, above what we spent in 2007. They already added $6 billion to the omnibus spending bill at the first of this Congress. They added $17 billion in nonemergency supplemental spending to the bill that would support our troops in harm's way; but as we notice, as we read the fine print, we discovered it included spinach and peanuts and shrimp and everything else. And now we also understand that the Democrat majority has provided new spending on top of the old spending, $105 billion over 5 years. What the Republicans are trying to do is keep the tax relief that Americans have already been provided, keep it alive, make it permanent. Democrats say that we're not trying to increase taxes on the American people, although in their budget they have the single largest tax increase in American history, they just say, well, we're just going to let this tax relief expire. Well, Mr. Chairman, if you're a hardworking individual in the Fifth District of Texas and you make the same amount of money this year that you made last year and your tax bill goes up, now, that may be called in Washington, DC. letting tax relief expire, I can assure you that is a tax increase on hardworking people in the Fifth District of Texas and all over America. That's why when this bill comes to the floor, and I know there are many worthy programs in this bill, but we can never forget the worthy energy bills that are in the family budget and the worthy water bills that are in the family budget, and you cannot fund the Federal budget without taking money from the family budget. That's why again one modest step would be to vote for this amendment from the gentleman from Georgia, and I once again want to commend him for his leadership on fiscal responsibility in this body.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, first I wanted to thank the distinguished majority leader, thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, thank the Republican leader for all of their efforts to bring us to the point where we are at the moment. I think we've certainly heard much about the process and procedures that will take place under this anticipated agreement, but I think it's very important to note for the entirety of the body, and particularly for those of us who have spent a lot of time on the floor since this debate ensued, that with this agreement what we will see going forward after these first two bills is that we will see earmarks in the bills. We will see transparency. We will see the ability of Members to be able to strike at those earmarks. That is what I believe I have heard this evening. That is what much of this debate has been about, lo these many hours. I, for one, believe that to be a good thing. I believe I heard that there is hopefully an expectation of open rules. I understand the majority leader's caveat. I understand there is an anticipation of UCs, as historic norms dictate. I understand there is an anticipation that substantive amendments will be accommodated. I understand that substantive amendments may be in the eye of the beholder and men and women of good faith must work together, and I understand there is an anticipation that if bills are of historic norms, that debate time may be of historic norms as well. But I did want to signal that, if I have the proper understanding, that I wanted to thank the majority leader, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and the Republican leader for their efforts to bring the ability of Members to be able to see these earmarks and challenge these earmarks. I assume that, as I have spoken, if any of the gentlemen involved believe that my understanding is incorrect, I would be happy to yield time to them. Seeing no one believing my understanding is incorrect, again, I want to thank them for bringing us to this point, and I withdraw my objection, Madam Speaker.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to the debate last evening and today. And I have heard a number of complaints and concerns from our friends on the other side of the aisle. First let me speak to the process. There are a lot of complaints that somehow we are spending too much time debating this appropriations bill. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the last appropriations bill, the one that funded our troops in harm's way, this body spent almost 4 months, almost 4 months, coming up with that appropriations bill. And, Mr. Chairman, as I look at the clock, we haven't even debated this one yet for 24 hours. Mr. Chairman, we also hear that, well, if you care about homeland security, you have to pass this bill and you have to pass it today. Don't you care about homeland security? Well, Mr. Chairman, as an appropriations bill, to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in this bill that will go into effect until October 1. So here we are in June and we are being told, no, we can't submit to Democratic procedures here. We can't thoroughly vet and debate this important bill. It has to be passed today, even though it doesn't go into effect until October. And then, Mr. Chairman, we have heard, well, the reason that we don't have our earmarks listed in the bill, the reason that there is this secret slush fund that someday somehow will be unveiled to all is because, well, the staff hasn't had time to vet all of these earmarks. Well, Mr. Chairman, again, when our friends from the other side of the aisle took over as the majority and rewrote the rules, apparently they didn't read their own rules very well. Members on both sides of the aisle became confused. Nobody even knew how to submit their earmark request. So then to turn around and somehow point to this side of the aisle when it was that side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, that created the problem. I mean, it's like the old proverbial person who is being indicted for murder who says, Well, please don't convict me, I know I killed my parents, but now I'm an orphan. Well, they are the ones who caused the problem, Mr. Chairman, so I don't quite understand why they are complaining about the process that brought us here in the first place. As I listen to the debate, Mr. Chairman, and I do believe this is an important bill, and I believe there is a lot of important work and very important provisions in this bill, but I think also there seems to be, as I listen closely to the debate on the other side of the aisle, there seems to be no appreciation whatsoever of the role the poor, beleaguered taxpayer plays in homeland security, like there is some unlimited vault from the workers of America to pay for all of this. Mr. Chairman, those on the other side of the aisle, by refusing to do anything about entitlement spending, have put us on a fiscal course to where the next generation won't even have a Department of Homeland Security. Let us learn the lessons of history or we will be condemned to repeat them. One of the reasons that the Soviet Union, the evil empire, doesn't exist anymore is because their economy collapsed. They could not keep pace. Their workers could not produce what was necessary to defend that state. And now we are looking at our friends from this side of the aisle putting us on a fiscal course that would render our total inability to provide for a Department of Homeland Security. Now, I know the easy thing to do is kick the can down the road, worry about the next election, don't worry about the next generation; but Mr. Chairman, I don't think that is worthy of this body. Mr. Chairman, ultimately this comes down to the role of earmarks and our ability to fund this. As my colleague in the other body, Senator Coburn of Oklahoma, has said, earmarks are the gateway drug to spending addiction. Now, I know there are many good earmarks, there are many worthy earmarks; I myself do not request them. But for many Members they have become that gateway drug to spending addiction, making it more difficult to fund our homeland security. Those on the other side of the aisle campaigned for increased transparency, and all we are asking is that Members have the ability to strike at these.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for offering this amendment, and I want to thank him for his leadership in this body, particularly on matters of fiscal responsibility. And I know his district is proud to have him as their Representative. Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious matter that we discuss this evening. Like many Members of Congress, I commute. I work in Washington, but I live back in my district. And I have two small children that happen to be visiting this particular week, and I think about threats to my children and I know the threat of radical Islam. It is one of the most serious threats that they face. So I take the debate on this bill on homeland security very seriously. But, Mr. Chairman, I see other threats to my children's future and my Nation's future. And another threat I see is a Federal budget that has grown beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it. And, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid if I look at a bill that calls for roughly a 14 percent increase from one year to the next, almost twice the level of what the President requested, I question what this is going to do to the future of my children and the future of my country. Because don't take my word for it, Mr. Chairman; look again at what the Congressional Budget Office has told us, the Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of Treasury, the Federal Reserve, both conservative and liberal think tanks. They have told us that the present spending patterns that we have, if we don't begin to change the way we spend the people's money, if we don't reform out-of-control entitlement spending, the next generation will face one of two perils. Either, number one, we will actually see their taxes doubled, just to sustain this rate of growth in spending, their taxes will be doubled; otherwise, we will have a Federal Government that consists of little more than Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security. I mean, Mr. Chairman, that is what is almost ironic about this debate; that as we talk about plussing up this account by 14 percent, if we don't change the way we spend the people's money, there won't even be a Department of Homeland Security for the next generation. So, again, what we are doing here in this bill is, we are kicking the can down the road, I fear. And as I look at how money is spent, it reminds me, it is not always how much money you spend. It is how you spend the money. And I don't know if it is the President's fault, Democrats' fault, Republicans' fault, everyone's fault, nobody's fault. But when I see the Department of Homeland Security money somehow ending up helping fund lawn mower races, as the gentleman from Arizona brought to our attention, fund puppet shows, how is that a critical mission within the Department of Homeland Security? That is beyond me. That is beyond me. So I think we have to look very carefully at how the money is spent. And I am afraid that throwing this much money at this situation is just going to exacerbate this kind of spending. Now, in my home district, I am very happy when every volunteer fire department in every small community in my district gets a new pumper truck. I am happy to announce that. I wonder, though, with the challenges we face for the next generation if it is really mission critical. And I am very concerned, as the gentleman from Arizona has spoken, as many others have risen on the floor today, about what is happening in the earmark process. Again, it is not so much always how much money you spend; it is how you spend the people's money. So the new majority that promised us earmark reform is now telling us that they are going to do something completely opposite. They are going to take away the ability for Members, Members who are on the floor today, with the exception of one, I suppose, to offer amendments to strike these earmarks to get at spending perhaps like the lawn mower races. This is moving in the complete opposite direction of what the majority promised when they took office. The American people will not stand idly by.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I certainly support his amendment. In the big scope of the Federal budget perhaps the dollars are not large, but before we can really ever attack spending, we have to attack the culture of spending, and you have to lead by example. And why can't we ask people in the Federal Government, as we ask families all around the Nation, as our friends on the other side of the aisle have recently passed the single largest tax increase in history, they're expecting American families to somehow do more with less. Can't we expect a few of the administrators of this agency to somehow, somehow get by on the same amount of money they had last year? I encourage the support for this amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. First, I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for her amendment. And I want to say, Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed by some comments I have heard from the other side of the aisle that somehow this is not a worthy debate. I believe one of my colleagues said, I thought I would come to the floor and find us debating something important. How we spend the people's money, how much money we take from hardworking Americans is a very important matter. How much of the bread we take off of the table of that hardworking teacher in Malakoff, Texas, is a very important matter. How much money we take from the fireman, the fireman in Crandall, Texas, who is working to ensure our safety, and how much of the bread we take off of his table is a very important matter, Mr. Chairman. And not just how much money, but once we take that money, how we spend that money. We know that the people, the people, decry how the practice of earmarks has been practiced in this House. And I wished when the Republicans were in the majority we would have done a better job. I was often disappointed. I, myself, don't request earmarks, although I know there are many that are worthy. But at least when this party was in the majority, they woke up and heard the voices of people and said, we need reform. We need accountability. We need transparency. And Members were given that ability to focus sunlight, sunshine, on those earmarks, and they were allowed a process by which to strike them from the bill. Now I read a number of quotes from our new Democrat majority leadership. The Speaker said, ``I would just as soon do away with them,'' referring to earmarks. She said shortly after becoming Speaker, ``We have placed a moratorium on earmarks until a new reform process is in place to ensure the integrity of every earmark that is funded.'' A new reform process. So now we discover, Mr. Chairman, that the new reform process is to take it out of the sunshine, hide it in the darkness, take away Members' ability to strike it from the bill, and give that, albeit apparently, to one individual who apparently is all knowing, all seeing, and all powerful when it comes to these earmarks. I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that the American people will sit idly by for this practice. Already the Third Estate is letting the people know what is going on. I don't want to personalize the debate, but let me paraphrase from the Wisconsin State Journal. I won't talk about individual Members, but I will talk about the majority. The Wisconsin State Journal: The Democrats are, and I paraphrase, ``now dodging the very reforms they helped to generate.'' This will ``prevent the public and most lawmakers from questioning earmarks until it is too late.'' Wisconsin State Journal, June 7. The Cleveland Plain Dealer, ``Five months after,'' and again I paraphrase, the Democrat majority, ``took control, the promises remain unfulfilled.'' And what we have, ``That's a secretive process, and its final product gets a `yes' or `no' vote in each Chamber. This means earmarks will sail through before the press or even most Members of Congress can examine or challenge them.'' The Cleveland Plain Dealer of June 10. The Mobile, Alabama, Press Register. ``Democrats work ATM,'' automatic teller machine. ``But now that they control the ATM, the Democrats are finding all sorts of excuses to keep the earmark dispenser open for business. Democrats are reneging on their vows of fiscal responsibility just a few months after they won their chance to load the ATM.'' The Mobile Press Register, June 8. And the list goes on and on and on. Mr. Chairman, there ought to be a message loud and clear from the last election. The people want to reform earmarks. This bill, this Democrat majority, this process, takes us in the exact opposite direction, and it is one more reason we need to support the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I'd yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).