Paul Hodes

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3873) to expedite the transfer of ownership of rural multifamily housing projects with loans made or insured under section 515 of the Housing Act of 1949 so that such projects are rehabilitated and preserved for use for affordable housing.

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, so much time as he may consume.

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 3873. Mr. Speaker, rural poverty is a particularly harsh brand of indigence. It tends to be more extreme than urban poverty, and because it develops in areas far from television cameras and daily newspapers, to most Americans it is faceless. But its presence and its consequences are real, and they present formidable challenges to both our country and our conscience. The poverty rate in rural areas is 14.6 percent, topping that of most urban centers. Rural families are farther from population centers and, thus, less likely or able to take advantage of basic housing services. There is desperate need in parts of our country. As Members of the people's House we have a moral imperative to help children and parents trapped in destitute circumstances. The shortage of affordable housing is a problem nationwide and a crisis in rural communities. To reduce the barriers rural families face when trying to find affordable housing, together with my colleague from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), we have introduced H.R. 3873, the Section 515 Rural Housing Property Transfer Improvement Act of 2007, which would take important steps to help alleviate this rural housing crisis. The section 515 rural housing program provides loans for the Rural Housing Service. These loans are made to nonprofit, for-profit, cooperative, and public entities for the construction of rental or cooperative housing in rural areas. The loans are made to make units affordable for low and very low-income areas in rural areas. This important program serves roughly 450,000 families. Section 515 loans have financed approximately 16,000 projects. Of those, more than 50 percent of the projects were constructed more than 25 years ago. These aging properties are often in desperate need of renovation, which most often happens when a property is sold. When a section 515 property is sold, the transfer of ownership must be approved by the State's rural development office. The process by which States approve the transfer of ownership of section 515 properties is too slow and steeped in bureaucracy. Families sometimes wait years for housing while loans are held back by red tape. Our bill will make several key changes to cut through the red tape so rural families can move into affordable houses. Now, while some State rural development offices transfer section 515 applications in a timely way, others do not. Nonaction on these applications often results in deals going bad. Because of the reduced turnaround and red tape, the appraisals become outdated and invalid, so the deal cannot be underwritten. Under our bill, if applications are not processed in a timely way by the State rural development office, the applications will be transferred for processing to the national Rural Housing Service. The State offices that process applications on time won't have to worry about provisions in the bill. The bill will also improve the way rural housing program money is used with low-income housing tax credits. When the tax credits and rural housing programs are used together, there are often different rules and procedures required of the participants in the deals from each of the agencies involved. More red tape. Our bill requires the USDA to work with the IRS to resolve the differences. Better coordination will make tax credit deals move smoother through the USDA and leverage more money for much-needed rural housing. H.R. 3873 will help both the owners of the property as well as residents in rural communities both in my home State of New Hampshire and across the country. I'm pleased that 13 housing organizations support H.R. 3873, including the Council for Affordable and Rural Housing as well as the Housing Assistance Council. The Financial Services Committee reported the bill by voice vote. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 3873. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Madam Speaker, as we prepare to complete this first year of the new Democratic Congress, I would like to take a moment to reflect on some of the major accomplishments that we have achieved on behalf of the American people. As a member of the majority makers, the historic class of 2006, we have helped to restore integrity, idealism and imagination to the people's House. We increased the minimum wage for the first time in a decade and fully implemented the 9/11 Commission recommendations to better protect our Nation. Since then, we have worked to ease the financial burdens that middle- class families face, passing the most sweeping college affordability package in more than 60 years, and yesterday, we approved an historic energy bill to declare our energy independence and help us address global warming, saving Americans anywhere from $700 to $1,000 a year in gas prices. Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand with fellow Democrats for an American agenda, real security, healthy families, a thriving economy, with opportunity for all, not just a few at the top, and a sustainable future for our planet. I look forward to 2008.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of S. 1896, which would designate the U.S. Post Office located at Central Street in Hillsborough, New Hampshire, as the ``Officer Jeremy Todd Charron Post Office.'' Officer Charron, `` who died at the young age of 24, served the people of New Hampshire admirably, and this bill would be a fitting tribute to his courage and sacrifice to the Granite State. Jeremy was a graduate of Hillsborough-Deering High School, where he was elected to be the president of his senior class. After graduating high school, he served in the United States Marine Corps from 1992 to 1996 and went on to attend the New Hampshire Police Academy. Six weeks after graduating from the academy, in the early morning of August 24, 1997, Officer Charron noticed a suspicious car parked in Webster Park in Epsom. When the two people inside stepped out of the car, Officer Charron was fired upon three times, with one round entering his unprotected left side. Although mortally wounded, Officer Charron was able to return fire. He struck the vehicle several times even as the car fled from the scene before succumbing to his wounds. The suspects were later captured by local law enforcement, and the gunman later pled guilty to capital murder and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Officer Charron is survived by his parents, Robert and Frances, his two brothers; Robert and Andrew, and his two sisters; Amanda and Bethany. Madam Speaker, every day police officers throughout New Hampshire and the nation don their uniforms and serve with honor and courage. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1896 today to help ensure that we don't forget the sacrifice made by this brave young man, a hero in New Hampshire and a true American hero.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for yielding. I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act. This legislation represents an historic opportunity to move our country towards a secure future. The bill marks a turning point in this Nation's history and moves us towards energy independence. Energy security is something that my constituents in New Hampshire take very seriously. And although this legislation is not perfect, because it doesn't go far enough, we need a renewable portfolio standard that is a national standard. Industry recognizes that. The voters and the markets are ahead of the politicians on this. This bill is the start of a 21st-century energy policy for America. With this bill, Mr. Speaker, we take a firm stand for real security, for healthy families, for a thriving economy in a competitive global market, and for a sustainable future for our planet. Energy policy is the key to our national security. Our real security requires energy independence. We require new green jobs and an aggressive program to deal with global warming. We need this bill to start to protect our country and strengthen our economy. I ask all of my colleagues to cast their vote with America's future in mind.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in strong support of the underlying bill, the Energy Independence and Security Act, whose provisions, in the main, have been debated, reviewed, talked about and considered in this House for a year. This legislation, while not perfect, and no legislation is, represents a historic opportunity to move our country toward a secure future. The bill marks a turning point in the Nation's history and answers the call for change that the American people sounded in 2006. The harsh partisan rhetoric from the other side, Mr. Speaker, is a product of the same obsolete thinking which produced our existing energy policy, which has kept this country funneling petrodollars to countries that fund terrorism. The people of my home State of New Hampshire are pressed by soaring gas prices; they're facing a cold winter. But they understand that energy independence, our economy and our national security are inseparable. With this bill we take a firm stand for real security, for healthy families, for a thriving economy, and for a sustainable future for our planet. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and for the bill.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Mr. Chairman, I thank Representative Kanjorski, the chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, for yielding me this time. I believe that this amendment is a good complement to Chairman Frank's antipredatory lending bill, and I commend colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the bipartisan nature of this amendment, which is similar to H.R. 3837, the bill of which I was a proud cosponsor. Many of my constituents have had problems with their mortgage servicers. This amendment makes sure that servicers provide faster responses to consumer inquiries and provides increased penalties for abusive servicing practices. Escrows help homeowners pay their property taxes on time, but many homeowners are unaware of the total cost of the loan because the exact amount of taxes and insurance isn't disclosed at the time of closing. This amendment would make sure that homeowners are informed of the actual amount of the loan, including the escrow payments. And also, lastly, faulty appraisals have been a huge problem and can have a devastating impact on a family's single largest investment, their home. If the initial appraisal is inaccurate, reselling the home for what the family paid can be nearly impossible. The amendment creates a Federal independent standard for appraisals enforced by tough penalties. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, December 5, 2007.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Dean Aguillen, an important member of this body's staff, on the occasion of his transition. He's moving on from his job here. Dean is the Director of Member Services for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and there are a number of new Members here tonight, and as we all remember, Dean was one of the first, if not the first, members of the staff of the Speaker whom we had the pleasure to deal with. We arrived here for our orientation, quite disoriented and needing a lot of orientation; and we found Dean to be a calm, knowledgeable mentor. He was a guide, he was kind, he was compassionate, and he was smart. As I began to help organize the Democratic new Members into what would become the class of 2006, it was Dean who was the go-to guy for that effort. He is a consummate professional of integrity, dedication, kindness, and wisdom. And we wish him well in his new life. We will miss him. Dean, thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of weeks, President Bush has turned into President Veto, saying ``no'' to a bill that would provide 10 million children access to health care and then saying ``no'' last week to a bill that would protect the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans from the devastating impact of flooding. After 6 years of signing any bill that came to his desk and disregarding the impact legislation would have on our Nation's fiscal well-being, President Bush is now trying to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility. Who, exactly, is the President trying to fool? He turned a $5.6 trillion surplus that he inherited from President Clinton into a $3 trillion deficit. That's a reversal of fortune of $8 trillion. When Democrats took control of Congress, we vowed to restore fiscal sanity, and we began by restoring sensible pay-as-you-go rules. Every bill that we have brought to this floor has complied with these rules, but the President continues to imply that he is more fiscally responsible than this new Congress. The American people should not and will not be fooled by this change in rhetoric.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3920 and in opposition to the Republican substitute. Last Tuesday, 303 workers in Groveton, New Hampshire, a small paper mill town, heard over the radio and by newspaper the devastating news that Wausau Paper was closing the mill at the end of the year. On Friday, I sent a letter to Labor Secretary Chao asking for expedited help under the existing TAA, and on Monday I traveled to Groveton and met with a number of the affected workers. It is difficult to describe how devastating this closure is to the town of Groveton, to the families of the workers and to the region. Many of the proud workers of that mill are third and fourth generation. They have got no other skills. This is the life they know. As I explained on Monday to the workers what kind of help is available in the current TAA, the thought that was going through my mind was that this was not enough. We need to do more. These folks, their family, this community need more and deserve more help from the Federal Government. The ripple effects of this closure are huge. It goes out into the community, to other businesses and vendors. That is why the H.R. 3920 provisions to redevelop communities hit by the loss of manufacturing jobs through the designation of manufacturing redevelopment zones is so important. We've got more workers who need help. They face harder times and higher costs, especially for health care. We need to expand the TAA. Now is not the time to go backwards. The Republican substitute is no substitute. It takes us backwards. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Republican proposal and support H.R. 3920.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm very glad to be here on this Halloween night. I'd like to think this is a treat for us, a treat for those who are listening to us or watching on television and in the country, although lots of folks are probably out with their kids trick-or-treating tonight. But it is an absolute honor to be here with the Members of the class of 2006, and many of us are wearing article I buttons. And the importance of those buttons is to raise the awareness in Congress and around the country about the importance of the checks and balances in our system of government. We spoke last week about some of these issues, and I was flooded with calls not just from my constituents but from people around the country thanking us for talking about the checks and balances in our system and explaining in as clear a way as we could the importance of our system of government and why the Founding Fathers put Congress first. Many people think that Congress is three coequal branches of government. Many people think that the President and the House of Representatives and the Senate somehow are coequal when actually the Congress, in article I of our Constitution, as the people's House, as the voice of the people, is given preeminence. It is the Congress that makes the laws, not the President. The President doesn't make the law. He's got to follow the law that Congress makes. It is the Congress that raises the money to run government, to fill the programs, and Congress that spends the money we raise. It is Congress that has the power to assess taxes, levy taxes. It is Congress that has the power to declare war and only Congress that has the power to declare war. And these days, as we contemplate very difficult issues of war and peace in the Middle East, our involvement in Iraq and around the world, those powers, the war powers of Congress, versus the powers asserted by this President have come into sharp focus and occasional sharp contrast. I believe that we're going to see in the days ahead those kinds of debates in this people's House as we discuss who has the power to take this country into armed conflict, who has the power to declare war or not, are we at war. These are questions that are going to be heard. There's a very interesting example of the clash between the assertion of Presidential power, which we've seen here, and the real power that Congress has. Right now, as many of my colleagues know, the House Judiciary Committee, as well as the Senate Judiciary Committee, is investigating. These committees are investigating whether there was something amiss in the way the United States Attorney's Office was run, whether there was political interference with United States attorneys. And Congress, the Judiciary Committee, has issued subpoenas. Subpoenas are the method by which a body that has the power to make witnesses come issues a subpoena that says to a witness, you've got to come and testify under oath. And Congress has issued subpoenas to two members of the White House, who previously were in the White House, Karl Rove and Harriet Miers. They have refused to come to testify before Congress, and a question arises. Congress can hold them in contempt and then ask the Justice Department to enforce that contempt, and right now we're looking at a new Attorney General possibly for this country. He was asked, this Attorney General who was nominated by the President, he was asked whether or not if Congress holds these witnesses in contempt for not answering the subpoenas, would his Justice Department refer the matter to grand jury for criminal prosecution as Federal law requires. Mr. Mukasey, the nominee for the Attorney General, suggested that his answer would be no. Now, this is not the law. That is not the proper balance for Congress and the President. He made, in addition, a startling claim. He claimed, this is the possible Attorney General of the United States, that the President of the United States could defy the law as it's written in Congress if he believed that it was his responsibility to defend the country. That is a huge exception to the rule that Congress' laws are supreme and it is Congress that makes the law and the President is to follow them. So this issue, what is Congress' power, what are the powers given to us by article I and how we assert them, and the clash between congressional power and Presidential power is alive today. It's going on right now, and it's of vital importance to the future of this country as we decide whether we are a Nation of laws or a Nation of men.

Mr. HODES. Thank you, Mr. Klein. What we are talking about here really is the moral compass of our Nation. We have a stark choice before us. There is a huge difference between what the President values and what the American people value. To the President and his allies, $190 billion for a failed war is a necessity, but $35 billion to give our kids access to doctors is some kind of extravagance. And that really talks about the values that are at play here. Are we going to value and speak up for the people of this country, or are we going to let the President assert values that we in this country don't agree with because we value kids? Now, there is a President, a former President who really said it best because we here in Congress are no longer simply going to enable this President to take power which should not be his. We are going to reassert, in these conversations and in our conduct, the power that rightfully belongs to the Congress and to the people. Because as Abraham Lincoln said, when we were engaged in the midst of a great civil war that was to determine the fate of this country, he talked about government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That's why we are here tonight. That is why we were sent to Congress. To reassert that this government is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. And while we are on this watch, it shall not perish, and we are going to stand up to this President and we are going to have some checks and balances in the United States of America.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Red Sox Nation. In this House, we often disagree on many issues of national importance, but today we are all part of Red Sox Nation. After trailing Cleveland 3-1 in the American League Championship Series, the Red Sox won seven straight games and won their second World Series crown in 4 years. In my home State of New Hampshire, we are made up of diehard Red Sox fans, and we are a proud part of Red Sox Nation. There is no such thing as a fair-weather Red Sox fan. Granite Staters went four generations without being able to celebrate a Red Sox championship, and that is why it has been a great week and great year to be a Red Sox fan. I also want to congratulate Mike Lowell on being named the MVP of the series. Now we can all finally get some sleep. Go Sox.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Yarmuth, let me start by saying how proud I am to stand with my colleagues, other new Members of the class of 2006, to talk about an initiative which you began, the article I initiative, to talk about reasserting the constitutional balance of power in Washington. For me, in coming to Congress as a new Member of this House from New Hampshire, it was absolutely fundamental to what I talked about in my campaign that the people of New Hampshire sent me to Congress to restore accountability, integrity, and oversight to government. They sent me here because what I said to them and what we now see is that Congress was a broken branch. Congress had not been exercising its oversight and accountability functions. And when Congress does not exercise its important power, its important right, its important obligation to the people to exercise oversight and accountability over the executive branch and other branches of government, things get unbalanced. It was that sense of checks and balances that our Founding Fathers put into the Constitution, and they put it in there for a reason. They won a Revolutionary War against an empire, the British empire, with an imperial ruler at the top, the King of England. We wanted to make sure that we had a different form of government; that we had a form of government where the people were the top dog in the fight; that the ruler would never become imperial. That is why we have a President, we have a Congress which is divided between the House and the Senate. In article I, section 1, our founders were very clear. They said, ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.'' What I saw and many of us saw when we ran was a President who was abusing presidential power in an unprecedented way. This wasn't a matter of parties. It was this President abusing power in an unprecedented way, and it could have happened whatever party that President was in, but this is what we saw, and we ran. The article I initiative, which you began, which we have joined, and which we are spreading, seeks to heighten the public consciousness of the importance of checks and balances in our system. As newly elected Democratic Members of Congress, we feel with particular importance the obligation we have to reassert the power that the Founding Fathers wisely gave to Congress. When we came, we took an oath of office to protect and defend and uphold the Constitution. Article I is the first article, and it is the first article for a reason. And we are well on our way as we have begun to exercise oversight throughout Congress with hundreds of hearings held in this 110th Congress on many issues and especially the war in Iraq and what has happened with this President and this administration. In the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, we have held oversight hearings about administration interference with the work of GSA, the folks who deal with Federal buildings, turning it into an arm of politics; administration interference with science at NASA; administration incompetence with FEMA, delivering formaldehyde-filled trailers to the victims of Katrina; incompetence and mismanagement by the State Department, failing to exercise oversight over contractors in Iraq, the Blackwater scandal that is beginning to emerge now. We have been holding the hearings that constitute the function of Congress not just to make the law but to exercise the oversight that keeps things in checks and balances. I am delighted to be with you tonight. We are going to talk about numbers of ways in which we are reasserting Congress' power and taking steps to bring the people back to the People's House and serve the interests of the American people.

Mr. HODES. Thank you. As I have listened to the colloquy we have had here on the floor today in this Chamber where such important issues of war and peace, spending, raising revenue are debated on a daily basis now and thinking about the beginnings of the country, and you have asked about the questions coming up about appropriations, and we have had passed numerous appropriations bills. I think we have passed 12 here in the House of Representatives. The Senate has not yet acted on all of them, because, of course, once we pass the appropriations bills, and they must originate under the Constitution here in the House of Representatives, they go to the Senate. The Senate has to pass them. They come back and forth and they go up to the President. Of course the President has now threatened a veto on the spending necessary to run the Federal Government, to run the program for health and human services, to educate our kids, to heal the sick, all the programs that we have in the Federal Government, he has threatened to veto. And then if he vetoes a bill as we saw with the SCHIP bill, it will come back here where Congress will have the power to vote to override that veto and put it into law despite what the President says. All those powers and all the debates arise out of what my colleague from Florida noted was a living, breathing document. This great democracy of ours comes down to the words and the spirit that are embodied in the Constitution of the United States Many Americans around the country really have lost sight of the humble beginnings of the country and the need for the powers in article I. We were a ragtag country, mostly woodsmen and woodswomen that were fighting against this imperial monarchy. We won a revolution and were then immediately faced with terrible challenges. We had no Navy. We had no commerce. Our Army was weak because we had just been through a revolution. We didn't have much money. We had no trade. We had few ambassadors. We had very few friends. It was the Constitution that had to lay out all the powers that would serve as the basis for what is now a $1 trillion a year appropriation in terms of what the Federal Government raises and spends, or borrows and spends in past Congresses. The challenges we faced coming in here, we are faced with fiscal irresponsibility, in which Congress was borrowing and spending. In fact, the war in Iraq is a perfect example. That war, which is now suggested will cost $2.4 trillion when all is said and done and all is added up, has been done with borrowing. It has been done by putting it on the backs of our children and our grandchildren. Fiscal irresponsibility. Just waste of taxpayer money, which we were sent here to deal with. The Constitution lays out clearly that it is Congress's duty to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, words these days that don't mean very much. They are fancy, old-fashioned words. We have got to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare. We are allowed in Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States because it was very important at the very beginning of the Nation that this government be given the power to deal commercially and get the money it needed in a responsible way to run the affairs of the country. But it was up to Congress to appropriate the money to run the programs, provide for the common defense and general welfare. Today, we are faced with a tough situation and it will probably take us all through the fall as we deal with the President, who has threatened to veto the responsible measures that we, in Congress, coming together as voices of the people, have decided are necessary to run this country. It is up to Congress, really, to say what those programs should be because that is the power the Constitution gives us. Mr. Speaker, I heard with great interest the quotes from Madison, the quotes in the book. There is another quote from Madison that really talks about why Congress is the place that provides for the welfare and defense of the country. Madison wrote in Federalist Papers No. 52, and the words, it's a little old-fashioned, but folks will get it, ``As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration,'' the Congress, ``should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people''. In other words, it was clear from the founding of this Nation that this body, this hall, this place where we stand before there was C-SPAN, before there was television, this place is the place of the people. The 435 people who gather here, each representing 650,000 or so people of the United States, are the folks who, in what I have described to my constituents as the hurly-burly of democracy, come together to decide how things should be governed, what kind of money do we need, and how are we going to spend it. So that is what we are going to be seeing this fall play out. We don't know how it will end, where it is going to go. The Senate will have a role, certainly the President has a role. But so far it appears that with this President, the role now, unlike the past 6 years of the 109th, 108th, 107th, which, with all due respect for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, were Republican-dominated Congresses where the veto word was never mentioned, all of the sudden the President has now decided that it is time to veto almost everything that is coming out of Congress. He vetoed SCHIP, a bill to ensure 10 million of our neediest children for health care. Vetoed. We are going to send it back. Threatened vetoes for our appropriations bills to run the Federal Government. He is going to send them back. This is a new light, apparently, that has dawned on this President, that suddenly a Democratic Congress sending him legislation is all of a sudden going to be subject to vetoes. With this initiative, we are here to reassert the importance, the power, the responsibility of this Congress to act for the people who sent us here.

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I can't help but think about the importance of the power of the purse. James Madison said, ``The House of Representatives can not only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government.'' The power over the purse is our weapon to use, and I am hoping that this Congress will no longer be the President's enabler when it comes to his misguided policy in Iraq. Earlier this week, he asked for an additional $46 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the total request this year to almost $200 billion. By the time we are done, we are going to be at $2.4 trillion in Iraq. That is enough to provide college educations for every student who wants to go to a 4- year college for free at a private college or university. We could provide health care for every American for a year for the money we are spending. It is going to be up to Congress to make tough decisions on whether or not we are going to use the power of the purse to take charge of this President's misguided policy. So I am in contact and intimate sympathy with my constituents in New Hampshire who have said to me loud and clear, ``Do something to stop this President's policies in Iraq.''

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Madam Speaker, last week the rubber stamp Republicans in this House once again held true to their name by voting to stand with the President and reject health care coverage for 10 million American children. The spending priorities of the President's Republican allies in the House are simply out of line with the priorities of the American people. In fact, the 86 percent of Americans who support this bipartisan CHIP reauthorization might be interested to know that for the cost of just 37 days in Iraq, we could provide health care coverage to 10 million children. Yet the President's irresponsible, open-ended commitment to the occupation in Iraq continues, while the number of American children without access to health care keeps climbing. Madam Speaker, yesterday the President asked Congress to borrow another $196 billion to continue his failed blank-check, no-plan policy in Iraq. But he and his Republican friends in this body apparently feel that spending $35 billion on a highly successful program that provides health care to uninsured children is excessive. It's time for Republicans to stop blindly following the President and start helping American families.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to exercise the power Congress has under article I of the Constitution and to override the President's veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program. This vote is significant because it underlines the difference between what the President values and what the American people value. To the President and his allies in Congress, $190 billion this year for the occupation in Iraq is a necessity. But $35 billion to provide health care to 10 million uninsured children in America is an extravagance. If we are successful and we override that veto tomorrow, SCHIP will preserve the coverage of 11,892 children in my home State of New Hampshire and make funds available to cover an additional 8,720 kids. If we are not successful, I personally would like to invite President Bush and his allies in Congress to come home with me to Concord, New Hampshire, and explain to these 20,000 kids why they can't go to a doctor when they break a bone or get medicine when they are sick.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here tonight to talk about a number of issues that are of grave importance to this Congress and to the people of this country. I will be joined by some of my colleagues tonight who represent districts all over this country. We are going to talk about a number of things tonight. We are going to talk about fiscal responsibility, which means money. It means we are going to talk a little bit about how in this Democratic majority Congress we have now taken a new responsible approach to spending the taxpayers' hard-earned tax dollars, because that is one of the main reasons that the taxpayers of this country sent a new Democratic majority to Congress, because they saw what had happened under previous Congresses. They saw that the Congress had engaged in borrow-and-spend policies that had left us with huge deficits, where before we had big surpluses, now we were running out of balance. And everybody knew that they couldn't run their businesses that way. They couldn't run their homes that way. And so they sent us to Congress to make a change about what we were going to do. We are also going to move to talk about health care. We are going to talk about health care for kids because that is an issue that is very, very current. The President has vetoed a fiscally responsible, that means responsible with the money of the taxpayers, bill that would provide health care for the neediest kid in the country. He has vetoed that legislation. He said he doesn't want to have health care for our kids by vetoing that legislation. We are going to be coming up for a vote in not too long about that. So we are going to talk about what it means for kids and for health care, and we are also going to sort of compare that to what is going on with the spending on the war in Iraq because the President and his administration have come and said they want to spend $191 billion more this year on the war in Iraq but they don't want to spend $35 billion to insure our kids. I will just talk briefly now, and I have got a chart up, that shows you where we were when we started this Congress, what had happened with the mess. It is an example of what we were sent to fix, because this chart shows public borrowing by the administrations and the annual average of what we had to borrow to run our government. What you can see is where we came in to Congress. What we saw was, if you take a look down here in the lower corner, we started with President Carter. That little blue line shows that we were borrowing about $50 billion. Then you can see what happened under Presidents Reagan and Bush. Then you can see over here that under President Clinton we were able to handle the taxpayers' money in a responsible way. In fact, President Clinton, who was a Democrat, handled money so responsibly for the taxpayers of this country that when he left office in the year 2000 we were looking at budget surpluses over the next 10 years in the trillions of dollars. But when the Republicans took control, when President Bush came in, in 2000, he turned that upside down and topsy- turvy, and what we were left with coming into this Congress was the fact that President Bush was borrowing about $300 billion during his first 6 years. He had turned surpluses upside down into huge deficits that left us in the hole as far as the eye could see. That is what we came in with. We came in with that, and we had to restore fiscal responsibility. Now, ``fiscal'' is a big word. It just means being responsible with the hard-earned money that the taxpayers of this country send to Washington so that an effective government honors local control but is able to get the projects done and run the programs that the people of this country expect. They expect us to be stewards of the public trust. By that, I mean they expect us to be honest about how we are spending their money. They expect us to use their money wisely. They expect us, just like they do at home and in their businesses, to balance things out and not spend more than we take in. And they want to make sure that we are spending their money wisely. So what we did in very short order, and then I will throw it over to my good colleague from Wisconsin, was the first thing we did when we came into Congress was we established, reestablished, what are called pay-as-you-go rules. It basically means if you are going to increase spending over here, in order to keep the deficit from getting worse and making sure we are headed towards balance, we have to decrease something over here. So we put in these pay-as-you-go rules. Every bill that is covered by those rules has been a fiscally responsible thing to do. It means that we are using the taxpayers' money wisely as we head towards a balanced budget. Because the other thing we did was in the Democratic budget proposal, we set this country on a new track to be responsible about the taxpayers' money. We said we are going to establish a balanced budget by the year 2012. We are going to do that with the pay-as-you-go rules and making sure that we are restraining Federal spending, that even as we shift priorities towards health care for kids, health care for our veterans, benefits for our wounded warriors, with the greatest rise in spending in veterans' benefits in the 77 years of the Veterans Administration, even while we are spending money on competitiveness, we are headed towards a balanced budget with pay-as-you-go rules because we understand that it is not our money. It is the taxpayers' money. Our job is to spend it wisely and to spend it in a balanced way. We also got rid of something called ``fast tracking'' in order to make sure that our spending was responsible. Now, with that as a framework, one of the things we are still facing are huge costs for the war in Iraq. As I said earlier on, the President and the administration has now come and said they want $191 billion more this year for the war in Iraq. We have had a bill that would help insure our kids that would cost about $35 billion. So really, we are faced with a choice in this country. Are we, and are my colleagues across the aisle who are supporting the President, going to decide that it is not worth the investment to invest $35 billion over 5 years in health care for kids, but it is worth the money to invest $191 billion in the war in Iraq? Is that the kind of choice we, as a country, are going to make? Is that something that is sound policy? Does it make sense for our kids? Does it make sense for health care? Does it make sense for the taxpayers? Does it make sense for the country? Those are the kinds of questions that we have to answer. Now, I would like to turn it over to my good friend from Wisconsin, Dr. Steve Kagen, a man who understands what health care is about, who has been in the trenches helping kids get well, helping families stay healthy. He understands things about children's health care. I am going to turn it over to you, my good friend from Wisconsin, Dr. Steve Kagen.

Mr. HODES. Well, it is really an important point to underscore, and I appreciate your saying it, which we all agree, that there is nobody on whatever side of the debate you're in about Iraq who doesn't understand that our troops have served with extraordinary bravery and courage. They have performed. It is really up to the policymakers. It is up to the administration, who makes the policy. It is up to Congress, who makes the policy, the Senate. It is up to the policymakers, who send our military to do the job to make the right judgments and right decisions about when they should be sent, under what conditions they ought to be sent, and what their mission is. Mr. Speaker, one of the real sad failings is that the mission here has changed so many times, nobody knows what it is anymore. Seventy percent of the American people now understand that whatever it is that we have tried to do in Iraq hasn't worked. The Iraqi Government has not stood up. We have spent lives, our brave troops have given their lives, thousands and thousands of wounded, at a huge cost, because so far we have spent about half a trillion dollars in direct costs for the war in Iraq. Half a trillion dollars. That has got so many zeroes that I really have trouble figuring out and contemplating wrapping my brain around what half a trillion dollars is. That is $500 billion. That is an awful lot of money to experience what we have experienced in Iraq, because it's clear now that the war hasn't made us safer and more secure. It's clear that, unfortunately, al Qaeda and the Taliban are still strong and resurgent in the Pakistan-Afghanistan area, and still threatening to us. The region is more unstable. Mr. Speaker, it is clear we need a new course. But we don't often talk about the costs, because it is not just the $500 billion or half a trillion dollars we have spent in direct costs in Iraq, but we are facing $1 trillion-plus in total costs for the care of all those who have served in Iraq, who are going to come home and need care on an ongoing basis as we go forward. And the costs in lost productivity to society are huge. When you think about the comparison of the costs between what we have spent in Iraq and what we could spend that money on in terms of providing health care for our kids, as this Democratic Congress in a bipartisan way has proposed, because the SCHIP bill that we sent to the President was a bipartisan bill, we passed a bill in the House and then we sent it over to the Senate. They compromised. We worked with the Senate and we compromised on the bill. The Senate had some different ideas. They sort of reduced things in some areas and sent it back to us. We then sent this compromise bill to the President. But even though it was a compromise bill, and even though it was supported by 45 Republicans in the House and numbers of Senators on the Republican side in the Senate, and I can talk about some of what they said later on, the President decided that $35 billion was too much to spend on our kids. He decided that $35 billion over 5 years for kids' health care wasn't worth the investment; that $35 billion for American kids who needed health care, American kids at the lowest income levels, struggling families trying to make ends meet, was not something that the President of the United States was willing to invest our money in. This, despite the fact that in previous speeches he had promised that he was going to cover millions of new kids for health care. But for some reason, when the Democratic-controlled Congress sent it to the President, he decided that it was too much. He also decided that he could ask us for $191 billion more for a failed policy in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, here is how it breaks down. Here are the facts. Here are the figures. They are shown on this chart that I have. What this shows is that 37 days in Iraq would pay for 10 million children to have health care every year. It shows 37 days in Iraq, 10 million kids with health care. One day in Iraq is costing us $330 million. That money, $330 million in the SCHIP program, would cover more than 270,000 kids. Just stop for a minute and think about those numbers. Dr. Kagen, I don't know about you, but where I come from, $330 million is a significant amount of money. That is what we are spending every day in Iraq. It would cover more than a quarter of a million kids for a year of health care. When you get into a week in Iraq, we are spending $2.3 billion, that is billion dollars, $2.3 billion every week, and that amount of money, if we spent it on SCHIP, would cover 1,891,000 kids. That is a huge number of kids, for 1 week of Iraq war spending. And it is hard to say we are spending our money wisely in Iraq. Let me just tell you a little bit about a hearing that I was on. I have the privilege of sitting on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and one of the issues we took up in the past couple of weeks was the issue of the cost of corruption in Iraq. Now, the Middle East has always been a difficult place when it comes to how governments spend money, how they account or don't account to their citizens, what kind of accounting practices they have, and the issue of corruption has traditionally been one that throughout the Middle East has been a significant problem. So you would think, for instance, that maybe in Iraq, now that we are there in such strength, we have 160,000 of our troops fighting there, we have support personnel, we have a huge number of contractors, another bit of a problem that we ran into. But with all these contractors and all these people and all the American money and all the oversight and all the planning, you would think that maybe after 5 years of the Iraq occupation we would be in a position to do something about the corruption in Iraq, to make sure that money was being spent wisely, because if you are going to spend $2.3 billion in one week in Iraq, which otherwise would cover almost 2 million kids for health care for 1 year, you want to make sure that it is going to be spent well. You would think you would want to make sure. So at this oversight hearing we had on October 4, we had the chief judge from Iraq who was dealing with corruption and accountability under the new al Maliki government that we have supported come to our hearing. By the way, he is no longer in Iraq, because he fears for his life. So not only is there a problem on the money side, but there is a problem when people try to do something about it. He now fears for his life, so he is over in this country, and he came to testify. His name is Radhi Hamza al Radhi, former head of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity. He took the oath, and testified as follows. He told us that the corruption within the Iraqi Government has cost the Iraqi people $18 billion. So instead of its original purpose, infrastructure, new hospitals, electricity, things that the people need, he told us the money is now being used to finance terrorist militias in Iraq. Also of note with this government of al Maliki that we are supporting, what the judge said was, when we asked him, why are you here and what happened when you tried to do something about the corruption? What he said was, well, I tried to investigate many cases of corruption within the government of Iraq and with Iraqi officials. It was my job. I was set up. I was supposed to coordinate with the Americans who were overseeing the corruption and coordinate with the Iraqis who were overseeing the corruption. My job was to investigate corruption. But he ran into a bit of a roadblock. You know what he told us the roadblock was? The roadblock, for example, was Prime Minister Maliki himself, who blocked his attempts to uncover the truth and to deal with corruption. Why did he do it? He did it because the people that the judge was investigating were Shia, so the Prime Minister didn't want those people investigated, or because they were related in some way to the Prime Minister, so those people couldn't be investigated. So with the money we have poured into Iraq, the money we have poured in for reconstruction and other things, the Iraqi Government is missing $18 billion worth in corruption. That is what we are dealing with in Iraq. That is where our money is going. And instead of covering our kids for health care, we want to spend another $191 billion more in Iraq. Dr. Kagen?

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Madam Speaker, due to inclement weather I missed the following votes on Tuesday, October 9, 2007. I would have voted as follows: (1) ``Yea'' on H. Res. 32--Denouncing the practices of female genital mutilation, domestic violence, ``honor'' killings, acid burning, dowry deaths, and other gender-based persecutions and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that participation, protection, recognition, and independence of women is crucial to achieving a just, moral, and honorable society. (2) ``Yea'' on H.R. 400--War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007.