Bill Posey

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, on Monday I had the great privilege of watching the launch of the Space Shuttle Atlantis at Kennedy Space Center. As a resident of Brevard County, Florida, it is an experience of which I will never tire, and one which I earnestly encourage everyone to see, especially Members of Congress and the President, while they still can. While we have the grandeur of Monday's launch fresh in our minds, I find the proposed NASA budget very disappointing. The budget plan essentially flatlines NASA's budget for the next 5 years and appears to spawn an abrupt end to the space shuttle in 2010. Washington is spending trillions of dollars on other programs, but has not seen fit to make human space flight a priority at this time. NASA will attempt to complete the remaining flights of the space station manifest in 2010 within the constraints of its budgetary strait jacket. However, any flights that extend beyond September 2010 will be funded by borrowing money from the next generation vehicle, the Constellation, under the just released 2010 budget plan. The plan is unacceptable to me, and I hope it is unacceptable to you and my other colleagues. Also disappointing is the proposed open-ended review of the shuttle's successor and the fact it was not begun months ago. Time is of the essence as critical decisions are being made today that will impact NASA for the next several decades. America's space shuttle only has eight, possibly nine more launches. After that, many of the world's greatest engineers and technicians will be laid off from their jobs, and American taxpayers will pay Russians hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to take American astronauts to the international space station. This ironic arrangement is likely to last for a minimum of 3 years, and likely longer, until the next generation launch vehicle comes online. Various memos and budget blueprints in Washington may portray this arrangement with the Russians as an unwelcome necessity, but it has become a necessity only due to a lack of America's priorities. It is wishful thinking on bureaucratic whiteboards that America can lay off this invaluable workforce and 3 years or more later expect to regroup them and rebrand them in the shuttle's successor program. The transition is unlikely to seamless, and I speak from experience. In my younger days, I worked on the Apollo 11 program. I had the best job in the whole world that anyone my age could possibly have: inspecting rockets bound for the moon. But when the program came to an end, and it came abruptly, I and many of my fellow colleagues, some of the brightest minds in the world, excepting me, of course, were given pink slips. Mr. Speaker, Monday's launch represents one thing that the United States is undeniably, unequivocally, and universally respected for around the globe. Friends and foes alike acknowledge that the United States of America is truly the leader in space. So it is astonishing to me that we are so near the brink of yielding this military and economic high ground to Russia or China, or someone else. Let us bear in mind that the Chinese are not going to the moon solely to collect moon rocks. History has shown a progression in regards to our security, which we ignore at our own peril. It started back in Old Testament times when whoever could wield the biggest bone controlled the security of the land. And then who could muster the biggest army, and then who could get the straightest spears and strongest shields. And then, whoever had the strongest Navy--you know, Sweden and Spain, the greatest powers in the world. And then in World War I, whoever could build the most mechanized army, that could build the most tanks determined how secure the world would be. And in World War II, it was the Air Force; whoever controlled the air would control the security of this world. And today, it's space; whoever controls space will control what security there will be on this Earth. Today, conflict between nations has also evolved beyond bayonets, bullets and bombs; we are in an economic war of survival. I fear that many take our position for granted and assume that our prosperity will continue indefinitely into the future because we have been so blessed with prosperity thus far. The President has said he wants half of our Nation's GDP to come from high-tech, and as you know, you can't get any more high-tech than space. We take for granted the countless spinoffs and inventions from NASA, which has issued over 6,000 patents. NASA's ``spinoff database'' lists over 1,600 items since 1976. Farmers rely on their weather satellites. We all rely on GPS now. We don't give a second thought to the use of our cell phones or our BlackBerrys, our laptops, or even Velcro for that matter. I can remember when a computer processor used to take up an entire room. Now, for $5 you can go down to Wal-Mart and get a little calculator that will fit in your wallet and do the same things. Mr. Speaker, nothing represents the future and what is possible for mankind more than space. The future is not yet written. We have not yet reached the point of no return. The NASA budget is not etched in stone. We can make the right decisions to reduce the space gap, minimize the loss of our shuttle workforce, and move ahead with the shuttle's successor. These objectives are compatible, desirable, and overlap with the President's stated intentions to strengthen technology as our economic base. In conclusion, I call on the leaders of this body to revamp the NASA budget and to think about the implications should we travel down the path as currently set. America can do better, and future generations of Americans deserve better.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a few moments today to recognize the 75th anniversary of ``National Speed Sport News'' and the man whose commitment to auto racing, journalism and broadcasting has not only kept this publication alive and thriving throughout all these years, but has kept racing fans glued to their seats during some of the biggest moments in motorsports history, Chris Economaki. Born October 15, 1920, in Brooklyn, New York, Chris was the son of a very successful businessman whose family lived a very good life until the unfortunate crash of 1929, when they lost everything and were forced to move into his grandparents' home in New Jersey. As a kid he could hear the roar of the race car engines from a nearby track, and he often found himself sneaking in under the fence to watch the races. At the age of 14, Chris started selling copies of ``National Speed Sport News'' on weekends to fans during races, and he wrote a regular column while he was still in high school. But he quickly noticed that the success of his paper depended largely on the event's announcer. So he started announcing at races and found that he had a real talent for that. Suddenly, Chris began getting requests to announce from all over and to deliver the commentary at the races. He became one of the most competent and respected announcers in the history of motorsports. Chris was later made editor and publisher of the paper he sold and wrote for as a kid. On July 4, 1961, Chris did his first live telecast on ABC's ``Wide World of Sports'' for their Firecracker 250 at the new Daytona International Speedway. Since then he has announced for CBS, ESPN and the Indianapolis 500 to name just a few. In 1993, Chris Economaki was inducted into the National Sprint Car Hall of Fame. In 1994, he was inducted into the Motorsports Hall of Fame of America. He received both the NASCAR Award of Excellence and the NASCAR Lifetime Achievement Award, and he has come to be known as the dean of American motorsports. Truly, Chris is one of the most influential journalists in the history of motorsports, and is the greatest ambassador for motorsports that has ever lived. His level of institutional knowledge is unparalleled. Not only is Chris most knowledgeable, he imparts or articulates his vast knowledge better than anyone else in the business ever has. And he does it with integrity, he does it with kindness, he does it with poise, he does it with aplomb, is a word that he has often used to describe people with a lot of class, and he has it. In Florida, we recognize the day of the Daytona 500 every single year as Chris Economaki Day since the governor first declared it in 2005. As a stock car racing fan and a participant, it is a great privilege to stand here and offer this salute to Chris Economaki, a man so many admire and who has done so much for a sport that has pushed the envelope in the advancement of automotive technology, brought families and friends together on weekends, and kept the American competitive spirit alive for decades, Chris Economaki.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Madam Speaker, I'm disappointed with the budget conference report before the House today. It's a $3.555 trillion budget and leaves a $1.233 trillion deficit for the year 2010. This budget increases taxes by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years and the Majority admits that the budget deficits never fall below $523 billion. This budget borrows from Americans of tomorrow to pay for the wants of this current generation. Over 10 years, the budget more than doubles the national debt. I hope the economy recovers for all Americans. But sadly, this budget plan takes us down a different path that will harm our long-term economy and will likely create sluggish economic growth. This budget is not the right prescription for what ails this economy. Our children and grandchildren deserve better. Congress needs to focus on creating the right kind of environment for job-creation, ensuring that businesses small, medium and large can grow and prosper. That means providing the right kinds of incentives for Americans to start a business, or for a business to grow and add jobs, or to provide benefits like health insurance. Sadly, this bill includes a budget process (known as reconciliation) to leave the door open for a plan to raise taxes on millions of small businesses and saddle them with billions of dollars in burdensome and costly ``cap and trade'' global warming taxes. American workers should be forewarned; the ``cap and trade'' tax will cost Americans millions of jobs. So I ask, under this budget `What's the incentive to do business here in America?' The U.S. has the second highest corporate income tax in the world which encourages employers to close up in America or at least do their expansions overseas rather than here at home. Cap and trade will add a further burden to businesses operating in the U.S. And while this budget hires new bureaucrats in Washington, it allows tens of thousands of highly skilled technicians and engineers at NASA to be laid-off with the end of the space shuttle. Their jobs will of course be outsourced to Russia because the budget fails to bring the next generation space craft online for quite some time. This is a travesty when you think about the millions of high tech American jobs that have been created as a result of our investment in space-- everything from cell phones, laptops and GPS to wireless technology and even Velcro. While the Budget gives lip service to additional funding for NASA and the Shuttle, the actual language in the budget does not provide actual dollars, would not add any additional Shuttle flights, and does nothing to close the human space flight gap. For two centuries, Americans have worked hard so their children could have better lives and greater opportunity. It seems to me what some want to do is reverse that order by having our children and grandchildren work hard so we don't have to make the hard choices now. This amounts to generational theft and it is wrong, plain and simple. You know, while families and small businesses are making sacrifices when it comes to their own budget, Washington continues to spend trillions in taxpayer dollars--money it doesn't even have--on bailouts and expansion of government programs. This has got to stop and the government has to learn to live within its own means just like everyone else. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this budget conference report and urge my colleagues to vote against this plan that will saddle the next generation with an unbearable debt and kill millions of jobs here in America.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 154, I would ask that the Record reflect that I am in favor of H. Res. 273, Recognizing the 188th anniversary of the Independence of Greece and Celebrating Greek and American Democracy. I was present and voted in favor of the resolution, but my vote was not recorded by the electronic device. I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chair, H.R. 1106 is a combination of several free- standing bills, all of which touch on financial services and which are intended to address the mortgage situation. While I support some aspects of H.R. 1106, such as updates to the Federal Credit Union Act and a servicer safe harbor for loan modifications, the bill goes far beyond this by expanding the failed Hope for Homeowners program and allowing judicial ``cram downs'' in bankruptcy cases. ``Cram down'' will significantly raise the cost of mortgages for all borrowers by enabling bankruptcy judges to rewrite the terms of mortgages. The House Financial Services Committee has never held a hearing on the impact of ``cram down.'' My amendment to the Committee's Oversight Plan, accepted unanimously on February 11, directed the Committee to investigate the potential impacts of ``cram down'' legislation including its effects on the cost of mortgages, the taxpayers and the secondary market for mortgages. Despite a dismal performance record, this bill throws more money at the Hope for Homeowners (H4H) program, which I am informed has helped a mere 43 borrowers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that expanding this program will help no more than 25,000 borrowers at a cost of $23,000 each. We also know that the changes the bill makes to H4H will weaken important taxpayer safeguards, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill directly for additional defaults. A significant concern I have with H.R. 1106 is the cram-down provision. The ``cram down'' provision would allow bankruptcy judges to change the terms of a mortgage loan for a primary residence, overturning a century of bankruptcy code and practice. Proponents of ``cram down'' are quick to argue that bankruptcy judges should have the authority to help everyone stay in their homes. Anyone with common sense knows that higher risk or greater uncertainty will raise interest rates. Opening the possibility of ``cram down'' across the board for all primary residences adds uncertainty in the market and it will lead to higher interest rates across the board for all home buyers. Everyone, including responsible buyers, will be forced to foot the bill for speculators and those who make poor purchasing decisions as the costs of those decisions are spread across all borrowers. For more than 100 years primary residences have been exempted from ``cram down'' bankruptcy proceedings precisely to help keep mortgage interest rates lower and homes more affordable. At a February 11 House Financial Services Committee hearing, I asked the nation's leading lenders what would happen if Congress passed ``cram down.'' Their response was overwhelmingly clear: allowing bankruptcy judges to ``cram down'' mortgages would increase the cost of all mortgages and add an incentive for more people to declare bankruptcy. The adverse effects of this legislation will extend beyond the small percentage of people it is intended to help. The increased risk in the housing market, and increased interest rates, will result in much larger down payments and cost first-time buyers and lower and middle- class families tens of thousands of dollars. The Mortgage Bankers Association predicts that ``cram down'' would increase interest rates from six percent to eight percent on a 30-year, fixed rate mortgage. For a $300,000 loan for example, this would cost the borrower nearly $5000 per year and over $144,000 for the life of the loan. H.R. 1106 will encourage more homeowners to file bankruptcy as some homeowners, currently on the margin of bankruptcy but still making payments, could take advantage of ``cram down'' bankruptcy as opposed to seeking a loan modification with their lender. Is encouraging bankruptcies really a solution to our problems? For many filers it would only delay the pain of foreclosure. Just one-third of Chapter 13 filers actually complete the process, which is itself costly and time-consuming. If our goal is to unfreeze credit and improve the economy, H.R. 1106 is the wrong prescription. We can do better. We can craft solutions that give troubled home- owners a ``time out'' and help them catch up on payments without burdening taxpayers, overturning a bedrock provision of our bankruptcy code that has benefited 90 percent of Americans who do not have troubled mortgages. If this bill becomes law, new responsible homeowners will be forced to make higher mortgage payments each and every month for 30 years. That is a significant ``tax'' on responsible middle class families. Forcing responsible Americans to subsidize bad decisions by others may not meet the technical definition of a tax increase, but I believe whenever you take money out of one person's pocket and give it to someone else it is a tax.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, the Omnibus Appropriations bill before us today provides an 8 percent increase for dozens of federal agencies and departments. These tens of billions of dollars in additional spending are in addition to hundreds of billions of dollars just signed into law by the President last week as a part of the ``stimulus'' bill. Taken together, this amounts to nearly an 80 percent increase in funding for many of the agencies funded in the Omnibus Appropriations bill. Put another way, spending for these agencies will increase from $378 billion in 2008 to nearly $680 billion in 2009. And, all of this increase is ``paid for'' with borrowed money that our children and grandchildren will have to repay. This amounts to generational theft. Simply put, the American worker isn't getting an 8 percent pay increase each year much less an 80 percent pay increase, and they cannot afford to pay for such expansive government spending. Are there good provisions in this bill? Yes. Are the objectionable provisions in this bill? Yes. Sadly, no Member of Congress was permitted to offer an amendment to this bill, much less a sufficient amount of time to actually read the bill. The House leadership, which sets the rules of debate, has prohibited any Member of Congress from offering a single amendment. No member of Congress is permitted to rise and ask that even one of the more than 8,000 earmarks in this bill be stricken from the bill. In just the past four weeks, this Congress has approved over one and one-half trillion dollars in new spending--most of it borrowed money. Sadly, not a single amendment has been permitted to be offered. The Congress is broken and the American people deserve better. We will never get this nation back on track if this Congress continues to consider and approve only legislation written in back rooms at the last minute by only a handful of leaders in the majority. That's not what the American people elected us to do. It is long past due that the legislative process be allowed to work and that all Members of this Congress be afforded the opportunity to truly represent their constituents. True bipartisanship means allowing input from both sides not simply take or leave it dictates.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, we have before us the largest spending bill in the history of the Congress. The price tag on this bill is $800 billion--over $1.1 trillion when you add in the interest needed to fund it. Sadly, this 1200-page bill was completed just a few hours ago in the darkness of night. No one knows what is in the bill. No one has read it. This bill is being rushed to the House floor and to the President before Members of Congress or the American people have an opportunity to even know what is in it. Just how much is this bill going to cost? How much is a trillion dollars? One way to look at it is that it amounts to deficit spending of over $7,000 for every family in America. Looked at another way, this is enough money to pay for four years of college tuition to a private college for every senior graduating from high school this year and next and still have nearly $150 billion left over. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected a few weeks ago that the federal government will have a $1.2 trillion deficit this year. This amounts to 8.3 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is far higher than the previous record of 5.9 percent set in 1934 at the height of the Great Depression. In 2009, one out of every three dollars that the federal government will spend will be borrowed and our grandchildren will be stuck with the bill. Now, the bill before us--negotiated by Speaker Pelosi, Senate Democrat Leader Reid and President Obama--will add another $1.1 trillion to this debt. No country has ever borrowed and spent its way into prosperity, which is what this bill proposes to do. Adding further to this deficit as this bill does is unthinkable. The non-partisan CBO released an analysis earlier this week finding that the bill may provide a small increase in the nation's economy in the first few years, but then this bill will drag the economy down for the better part of the decade. Less than 20 percent of the cost of this bill is associated with tax relief. There is virtually nothing in this bill to stimulate small businesses--the driving force in creating jobs in America. Furthermore, the signature item of the bill--working American tax cut--was the first tax cut put on the chopping block. The final bill will allow the average worker to keep an additional 20 cents an hour ($1.60 per day). This bill also classifies as a tax cut billions of dollars in payments to those who do not pay federal income taxes. I thought a tax cut was a reduction in someone's taxes not simply a check from the government. With regard to infrastructure spending, which is what we were all promised would be the focus at the outset of this process, only 17 percent of the funding in the bill is for infrastructure. Less than one of every five dollars will go to job-creating stimulus programs. Rather than focus on job-creating stimulus and tax relief for small businesses that create new jobs, the final bill written by liberals in the Congress focuses on permanently expanding unaffordable entitlement programs and creating new federal programs under the guise of ``stimulating the economy.'' The bill creates 33 new federal programs at a cost of $90 billion. It also expands 73 existing federal programs at a cost of $92 billion. There will be tremendous pressures in future years to continue funding these $182 billion in new programs at these new higher levels. The bill also spends $123 billion for one-time infusion of spending for 98 existing programs. This bill includes billions of dollars for the Public Housing Capital Fund. Yet, this fund already has an unspent balance of $7 billion. Also included is $1 billion for Community Development Block Grant program, yet this program currently has $23 billion in unspent funds. Why is the Congress adding spending to these cash rich accounts? If they were serious about stimulating the economy, Congress should simply make them spend the money they already have. Also, troubling is the fact that this bill opens up the federal Treasury coffers to groups like ACORN--a group charged with voter fraud. Do the provisions relating to the creation of Federal Coordinating Council in health care research move us in the direction of a national health board that would encourage federal policies that determine what medical services Americans can and cannot have? What does that have to do with stimulating the economy? How many tens of billions of dollars more will the welfare law changes end up costing the taxpayers down the road? What will be the long-term unforeseen costs associated with this bill due to the unprecedented deficit spending. Over the coming weeks as the American people have more time to read this bill we will learn more about the provisions and intentions of this bill? Sadly, the bill has been rushed to the floor without giving the Congress or the American people a chance to know what is in it. Let me also say that I appreciate all of the talk about the need to work together in a bipartisan fashion. While I was pleased that several Republican amendments were adopted when portions of this bill were considered in several Congressional Committees last month, I was deeply disappointed that most of these amendments disappeared from the bill between the time it was passed in committee and when it came to the House floor for a vote. Bipartisanship is supposed to be a two-way street, not simply a demand to show bipartisanship by accepting the Speaker's bill. The only hand of bipartisanship that has been extended to Republicans in the House has been two opportunities to vote for a bill that we were given no hand in writing. Is that the type of bipartisanship that the American people want and expect? I thought bipartisanship meant working together, having an open deliberative legislative process and combining ideas. That simply was not permitted by the liberal majority. If we really want to stimulate the economy, we should focus on what actually creates jobs--small businesses. Small businesses create 70 percent of the new jobs in America. Unfortunately, this bill does virtually nothing to help small businesses. I have voted for and will continue to advocate for an alternative that would produce many more jobs for half the cost. The bill that I voted for lowers the 10 percent tax rate to 5 percent, and the 15 percent tax rate to 10 percent. This would give all taxpaying Americans a tax cut. It leaves money in their pockets that they can use to meet their own family expenses. We provide small business tax relief, including a provision allowing small businesses to write off up to $250,000 in capital expenditures. We extend unemployment benefits through 2009 and we exempt these payments from income taxes. We also include other job-creating provisions and we do so without raising anyone's taxes. I have also cosponsored legislation that would reduce the 28 percent tax rate to 23 percent. This will cut taxes for individual and job-creating small businesses. Lower taxes, not higher borrowing, spending, and debt, will put our economy back on track. I urge my colleagues to vote for lower taxes and against higher spending and debt.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chair, we have before us an $825 billion bill (H.R. 1). With a figure this large it is a little hard to get our hands around how much this is. One way to look at it is that it amounts to spending $7,052 for every family in America. Looked at another way this is enough money to pay for four years of college tuition to a private college for every senior graduating from high school this year and next and still have $150 billion left over. $825 billion is larger than the economies of all but 10% of the countries in the world. As we consider this level of spending we must view it in the context of our current out of control federal spending. Just three weeks ago, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the federal government will have a $1.2 trillion deficit this year. This amounts to 8.3% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which is far higher than the pervious record of 5.9% set in 1934 at the height of the Great Depression. In 2009, one out of every three dollars that the federal government will spend will be borrowed and our grandchildren will be stuck with the bill. And these figures do not even factor in the $825 billion in this bill. No country has ever borrowed and spent its way into prosperity, which is what this bill proposes to do. Adding further to this deficit as this bill does is unthinkable. I appreciate the frankness of my Democrat Chairman, Rep. Kanjorski (D-PA) who said of his own party ``I think we've lost our way. . . .'' He went on to add, ``I think, to a large extent, many of the parts of the stimulus are programs that are going to take years and years and years to accomplish . . .'' After examining the bill and CBO's analysis, I couldn't agree more with my colleague. In fact, CBO estimates that only 7% of the ``stimulus'' will be spent in 2009. They report that only 38% of the stimulus money will be spent in the first 2 years, leaving over 60% to be spent three or more years down the road. In fact $3 billion will not be spent until 2019--ten years from now. How does spending money ten years from now or even three years from now stimulate the economy today? Clearly, those writing this bill in the Speaker's office are out of control. We were told that a stimulus should focus on ``shovel-ready'' initiatives that are ready to go. But less than 4% of the total cost of this legislation consists of highway projects. This bill includes $5 billion for the Public Housing Capital Fund. Yet, this fund already has an unspent balance of $7 billion. H.R. 1 also appropriates $1 billion for Community Development Block Grant program, yet this program currently has $23 billion in unspent funds. Why is this Congress adding spending to these cash rich accounts? If they were serious about stimulating the economy Congress should simply make them spend the money they already have. H.R. 1 takes steps to roll-back provisions aimed at stopping ACORN--a group charged with voter fraud--from getting federal housing funds. Some of the spending is this bill parading as stimulus--like family planning spending--has little to do with stimulating the economy and more to do with opening the U.S. Treasury to political allies. I am concerned that this bill has welfare payments parading as tax cuts. Tax cuts are supposed to go to those who pay taxes. H.R. 1 proposes to provide $145 billion in tax cuts for working families. However, on closer inspection we find out that $45 billion of what is labeled as a tax cut is instead a payment from the U.S. taxpayers to those who do not pay taxes. Furthermore, the bill increases the refundability of the child tax credit by $18 billion--increasing the child tax credit payment to those who don't pay taxes. Let me also say that I appreciate all of the talk about the need to work together in a bipartisan fashion. I was pleased that several Republican amendments were adopted when portions of this bill were considered in several Congressional Committees. I was deeply disappointed that a number of the Republican Amendments disappeared from the bill between the time it was passed in committee and brought to the House floor for a vote. Bipartisanship is supposed to be a two- way street, not simply a demand to show bipartisanship by accepting the Speakers bill. If we really want to stimulate the economy we should focus on what actually creates jobs in the country--small businesses. Small businesses create 70% of the new jobs in America. Unfortunately, this bill does virtually nothing to help small businesses. I will be voting against the speaker's bill and in support of the Republican substitute. The bill that I am voting for will lower the 10% tax rate to 5% and the 15% tax rate to $10%. This will give all taxpaying Americans a tax cut. It will leave money in their pockets that they can use it to meet their own family expenses. We include small business tax relief, including a provision allowing small businesses to write off up to $250,000 in capital expenditures. We extend unemployment benefits through 2009 and we exempt these payments from income taxes. We also include other job-creating provisions and we do so without raising anyone's taxes. I have also cosponsored legislation that would reduce the 28% tax rate to 23%. This will cut taxes for individual and job-creating small businesses. Lower taxes, not higher borrowing, spending and debt will put our economy back on track. I urge my colleagues to vote for lower taxes and against higher spending and debt.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to an additional $350 billion in bailout funding and in strong support of House Joint Resolution 3. Passage of House Joint Resolution 3 is the only way to stop the additional $350 billion in bailout funding. Last year, before I came to Congress, I went on record opposing the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Today we know that the first $350 billion is gone. But what we don't know is where all that money went, except that it is safe to say that the Treasury did not actually buy troubled assets as originally intended. As we know, the Treasury purchased equity stakes in banks. In their report to Congress 2 weeks ago the Congressional oversight panel reported that it ``. . . does not know what the banks are doing with taxpayer money.'' The report also notes that the Treasury seems to have allocated most of the funds to healthy banks. Where is the accountability? Outside the Washington Beltway, my constituents and other Americans watch in disbelief as their elected representatives in Washington continue to spend their hard-earned money at astonishing levels. They are concerned that Washington is on a spending spree with no accountability. Last week the House approved-- over my objections, over $75 billion in new spending. Today, the President wants $350 billion. And next week House Democrat leaders plan to bring an $850 billion spending bill to the House floor. When does the accountability begin and when will this body pause and think about the debt burden that they are saddling our children and grandchildren with? The cost to them won't be $350 billion, $700 billion, $850 billion, $1.5 trillion. It will be much, much more with interest. We should not rubberstamp this $350 billion Wall Street bailout. Sadly, when the Congress approved the first part of this spending last fall, they set it up so that it would take a supermajority of the Congress to stop the additional $350 billion. The process is turned on its head. Rather than making it easier we should be making it more difficult to run up the tab for our grandchildren.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express both my support for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, and my reservations about the particular SCHIP bill, H.R. 2, that is before us today. I would also add that I am pleased to support an alternative version that will be offered as a substitute today. This alternative focuses SCHIP on low income children and addresses the problems with the underlying bill. Our nation faces very serious financial challenges. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, projects that this year's Federal budget deficit will be nearly $1.2 trillion dollars. In other words one out of every three dollars that the Federal Government will spend this year will be borrowed from future generations. Given that our children and grandchildren will have to pay back everything that this generation borrows, we must give the greatest scrutiny to each and every dollar that is spent. I am committed to working to assist lower-income children who lack insurance. SCHIP was established as a bipartisan program to insure children in families too poor to pay for insurance but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. If that was what the bill before us did, I would be voting for it. Unfortunately, H.R. 2 goes well beyond focusing specifically on these children. H.R. 2 expands SCHIP to extend taxpayer subsidies to the children of those living in, for example, New Jersey and making more than $80,000 per year, 400 percent of the poverty level. The CBO estimates that 2.4 million of the new enrollees in SCHIP will be children who simply dropped private coverage to enroll in SCHIP. Given our massive Federal deficit, does it make sense to borrow money from our children and grandchildren in order to enroll in SCHIP children who currently have other private insurance? H.R. 2 continues to allow states to enroll single adults in SCHIP. Over 600,000 are enrolled in the SCHIP program and three states have more adults enrolled in SCHIP than children. This is particularly troubling given that in many states with large numbers of adults enrolled in SCHIP, many qualified children remain uninsured. This is a misappropriation of limited resources and children should not have to sit on the sidelines while able-bodied adults take their benefits. H.R. 2 also repeals safeguards that were put in place to ensure that illegal immigrants were not enrolled in taxpayer subsidized SCHIP. Removing these safeguards will actually encourage illegal immigration by offering taxpayer funded benefits to people who bypass our laws and enter the U.S. illegally. In a sense, it gives foreign nationals an incentive to break our immigration laws. Finally, in an admission by the sponsors of H.R. 2 that the bill is unaffordable, the bill assumes that millions of children will be dropped from the SCHIP program in 2013 in order to meet the technical requirements of Federal budget rules. Does anyone really believe that the Congress would kick millions of people out of SCHIP in 2013? It's time for this Congress to be honest with the American people and this bill does not meet that test. By employing this budget gimmick, the sponsors of H.R. 2 are admitting that the bill is unaffordable. I am fully supportive of legislation that would focus on ensuring that lower income children are able to enroll in SCHIP. This bill falls far short of that goal. In conclusion let me say that we have until March 31 to reauthorize SCHIP. Congress should use that time wisely to further examine the effectiveness of this program to date and address these shortcomings. I am disappointed that this 286-page bill is being rushed to the House floor under a closed process that denies Members of the House the opportunity to have an up or down vote on amendments that would address these concerns. I believe that America's children deserve better.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chair, as a new Member in the 111th Congress, I did not have the opportunity to vote against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, when it passed last year. At the time, I raised a number of concerns with the program, including the enormous risk to the taxpayer while our Nation's budget deficit skyrockets. While the Secretary of the Treasury warned of catastrophic consequences if TARP failed to pass last year, the case has yet to be made this time that the remaining $350 billion ought to be spent. Let us also remember that after the TARP bill passed, the Treasury shifted its approach away from purchasing troubled assets, as expected by Members of Congress who voted for the bill, and focused instead on giving money to banks. Treasury's use of taxpayer money remains clouded and lacks clear results deserving yet more of our money to spend. I welcome this bill's requirements to increase oversight of the TARP program through reporting requirements and the establishment of TARP objectives and benchmarks. The Congressional Oversight Panel highlighted the Treasury's astonishing inability to explain what banks are actually doing with the taxpayer money that was handed over to them. That is unbelievable and we ought to remedy this. That said, we are asked to vote on a bill that ostensibly improves the TARP program, but is being considered in a rushed process and without proper deliberation. We just received a copy of the 74 page bill on Friday afternoon. HEW Three days later, we received a 23 page amendment from the bill's author. That doesn't inspire much confidence in this process. Many agree the frenzied passage of the TARP bill last fall resulted in the need to clean it up later. So today I ask: What is the hurry and why can't we have more deliberation on ideas to improve the program? In yesterday's Financial Services Committee hearing, which touched on this bill indirectly, we heard from panelists with some ideas for TARP and other economic tools worthy of discussion. Why can't we take time to digest these proposals and determine whether their ideas should be incorporated with this new version of the TARP bill? I doubt this bill will live up to its expectations. Recent discussions in Congress have rightly addressed ongoing foreclosures. Yet I am concerned that the bill builds on a housing program, the Hope for Homeowners program, whose track record is dismal. While it was predicted that the program would help around 400,000 homeowners, this $300 billion program received fewer than 600 loans for modification and government guarantee. The legislation before us weakens Hope for Homeowners requirements, such as borrower certifications and documentation, which are intended to reduce the possibility of the taxpayer having to pick up the tab. This bill does not sound like the solution we are looking for.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 34 which recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, there was hope from many that this was an opportunity for peace. Sadly, this has not been the case. Since then more than 3 years have passed and approximately 6,400 rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israeli civilian communities by Hamas and other pro-Palestinian organizations. Their goal: to kill, maim, terrorize and traumatize innocent Israeli civilians. My friends, this total disregard for human life must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. These terrorist groups, some of which we know are supported by Iran and Syria, have left the Israeli Government no choice but to defend the lives of their citizens. And to make matters worse, Hamas has been using its own people-- families and children--as human shields when launching their sinister rocket attacks. Hamas terrorists have chosen to launch missiles into Israel from civilian sites intentionally placing the lives of Palestinians at risk. This shows their total disregard not only for the lives of Israelis, but for the lives of Palestinians as well. The world must come together and condemn the use of these outrageous and cowardly tactics against civilian communities and recognize Israel's right as a sovereign and democratic nation to protect its citizens and borders from unprovoked terrorism. I urge my colleagues to stand up and support H. Res. 34 and recognize Israel's right to do whatever it takes to protect the lives of its citizens.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 4, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''