Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman asking. At this time I have no additional speakers.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to notify my colleague from the Rules Committee that I have no additional speakers at this time. We had spoken about that before. But, in fact, as a result of the scheduling that has taken place this morning, none of my colleagues on my side are available to come down this morning. Mr. Speaker, as is generally always understood in this House, the gentleman is generally correct, that the Rules Committee, in fact, did provide a good number of wonderful amendments that would be made in order. The fact of the matter is that as part of this House majority and minority being able to understand what the Rules Committee is going to do, we were looking for some transparency and some consistency. I believe it is important for Members to be able to know when they can submit those amendments that they might want to have. It is also true that the majority is the one that determines what this schedule would be. Members generally have no clue exactly when amendments are going to be due if you do not give them a deadline and if you simply say well, before the bill is called up. The bottom line is we are simply asking that the Rules Committee would state very clearly when amendments would need to be placed for consideration, and that is what our point is. The gentleman also makes other points about the GSEs and about this House voting on this money that would become available for affordable housing. I recall that earlier this year this House provided for Katrina housing relief. We've done that, and yet that's now what this bill that is left over for, that was passed last year was for. And so now what we're doing is taking a bill that was passed last year through a huge number of votes in this House, did not pass the other body, was not signed into law, and yet earlier this year we provided for a housing fund for Katrina earlier. Now we're asking for $2.5 billion increase on middle class homeowners. We're simply saying that we believe that there should be transparency. We believe that the processes by which this takes place should be more apparent to Members where they would have these opportunities to come down. If the gentleman wants to support a $2.5 billion increase for middle class consumers, as he did last year by bringing the bill forward, as he's doing this year, then we will let the Members decide by voting on that. But I think there should be transparency to the people who will be footing or paying the bill as to why there's additional costs that may keep people out of the marketplace because of additional costs related to them by buying their new home. Mr. Speaker, evidently at this time I have created an opportunity to continue dialogue, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont, my friend, for not only his friendship, but also for our opportunity to engage today on this important bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this unorthodox rule and to a number of provisions in the underlying legislation in its current form. While I do appreciate and support the committee's effort to provide for the safety and soundness of our Nation's housing finance system and broader financial system, this legislation has a number of fatal shortcomings that I hope will be corrected during the modified open amendment process provided for by this rule. Unfortunately, I cannot support this rule, which breaks with the longstanding, bipartisan precedent of providing Members with the certainty of a specific date by which their amendments must be printed in the Congressional Record so that they may be included in the debate under this rule. By changing this longstanding, established practice and only providing Members with the requirement that their amendments must be printed at an undetermined, unannounced time before the consideration that this bill begins, Members from both sides of the aisle are left vulnerable to the scheduling whims of the majority, which is neither an open nor a transparent way to run the House of Representatives. I also find it odd that a majority of the Rules Committee members would vote to provide for such an open deadline. Just this week, they demanded such precision in timing from Members and an overworked Legislative Counsel Office with a filing deadline for the Defense authorization bill. That is an unprecedented move. Amendments filed less than 12 hours after this deadline were simply turned away at the door. Members were informed that their noncompliance with the arbitrary deadline meant that their voices would not even have the opportunity to be heard in the House. I wish I could say that I was surprised by this decision made by the Democrat members of the Rules Committee. Unfortunately, the majority's selective enforcement of amendment deadlines and disregard for other long-standing House precedents has become the status quo in the Democrat Rules Committee. So much for all of those campaign promises to run the most honest, ethical and transparent House in history. While this bill does provide for a stronger regulator with increased powers to ensure the safe and sound operations of the housing government sponsored enterprises, I must rise in strong opposition to this bill's worst flaw: A new housing fund mandate that would create a de facto tax on the middle-class homeowners to finance an expensive and ill-defined big government housing program. In its budget score of the legislation, the Congressional Budget Office acknowledges that the new government-mandated assessments on the GSEs could very easily be passed on to their customers in the form of higher fees, meaning that this fund would unfairly target the most modest home prices to finance this unprecedented government-mandated redistribution of wealth from the middle class. I believe it is bad public policy to tie the fate of families that need housing support to the success or failure of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac's portfolios. Even worse because the affordable housing funds would come from loans that are less than $417,000, which in 12 metropolitan areas in the country is dangerously close to or below the median home price, this bill levies a new stealth tax on the most modest home buyers without even disclosing to them the costs associated with this new Federal mandate. Mr. Speaker, it is the same as a tax increase to these middle income home buyers. To deal with this problem, I will be offering an amendment that provides useful information to home buyers about the real costs of this stealth tax. This amendment would require that the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency determine what the cost per $1,000 finance would be to home buyers whose mortgages are purchased by the housing GSEs. This information would need to be disclosed to the home buyer at or before closing for these mortgages, who qualify for future GSE purchase, and any additional cost for mortgage originators created by this new disclosure regulation would be paid for by the housing fund so that the new disclosure requirement does not create a new, costly private sector mandate. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to pass along a brand new, stealth $2.5 billion tax increase on the middle class to pay for their affordable housing, I think that Congress should at the very least be up front about the true cost of this fund with those who are being asked to foot the bill. My amendment simply provides for transparency for mortgage consumers about the true cost of this new government $2.5 billion mandate, and I would encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule and the underlying legislation in its current form, particularly this stealth tax contained in the affordable housing fund provision. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Massachusetts makes important points. I think that the gentleman should also hear that we believe there should be transparency to make sure that these middle class homeowners who would be buying and paying for this $2.5 billion increase, that they would understand why that additional cost is being placed on them, and these are the transparency things that we think that good government can be about. The process also has developed itself to where we began talking about the Rules Committee once again, and Mr. Speaker, two nights ago I was provided with a summary by the majority party of a breakdown of the rules, what we have done when I was in the majority in the Rules Committee versus the Democrats now being the majority party. And the fact of the matter is through May 15, which is what this is talking about, the Democrats have had 13 closed rules. The Republicans had six closed rules over the same period of time. Six closed rules for Republicans; 13 closed rules for Democrats. Eight open rules for the Democrats, which they call open rules but that had a preprinting requirement, so they really should be modified open rules, but the bottom line is a number of those have been over suspensions that Republicans did not even place a rule on. We just brought them to the floor of the House of Representatives and let them see what that outcome would be. Mr. Speaker, I would insert this into the Record at this point. 110th rule breakdown through May 15, 2007 43 Total rules: 8 open rules (7 with a preprinting requirement). 20 structured rules. Thirteen closed rules. 1 conference report rule. 1 procedural rule. 60--Republican/minority amendments in order. 109th rule breakdown through May 15, 2005 29 Total rules: 2 open rules (1 appropriations bill). 15 structured rules. Six closed rules. 2 conference report rules. 4 procedural rules. 51--Democratic/minority amendments in order. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party, my party, is very aware of the dramatic needs of housing in this country, the needs that people have, families who have children, elderly people, disabled people, who do need more affordable and better housing, and that's why you have seen in our past, as was undisputed on the floor today, about the number of people who have voted for providing these funds that would be available. We do believe that there should be transparency. We believe that the people, the consumers, who will be paying this additional $2.5 billion should be told why, what it's for, just as anyone who closes on a house should understand if there's going to be a FedEx package that would be delivered or a title fee or some fee that would be associated even with a notary public, that that should be included as part of the closing cost of a house to make sure that the consumer knows why and what they are paying for. So I would be offering an amendment that was made in order by the Rules Committee as part of our discussion about how to improve this opportunity to make transparency available to all the consumers. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I do thank the gentleman from North Carolina. So that he is aware, this is unlike any of the other amendments. This is very straightforward. It offers an opportunity for consumers to see straight up exactly what those costs are that are being passed to them. There is no duplication. There is nothing about this amendment or about the reporting process that would be duplicative. It would be straightforward, and it would be full transparency. As I recall it, just a few weeks ago the new Democrat majority was intensely interested in making sure that every single person who was a shareholder would have transparency and understanding about the compensation of executives, in the best interests of shareholders. Now, here we are talking about middle class home buyers who are attempting to understand, to know what costs they are to pay for, whether there is a FedEx package, if there is a notary charge. We are trying to make sure that this money, which would add up to be about $2.5 billion over a short period of time that would be passed to them, they would simply have a statement of exactly what that charge was for. I think this is good government. I think it is transparency. I do not find any way that it is duplicative. I do not find where there is necessarily additional work. It would be paid for by the fund. The fund that we are saying tonight we are supportive of would simply need to make sure that it becomes transparent to those people who will be paying the money. I think if you checked out of any restaurant, if you checked out of any store, that you would want to know what you paid for. There would be a line item for it. That is what we are asking for. This is really not very confusing. It makes the bill a little bit better. It provides transparency. In my opinion, that is still what Congress, both sides, Republicans and Democrats, should strive for, if middle class taxpayers are having to pay for it. I think it makes sense.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. In reply to the gentleman from Georgia, this amendment does not require originators to provide this disclosure to home buyers. It simply says that the disclosure must be given if the originator wants the mortgage to qualify for the purchase by the GSEs. This is not the first time that Congress has asked that mortgage originators provide blanket disclosures to home buyers, regardless of whether or not the disclosure applies to their specific mortgage. The Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act mandated disclosure to consumers about the mere likelihood that a mortgage's servicing rights would be transferred without regard to whether any specific mortgage servicing rights would actually be transferred. The gentleman, Mr. Frank, was an original cosponsor of the bill in the 101st Congress, and voted in favor of it on August 1, 1990. Mr. Chairman, I will insert into the Record an example of the precedent for this nonspecific mandated mortgage disclosure requirement supported by our chairman, Chairman Frank. RESPA Servicing Disclosure Lender: Indiana Members Credit Union, 4790 East 96th Street, Ste. 120, Indianapolis, IN 46240, Notice to first lien mortgage loan applicants: the right to collect your mortgage loan payments may be transferred. Federal law gives you certain related rights. If your loan is made, save this statement with your loan documents. Sign the acknowledgment at the end of this statement only if you understand its contents. Because you are applying for a mortgage loan covered by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)(12 U.S.C. Section 2601 et seq.) you have certain rights under the Federal law. This statement tells you about those rights. It also tells you what the chances are that the servicing for this loan may be transferred to a different loan servicer. ``Servicing'' refers to collecting your principal, interest and escrow account payments, if any. If your loan servicer changes, there are certain procedures that must be followed. This statement generally explains those procedures. transfer practices and requirements If the servicing of your loan is assigned, sold, or transferred to a new servicer, you must be given written notice of that transfer. The present loan servicer must send you notice in writing of the assignment, sale or transfer of the servicing not less than 15 days before the effective date of the transfer. The new loans servicer must also send you notice within 15 days after the effective date of the transfer. The present servicer and the new servicer may combine this information in one notice, so long as the notice is sent to you 15 days before the effective date of transfer. The 15-day period is not applicable if a notice of prospective transfer is provided to you at settlement. The law allows a delay in the time (not more than 30 days after a transfer) for servicers to notify you, upon the occurrence of certain business emergencies. Notices must contain certain information. They must contain the effective date of the transfer of the servicing of your loan to the new servicer, and the name, address, and toll-free or collect call telephone number of the new servicer, and toll-free or collect call telephone numbers of a person or department for both your present servicer and your new servicer to answer your questions. During the 60-day period following the effective date of the transfer of the loan servicing, a loan payment received by your old servicer before its due date may not be treated by the new loan servicer as late, and a late fee may not be imposed on you. complaint resolution Section 6 of RESPA (12 U.S.C. Section 2605) gives you certain consumer rights, whether or not your loan servicing is transferred. If you send a ``qualified written request'' to your servicer, your servicer must provide you with a written acknowledgment with 20 Business Days of receipt of your request. A ``qualified written request'' is a written correspondence, other than notice on a payment coupon or other payment medium supplied by the servicer which includes your name and account number, and the information regarding your request. Not later than 60 Business Days after receiving your request, your servicer must make any appropriate corrections to your account, or must provide you with a written clarification regarding any dispute. During this 60 Business Day period, your servicer may not provide information to a consumer-reporting agency concerning any overdue payment related to such period or qualified written request. A Business Day is any day in which the offices of the business entity are open to the public for carrying on substantially all of its business functions. damages and costs Section 6 of RESPA also provides for damages and costs for individuals or classes of individuals in circumstances where servicers are shown to have violated the requirements of that Section. servicing transfer estimates 1. The following is the best estimate of what will happen to the servicing of your mortgage loan: We may assign, sell or transfer the servicing of your loan while the loan is outstanding. We are able to service your loan and we will not have not decided whether to service your loan. or We do not service mortgage loans, and we have not serviced mortgage loans in the past three years. We presently intend to assign, sell or transfer the servicing of your mortgage loan. You will be informed about your servicer. We assign, sell or transfer the servicing of some of our loans while the loan is outstanding depending on the type of loan and other factors. For the program you have applied for, we expect to: Sell all of the mortgage servicing retain all the mortgage servicing assign, sell or transfer __% of the mortgage servicing. 2. For all the first lien mortgage loans that we make in the 12-month period after your mortgage loan is funded, we estimate that the percentage of mortgage loans for which we will transfer servicing is between: to 25% (or None) 26 to 50% 0 51 to 75% 0 76 to 100% (or ALL) This estimate does not include assignments, sales or transfers to affiliates or subsidiaries. This is only our best estimate and it is not binding. Business conditions or other circumstances may affect our future transferring. 3. We have previously assigned, sold or transferred the servicing of first lien mortgage loans. or This is our record of transferring the servicing of the first lien mortgage loans we have made in the past: Year percentage of loans transferred (Rounded to the nearest quartile--0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100%). 2003: 50%; 2004: 50%; and 2005: 25%. This information does not include assignments, sales or transfers to affiliates or subsidiaries. Date:___ Present Servicer or Lender: Indiana Members Credit Union. acknowledgment of mortgage loan applicant I/We have read this disclosure form and understand its contents, as evidenced by my/our signature(s) below. I/We understand that this acknowledgment is a required part of the mortgage loan application.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman wants to argue that shareholders should pay for this. Yet just a couple of weeks ago we were arguing on this floor about who should pay to know about executive compensation. We definitely understood it shouldn't be shareholders there. But tonight it is okay.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. You know, we are once again arguing what, first, is a ``de minimus'' amount of money. Then it turns out to be a lot of money. And now we understand it is really not that much money at all that these consumers are having to pay. But somebody has to pay the $2.5 billion, and that is a new tax. And it is in this legislation. This money is just not going to come out of anywhere. We do expect if there is going to be money that is going to be owed by somebody, that they ought to know where it comes from. It just doesn't come from home buyers. It will come from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders. And excluding them from the decision-making process seems like a significant backward step for shareholder rights. But just a few weeks ago the chairman brought legislation to the floor that would mandate a new, nonbinding shareholder vote on executive compensation. I think that shareholders and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, if they are, in fact, the ones to foot the bill for this new fund, at least deserve a little bit of participation. They ought to understand it and know. I ask the chairman in the name of shareholder rights and shareholder participation to include the language during any conference negotiations, and to make sure he does the same thing thereto. The bottom line is that shareholders or middle class home buyers all deserve a right to know how much they are being charged. It is a simple request. The gentleman almost got it right. I think it is an American thing that consumers ought to know what they are paying for, and it is unAmerican not to know what you are paying for.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will provide useful information to middle-class home buyers about the real cost of the $2.5 billion stealth tax included in this legislation, and how it will affect these consumers' wallets. The amendment requires that the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency will determine how much the new tax created by this housing fund will increase total costs for home buyers whose mortgages are purchased by housing GSEs. This information would then be disclosed to the home buyer at or before closing for these mortgages to qualify for future GSE purchase. To ensure that it does not create a costly regulatory burden for mortgage originators, the amendment also provides that additional costs created by this new disclosure requirement would be paid for by the Housing Fund. I believe that if we are going to pass a new stealth $2.5 billion tax on the middle class to pay for affordable housing, then Congress should, at the very least, be up front about the true cost of this fund with those who are being asked to foot the bill. My amendment simply provides for transparencies for consumers about the true cost of this new government mandate. I would encourage all my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support it. Mr. Chairman, a consistent fact about the free market is that new taxes to build big government programs are always passed on to the consumer. The Housing Fund created by this legislation raids the portfolios of the GSEs for funding. And the GSEs in turn, you guessed it, have to pass the increased costs associated with compliance with this new Federal mandate along to the middle-class home buyers in the conforming loan bracket. I think it is bad public policy to tie the fate of families that need housing support to the success or failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's portfolios, as this Housing Fund does. I think that it is bad policy to discourage middle-class home buyers from achieving their American Dream of homeownership by creating a new $2.5 billion stealth tax. But I think it is absolutely awful public policy to pass this stealth tax and not let consumers know how their pockets are being picked to fund this new big government program brought to us as the courtesy of the Democrat majority in Congress. I encourage all my Members to support this amendment to provide transparency and funding for the Housing Fund.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority a few years ago heard the American people loud and clear that they wanted America to be competitive with the world. We were tired of losing jobs overseas. That is not happening. It has not happened in a couple years. As a matter of fact, there are signs all over this country that say ``workers needed.'' We need more workers in this country. And that comes as a result of the tax cuts that were offered to allow American business, corporations become competitive with the world, an opportunity to attract new capital, to retool our companies here in this country to give us the newest tools and the tool kits that are available. We have a strong and vibrant economy. We have a strong and vibrant economy because we have people who have money in their own pockets creating jobs. We have some 5 million new jobs just in the last few years, 7 million since 2001, that have been created. This economy is doing the right thing. It is giving the Americans their own dreams, their dreams to not only have their own homes, the highest level ever of people who own their own homes, but it is also giving America to save for our future because our stock market is back. Just a few years ago, after 9/11, everybody was worried about their retirement. Big worries. At that time, what did we hear from the Democrat Party? Raise taxes. But that is not what the Republican majority or President Bush did. We cut taxes; we grew our economy. We have a strong and great economy today. The Republican Party stands forth today on this day in Washington, D.C., to say we will vote against the largest or second largest tax increase in the history of the United States of America. This budget that comes from the Democrat Party will raise taxes and raise spending. The Republican Party disagrees with that. The Republican Party disagrees with saying that we will have taxpayers who will be without jobs in this country, because we will take away the investment and the opportunity that goes forth to make investment possible to where jobs are available. The Republican Party stands today and says we are opposed to this new bill because of what it does by having all sorts of special accounts, just spending opportunities that sit out there in the future, undefined, but ready to spend money if the money comes in. We believe that we should have had more responsibility, as we have tried to do for years, to do something responsible about Social Security. But we have heard from the Democrats for the last 6 years, there is nothing wrong with Social Security. There is no problem. Mr. Speaker, we disagree with that. Republicans are going to oppose this today. I ask my Members to join me in defeating the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, what we are debating here today is the largest tax increase that will take place in American history. As the Republican majority has done for a number of years, we recognize that America needs to be more competitive with the world in cutting taxes, making sure that the budgets, very clearly, help protect this country, help protect the men and women of the United States military. They are doing their daily job in trying to not only protect this country, but to defeat terrorists all around the world. Today we have an opportunity to stand very clearly, talking about what a budget does. We have heard it's a moral piece of paper. It defines very clearly about what someone's priorities are. Well, we know what those priorities are. They are tax and spend. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will be urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that I may offer an amendment to the rule, which will stop this Chamber from hiding behind a cheap procedural maneuver invented by former Democrat Majority Leader Dick Gephardt. This rule allows Members to duck the responsibility of taking a vote on raising a limit on a public debt, a painful but necessary exercise of this Chamber's legislative responsibilities. Because of this rule invented by Democrats, Members who vote for this underlying conference report will also be recorded as voting to raise the public debt. Members need to be aware of this. They need to know exactly what they are voting for. For a long time, Members on both sides of the aisle have been appalled by this practice. Members of growths as ideologically diverse as the RSC, Blue Dogs and the New Democrat Coalition alike have called for its repeal. It's time for members of the Blue Dogs and New Democrat Coalition to demonstrate the courage of their convictions and end this bait-and-switch practice. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment and extraneous material just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the inquiry from the gentlewoman. I will assume that the gentlewoman is still going to hold her time with no additional speakers?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I do have an additional speaker.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the ranking member.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for yielding me the time, the gentlewoman from Ohio, my friend on the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and to the outrageous tax increase conference report that the Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor today. Mr. Speaker, once again, we will reiterate, the Democrat Party says it's not a tax increase, but if it's not a tax increase, then it's several hundred billion dollars more worth of spending. It's one or the other, because what we see here today is exactly that. They are going to give us the largest single tax increase in the history of this country, and even though they say it's not a tax increase, then it's going to be an outrageous spending spree because they intend to spend more money or have more taxation, and that's why we're opposed to this bill. I wish I could report to my colleagues that the majority Democrats had seen the downside of their tax-and-spend ways since the House last considered the budget in March, but on the positive side this budget does contain a 1 year Alternative Minimum Tax patch which prevents over 20 million middle class Americans from being slammed by this tax. And this tax in this budget also represents the largest tax increase in history, not the first anyway, but I'm sorry to report that it's about as good as it gets from here because the massive and irresponsible tax increase included in the House budget would still be the second largest in American history, weighing in at least $217 billion over the next 5 years. It also contains a trigger that could nearly double it by including increases in taxes in marginal rates, capital gains and dividend taxes, among other tax relief that was provided previously by the Republican majority. As further evidence that the Democrats continue to ignore their campaign trail promises to demonstrate fiscal discipline, the additional spending envisioned by this plan will trigger an automatic tax hike that will affect every single taxpaying American. This means that as Democrats continue to implement their true tax- and-spend agenda, important middle class tax relief provisions passed by the Republican majorities of the past, such as the marriage penalty and the child tax credit, will shrink or disappear, raising the Democrats' tax increase right back to the original House-passed level of $400 billion, or restoring it to its historic infamy, which it would truly be, as the largest tax increase in American history. And if this insatiable appetite for taxing were not enough, Democrats leave themselves enough room in this budget to raise taxes even further to pay for more than $190 million of additional, unfunded spending promises. This budget also promises and provides for a massive new spending spree by increasing nondefense appropriations by $22 billion over 2007 levels. This is in addition to the $26 billion that they have already proposed to spend outside the normal appropriations process through the omnibus and supplemental legislation that they have forced through the House. This conference report abandons the emergency set-aside fund included in last year's budget and opens the way for unlimited future spending by dropping any limitation on what can be considered emergency spending. But it has new funds for peanut farmers and spinach growers, so I guess that's a good thing. But in a surprising bit of consistency, the Democrats do hold true to their pay-for rules and allow the 23 shell reserve funds to spend an additional $190 billion, as soon as appropriate because these will be tax increases that they intend to identify and then pay for. This irresponsible budget continues to ignore the brewing entitlement crisis and puts off any major reform for at least another 5 years. This is despite the fact that around 77 million baby boomers will be retiring in the near future and will begin collecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Funding this new spending represents the greatest economic challenge of our era, and it is a challenge that the Democrat budget has chosen to completely ignore while going on their own spending spree everywhere else. And what's worse, this budget completely shirks its oversight responsibility to root out waste, fraud and abuse in Federal spending by providing only $750 million of reconciliation spending out of an $8.5 trillion Federal budget. This is the legislative equivalent of checking under the seat cushions to pay the Federal Government's rent, and I believe, for one, that the American people deserve better. Finally, Mr. Speaker, despite these massive tax increases, the Democrats fail to provide a surplus large enough to halt the raid on Social Security, directly contradicting their previous campaign trail promises to do precisely that. This is something that the Republican budget provided a surplus large enough to do starting in the next 5 years, and it did so by controlling, among other things, spending, not raising taxes. Mr. Speaker, I believe the voters watching this debate on C-SPAN can understand what these tax increases will mean for our economy and for our ability to compete globally. I think that they can see through this charade, and I know that they deserve better than this massive tax increase and spending spree that is on their dime and against the future of our children. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying tax increase. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, between November 2006 and January 2007, Iran tested its long-range ballistic missile capacities twice. In July 2006, North Korea also tested a number of its ballistic missiles, including one that has a range of 9,000 miles and could hit parts of the United States of America. In response to North Korea's test, the United States' Northern Command made nearly a dozen of our anti-ballistic missiles operational, or ready to use, to defend the United States against an imminent danger posed by ballistic missiles. North Korea's long-range missiles were detected by United States satellites within seconds, and, thankfully, the missile failed after 42 seconds and after only several hundred miles of flight but North Korea and many of our strategic rivals and enemies continue to develop their missile capacities. Now, it is the time for America's adversaries to understand that America must not have an unwillingness to put its missile defense system on operational alert in the face of imminent threat. Section 222 of this legislation that we are debating tonight would prevent the missile defense funds authorized by this legislation from being used for operational and support activities. Specifically, the language in this bill states that the funds provided only be used for the research, development, test and evaluation of our Nation's missile defense system, and it specifically prevents these funds from being used for operational and support activities. My amendment would clarify that nothing in this legislation would prevent the United States of America from placing our missile defense system on operational alert to respond to an immediate threat to our security posed by enemy ballistic missiles. If this bill is adopted without my amendment, it would mean that we are telling countries like North Korea that they can take a free shot at the United States of America because we would be unwilling to stand up our current missile defense capacities, exactly the wrong message to send to our enemies. This makes no strategic sense, and the position of every Member of this body also should be on record saying that. If you want to tie the President's hands in defeating and defending America from ballistic missiles and declare to our enemies our lack of will to defend ourselves against ballistic missile attack, you should oppose this amendment. But if you believe that Congress should make clear that this legislation should not and would not prevent our defenses from being placed on operational alert to respond to an immediate threat posed by ballistic missiles, you must support this amendment. I encourage all of my colleagues to provide our military with the clearly stated flexibility that they need to defend our country. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.