[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 25291-25297]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND OUR TAX DOLLARS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Salazar). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity 
to come to the floor now for the next 60 minutes to address an issue 
that is of utmost importance to all Americans, and it is a very simple 
one: Where do my tax dollars go and why do I pay so much in taxes? We 
will see over the course of the next hour where some of the dollars go, 
and we will also see the fact that, quite honestly, it is hard to 
determine where some of those dollars go and what the Republican 
conference has tried to do to address that issue, to try to nail down 
some of what the facts are. I am referring, of course, to earmarks and 
transparency in the budget process because, as we all know for all too 
long, it has been a difficult issue to try just to figure out, when you 
send your taxes every April 15 to Washington, DC, where some of those 
hard-earned dollars go to.
  These are important issues, as I said at the very beginning, to the 
American family because, as I have always said, I believe, as Members 
of Congress, that our focus should be on the family budget as opposed 
to focusing on the Federal budget, because when we focus on the family 
budget, the American family from the east coast to the west, the fact 
that they have to spend day after day working hard for their money, for 
their income, to pay for their expenses, when we focus on those facts 
and when we focus on the fact that the American family has to pay for 
their housing, their rent or their mortgage, the education of their 
children, their food and their clothing and other expenses and health 
care and the like, if we keep our mind focused on that, maybe we in 
this Congress and the administration will not be amiss as to where 
those dollars go in the long term.

                              {time}  2045

  If you may recall, it was just a week ago this Monday that we 
celebrated the 220th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution. The Founding 
Fathers, brilliant men all, had wisdom probably beyond their years and 
beyond their ages when they crafted, in 1787, that document that lives 
with us today. It is our job, as Members of Congress, to read that 
document, to understand that document from an original intent point of 
view, and by that, I mean to understand what the Founders intended at 
that time for generations to come.
  One of the hallmarks of that document was to understand a federalist 
system of government. And within that, the States were sovereign in the 
sense that they were to take care of

[[Page 25292]]

many factors; people were supposed to have utmost responsibility for 
themselves and their family, and the Federal Government was to have 
very limited powers. And in that Constitution it specifically set out, 
article I, section 8 sets out much of the limitations on the powers 
that Congress has.
  Just shortly after the enactment of the Constitution, the Bill of 
Rights was created and added a portion of the first 10 amendments to 
the Constitution. And the 10th Amendment to the Constitution says 
something that I think is important to our fiscal spending, and that 
is, ``All rights not specifically delegated to the Federal Government 
are retained by the States and the people, respectively.'' Those powers 
that are retained by the people, all other ones are by the people and 
the States.
  So the Constitution, if you would look at it, basically just lists 
what the Federal Government is supposed to do. Everything else is in 
the hands of the people or the States. Now, over the generations, 
unfortunately, especially in the last 40 or 50-some-odd years, the 
Federal Government has grown expansively. And because of that, so, too, 
has the budget, and so, too, has the burden on the American family.
  We come tonight to point out that the budget we have seen crafted by 
the other side of the aisle continues to grow out of control without 
constraint and, therefore, puts an additional burden in the form of 
higher taxes. Here we stand 9 months into this 110th Congress, and what 
have we seen as far as the budget is concerned? What has this 110th 
Democrat-controlled Congress wrought? Most specifically, the largest 
tax increase in U.S. history. Let me repeat that, and I will probably 
say that later on, the largest tax increase in U.S. history. And why is 
that? Well, for a couple of reasons.
  One, you have continued to see excesses in spending out of the budget 
coming from the other side of the aisle. That, in and of itself, is bad 
for the American economy and for the American taxpayer. And secondly, 
those higher taxes are part and parcel of the Democrat plan. Why do I 
say that? Well, because part of their plan when they came in here, and 
this is something that they championed and they said was to be good, 
was something called PAYGO, pay-as-you-go. Now, in the heart of things 
you would think that that is not a bad idea to pay as you go. When you 
think about it, that's how every family in America really should be 
operating on their budget each week or each month when they pay their 
bills, figure out how much is in the checkbook, and before they can go 
on any further they have to make sure they have enough income.
  But when the American family needs additional income to pay for 
additional expenses, where do they get it from? Well, they have to earn 
it through additional work, or that American family has another 
alternative, just don't spend the money in the first place. 
Unfortunately, the other side of the aisle doesn't ever seem to want to 
choose that second option of decreasing spending or holding spending 
flat, and that's why we see spending continuing to grow out of control. 
And as that spending continues to grow out of control, how do they make 
up for it? Well, they, unlike the American family, are not out there 
earning those dollars for those PAYGOs. They do it the old-fashioned 
way; they tax it. And they take it out of my pocket and out of your 
pocket, out of the American taxpayers' pocket.
  So we're here to discuss those dilemmas that are facing the American 
family. And I'm pleased to be joined this evening by a gentleman who 
has been fighting on this floor those very issues, fighting on the 
floor for the American family to make sure that the American family can 
retain as much of their hard-earned dollars as possible, and to address 
these issues that we've begun to address so far as far as spending and 
trying to constrain it. So right now I would like to yield the floor to 
the good gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I thank my friend very much.
  And as you've been pointing out, we deal with these issues within our 
own families. My wife and I have been married 29 years this summer, and 
we have three fantastic daughters. But over the years, including this 
weekend, I've had to tell my girls, you know, gee, I'd like to help, 
but money doesn't grow on trees. We're not going to be able to do it 
right now; perhaps in the next month or two we can go to that and we 
will have the money to go forward and do that. But they've also learned 
that, and we don't get the arguments we did when they were younger 
because now they have begun to understand the value of money and the 
value of a dollar and how, if you don't have it, you can't spend it. 
That's never seemed to have stopped the Federal Government. And it 
appears that some Members of Congress are having a harder time these 
days grasping that concept than I might have imagined.
  And maybe I'm a little naive. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, since this is only 
my second term in Congress, I have been a little naive. But in the last 
Congress, when our friends, Democrats across the aisle, stand up and 
say, you know, we've got to get this spending under control, we've got 
to stop this wasteful spending, we've got to quit spending more than 
we've got coming in, I commented to some of my Republican colleagues, 
you know, they're really right, we have got to do that. And some of us, 
including my friend, Mr. Garrett, had come together and demanded reform 
in certain areas, demanded that we get some of this spending under 
control. And, you know, when the Republicans lost the majority in 
November, I thought, well, you know, one of the silver linings may be 
that these folks, the Democratic majority that's about to take over in 
January, they wouldn't have gone out on a limb over and over and over 
the way they did unless they really intended to control spending. Maybe 
that was naive. But anyway, as we've seen with every spending bill 
that's come before the House, it's draining American pockets with 
excessive tax hikes, with more spending than is necessary.
  You know, I was shocked, also, that the usually bipartisan farm bill 
ended up being shoved over into a partisan issue, that was so extremely 
unusual, with a $4 billion partisan gimmick at the expense of many 
taxpayers. I didn't realize until we actually took this farm bill up 
since I've been in Congress, apparently it comes up every 5 years and 
it had not come up since I'd been here, but brought the bill up, and I 
didn't realize 66, 67 percent of the farm bill had nothing to do with 
agriculture, that it had to do with entitlements, and that those were 
running away. Some of us began to raise the issue, wait a minute, this 
is going to be providing food stamps to illegal aliens, and yet we were 
told, well, it doesn't actually do that. It doesn't provide food stamps 
to illegal aliens. And that sounded good, except when you don't require 
documentation to prove legal status, then there is no way to determine 
whether someone is legally getting food stamps or not getting legal 
food stamps. So that seemed to fall on deaf ears as well.
  When the majority was going to promise and did promise energy reform, 
we got an energy package that will raise taxes by potentially $16 
billion over the next 10 years. Now, also, as the House bill on SCHIP, 
and we've heard a good deal of discussion before we got in here to 
start with this hour, but the SCHIP bill, you know, helping kids have 
health care, we're all for that. That's a good thing. But then when you 
started looking at this House version, the Democrat's version on this, 
to brutalize seniors on Medicare and saying we're going to take from 
the seniors and give to the young people, and then it turns out the 
bill expanded the age so it wasn't just young people, it was also 
adults were included. I think in the final bill, maybe that will be 
taken out, but even there we're not sure what is going to end up being 
in there; we haven't gotten to see that. But then, again, adding 
subsidies, and basically food stamps is what they amount to, to people 
in foreign countries instead of taking care of folks here? The way it 
takes care of folks here is folks here get to pay a whole lot more in 
taxes than they would otherwise if we weren't trying to take on people 
that illegally were getting food stamps or weren't sending such money 
to other countries.

[[Page 25293]]


  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOHMERT. I will certainly yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Because I think that's an important one.
  Someone in my district, years ago when I first went into politics, 
said to me, Scott, when you deal with all these complicated issues that 
you will deal with, at that time on the State level, or now that I'm 
here in Washington, you have to translate it into, well, how does this 
impact upon me? And I remember that and try to bring it back home.
  The point that you're raising here with regard to these Federal 
programs, SCHIP and what have you, providing benefits to illegal 
aliens, people coming into this country, breaking the law, and now 
looking to the American taxpayer to pay for their services I think is a 
critically important one. I think we're all too aware of the fact that 
there are a number of services that we would like to provide for our 
constituents at home, especially the low-income individuals, especially 
when it's something as critical as food, and many times, I'm sure you 
hear in your district that there's just not enough program to go around 
for your constituents as you would like to have them.
  So when the Republican Conference said, as you suggested, that we 
should simply limit this program and limit American taxpayers' dollars 
to go to American citizens and not to illegals, that, to me, hits home 
as, how does that impact upon me? It means that those dollars will be 
going to Americans and to those who are most needy. Is that your 
understanding as well?
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Yes, that is my 
understanding. And I yield back.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And if the gentleman could just refresh my 
memory, how did that vote come down when we tried, and I know you were 
one of the leaders on the floor at that time, to make sure that that 
limitation would take place? If you recall how that vote actually came 
down.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. I remember very 
well. The amendment to prevent illegal aliens from getting such 
incredible amounts of Federal taxpayer dollars passed by 215-213. We've 
seen the video of the replay, so it's not just my recollection; it's 
there in the video. We passed the amendment with the Republican 
leadership, and as Mr. Garrett will recall, he was a big part of that, 
and it was 215-213. It sat on the board for a good while, the vote was 
closed, the gavel came down. And then as we saw on the video, there 
were two people that came forward. They weren't in the well. They came 
forward later and changed their vote after the vote was all declared, 
after everything was done. The vote was final. And somehow, when the 
smoke cleared, it was 212-216, I believe. So a vote that would have 
eliminated illegal aliens from receiving benefits under this provision, 
it passed, and then the rules were violated and it was taken away all 
so that people illegally here could get the hard-earned tax dollars 
from legal folks that are here.
  And if I could remind my gentleman friend from New Jersey, you know, 
we talked a great deal. And some of us put our conservative rears on 
the line last year by demanding earmark reform within our own 
Republican Party. And, in fact, there were probably 30 or so of us that 
told our leadership we're not voting for another major bill unless we 
get some type of earmark reform. So we were thrilled, I know Mr. 
Garrett recalls, we were thrilled, Mr. Speaker, when we got an 
agreement from the Speaker and we passed the amended rule here in the 
House that there could not be any air-dropped earmarks, which were the 
biggest problem, no air-dropped earmarks into conference reports 
without us having the ability to make a point of order objection and 
get a vote on those bills. That was a big deal.
  And I just saw the current Speaker out in the Capitol in Statuary 
Hall. She was incredibly gracious. She met some young people that are 
here in the District of Columbia, was very gracious to them. She didn't 
have to stop, she was very kind. But I recall in September of last year 
the current Speaker said, quote, ``if you're going to have earmarks and 
you're going to have transparency, you have to do it in the 
appropriations bill and in the tax bill and in the authorization 
bill.''

                              {time}  2100

  She said, ``I would put it in writing.'' Democratic Chairman David 
Obey admitted that ``the public wants us to pass significant House 
reform.'' He also said, ``To deal with the problem of earmarks by only 
going after appropriations earmarks constituted basically consumer 
fraud masquerading as lobbying reform.'' He said, ``To not do something 
about authorizing committee earmarks in the process is a joke.'' That 
was his quote. So that sounds good. But that is not what is being done 
this year. Americans are kind of fed up with having empty pockets while 
the government has spending sprees behind closed doors.
  Now, I am not for eliminating all earmarks. I think some of them are 
good. Where we, as the most accountable elected officials in the 
country, in some cases, can tell bureaucrats that are locked up in a 
cubicle somewhere that this is how this money should be spent, but the 
important thing is sunshine. It brings about great disinfecting. That 
is where we are having the problem. That is why so many of our 
colleagues have signed a discharge petition that is designed to force 
the House majority leadership to allow a vote on House Resolution 479 
that would ensure all taxpayer-funded earmarks are publicly disclosed 
and subject to challenge and open debate on the House floor.
  I appreciate my friend from New Jersey yielding, as he has, and I 
would just offer a couple more observations. Then I will yield back the 
time. In January, frankly, when the Democratic majority said, ``We are 
going to have even better earmark reform than what the Republican 
conservatives got done last year,'' I was pretty happy about that. I 
thought, that is a good thing. How could we object to that? That is 
great. But under the new rules, we were told that they did not allow 
any earmarks. Like I say, there are some earmarks where you have full 
disclosure. Let them see light of day so people know at whose request 
and what it is for. That can work out and still be a good thing. But no 
earmarks is better than having too many secret earmarks. So many of us 
were pleased.
  Then, when the bill came out that was chockfull of earmarks, we 
objected, which is allowed for in the new rules, only to be told that 
there was a provision in the rules that said you could either have no 
earmarks whatsoever, or in the bill in question you could have a 
statement that there were no earmarks in the bill. And the bill in 
question before the floor, even though it had lots of earmarks, there 
was the statement in there that there were no earmarks; therefore, it 
didn't violate the rule. Now, that was quite a shock. You know, Mr. 
Speaker, the country wanted spending reform, not regression, not 
reneging, not redoubling or retripling. They want true spending reform. 
So we need to clean up the wasteful pork in legislation so that 
American households can continue to bring home their own bacon and not 
send it somewhere else.
  I appreciate the time that has been yielded to me by my friend from 
New Jersey. I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, our friend from New Jersey's 
battling and agreeing to take this time and concentrate on these 
issues.
  Mr. GARRETT. More importantly, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
your work in taking part in this battle. I know that you do not simply 
come to the floor in these matters, but you are out there in committee 
process and you are on part of the team to make sure that the system is 
run the appropriate way and also to make the battle continuous as far 
as making sure the American tax dollar is spent as wisely as possible. 
Although in this climate, I must admit it is a difficult battle to be 
engaged in. Thank you for your efforts.
  You raised a couple of good points. Let me just touch upon these to 
reiterate them. One is that we all do want

[[Page 25294]]

the same thing, as least on this side of the aisle, and that is more 
transparency, more openness and an understanding of where the dollars 
are going to.
  I know from the gentleman from Texas and myself, this is not 
something new that we just came to the game at the last minute and are 
saying these things. I am now in my third term in office, my fifth year 
in Congress. I have had the privilege and the honor of serving on the 
House Budget Committee during that time. In that committee, many times 
I would raise the battle and raise the questions as to where our tax 
dollars are going, regardless of which agency we are talking about or 
whether we are fighting the administration. Even though it is our own 
administration on these issues, I voted against a budget that has come 
before this House, even though it is one of our own budgets, because I 
thought we were spending too much. So I believe I come to the well here 
with a track record to stand on, as does the gentleman from Texas, as 
well, when it comes to saying we want to be fiscally responsible.
  Likewise, to the issue of earmarks, let's spend a couple more minutes 
on that. Likewise in this area, I think the gentleman from Texas and 
myself come from the same place. And that is that even when we were in 
the majority, there were a number of us from this side of the aisle who 
were battling for, and eventually achieved what we were battling for at 
the end of the 109th Congress, and that was the issue of earmark reform 
and transparency. Unfortunately, that was lost at the beginning of the 
110th Congress. You may recall the history. We had to come to the floor 
again and literally almost shut things down on this floor in order to 
compel the Democrat leadership to do what they had promised in their 
election of November of last year.
  This may be one of the biggest ironies of the day, and we continue to 
see it go out on this floor night after night. I think it was just last 
week when the Democrat conference Chair was on the floor just in the 
podium to the right of me making basically the same campaign speech, if 
you will, that was made back prior to the November election. And what 
was that? Well, The Republicans are the party of big spenders, they 
were saying. They were saying that this administration was spending too 
much, signing on to all these budgets and signing on to all the 
appropriation bills that were passed out of both the House and Senate. 
Of course, at that time, it was under Republican control, and so all 
the accusations were against the Republic Party. Of course, what was 
being said was that Republicans were spending too much. You would think 
that the next line then out of the chairman's mouth would have been, 
and out of the other side of the aisle's comments would be, at that 
time, And we are going to do something about it. We are going to reduce 
spending. Or at the very least, as Republicans had in past years, 
freeze spending at the same level as last year.
  But they did nothing of the sort. They did not freeze spending. They 
did not reduce spending. But they drastically increased spending over 
and over again in line item, after line item, after line item, 
appropriation bill, after appropriation bill. There is not a single 
appropriation bill that has come to the floor that you haven't seen 
what I am talking about: increasing in spending.
  But when we bring it back to the issue of the earmarks, the same 
irony goes here. All during the last cycle, the 109th Congress, when 
the Democrats were in the minority, clamoring, saying that we were 
doing things wrong, saying that if they were in leadership or they were 
in power that they would do what? They would give us the transparency. 
They would give you openness. What happens once they came into power? 
What have we seen? What has this last 9 months wrought under Democrat 
leadership? Well, as the gentleman from Texas pointed out, we had to 
compel basically closing down the floor for a day at a time to compel 
them to give us some of that transparency when it comes to earmark 
reform. We thought we got some of that transparency, but it is really 
not there completely as of yet.
  There was an editorial in the Las Vegas Review Journal saying: 
``Democratic earmark reforms lasted just 100 days. The anti-earmark 
reforms are just for show. Mere window dressing.'' That was an 
editorial in the early part of the summer. They point out in there that 
these are just some examples of earmarks that would have been subject 
to an up-or-down vote on the House floor had the Republican earmark 
reform that we had talked about and that we had suggested and done in 
the last 109th Congress been in effect for the 110th Congress.
  They go on to point out the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Representative Murtha. A drug intelligence center was included in the 
intel authorization bill. Cost to taxpayers: $39 million a year.
  Now, we hear still to this day so much talk about the infamous, and I 
agree it is infamous, not famous but infamous, ``Bridge to Nowhere,'' a 
project that some of us continue to rail against and say it was wrong. 
I am glad that Members on the Republican side on the Senate did all 
they could to see to it that those funds would not go there on a cause 
that truly was not worthwhile. But, you know, you hear about that in 
the news for around $267 million, I believe, the price tag was there. 
But here is a $400 million disaster, I think one of the papers called 
it. But you don't hear much about that. That, again, comes from the 
same gentleman, same program.
  Quoting now from U.S. News and World Report, they criticized this 
program, the NDIC as a ``drug war boondoggle.'' A former official with 
the office of National Drug Control Policy said, None of us wanted it 
in Johnstown. That is from the gentleman from Pennsylvania's district. 
``We viewed it as a jobs program Murtha wanted for his district,'' from 
U.S. News and World Report. The Washington Examiner I believe also 
commented on this earmark pork, as well. The House Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee called NDIC an expensive and duplicative 
use of scarce Federal drug enforcement resources. So by any rational 
standard, this $400 million disaster should have been shut down a long 
time ago according to the editorial in the Washington Examiner.
  So there is an example of a way to get around the earmark reform that 
the other side was touting in the last election, as Republicans 
continue to this day to push for, and as the gentleman from Texas 
indicated, now that there is what we call a discharge petition being 
signed, at least by the Republican side of the aisle. I will wait to 
see whether anyone from the other side of the aisle joins on with us 
with that discharge petition to compel the additional reform, 
additional transparency, to come to the floor for a vote. Just to give 
a 30-second explanation of that, a discharge petition is a mechanism of 
this House so that when a piece of legislation, good reform legislation 
like this, is in the hopper, ready to go, but the controlling 
leadership will not post that for a vote, because the leadership party 
in power is the one who decides what bills get posted, there is a 
mechanism in the rules in order to provide a mechanism to get that up 
for a yes-or-no vote. That is called a discharge petition. The 
Republicans are doing everything in our power to make sure that does 
come up for a vote.
  Now, you may ask, again, why is this important to me? As I explained 
before to the gentleman from Texas, what it all really comes down to, 
it comes down to your tax dollars and where they are going to and 
shouldn't you have the opportunity to know where those tax dollars 
actually go to and how they are spent.
  One thing that you might not know is that when it comes to the 
transparency that the Democrat majority says they have given us and the 
American public when it comes to earmarks, and that really does not 
exist, is how the information is now being presented to the American 
public. Let me explain it in this manner: If it was our desire to make 
sure that information is being projected out to the Members of Congress 
in a useful fashion and also to the American public in a useful 
fashion, how could we do it?

[[Page 25295]]



                              {time}  2115

  Well, in the earmark reform package that the Republicans were able to 
compel the Democrats to accept, we said that what you have to do, very 
simply, is this: Give us a list of all the earmarks and give us a list 
of what the project is, how much money we are spending, and who the 
bill's sponsor is.
  I should step back for a moment and say, just as the gentleman from 
Texas said, that we are not suggesting that all earmarks are bad, that 
all earmarks are extra-Constitutional; that is to say, outside of the 
bounds of what the Constitution says we should be spending it on. Not 
by any means. We are just suggesting that if we are going to have 
earmarks that are within the confines of the Constitution, what we 
should be spending our American taxpayer dollars on are on priority 
items. Shouldn't we have that basic information there, who the sponsor 
is, what the project is, and how much money is being spent on it? Three 
basic pieces of information.
  That is what we achieved. But here's the rub. Here's the little 
secret that came about in the mechanism that the Democrat majority put 
together when they implemented that. Instead of putting all that 
information on one sheet or two sheets or three sheets, whatever you 
needed for all the many, many earmarks, and there are many, 
unfortunately, too many earmarks in one place, that we could basically, 
well, what, put it on the Internet so the American public and bloggers 
and anybody else who wanted to Google or Yahoo or use any other search 
engine look into it and find out what it is easily. No, they didn't do 
it that way.
  Instead, here's what they did. They provided it in basically two sets 
of information. So over here you have a description of the project and 
how much money it is, and over here you have a description of the 
project and who the sponsor is. Now, these are two worthless pieces of 
information, unless they are joined together. Of course, we are looking 
at literally hundreds of pages of documents that you have to sift 
through in order to gather that information in one place. Basically, it 
would take an army of staffers, or of interns, or, maybe, and here's an 
idea, maybe of people out in the American public going through this, 
creating an Excel spreadsheet, if you will, to put all that information 
together so it is in one place.
  You know what? That could have all been done on the first day that 
the appropriation bills came out of committee, by the committee staff 
themselves, and presented here before the House when these bills were 
voted on. All that information was there. It could have been done very 
cleanly, simply, so that Members of Congress and, importantly, the 
American public would have that information.
  Unfortunately, that was not the transparent method that the Democrat 
majority wanted to use. Instead, we are still a case of obfuscation and 
trying to blur the information that is out there, and basically hiding 
from the American public what information should be readily available 
to us, information that the Republican leadership and those people who 
have been on the floor before and joining us now as well have been 
fighting for continually as far as transparency in these issues of our 
American tax dollars and where they are being spent.
  What I would like to do in a moment, because we haven't got a chance 
to get into this yet, is take a look at the other side of the equation. 
We have spent some time now looking at earmarks and how money is spent. 
I think we also need to take a look at where the revenue comes from in 
the form of taxation.
  I see I have been joined by another valiant fighter from Texas, a 
leader on these issues, who is also a leader of the Republican Study 
Committee, an organization of individuals who are dedicated to the 
issues and principles that we have been discussing on the floor tonight 
and in the past as far as adhering to the strict tenets of the 
Constitution and being concerned about where the American tax dollars 
go, and concerned about all the transparency issues, have been fighting 
both now under the Democratic leadership to increase the transparency 
and bring some fiscal constraint to these issues, but also, this is 
important, was also here engaged in the fight back in the days when the 
Republicans were the majority. There was a voice out there on the 
conservative right of the party.
  I am pleased to be joined by my friend from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding. I 
especially appreciate the gentleman's leadership, his principled 
leadership in this body. For the people of his district in New Jersey, 
Mr. Garrett is somebody who is truly committed to the principles of 
Constitutional government, limited government, fiscal responsibility. 
He is a voice of sanity on this floor. He is admired and respected by 
all of his colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly appreciate his 
leadership here tonight.
  It is an important topic that he has introduced here tonight, and 
that is the topic of earmarks, which many people know as pork-barrel 
spending. I know perhaps pork-barrel spending has been around since the 
dawn of the Republic, but too often, too often the pork-barrel spending 
represents a waste of the hard-earned taxpayer money.
  If you look at the Federal budget, and both myself and the gentleman 
from New Jersey, Mr. Speaker, serve on the Budget Committee, the 
dollars involved are still big. They are still big. We, in this Nation, 
and we should be ashamed of this, this body should be ashamed that it 
spends more money on earmarks than it does for the entire veterans 
health care system. Think about that. Think about that, Mr. Speaker. 
This is wrong.
  In the last election, the Democrat party said they were going to be 
different. I agree with the gentleman from New Jersey. We are both 
Republicans. We were not always happy with the leadership that we saw 
in our party in dealing with earmarks, in dealing with the ``bridges to 
nowhere,'' in dealing with the ``indoor rain forest'' and all the other 
earmarks that have come to really represent fiscal irresponsibility. 
But my party finally awoke to the fact that the people would not 
tolerate this.
  The Republican party at the end of the last Congress put in reforms 
to at least bring in the disinfectant of sunshine into this body, so we 
at least knew where the earmarks were coming from, who was the sponsor, 
and we had the ability, we had the ability to come to this floor, to 
come to the people's House and offer amendments to strike those 
earmarks.
  Now, the Democrat party had in some respects rightfully criticized 
the Republican party. They said, well, if you will allow us to come to 
power, we will be different. We'll be different. The Speaker said, ``We 
pledge to make this the most honest, ethical and open Congress in 
history.'' She also went on to say, ``I would just as soon do away with 
all earmarks.'' Yet now we wake up and the Speaker of the House, I 
believe, now gets more earmarks than any other Member of Congress. If 
you are going to lead, you have to lead by example.
  So what the Democrats have done, Mr. Speaker, is that they have 
rolled back the transparency, they have rolled back the accountability 
that the Republicans put in, albeit too late, in the last Congress.
  This is how under Democrat leadership we end up with the $2 million 
earmark for the Rangel Center for Public Service requested by none 
other than Congressman Charles Rangel to provide himself with an office 
and a library. This is transparency? This is accountability? This is 
fiscal responsibility? One Member of Congress decides to take $2 
million of the people's money and build a museum to himself? This is 
what the Democrats call responsibility? This is what they call fiscal 
responsibility?
  There is $1 million for the Center for Instrumental Critical 
Infrastructure in Congressman Murtha's district? No one, including the 
chairman, no one, including the chairman who wrote the bill, could 
confirm that the organization even existed. But somehow they are going 
to end up with $1 million.

[[Page 25296]]

  There is $231,000 for the Lincoln Airport Commission, an airport in 
Illinois that doesn't exist, and an airport that was supposed to come 
out of the private sector. And the list goes on and on and on.
  Now, I am not here, Mr. Speaker, to say that every single earmark is 
a bad use of the people's money. But, more often than not, earmarking 
represents a triumph of seniority over merit. It represents a triumph 
of secrecy over accountability. And because of that, it wastes the 
people's money and it leads to the culture of spending.
  The American people are not overtaxed. The Federal Government spends 
too much. We know, Mr. Speaker, already with just the government we 
have today, adding no new programs, no new benefits, just the 
government we have today is destined to bankrupt our children and 
grandchildren.
  Don't take my word for it. The Comptroller General of America, the 
chief fiduciary officer of our government, has said that we are on the 
verge of being the very first America generation in American history to 
leave the next generation with a lower standard of living. Think about 
that, Mr. Speaker. It has never happened in the entire history of 
America, that we could be the first generation to break faith with all 
those other generations that have left us with an America with greater 
freedom and greater opportunity. Now here we are spending the people's 
money, taking away from people who do not vote because they are 
children and those who have not yet been born, and because of the 
spending patterns of the Federal Government, we are due to leave them a 
lower standard of living.
  It was just this week on Wednesday that my wife and I celebrated our 
son's fourth birthday. We have a daughter who is 5\1/2\. We have a 
great stake in America's future. I will not be a part, the gentleman 
from New Jersey will not be a part, the Republican Study Committee will 
not be a part, the Republican Conference will not be a part of leaving 
the next generation with that lower standard of living; restricting 
their freedoms, restricting their opportunities, leaving an America 
that is less than the America we know. We won't be a part of it.
  It all starts with the earmarks. The earmarks are the culture of 
spending. I wish I had been creative enough or articulate enough to 
come up with the line from the Senator from Oklahoma, who said, 
``Earmarks are the gateway drug to spending addiction.''
  They teach people to become dependent upon the Federal Government. It 
totally, totally puts the value of merit aside, and, because of that, 
it is critical that we reform the process and restrict the number of 
earmarks.
  Democrats, the Democrats who in the last election on some occasions 
again rightfully criticized the Republicans for our earmark practice, 
but instead they are rolling it back.
  Now, it is a little bit of inside baseball, but in Washington you 
have what are known as appropriation earmarks. Ostensibly, the 
Democrats, our friends from the other side of the aisle, have given us 
some limited accountability there. But there is also something known as 
tax earmarks. There is something known as authorizing earmarks, more 
creative ways to spend the people's money. It is all pork. If you want 
to go on a lean pork diet, you just can't cut out the sausage. You have 
to cut out the bacon and the ham as well. The Democrats said they were 
going to do so much more, and they have done so much less.
  We all know recently in what is known as the SCHIP bill, and, Mr. 
Speaker, we all know that Washington excels at acronyms, but in this 
particular bill, approximately 25 Members of Congress in the dark of 
night managed to cut some kind of deal in a smoke-filled backroom to 
get extra reimbursements for their hospitals that nobody else in 
America receives.
  Supposedly we were supposed to have accountability. Supposedly we 
were supposed to have transparency. But not with all the loopholes that 
the Democrats have put in to their so-called earmark reform process.
  So I would like to say that talk is cheap, but, unfortunately, talk 
is rather expensive here, costing billions and billions of dollars in 
earmarks that the Democrats refuse to clean up, that they claimed they 
would clean up in the 2006 election, and instead they keep on coming.
  I remember introducing an amendment on the floor to restrict an 
earmark that was geared towards the Hollywood movie industry to help 
train people, train people for Hollywood, this struggling movie 
industry whose top ten box office hits from just a few weeks ago 
grossed almost $1 billion. Somehow the American taxpayer has to help 
them recruit people for their movie sets.
  The list goes on and on and on. Nothing, nothing has been done. The 
dollars are still going to the Saint Joseph's College theater 
renovation in Indiana; $150,000 for the Kansas Regional Prisons Museum 
in Lansing, Kansas.
  There is no accountability. There is no transparency. There is no 
reform here. And because of this, because of this, the next generation 
is looking at a lower standard of living.
  That is why I am so happy that the gentleman from New Jersey has come 
to the floor to lead on this issue for all of the American people, and 
I am happy to yield back to him.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. On just your last point, you raised this a 
moment ago, and before I say this, happy birthday to your 4-year-old. 
But maybe if your 4-year-old knew exactly what the debt that he has is, 
he would not have been so happy at his birthday party.

                              {time}  2130

  You raised the point that the next generation for the first time in 
American history is not going to be as well off as the previous 
generation. Before you came here, I said one of the things that I 
learned early on in politics from a Member from the other side of the 
aisle back in my county was: What does this do for me? Or in this case: 
What does this do to me?
  In this case it really hits home for someone such as yourself or 
someone else who has a little one back at home. What does it do for my 
children? What does it do for my grandchildren? Or in this case, what 
does it do to them? Of course, in this case, it saddles them with a 
debt, an obligation, for something that they are not gaining any 
benefit from; but you and I and others in this generation may be 
gaining benefit from. But who is paying for it, your 4-year-old. And 
that, of course, is not fair.
  So many times, so many times we hear Members come to the floor and 
say: here is my program. Here is my earmark. Fill in the blank for 
whatever it is. It is the compassionate thing to do, to spend this 
money on this program.
  Well, I guess it might be compassionate if they were reaching into 
their pocket and pulling out their own money to pay for that particular 
program. But, gosh, in the 5 years I have been here, I have not seen 
any Member of Congress when they came with their program say they are 
going to spend for it. No, they are just going to saddle it onto 
America's debt.
  As you said, if you have little ones out there, that debt is not 
necessarily paid for by you and I, the current American taxpayers. It 
is going to be passed on the next generation.
  The question we should be asking the other side of the aisle, after 
they railed against the Republicans for spending so much, now they are 
spending even more. Now they are going to have to raise taxes under 
their PAYGO rules. We will get to that in a little bit. How 
compassionate are they when they transfer that burden, when they 
transfer that debt on to future generations?
  Keeping to this issue of how to fix the problem, the gentleman from 
Texas, you might want to comment on the petition that is currently 
being circulated, a discharge petition which I explained earlier, and 
how that will address the issue of authorization language as well.
  But before you do that, let me share with you a quote or two with 
regards to what the other side of the aisle said about this process 
last year when they were in the minority. This is actually something I 
had put forward last year

[[Page 25297]]

to say when it comes to earmark reform, you can't just look at 
appropriation bills; you have to look at the authorization language. 
And as mentioned before with the earmark from the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the $400 million earmark, that was in 
essence done through authorization language. You have to do both of 
these.
  The other side of the aisle agreed with us at that time. They said, 
``You can't just have earmarks viewed as appropriation bills unless you 
take up earmarks in tax bills and earmarks in authorization bills. But 
if you are going to have earmarks and you are going to have 
transparencies, you have to do it in the appropriation bills and in the 
tax bills and in the authorization bills. I would put it in writing.'' 
Who said that? Representative Nancy Pelosi, California.
  Likewise, ``To not do something about Authorizing Committee earmarks 
in the process is a joke, in my view.'' Who said that? David Obey.
  So we knew where they stood last year when they had their positions 
on transparency. Now that they are in the majority, we wonder exactly 
where they stand this year, when they have the ability to do something 
about it. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and this is a 
very important issue for this body to take up.
  Again, the term ``discharge petition,'' what does it mean? It is 
something that shouldn't be necessary. What it says is we are asking 
Members to have the leadership schedule a vote on this bill so that the 
Democrats can't roll back the transparency and accountability reforms 
that the Republicans put in at the end of the last Congress. Again, we 
are talking about porkbarrel spending here.
  Every single leader of the Democrat Party claimed they wanted more 
accountability. They wanted more transparency, and then they go and 
exempt two-thirds of the spending in what we call authorizing. So they 
left out huge categories of this. But we shouldn't be surprised because 
right after the election, when they were bringing spending bills to the 
floor, they actually wanted us to vote on the spending bill and then 
later, only later were they going to tell us what the earmarks were in 
the bill. They tried to hide them from us. We brought that to the 
attention of the American people and the American people said no. And 
we enjoyed a victory. Fiscal conservatives made the Democrats at least 
make good on that pledge and bring this transparency and accountability 
back here.
  So this is a very important effort of the Republicans in the House, 
and we hope we will be joined by the Democrats who claim that they are 
committed to fiscal responsibility, who claim that they want to have 
earmark reform. They complained that the Republican earmark reforms 
didn't go far enough, and yet they rolled them back. All we are saying 
is bring us what we had at the end of the last Congress.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, you raise a point: this is 
what they were saying last year but they are not doing it this year. We 
are hopeful that at least now that we have discussed this on the floor, 
the information is out there, the discharge petition is going forward, 
although that has not been a secret because there is a line every day 
that we are in session here of Republican Members standing down in the 
well signing the discharge petition, so they know it is coming.
  But let me give you two other quotes of what folks from the other 
side of the aisle were saying last year about this. When they were 
talking about the measure that would only provide for appropriations 
and not authorizations last year, they said: ``It is a half measure at 
best that would do nothing to stop wasteful and unnecessary projects 
like the bridge to nowhere.'' That was the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Holt).
  Finally, ``My proposal requires the public disclosure of all 
earmarks, not just those of the Appropriations Committee, but 
authorizing and tax bills and much, much more.'' Who said that? 
Representative Slaughter from New York, now head of the Rules 
Committee.
  So we seem to have some very important people here last year from the 
other side of the aisle starting with Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, to head of 
the Rules Committee saying they agree with our ideas as far as 
broadening earmark reform and transparency.
  So maybe tonight, and I think we only have a couple more minutes, I 
would be willing to stay with you here on the floor if you would join 
me, if anyone from the other side of the aisle, leadership from Nancy 
Pelosi's office or the Rules Committee, to come and join me and say 
they will sign on to our petition, or if the Speaker would agree to 
move that piece of legislation since that is what they wanted to do 
last year when they were in the minority, and if they will do it now 
that they are in the majority. Will you wait with me if they indicate 
they will come to the floor?
  Mr. HENSARLING. I will be happy to stay here as long as necessary to 
have the Democrat leadership commit to the words they made before the 
election and have their actions after the election comport with those 
words before the election.
  And if I could, and I know that time is coming to a close, I would 
like to add, as you brought up, every Member who comes to this floor 
with an earmark says this is a good thing; the money can be used for a 
good cause. I don't doubt that. There are many good causes in America. 
The YMCA, the Girl Scouts, cut flowers. There are a lot of great 
causes. But the question is, number one: Is it a Federal priority and 
how do we pay for it today?
  Today, since the Federal Government continues to run a deficit, 
although under our President's leadership with more tax revenue from 
economic growth, it is falling. But right now, the money for a earmark 
can only come from one of three sources. number one, by raiding the 
Social Security trust fund. Is the earmark worth taking money away from 
our seniors?
  Under the Democrats, we now have a plan for the single largest tax 
increase in history, almost $3,000 per family. More earmarks lead to 
more taxes. Is it worth putting a $3,000 tax burden on a family of four 
to pay for the Charlie Rangel Museum to himself? Or debt to our 
children and grandchildren? Is the Charlie Rangel Museum to himself, is 
that worth passing on $2 million of debt to our children and 
grandchildren? It is not worth passing on that debt to my children, and 
it is not worth passing on that debt to the children of the people of 
the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, much less the children of 
the people of America.
  And so I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership, his 
principled leadership, in trying to reform earmarks.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I think our time is just about up, and I 
appreciate your efforts not only tonight, but throughout your entire 
time here. It has been a pleasure working with you in the House while 
you stand beside the American family and the American family budget.
  Americans place much responsibility in the hands of their 
Representatives in Congress. The American public deserves to know where 
their hard-earned tax dollars go. They have a right to this 
information. If the Democrat majority is not going to literally open 
the books in a clear and concise manner so the American public and 
Members of Congress know where the dollars go, if the Democrat majority 
is not going to give us the transparency that the American public 
deserves when it comes to where their dollars go, then the Republican 
Party and the Republican minority will see to it that the job is done 
on behalf of the American public.

                          ____________________