Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I honor Chief Ron Reeves, who is celebrating 30 years as the Chief of Police of Chandler, Texas. Chief Reeves was appointed Chief of Police for the Chandler Police Department in 1980, after joining the department in 1979 as a reserve officer. Ronnie, as most people affectionately know him, has served the citizens of Chandler well over the past 30-plus years. Not only has he served the community, but he and his wife, Barbara, chose to raise their three children, Stephanie, Jessica and Matthew in this East Texas town and make it their home. Chief Reeves is licensed as a Master Peace Officer for the State of Texas. Throughout his years of service, Chief Reeves has given countless individuals their initial start in law enforcement. Those he mentored have gone on to serve our communities and the State of Texas in the Texas Attorney General's Office, the Henderson County Sheriff's Office, as an elected constable, and countless chiefs of police. Chief Reeves even took the initiative to form the Chandler Police Explorers program that gives young people the opportunity to see firsthand how law enforcement protects and serves their community. His desire to serve his community continues at his local church where he serves as the children's ministry leader. It has been said that Ronnie's lifelong desire has been to help people in need, to make a lasting difference in his community and to leave a legacy of service, compassion, fairness and honor. As the representative for the Fifth District of Texas, I would like to say job well done, Chief. I thank you for your service, sacrifice and commitment for over 30 years to the Chandler community.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as I look at the available evidence, I believe that the preponderance of the evidence does show that China is manipulating its currency. So I don't question the problem; I question the remedy. And I question whether or not punishing American consumers is the right remedy to apply to this situation. I believe that, ultimately, if this legislation is enacted, that is what will happen. We know already--we don't know what the estimates are, 5 to maybe 30 percent--that the renminbi may be overvalued. And China should let their currency float. It is wrong what they're doing. They are hurting their own people by doing what they're doing. But in addition, Mr. Speaker, one thing I do know they are doing is they are subsidizing goods to the American people at a time when many family budgets are being strained. The available evidence shows that if this was passed, if actually the renminbi was revalued, that prices for many of these Chinese goods may go up 10 percent. A pair of shoes that a mother needs for her child to go to school, maybe it is a pair of glasses, maybe it is toys at Christmas, all become more expensive. So to some extent there is a question: Should we pass a law, pick winners and losers between manufacturers and consumers? Is that something we should be doing? I am not sure that it is. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we all know our history. We know that presently we are still mired. Whether or not some Bureau economist tells us we are out of a recession, we know that people in our districts continue to suffer through probably the greatest economic crisis we have seen since the Great Depression. One of the most exacerbating factors happened to be the Smoot-Hawley tariff. I fear a trade war. Now, some say we are already having a trade war. Well, by historic standards, we are probably having a trade skirmish. But we know that already the administration last year elected to impose tariffs on Chinese tires. And, guess what? They imposed tariffs on our poultry, one of the few areas where we actually had a favorable balance of trade, and so import tariffs up to 105 percent on U.S. exports of poultry. So any type of jobs that may be gained in manufacturing just might be lost in agriculture or some other area. I am not convinced that the proponents of this bill have made the case that, on net, this would even create more jobs in America. It certainly would create more in one sector than another. But, again, precipitating a trade war at a time when we are in tough economic times, making it more difficult for consumers to afford the items they need to provide for their families, I think is unwise public policy. So I would urge defeat of this legislation.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, another day, another opportunity to borrow $30 billion, much of it from the Chinese, and send the bill to our children and our grandchildren. Again, Madam Speaker, the American people are asking, what part of ``broke'' doesn't Congress understand? They don't get it. Now, I know my friends on the other side of the aisle say, ``Well, no, wait a second. This will actually reduce the deficit.'' Well, what it does, Madam Speaker, is it pairs temporary tax credits with permanent tax increases; again, some of that Washington accounting nonsense that has somehow put this Nation on the road to bankruptcy, that has brought us the first back-to-back trillion dollar-plus deficits in the history of our Nation, the kind of accounting that now provides us with the single largest debt in America's history. In fact, if you read the legislation, Madam Speaker, it has what is known as directed scoring. Under H.R. 5297, CBO is to determine the cost of this bill under credit reform without any adjustment for the market risk. In fact, CBO goes on to say that cost estimates made under FCRA do not provide a comprehensive measure of the cost to the taxpayers. Madam Speaker, again, when all is said and done, I predict the American taxpayer yet again will be called upon to borrow more money, much of it from the Chinese, and send the bill to our children and our grandchildren. Now, I know that the authors of this bill have called it SBLF, but to many of us it reads like T-A-R-P. This is TARP pure and simple. It is the capital purchase program under a different name. I will admit they have added an incentive to lend; but again, to lend to whom? Whatever this bill does theoretically to help small business, they take it away. They take it away, Madam Speaker, with the cost and uncertainty of their health care bill. They take it away with the cost and uncertainty of their financial regulatory bill. They take it away with the cost and the uncertainty that is threatened through the national energy tax that is known as cap-and-trade, and certainly from the national debt that all small business people sooner or later are going to be called upon to pay. So whatever pennies they are trying to drop into the small business coffer today, they are going to take away dollars and dollars and dollars, which is one of the reasons, Madam Speaker, under this President and this Congress, we continue to be mired in almost double- digit unemployment 16 months in a row--worst in a generation--with no hope in sight. And this, again, is more of the same--more spending, more TARP, more of the failed policies that have brought us the unemployment and misery that we see today. If you want to help small business, the first thing you can do is to ensure that you do not increase their taxes by increasing the marginal income tax rate on the top two brackets, which is already being threatened by the Speaker today, which we know in the Joint Committee on Taxation says half of all small business income would be hit by that tax increase. Reject this bill.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I honor the four schools in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas recently recognized for excellence in education. Fred Douglass Elementary School in Jacksonville, Lake Highlands Junior High School in Dallas, Scurry- Rosser Middle School in Scurry and West Side Elementary School in Jacksonville were named to the Department of Education's 2010 Blue Ribbon Schools list. Their performance illustrates the commitment and dedication of the students, parents, teachers, and administrators to a quality education. Education is the backbone of a successful society, and I am proud to know that the students of these four schools are receiving a quality education that will provide a solid foundation for future academic success. This is a great honor of which the school, its students, parents, and communities can be justifiably proud, and I offer my warm congratulations on this fine achievement. Madam Speaker, as the representative for the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, I would like to commend these schools for their continued achievements in education.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, as a Member of the Fiscal Commission, I am dedicated to getting spending under control and meaningfully addressing our fast-growing and unsustainable deficits. If the Commission reaches a bipartisan consensus, it is my hope that House and Senate Leadership would work on a bipartisan basis to determine how and when those recommendations would be brought to the floor. There is no greater crisis facing America than the unchecked growth of spending that is fueling massive increases in our deficits.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, we are here today because the Speaker of the House has declared us in emergency session. There's a national emergency. Apparently, Congress has not spent enough money, notwithstanding the fact that we passed the $1.2 trillion stimulus bill, the $410 billion '09 omnibus bill, the House-passed $871 billion cap-and-trade bill, the $2.6 trillion government takeover of health care bill, and the 2010 omnibus bill rang in at $445 billion. But there's a national emergency. We're not spending enough money. Let's spend $26.1 billion more. Madam Speaker, the American people are asking: What part of broke doesn't this Congress understand? We are already looking at our second year of trillion-dollar deficits, the largest debt in the history of our Nation as a percentage of our economy, largest since World War II. What part of broke doesn't Congress understand? Now, many of us have lost track here, Madam Speaker. I don't know if this is stimulus bill part three or bailout bill part four. There's been so many of them, it's simply hard to keep track of. What have all the stimulus bills brought us? Well, an additional loss of 3 million jobs, private sector jobs lost, since we passed this stimulus bill. Yet, my friends on the other side of the aisle call it a success. Madam Speaker, let's hope that this stimulus bill is not near as successful as the previous one. And here we have yet another bailout bill. We've bailed out Chrysler, GM, Fannie, Freddie, the major banks, people who bought too much home and couldn't afford it, and now we're going to bail out the States. So, if California and New York can't live within their means, taxpayers in Kansas, Minnesota and Kentucky have to bail them out. It's time to reject the rule and reject the bill.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Russell T. Vought's service to the United States Congress, our nation and the cause of individual liberty. Russ began his service to the Congress immediately following his graduation from Wheaton College (Illinois) in 1998. After working briefly for retiring Senator Dan Coats, Russ joined the staff of Texas' senior senator and my political mentor, Senator Phil Gramm. During the four years Russ served on Senator Gramm's policy staff, he became a student of legislative procedure and mastered federal budget policy. Russ joined my staff as Policy Director shortly after I was sworn- into office in 2003. He served as my top advisor on budget issues and worked tirelessly to help me develop the Family Budget Protection Act, which was heralded by pro-taxpayer organizations as the ``Gold Standard'' of budget enforcement legislation. For several years, Russ provided invaluable counsel to me on tax, entitlement and spending policy and worked with me to author three federal fiscal year budgets. When I was elected Chairman of the Republican Study Committee for the 110th Congress, I asked Russ to become the committee's Executive Director. Russ worked with me and the 100-plus members of the committee with integrity and an unwavering devotion to the conservative principles that we share. At the beginning of the 111th Congress, my friend Chairman Mike Pence asked Russ to serve the House Republican Conference as his Policy Director. In addition to managing the Conference's policy staff, which is the main hub of information and analysis for all Republican House Members and their staff, he serves as its principal advisor on a broad range of issues, specializing in budget, appropriations, Social Security, legislative procedure, and entitlements. As Russ' work with me and my colleagues comes to a close, I reflect most fondly upon the unpopular and lonely legislative battles that we faced together. As a wise person once said, ``True friendship isn't about being there when it's convenient; it's about being there when it's not.'' I take heart knowing that Russ's service to the cause of liberty will continue in whichever path he chooses for his life. He personifies the conservative movement and his devotion to the constitutional, limited government principles is second-to-none. Madam Speaker, I wish my conservative brother and, most importantly, my friend Russ Vought, best wishes for the future.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, the American people want to know: where are the jobs? I do not understand why the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats have pursued jobs-killing policies such as a government take- over of health care, a national energy tax, a financial regulatory bill that enshrines us as a bailout nation; and are doing nothing to stop the largest tax increase in American history scheduled for the end of this year. These policies have injected uncertainty into the economy, causing nearly $2 trillion in private capital to stay on the sidelines. We just learned this morning that in the 2nd quarter this year, GDP grew at 2.4%. While this is better than no growth, it is down from the 3.7% in the first quarter. This recovery defies conventional wisdom, which is the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery. The Obama Administration and Washington Democrats have declared their stimulus bill and other economic policies a success. However, the American people have declared them a failure.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, as one of more than twenty Eagle Scouts serving in Congress, I would like to honor the Boy Scouts of America and welcome them to our nation's Capitol to celebrate 100 years of excellence. Over the past 100 years, the Boy Scouts of America have positively impacted millions of young men, not only providing them with knowledge of the outdoors, but building character and leadership traits that serves them, their communities, and their nation. This week over 46,000 Boy Scouts, leaders, staff and volunteers from around the world are attending the 2010 National Scout Jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia. Many of these Scouts visited our nation's capital and participated in the Boy Scouts of America Grand Centennial Parade held this past weekend on the National Mall. I had the privilege of attending the Jamboree in 1973, and it was the height of my Scouting career. On Tuesday I had the privilege of meeting with Troop 67 from Mesquite and Troop 339 from Forney along with many others from the 5th Congressional District who are participating in this year's events and continuing the tradition of Scouting. I am pleased to see that after 100 years, the Boy Scouts of America continues to educate and prepare young men with such success. Their visit lifted me up, and gave me great hope for our nation's future. Scouting is an important part of the American character because it teaches countless young men about service to their community, patriotism, dedication, hard work, and reverence to God. In addition to teaching good citizenship, Scouting builds leadership skills by teaching self-reliance, setting goals and ``learning by doing.'' Scouts know to ``Be Prepared.'' Since 1910 the Boy Scouts of America have served over 114 million of our nation's youth, including many of the members of this body. Currently there are 211 Members of Congress who have been involved in Scouting as a youth, earned rank of Eagle Scout, or participated as adult volunteer. I am proud to be one of the 22 Eagle Scouts currently serving in this body. For me, Scouting was great fun. Scouting is about wonderful memories and a love of the outdoors. It is about useful knowledge that still comes in handy today. But far more important than those, to me Scouting is a way of life. Although I did not realize it at the time, everything a young man needs to know about life he learns in Boy Scouts. It is contained within the Scout Oath and the 12 Points of the Scout Law. So Scouting is not just an achievement of a destination, it is a way of life. If young men will allow Scouting to be their moral compass, it will guide them successfully through the hazards, temptations and pitfalls of life. We should all celebrate Scouting and recognize its great value to our nation. Madam Speaker, I am honored to be an Eagle Scout. On behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I thank the Boy Scouts of America for 100 years of devotion to service, leadership, and citizenship.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. The director of the Congressional Budget Office, Doug Elmendorf, Democratic appointee, has said, quote, U.S. fiscal policy is unsustainable, unsustainable to an extent that it can't be solved through minor changes. Yet the Democratic majority brings a bill spending 38 percent more since when they came into office. Economist Robert Samuelson has said that this spending could, quote, trigger an economic and political death boggle. Yet, the Democratic majority brings a bill spending 38 percent more from when they took over. You know, Mr. Chairman, Americans have seen what is going on in Greece. They've seen the riots in the street. Greece is having to sell sovereign territory. Their debt in relation to their economy is about 112 percent. Ours is at 90 percent. We are truly at a tipping point which is why the American people are saying: what part of broke don't you understand? No Nation can borrow, spend or bail out its way to economic prosperity. This bill needs to be rejected.

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair, the American people are asking this Congress and this President what part of ``broke'' don't you understand. Already we have seen, on June 30, the third largest one-day increase in the national debt in our history: $166 billion larger than the entire annual deficit of 2007. Already this year the deficit has crossed the trillion dollar mark for only the second time in American history. Of course, the first time, as we know, was last year. We are looking at the largest national debt in our Nation's history. As a percentage of our economy, it rivals that of World War II, and it's only due to get worse. And yet since the Democratic majority has come in, President Obama has been elected, this body has gone on a spending spree, today borrowing 41 cents on the dollar, mainly from the Chinese, to send the bill to our children and our grandchildren. At one time Mr. Hoyer of Maryland, now the House majority leader, said to run deficits was akin to ``fiscal child abuse,'' and now all we seemingly hear from the other side is the refrain, ``Que sera sera.'' So today we have an appropriations bill, one, Mr. Chairman, that's coming to this floor without a budget. First time in the history of the House the House hasn't even attempted to pass a budget. Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess the only reason you want a budget is because you want a limit on spending. If you don't want to limit your spending, you don't need a budget. So we have no budget. We're going directly to the appropriations bill, and in this case, the THUD bill is 39 percent larger than it was in fiscal 2008, the year before the Democrats went on their spending spree. You know, Mr. Chairman, again, how much of this spending meets the test of borrowing 41 cents on the dollar, mainly from the Chinese, sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren? I have the pleasure of serving on the President's Fiscal Responsibility Commission. It is chaired by the gentleman from North Carolina Erskine Bowles, former chief of staff to President Clinton. He likens the national debt, quote, this debt is like a cancer that's truly going to destroy the country from within, and yet, Mr. Chairman, our Democratic majority brings to the floor a bill spending 38 percent more than just a few years ago. Recently, it was reported in The Hill that our chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, The Nation's debt is the biggest threat to U.S. national security. Yet the Democratic majority brings a bill to this floor spending 38 percent more on THUD than just 3 years ago.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ill-advised rule. Number one, we have a rule that is allowing us to somehow consider an appropriations bill before we even have a budget. There is no budget, Madam Speaker. My friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, don't even want a speed bump as they drive down the road to national bankruptcy. We're supposed to have a budget before we have appropriations bills. And, in fact, I think the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee said it best when he said, If you can't budget, you can't govern. Well, according to the House Budget Committee, clearly the Democrats cannot govern. This year will mark the first time in history that the House has failed to even consider, much less pass, a budget, and yet we have a rule allowing us to spend yet more of the people's money. It also marks the second year in a row where the Democrats have chosen to bring these bills under closed rules. I, myself, had six different amendments. And when we're spending the people's money, the people's representatives ought to be heard. None of my six amendments will be heard, Madam Speaker, because the Rules Committee decided they would have a closed rule and they didn't want to hear from my amendments. So had I had an opportunity, Madam Speaker, I believe that the American people need to continue to focus on this practice of earmarking. The Republicans have taken an earmark moratorium. We said, you know what, the process is broken. Now, not every earmark is bad, Madam Speaker, but the process is broken, and yet the Democrats continue to bring them. And had I had an opportunity, I would have brought an amendment saying, you know what, maybe we should strike the earmark that the Budget Committee chairman, Chairman Spratt, has for a neighborhood community center in York County, South Carolina. I have no doubt that good things can be done with that money, Madam Speaker, but does the chairman of the Budget Committee and does this body really believe it's worth borrowing 41 cents on the dollar, mainly from the Chinese, and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren? I hope not. But this body will not be able to work its will. I would have introduced an amendment to strike the earmark of the gentlelady from Ohio, Representative Kilroy, who thought it was worth borrowing 41 cents on the dollar, mainly from the Chinese, and to bill to our children and grandchildren, to put in the Columbus Bicentennial Bikeways-West Side Improvement in Columbus, Ohio. Madam Speaker, at some point the American people want to know: does their President, does their Congress, what part of broke don't they understand? Earmark after earmark after earmark, and I could go through the list that I tried to offer, but unfortunately can't offer under this closed rule, and funny, it seems to give the impression that the earmarks are being allowed for the senior Members of the Democratic leadership and those who have very challenging races come November. I have no doubt it is a coincidence but here it is; yet, no amendments can be offered. When the gentleman from New York said he's bringing a rule that will allow us to debate a fiscally responsible bill, he failed to note it is 38.1 percent above the 2008 level. I mean, this is part of the spending spree that is bankrupting America. He conveniently only looks on a one- term basis; yet, the American people have to pay on a multiyear basis.

Mr. HENSARLING. You would think, Madam Speaker, after this President and this Congress increased what we call non-defense discretionary spending, which is really garden variety government, not the entitlement programs, not the Pentagon, has increased 84 percent in just 2 years, at what point do you say enough is enough? And that's why Republicans every week are bringing forth another proposal under the YouCut program to say, let's start saving some money. So as you heard from the gentleman from Georgia, this week is the advanced earned income tax credit, frankly brought by a Democrat who now apparently has decided to abandon his own child and make it an orphan. But this is a program that could save taxpayers $1.1 billion. We need to vote down the rule, vote down the previous question. Allow us today to make one small saving, again at least one small speed bump on the road to national bankruptcy brought courtesy of our friends on the other side of the aisle. Reject the rule.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, indeed, this is the difference between the two parties here today. As I've listened carefully to the debate, I haven't heard anybody say we shouldn't be extending unemployment benefits. What I have heard is that one side wants to borrow 43 cents on the dollar, mainly from the Chinese, and send the bill to our children and grandchildren. Those are my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle. On this side of the aisle, we're saying, you know, all the trillions of stimulus money, the $1.2 trillion, when you add in the interest factor, those unspent funds, maybe some of the unspent TARP funds, these programs that have helped continue to mire us in almost double- digit unemployment, maybe we could use some of those funds instead and not add to the single largest debt in America's history that's only getting worse under their watch, Mr. Speaker. That's the primary difference here today. And we must show that we are a fiscally responsible Congress today to create jobs. Ultimately, the people in America don't want more unemployment checks. They want more paychecks. And it's the policies of this President, the policies of this Congress, brought about by the Federal takeover of health care, brought about by this huge permanent Wall Street bailout bill, where the ink is barely dry, the threatened cap- and-tax bill, and the massive debt that we're drowning in. Under the President's own budget, we will be paying almost $1 trillion a year in interest alone on the national debt. I mean, that's the kind of policies that our distinguished Democratic majority leader at one time likened to fiscal child abuse. And so I haven't heard that rhetoric recently, but I hope he still believes it because that's what we're engaging in. So I do not understand why my friends on the other side of the aisle refuse to pay for this. I certainly hear the phrase ``pay-as-you-go'' frequently. I just don't see it practiced. And, indeed, I do serve as one of the Republican appointees on the President's Fiscal Responsibility Commission, many of whom consider that title to be an oxymoron. We will debate that later. But the chairman, Erskine Bowles, former chief of staff, Democratic chairman, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, has said that our debt is a cancer that can destroy us from within. This isn't Republican verbiage. This is Democrat verbiage. So why do the Democrats refuse to pay for this? Why do they continue to engage in what the majority leader once termed fiscal child abuse? Again, that's where the debate is. The debate is, Are you going to pay for the unemployment insurance, or are you going to take the burden and put it on our children and grandchildren yet again? That is unconscionable, unsustainable, and it ought to be immoral.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak yet again on this subject, but to hear the last three speakers, clearly there appears to be a confusion on the other side of the aisle between unemployment checks and paychecks. I mean, what we've heard the Speaker say--I wish I had her exact quote in front of me--that essentially by putting out more unemployment checks, that this is one of the best ways to create paychecks. I've never heard such circular logic in my life. Now, clearly we need an extension of unemployment. I mean, I must admit I find it somewhat ironic that the President of the United States brings up three unemployed workers. To the best of my knowledge, they've been unemployed during his Presidency. What a testament to his policies and the policies of this institution. Again, between a national takeover of our health care where employees don't know how much their health care costs are going to be. They're not creating new jobs. Threatened cap-and-trade. Nobody knows what their energy costs are going to be. No new job creation. We have this financial regulatory bill. Nobody knows what the cost of capital is going to be, particularly with a bureau that has the ability to ban and ration credit for small businesses. You've got private business sitting on almost $2 trillion that could be employed for paychecks but instead, once again, due to the policies of my friends on the other side of the aisle, we're having that debate on unemployment checks instead. And let me make sure that people aren't drowning on all of this straw that's in the House Chamber today from all the straw men. Here's the debate. In the words of the Democratic majority leader, Are we going to engage in fiscal child abuse and borrow the money principally from the Chinese to pay for this, or are we not? That's the question. That is the only question before the House right now. Are we going to borrow the money from our children and grandchildren, send them the bill, or are we going to pay for it today and quit using it on failed stimulus plans? That's the debate. The American people are not confused. And again, they want paychecks, not unemployment checks.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, under this administration and this Congress, we have now seen the largest deficits in history, the largest national debt in history, the failed stimulus plan, the health care takeover, cap and energy tax, a permanent Wall Street bailout, all of which has led to the loss of millions of jobs, near double-digit unemployment, the highest in a generation. So, unfortunately, under their policy, yes, we do need another extension of unemployment. But here's the difference. The Democrats want to borrow 43 cents on the dollar, mainly from the Chinese, and send the bill to our children and grandchildren. That's unacceptable. Republicans say pay for it. And almost every week we come to the floor under the YouCut program and offer spending reductions to do just that. The second difference is, Democrats actually believe more unemployment leads to more employment. The Speaker of the House has said, unemployment checks create jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name. Mr. Speaker, give me a break. Republicans know that Americans want paychecks, not more unemployment checks. Quit bankrupting America and pay for this unemployment insurance.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Reclaiming my time, with the chairman being in the majority, I am sure if he wants to do that, he has the opportunity to do that. If the Democratic majority wants to raise taxes on those who have less than a quarter-billion dollars in income, that is their opportunity to do that. If they want to quit funding our troops in harm's way, they have the opportunity to do that. What we are saying is there is an opportunity right here, right now not to create yet another duplicative program and add to the debt burden. Now, I am sure we might hear that somehow this is going to create more jobs, but I ask where are the jobs? Where has the spending led to? I encourage all to support the motion to recommit.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit today is a simple one. It says today, right here, right now, this body will decline to create yet another new government spending program, this one, a quarter of a billion dollar new FEMA outreach program on top of the FEMA outreach program that is already in place. Mr. Speaker, the American people know already that the National Flood Insurance Program is in trouble, just like almost every other federally administered insurance program. Social Security has a long-term deficit of $15.1 trillion. The Federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation has a debt of $22 billion. The Federal Crop Insurance Program, Medicaid, and the list goes on and on. The National Flood Insurance Program owes the taxpayer, owes the Treasury already $19 billion. Why are we going to add to this burden today, Mr. Speaker? And, in addition, as I said earlier, this is duplicative of an already existing program. I'm not here to say, Mr. Speaker, that outreach is a bad idea. But I am curious what is wrong with the Cooperating Technical Partners Program of FEMA. Mr. Speaker, even if this wasn't duplicative of an already existing system, even if we truly needed it, the question is, can we afford it? Is it really worth borrowing 43 cents on the dollar, mainly from the Chinese, and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren? At this time, Mr. Speaker, at a time when our Nation is facing a debt crisis, the motion to recommit says no, it doesn't meet that test. I mean, Mr. Speaker, we know already that the deficit has increased almost tenfold in just 2 years. I mean we are looking at the largest deficits in American history. Our Nation is literally drowning in debt. Don't take my word for it. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor, as a number of our Members do, to serve on the President's Fiscal Responsibility Commission. It's led by Democrat Erskine Bowles, former chief of staff to President Clinton, who just this week said before the National Governors Association, ``The debt is like a cancer. It is truly going to destroy the country from within.'' That is the Democratic head of the President's Fiscal Responsibility Commission. He recognizes the problem that we are facing today. Renowned economist Robert Samuelson has said that our spending could ``trigger an economic and political death spiral.'' Former Comptroller David Walker has said we are facing, quote, ``a fiscal cancer.'' Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a crisis in our Nation's history that we could see coming from miles away it's this one. Why do we want to make it worse? Right here, right now we can take one tiny step towards ensuring we don't put more debt on our children and our grandchildren for a program that is already in the red almost $19 billion. I would say that there is very little that I agree with the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee on. But I noticed that last night on NPR he was quoted as saying, ``We have to reduce the deficit. I believe that we are reaching a point where the deficit could be unsustainable. We have to make this point: We're going to have to reduce government spending fairly significantly.'' And I agree with Chairman Frank on that point. And I would hope that this would be the moment where we could take that one step.

Mr. HENSARLING. I am, in its current form.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Chair, this House recently passed a financial markets regulatory restructuring bill which in essence, unfortunately, will create a new Federal insurance program, or bailout authority, for large financial companies that take on too much risk. I wish we would leave, given the state of the national debt, I wish we would leave the safety net where it currently is, under federally insured depository institutions. And instead, ultimately I fear we will one day be looking at taxpayer subsidies to cover the likes of Goldman Sachs, AIG, and Lehman Brothers. I wish we had learned our lesson from the National Flood Insurance Program, which we know was supposed to never require any taxpayer funds, any general revenue. But unfortunately, we know today already $19 billion is owed to the Federal taxpayer. And we look at the other federally administered insurance programs: Social Security, long term deficit of $15 trillion; Federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, debt of $22 billion, projections of $34 billion by 2019; Federal crop insurance, Medicaid--the list goes on and on and on. This bill adds to the tab. And the Congressional Budget Office has projected this bill will increase spending by roughly a half-billion dollars over 10 years. Even by Washington standards, I hope we still consider that to be significant funding. Now, I wish the Federal Government wasn't in this business, but we are in this business. And if we are in this business, we have to ensure that we are not subsidizing and incenting people to live, essentially put them in harm's way and put them in harm's way at taxpayers' expense. If they are going to put themselves and their property in harm's way, that's a decision they need to be making. But we shouldn't be a party to incenting them to that. So we still have a program that oversubsidizes certain properties, including condos and vacation homes, and we're asking people in my district, the factory worker in Mesquite, Texas, and maybe making $50,000 a year, to subsidize the flood insurance of somebody who may be making a half a million dollars a year, maybe because they have a condo on a beach. That's not a program that's particularly fiscally sound or one that I believe is fair. I certainly want to thank the chairman, I want to thank the ranking member for their work. And there are a number of improvements in this legislation that will help improve the program. I want to thank the chairman for incorporating a modest amendment I offered in 2007 that would at least require the NFIP to conduct a study within the next 6 months of how do you end up repaying the taxpayer at least over a 10-year period so they can recoup their losses on a program they were never supposed to bail out in the first place. I appreciate the fact that the underlying legislation will raise the annual cap on premium rate increases. I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) who offered an amendment that was incorporated that would eliminate subsidies over time for homes that are sold to new owners and phases in actuarially sound premiums on second homes. There is also language in here that will impose minimum deductibles for all insured properties. All of these are several steps in the right direction to help ensure that the taxpayer doesn't suffer further losses. But unfortunately, the bill really doesn't do anything to deal with the current almost $19 billion of funds that are owed to the taxpayer today. Nothing in the bill will help recoup that particular loss. It delays the implementation of actuarial rates, which I think again puts the taxpayer in further harm. It does not phase out the taxpayer subsidies. We still have insurance at subsidized rates, creating perverse incentives that encourage people to essentially live in harm's way. And just like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have already cost the taxpayer $150 billion roughly and counting, those programs ultimately need to be returned to competition, and so does this program ultimately need to be returned to market competition. Now, I know we can't outlaw hurricanes, we can't outlaw floods, but we can at least make sure that the factory worker in Mesquite, Texas, in my district, doesn't have to keep picking up the tab over and over. And very importantly, this is a program that authorizes almost a half a billion in new spending on an outreach program when one already exists. We cannot afford it.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I was very interested, Madam Speaker, to hear the gentleman from Colorado defend the job statistics under the Democratic rule of Congress. I don't know too many Democrats coming to the floor who want to defend 9.7 percent unemployment. Frankly, it's one of the major reasons that the legislation on the floor ought to be opposed today. Madam Speaker, it's a job killer. Once again, we have legislation that will make credit less available and more expensive. Let me point out four different aspects of this bill. No. 1, it creates a permanent Wall Street bailout authority. If you build it, they will come. You build a bailout authority because you expect to bail people out. There's a choice to be had here. Republicans believe in the Bankruptcy Code. There are improvements that need to be made; and under the leadership of our ranking member, Spencer Bachus, we introduced that legislation. But our Democratic friends prefer bailouts, bailouts over bankruptcy. Now they continue to say that the taxpayer won't be called upon to pay for these bailouts. Well, isn't it kind of funny how throughout this conference process, every time they've had an opportunity to choose either the taxpayers or the Wall Street banks, they somehow choose the Wall Street banks? And, in fact, when it came down to the government-sponsored enterprises, they set up a choice--I didn't set up the choice--but they set up a choice of who going forward is going to fund the bailout of government-sponsored enterprises. Should it be Wall Street banks or should it be the taxpayers? And they decided that it ought to be the taxpayers. Just yesterday at the 11th hour--actually it was way past the 11th hour--they came up with a new funding mechanism, taking money away from TARP that was supposed to be used for deficit reduction; and, instead, they're going to use it to help fund the bill, most of which the Congressional Budget Office says goes to the Wall Street bailout authority. This is No. 2. The No. 2 incident where they had a choice between choosing the taxpayers or Wall Street banks, they chose Wall Street banks. A permanent bailout authority costs jobs. They create this new bureau to ban and ration consumer credit--literally to decide whether or not you can have a credit card, small business line of credit, what kind of mortgage you can get on your home. There is functionally a new banks tax that makes derivatives more expensive, less available. All of this is going to harm job creation. You know, I talk to small businesses in my district, like a gentleman from Jacksonville, Texas: ``I am a one-man operation. With all the legislation coming down the line, I will stay a one-man operation. If lines of credit dry up, I will no longer be able to maintain safe operating equipment and be forced to cease operations.'' Reject the job-killing bill and the permanent bailout authority.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I would like to recognize Mr. John Bryant Beall, Sr. Mr. Beall is a World War II veteran who will finally receive a significant military honor at the Edom July 4th Celebration. President Coolidge once said, ``A nation which forgets its defenders, will itself soon be forgotten.'' I am proud of Mr. Karl Little, who helped Mr. Beall realize this honor, and everyone who is taking the time on Independence Day to honor him. Mr. Beall will be awarded the Bronze Star Medal during a ceremony on July 4th. He joined the U.S. Army in February of 1943 and reached the rank of Private 1st Class before his discharge in November of 1945. Mr. Beall served on the front lines of combat in two campaigns in Central Europe. Mr. Beall was one of five brothers that were raised in Edom. Mr. Beall, along with three of his brothers, served in World War II, while his oldest brother was too old to serve in the military. It is certainly a testament of courage and patriotism for the Beall family to risk so much in the defense of our nation. I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the entire 5th Congressional District of Texas, to thank Mr. Beall and his family for their service to our country. We should be eternally grateful for our servicemen and women in the past and present who have fought to preserve liberty for our generation and generations to come.