Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. The chairman having said he has no other speakers, in that case, I will close for our side. Again, we have no great pleasure in saying ``I told you so,'' but I think it is important before this body decides to accelerate a problem that is exacerbated by this body, they should take full import of their actions and the consequences. As I said back in June, we must remember that every restriction, every limit, every regulation, has a high probability of making credit less accessible, less affordable and more costly, and, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what we see today. In a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, we read, In the past 2 years, credit card lines have been cut by over $1.25 trillion. During the same time, 10 percent of all credit card accounts have been canceled. Again, we know, Mr. Chairman, that our constituents are feeling this pain as they get these notices in the mail. Let me go back to the article: According to the most recent Federal Reserve data, small business lending is down 3 percent, or $113 billion, from fourth quarter 2008.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I assume the chairman of the full committee has the right to close?

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the ranking member, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, in order to help equalize the time, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there is ever a good time to enact a bad law. And unfortunately, although there are some good provisions in the underlying credit card legislation, ultimately many of us predicted that if it passed, credit would become more expensive and less available to millions of Americans, and that's exactly what we see. Now, the good part of the bill is, clearly, there have been misleading and deceptive practices by some credit card companies. We need to have better disclosure, more effective disclosure so people understand the credit relationships in which they enter. But, Mr. Chairman, we are in the midst of a huge credit contraction that's taking place today; jobs are being lost and people are having trouble accessing credit for their personal lives and for small businesses. Unfortunately, ultimately this underlying legislation on which one of three effective dates is moved up--or two of the three effective dates are moved up by the bill that is before us--will essentially exacerbate that trend. In many respects, Mr. Chairman, I hate to say I told you so, but we told you so. And so, again, all we're going to do is make a bad situation worse. Already we have seen, for example, a recent article in USA Today, let me quote from it, October 23, ``Curtis Arnold, founder of creditratings.com, said he expected credit card issuers to raise annual fees after the legislation was enacted.'' Sure enough, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what we see. Let me quote from The Wall Street Journal. ``Other issuers, such as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase Card Services, and Discover, recently converted customer fixed rates to variable ones.'' New York Times, ``Now Congress is moving to limit the penalties on riskier borrowers''--which is exactly what the underlying legislation did, Mr. Chairman. Let me continue on--``who have become a prime source of billions of dollars in fee revenue for the industry. And to make up for the lost income, the card companies are going after those people with sterling credit.'' So now we also find out--again, from USA Today--that starting next year Bank of America will charge a number of customers an annual fee ranging from $29 to $99. We see that, in the same article from USA Today, Citigroup has started charging annual fees to cardholders. And so, again, Mr. Chairman, we have the testimony. Many of us predicted this. As I said way back in March, make no mistake about it, if this bill passes, it's going to be a lot harder for people to access the credit they need to pay their bills, cover medical emergencies, or finance large purchases. And so all over America people are getting these notices in the mail--including the Hensarling family of Dallas, Texas, where all of a sudden I've seen our own interest rates skyrocket from 15 percent to 23 percent. And with very few exceptions, my wife and I pay our balance in full at the end of the month. It's the half of America that pays their bills on time, in full that are now having to subsidize those who don't through an act of Congress. So I think we all agree, nobody likes what's happening in America, but the question is, who's responsible? I believe this underlying piece of legislation is exacerbating a huge credit contraction that's already taking place in the economy. And, Mr. Chairman, it just couldn't come at a worse time. I mean, as we know, apparently on Friday or Saturday this body will vote on a huge government takeover of our health care bill which could cost easily, even according to CBO, over $1 trillion that ultimately has to be paid for by the American people. We've seen estimates again that premiums will rise, particularly for young, healthy people, young, healthy people who may be getting these notices in the mail today that all of a sudden maybe their credit cards have been yanked and maybe their interest rates have gone up. At the same time when we are staring in the face of an over $1 trillion health care bill, a bill that could impose a 2.5 percent penalty, again, on young people who may not be able to afford insurance, but they could be penalized 2.5 percent. Well, if you take away their credit cards, how are they going to be able to pay the 2.5 percent tax if they don't buy the government improved health insurance? Mr. Chairman, how about small businesses? If small businesses find that their credit cards have their interest rates skyrocket or taken away, how are they going to be able to pay the 8 percent pay-or-play tax which is in the Pelosi government takeover of health care bill? How about the other surcharge that would go to a number of small businesses, supposedly raising half a trillion dollars? Again, we know a lot of small businesses access credit through credit cards. So if we take an underlying bad bill that's exacerbating a credit crunch and all we do is accelerate the effective date, I mean, how, again, are tens of thousands of small businesses going to be able to pay the 8 percent new pay-or-play tax in the Pelosi takeover of our health care system bill? How about the 2.5 percent medical device tax, or the 2.5 percent what some are calling the ``wheelchair tax''? Again, a number of our seniors rely on credit cards. Now they have Medigap policies. They need those credit cards for medical expenses, especially if the majority is about to impose a 2.5 percent wheelchair tax upon the American people. Why are we going to pass a bill, again, in the middle of a huge credit contraction that is only going to exacerbate the matter, make matters worse, take away credit cards, make interest rates go up, make credit less available and more expensive at a time when we are threatened with this $1 trillion government takeover of health care legislation? Again, I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that there is at least one good part of the legislation, which is that we do need effective disclosure and that we need competitive markets. But when you start taking away the ability of companies to price for risk, the people who do it right end up bailing out a number of people who don't, and those who don't--and for some of whom it may not be through any fault of their own--find that they no longer have credit opportunities at a time when many are facing a 2\1/2\ percent tax if they don't buy the government-improved health insurance. They are facing a 2\1/2\ percent tax if they need a wheeled chair, maybe even a replacement hip. I suppose that's also defined as a ``medical device'' under the Pelosi government takeover of our health care system legislation. Small businesses face the 8 percent pay-or-play tax. Again, even if you thought that the underlying legislation was good, how could the timing not be worse? If you were to ask the American people, number one, if those who pay their bills on time shouldn't be punished for those who don't, and of those who don't, if they had a choice of paying a higher interest rate or of having their credit cards taken away from them, my guess is a number of them would choose the higher interest rate. But Congress has taken that decision away from them by enacting the underlying bill, if we choose to enact this bill, which will simply hasten what is already a bad process which is making credit less available and more expensive to thousands of small businesses and to millions of Americans as we're facing a government takeover of our health care system. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, there are so many different reasons why the American people are opposing the ``Pelosi Government Takeover of Your Health Care'' bill: 111 different offices, bureaus, commissions, and programs to get between you and your doctor, preventing you from getting the health care you need when you need it; 3,425 uses of the word ``shall,'' to ensure that bureaucrats take away your choices and drive up your health care costs; $150 billion cut from the Medicare Advantage program, endangering seniors who rely upon the program. But, Mr. Speaker, let me give you 1 trillion more reasons to oppose this plan: a minimum $1 trillion cost, on a country that is already going bankrupt. We have had our first $1 trillion deficit. Under President Obama, we will triple--triple--the national debt in just the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, you cannot improve a nation's health care by bankrupting it, its families, and its children. This must be rejected.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, when will the insanity stop, the runaway spending, the debts, the deficits? The American people are saying enough is enough. Now we have a Department of the Interior and environment conference report that contains a 17 percent increase over last year's spending. I assure you the family budget that has to pay for this Federal budget, their budget didn't increase 17 percent. People want to know why is Federal spending out of control? In addition, now we have a continuing resolution attached to this conference report. Why are we voting on it? We are voting on it because this Congress and this President have spent too much money, and now they want more. Already this President and this Congress have passed a $1.1 trillion government stimulus plan which, by the way, since it passed, over 3\1/ 2\ million of our fellow countrymen have lost their jobs. We have the highest unemployment rate in our Nation in a generation. That stimulus plan weighed in at $9,745 per household. I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, the American people didn't get their money's worth. Next, this Congress and this President passed and signed into law an omnibus spending plan costing $410 billion, weighing in at $3,511 per household. Then under this administration and Congress the bailouts continue: another $30 billion for AIG, almost $36 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, $60 million for GM and Chrysler. Now the news today is the administration wants to hand GMAC another $12 billion. What has it all brought us? The Nation's first trillion-dollar deficit, a spending plan that will triple the national debt in the next 10 years. On top of that, we have the announcement of the trillion- dollar government takeover of our health care. How can you raise the cost and decrease the quality all at the same time? This Congress apparently has figured it out. Under this spending plan, the American people cannot afford it.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I honor the memory of our fallen military heroes, recognize the sacrifice of their families and laud the excellent work of the Snowball Express Organization and its many partners, sponsors and volunteers. Freedom is not free--it comes at an incredible cost. Throughout our nation's history, whenever our country is attacked or when the enemies of freedom threaten peace in our world, American men and women in uniform, from all backgrounds and all walks of life, have answered the call to defend our nation. From the American Revolution to Operation Iraqi Freedom, many of America's best and brightest have paid the price of our freedom with their lives. The families of these brave men and women also make tremendous sacrifices. Military families play a vital support role to our troops in harm's way and are left to carry on life without their wife, husband, mother, father, brother or sister. As much as we remember the men and women who lay down their life to protect us, we should also remember and support their families and the incredible sacrifice they make on a daily basis, as they seek to continue on with their life, remembering and honoring their departed loved one. My son and daughter live in a better, more free and more secure America because of the sacrifices of these families and their heroes. Snowball Express was founded with the goal of providing ``hope and new memories to the children of our fallen military heroes who died while on active duty since September 11, 2001.'' I can only imagine how hard it must be to carry on with holidays, birthdays and normal life with your loved one missing. The outstanding staff, partners, sponsors and volunteers at Snowball Express are committed to providing rays of sunshine for children whose worlds have been rocked by incredible loss and they are to be commended. As Ronald Reagan said, ``We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.'' Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am humbled and honored to recognize our nation's heroes, their families and Snowball Express.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, we have a continuing resolution well hidden in a Legislative Branch conference report. Why are we voting on a continuing resolution, Madam Speaker? We are voting on a continuing resolution because this Congress and this President have spent too much money, and now they want more. Already this President and this Congress have passed into law a $1.1 trillion stimulus plan which, by the way, since it was passed, we have had almost 3 million more join the unemployment ranks, the highest unemployment rate in almost a quarter of a century. But that stimulus plan weighed in at $9,746 per household. Next this Congress and this President signed into law, passed into law an omnibus costing $410 billion, $3,511 per household. The bailouts continue. Madam Speaker, another $30 billion for AIG, almost $30 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not to mention $60 billion for GM and Chrysler. The serial bailouts continue. What has all this spending brought us, Madam Speaker? It has brought us the Nation's first, first trillion-dollar deficit, and a deficit that increased 10 fold, 10 fold, in just 2 years. On top of this now the President and the Congress want a $3.6 trillion budget and a trillion-dollar nationalized health care plan that we cannot afford, meaning that the national debt will triple, triple in the next 10 years. Madam Speaker, under this spending plan, we are borrowing 43 cents on the dollar, mainly from the Chinese, and sending the bill to our children. If the spending, if the borrowing, if the deficits do not stop, this will be a Congress that will ensure that it's just a matter of time before the Chinese initiate foreclosure proceedings on our Nation. We cannot let that stand.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I recognize a valued member of our community, Doctors Hospital at White Rock Lake, and join with them in celebrating their 50th anniversary. In 1959, Doctors Hospital at White Rock Lake was established with a mission to provide quality health care to the East Dallas, Garland, Mesquite. Five decades later, this full-service hospital continues to pursue its mission by providing outstanding care ranging from obstetrics to acute care for the elderly. Located in East Dallas, Doctors Hospital's outpatient facilities include a wound/vein center, sleep center, women's imaging center and rehabilitation center. I recently had the privilege of touring their new surgical suites, which will provide a comfortable place for family members to stay while their loved one receives the care they need. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize Doctors Hospital at White Rock Lake's 50th anniversary, and I commend the Board of Directors, physicians, nurses and staff for helping to provide quality health care to our community.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. There are aspects of this legislation that I certainly appreciate. All Americans have been outraged--it is a word we use frequently, and we use justifiably--about some of the compensation packages we have seen from failed companies that come with tin cup in hand to the United States taxpayer looking for more. This bill has some provisions that add increased transparency, some increased accountability; and that is good. But, unfortunately, the bad in the bill way outshadows the good. I have always said, Mr. Speaker, what you do with your money is your business. What you do with the taxpayer money is our business. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, you can't just read the bumper sticker slogan. You actually have to read the legislation. So we hear speech after speech about these failed institutions taking in all of this government money. Well, I wonder then why in committee on a party-line vote did we vote down an amendment that I brought that would have ensured that the bailout recipients, that this legislation applied to them and them only. They are the poster children in this debate, yet the legislation extends potentially to every public company in America that somehow is defined as a ``covered financial institution.'' By the way, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, the best way to deal with risky pay schemes is to quit bailing them out in the first place. My friends on the other side of the aisle are enshrining us as a bailout Nation. So you complain about the taxpayers picking up the tab. I have complained about the taxpayers picking up the tab. Quit bailing them out in the first place. Again, we have to read the bill and not just read the slogan, because if you read the bill, what you find out is, number one, this isn't just pay restrictions that go to those in the troubled Wall Street firms. Again, it is almost every covered financial institution. And guess what? If you read further into the bill, it doesn't just cover the top officers, the top executives. Every single employee, every single employee who has an ``incentive-based compensation plan'' could be covered by this. We have already learned that somehow, with a very interpretive approach to the English language, General Motors and Chrysler have been found to be financial institutions. This means that any employee, any employee who receives a tip, a sales commission, a Christmas bonus, could have a Federal bureaucrat take it away from them. Ho ho ho. That is what this legislation is all about. Again, don't get sucked in by the bumper sticker slogan. Read the legislation. That was the problem here on the original bailout. Nobody read the legislation. The government stimulus, nobody read the legislation. Well, fortunately, this isn't a 1,000-page bill. I think it is about 15 or 20 pages. I actually took the time to read it. And if this is just about class warfare, Mr. Speaker, why doesn't this do anything about Hollywood stars who make $25 million for a movie, and yet the movie loses money? Why isn't it about a third baseman for the New York Yankees who gets $21 million and ties his worst record for striking out in the season? Why doesn't this have anything to do with the personal injury trial lawyers who make millions and millions, and their clients are doing good to make thousands?

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, to quote the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, he was wrong then, he is wrong now to say that Republicans have no program to deal with excessive risk and compensation packages. Yes, we do have a program: end the bailouts. End the TARP program. If you quit bailing out risky behavior, Mr. Speaker, you receive less risky behavior. Second of all, the gentleman is also wrong as far as the Republicans having no program otherwise we wouldn't have this substitute that we are debating at the moment. I also heard the gentleman from North Carolina earlier say, Well, we need to have the underlying legislation because shareholders have no right to have a say-on-pay. Wrong again, Mr. Speaker. Shareholders have the right. They can have a say-on-pay by electing directors who will fire the management. They have a say to invest elsewhere. Their bill says we have to have mandatory say-on-pay. Now, we can debate the merits of it, but the gentleman from North Carolina was simply, clearly wrong. I also want to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, when I listen to, again, the logic that we have to have a new Federal regulation that somehow will regulate risky incentive pay structures, again, all of the rhetoric has to do with Wall Street. But guess what? Read the bill. Look at the interpretation. Financial institutions. Chrysler and GM have been found to be financial institutions. We have had testimony when they came looking for the taxpayer bailout that the UAW, the United Auto Workers, had a pay structure that was 40 percent higher than their competitors. So now we have a law here that will allow Federal regulators, I assume, to come in and say, Folks at the UAW, your incentive structure is contributing to the demise of Chrysler and GM. So we're going to have to come down and take down your wage rates. Read the bill, Mr. Speaker. This isn't restricted to the top executives. And if anybody believes this is restricted to Wall Street, then why did Chrysler and why did GM get coverage under a statute that described institutions? So, Mr. Speaker, what we have is a Federal Government that is now taking over our auto companies, telling us what kind of automobiles we can drive. They're taking over our mortgage companies, telling us whether or not we can even enjoy a mortgage. They now want to control access to our family doctor, and now they want to decide for millions and millions of Americans whether or not they can ever receive a sales commission or a Christmas bonus that they may view as too risky. What is risky is too much politization of our economy. What is risky is too much government control of our economy. We have had enough.

Mr. HENSARLING. So I hear the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle, which once again seems like a lot of recycled class warfare to me. Another point I would make, Mr. Speaker, is we hear that we need this in order to somehow deal with safety and soundness. We need this legislation to somehow deal with systemic risk. Well, number one, I listened very carefully to the testimony that was presented in our committee, and I am sure it is theoretically possible that there are pay structures that somehow may lend themselves to this. But, again, show me the evidence. Where is the evidence? When I look at pay structures among financial firms that failed versus those that didn't fail, I don't see the correlation. Second of all, as we know, Mr. Speaker, the regulators have the power to regulate the liquidity and capital standards of these financial firms to make it commensurate with the risk. That is the remedy. That is the remedy, not to take Christmas bonuses away from employees.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Budget Committee and House Financial Services Committee, one of my top priorities is to get the job engine running again in America. Over the past year, Congress has spent over $1 trillion to get the economy moving again, but 2.6 million Americans have lost their jobs since President Obama took office and we have the highest unemployment rate in 25 years. Clearly, Washington Democrats' plan for economic recovery has been an abject failure. I support policies that will provide struggling Texas small businesses with tax relief, enabling small businesses, which create 2 of every 3 jobs in America, to begin hiring workers. But we also must ensure that those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own have a temporary safety net to help them weather this economic storm. That is why I voted for H.R. 6867 on October 3, 2008. H.R. 6867 provides up to 59 weeks of unemployment compensation benefits, and I was pleased that it was signed into law on November 21, 2008. The House recently considered H.R. 3357, which transferred $7 billion from the General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund to cover a projected shortfall of funds. This legislation also would provide funds for the Unemployment Trust Fund. I support those provisions that would ensure the Unemployment Trust Fund, which is the funding mechanism for federal unemployment compensation benefits, has the resources it needs. In these tough economic times, I know how important unemployment benefits are to those who have lost their job. I do not, however, support provisions of H.R. 3357 that would transfer $7 billion from the General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund, as this would add $7 billion to the deficit and send the bill to our children and grandchildren. While I support a first-class highway system and would not want to see the Highway Trust Fund run short of funds, simply adding $7 billion to the deficit was not the solution to the Highway Trust Fund's problems. This $7 billion is on top of an $8 billion transfer in 2008 and the $27 billion provided to the Highway Trust Fund in the so-called stimulus bill. Unfortunately, Members of Congress have wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on transportation earmarks over the last decade, helping lead to the depletion of the fund. While not all earmarks are bad, too many have diverted funds from the fund to pay for the Bridge to Nowhere, parking garages and bike paths. Had Members of Congress spent Highway Trust Fund money more wisely, we may not have been forced to replenish the fund. Even though I support the Unemployment Trust Fund provision of H.R. 3357, at a time when the federal government is running a record debt in excess of $11 trillion, a projected record deficit of $1.8 trillion, and a 9.5 percent unemployment rate that is the highest unemployment rate in over 25 years, I simply could not support a bill that would borrow $7 billion and send the bill to future generations.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Cash for Clunkers, Mr. Speaker, obviously it's a popular program. It's a clever title. It pays people several thousand dollars to trade in their old cars if they will buy new cars. And yes, Mr. Speaker, people are hurting in the auto industry. There's no doubt about it. But I would also note that the taxpayers are hurting. $80 billion to Chrysler and GM. And the auto industry does not have a monopoly on hard times in this economy. Recently, one of the largest poultry producers in America, Pilgrims Pride, just a few miles outside of my congressional district, they had to declare Chapter 11. Maybe we should have a Cash for Cluckers program and pay people to eat chicken. Then after that, we can have a program to pay people to buy TVs, and then a program to pay people to buy lumber. It would pass the test. It has a clever title. It would help a large industry. It would put free money in the hands of consumers. But this is not a humorous affair, Mr. Speaker, and it's not humorous because this is an extension of a program that has the government picking winners and losers. Why is the auto industry the winner? Why is the poultry industry the loser? This is one more step in enshrining us as a bailout Nation. Now, people say, Well, it's $2 billion that's coming out of the stimulus program. Well, I would tell my distinguished colleagues that that is still $2 billion that has to be borrowed from the Chinese, with the bill sent to our children and grandchildren, at a time when the deficit has hit $1 trillion for the first time in history. You cannot bail out, borrow and spend your way into economic prosperity. Instead, let's unleash the spirit of entrepreneurial capitalism. Let's help small businesses with tax relief. Let's grow our way out of this economic recession.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, recently I met with dozens of doctors in east Texas to discuss health care, and, with only one exception, every one of them said that they had recommended to their children that they not follow in their footsteps and practice medicine. Health care is losing our best and our brightest due to its threatened takeover by the Federal Government. Republicans have commonsense solutions to our health care challenges to ensure that all Americans have access to the high quality health care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. When it comes to health care decisions, no government bureaucrat should ever come between you and your doctor, and if you are happy with your current plan, Republicans want you to be able to keep it. In contrast, Speaker Pelosi has proposed a government-run health care rationing system paid for by higher taxes on small businesses and borrowing yet more money from the Chinese, while sending the $1 trillion bill to our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, if you loved the government takeover of our banks, of our auto companies, of our mortgage companies and AIG, you will love the takeover of your family's health care.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that would strike a $2 million earmark requested by the Speaker of the House for the Doyle Drive Replacement Project in San Francisco. Apparently, this drive is owned and operated by the California Department of Transportation, known as Caltrans, which acquired it in 1945 and which charges tolls from vehicles coming across the Golden Gate Bridge. According to the Web site, the money, among other things, would be used to ``raise the original profile of the southbound lanes to preserve the cultural landscape and retain the cultural relationship between the upper and lower portions of the Presidio.'' It would ``reconfigure the Girard Road interchange to preserve the Gorgas Avenue streetscape adjacent to the historic warehouses and to improve views to the Palace of Fine Arts.'' Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm not here to tell you that all earmarks are bad. I'm not even here to tell you that somehow this is a bad use of somebody's money. I've never been a particular fan of the earmark system, but I don't come here to debate that today. I've heard a number of people say, ``Well, relative to the Federal budget, this is kind of pennies and nickels.'' Well, yes, maybe it is. I hope, number one, I'm never in Congress so long that I consider $2 million to be pennies and nickels, but if it is, you know, and if you don't start saving those pennies and nickels, how will you ever save the dollars? Frankly, with the oppressive treatment we have at the Rules Committee, the amendments that Republicans would offer that would save billions of dollars somehow are never quite made in order. So, Mr. Chairman, why is this important? I think it's important because we need to take stock of where we are as a nation. Since President Obama was elected, we have seen now the highest deficit we've ever seen in our Nation's history. It's over $1 trillion. Mr. Chairman, it's on its way to $1.8 trillion. That means, since the Democrats have taken control of this House, the Federal deficit has increased tenfold. The national debt is being tripled under their watch, under their budget--tripled--with more debt in the next 10 years than in the previous 220. So, yes, maybe $2 million is small relative to that, but Mr. Chairman, again, if you don't change the culture of spending, how are you ever going to change the spending? And I wish the Speaker of the House was on the floor now. I would pose a question to her that I've posed before. Early in her career when she was in the minority, she said, It is just absolutely immoral, immoral for us to heap those deficits on our children. And so I would respectfully ask the Speaker of the House, if it's immoral to do it, why are you doing it? This is $2 million, 2 million more dollars of deficit that, according to the Speaker of the House, is immoral. The Speaker also has said, prior to becoming the Speaker of the House, I'd just as soon do away with all earmarks; you can't have Bridges to Nowhere for America's children to pay for. I would respectfully ask the Speaker of the House if she was on the floor now, Madam Speaker, if you would just as soon do away with earmarks why don't you lead by example and quit asking for them? It appears in this appropriations cycle that she has requested herself, or jointly with others, 30 earmarks worth $36 million. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, in the last appropriations cycle, Mr. Chairman, Speaker of the House Pelosi ranked 16th out of 435 Members of Congress on the number of earmarks she requested. Again, at a time of trillion-dollar deficits maybe there's time to say ``no'' to one project today so we can say ``yes'' to our children's future tomorrow. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I certainly concur with the gentleman from Iowa. It was a fascinating history lesson that the gentleman from Massachusetts provided us with, but here are the facts. According to the Congressional Budget Office, which happens to be appointed by Democrats, we have the largest deficit in the history of the Nation at $1 trillion, 1.8 estimated at the end of the year, and it is CBO that says that the 10-year budget will triple the national debt. I would ask the gentleman, again, from Massachusetts if this funding is so important, why isn't it paid for by the State of California, the city of San Francisco, or how about those toll roads? And is it really worth borrowing the money from the Chinese and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren at this time? I think not. I would urge adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I will just point out to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that, according to his own Web site, the recipient is the Philadelphia Museum of Art, again, one of America's great art museums. But I don't want to borrow money from the Chinese to send the bill to my children and grandchildren at a time of a trillion-dollar deficit. Start saving the pennies and nickels and perhaps the dollars.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect what the gentleman says, and he says that clearly I don't understand aspects of the project. What he doesn't seem to understand is that the taxpayers in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, frankly, don't want to pay for his transportation projects, and they have transportation needs of their own. If this is such a priority, why doesn't the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania take it out of their share of the Federal Highway Trust Fund? Why doesn't the State of Pennsylvania take it from their taxpayers? Why doesn't the City of Philadelphia take it from their taxpayers, or maybe the art museum has to charge a little bit more so that the struggling taxpayers of the Fifth District of Texas and all over America don't have to pay more in taxes or borrow more money from the Chinese to help the art museum in Philadelphia. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining and who has the right to close.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated No. 4.