Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I may be reluctantly opposed to the gentleman's amendment. First, let me congratulate the gentleman from New Mexico. I have said other times that people had a noble purpose in their amendment. Of all amendments I have seen, this certainly has the most noble purpose, the most noble intent. No one who dons our Nation's uniform and fights for freedom, protects America's security ought to somehow be harmed because they missed a payment while they were taking on their Nation's duty. I certainly agree with the intent of the gentleman's legislation. I have a couple of concerns, though, because I believe that this would be the first time that we are asking credit card bureaus to hide information. I am just curious. Is there not another way to protect our brave men and women in uniform than setting the precedent of keeping accurate information away from a credit file which allows people to access credit in the first place? I am not an expert on it, but others who serve on the committee have informed me that this situation has been addressed under the Civil Relief Act. I know that military, Active Duty military, can append to their credit file that they are indeed in harm's way. I would be happy to work with the gentleman for a program in DOD that would help ensure, again, that whatever type of resources are needed to ensure that people do not default on their credit obligations while they are in harm's way, that's something I would want to support. I would want to go to the Appropriations Committee and ask them to appropriate funds to assure that this is done. Clearly, we want to be sensitive to our Active Duty personnel. It's the most important thing we can do in this institution is protect the Nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic. So I want to achieve the gentleman's goal, but I wonder if it might not have the unintended consequence of, perhaps, making credit even less available to our military personnel if, for some reason, the creditor community started believing that they were no longer receiving accurate information. So I don't have a solution at my hand, and I admit that. But I do continue to be concerned that there may be unintended consequences here. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I was listening carefully to the previous speakers. And again, I could not agree with them more in sharing their desire to ensure that this is not a problem. No one on Active Duty should be worrying about paying for their credit card bills. But I do continue to ask the question, is this the single best remedy? Now, I'm not sure that any credit card company in America would be so stupid as to go and consciously ping somebody who is fighting for freedom in Afghanistan or Iraq. Wait until the local newspaper or local television station finds out about that. I would say some PR department would be working overtime. But again, the thing that disturbs me here--and I want to solve the problem. Again, I admit, I am not an expert on what resources may be available at the Pentagon. I don't know if there couldn't be somehow automatic payment through the paycheck. If we need to set up money to loan our soldiers to ensure their bills are paid when they are overseas, I would be happy to support that. But in some respects, you are asking credit bureaus to, in some respects, deceive creditors because they have information and you are telling them you are not allowed to give accurate information. Now, I don't want them to act adversely, but the precedent of essentially saying that you can now put misleading information into the market disturbs me greatly. I just would hope that there would be an alternative solution than this particular amendment, again, with the noblest of intentions. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Again, I want to congratulate my friend from New Mexico and his leadership on this issue. This is absolutely, positively, unequivocally something that the Federal Reserve has to look into. I don't care if it affects only one soldier, sailor or airman in the entire Nation, this problem must be solved. I continue to have reservations on this particular solution and its potential unintended consequences. I will most reluctantly urge a ``no'' vote at this time and hopefully have a commitment, particularly those who serve on our Armed Services Committee and our Appropriations Committee, to maybe find out if there is a less onerous way to treat what is a very, very serious problem. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the ranking member for yielding. Before entering into the debate, I certainly want to acknowledge, as I have before throughout this debate, number one, the work of the subcommittee chairman with whom I have served, proud to serve as the ranking member, it has been a very open process, a very good debate. And I certainly want to congratulate the gentlelady from New York who I know has been quite passionate about this issue. And although we certainly disagree with the implications of her legislation, what I believe or I hope to believe are unintended consequences, I certainly share, at least, a number of the goals that she has. However, I do have great concerns about this legislation. First, if this was a debate on whether or not there are credit card companies in America that use misleading and deceptive practices, I think we could pass that legislation with unanimous consent. Now, Mr. Chairman, if this was legislation about whether or not the average consumer can understand their credit card agreement--the average one running 6,691 words, it would take the average American almost an hour to read, much less comprehend--my guess is we could pass that with unanimous consent as well since indeed most Americans cannot understand the provisions in their credit card agreements. But unfortunately, the legislation before us goes way beyond simply ending deceptive practices. It goes way beyond simply trying to effectuate effective disclosure for the consumer. And although the bill is entitled the Credit Card Bill of Rights, I have great fears that ultimately this will prove to be the Credit Card Bill of Wrongs. I believe that ultimately three things will happen if this legislation is passed: Number one, because of its prescriptive way in dealing with risk-based pricing, by essentially imposing a form of price controls on late fees, either, number one, the borrowers who do it right--now, Mr. Chairman, that's half of America; half of America either pays their bill off in full at the end of the month or does it almost every month. And then there is about a quarter who miss some. And then there is about a quarter who are always universally late. But what is going to happen, Mr. Chairman, is the people who are doing it right, who are working hard, trying to pay their bills, are going to be forced to bail out those who don't. This bill will take us back to a previous era, a bygone era where everybody paid higher interest rates, where a third fewer people had access to credit, and we had all of these dreaded annual card fees. Now, that was a previous era before we had this thing called risk- based pricing, Mr. Chairman, and what is that? It says, you know what, if you have a checkered credit past or maybe you have a lower income, maybe you're having trouble meeting your bills, well, risk-based pricing says you can still get access to credit if you're willing to pay more for the risk of the creditor. The option, of course, is not to have any credit at all, in which case if you lose your credit card, then you're looking at some other option. And in that respect there are provisions of this bill that maybe ought to be called the ``Pawn Shop Owners and Payday Advance Lenders Relief Act,'' because, Mr. Chairman, if you start to take away credit opportunities of those who have checkered credit pasts, those who are low income, they may be forced into options they don't like. Now, again, I want to make it very clear I think the payday lenders, the pawn shop operators, they serve a very vital function in our economy. Many people use them. That's not my point. My point is the consumer ought to be able to choose. So if you start taking that ability away to risk-based price, you're taking away credit, number one. Number two, you're going to be forced to this bygone era where the people who did it right have to bail out the people who did it wrong. I mean, does that sound like a fairly consistent theme out of this particular Congress: bailout, bailout, bailout? And that's what this is, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, it will force the good credit cardholders to bail out those who aren't. And you know what, Mr. Chairman. We have now seen out of this Democratic Congress a $700 billion bailout bill costing the average American family over $6,034. We have seen a $1.13 trillion, with a ``t,'' government stimulus plan, costing the average American household $9,810. We've now seen out of this Democratic Congress, Mr. Chairman, an omnibus spending bill $410 billion, costing the average American $3,534. And now just today, just today, a $3.6 trillion budget, which is going to triple the national debt in 10 years. I mean, Mr. Chairman, isn't it enough that this Congress has taken all the cash out of our wallets? Is it going to take the credit cards out of our wallets as well? I hope not. I don't believe that's the intent of the legislation, but I fear that will be the effect. Now, again, there are many problems in this credit card market. There are credit card companies, one in particular, that my wife and I absolutely refuse to do business with because we don't like their practices. But throughout this debate, and I challenge Members on the other side of the aisle to show to me, where is it that we don't have a competitive market? Where is it that the consumer doesn't have the choice? Now, up until the recent economic turmoil that we've had, I believe there were over 14,000 different credit card issuers in this Nation with a dizzying array of options for consumers to choose from. It's the competitive market that is the consumer's best friend. Now, if people don't understand their disclosures, and I believe, again, many of them don't, what we ought to do is not take away the economic opportunities, not take away consumer choice, but ensure that there is effective disclosure written in English, not voluminous disclosure written in legalese. Part of this is the fault of Congress and the regulators. When you disclose everything, you end up disclosing nothing. Part of it is an answer to an explosion of liability exposure to where some of these credit card companies feel, well, if we don't disclose this, we may get sued. And then last but not least but, again, there are misleading and deceptive practices of credit card companies. That should be stopped, and particularly under the Truth in Lending Act, under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, the answer is to enforce the laws that we have on the books. I don't see the gentlewoman from New York on the floor at the moment, but I want to commend her for that portion of the legislation that deals with disclosure. Now it roughly parallels that of the Fed regs that the ranking member spoke of, and I think a lot of good can be done here in informing consumers about what their rights and responsibilities are. But, again, ultimately I feel that if we enact this legislation, bad things are going to happen. And it's not just a theory that I have. It's not just me personally. I mean, let's listen to our own Congressional Research Service. They said: ``Credit card issuers could respond in a variety of ways,'' speaking of the legislation. They may ``increase loan rates across the board on all borrowers, making it more expensive for both good and delinquent borrowers to use revolving credit. Issuers may also increase minimum monthly payments, reduce credit limits, or reduce the number of credit cards issued to people with impaired credit.'' So it's not my opinion. That's the opinion of the Congressional Research Service. Now, I'm sure that every Member here has a number of financial institutions throughout their congressional districts. I'm proud to represent a number of community banks in the Fifth District of Texas. It's an informal poll, but I went to three of them--First State Bank in Athens, Texas; East Texas National Bank in Palestine; First State Bank in Mesquite, Texas--and I asked them what's going to happen if this legislation is passed? And what they told me was, you know, at that point the cost of these cards to community banks just become so much to justify continuing the program, the card portfolio ends up getting sold to the big banks and the consumers lose their options in smaller markets. That's what we are hearing from community bankers. What do we hear from academics? Well, we heard testimony from Professor of Law Todd Zywicki at George Mason University: ``Increased use of credit cards has been a substitution for other types of consumer credit. If these individuals are unable to get access to credit cards, experience and empirical evidence indicates that they will turn elsewhere for credit such as pawn shops, payday lenders, rent-to-own, or even loan sharks.'' And, indeed, Mr. Chairman, we see this happening in the marketplace now. Pick up the newspaper. Recently in the IndyStar, I read: ``More Middle Class Families Are Seeking Payday Loans As Financial Turmoil Mounts.'' The Boston Globe: ``Tight Credit Drives Consumers Towards Pawn Shops.'' As you begin to take away people's credit cards, you send them elsewhere. And perhaps the most relevant piece of data, Mr. Chairman, is what happened in the U.K., in Great Britain, when they passed a similar law. They decided credit card default fees were too high, and they ordered the credit card issuers to cut them or face legal action. What happened? You can look at the record. Two of the three largest issuers promptly imposed annual fees on their cardholders. Nineteen of the largest raised interest rates. And by one independent estimate, 60 percent of new applicants were rejected. Those are what I assume to be the unintended consequences of this legislation. So, Mr. Chairman, as people shoot at credit card companies, and there's a number of them that need to be shot at, I hope they don't end up wounding hardworking, struggling American families who rely on these credit cards to finance their small businesses, to help them with their health care needs, to buy groceries. And I know people can go and high- five each other and say, look, we beat up on the credit card companies today. But if you take away risk-based pricing, you're going to take credit opportunities away from the people who need it most. And if you impose this bill, what you're going to say is to half of America who pays their bill on time, well, folks, you're going to have to bail out somebody again. You know, we're reaching for your wallet. We're going to force you to bail out the people who don't do it right. That's not right, Mr. Chairman. It is not fair. And because of that, this legislation in its current form needs to be defeated. We need disclosure. People need an adequate amount of time to pay off their balances if their interest rates or terms change, but we cannot restrict in a competitive marketplace the options and opportunities of struggling Americans at a time of a great credit crunch when they desperately, desperately need access to those credit cards today. So I urge defeat of this legislation.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I was listening very carefully to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and, again, I want to say I believe every person in this Chamber would agree that there are misleading and deceptive practices with credit card companies. I have congratulated the gentlelady from New York for that title in her bill that would provide effective disclosure. Consumers need it, they demand it, and they are not receiving it. But in taking one step forward, her legislation, unfortunately, probably takes 10 steps backwards. And ultimately what is unfair, what is unfair, Mr. Chairman, is in a time of a credit contraction to reach into people's wallets and take their credit cards away. Ultimately, that is what this legislation will do. Regardless of its noble intentions, that is what the legislation will do. It is not just theory I have. It is history. We have seen similar legislation enacted in Great Britain, and that was the impact. Now, I have heard in the context of the debate on the budget colleague after colleague on the Democratic side of the aisle decry budget deficits. ``The budget deficit is horrible.'' Well, it was $160 billion when they took it over, and now it is going to $1.8 trillion. They increased it 10-fold. Now I hear Democratic colleague after Democratic colleague lament the credit contraction. Yes, there is a credit contraction. Why do you want to worsen it? Why do you want to exacerbate it? And when you engage in forms of price controls, and you may come up with all kinds of different names for it, but if you are going to restrict fees for people who pay their bills late--they need to be disclosed, people need an opportunity to pay off their bills--but ultimately in a free market, people ought to have consumer choice and they ought to be able even with a checkered credit past to get credit. People are counting on these credit cards. Risk-based pricing. You are taking tools away from those who use it and you are leading to two consequences. Either, number one, half of America is paying their bill on time and you are going to force them through this legislation to bail out the portion of America that doesn't; and for those who are struggling, you are going to deny them credit card options. People need these credit cards for their small business. They need it for personal items. I hear from the people in my district. I hear from the Vehon family of Rowlett, who said, ``We were laid off from our jobs at the same time,'' the gentleman talking about himself and his wife. ``We moved into our first home together in July of that year. Needless to say, the layoff was quite a shock, and without access to our credit cards at the time, frankly, I don't know what we would have done.'' And yet the legislation before us could take away the credit cards of the Vehon family of Rowlett. I heard from the Howard family of Canton. ``My wife and I use our credit cards, at times, to pay for medical-related bills. My wife has a heart condition, which between her medical bills and mine we spend out- of-pocket $18,000. And yes we had to put some of that cost on credit cards.'' I heard from the Juarez family in Mesquite. ``I oppose this legislation. I have utilized my credit cards to pay for some costly oral surgeries. I don't want to get penalized by this legislation for making my payments on time.'' Let's not penalize the people that are doing it right. Let's not penalize the people who desperately need credit in a credit contraction. We need disclosure. We need adequate time to pay off bills. But don't take away credit in a credit contraction.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have listened very carefully to this debate, as short as it is, Madam Speaker. I have listened to my friend, the distinguished vice chairman, the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, say that these budgets are about values more than numbers. I couldn't agree with her more. It is clear that the Democratic budget values spending. It is clear that the Democratic budget values taxing. It is clear that the Democratic budget values debt, debt as far as the eye can see, Madam Speaker. Now, almost without exception, Democrat after Democrat Member have come to issue a history lesson to Members of this body. Well, I have a history lesson of my own. When Republicans were in control of Congress and budget deficits were $300 billion and falling, the gentleman from Maryland, who is now our majority leader, said, ``They have instigated a dangerous spiral of deficits and debt that constitute nothing less than fiscal child abuse.'' The gentlelady from California, who is now our Speaker--again, when the Republicans controlled the body, we had deficits $300 billion and falling--said, ``This is immoral, irresponsible and just totally immoral to ask for my children and grandchildren to pay for it.'' And now, Madam Speaker, on their watch, the deficit has gone from roughly $160 billion to $1.8 trillion, and there is silence, stone cold silence. Where are the accusations now of fiscal child abuse? This is a budget that will place more debt on our children than has ever been placed before. This is a budget that in 10 years will triple the national debt, create more debt in the next 10 years than in the previous 220 years of our history. Yet, where are my Democratic colleagues to talk about the fiscal child abuse? Spending. Increasing spending almost 9 percent. Almost every family budget that pays for the Federal budget is having to cut back, but not the government, no, no, no, no, no, not the government budget. You know, Madam Speaker, there was a time in our Nation's history where people believed that you work hard today so your children could have a better tomorrow. And this Democratic budget takes that ethic, turns it on its head and says, we will let government live easier today so our children have to work harder tomorrow. That is not the America I grew up in. It is not the America I want to leave to my 7-year-old daughter and my 5-year-old son. There is a better way. Madam Speaker, you cannot borrow and spend your way into prosperity. This is a budget that is not solving the Nation's economic crisis; it is exploiting the Nation's economic crisis. It must be rejected.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I can think of no greater act of irresponsibility for this House of Representatives here and now than to take this budget to conference. This is a budget that will place more debt, more debt on our Nation in the next 10 years than was run up in the previous 220. That is right, Mr. Speaker. This budget, this budget is laying the framework for more debt to be placed on our Nation in the next 10 years than was placed in the previous 220. Now, I must admit that I find it somewhat amusing that every time one of my friends from the other side of the aisle, including the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, comes to the floor to debate, they always want to play the blame game, Mr. Speaker. They always want to point the finger at somebody else and they speak of, well, there is this problem that was inherited. Well, maybe there was a problem that President Obama inherited, but he inherited it from a Democratic-controlled Congress. When the Democrats took over Congress, the deficit stood at $161 billion. Now we know in just two short years, two short years, we are looking at a budget deficit of $1.8 trillion, a 10-fold increase, Mr. Speaker. Yes, that is a challenge inherited by the President from the Democratic Congress. But to be fair to the Democratic Congress, he is really only inheriting about a $1.3 trillion budget deficit from them. He is adding about half a trillion dollars of it himself to get to the $1.8 trillion. When the Democrats took control of Congress, the unemployment rate stood at 4.4 percent. Now it is over 8 percent, almost double. When the Democrats took control of Congress, the Dow stood at 12,400. I need not tell anybody in this Chamber that it is down almost 40 percent now. Now, I don't blame my colleagues for every single woe that our Nation faces today, but they seemingly take no responsibility and seemingly are more interested in pointing the finger than solving the problem. And when they so-called try to solve the problem, all we have is a borrow, tax and spend budget. Borrow, tax and spend, that is what this budget is all about. If history is my guide, Mr. Speaker, no nation in the history of the world has been able to borrow and spend its way into prosperity. Many have tried, including our own. In the Great Depression, Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of Treasury, once said, ``We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. After 8 years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot.'' That was at the outset of World War II, after 10 years. Many of us know about Japan's lost decade. An industrialized economy, not unlike our own, they had a real estate bubble burst on them in the early nineties. They passed eight different so-called government stimulus bills in 10 years, and in 10 years they created no new jobs, no new economic growth, and their per capita income went from second, second in the world, to 10th in the world. Now, how many young people in that nation were never able to go to college, never able to start a new business, never able to own a home because of the debt placed on that nation? As The New York Times wrote about the experience, and let me say again, The New York Times, not Rush Limbaugh, not National Review, in a recent article they said, ``During those two decades, Japan accumulated the largest public debt in the world. This has led many to conclude that spending did little more than sink Japan deeply into debt, leaving an enormous tax burden for future generations.'' The article from The New York Times goes on to say, ``Among ordinary Japanese, the spending is widely disparaged for having turned the nation into a public works-based welfare state, making regional economies dependent on Tokyo for jobs.'' Mr. Speaker, we need to learn from our neighbor's history. We need to learn from our own history. This is a budget that will not only spend too much and tax too much, but place a level of burden of debt on future generations that is absolutely unconscionable. Even prior to this horrendous budget, we were on track to have to double taxes, double taxes on the next generation just to balance the budget. This is a budget that will triple, triple the national debt in just 10 years, and run up more debt in the next 10 years than in the previous 220. Now, Mr. Speaker, I rarely use the word ``immoral'' in political debate, but I think placing that level of debt on my 7-year-old daughter and my 5-year-old son and all the children of America is immoral. This budget should not be taken to conference.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Again, we have two different budgets before us. The Democratic budget, again, it spends too much--the largest budget in American history; taxes too much--national energy tax, tax on small business, tax on capital gains; borrows too much--greatest amount of debt in our Nation's history. We are going to run up more debt in the next 10 years than in the previous 220. Budget deficit up tenfold in just 2 years under their watch. A crushing level of debt that I don't know if the next generation will ever recover. It borrows too much, it spends too much, it taxes too much. And then, Madam Speaker, it gets worse from there. It gets worse from there. This thing called reconciliation, kind of this inside-the-beltway term of art, is really nothing more than a budget sleight of hand that will facilitate cramming through policies that need to be debated on this House floor and in the Senate under regular order. The Senate itself, Madam Speaker, apparently doesn't want this in the budget. Again, Senator Conrad, the Democratic Budget Committee chairman, has said, ``Once you've unleashed reconciliation you can't get it back in the barn. It could be used for a lot of different things that are completely unintended at this moment.'' That's the Democratic budget chairman. Senator Byrd--frankly, the author of reconciliation-- said, ``not designed to create a new climate in energy regime, and certainly not to restructure our entire health care system.'' I mean, reconciliation means that the American people are going to have to reconcile themselves to a new national energy tax imposed by the Democratic majority through this budget sleight of hand. It means that the American people are going to have to reconcile themselves to more job loss as American small businesses are taxed even more and have to lay off even more workers. It means that the American people are going to have to reconcile themselves to rationed health care with a Federal Government bureaucrat helping choose their health care provider and whether or not they even receive the health care that they desire. That's what reconciliation in this context means. Now, it was meant for something different. And it has been used on a bipartisan basis to actually save jobs, to actually save hope, actually save the future of the American people and be used for budget savings. It is being used for a completely different purpose. And if these ideas of the Democratic majority are so meritorious, then why can't they be debated in regular order? That's what I question. Why use this budget sleight of hand? We need to reject that and accept this motion.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, for the past seven years, the greater Mesquite area has embraced the opportunity to honor many exceptional women in the community through the Women in Service and Enterprise (WISE) Award Luncheon and Style Show. Today I would like to honor this year's award recipient, Mrs. Jana Hunter-Kovar, who is a shining example of a committed community advocate and servant. I would also like to recognize honorees Barbara Dunn, Lois Buford and Adrianna Harris for their valuable service and commitment to their community. Jana Hunter-Kovar has dedicated her life and energy to the Mesquite community for many years. She began her work as a home sales advisor before retiring to care for her family and volunteer full time. Through her participation in the Leadership Mesquite Class of 1996, the Mesquite Citizen's Police Academy Class of 1998, as well as her service on the Mesquite Chamber of Commerce Board, Parks & Recreation Board, Mesquite Services League Board, Mesquite Symphony Orchestra Association Board, Mesquite Symphony Guild Board, and the Mesquite Social Services Board, Jana has truly had an integral hand in shaping Mesquite into the successful city it is today. In recognition of her many hours of service and sacrifice, Jana has been honored with the 2004 Mesquite Social Services' Outstanding Commitment & Achievement Award, the 2003 and 2006 Mesquite Social Services' Star Board Member Award and the 2005-2006 Mesquite Independent School Board's Volunteer of the Year award. In addition to her many civic activities, Jana has been married to her husband, Mike, for 21 and 1/2 years and they are the proud parents of two daughters, Kyleigh and Kaitlyn. Past WISE Award winners have served in a variety of ways, but they are united by the long-lasting impact they have made on their community. Their service, community involvement and dedication to enterprise continue to inspire younger generations. Today, I would like to recognize all of the WISE honorees for their outstanding service and congratulate them on their awards. Thank you, ladies, for helping make our community, state and country a better place.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. HENSARLING. With 30 seconds, I'll reclaim my time. I would also point out to the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee Article I, section 9 of our Constitution that puts the spending power with the Congress, and to remind him that his party has been in control for the last 2 years. With that, Madam Chair, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. HENSARLING. I would be happy to yield to the distinguished chairman.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I would first yield myself 30 seconds to say to the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and my friend, that I would certainly concede the point that he is probably far more familiar with socialists in Europe than I am, and I concede that point.

Mr. HENSARLING. At this time, Madam Chair, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Chair, first I do want to offer my congratulations to the gentlelady for simply offering the budget. As one who has written budgets before, on behalf of the Republican Study Committee, it is hard, difficult, challenging work, but I know the lady is committed to her set of principles. They are diametrically opposed to mine, but I respect her body of work and her commitment to her philosophy. Madam Chairman, as we look at this budget and the other Democrat alternatives, frankly, they have a whole lot more in common than they have in their differences. All of these budgets, all of these Democratic budgets, are simply radical. They are radical departures from over 200 years of history in America. Every single one, Madam Chairman, spends too much. They tax too much, and they borrow too much. We are looking, even prior to the submission of this progressive budget, much less the Democratic-controlled House Budget Committee budget, we were looking at drowning in a sea of red ink. We were looking at entitlement spending simply being out of control. And don't take my word for it, Madam Chairman. Let's listen to the Federal Reserve. ``Without early and meaningful action to address the rapid growth of entitlements, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost.'' Listen to our most recent former Comptroller General Walker of the General Accountability Office. ``The rising costs of government entitlements are a fiscal cancer, a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.'' Now, Madam Chairman, that was all before the submissions of these budgets. And let's look at the recent history of this Democratic- controlled Congress. Seven hundred billion dollars of bailout money, costing every American household $6,034. Now, some Members on the other side of the aisle claim the taxpayer is going to get his money back. I hope that proves to be true. As history is my guide, I have some doubts. A $1.13 trillion government stimulus plan, not a plan to stimulate the economy, a plan to stimulate big government, costing every American household $9,810. Madam Chairman, where are they going to get this money? People are losing their jobs. Credit is being contracted. And yet, spending bill after spending bill after spending bill. Then, Madam Chairman, a $410 billion omnibus spending bill, costing every American household $3,534. Now, on top of all this, on top of all this massive spending, we have the single largest budget in American history being proposed, more spending than this Nation has ever seen. More spending than this Nation has ever seen, even with respect to the economy, with the exception of World War II. These are budgets that are going to impose costs on the average American family of over $30,000. Again, Madam Chairman, this progressive budget, along with all the other Democratic budgets, spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much. Now, Madam Chairman, speaker after speaker has come to the floor to decry the inherited economic mess. There is an economic mess. But our President inherited this economic mess from a Democratic-controlled Congress. When the Republicans were last in control of Congress, the deficit was $160 billion and falling. And now, just 2 years later, just 2 years later, it was $1.3 trillion, and the President decided to add on another 500, $600 billion on top of that. We're looking at an increase in the Federal deficit of tenfold in just 2 years. And now, Madam Chairman, each one of these Democratic budgets is proposing more debt, more debt in the next 10 years than has been run up in the previous 200 years of our Nation's history, going back to the dawn of the Republic. We have never seen these levels of debt. Again, Madam Chairman, never in our history have so few voted so fast to indebt so many and do so little good. As history is my guide, no nation, no nation has ever borrowed or spent its way into prosperity, no matter how they tried. This is simply radical. Madam Chairman, who ever thought we would see the day where European socialists are lecturing the United States of America about fiscal responsibility. What a topsy-turvy world we live in, Madam Chairman. Never thought we would have seen the day. But now that spectacle is on television. Madam Chairman, who ever thought we would see the day where our Secretary of State has to go to China and beg them to keep on buying our debt? Even the Chinese, the Communist Chinese, are now lecturing the United States of America about its profligate spending. Madam Chairman, if any of these Democratic budgets are passed, we will be the first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with less freedom, less opportunity and a lower standard of living. It is unavoidable. And that's why this budget is so radical. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the exceptional service and leadership of Mr. Gary Chasey of Athens, Texas. Mr. Chasey has served his community for years in many capacities and was recently recognized as the ``Citizen of the Year'' by the Athens Chamber of Commerce. Gary, along with his wife, Sharon, volunteers with Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA). Through this very special and important capacity, Gary has changed the lives of dozens of children in his community. As a CASA volunteer, he looks after the interest of children who are in the court system. He has spent countless hours advocating and watching over abused and neglected children. For several years, Gary has served as President and Vice-President for Labor of Love of Henderson County. Labor of Love is an organization that repairs homes for those in the community who cannot afford to make repairs or complete maintenance tasks. As a leader in Labor of Love, Gary has helped increase completed projects by over 90%. His financial expertise, leadership and tireless work ethic have undoubtedly benefited countless citizens. In addition, Gary is a member of the First Presbyterian Church and is active with the Methodist Men at First United Methodist Church. As the Congressman for the Fifth District of Texas, I am pleased today to recognize Gary Chasey for his many years of public service and countless contributions he has made to make his community and his country a better place. Gary, on behalf of all the constituents of the Fifth District, especially those in Henderson County, I would like to extend our most sincere thanks.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. And one other point I would like to make. I don't see the gentleman from New Jersey on the floor now. But in speaking about the national energy tax, it reminds me of that old joke, which I will not and cannot repeat on the floor but whose punch line is: Now we know what you are, now we are just haggling over price. The Congressional Budget Office says the national energy tax is going to cost the average American family at least $1,600. We know what you are: You are a national energy tax. Now we are just haggling over the cost that will be imposed on struggling, hard-working families in America imposed by the Democrats.

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As I listened closely to my friends on the other side of the aisle, there's a couple of themes that continue to reoccur. One theme is: It's not our fault. This mess was inherited. We sympathize with President Obama. He inherited a mess. Well, Madam Chairman, he did inherit a mess--but he inherited a mess from a Democratic-controlled Congress. In 2007 the deficit stood at $161 billion. Now, this year, for 2009, it's going to be $1.8 trillion--a tenfold increase under the Democratic watch in just 2 years. They inherited their own mess. In December of 2006, unemployment stood at 4.4 percent. Now, 8.1 percent. Up 84 percent. On January 3, 2007, the Dow stood at 12,400. Most recently, it is now down 40 percent. The economic calamity happened on their watch. Now, Madam Chair, I don't blame them for everything, but I don't understand how they accept responsibility for nothing. Absolutely nothing. Madam Chair, what is so ironic, and it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad, is we have had Democratic leaders come to the floor on previous budgets to decry the size of the national debt, to decry the size of the deficit. When the deficit was less than $400 billion, and falling--still too great a number--the majority leader of the House, then minority leader, Mr. Hoyer, the gentleman from Maryland, said this was equivalent to fiscal child abuse. Fiscal child abuse. And now we have a deficit of four and five times that--and stone-cold silence from the other side. Madam Chair, reckless doesn't do justice to this budget. This is a radical budget. Radical. Never in the history of America have so few voted so fast to put so many in debt. More debt will be run up on this Democratic budget--this radical budget--in 10 years than has been run up in the entire history of our Republic. A sea of red ink for generations to come. Now, part of that generation to come is my 7-year-old daughter and my 5-year-old son. I know the people on the other side of the aisle, they love their children, they love their grandchildren. But it is clear they don't love my children; because if they did, this radical budget would not be coming to the floor to put this level of debt which will bankrupt our Nation and crush the next generation, it wouldn't be on the floor. It would not be on the floor.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor Mr. Robert Ayers Gould, Sr., for his exceptional leadership and outstanding public service. After graduating from Athens High School in 1957, Bob joined the United States Navy where he served aboard the USS Coral Sea. Following an Honorable Discharge, he returned to Athens where he opened the Gould Insurance Agency in 1962, which he has owned and operated for over forty years. Bob Gould served on the City Council of Athens for twelve years before his retirement in 2007, where he oversaw many projects benefiting his community. Among his many civic activities, Bob has been the Director and Vice-President of the Athens Chamber of Commerce, Co- Founder of the Texas High School Basketball Hall of Fame, and the Charter Director for the Henderson County YMCA. He has also received many awards from his community, including the Roadhand Award from the Texas Highway Commission and the Athens Citizen of the Year Award in 1984. In addition to faithfully serving his community, Bob is a husband to Mrs. Peggy Lorene Lubben Gould and father of four children: Robert Jr., Joseph, Patricia, and Mary. I want to recognize Bob for his service and commitment to his community. Due to Bob's leadership in the city and throughout the business community, Athens remains a strong, supportive, and vibrant community. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the 5th District of Texas, it is my pleasure to recognize my good friend Mr. Robert Ayers Gould, Sr. for being an invaluable public servant and community leader.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding service that Labor of Love provides the communities in Henderson County, Texas. The Athens Samaritans was formed as a precursor to Labor of Love in 1986 when members of the First Christian Church of Athens went to Amarillo to help with a Habitat for Humanity project. Members became energized about founding their own organization locally that would help with housing for the disadvantaged. The group decided to focus on repairing existing homes and thus organized the Labor of Love in 1987. Since that time, the First Presbyterian Church, First United Methodist Church and First Baptist Church joined the effort and helped expand the organization. Labor of Love now has 12 project managers who recruit workers from dozens of volunteers. In 2008 alone, Labor of Love completed 231 projects in Henderson County. The organization's efforts are supported with resources from the Henderson County United Way, the Cain Foundation and the Murchison Foundation, as well as other foundations, churches, businesses and individuals. Labor of Love also sponsors paint projects for groups such as the Boy Scouts, Young Life, 4-H, church groups and businesses. This organization provides an invaluable service to those in the community who truly need assistance. Over the years, hundreds of individuals and families have been blessed by the men and women of Labor of Love. As the Congressman for the Fifth District of Texas, I am pleased today to recognize the Labor of Love for their contributions to Henderson County. To all the men and women who give of their time and efforts so generously, on behalf of all the constituents of the Fifth District, I would like to extend our most sincere gratitude.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, never in our history have so few voted so fast to indebt so many. This is courtesy of a Democratic-controlled Congress. $700 billion of bailout money, $6,034 per household; a $1.138 trillion government stimulus plan, $9,810 per American household; a $410 billion omnibus spending plan, $3,534 per American household. On top of this, the Democrats now propose the single largest budget in American history and the largest as a share of the economy since World War II. It is a budget that will increase spending to $3.6 trillion, over $31,000 per American household. It is a budget that spends too much. It is a budget that taxes too much. It is a budget that borrows too much, and it threatens to bankrupt our country. Even before all of the spending described above, our Nation was headed for a day of reckoning, but don't take my word for it. Listen to the Federal Reserve: ``Without early and meaningful action to address the rapid growth of entitlements, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened with future generations bearing much of the cost.'' Listen to the former Comptroller General with the Government Accountability Office: ``The rising cost of government entitlements are a fiscal cancer, a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.'' The Democrats' budget will nearly triple the national debt in 10 years, costing taxpayers a dizzying $148,926 per household. Madam Chair, just look at this chart. It is a sea of red ink for generations to come. This budget, this Democratic budget, will create more debt for America in the next 10 years than was run up in the previous 220. Now, Madam Chair, let me repeat that just in case anybody missed it. This Democratic budget will create more debt for America in the next 10 years than was run up in the previous 220. Our Nation has never seen this level of debt in its entire history. It very well may bankrupt us. Now, Madam Chair, using history as my guide, no Nation has ever borrowed and spent its way into prosperity. At the outset of World War II, Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of Treasury, said the following: ``We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before, and it does not work . . . After 8 years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started . . . and an enormous debt to boot.'' Let's recall Japan's lost decade of the 1990s when they attempted to borrow and spend their way into prosperity. They took on the greatest amount of debt of any industrialized Nation in the world, and after 10 years, they had no economic growth, no new jobs, and their per capita income fell from second in the world to 10th. Read what the New York Times had to say about it: ``Japan failed to generate a convincing recovery. This has led many to conclude that spending did little more than sink Japan deeply into debt, leaving an enormous tax burden for future generations. Among ordinary Japanese, the spending is widely disparaged for having turned the Nation into a public works-based welfare state and for making regional economies dependent on Tokyo for jobs.'' Madam Chair, this Democratic budget spends too much. It taxes too much. It borrows too much, and it threatens to bankrupt our Nation. On top of this, Madam Chair, the Democratic budget is proposing a national energy tax, a national energy tax, which, according to studies at MIT, could pose a $3,128 burden on every working family in America. They're offering a half-a-trillion-dollar tax increase on small businesses--the job engine in America, the font of three out of four new jobs created in America. They're offering a tax on capital of up to one-third when we desperately need capital to help preserve the jobs we have today and to grow the jobs of tomorrow. Madam Chair, I've heard from struggling Americans about how this Democratic budget is going to impact them. I've heard from Gary of Garland, Texas, who said, ``The money that government is so lavishly spending is coming from people who have worked very hard and made good decisions and, thus, pay taxes. Money is being stolen from our children and grandchildren to bail out just about anyone who was irresponsible.''

Mr. HENSARLING. We've heard how this Democratic budget affects small business. We've heard from Susan of Tennessee Colony: ``I have owned my company for 25 years . . . but today, I have had to lay off 25 people and cut hours on the remaining 35 . . . and now Mr. Obama wants to place higher taxes on me because I am successful. So much for our American dream.'' We've heard how this Democratic budget affects the education dreams of America. We've heard from Bruce in Idaho Falls: ``We are at the point where we just have enough money to send our oldest daughter to college. An additional energy expense would make it impossible for us to pay for the expenses for our daughter's college education.'' This is how the Democratic budget affects the education dreams of Americans. Madam Chair, the President's chief of staff has said, ``Never let a serious crisis go to waste. It's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before.'' Well, the Democrats are going to spend like never before. They are going to tax like never before. They are going to borrow like never before. They will bankrupt our Nation. There is a better alternative that promotes freedom, economic opportunity and jobs for all. It's the Republican alternative. We'll see it tomorrow.