Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first, I wish to associate myself with the comments of my colleague from Texas and complimenting our chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts, in having a very fair and open hearing on this legislation. I often disagree with his philosophy, but I know that he is sincere in what he is trying to do, and I appreciate the fairness with which he has operated the committee and allowed these amendments come to the floor. I also want to thank Ranking Member Bachus for his contribution to this legislation in trying to ensure that we do the right thing in New Orleans, that things can actually be better, that we don't have to return to the way that things were. Clearly, these hurricanes represented one of the great natural tragedies in the history of America, and so many of us had friends and family who were affected. My in-laws live in the New Orleans area. For several days, my wife didn't know if her father had survived the hurricane. It turns out he was at the convention center along with thousands of others in fairly deplorable conditions. But my in-laws were among the lucky ones: they survived. Although their home was damaged, it has been rebuilt. But I know how this has impacted people. I have been to the gulf coast and seen the hurt, yet seen the hope as well, and hope is still alive. But 18, 19 months later, we have to ask ourselves this question, How do we best help going forward? America has been very generous, very generous with both their public and private funds. People throughout the Fifth Congressional District of Texas opened up their arms, opened up their wallets, opened up their homes to victims of the hurricanes. The Federal taxpayer has now contributed well over $100 billion to this effort. Nobody can say that the American people have not been generous. But I think we have to ask ourselves, Mr. Chairman, how do we best help going forward? I do not believe that it is always an additional Federal check. We also have to make sure that a great physical tragedy of this century or this generation doesn't turn out to be a great fiscal tragedy for the next generation as well. This amendment would try to take a modest step towards achieving those goals. It has everything to do with providing a work-related requirement that this Congress is already well acquainted with that helped revolutionize welfare reform 10 years ago, and apply it going forward to those who are recipients of the vouchers and the housing programs under this bill. Over 10 years ago, when Congress passed Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, we began the process of ending welfare as we had known it. Instead, we replaced it in this program with a temporary assistance-based program that was based on work and self-sufficiency and responsibility and personal dignity. Now, at the time there were countless naysayers who said this was cruel and unusual. I offered this amendment in committee. It was called un- American. They said it had no compassion. They said the program would never work, that young mothers would somehow be thrown out into the streets with starving children, that somehow they could not find a job, much less hold a job. Mr. Chairman, the naysayers were wrong then, and the naysayers are wrong now. If you look at the record, you will see that after we passed this TANF welfare reform and created incentives for self-sufficiency, the number of families receiving cash welfare steadily declined from an all-time peak of 5.1 million families in March of 1994 to 1.9 million families in September of 2006. It represents the lowest number of people on cash public assistance rolls in over 35 years. This, I believe, is compassionate. Child poverty has fallen and 1.6 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1995 because of the work-related requirements that were in TANF. Child poverty has fallen dramatically, as I said. Employment of young, single mothers has doubled. Employing mothers who have never been married is up by more than 50 percent. Employment of single mothers who dropped out of high school is up by two-thirds, and we have seen unprecedented declines in poverty among children of single moms, from 50.3 percent a decade ago to 41.9 percent in 2004. Again, the naysayers were wrong then, and the same naysayers are wrong yet again today. Welfare reform worked 10 years ago because we cared enough to tell people, when they were facing challenges, that we were not going to allow them to give up trying. Now we have the same chance to extend this, to empower people who have been impacted by these terrible gulf coast hurricanes, some who have been stuck in public housing for 10, 15 or 20 years. We can show them that there is a better life, and it is within their reach; but the work is key to obtaining this. So, again, my amendment is a simple one. It takes the list of approved work-related activities that have already been established over 10 years ago in welfare reform, as we know in TANF, and applies it to the recipients of this special public housing assistance that we are providing in this bill. Those recipients would be required to perform a minimum of 20 hours per week of work-related activities to help them get back on the road to self-sufficiency and move beyond public housing once and for all. Now, the precedent for requiring recipients of public housing assistance to earn benefits is not new. In 1998, this body passed a law requiring able-bodied people living in public housing to perform 8 hours a month of community service with the notion that individuals ought to give back to their communities. My amendment would simply build on that notion and help put people back on the road to self- sufficiency. Now, I know some people will say that individuals can't find work because there are simply no jobs to be found; therefore, this amendment will not work. But that is a false charge on two counts. First, there are clearly entry-level jobs that are still available, for example, in New Orleans. Pick up the want ads. You will see plenty of entry-level positions that are there, and they are trying to rebuild a great city. Workers are still needed to help rebuild New Orleans. So it is false on one account. Second of all, it is false because under the TANF requirement, no one is required to get a job if the jobs don't exist. Instead, there are 12 distinct categories of work-related activities to give individuals a broad spectrum of activities to satisfy this requirement. It includes attempting to find work, vocational education, community service and, in some instances, providing child care services to others. Again, these are all activities designed to help people begin on the road to self-sufficiency. To ensure that only the able-bodied are affected by this requirement, my amendment exempts children, senior citizens, the disabled, those already exempt from TANF work requirements and those who cannot find appropriate or affordable child care. Mr. Chairman, the lessons of welfare reform are very clear. By expecting more of people, you can help them expect more out of themselves. We have the opportunity to extend that, the great lessons and the great benefits of that today. We should not miss any opportunity to help break this cycle of dependency and help people change their lives for the better. We need to help the people of the gulf coast, but we need to help the taxpayers as well. We need to ensure that the American people don't face a challenge like this going forward in the future. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HENSARLING. Does the gentleman yield time?

Mr. HENSARLING. Again, I believe that anybody who is receiving income-based assistance from the Federal Government ultimately ought to be on the road to self-sufficiency. As I understand it, some of that--

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I certainly thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I especially thank her for her leadership. She was one of the prime architects of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights that was unveiled today in the United States Capitol. It is a very bold concept that we have, and that is that taxpayers, taxpayers ought to have rights that will be as respected and as revered as those that are enshrined in our United States Constitution. Now, why is this so important? Just within the last 2 to 3 weeks, we have heard reports now from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the Government Accountability Office, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury, every single person, or every single department that is in charge of either the monetary or fiscal policy of our government have all come to the same conclusion; and that is the number one challenge that we face, the number one fiscal challenge that we face in America is the out-of- control spending represented by what we call entitlement spending. Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle, they don't want to do anything to help reform entitlement spending. They don't seem to want to work with us to find better, smarter, more accountable ways to deliver health care and to deliver retirement security at a more reasonable and affordable cost. So what that means is, there will be a tax increase, yet another tax increase on the American people. Now, immediately, they have their sights on the tax relief that was passed in the last few years, the tax relief that has now created over 7.5 million new jobs in America; 7.5 million more people are working now because of the economic growth due to that tax relief. They want to do away with that. We have the highest home ownership we have ever had in the history of America, home ownership, part and parcel of the American dream, and thanks to this tax relief, we have that. Household net worth is up. The unemployment rate is lower than it was in the average of the 1990s, the 1980s, the 1970s, and even the 1960s. All of this is due to tax relief. But our friends on the other side of the aisle, they want to take it away. They would take the working poor and increase their taxes 50 percent. They would take away the 10 percent bracket, bring back the 15 percent bracket. They bring back the marriage penalty, the marriage penalty. Tomorrow, if you fall in love, you get married, you pay higher taxes. The list goes on and on. Now, that is bad enough, but that is just what would happen immediately if we don't have a Taxpayer Bill of Rights. More importantly, as time goes by, just to pay for the government we have today, the government programs which are on automatic pilot to grow exponentially, if I remember my 8th grade geometry, it's not growing like that, it's not growing like that, it's growing like that. These programs are growing exponentially. What is going to happen is, as time goes by, the children and grandchildren of our families, they will be facing a tax increase of almost double their present taxes. Again, let me restate that, double taxes. The average American family today pays about $20,000 a year combined in their Federal income taxes and their payroll taxes. People who are viewing this debate now, their children, their grandchildren, are going to be facing a crushing tax burden of almost $40,000. Again, don't take my word for it. Go to the Web site of the Office of Management and Budget. Go to the Web site of the Government Accountability Office. The Comptroller General, I guess you would call him the ``chief green eyeshade guy'' for the Federal Government, our key actuary, has said something along the lines, and this is a paraphrase, that we stand on the verge of being the first generation, the first generation in American history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living. Mr. Speaker, my wife and I have a 5-year-old daughter and a 3-year- old son, I am not just going to sit idly by and allow that to happen, allow that to happen. We have to have a Taxpayer Bill of Rights today to save the taxpayers of the future from this crushing burden. Shame on us if we do nothing, if all we do is look to the next election and not the next generation. That is why it was so important, particularly having the help of the gentlelady from Tennessee in helping craft this Taxpayer Bill of Rights, four very fundamental principles that are so important to the future of this country. Number one, and probably the most important principle, every taxpayer ought to have the right to have their Federal Government not grow faster than their ability to pay for it. What a radical concept to think that if your family budget grows 3 or 4 percent, why should the Federal budget grow 7, 8 or 9 percent? Ultimately, we cannot sustain that growth rate, because every time, every time we balloon the Federal budget, we are putting the family budget in a vice. That means there are families all over the Fifth District of Texas, that I have the honor of representing in the hallowed halls of Congress, some family in the Fifth District of Texas, now they are not going to be able to send a kid to college because there is a plan, they don't have any rights as taxpayers, and their taxes are going to get increased 50 to 100 percent. Some family in the Fifth District of Texas will not be able to enjoy their version of the American dream, express their entrepreneurial spirit and start their first small business. Some family in the Fifth District of Texas, they are not going to be able to get the proper, long-term care for an aged parent, all because Uncle Sam will take more taxes, more and more taxes, just to pay for the programs we have today. So we believe that every taxpayer ought to have the right to have their Federal Government not grow beyond their ability to pay for it. The Federal budget should not be growing faster than the family budget. Second of all, we know how important Social Security is to our seniors. Not only am I a father, I am very happy that I have parents who have Social Security. It is part of their income. It is a very important program. But every taxpayer who pays into Social Security ought to have the right to know that their Social Security taxes will be used only for Social Security. We know if we don't reform that program, if we don't take it away from big spending liberals in Congress, they are just going to blow it on something else. That is not right. Every taxpayer should have the right, should have the fundamental right, who pays into Social Security, to have that money go to Social Security. Third, the Tax Code is wrong. It is unfair, it is complex, it is unconscionable. It ought to be pulled out by its roots and thrown away. Every taxpayer should have the right to a fair and simple Tax Code, one that they can understand, one that they don't have to employ an army of lawyers and accountants to explain to them, a Tax Code where, if you call the IRS, you shouldn't get five different answers just because you talk to five different people about a problem. They ought to have a right to a Tax Code that, due to its complexity, doesn't send jobs overseas. It is time to sunset the Tax Code. We want to sunset the Tax Code in 3 years and force this body to replace it with something that will be fair, something that will be simple. Winston Churchill once said that Americans will usually do the right thing once they have exhausted every other possibility. It is time to exhaust the other possibilities and help force this Congress to do the right thing and scrap the Code. Fourth, the fourth right of the conservative movement in the House, the Republican Study Committee, we believe that every taxpayer ought to have the right to have their Federal Government balance the budget. Families all across America have to balance their budget. Why doesn't the Federal Government balance theirs and balance it without raising their taxes? Of course, we can balance the budget if we double their taxes, if we take away their hopes to send a kid to college, if we take away their hopes to start a small business, if we take away their hopes of providing long-term care for an aged parent. Sure, that is one way of balancing the budget, but there is another way. It is for Members of Congress to actually do the hard labor of prioritizing all the Federal expenditures and getting there and reforming ancient programs that are no longer fulfilling their mission, or maybe they already have. Maybe they have already achieved success. It wasn't too long ago that I figured out that we were still paying for Radio Free Europe. I don't know how many people who are listening to the proceedings this evening remember Radio Free Europe; it served a very vital role in helping win the Cold War. But if I remember my history properly, the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. We should have given everybody at Radio Free Europe a great party, given them a great bonus check and used that money to help shore up Social Security. President Ronald Reagan once said the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program. So we have to decide, what is the priority around here? We need to balance the budget. The easiest thing Members of Congress do is, they say ``yes'' to some constituency today, and then they just go ahead and send the bills to a future generation. Just by leaving government on automatic pilot they are sending bills to future generations, because we know again, if the Democrats on the other side of the aisle will not work with us to reform out-of-control, runaway entitlement spending, again, our children and grandchildren are going to face a doubling of their taxes. That is unconscionable, absolutely unconscionable. So we, the conservatives within the House of Representatives, represented by the Republican Study Committee, believe that taxpayers deserve four fundamental rights: a right to have a government grow no faster than their ability to pay for it; they should have the right that every single penny of their Social Security tax dollars goes to Social Security; they ought to have the right to a fair and simple Tax Code; and they should have the right to have the Federal Government balance the budget so that they don't end up paying half of their tax burden for previous generations. So I am very happy that 100-plus members of the Republican Study Committee have come together to embrace this Taxpayer Bill of Rights. It is a very exciting concept, and one, Mr. Speaker, that legislation will be introduced in the weeks and months to come, that we will be talking about from coast to coast, north to south, east to west, that we believe will capture the imagination of the American people so that finally some amount of fairness and some amount of rationality can come in, because if we say ``yes'' to everybody who walks in our office today with their hand out, we end up saying ``no'' to our children's future. And, again, I don't want to be a part of the first generation in America to leave the next generation a lower standard of living. That is not the American way. That is not the American dream. There is a better way, and it is called the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. And with that I would be happy to yield back to the gentlelady.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentlelady for yielding once again. And we are going to have a very important debate tomorrow in this institution about whether or not the Democrat majority will strip workers of their fundamental right to the secret ballot in labor union organizing elections. But beyond that we know what is next on their agenda. It didn't take them too long, about 2 weeks, to first raise taxes on the American people; and that is the next big debate that will be taking place in this institution. It is all about the budget. Now, everybody in this House, both Republican and Democrat alike, will all tell you they want to balance the budget. And you know what? I believe each and every one of them. But there is a very, very different way to go about it. Today the debate in the House tends to be whether or not tax relief that has been granted over the last 5 years was a good thing or bad thing. Well, guess what? We put tax relief into the economy on this end, and let's see what comes out on the other end: 7.2 million jobs; 7.2 million Americans who used to not have work now have work. How many of them used to have to settle for a welfare check, but now they have a paycheck? How many took from the system, from unemployment and food stamps and Aid to Families with Dependent Children, who now get to pay in the system because they have a paycheck? We have one of the strongest economies that we have had in decades. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates we have had. All of that was due to tax relief. And, Madam Speaker, for purposes of this debate, and this is a very important point, and don't take my word for it, go to the United States Treasury. Tax rates have been lowered, and guess what? We have more tax revenue. We have more tax revenue than we have ever had in the history of the United States of America. Now, how can that happen? Well, maybe it is difficult to understand in Washington, D.C., but it is pretty easy to understand in Tennessee Colony in Anderson County, Texas, that I have the pleasure of representing in the United States Congress. If you will allow farmers and ranchers, if you will allow small business people, if you will allow American families to keep more of what they earn, guess what? They will save. They will invest. They will go out and create their American dream and put a new automobile transmission shop on one street corner. They will add another couple of jobs at a barbecue stand. And guess what? They create jobs of the future, and we have more revenue. Now, Madam Speaker, some people may reject this theory. You can't, you may have your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. You cannot debate that we have more tax revenue. But some people don't see a link between job creation and tax relief. Even if I am wrong, Madam Speaker, if you will look at the Federal budget, if you will look at the Federal budget, if we had a line item called tax relief in the Federal budget, it is 1 percent, a little more than 1 percent of the entire Federal budget. Even if that money was wasted, burned, buried and didn't do any good to the economy, had no connection to job creation, to home ownership, to people being able to send their kids to college, it is about 1 percent of the budget. My point is if you want to do something about the deficit, your focus needs to be on the spending side. We have a deficit not because we are undertaxed; we have a deficit because we are spending too much. And listen, I take a back seat to no one as far as my concern about passing debt on to future generations. I am the father of a 5-year old and the father of a 3-year old. But even if we were to balance the budget today, and thanks to Republican progrowth economic policies, we will balance the budget, it has very little to do with spending discipline. We know we don't find any of that among our Democrat colleagues. It has everything to do with tax revenue growth. But even if we were to balance the budget in the next few years, as my colleague from Tennessee has indicated, in Washington, D.C., tax relief is temporary, but spending is forever. So much spending has been put on automatic pilot. And it just doesn't grow horizontally, it grows exponentially. If we don't do something now to reform the spending patterns in Washington, D.C., the next generation will face a nasty fiscal fork in the road. And don't take my word for it. Go to the General Accountability Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office. They will all tell you the same thing. We are on the verge of either having to double taxes on the next generation or practically cut out the entirety of the Federal Government except Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Just think about it, Madam Speaker. There will be no United States Marines. There will be no Border Patrol. There will be no student loans. There will be no airport security. If we don't take fundamental steps now to end wasteful, unaccountable, runaway spending in Washington, D.C., that is the future we are facing. The Comptroller General of the United States has said in testimony before the Budget Committee that we may be on the verge of being the first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with fewer opportunities and a lower standard of living. Madam Speaker, I don't plan to be a part of that, and I am going to do everything I can to fight this on this House floor. So those who go around saying we must balance the budget and those who won't do anything to try to find ways to get better retirement security and better health care at a lower cost, what they are really telling you, Madam Speaker, is, I want to double taxes on the next generation. I want to leave your children and your grandchildren with less freedom and less opportunity. Madam Speaker, how anybody can look themselves in the mirror and do that, I don't know. Again, that is the magnitude of the tax increase that Democrats are going to have to have if they won't join us in a bipartisan fashion and do something about out-of-control entitlement spending. It will be a massive tax increase the likes of which America has never seen before. And once they impose that tax increase on the American people, how many of our children will be able to send their children to college? How many of our children will be able to realize their American Dream and start their first business? How many of our children will be able to buy their first home when this body doubles their taxes for refusing, refusing, to do anything to stop runaway spending? So, Madam Speaker, that is where the fight is. That is where the fight is. Republicans want to try to reform. Democrats want to raise taxes, but they don't own up to the magnitude of the tax increases. But the future of our country is resting upon this debate, and I hope the American people will watch very, very closely.

Mr. HENSARLING. I certainly thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for yielding. I particularly appreciate her leadership not only within the Republican Study Committee, the conservative caucus in the House of Representatives, but also her great leadership on issues that impact the family budget, spending, because we know in this institution that you can't increase some Federal budget without decreasing some family budget. At the moment we are talking about this thing, what most people call Card Check, which sounds innocent enough on its face, but I would note, as my colleagues have said, that it took the Democrats about 2 days to go ahead and waive their own pay-as-you-go provision that supposedly made sure we weren't going to get deeper in debt, it took them about 2 weeks to raise taxes on the American people, and, also, almost took them 2 full months before they started to try to repudiate the right to a secret ballot of American workers, before they try to take back the franchise from American workers. They have been very busy since they took over the House. Now, the formal title of this piece of legislation that we are speaking about this afternoon is the Employee Free Choice Act. Now, Madam Speaker, we know that somewhere running around here in the Capitol are people who are paid to come up with clever titles for pieces of legislation. Well, whoever came up with that title surely deserves a bonus. San Francisco, California, not exactly known as a bastion of conservative thought in America, one of their daily newspapers, the San Francisco Examiner, called that title exquisitely Orwellian, in referring to the famous author George Orwell and his book, 1984. Madam Speaker, I don't know about you, but I know when I was in high school many, many years ago in College Station, Texas, that was required reading. For those who have read it either voluntarily or involuntarily, they may recall that to be Orwellian meant to turn things on their head to call black, white; to call up, down; to call good, bad. I must admit that the Orwell estate must be doing well, because people are still clearly buying his works. This proposed Act has nothing to do with freedom. This proposed Act has nothing to do with choice. This proposed Act is nothing less, nothing less than a full frontal assault, a full, frontal assault of a worker's fundamental right to cast a secret ballot to choose whether or not they want to be a member of a labor union. What is more fundamental to our democracy than the secret ballot? It is one of the pillars. It is one of the pillars of democracy, and yet the Democrats, in this cleverly titled bill, they want to take that away. I might suggest that if they want to take that away, that Members of Congress who are going to vote for this Act, which will be on the floor tomorrow, maybe they ought to think about cosponsoring some companion legislation, and let's go ahead and just spread it all over America. Why don't we just go ahead and provide for card check for congressional elections? Let's get rid of that secret ballot booth. Instead, why don't you publicly have to come down and take a little card and check in front of your friends, your neighbors, not to mention those who may not be too friendly to you, and just say who you are voting for. If it is good enough for congressional elections, it ought to be good enough for labor union elections. Yet, again, Democrats are going to come to this floor tomorrow and vote on a piece of legislation to fundamentally take away the right to a secret ballot from workers all across America. By the way, poll after poll of labor union members say they are against this. They say it is fundamentally unfair to take away their secret ballot. Now the labor union bosses making the six-figure salaries out of their dues, they have a different opinion. In fact, one was quoted saying ``there is no reason to subject the workers to an election.'' No reason to subject the workers to an election. Kind of sounds like something Hugo Chavez might say in Venezuela. You know, there is just no reason to subject the people to an election. But it does appear to be every single reason to subject workers to pressure and intimidation, and that is what this bill is all about. There have been card check campaigns in the recent past. This is known, you can go to public sources. Now there was a union organizing at MGM in Las Vegas and union organizers threatened those people who would not check that they wanted to join a union. They said if we want to take over, we will get your job one way or another. We will get your job. There was a United Steel Workers official. He was told to threaten migrant workers with deportation if they would not pick up the card and check that they wanted to be in the labor union. I don't know where the freedom is. I don't know where the choice is, but I certainly know where the pressure and the intimidation is. Recently, just this last week, we had testimony from a worker in Oregon who said that when she would not publicly check the card that she wanted to join a labor union, that her work life became miserable, miserable when she refused to do this. Again, this is nothing more than assault on a fundamental right to a secret ballot in a labor union election. This overturns decades and decades of custom and practice and law in America on how people can choose. Now, listen, we live in a free society. We should live in a free society. Workers ought to be able to choose if they want to be part of a labor union. That is not a question. There is only one question that is going to be before the floor and that question is, should workers have the right to a secret ballot? Are they going to be open to intimidation, pressure and shakedown? Not one worker in America, not one worker in America is going to be benefited by this. Now, I can think of others who are going to be benefited by this, because all of a sudden, labor union bosses are automatically going to have access to hard-working Americans' paychecks where they used to not have that, to source the money, and unfortunately, so many of these issues come down to money. Indeed, follow the money. It may be instructive. The Pew Foundation has indicated that over half a billion dollars of labor union money has gone to the Democrat party since 1994. You know, even in Washington DC, a half a billion dollars is a lot of money. Seven out of the top ten political contributors in America are organized labor. The American people don't want this, workers don't want this, even unionized workers don't want this, but labor union bosses do. They want a fundamental assault on the right, the right to a secret ballot. What a day of infamy it will be in this House, should we approve that.

Mr. HENSARLING. I wanted to follow up on the gentlelady's point, again. We are trying to preserve the fundamental right to the secret ballot in labor union elections. No matter what the opposition says that this is going to do, what we know is from the actual people, actual workers who are subjected to this card check procedure, we know intimidation and harassment is taking place. Madam Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record a statement from Mike Ivey, materials handler at Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation in Gaffney, South Carolina. Statement of Mike Ivey, Materials Handler, Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation My name is Mike Ivey, and I appreciate the opportunity to share with the committee my experiences under an abusive card check organizing drive which is still ongoing after 4\1/2\ years. Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation (FCCC) in Gaffney, South Carolina, has employed me for approximately 7 years. We are a non-union facility and more than the majority of employees are extremely proud of that fact. The problems we have started in the fall of 2002. During contract negotiations for their union facilities, the UWA and Daimler Chrysler Corporation reached a card check agreement to allow the UAW to try to organize their non-union facilities. This agreement prevents FCCC from doing anything positive for their employees, or discussing the situation with the employees. This agreement also allows the union to recruit and pay FCCC employees at this facility to handle their card check system. The card check system consists of coercing employees to sign a card for the union. If enough cards are signed, 50 percent + 1, then the facility is considered to be a union facility. In this process of obtaining the needed signatures, there are a lot of untruths told. Early on, the employees for a non-union FCCC signed and submitted a petition which clearly states that they want no union representation at this facility. More than 70 percent of all employees signed this petition. The UAW and Daimler Chrysler Corporation received these petitions with no response, nor any halt in the card check drive. In April 2003, the CEO of Daimler Chrysler promised the employees of FCCC a wage increase at a plant-wide meeting. In August 2003, when the time came to make good on that promise, the union threatened a lawsuit against Daimler Chrysler if the wage increase was implemented. They feared that if employees got the wage increase they had long been promised, it would reduce support for the union. We obtained free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, and only after we filed charges at the National Labor Relations Board, did the union allow the pay increase. Employees are told at off-site meetings that signing a card only certifies that they attended the meeting. Employees are also offered a free t-shirt if they sign a card. What they are not told is that these cards are a legally binding document, which states that the employee is pro union--thus placing the union one step closer to their goal of complete control of the employees' workplace lives without the employees even realizing it. In the workplace, the employees running the organizing campaign for the UAW are relentless in trying to get the employees to sign union cards. This has created a hostile work environment, with employees who once were friends who are now at odds with each other. The employees who are not in support of the union should have the right to go to work and not be harassed every day. This harassment has been going on more than 4 years with no end in sight. Faced with this neverending onslaught, we employees feel that the UAW is holding our heads under water until we drown. In April 2005, the UAW obtained the personal information of each employee. It wasn't enough that employees were being harassed at work, but now they are receiving phone calls at home. The UAW also had union employees from other facilities actually visit these employees at their homes. The union's organizers refuse to take ``no'' for an answer. If you told one group of organizers that you were not interested, the next time they would send someone else. Moreover, in many instances, employees who signed cards under pressure or false pretenses later attempted to retrieve or void this card. The union would not allow this to happen, telling them that they could not do so. After 4\1/2\ years of trying to organize our facility, the majority of employees are still against the union by roughly a 3 to 1 ratio. We feel that the aggressive behavior of UAW organizers will only escalate in 2007. All the union Freightliner facilities are facing major layoffs in the coming months. We expect the UAW to turn up the heat at our Gaffney facility to make up for the dues revenue shortfalls at the union facilities. I understand that some members of Congress would like to mandate this abusive card check process for selecting a union so that employees everywhere will go through what we continue to experience. Rather than increasing this coercive practice, Congress should ban it. Everyone in public office is elected by secret ballot vote. Please give us a chance in our workplace to make the decision on representation in the same manner. I will read from it in part, ``My name is Mike Ivey, and I appreciate the opportunity to share with the committee my experiences under an abusive card check organizing drive which is still ongoing after 4\1/2\ years.'' So 4\1/2\ years this fight has been going on in Gaffney, South Carolina. Apparently it is dating back to fall 2002. This gentleman talks about what is going on in these 4\1/2\ years. To quote from his letter, ``The employees who are not in support of the Union should have the right to go to work and not be harassed every day. This harassment has been going on more than 4 years with no end in sight. Faced with this never-ending onslaught, we employees feel that the United Auto Workers is holding our heads under water until we drown.'' Quoting from his statement further, ``In April of 2005, the UAW obtained the personal information of each employee. It wasn't enough that employees were being harassed at work, but now they are receiving phone calls at home. The UAW also had Union employees from other facilities actually visit these employees at their homes.'' The organizers would not take no for an answer. ``Some employees have had five or more harassing visits from these union organizers. The only way, it seems, to stop the badgering and pressure is to sign the card.'' That's the pressure, that's the intimidation. I would quote further from this statement, ``Moreover in many instances, employees who signed cards under pressure or false pretenses later attempted to retrieve or void this card.'' The union would not allow this to happen. After 4\1/2\ years of trying to organize the facility, 4\1/2\ years, Madam Speaker, the majority of employees are still against it by roughly a 3-1 ratio. He goes on to say, and imploring this body, Madam Speaker, ``Rather than increasing this coercive practice, Congress should ban it. Everyone in public office is elected by secret ballot. Please give us a chance in our workplace to make the decision on representation in the same manner.'' Madam Speaker, again, every single person who comes to the floor of the House, the Members of this institution, are elected by secret ballot. Our constituents, our workers, both union and nonunion, cry out for the same fundamental fairness and the same fundamental democratic rights. But since labor union bosses helped the Democrats, since labor union bosses need more money in their coffers, they have found a new and innovative way to get money, and that is through this thing called ``card check.'' And what is interesting, also, Madam Speaker, if you will look at those who are bringing this legislation to the floor, for example, the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, well, he seems to have done a bit of a flip-flop on the issue. He and several other lead sponsors of this legislation, just a few years ago, for whatever reason, counseled the Mexican Government about labor union elections. Let me quote from their letter. ``We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for, but not required by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they may otherwise not choose.'' I mean, this was sent by the sponsor of this legislation. So 5, 6 years ago, he believed that Mexicans fundamentally should have the right to a secret ballot in labor union organizing. But now, in 2007, he wants to deny that very same fundamental right to American workers. I don't get it, Madam Speaker. What has changed? Well, what has changed is clearly, number one, declining union membership and an election. And I understand elections have consequences, but the American people need to be watching very, very closely, very closely what this is all about, because my guess is most of them did not vote to fundamentally deny Democrat rights to American workers, to fundamentally strip them of their right to a secret ballot on whether or not they care to join a labor union. And so I hope, Madam Speaker, that the entire attention of America will be on this body tomorrow. Again, 90 percent of Americans believe fundamentally you ought to have the right to a secret ballot in these elections. Survey after survey of workers, including unionized workers, believe this as well. But apparently the Democrat majority and labor union bosses who put all kinds of money into these races believe otherwise. And so it will be a very significant vote on this House floor tomorrow. Will this body stand for democracy? Will this body stand for the secret ballot? Will this body stand for American workers? Or will this body stand for labor union bosses who want to get their hands on more worker money? And with that I would be happy to yield back to the gentlelady.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, various news organizations have now confirmed what the Democrats really have in mind with this nonbinding resolution, and that is, choke off funding for the troops. Though they haven't really said it on this House floor, they have said it to their political base, moveon.org, and I hold the transcript in my hand. Let's listen to the words of our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) who, as we all know, controls our military spending panel. ``They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my mind.'' He was further quoted as saying, ``We have to be careful people don't think this is the vote.'' Last evening, CBS News noted that our colleague's proposal ``is a way to get at the same goal without holding a vote to cut funding.'' Again, Mr. Speaker, that goal is to cut funding of the troops. The goal is to accept defeat. Now, I know the author of this proposal has served his Nation with great courage and great honor, but I for one fail to see the courage and the honor in this proposal. The Politico Magazine has called this proposal the ``Slow Bleed Strategy.'' The slow bleed strategy. I wonder who it is who is doing the bleeding. Mr. Speaker, how does anybody look one of our brave soldiers in the eye and tell them, I don't believe in your mission. I don't believe you can succeed and I have the power to bring you home; I have the power to bring you home today but I am not willing to do it because, if I did, I would have to take responsibility and I am concerned about political ramifications. Mr. Speaker, if my Democrat colleagues truly want to cut off funding for the troops and withdraw from Iraq, then let them vote on it today. Let them show the courage of their convictions and vote on it today. We cannot accept this slow bleed strategy. Mr. Speaker, I know that fighting this war is costly. It is costly in terms of blood. It is costly in terms of money. Like many other of my colleagues, I have met with the mothers who have lost sons in Iraq. Their plight is profound; it is sad. But Mr. Speaker, I never, never, never want to meet with the mothers whose children might perish in the next 9/11 if we accept defeat in Iraq. Iraq must be seen in the context of this larger war we are having with radical Islam. The battle lines are drawn, and whether we like it or not, they are drawn in Iraq. Don't take my word for it. Listen to Osama bin Laden. ``The epicenter of these wars is Baghdad. Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars.'' We have to soberly reflect on the enemy that we are facing. Listen to the number two in al Qaeda, al-Zawahiri. ``Al Qaeda has the right to kill 4 million Americans, 2 million of them children.'' As the father of a 4-year-old and a 3-year-old, I find that to be a chilling statement. Listen to Hassan Abbassi, Revolutionary Guard's intelligence adviser to the Iranian President. ``We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization.'' This is the enemy we face, and we face him foremost in Iraq. If we leave Iraq before subduing him, he will follow us to America, make no mistake about it, and the consequences are immense. Read the National Intelligence Estimate. Read the report of the Iraq Study Group. Iraq has the potential to become what Afghanistan once was under the Taliban, and that is, a breeding ground and a safe haven for the recruitment, training, financing and sanctuary of radical Islamists bent upon attacking our Nation and attacking our families. There will be no greater event to empower the radical Islamists in our defeat in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't have to be this way. We are Americans. We can meet this threat. We can work together. Vote against this resolution. Let's support our troops. Let's protect our Nation and our children from this threat.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. First, I want to thank my dear friend, and a genuine American hero, for yielding time to me today. Mr. Speaker, speaker after speaker on the other side of the aisle have come to the floor to speak against the past decision to go into Iraq. They criticize past lapses of intelligence, they criticize past actions, they criticize past setbacks. They want to live in the past. Regardless of whose war this was in the past, today it is an American war. And the Democratic majority must decide do they support the mission, or do they not support the mission? Now, certainly we are all disappointed that we have not achieved the success that we would have desired by now. And I myself do not know if the new strategy will prove successful. I think it can be successful. I hope it will be successful. And I know it is a strategy that has been recommended by the Iraqi Study Group and our new battlefield commander. So until such a time as somebody comes to me with a more compelling strategy, or until somebody convinces me that somehow my Nation and my family will be more secure by our premature withdrawal from Iraq and subsequent implosion, I feel I must support this new strategy. I will support this new strategy. Defeat is not an option. What are the options, Mr. Speaker? Clearly, many. Many, if not most, of my Democrat colleagues want to cut off funding for our troops and withdraw from Iraq. This is well known. And I respect their views when they are heartfelt. But since Democrats control a majority in both houses of Congress, why are we voting on a nonbinding withdrawal resolution? That is why this is a sad day. Somewhere over in Baghdad right now is a marine sergeant who is tired, he is resolute, he has dirt on his face. But you know what? He volunteered, he loves America, he loves his freedom. He has a picture in his wallet. His parents are praying for him. He is thinking about his wife. Who, who in this body, what Member can go to that marine and say, you know what? I don't believe in your mission. I don't believe you can succeed. I don't believe you can win, and I am going to oppose reinforcements. Guess what? I have the power to bring you home, but I am just not willing to do it. Because if I do it now everyone will know it, and I have to take responsibility, and I am just not willing to do that. Mr. Speaker, if you believe in something, stand up for it. Where is the courage? Where is the conviction in a nonbinding resolution? Mr. Speaker, we all know that fighting this war is costly. Like many Members of this body, I have met with the mothers of the fallen soldiers. Their burden and sacrifice is profound. But I never, never, never want to meet with the mothers whose children may perish in the next 9/11 if we accept defeat in Iraq. Iraq must be seen in the larger context of the war with radical Islam, and whether we like it or not, the battle lines are drawn in Iraq. Don't take my word for it, listen to what the jihadists have to say. Listen to Osama bin Laden, ``The epicenter of these wars is Baghdad. Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars.'' We must soberly reflect on the challenge that we face. Listen to al- Zawahiri, who is number two in command. ``Al Qaeda has the right to kill 4 million Americans, 2 million of them children.'' Listen to Hassan Abbassi, Revolutionary Guard's intelligence adviser to the Iranian President. ``We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization.'' Listen to Iraqi Ayatollah Ahmad Husseini. ``Even if this means using biological, chemical and bacterial weapons, we will conquer the world.'' This is the enemy we face, and we face him foremost in Iraq. If we leave Iraq before subduing him, he will follow us to America. Make no doubt about it, the consequences in Iraq are immense. Don't take my word for it. Read the report of the Iraq Study Group. Read the National Intelligence Estimate. Read the work of the Middle East scholars at the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institute. If we do not pursue success, Iraq will become what Afghanistan once was. It will be a breeding ground, a safe haven for the recruitment, training, financing and sanctuary of radical Islamists bent upon attacking our Nation and our families. We cannot wish it away, we cannot hope it away, we cannot dream it away. There will be no greater event to empower radical Islam than our defeat in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't have to be this way. We are Americans. We can meet this threat. We can work together. Vote against this resolution. Support our troops. Protect our Nation and our children from this threat.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a sad day for our institution, the House of Representatives, and I think it is a sad day because I sense this debate has very little to do with coming together as a Nation to face the greatest threat that we have faced since the Cold War. But instead I sense and I fear it has much to do with politics as usual. I have heard speaker after speaker come to the floor to decry faulty intelligence, to decry how our Nation became involved in Iraq in the first place. I have heard speakers decry how the war had been conducted. But, Mr. Speaker, regardless of how we got into Iraq, regardless of whose war it might have been once, today it is an American war, and we must accept that fact. As the people's elected Representatives, certainly we should look at this new strategy. We need to take an open and honest look at it. And certainly we are all disappointed that the previous strategy has not yielded the desired result. But, Mr. Speaker, very, very much hangs in the balance. I myself do not know if the new strategy will work. I think it can work. I hope it will work. And I know it is at least a strategy that has been recommended by the Iraqi Study Group and our new battlefield commander, General Petraeus. So until such a time as somebody brings to me a more compelling strategy or until such a time that somebody convinces me that somehow the security of my country and the security of my family is somehow made better off by our immediate withdrawal and the subsequent implosion of Iraq, I feel we must support the new strategy. Defeat is not an option. So what are the options, Mr. Speaker? Clearly many, if not most, of the Democrats call for withdrawal from Iraq, as do several of my very respected Republican colleagues. And I respect their views when they are heartfelt. But, Mr. Speaker, since Democrats now control both Houses of Congress, why are we not voting on a withdrawal resolution? And that is one of the reasons this is such a sad day. I mean, think about it, Mr. Speaker. How do you look a soldier in the eye and say, You know, I don't believe you can succeed in Iraq. I don't believe in your mission. I don't believe you can win this war. And I have the power to bring you home, but I refuse to do it. I refuse to do it. Where is the courage in that resolution? Where is the conviction in that resolution? If you truly believe in your heart of hearts that our soldiers are needlessly risking their lives, don't you have a moral obligation to bring them home? So with lives hanging in the balance, with our national security hanging in the balance, we have a nonbinding politics-as-usual resolution. Mr. Speaker, it is not really all that easy to figure out exactly what it is that the Democrats support. But if they don't put forth their own strategy and yet they want to vote against the new strategy, that says one and only one thing. It says stay the course. It says status quo. If you don't have an alternative and you want to vote against this new strategy, then you are voting to stay the course. The stakes are too high to stay the course. Now, we all know that fighting this war is very costly. And like many Members of this institution, I have met with the mothers of fallen soldiers. Their burden and sacrifice is solemn and profound. But I never, never, never want to meet with the mothers whose children may perish in the next 9/11 if we accept defeat in Iraq. Iraq must be seen in the larger context of this war with jihadism, with radical Islam. Whether we like it or not, the battle lines are drawn in Iraq. And don't take my word for it. Take the jihadists' word for it. Osama bin Laden has said, ``The epicenter of these wars is Baghdad. Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars.'' Mr. Speaker, we must soberly reflect on the challenge that we face. Listen to al Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's number two in command: ``Al Qaeda has the right to kill 4 million Americans, 2 million of them children.'' Listen to Hassan Abbassi, Revolutionary Guard's intelligence adviser to the Iranian President: ``We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization.'' Listen to Iraqi Ayatollah Ahmad Husseini: ``Even if this means using biological, chemical, and bacterial weapons, we will conquer the world.'' This is the enemy we face, Mr. Speaker, and we face him foremost in Iraq. The consequences of failure in Iraq are immense, the beginning of a Sunni-Shiite genocidal clash as American troop convoys flee the country. The battle for Baghdad will undoubtedly spill over to the entire country. Shiites will most likely win. They will draw in Jordan and Saudi Arabia to the defense of Sunni Iraqis. Iran will rise to the defense of Shia Iraqis. An entire regional war could easily ensue, and what is left of Iraq would become a safe haven for the recruitment, training and financing of radical Islam.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise today in support of the amendment from the gentleman from Virginia. We are discussing a very important issue that faces all Americans today, and that is making America energy independent. As part of that goal, as part of that goal we must have energy conservation. Everyday somebody comes to the floor and talks about energy conservation. There is another aspect to making America energy independent, and that is the aspect of fiscal responsibility. We have a program here today, it may be a very worthy program, but it costs money. How do we pay for it? You cannot be energy independent and support programs represented by the underlying bill unless you have the fiscal responsibility to pay for them. And that is why, Mr. Chairman, recent actions of our Speaker are most curious. According to CNN, the Speaker's office has now requested that the military provide her with a luxury jet that seats 42 business class seats according to CNN, a fully enclosed stateroom according to CNN, an entertainment center, a private bed, state-of-the-art communications system, and a crew of 16. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to tell the American people that we are going to be energy independent, you have to lead by example. You have to have a culture that says, yes, we are going to do things to conserve energy. Now, somebody has brought up the aspect of security. That is a legitimate issue. But how come our previous Speaker, according to CNN, used a smaller jet, consuming far less fuel, that seated 12, not 42, and didn't have the requested fully enclosed stateroom, entertainment center, private bed, state-of-the-art communications center, and a crew of 16? Again, Mr. Chairman, you have to lead by example. I also noticed recently that our Speaker was critical of the President when it came to the issue of global warming. She was quoted as saying in the Boston Globe: ``The signs of global warming and its impact is overwhelming and unequivocal.'' And in criticizing the President she said: ``It is not just about what he says; it is about what he does.'' So now we have the Speaker telling us, number one, we are going to have a Congress that is fiscally responsible, and we have the Speaker telling us that we have to be concerned about global climate change and energy conservation. Let's look at the fiscal responsibility aspect of this. According to the D.C. Examiner, now a flight from the Nation's Capital to her hometown of San Francisco is going to cost $300,000. Now, any one of our constituents can go on line to Expedia.com and make the same trip for $300. Okay, well, again, maybe there is some legitimate security concerns, but do we need the 42 business class seats, a fully enclosed stateroom, an entertainment center, private bed, state-of-the-art communications system, and a crew of 16? How is that leading by example? How is that an example of this Democratic Congress's commitment to fiscal responsibility and energy conservation? I don't think it is. So why is the Speaker requesting this? Well, according to the Washington Times, it says that she is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. That is according to the Washington Times. According to CNN, just recently she asked the use of the military plane to attend a retreat in Williamsburg, Virginia, that is a 2-hour drive from Washington, D.C. Now, this plane that she wants costs $15,000 an hour. How many gallons of fuel is that consuming? How do we come forth to the American people and say let's pass a bill for energy conservation, and then we have this waste? I don't understand it, Mr. Chairman. And now apparently there is a new wrinkle here. We understand from the San Francisco Chronicle that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) when asked about this said, and referring to the Pentagon: ``I don't need to pressure them. I just tell them what they need to do,'' in dealing with this request to the military for this luxury plane. Apparently he was further quoted in CNN, ABC, and the San Francisco Chronicle that ``the Pentagon made a mistake in leaking information,'' quote, ``since she decides on the allocations for the Department of Defense.'' This is not conservation. It is not fiscal responsibility. Let's support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, recently Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it is time for Congress to return to fiscal responsibility. It is often said that the best way to lead is by example. But I don't know if spending $300,000 of the taxpayer money to fly the Speaker in a personal luxury jet to travel back and forth to San Francisco sets much of an example, particularly when any American can find a $300 ticket for the same route on expedia.com. According to CNN, Speaker Pelosi has requested that the military give her a jet that would include 42 business class seats, a fully enclosed stateroom, an entertainment center, a private bed, state-of-the-art communications system and a crew of 16. Now, I know there are legitimate security concerns, but somehow the previous Speaker managed to use a smaller jet that seated 12 and had none of these amenities. Why did the Speaker request this jet? According to the Washington Times, the Democrat, quote, ``is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and other Members of Congress.'' If this is the Democrats' idea of fiscal responsibility, working families had better hold on to their wallets.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Well, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I want to thank her for all the great communications work that she does for the conservative caucus in Congress, the Republican Study Committee. Thank the gentleman from California, our Budget and Spending Task Force chairman for the excellent work he does in helping bring this debate to the American people. And you know, the gentlelady is so right. This debate really reduces down to a very fundamental issue. Do you want more government and less opportunity, or do you want more opportunity and less government? People in this institution need to remember that every time they vote for more money for some government program, they are taking money away from some family program. In many respects, Mr. Speaker, this isn't a debate about how much we are going to spend on health care or how much we are going to spend on education. It is a debate about who is going to do the spending. Republicans want families to do the spending. We want small businesses to do the spending. And yet, our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, they want government to do more of the spending. Now, as I am fond of saying, people are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. As a member of the Budget Committee, I just came from a hearing earlier this morning on our annual budget that was quite instructive. We heard accusations of massive tax cuts. Well, it is kind of interesting, because when you look at the record, when we have provided tax relief to the American people, guess what? We have ended up with more tax revenue. We have the greatest amount of tax revenue that we have ever had in the history of the United States of America. And in 2004, after the pro-growth tax relief, tax receipts were up 5.5 percent. Well, how did that add to the deficit, Mr. Speaker? In 2005, tax receipts were up 14.5 percent. Well, how did that add to the deficit? In 2006, 11.8 percent. And now in the first quarter of the first quarter of 2007, they are up approximately 7.2 percent. Now I am not here to tell you that every time you engage in tax relief, you get more tax revenues, but, guess what? Facts don't lie. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. When you allow small businesses and American families to keep more of what they earn so that they can save and invest and create more jobs, guess what? They go out and do it. So that is myth number one that somehow by allowing American people to keep more of what they have earned, that somehow that is adding to the deficit. The deficit has dropped. The American people are not overtaxed. Government spends too much. Now, we have another myth in the debate that I heard in the Budget Committee this morning, and that is talk about all the massive budget cuts. Well, Mr. Speaker, people have to be very careful. I took the liberty of looking up the word ``cut'' in Webster's dictionary. It means to reduce. Ninety percent of the time somebody in Washington talks about cutting a budget, what they mean is that the budget isn't growing quite as fast as I want it to grow, and so, therefore, that is a cut. I mean, that is like somebody's child coming up to him and saying, Dad, I would like an extra dollar a week in allowance. And you say, Well, you know what? Maybe you deserve an increase in your allowance, Daughter. I will give you 75 cents. And they say, Gee, Dad, that is a 25 percent cut. I wanted a dollar extra a week, and you are only giving me 75 cents. Well, the point is you are getting 75 cents more. So we are going to hear the usual misleading rhetoric about all these budget cuts. But guess what? Since President Bush came into office, and I know we will hear about this one, total antipoverty spending is up 41 percent, one of the most dramatic increases in the history of America. That is assuming that you think that somehow government is ultimately going to solve this problem. And if you look at almost every major budget area and don't just look at what has happened under the Bush administration, as long as Republicans have been in control of Congress, look for the last 10 years, you can see energy up almost 200 percent; education spending, elementary and secondary education, 100 percent. So, again, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. That simply does not equate into a cut. So we will have increased debates as we go through and talk about this budget. But what is most exciting is that because of the economic progrowth tax relief provided by a Republican Congress, we have over 7 million people who now have paychecks who used to not have paychecks. We have one of the highest levels of homeownership in the history of America. We have the highest stock market we have had in a long time. And these people want to raise taxes on the American people.

Mr. HENSARLING. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman, and I certainly appreciate his great work as a Member from Georgia. We particularly participate his participation in the Republican Study Committee, the conservative caucus within this caucus. It has been a rather interesting day here on the House floor. I didn't know that it was possible, but apparently our Democrat colleagues created a new record in the House. Now, I am still doing my homework. Maybe they just came in second or third place. But if I did my homework correctly, never in the history of America has a Congress spent more money with less accountability than this Democrat Congress did today just a few hours ago, $463 billion spent in 1 hour, 1 hour of debate to spend $463 billion. Now, I have been a Member of Congress for a while, but, ladies and gentlemen, that is still real money. That is $7.7 billion per minute that this Democrat majority managed to spend. We just heard from the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. Apparently, they didn't spend it very well. They seemed to have forgotten the war fighter and his quality of life when they were putting this massive spending bill together. Now, earlier, as the Democrats took control of the institution, and elections have consequences, I understand that, they won fair and square, but Speaker Pelosi is on the record shortly after the election saying, quote, Democrats believe we must return to accountability by restoring fiscal discipline and eliminating, eliminating, deficit spending. Now this is the Democrat leader, the Speaker of the House, telling the American people that this was their intention. So now we spend $463 billion in 1 hour. Mr. Speaker, families all across America will spend more time deliberating on the purchase of a washer and dryer than this institution did in spending $463 billion of their money, their hard- earned money. It is somewhat mind-boggling to spend that much money with such little accountability. Now, let's talk about the Speaker telling the American people that she and the Democrats were going to eliminate deficit spending. Well, as this bill passed earlier today, if the Senate takes it up, all of a sudden every American's share of the public debt has gone from $28,860 to $30,399. Now, I didn't major in math at Texas A&M University, but I can figure out, if you are trying to eliminate deficit spending, you are headed in the wrong direction, which makes me kind of question why you passed this bill in the first place. Now, the American people were led to believe that this body was going to pass something called a continuing resolution. Now, I understand that is kind of inside baseball, but what it says is, you know, we are going to continue government at the same funding level. There are families all across America who face hardships who have to actually get by on less. A continuing resolution actually says, we are going to, frankly, grow government under the baseline, what we did last year. Had this institution done it, which is what they led the American people to believe, we would have had a continuing resolution which, by the way, fits on a single piece of paper. Instead, we had a 150 page, I believe it was 150 pages, of what we call an omnibus, everything thrown into a massive spending bill. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats told us, they led us to believe we were going to have this continuing resolution. We end up with this omnibus. They tell us we are going to eliminate deficit spending. Instead, they increased deficit spending. They tell us they are going to have accountability; and, instead, we spend 1 hour, 1 hour debating the expenditure of $463 billion. Let me tell you what else they told us. They told us there would be no earmarks. You know, these are these little perks that Members of Congress take for their own district. Well, at last count, there was near 30 earmarks. Now, maybe they are good earmarks, maybe they are bad earmarks, but don't tell us there aren't going to be any earmarks in the bill and then put them there. I mean, they are the poster children, too often. They are the poster children of fiscal irresponsibility. We have the golden oldie here. The rain forest in Iowa has made another appearance here. Now somebody earlier today said, well, that is a Republican earmark. Well, at least they acknowledge that earmarks were in the bill. Last I looked, the Democrats have a majority in the House; they have a majority in the Senate. Obviously, it would not be in the bill unless Democrats wanted it in the bill. We also had this institution pass a continuing resolution instead of this omnibus. Also, we would have saved $6.2 billion of American families' money. That is what would have happened had the Democrat majority done what they told the American people they were going to do. That is $6.2 billion that could have been applied to, again, quote, unquote, eliminating deficit spending. So they had an opportunity to put their actions where their words were, and they didn't do it. They had extra money, and they spent it. Again, as the gentleman from California illuminated, they didn't spend it very well. They certainly didn't consider the quality of life for the war fighter when they were putting together this omnibus. Also, we were told there would not be any gimmicks. We would have accountability. Well, we look in here and there is gimmicks. There is $3.5 billion here. Now, this is inside baseball, I admit it, but I have served on the Budget Committee for 4 years, and I am starting to recognize these gimmicks. But they put $3.5 billion here by rescinding contract authority for highway programs without decreasing what we call obligation limitations. Then, again, I know that is inside baseball. But let me tell you, what happens is there is no savings. They are claiming savings where there are none. They also make a one-time change, a one-year change in what we call entitlement spending. Again, it is a trick. It is smoke and mirrors. It will not be there. Where is the accountability? I am looking for it. Clearly, we need that magnifying glass of The Official Truth Squad, because nobody can find the vaunted Democrat accountability that we were told would be here. There is a better way. We can have true fiscal accountability. Another gentleman, a colleague of mine from California (Mr. Campbell), offered an amendment that would have given us that continuing resolution that would have saved us $6.2 billion that would have done what the Democrats told the American people they were going to do. But their Rules Committee said, no, we are not going to allow that one. That is kind of a dicey vote. That one was never allowed on the floor, the one that would actually use $6.2 billion to help reduce this deficit. Another thing we can do is embrace the President's call for a balanced budget in 5 years without raising taxes. Now, that is true fiscal responsibility. I would hope that all Members of this Congress could sign up for that program. Now, Democrats will tell us that all the tax relief that was passed on our watch is the source of every fiscal problem known to mankind. Well, as a member of the Budget Committee, we have now received testimony from the head of the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, we have received testimony from the head of the Congressional Budget Office. It is not what we hear from them. What we hear, Mr. Speaker, is that until we do something to help reform entitlement spending and Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and work on a bipartisan basis to get better retirement security, better health care at a lower cost, that is the fiscal challenge to America. And, by the way, there is an inconvenient fact for our Democrat colleagues, and that inconvenient fact is we have cut marginal rates. We have cut capital gains. And guess what? We have more tax revenue than we have had in the entire history of America. If you allow the American people to keep more of what they earn, they will save it. They will invest it. They will go out and expand businesses. They will create small businesses. They will put out a new barbecue stand. They will do a new transmission repair shop. And now we have created over 7 million new jobs with a future. Now, I know maybe their goal for America is 7 million new welfare checks. But the Republican goal for America was 7 million new paychecks. And under our watch, that is what we achieved. Seven million new paychecks and the greatest amount of tax revenue that we have had in the history of America. We are awash in tax revenue. That is why the deficit is coming down. Now, I am not here to tell you that every time you design tax relief that it creates more tax revenue, but if you do it right, particularly if you put it on the side of helping working families and helping entrepreneurs to save and invest, it will more than pay for itself, and that is what has been done here. But now, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats want to take that tax relief away. They say it is bad. They want to take the 7 million jobs away. And what is really humorous is that they want to take really the tax revenue away that this explosion of economic activity has created in the first place. So, Mr. Speaker, there are many ways that we can embrace true fiscal responsibility. But to spend $463 billion of the people's money with no hearing, with almost no debate, in 1 hour, to set the land speed record for spending money in the shortest period of time, today the Democrats get the gold medal, the gold medal, in that Olympic competition. Never has more money been spent in less time than today. So how they expect to live up to Speaker Pelosi's goal of eliminating deficit spending, restoring fiscal discipline, and return to accountability, I suggest they enter a different Olympics and try to spend less money with more accountability, and that is something that the American people could truly respect.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, rarely in the history of America has a Congress spent more money with less accountability than this Congress is doing today: $463 billion with 1, count it, 1 hour of accountability. One hour of general debate. Mr. Speaker, that is $7.7 billion per minute of the people's money that is being spent here today. Families all across America will spend more time deliberating over the purchase of a new dryer than we will spend in debating how we spend $463 billion of their hard-earned money. Now, as the Democrats have taken over, Speaker Pelosi recently said, ``Democrats believe we must return to accountability by restoring fiscal discipline and eliminating deficit spending.'' This is fiscal discipline? This is accountability? Mr. Speaker, if this becomes law, everybody's share of the national debt will go up from roughly $28,860 to $30,399. This is cutting out deficit spending? This is accountability? This is fiscal responsibility? Real fiscal responsibility would have been for the Rules Committee to allow for the amendment from the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) to pass a true CR. That would have saved $6 billion. We need to vote this rule down.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, efforts to cut off funding for our troops in harm's way is simply unacceptable. It would be a devastating message to the brave men and women who serve in our Armed Forces, their families and the families of our Nation's fallen heroes. No one knows this better than Sam Johnson, a true American hero, and I commend him on introducing H.R. 511. It is time for the Democrats to say what they mean and mean what they say. They can't have it both ways. To vote to support troops in the field and then vote not to give them the resources needed to win can be deceptive, dangerous, and could put the lives of American servicemen and -women at even greater risk. If the Democrat majority does not support the President's plan, they are in the majority, they need to put forth their plan that is in the interest of the American people, and they must also reflect upon the cost of failure. They must understand how high the stakes are in Iraq, both in terms of human life and global stability. Our failure in Iraq could cause the nation to become what Afghanistan once was, a breeding ground for terrorists. Let's work together and find freedom and security in Iraq.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I certainly thank him for his leadership in this area to remove some unneeded regulation on our financial institutions. I also want to thank our new chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts, for his steadfast support on this issue as well. Madam Speaker, current Federal regulations require financial institutions to file a currency transaction report with the IRS for any customer transaction over $10,000 during a business day. We all know that these CTRs, as they are called, are designed to help our Federal law enforcement thwart money laundering and other illegal activities; but the problem is that this $10,000 threshold which was set in 1970 is so low in the existing exemption process, so cumbersome and costly that it is causing banks to repeatedly file CTRs for many of their known and expected regular business transactions for their well- known customers. And it doesn't matter if that business has been a so-called ``seasoned customer'' for the financial institution for 5, 10, 15 or even 20 years. Right now it is simply too difficult for our financial institutions to apply for exemptions for our customers that they know are not a risk. So this forces, Madam Speaker, our financial institutions to file CTRs when they know the customer is not a risk just to protect themselves from legal liability or potential large fines. And so when law enforcement is looking for a needle in a haystack, our financial institutions are being asked to put more hay on the stack and they are being told to pay for it by taking money away from their local communities that otherwise could be used for local lending. If the financial institutions passed these CTR compliance costs on to customers, through higher fees or higher interest rates, it makes it more difficult for American citizens to save for retirement, finance a child's college education, or launch a small business that creates jobs. This bill, which I have long supported, will fix this problem by clarifying the existing CTRs filing exemption for seasoned customers. And as a result of this legislation, when passed, a number of the 13 million-plus CTRs filed annually would stop, allowing banks to devote more of their resources to improving other suspicious activity reporting. The fact remains, Madam Speaker, when we come across a regulation like this, if we cannot determine a compelling reason for it to exist in the modern marketplace, we have a duty to either modify it or eliminate it, and that is what we are doing today. Congress today can help reduce the cost of banking for customers without jeopardizing critical law enforcement goals. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my constituents in Mesquite, Texas, to recognize the Mesquite Chamber of Commerce on its 50th Anniversary. Tonight, we will celebrate this profound accomplishment at the 28th Annual Chamber of Commerce Banquet in Mesquite. The Mesquite Chamber of Commerce was founded in 1956. The first group of businessmen who comprised the Chamber made the decision to incorporate what had previously been known as the ``Mesquite Merchants' Association.'' For the past 50 years, the Mesquite Chamber of Commerce has worked to improve the City of Mesquite by promoting the free enterprise system and developing the community. Through their hard work and sense of civic pride and duty, the membership of the Mesquite Chamber of Commerce has helped make Mesquite a wonderful place to live and work for the past half century. I offer my congratulations to the general membership, past and present, along with the current Board of Directors, who will lead the Chamber into the next 50 years of success. This year's Board of Directors Officers include: Todd Price; Greg Losher; Robert Bowmer; John Bass; Gary Bingham; Cathy Rideout; Sharon Hoskin; and Mark Miller. I would also like to recognize President Terry McCullar. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Mesquite Chamber of Commerce for their hard work and effort on behalf of Mesquite and the State of Texas. I wish them the best of luck as they enter into the next 50 years of service benefiting the City of Mesquite. They truly do know the meaning of Real. Texas. Business.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, once again, the Democrats are telling us that somehow bureaucrats in Washington can do more to lower the cost of prescription drugs than free market competition. To paraphrase President Reagan, ``There they go again.'' The Congressional Budget Office has already opined that the Secretary of HHS would not be able to negotiate prices lower than those that are already negotiated by prescription drug plans under current law. Let us be very clear: Price negotiations are already taking place on behalf of seniors. And for 200 years, it has been market competition, not government edict, that has given us the goods that we want at the lowest possible price. Now, our colleagues on this side of the aisle continue to hold up the VA as the model, the model where you cannot choose your doctor, cannot choose your pharmacist, and they only cover a third of the drugs that Medicare does. They do not cover Lipitor, Crestor or Nexium. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to personally invite Speaker Pelosi to come to Athens, Texas, and tell one of my constituents, 80-year-old Hazel Heard, why she is going to take her Lipitor away. Hazel will not be happy. And I am told she has a big dog.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of the unalienable right to life and in opposition to H.R. 3. This legislation would require increased Federal support for embryo- destructive research, abrogating, I believe, our responsibility to protect life as declared by our Founders in the Declaration of Independence. Yet, some in this Chamber, I believe, would inadvertently end life, even in its earliest moments, in order to try to improve the lives of others. And they do so by using research that has shown little promise to develop effective treatments. Mr. Speaker, there are alternatives. I support ethical stem cell research that does not spend Federal taxpayer dollars to fund studies that so many Americans find morally reprehensible. For example, we know that adult stem cell research has now, to date, led to 72 different treatments and clinical applications in humans. Additionally, we know that umbilical cord blood is already being used successfully against diseases like leukemia, sickle cell anemia and lymphoma. And just this week, we all know, worldwide we heard the news that a new source of stem cells had been found in amniotic fluid. These cells, which can be retrieved without doing harm to a developing child, and have been described as having all the positive potential of embryonic stem cells but with much greater stability. But, Mr. Speaker, for those who are committed only to embryonic stem cell research, it is important for all Americans to know there is no current prohibition on this research. Any individual, any university, any medical center is free to use their resources to conduct this type of research. And, indeed, hundreds of millions have already been spent, unfortunately, with little result. In this body we debate a number of vitally important issues. But is there any issue more important than preserving the sanctity of life? And shouldn't we ask ourselves, how can we preserve liberty if we cannot preserve life? And should there be doubt, we should err on the side of life.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, in America, we can either have maximum opportunity or we can have minimum wages. We cannot have both. In the land of the free, in a Nation as great as ours, how can we deny people their maximum opportunity, their opportunity to secure the American Dream? Well, apparently, our Democrat colleagues can, because, for thousands, they will now replace the American Dream of boundless career opportunities instead with the nightmare of welfare dependence. Columnist George Will recently wrote that increasing the minimum wage is ``a bad idea whose time has come.'' And, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, apparently that time has come. What is the purpose? Notwithstanding the rhetoric that we hear today, the purpose of this law is really to protect skilled labor from the competition of unskilled labor. We understand the elections are over. The American people have spoken. But, apparently, now labor union bosses are collecting their chits. Now, what is the effect of this law? Indeed, I admit, some will have a mandated pay raise in America. Those will be the lucky ones. Many more will have their hours cut, Mr. Speaker. Many will have their benefits cut due to this law, and many will lose their jobs. And again, thousands, thousands will be denied that opportunity to climb on that first rung of the economic ladder in America and, instead, be condemned to a life of poverty. This should not happen in America. Mr. Speaker, I recently spoke to a number of people who create jobs and hope and opportunity in America, good solid citizens from the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. I heard from David Hinds, the owner of Van Tone Created Flavors of Terrell, Texas. His company employs over 25 people in this community in my district. But he says, if we pass this increase in the minimum wage, he is going to have to lay off three, maybe four of his employees and automate his plant to use less labor. I heard from Kevin and Jeaneane Lilly. Kevin was a guy who started out at McDonald's years ago frying up the french fries. He now owns 10 McDonald's restaurants. He says, if the Democrats act today to increase the minimum wage, they will be forced to lay off all of their part-time workers and use only full-time workers. I spoke to Larry Peterson, who has a small business called EmbroidMe in Dallas, Texas. He says, instead of hiring three to four people at the current minimum wage, he is going to have to do with one to two higher paid, more highly skilled people, denying those other two people their rung on the economic ladder. Mr. Speaker, these are just a few stories from one congressional district in Texas, but these stories are going to be replicated all over America if we pass this law. Now, the proponents of this law say somehow it is necessary, because we have to force employers to pay fair wages. Yet I know, Mr. Speaker, that 99 percent of all Americans have their wages set by free people negotiating in a competitive marketplace. In other words, without any interference by Congress whatsoever 99 percent of all people in the workforce were able to find work above the minimum wage. Do we not believe in the American free enterprise system anymore? The proponents also say we must raise the minimum wage to help the poor, but by and large the minimum wage workers aren't poor. Less than one in five lives below the poverty line. The average family income of a minimum wage worker is about $40,000 a year. Very few minimum wage workers, indeed, support a family. Instead, the majority are teenagers. They are college students, and many are part-time workers. In fact, the problem is that many poor people either cannot work or will not work. Over three-fifths of the individuals below the poverty line did not work in 2005. Only 11 percent work full time. An increase in the minimum wage is going to do very little to help poor people who either cannot work or will not work. The way to help poor people is not to cut off the bottom rung of the economic ladder in America. For those who feel that they want to help the poor over and above what we are already doing, I would remind them that, by and large, the working poor qualify for health care through Medicaid, through subsidies, through food stamps, housing subsidies through section 8 vouchers, energy assistance through LIHEAP, cash assistance through Earned Income Tax Credit, TANF, and the list goes on and on and on. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there has been an explosion of anti-poverty spending at the Federal level under President Bush, up 39 percent between the years 2001 and 2005. So contrary to the protest of the other side of the aisle, there is a lot of direct government assistance here. We need to remind people again that any wage rate is better than no wage rate. The pool of minimum wage workers is constantly changing, and as they learn new skills, they prove themselves and they climb up the economic opportunity ladder. Why do we want to deny them this opportunity? Mr. Speaker, I have some personal experience here because I was in high school in May of 1974, when Congress promised me a pay raise. I was the bellman at the Holiday Inn in College Station, Texas, trying to put some money together to go to college. I worked my way through college. But when Congress gave me that pay raise, guess what? I got my pink slip. That Holiday Inn was struggling. They had to lay off the two newest employees they had to make ends meet. This causes unemployment. This should be voted down.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to what order of the House are we considering this resolution, H.R. 1?

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry. Does the special order provide for the consideration of any amendments?