Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on this bill. I also wish to thank our chairman who, although I have deep philosophical differences with, was certainly fair in his deliberations and more than fair in the amendments that he has allowed here this evening. Indeed, I think that the conflict today comes down to the so-called Affordable Housing Fund. Many on this side of the aisle do not feel that in this bill, which is supposed to provide a strong regulator for Fannie and Freddie, that we need to be expanding big government. And regardless of the rhetoric on the other side, according to OMB, Federal housing assistance has grown 73.8 percent in the last 10 years. Yet, this bill creates another new housing program on top of the 90 other HUD programs ostensibly designed to make housing more affordable. Meanwhile, the Democrat majority earlier this afternoon made housing less affordable by imposing the single largest tax increase in American history on the American people, threatening the home ownership of millions. Next, this fund is supposed to be transferred to some shadowy, amorphous, ill-defined housing trust fund, which to many of us appears nothing less than a new entitlement spending program for the 21st century. This is on top of the entitlement spending that threatens to bankrupt the next generation, will force them to double their taxes, will shatter their dreams of home ownership, and yet we appear to be adding yet another entitlement spending program. Next, the fund represents a dangerous precedent and another surreptitious tax increase. On top of the single largest tax increase in American history, now our friends from the other side of the aisle are going to impose a home mortgage tax on the American people, using the Federal nexus to levy a special tax on Fannie and Freddie, which due to their duopoly status in the marketplace they can effectively pass on to home buyers in the way of higher mortgage interest so that this can be conduited into third party groups. This bill ignores the greatest affordable housing program known in this country, a good job and a low tax rate. The bill imposes new mortgage taxes on Americans and must be rejected.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and when my friends from the other side of the aisle do something that I think is laudatory, I want to laud them for it. They have taken a budget that contained the single largest tax increase in American history and turned it into a budget that has the second largest tax increase in American history, but before I get too effusive with my praise, they have something in there called a trigger which tells the American people that somehow, if you can prevent us from spending all of your money, maybe, maybe you can get a little of it back. So I suspect, Mr. Speaker, we are again looking at the single largest tax increase in American history. Now, speaker after speaker on the other side get up and tell us, oh, we're balancing the budget, we're increasing spending that they call investments, but no, no, no, we're not raising taxes. Mr. Speaker, this is Orwellian double-speak. The numbers don't add up. I have got a 5- year-old daughter who can perform better math than that, and she's not very good at it. You can't balance the budget, increase spending and then claim you're not raising taxes. It's shameful. Mr. Speaker, this is an easy conclusion that the Americans should draw. If they believe that the growth of the Federal budget is more important than the growth of their family budget, they should support this Democrat budget. And if they can sleep well at night knowing that this budget is going to double the taxes of their children and grandchildren, they should embrace that budget. But if they want freedom and opportunity for the next generation, reject this budget.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. What happened to the most open and transparent and fair process that was supposed to occur in the history of Congress? We have a closed rule on top of a closed rule on top of a closed rule. And now what we see is, yet again, the Democrats bringing a bill to the floor that our Secretary of Defense says is even worse than the last one they brought to the floor as far as tying the hands of our troops as they attempt to protect our freedom. Once again we have a slow-bleed strategy for our troops in Iraq. Once again we still have a pork-laden supplemental. Let's talk for a second about the ag bill. Now there is legitimate debate, and there may be legitimate reasons, and I agree that drought assistance may be necessary in certain parts of the country. But this is supposedly the PAYGO Congress? I have looked at this. Number one, where is the emergency? The drought took place last year. That is when the emergency was. Why isn't this going in regular order? Where is the offset? Had there been an open rule, I would have been happy to offer an offset amendment. Once again, I don't know how anyone on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, can call this the PAYGO Congress. There are so many holes in this PAYGO it looks beyond Swiss cheese. This is one of the worse rules that I have seen brought to the floor, and every Member should rise in opposition and defeat this rule.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my friend from Virginia. The only thing that is being cut here is the family budget, and it is being cut by the Democrats. If you look at the numbers of the Republican budget, government grows each and every year. Now, it doesn't grow as fast as the Democrat budget. And the way the Democrat budget grows is by imposing the single largest tax increase in American history on hard-working Americans. An average in my district, the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, an average of $2,700 a year, Mr. Speaker, is going to be imposed on those hard-working people as they try to send their children to college, as they struggle to try to meet the healthcare payments for elderly parents, as they try to make payments on their healthcare premiums, as they try to put together that capital to launch their American dream and to buy their first home. The cutting that is going on here is the cutting out of the heart of the family budget by the Democrat budget, imposing the single largest tax increase in American history. And as bad as that tax increase is, $392 billion over 5 years, it is a pittance compared to the taxes that they are going to impose on the next generation, because, Mr. Speaker, their budget is silent, absolutely silent, on the number one fiscal challenge facing America, out-of-control entitlement spending. The Republicans are being responsible in trying to ensure that the next generation doesn't see a doubling of their taxes, which we all know will happen. So this is the kick-the-can-down-the-road budget of the Democrats, when they know that our children and grandchildren will see their taxes doubled from roughly 20 percent of the economy to 40 percent. Now, how many of our children and grandchildren will ever be able to own a home, start a business or send their children to college? This is the idea of the Democrats' fiscal responsibility, doubling taxes on the American people? I want no part of it.

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have listened very carefully to the previous speaker talk about rhetoric. And indeed, the rhetoric I hear from the other side of the aisle is pure Orwellian; up is down, black is white, victory is defeat and the largest tax increase in American history is somehow actually tax relief. You cannot state good intentions and then instead act with cruel actions. The numbers of this budget lead to the largest single tax increase in American history. And Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the Washington Post again, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought, I will quote from their March 29th edition, ``And while House Democrats say they want to preserve key parts of Bush's signature tax cuts, they project a surplus in 2012 only by assuming that all these cuts expire on schedule in 2010.'' And then they somehow say that we contrive temporary tax relief. Well, as the chairman knows, he has had plenty of opportunities to make this tax relief permanent, but he and everyone else on that side of the aisle have declined that opportunity. And again, it's a matter of priorities. Democrat friends decide to prioritize the Federal budget over the family budget. But let's look at how their single largest tax increase in American history is going to impact family budgets. Let's hear from Joan from Mesquite, who wrote, ``An additional $2,200 raise in taxes for my husband and me would mean that we would not be able to meet our budget obligations. I drive an 11-year-old car. And sometimes it breaks. And it costs me more to fix than what it's worth. I was hoping to buy a newer car, but if taxes go up, I won't be able to do that.'' Let's hear from Robert of Garland. ``I'm unemployed on Social Security and my wife works. At this point, between taxes and utilities, we're at the breaking point of being able to keep our home. If we have an increase of over $2,000 per year, it may well mean the straw that broke the camel's back; we would lose our home.'' That's how the single largest tax increase in American history is affecting that family. Let's see how it affects Linda in Rowlett. ``It would mean the difference of whether my daughter or husband would be able to purchase a car or not. For my husband and I, it helps us continue with his radiation treatments for his prostate cancer and allows us to continue providing in-home assistance for my elderly parents. Please allow us to retain this money for our needs. Please don't let government take additional tax dollars from us.'' That's the cruel actions. It's not the Orwellian rhetoric that we want to somehow preserve the tax relief. They are imposing the single largest tax increase in American history, a cruel hoax on American families as they try to meet their education budgets and their transportation budgets.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to this underlying resolution. I have listened to my chairman carefully, the gentleman from South Carolina, and I wish to add my respect along with that of the gentleman, ranking member from Wisconsin. He conducts our committee in a very fair-minded manner, and I appreciate and respect him for that. And I take him at his word when he says that he believes that he is putting forth on this floor a fiscally responsible budget. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a distinct difference in our philosophies. How you look the American people in the eye and impose upon them the single largest tax increase in American history and call that fiscally responsible is simply beyond me. Our chairman has a different definition. Now, I believe that what we need to do is try to help protect the family budget from the Federal budget. Already, Mr. Speaker, we are awash in Federal tax revenues. And we've heard the gentleman from South Carolina and many other people from this side of the aisle extol the virtues of their balanced budget. Okay. If they have a balanced budget, did they cut spending to get there? No. There is only one other option, and that is that they increase taxes. And don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Go, for example, to the Washington Post, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought in our Nation. They have said that the only way the Democrat budget will achieve balance is they assume the tax relief goes away, and thus it imposes the single largest tax increase in American history. Now, I have heard our chairman and other people from this side of the aisle, different colleagues get up and say, well, we're not really raising taxes on the American people, we're just letting the tax relief expire. But if you make the same paycheck last year that you made this year and your tax bill is higher, that is going to be a distinction that is lost on the American people. Is it letting tax relief expire if it is a tax increase? I have to tell you, if the people in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas have to pay a larger tax bill, they call it a tax increase, and the sooner that we in this body recognize that fact, the better off America will be. Under the Democrat's budget resolution, the average family, the average family in Texas will have a $2,700 a year tax increased phased in over 5 years. Something else we need to remember, Mr. Speaker, is that every time you are taking money away from the American family to plus-up some Federal budget category, you are having to subtract from some family budget category; $2,700 a year is a lot of money to Texas families. How many families can no longer send a child to college because of the single largest tax increase in American history that the Democrats are trying to impose upon us? How many American families will not be able to find their American dream, to put together their savings and invest in that first small business because the Democrats are imposing the single largest tax increase in American history? How many families will no longer be able to afford their healthcare premiums because the Democrats are imposing the single largest tax increase in American history? $2,700 a year. First, the working poor under this plan would have their taxes increased 50 percent, from the 10 percent bracket to the 15 percent bracket. The child tax credit would be cut in half. The death tax would come up to where Uncle Sam could take as much as 55 percent of your estate. Mr. Speaker, as bad as this budget is for what it does, it is even worse for what it doesn't do, because I know the chairman presided over the hearings that I attended with the Federal Reserve Chairman, with the head of OMB, with the Secretary of the Treasury, with CBO, who all said the same thing: The single largest fiscal challenge in this Nation is out of control entitlement spending, and this budget is stone-cold silent on that number one challenge. As bad as the tax imposition is going to be on this generation, if we don't act, if we kick the can down the road, if we avoid leadership, the next generation will see their taxes double. There is nothing fiscally responsible about doubling taxes on the next generation, nothing fiscally responsible about taking their dreams away. Mr. Speaker, we must defeat this rule and defeat this budget. Again, Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why you would avoid dealing with the number one fiscal challenge in the Nation. I know the chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina, said this isn't the place to do it. Well, I will ask a question that was asked by a very famous President: If not us, who? If not now, when? I am curious as to what advantage we have by somehow kicking this can down the road to some other body or to some other bill or to some other institution. At least in the last two Republican Congresses, we had two budgets in a row from the House, from the House, that actually made steps toward reforming entitlement spending. Now, it is a huge challenge, I admit, but every year we avoid it. In Social Security alone, we run up an extra $400 billion of debt, of unfunded obligations to pass on to the next generation. And yet the Democrats turn their back on this once again. That is another reason to defeat this.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor the Mesquite Independent School District Education Foundation for their dedication to the Mesquite community where they enrich the education and development of the city's 35,000 children. The Foundation promotes community awareness and student development, provides educational funding and encourages creativity. Their work has supplied valuable funds through grants for programs to supplement school budgets. Their efforts help students in Mesquite have access to the best educational experience possible. The Foundation has been instrumental in financing many programs that kids enjoy today. Such funds have been used to purchase ``hands-on consumable science lab materials'' to provide students with interactive laboratory equipment. Other grants have secured reading materials for pre-school children to increase pre-kindergarten reading readiness levels. To date, the Foundation has raised over $800,000 and has awarded more than $200,000 in grants to campuses and individuals. Soon, the Foundation will be formally announcing their next round of grants totaling an additional $200,000. As the Congressional representative of Mesquite, Texas, it is my distinct pleasure to honor the Mesquite Independent School District Education Foundation today in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in great opposition to this rule and to this conference report. We are here, yet again, discussing a Democrat plan for a statutory date certain for America's defeat in Iraq. We are here, yet again, discussing the Democrats' ``slow bleed'' strategy for our brave men and women in uniform in Iraq, designed to gradually deny them the critical equipment, support, and reinforcements they need to do the job. We are here, yet again, discussing just how much pork and unrelated spending can be shoved into this conference report to encourage or persuade reluctant Members to support this legislation. And, Mr. Speaker, according to today's L.A. Times and other major media outlets, we are likely to have this vote again and again and again because the majority party's leadership somehow believes it is in their political interests to do so. Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know about the recent announcement of the Democratic leader in the Senate. He has announced to our troops, he has announced to al Qaeda, he has announced to the world that the war in Iraq is lost. Mr. Speaker, Corporal Tyler Rock of the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines seems to disagree. I would quote him directly, but I believe the House rules would not permit it; so allow me to paraphrase that he has a quote for the Senate majority leader. Let me go on to say that he has said, ``We could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists, and then we could wait for 3,000 more American civilians to die before we say, `Hey, that's not nice again.' '' Mr. Speaker, I suspect that Corporal Rock speaks for most of our troops. Let's not cut their support. There will be no greater event to empower radical Islam than our defeat and retreat from Iraq. The terrorists that we fight there believe they have the moral authority to kill 2 million, 2 million of our children, two of them being my own. They are the ones that say the battlefield is in Iraq. Why can't we understand that in the Halls of Congress? There is no doubt that fighting this war is costly. There is no more difficult duty I have, or any of us have, than to meet with the mothers of those who have lost loved ones on the field of battle. But as difficult as that duty is, I never, never, never want to meet with the mothers who lose children in the next 9/11 because we turned our back on our duty. The cost of fighting this war is great. The cost of losing it is greater.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the many students, civic organizations, Boy and Girl Scouts, service organizations, families and individuals who recently volunteered to ``Keep Seagoville Beautiful.'' On April 14, 2007, the City of Seagoville and the Keep Seagoville Beautiful Commission sponsored the first annual Keep Seagoville Beautiful city-wide clean up. On that Saturday morning, over 150 dedicated citizens of Seagoville met at City Park to clean up their community. By the end of the day, those hard working volunteers had persevered through wind, rain, and cold to collect over 12 truckloads full of trash. This annual event strives to ``create an environment that continuously encourages the citizens to improve their quality of life and sense of pride in their community.'' It is the hard work of citizens like these, who take pride in their city, that will preserve our communities for future generations. It is for these reasons that I have the distinct pleasure to honor the City of Seagoville, the Keep Seagoville Beautiful Commission, and the many dedicated volunteers who participated in this event. I am honored to represent them in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today, I would like to help celebrate the Mesquite Championship Rodeo and its 50th anniversary. This fine organization has entertained a wide variety of people over the years, from young children to our Nation's Presidents and foreign heads-of- state. The Mesquite Rodeo opened its chutes in 1958 and has become an integral part of the community and the State of Texas; so much so that in 1993 the Texas legislature proclaimed the city of Mesquite the ``Rodeo Capital of Texas.'' Every Friday and Saturday night during the rodeo season, thousands of visitors experience the excitement of our Nation's original western sport: the rodeo. From cowboys to clowns, and fast horses to big bulls, the Mesquite Rodeo has come to exemplify championship rodeos. My family and I can attest to the entertainment value of the events and showmanship that the Mesquite Rodeo is known for throughout the United States. As the congressional representative of Mesquite, Texas, home to the Mesquite Championship Rodeo, it is my distinct pleasure to honor them today in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, for the past six years, the greater Mesquite area has embraced the opportunity to honor many exceptional women in the community through the Women in Service and Enterprise (WISE) Award Luncheon and Style Show. Today I would like to honor this year's award recipient, Dr. Linda Henrie, who is an example of strong, capable and dedicated leadership. I would also like to recognize honorees Patti Hawkins, Pat Ogles and Marjorie Seward for their valuable service and commitment to their community. Dr. Henrie is the Superintendent of the Mesquite Independent School District (MISD) where she oversees more than 34,000 students and more than 4,000 professional and auxiliary staff. She has served in this position with distinction since 2001. Dr. Henrie has served on numerous boards in the greater Mesquite community including: The Board of Directors for Mesquite Social Services, the Board of Directors for the Mesquite Symphonic Band and as President of the Mesquite Education Association. Dr. Henrie also serves as President of the Texas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Dallas County Workforce Development Board. In addition to being active in the community and holding multiple leadership roles, Dr. Henrie has been recognized for the Association of Texas Professional Educator's Administrator of the Year Award in 2002 and was named one of the 100 Heroes of MISD. Past WISE Award winners have served in a variety of ways, but they are united by the long-lasting impact they have made on their community. Their service, community involvement and dedication to enterprise continue to inspire younger generations. Today, I would like to recognize all of the WISE honorees for their outstanding service and congratulate them on their awards. Thank you, ladies, for helping make our community and country a better place.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of this amendment. I rise to support it because I think it would make a bad bill less bad. As I look at the underlying bill, I am reminded of a couple of things that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do well. One is mandate, and the other is class warfare. Now, what we are debating here tonight on the underlying bill is a mandate, a mandate for a voluntary shareholder, non binding referendum on executive compensation. I have listened to the debate today very carefully, and it seems to strike me that if there was ever a case of a remedy in search of a problem, this very well may be it. I have heard many of my colleagues come to the well and speak about outrageous and unreasonable executive compensation. I suspect that unreasonable and outrageous are to be found in the eyes of the beholder. A CEO that rescues a troubled company, creates thousands of jobs, increases shareholder value by 80 percent so that folks can help send their kids to colleges, maybe help a parent with long term health care, my guess is that if that person made a gazillion dollars he was probably underpaid. A CEO who runs a company into the ground, who loses 80 percent of shareholder value, maybe he isn't worth 50 cents. But the question ought to be, what is the state of corporate governance in America, and the shareholders, do they have say so? They have the most important decision that they can make. Mr. Chairman, they don't have to buy the shares in the first place. And we know that the SEC has just engaged in creating even greater and more disclosure. So if shareholders have the opportunity not to purchase this stock in the first place, I don't understand, and if we have disclosure where it should be, why we are trying to mandate a voluntary, non binding referendum on executive compensation. I don't quite understand. Clearly, in America, you still have a right not to buy a stock. Now, I have heard a lot about what I would characterize as the typical class warfare that we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle. And it reminds me, sometimes, that one of the accepted forms, really in some respects of bigotry in this society is bigotry against those who are successful. And so we come and we see charts about this disparity in pay. But, you know, Mr. Chairman, the outrage seems to be kind of selective. Where is the outrage of the hundreds of millions of dollars made by personal injury, trial attorneys and tobacco attorneys, and their legal secretaries maybe make $30,000? Where is the outrage there? Where is the outrage at Hollywood actors and actresses making tens of millions of dollars, and the guy moving the set around, maybe he is making $20,000? I recently learned that Julia Roberts made $25 million for the film Mona Lisa. It cost $65 million to make, but only earned $64 million at the U.S. box office. I don't know for a fact a public company had to pay that salary, but I suspect they did. Now, where is the moral outrage there? And, in addition, where is the proposal for the mandatory, voluntary non binding referendum on the compensation that may be paid to one of these individuals? I mean, what comes next? Are we going to have the mandate for the non binding shareholder referendum on the amount of R&D expenditures that a company makes? Perhaps their marketing budget, Mr. Chairman? Maybe their choice of an auditor? I mean, why do we stop here at executive compensation? And let me speak momentarily about the mandate. My guess is that to any individual company, this mandate may not be too costly. And I was very happy to have, in the last Congress, the chairman's support on a piece of legislation that I worked on that provided regulatory relief for our financial institutions. And it is not one particular item. And every single mandate may sound pretty good, looking at it singularly, but collectively they are all adding costs to these companies, and you have to ask yourself, is it serving a good purpose? Because if it isn't, what is helping send jobs overseas is too much regulation, litigation and taxation and we need to support the amendment and vote down the bill.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Rarely do I rise with such trepidation as I do tonight in trying to follow the powerful eloquence of my dear friend and colleague from Arizona (Mr. Franks). I want to thank him for the passion and clarity that he brings to this body. And, again, my own voice is so meager compared to his, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to come tonight and really celebrate a great victory for life in America. I want to thank my other colleagues with the Republican Study Committee who have come here tonight to participate in this 1-hour Special Order, Mr. Speaker. And for those who may be viewing the proceedings, Mr. Speaker, as we all know here, the Republican Study Committee is the conservative caucus in the House of Representatives, over 100 strong, promoting the values of faith and family and free enterprise and freedom that we consider to be the cornerstones of this great experiment in democracy and liberty that we call America. And, Mr. Speaker, we always invite the American people to dialogue with us at the Republican Study Committee and our Web site at www.house.gov/Hensarling/rsc. I really didn't know I would be coming here tonight, and so I have no prepared text whatsoever. It has been an emotional roller coaster of a week. I had a tele-town-hall meeting and got to speak to literally thousands of people from the Fifth Congressional District last evening. It started off talking about the tragedy at Virginia Tech, and I approached that discussion with my constituents not as a Member of Congress, but as a father. I am privileged to be the father of a 5-year-old daughter and a 3- year-old son. And I can only imagine the pain that the families must be going through. And as I see all the reports on television of the promising lives that have been snuffed out in this evil, cruel act, I know that now is a time for comforting those who lost loved ones, it is a time to pray, it is a time to learn. But as the Nation reflects on those 30-some-odd lives that are lost, maybe today is the day to reflect upon the millions of lives that are lost in America through abortion. And I am not naive; I know this is one of the most contentious issues debated in our society. But what right is more fundamental than the right to life? I wish I knew how to talk to those who somehow didn't see life the way that we do or value life the way that we do. In my heart, in my head, I can come to no other conclusion but that life begins at conception, that life is a gift of our Creator, who endows us with this inalienable right to life. I don't understand how my countrymen come to other conclusions. I don't hate them, I don't disparage them, I don't yell at them, but I don't understand how they can come to different conclusions. It is something that I take as a matter of faith. And if I didn't take it as a matter of faith, I don't know how any parent could ever look at that sonogram, that modern technology we have and see their tiny little baby just weeks old with their head and their arms and their fingers and their feet sometimes moving around in their mother's tummy. How can you conclude anything else but that this is human life? I don't understand that. And so I really come here to celebrate a great victory in the Supreme Court today that affirms what was already said by an overwhelming vote in the United States Congress, that this terribly abhorrent act known as partial-birth abortion, that Congress has the right to outlaw that. And, Mr. Speaker, we could go into all the gruesome details about how this child is just seconds away from getting their first breath of life and how, instead, the instrument of death is plunged into them. I don't think we need to go into that graphic detail. But regardless of how you feel on the pro-life debate or the pro- abortion debate, how anybody could conclude that a child that is just moments away from taking their first breath should have that life snuffed out in the land of the free is beyond me. And so I am happy to come here with my other colleagues from the Republican Study Committee. And again, I come here with great trepidation. Anytime I go to the floor with my dear colleague from Arizona, I serve with many great individuals in this body, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot think of one who has a purer heart than the gentleman from Arizona. And so again, my own voice is quite meager to his. But as I think about my own 5-year-old daughter, Claire, and my own 3-year-old son, Travis, and I remember getting the telephone call from my wife to let me know that they were there, that life existed in her that we created, and to think that somehow in this land of the free, where our Creator has given us this gift of life, that those precious lives could have ever, ever come to an end in this gruesome procedure known as partial-birth abortion is just so abhorrent, my mind can't even go there. And so I celebrate tonight with millions across America. And I certainly celebrate with all the members of the conservative caucus in Congress, the Republican Study Committee, that as many setbacks as we have in America, as we read about great tragedies, today something great happened in America, and the right to life was affirmed.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I will close for our side as I understand I have the right to close.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, in that case, I am very honored at this time to yield 4 minutes to the author of the Republican budget that will balance the budget, preserve the Social Security surplus without raising taxes, the ranking member on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, who has the right to close?

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway). (Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the chairman of the Budget and Spending Task Force of the Republican Study Committee and the coauthor of the American Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to a coauthor of the American Taxpayer Bill of Rights, the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, the Republican budget allocates more to veterans than the Democrat Conference budget. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of the time. Madam Chair, all of the Democrats' budgets are breathtakingly bad and fiscally irresponsible for what they do. They impose the single largest tax increase in American history on hardworking American families. They each represent the highest level of spending in the history of our Nation at a time when we are taking $23,000 away, spending $23,000 per family for only the first time since World War II. But as breathtakingly bad as they are for what they do, they are even worse for what they do not do because, Madam Chair, they are absolutely stone cold silent on the number one fiscal issue facing this Nation, facing the next generation, and that is, reforming entitlement spending, which will plunge the next generation into trillions and trillions of dollars of debt. Don't take my word for it. Take the word of the Comptroller General, the chief fiduciary officer of the United States of America, who has said that we are on the verge of being the first generation to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living. I mean, think about that, Madam Chair, because we are spending so much of the people's money that these programs that have been vital to people for generations will go away. If you do not reform Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid, they will not be here for the next generation. Madam Chair, as the father of a 5-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old son, I cannot sit idly by and let that happen. We must keep faith with prior generations by keeping faith with future generations. Let's reform entitlement spending. Let's give the next generation more opportunity and more freedoms. Vote down this Democrat budget.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, we have three different versions of essentially the same Democrat budget that is being presented today. They are all fiscally irresponsible. They all promote the Federal budget over the family budget. They all compromise the future of our children and grandchildren. Let me tell you, Madam Chair, what they have in common. Each one would represent the single largest tax increase in the history of the United States of America. Now this particular chart, Madam Chairman, because I didn't have the numbers available in the Progressive budget, shows what the Democrat Conference budget would do: Almost $400 billion of new taxes on working families; single largest tax increase in America's history. What did the Democrats do last time they were in power, Madam Chair? Well, that was back in 1993. And guess what? They gave us the single largest tax increase in America's history. This particular version of the Democrat budget, see that red there? I would have to have another chart to represent that tax increase because I believe they actually double what the Democrat Conference budget is doing. And, Madam Chairman, people need to know that every time you are increasing the Federal budget, you are decreasing some family budget. Some hardworking family in America is trying to make ends meet. Many of those families are in my district, the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. I heard from one of those families recently. I heard from Linda, I will use her first name, in Roulette, Texas. And she writes: ``Dear Congressman, that tax increase would mean the difference of whether my daughter and her husband would be able to purchase a car or not. For my husband and I, it helps us to continue for his radiation treatments for his prostate cancer. It allows us to continue to provide in-home assistance for my elderly parents, one who has Parkinson's and one who has dementia. Please allow us to retain this money for our needs. Please don't allow our government to take additional tax dollars from us. Please allow us to decide how this money will be spent.'' Madam Chairman, again, when they take money to fuel the Federal budget, to fuel the Federal bureaucracy, they are taking money away from hardworking families. They need that money for their educational needs, for their health care needs, for their housing needs. When is it that you ever have enough of the taxpayers' money? Already in Washington we are spending over $23,000 per American household for the first time in American history since World War II. We must protect the family budget from the Federal budget and prevent this single largest tax increase in American history from being imposed on hardworking American families. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.