Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor the Martins Mill Lady Mustangs basketball team who recently won the Texas University Interscholastic League 1A Division State Championship. On Friday March 3, 2006 the Lady Mustangs competed at the University of Texas in Austin's Frank Erwin Center (UTAFEC) for the Girls Basketball State Championship. I would like to recognize teammates Cara Chaney, Courtney Gregory, Rebecca Hensley, Jordan Barncastle, Hayley Butler, Taylor Daniel, Brittney Perkins, Alexis Popelar, Ashley Tarrant, Jennifer Tindle, Christa Williams, Lynzi Williams, and Kim Wilson as well as team managers Carlee Alsobrook, Kati Clark, Joanna Daniel, Ashlee Milner, and Emily Williams. The outstanding team performance of the Martins Mill Lady Mustangs earned them the number one ranking in the state from start to finish this season. At the State Championship game in Austin the Lady Mustangs defeated Elkhart Slocum 61-30 to claim the Class 1-A Division 1 Title in front of a crowd of 3,500 people. Jordan Barncastle was named Most Valuable Player, and Offensive Most Valuable Player was awarded to Lynzi Williams and Christa Williams. Additionally, state team selections went to Taylor Daniels, Jennifer Tindle and Kim Wilson, and Ashley Tarrant. Cara Chaney, Brittney Perkins, and Hayley Butler also received honorable mention recognition. I would also like to honor Martins Mill Head Coach Doug Barncastle and Assistant Coach Don Tarrant, who were named Coaching Staff of the year. As the congressional representative of the families, coaches, and supporters of the Martins Mill Lady Mustangs, it is my pleasure to recognize their tremendous victory and outstanding season.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Mr. John Matthews McDonald, the first known Mayor of Athens, Texas. John Matthews McDonald (1827-1883) was born in North Carolina but came to Texas in 1848 and lived first at Larissa, Cherokee County and then Mound Prairie, Anderson County, where his brother Murdoch earlier settled. Two years later, he moved to the young town of Athens and became a teacher and a lawyer. He also served as the town's first mayor. He wed Mary Ann Elizabeth Pinson (1842-1931) in 1858, and the couple had ten children. During the Civil War, McDonald fought with the Confederate Army as part of Hood's Texas Brigade. Active in public service, he held the offices of Justice of the Peace, County Judge and State Representative. His pioneer leadership proved vital to the early development of this adopted home. On behalf of the citizens of Athens and the Fifth District of Texas, it is my pleasure to honor John Matthews McDonald in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Major General (Retired) William A. Becker, a distinguished veteran of World War II and Vietnam. A Kaufman County native, William Becker was born on his family homestead in 1919. He graduated from Kaufman High School in 1936. He later attended Texas A&M College, where served as cadet corps commander during his senior year. Upon graduation in 1941, he was given a diploma, a commission as 2nd Lieutenant of field artillery, and orders to report within eight days to the 1st Calvary Division at Fort Bliss, Texas. Maj. Gen. Becker was sent to fight in the Southwest Pacific Theater during WWII, and in four years, he advanced from the rank of 2nd Lieutenant to Lieutenant Colonel. Maj. Gen. Becker also served in Vietnam. Over his 30-year career he had a variety of other commands and assignments. His last active duty assignment was to the Pentagon with the Office of the Secretary of the Army, as Chief of Legislative Liaison, working with the United States Congress from 1968-1971. During his years of service he was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal twice with one Oak Leaf Cluster, Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Clusters, Bronze Star with one Oak Leaf Cluster, and the Air Medal with 10 Oak Leaf Clusters. Upon retirement from the Army, Gen. Becker returned to his home community with his wife, Fran, and their four children. In the early 1970's he established a real estate brokerage and is still active with that business. He also served as President of the Kaufman-Van Zandt Board of Realtors and Director of the Texas Association of Realtors. President Calvin Coolidge once said, ``The Nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten.'' As a veteran, Gen. Becker understands that better than most Americans. On behalf of the grateful citizens of the Fifth District of Texas, it is my pleasure to honor Maj. Gen. Becker today in the United States House of Representatives. It is because of his service, we are able to enjoy freedom, peace, prosperity, and the many other blessings that God has bestowed upon this great land, the United States of America.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Mr. Jerry DeFeo and his work with the National Exchange Club. Mr. DeFeo joined the Noon Exchange Club of Garland, Texas as a charter member in 1982 and went on to serve in numerous offices at the club, district and national levels, culminating with his term as President of the National Exchange Club this past year. Jerry DeFeo has devoted his time, talent and energy promoting the Exchange Club and it's mission: to make our communities better places to live through programs of service in Americanism, community service, youth activities, and its national project, the prevention of child abuse. Mr. DeFeo is an accomplished member of the Garland Noon Exchange Club and has served the National Exchange Club Foundation board of trustees from 1987-88 and is a volunteer field representative (VFR). He has received multiple recognitions throughout his involvement, including the first ever VFR of the Year Award in 1997. He was also awarded the National Master Recruiter Award and he has recruited more than 350 members and built 15 Exchange Clubs. Mr. DeFeo received a bachelor's degree in engineering management from the University of Texas at Arlington, and is the founder and president of DeFeo & Co. Enterprises, which specializes in a variety of architecture and construction. Jerry and his wife Mary Defeo reside in Garland and have four grown children and five grandchildren. Still active in his community, DeFeo is serving his 12th year on Garland's Board of Adjustments, a zoning appeals board. He has also been involved with the Stars for Children Child Abuse Prevention Center, the Garland Chamber of Commerce, YMCA Indian Guides, and Crimestoppers and Scouting. Over the course of his career, Jerry DeFeo has demonstrated a unique commitment to the Exchange Club and his community. Today I would like to recognize his outstanding service to his dedication to the people of Texas and the mission of the Exchange Club.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I would be glad to yield to my friend from New Jersey.

Mr. HENSARLING. Well, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I especially appreciate her leadership in this body on issues of spending, on issues of budget and trying to protect the family budget from the Federal budget. Certainly she is one of the most powerful and articulate Members that we have, helping lead this charge. Mr. Speaker, it is that time of year again for the United States House of Representatives to consider its budget. To some people, this is about kind of green eyeshade accounting. It is about numbers. Frankly, it is a lot more than that. It is about numbers. But, more important, Mr. Speaker, it is about values. There are going to be a number of budgets that are going to be introduced by different caucuses, different groups. I myself have written a budget. But at the end of the day, I think, as usual, if history is our guide, this is going to come down to two budgets: The one that was passed by the House Budget Committee, and the Democrat alternative, and this body, and really the American people, are going to be faced with two very different choices that represent fundamentally two very different sets of values. One budget, our budget, the Budget Committee, the House Republican budget, is going to value the family budget over the Federal budget, because every time somebody grows a Federal program, Mr. Speaker, it takes away from some family program. Ours will be a budget that values more freedom. Theirs will be a budget that values more government. And we know, as one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, once said, that as government grows, liberty yields. We want a budget about opportunity that empowers people to go out and use their God-given talents in this wonderful land that we call America, to be able to put food on their table, to put a roof over their head. Now, many people will say this is the debate about how much we are going to spend on health care and how much are we going to spend on nutrition programs and how much are we going to spend on education programs. To some extent, it is a debate about those subjects. But the Democrats only value government spending, only government spending. We, Mr. Speaker, value family spending. We want families to do the spending, not government, and we know the difference. So, there will be two very different sets of values that are present presented in this budget debate. You are going to hear a lot of things in this budget debate. You are going to hear about which budget is the more compassionate of the two. Well, Mr. Speaker, they are going to present essentially a status quo budget, only worse. Right now, we are facing a fork in the road. If we don't change things, we know that the great entitlement programs of Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are growing way beyond our ability to pay for them. The Democrats will present their vision, and they will claim they want to balance the budget, but yet all they want to do is increase spending. Mr. Speaker, if that is true, if they want to balance the budget, if they want to increase spending, if they refuse to reform any programs, and, Mr. Speaker, we know, we know, we can get better health care, we can get better retirement security at a lower cost. That is a different debate for a different night. If they want to increase government spending, if they refuse any reforms, if they want to balance the budget, well, Mr. Speaker, the General Accounting Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, the liberal Brookings Institution, the conservative Heritage Foundation, anybody in America who has looked at this dynamic will tell you that we are on the road to double taxes on the American people if we follow their budget. Double taxes in one generation. So that is something, Mr. Speaker, as the American people follow this debate, they have to look at quite carefully. Now, you will also hear a lot about budget cuts. Well, recently I went to Webster's dictionary and looked up the word ``cut.'' It actually means to reduce. That is what it means everywhere in America except Washington, D.C. In Washington, D.C., when we listen to the Democrats, it seems to mean something else. In Washington, D.C., what it means is some program is not growing quite as fast as a big government bureaucrat liberal wants it to grow. Mr. Speaker, I know you are going to hear a lot about how somehow government spending has been cut over the last few years. Well, don't believe me. Go to the historic tables of the Office of Management and Budget. What you will discover is over the last decade, international affairs has grown by 89.1 percent; science, space and technology spending at the Federal level has grown 49.5 percent; natural resources and environmental spending at the Federal level has grown 43.8 percent; Federal agricultural spending has grown 118.1 percent; Federal transportation spending has grown 83.5 percent. The list goes on and on and on. Mr. Speaker, over this same time period, guess what? Median family income grew by 33 percent and inflation grew by 25 percent. In other words, government, just over the last decade, just over the last decade, government has been growing far faster than family income. We are growing the Federal budget way beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it, and if all we wanted to do was keep government that we had 10 years ago, we would have grown it by inflation. We are growing it at twice the rate of inflation. So, Mr. Speaker, when we start hearing all these accusations about cuts, we have to remember how America defines that term and how liberal big government Democrats define that term, and those are two very, very different things. Mr. Speaker, something else you are going to hear as this debate ensues is nowhere in a $2.8 trillion Federal budget can we find any savings whatsoever for the American people. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is just absurd. Not only is it absurd, we have to find the savings. If we don't find the savings, again, we will either place massive debt on our children or they will be looking at a massive tax increase. Recently, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government could not account for $24.5 billion that it spent just a couple of years ago. It just kind of disappeared into thin air. Federal auditors who are currently examining all Federal programs have reported that 38 percent of them examined have failed to show any positive impact on the populations they serve. Thirty-eight percent are not meeting the stated goals of when Congress published them. It wasn't that long ago that the Department of Defense wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets and never bothered to collect the refunds, even though the tickets were refundable. Mr. Speaker, if it is your money or it is my money, my best guess is we are going to go out and get that refund. But, you know, there is a truism, and that is we are never as careful with other people's money as we are with our own. The Federal Government spends almost $25 billion annually on what is known as earmarks, pork projects, including the infamous bridge to nowhere, grants to the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Hey, I love rock & roll, but, you know what? The last I looked, it was a fairly profitable industry and probably didn't need subsidies from the Federal Government. We had the infamous $800,000 outhouse, the rain forest in Iowa, and the list goes on and on and on. In the last year of the Clinton administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development couldn't account for $3.3 billion in overpayments. Ten percent of their entire budget just disappeared, 10 percent of their budget. There is no family in America, there is no small business in America, that could just watch 10 percent of their revenues disappear and expect to survive. We have the Conservation Reserve Program paying farmers $2 billion annually not to farm their land. We spend over $60 billion on corporate welfare versus a smaller amount on homeland security. Mr. Speaker, I could go on all evening, but I have given you this list just to illustrate a handful of items where we could go out and we could find savings. Again, Mr. Speaker, what is at stake here? What is at stake here is really the kind of America we are going to leave the next generation. Are we going to go with a budget that would take this Nation from $8 trillion in debt to, who knows, $11 trillion, $12 trillion? Or, if we are not going to go the debt route? Are we going to increase taxes on our children, double taxes? The average American family is paying $20,000 a year combined in their Federal taxes. That is what we are paying. Are we going to expect our children to pay $40,000? How are they going to buy a first home or send a kid to college or buy that second car to get that parent to work? Is this the kind of America we want to leave our children? Mr. Speaker, this is what this debate is all about. You are going to hear a lot about compassion, but, Mr. Speaker, I don't see any compassion in doubling taxes on our children. I see no compassion there whatsoever. You are going to hear a lot again from the Democrats about how we have to increase this Federal program and that Federal program. I want to remind you, these are the people who voted against any tax relief whatsoever for American families and small businesses. When we back in 2003 enacted tax relief for small businesses and families, guess what, Mr. Speaker? Five million new jobs were created. Yet the Democrats in their budget, what they want to do is, they believe that somehow paychecks are not about compassion, and yet welfare checks are. The compassion of our society should be defined by how many paychecks we create, how many opportunities there are for men and women to use their God-given talents and to go out and find good productive careers. That is how our budget is going to define compassion. Their budget is going to define compassion by how much dependency they can create, what kind of labyrinth, what kind of tangled labyrinth of welfare can they make people more dependent upon. We want to empower people. We want to get people off of welfare and on to work so that they can have careers, so they can have opportunities, so they can have freedoms that previously they haven't been able to dream of. And those are the two different values that are going to be represented in this debate, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HENSARLING. Again, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. It is a very important point that we are going to have in this debate. Number one, there is no doubt that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be talking about tax cuts are bad; we can't have any more tax cuts. Well, first, Mr. Speaker, nobody is talking today about any more tax cuts. Unfortunately, in this very odd budget process we have in Washington, tax relief is temporary and spending is forever. The only thing we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is make sure that the American people don't have a huge automatic tax increase brought about by the Democrats. They will tell you, my Lord, if we allow the American people, if we allow small businesses to keep more of what they earn, that is going to cost government. Well, number one, Mr. Speaker, it is not the government's money, it is the people's money. Second of all, we have given tax relief to American families and small businesses. And, guess what? The deficit starts to come down. Revenues are up. Again, don't take my word for it, go to the United States Treasury and here is what they will tell you. We cut marginal rates in 2003. We helped small businesses. We helped families. We cut tax rates. And guess what? We ended up with more tax revenue. More tax revenue. Individual tax receipts were up 14.6 percent. Corporate tax receipts were up 47 percent. A huge boon of revenue. That brings the deficit down because people are going out and they are saving and they are working and they are rolling up their sleeves and they are building new businesses. In just this year, in the first few months of this fiscal year, corporate tax receipts are up 29.6 percent. Again, don't take my word for it, go to the U.S. Treasury.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his courage in offering this amendment because I know how easy it is to misrepresent what his intentions are. I agree with the previous speakers, and I am disappointed that these two bills have not been separated out. I am here to agree and admit, as one who has actually been to the gulf coast, that perhaps more Federal funding may be needed. I have seen the human misery. I have family that was there. My in-laws were there. They were among the lucky ones; they lived through it. Their home, although significantly damaged, was not totally demolished. My heart goes out to these people. But the answer to the human tragedy is not an unlimited check drawn upon the checkbook of the Federal taxpayer. Many speakers act like nothing has been done already to help the gulf coast, but $100 billion in tax incentives and in other direct relief has gone to the gulf coast. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a lot of money. And let us also not ignore the fact that although there was a great tragedy that occurred on the gulf coast, there are many other tragedies that occur in this Nation every day, but CNN is not there to capture them on a day-to-day basis. Mr. Chairman, 38,000 Americans die each year in a car crash, and we are asking their families to be taxed to send more money to the gulf coast; 1.4 million Americans are going to be diagnosed with cancer this year, and yet we want to tax them to send more money to the gulf coast. There are almost a half a million homes that burn each year, and we want to tax those families to send more money to the gulf coast. Perhaps more money is justified, but until we see the plan, until we see more accountability where we do not have trailers rotting in the Arkansas mud and Gucci purses being bought on debit cards, until we figure out the precise Federal role versus the State role versus the local role versus the role of able-bodied individuals under the age of 65, until we come up with reforms, and most importantly, until we come up with offsets, it is time that we prioritize our spending. And maybe we shouldn't be funding the citrus canker program and Radio-Free Europe if money is needed at the gulf coast. I support this amendment and hope it passes.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I also thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for graciously yielding this time and his good work on the Rules Committee. I want to associate myself with the gentleman from Indiana's comments. These are extraordinary times calling for extraordinary remedies. We must have a remedy for being able to vote for fiscal responsibility.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank Chairman Oxley for his great commitment to this legislation and his critical leadership in tackling this important topic lo these many years. And I also want to thank Chairman Bachus for his outstanding leadership on the subcommittee level. And finally, I want to thank the ranking member (Mr. Frank of Massaschusetts) and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for their bipartisan efforts in ensuring that we help reduce the regulatory burden on our Nation's financial institutions. With thoughtful regulatory relief, Congress can free up more capital for small businesses and families. Excessive, redundant, costly regulations can make credit more expensive and less accessible. These regulations can keep Americans from obtaining their first mortgage, buying their first car, financing a child's education, or starting a small business that creates needed new jobs. Mr. Speaker, we know that the Federal regulatory burden falls particularly disproportionately on our smaller banks and credit unions. For example, the total number of small community banks has declined by almost a third in just one decade. Now, I am sure there are a number of reasons for all of these consolidations and mergers that have taken place, but from speaking to folks in my home State of Texas, certainly the burden and cost of Federal regulation rank among the top reasons, and certainly one of the top challenges to their continued profitability and their continued viability. Furthermore, since 1989, bank regulators have promulgated over 850 new regulations. That is about 50 new regulations a year. Can we really expect our small, community-based financial institutions to keep up with this pace? I do not believe we can, and I do not believe we should. This is worrisome because I believe it is these small, independent financial institutions that continue to be the economic lifeblood of many of our rural communities and a number of our inner-city neighborhoods. Let me offer one example from my home congressional district, First State Bank of Athens, Texas. This bank makes 50 to 75 charitable contributions each year to community groups in Henderson County, Texas, the American Heart Association, Meals on Wheels, Disabled American Veterans, and the East Texas Arboretum, to name a few. This bank has funded a local employer, Texas Ragtime, that has 90 employees, not to mention the jobs that they helped create at Nelson's Henderson County Door and Futurematrix Medical Devices. Last year they made 503 small business loans and an additional 314 small agricultural loans. Yet we need to know that with burdensome regulatory compliance, every dollar they spend on regulatory compliance is a dollar they cannot spend on Meals on Wheels or to create new jobs at Ragtime. The same is true for every other small financial institution across our Nation. We in Congress can never lose sight of this fact. This same bank in Athens, Texas, like thousands across the Nation, spends close to half a million dollars a year combined each year on BSA compliance, Reg B, Reg E, Reg D, CRA, HMDA, HOEPA, Reg O, Reg X, and Reg Z, just to name a few. If Congress cannot determine a compelling reason for any existing regulation in a modern marketplace, I believe we have a duty to modify or eliminate that regulation. Now, I am particularly pleased about the relief this bill offers for currency transaction reports. Unfortunately, the environment we are in today has led many banks to file their CTRs, cash transaction reports, and their suspicious activity reports in a highly defensive manner. Under this legislation I believe the majority of the 13 million-plus CTRs filed annually would stop, saving many, many hours and many, many thousands of dollars in savings in filling out these forms. This would also, perhaps more importantly, allow our law enforcement officials to better direct resources and help properly evaluate the suspicious activity reports, and thus better fight crime and terrorist financing. Mr. Speaker, finally, this bill has received rare unanimous support when it was reported out of the Committee on Financial Services. It represents the hard work of Members on both sides of the aisle. I do believe that this bill will provide substantive regulatory relief for our financial institutions, and that will put more money, more capital, in the hands of those on the front lines of community lending and help American families realize their dreams.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert the following letter into the Record of the debate on S. 2275, National Flood Insurance Program Enhanced Borrowing Authority. Washington, DC, February 14, 2006. Hon. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Hon. John Boehner, Majority Leader, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner: As you know, the President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget requests a $5.6 billion increase in FEMA's borrowing authority because its flood insurance program, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), is unable to cover current claims against it from the unprecedented losses resulting from Hurricane Katrina. Since 1968, the NFIP has offered property owners in coastal and river areas federally subsidized flood insurance. It currently insures approximately 4.7 million homeowners, renters and other policyholders, who pay premiums for coverage. Total insured assets are above $800 billion with some 20,100 communities participating. In heavy loss years, when losses exceed its premiums, FEMA is authorized to borrow from the U.S. Treasury up to $1.5 billion. This borrowing has historically been repaid with interest within very short time periods from NFIP premiums and fees. However, the catastrophic damage and losses resulting from the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes is far exceeding the available resources in the National Flood Insurance Fund. Consequently, Congress last year eventually raised FEMA's borrowing authority to $18.5 billion. But despite this, flood damage claims from the 2005 hurricanes are now estimated to be in excess of $20 billion and growing, surpassing all combined payments in the program's history. This will again necessitate Congress raising the limit on FEMA's borrowing authority to pay these claims. And, if additional flooding occurs in 2006, these costs will only grow higher. Unfortunately, this new borrowing will likely never be repaid by the beneficiaries. According to CBO, it ``is highly unlikely that the program will be able to repay that amount of borrowing out of its income from premiums and fees.'' It is estimated that the interest expenses alone from these loans would consume a large portion of the program's annual revenues for the foreseeable future. It would take decades to repay these costs, assuming no other flooding--undoubtedly, these payouts will be forgiven at some point. Lacking this ability to repay within a reasonable period, we view deficit-financed spending from any additional FEMA borrowing above its current $18.5 billion level to be essentially identical to those of a conventional federal spending program. Therefore, spending flowing from additional federal borrowing authority should be fully paid for by spending reductions elsewhere in the federal budget. In addition, any long-term extension must include comprehensive structural reforms to the program. The hurricanes of 2004 and 2005 have made it clear that legislative action is urgently needed to make the NFIP actuarially sound and able to build sufficient cash reserves to cover higher than expected losses. For instance, comprehensive reform would better align premium rates with the policyholder's associated risk while reducing direct subsidies of over $1.3 billion annually, starting with the elimination of all subsidies for vacation homes, and address the repetitive loss problem, where subsidies flow to homes to be rebuilt over and over after multiple flood losses, while ensuring proper flood mitigation measures and mapping are in place, enforced and used to reduce losses from future floods. We believe these and other reforms are critical to reducing the taxpayers' risk exposure while strengthening and improving the flood insurance program. This week, Congress is scheduled to extend FEMA's borrowing authority through April. While this spending should be offset, we appreciate your work with House conservatives to ensure this a short-term extension that will allow substantial time for a vigorous and comprehensive reform of the flood insurance program over the coming months. If this imperative reform effort falters, we will oppose any future increases to FEMA's borrowing authority that are not fully offset. We look forward to working with you and committee leadership to ensure that this component of federal assistance is both timely and fiscally responsible, and that any package of reforms continues to meet core federal responsibilities. Sincerely, Mike Pence, Member of Congress. Jeb Hensarling, Member of Congress.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, yet again we consider this historic piece of legislation, and it is historic because today we can begin the process of reforming out-of-control government spending. What happens if we listen to our Democrat friends who tell us we should fail to act? Retiring Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said, ``As a Nation, we may have already made promises to coming generations of retirees that we will be unable to fulfill.'' That is the Democrat plan. The Brookings Institution has said expected growth on entitlement programs along with projected increases in interest on the debt and defense will absorb all of the government's currently projected revenues within 8 years, leaving nothing for any other program. No more veterans programs, no more Federal student loans, no more low-income housing programs. That is the Democrat plan. The General Accountability Office has said that without reforms that we are going to have to double taxes on the next generation just to balance the budget. That is the Democrat plan. Mr. Speaker, during this debate we are hearing a lot about budget cuts. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. I looked up ``cut'' in the dictionary. It means to reduce. Yet, under this modest set of reforms, we see that Federal spending will grow at 4.3 percent a year. What we call entitlement spending will grow 6.3 percent a year. Medicaid will grow 7.5 percent a year. TANF and other welfare programs will grow at 8.5 percent a year, and the list goes on and on and on. What we will cut if we do not pass this legislation is the family budget. It will be cut by $40 billion. That is $40 billion that could help nearly 2 million families to make a down payment on a new home. $40 billion could help almost 1 million families put a child through college. We need to realize that every time we increase the Federal budget we are cutting the family budget. Democrats want to cut the family budget, double taxes on our children and call that compassion. We need to adopt this rule.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Our Nation has had to respond to the attacks of September 11th in many different ways, including providing Federal support for our terrorism insurance market. While I can understand support for an extension of TRIA, I have many concerns about the piece of legislation we will be voting on shortly. Let me highlight a few of them. First, this bill greatly expands the TRIA program, going so far as to provide Federal assistance for individual lines of insurance, rather than just covering a company's losses in the event of a terrorist attack. This bill even goes so far as to include a group life insurance component, a sector of the insurance marketplace that has shown no sign of failure. Allowing this type of line-by-line coverage pushes the government into competitive, private insurance markets where it does not belong. A system of this nature will inevitably expose taxpayers to more risk sooner in the process, while at the same time allowing insurance companies to obtain government assistance before it may be necessary. Further, this bill continues to maintain a very low trigger for when the government would step in. While $50 million is higher than the current trigger level--set shortly after September 11th--the Department of Treasury had requested a number closer to $500 million. For a program that was designed to be triggered for catastrophic events only, this higher threshold is perfectly applicable. While the bill before us is only a two-year extension, it allows for a third year without Congressional approval. I am hard pressed to believe that this will be the final extension proposed. The Federal Government consists of thousands and thousands of Federal programs created by Congress. Many of these, I am convinced, were started with the intention that they would be temporary. To quote President Reagan, ``No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.'' At some point, after some reasonable transition, either the market demands terrorism reinsurance or it does not. Our opinion should not be the relevant one. The relevant opinion is that of the market. If the market is not interested in terrorism reinsurance, Congress should not force the matter. If the market does demand this product, we should not assume that the Federal Government needs to be a permanent fixture. Modifying or eliminating regulations, reducing corporate income tax rates, and preventing the abuse of our legal system are all important factors that, if addressed, would free up massive amounts of capital for insurers and re-insurers. This additional capital would help to increase the supply of terrorism insurance, leading to a reduction in premium rates, and minimizing the need for a Federal backstop program or Federal involvement at all. Unfortunately, until we rid the world of the terrorists who seek to destroy us, terrorism insurance will continue to be a fact of life for businesses in this country. Until then, I have faith in our markets and their ability to respond accordingly to the challenges posed by domestic and international events. Regrettably, I cannot support this legislation but I plan to reluctantly support it.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight to debate a very historic bill, although I do not believe the rhetoric from the other side is necessarily historic. We are hearing a lot tonight about cuts and compassion, but when I look at this bill, all I seem to see is increases in spending. So I am trying to figure out where the reductions in spending have actually taken place. Mr. Speaker, people are entitled to their own opinions. They are just simply not entitled to their own facts. After this set of reforms is passed, Federal outlays are going to grow 4.3 percent. Mandatory is going to grow 6.3. Medicaid is going to grow 7.5. I am still looking for the cuts. I think maybe, Mr. Speaker, I have found those cuts now that I look, and that is every time we increase a program of the Federal budget, we are having to decrease some program of the family budget. This is a very historic piece of legislation because tonight we start that process, those first few steps towards reforming out-of-control government spending. We know what that future is, Mr. Speaker, if we do not do something about it. Already Chairman Greenspan of the Federal Reserve has said, ``As a Nation, we may have already made promises to coming generations of retirees that we will be unable to fulfill.'' The Brookings Institution has said, Expected growth in our entitlement programs along with projected increases in interest on the debt in defense will absorb all of the government's currently projected revenue within 8 years, leaving nothing for any other program. So no veterans program, no student loans, no housing programs. Where is the compassion in this, Mr. Speaker, if we follow the Democrat plan and do nothing for reforming our entitlement spending? The GAO says that we will have to double taxes on our children just to balance the budget if we do not begin this process of reform. Now, where is the compassion there? And when people start to lecture us about the least of these, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the least of these are those who are too young to vote and those who have yet to be born. Who represents them here this evening? Who speaks out for them? Let us have compassion for the next generation and let us enact this rule, let us enact this underlying bill, and let us save this next generation from a fiscal calamity.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today and urge my colleagues to defeat this motion to instruct. All of us know that America still faces a number of fiscal challenges, although under our economic policies, we have made a lot of great strides. With over 4 million new taxpaying jobs created and the deficit coming down, we have made a lot of great progress, but there is a lot of work to be done. This really comes down to a debate about two different visions for America's fiscal future. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that we have a fiscal challenge because the American people are undertaxed. We believe our Nation faces a fiscal challenge because Washington spends too much and too unwisely. Now, Mr. Speaker, during this debate, we have already heard a lot about cuts and compassion. Well, let us talk a little about those. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. If one would look up the word ``cut'' in Webster's Dictionary, one would discover it means to reduce an amount. Yet under this modest, very modest, set of reforms, we see that total Federal outlays will grow by an average of 4.3 percent a year. What we call mandatory spending will grow 6.3 percent a year. Medicaid will grow 7.5 percent a year. TANF and other welfare programs will grow at 8.5 percent a year. And the list goes on and on and on. Mr. Speaker, it is not how much money you spend in Washington that counts; it is how you spend the money. When we talk of cuts, we need to realize that every time we increase some program, some budget in Washington, by definition, we are cutting some family budget. This money has to come from somewhere. So when we feed the Federal budget, we cut the family budget. We have a modest set of proposals that over 5 years would save us approximately $45 billion over what we call the baseline. I mean, that is almost 2 million down payments for homes for the American people. It is almost a million 4-year college educations. That is who is being cut if we follow this motion to instruct; it is the family budget. And let us talk about compassion, compassion for the least of these. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the least of these are those who are too young to vote and those who have not yet been born. If we follow the Democrat plan, let us look at what the General Accountability Office has said; if, right now, we do not change the spending patterns that we have in order to balance the budget, in just one generation, we are going to have to double taxes on the American people. Where is the compassion there, Mr. Speaker, in taking away their jobs, in taking away their hope, taking away their opportunities? We would be the first generation perhaps in American history to leave our children a lower standard of living than we enjoy. There is no compassion there, Mr. Speaker. Let us defeat this motion to instruct.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize the outstanding achievements of Mr. Carey Hobbs. I have had the pleasure of knowing Carey Hobbs for more than 20 years. He is a man who loves his country and cares deeply about his community. He is selfless and unassuming. He is a dedicated family man and a devoted Christian, and I am very proud to call him my friend. Following his graduation from high school in Abilene, Texas, Carey Hobbs began his lifelong association with Texas Tech University as an undergraduate student. After earning his degree, Carey Hobbs joined the military in 1958 and received a commission in the United States Marine Corps. During his five years of active duty, he flew jet fighters and also served as a test pilot. Over the course of his professional career, Carey Hobbs has become a successful small business owner and a leader in the textile industry. He is a true entrepreneur, who has helped drive innovation and job creation. Since 1972, he has been the President and CEO of Hobbs Bonded Fibers in Waco, Texas. He holds several patents and has served on board of directors for both the National Association of Nonwoven Fabrics Industry and the National Cotton Batting Institute. For eight years, he was a member of the U.S. Department of Commerce Industry Sector Advisory Committee for Trade Policy Matters for Textiles and Apparel. In 1988, Carey Hobbs was named Small Business Person of the Year for the Dallas District. Through the years, Carey Hobbs has remained a steadfast supporter of his alma mater, Texas Tech University, and higher education in Texas. He has served on the Texas Tech Board of regents and was President of the Texas Tech Alumni Association National Board of Directors. He has also dedicated his time to enriching higher education through his service on the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and as a participant in Texas A&M University's Visiting Executive Program. Carey Hobbs is an important and positive role for the youth of Texas. He is an active member of the Stonegate Community Church in Waco. He serves on the board of WorId Hunger Relief and the International Medical Education Foundation, which is working to build a hospital in the Ukraine. Carey Hobbs is also a devoted family man. He and his wife Brenda have five children: Larry, Terri, Angela, Andy and Cindy. As the Congressman for the Fifth District of Texas and a longtime friend of Carey Hobbs, it is my honor to recognize him for his outstanding achievements in business and in life. Carey Hobbs has truly made his community and his country a better place.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor the tremendous career of Donald L. Woods, who is retiring after more than 13 years of service to the United States Attorney's Office, Western Division. A Vietnam veteran, Donald Woods served in the United States Navy from 1962-1967. As a young Lieutenant, he was a pilot of anti-submarine aircraft aboard the USS Bennington aircraft carrier. From 1967-1982 he flew with Braniff Airlines as a flight engineer and pilot. In 1989, he became a Certified Public Accountant. From 1990-1992, he served as an investigator with Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC. In 1992, he transferred to the Department of Justice, United States Attorney's Office, in Austin, Texas, as an auditor for bank fraud cases. During the late 1980s, Austin was the site of numerous failures of federally insured banks and savings and loans. Donald Woods was actively involved in the investigation and prosecution of the owners, directors, and officers of these financial institutions. He utilized his accounting skills to investigate and later testify to financial statements and transactions used to defraud federally insured financial institutions and their investors. Over the course of his career, Donald Woods has demonstrated his commitment to the American justice system and to maintaining the integrity of our financial institutions. Today I would like to recognize his outstanding service to the legal profession and his dedication to the people of Texas and the United States of America.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, unless we enact H.R. 4297, Americans will receive a most unwelcomed Christmas gift from the Democrats: a huge automatic tax increase. This will cost families billions of their dollars and jeopardize millions of their jobs. We cannot sit idly by and let the Democrats do this. Tax relief has already created more than 4.4 million new jobs; but if you raise taxes, you start taking these jobs away. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about a few of the jobs from my east Texas district that could be lost if the Democrats succeed in their tax increase plan today. Let me tell you about Hugh Dublin who owns East Texas Right of Way in Tennessee Colony, Texas. He specializes in the land-leasing business. Due to tax relief, his company has grown from two full-time employees to four full-time employees and four part- timers. His two new full-time employees are named Dan and David. They were unemployed, but now they are able to start new careers in a growing business. The Democrats want to raise taxes on Hugh Dublin and his small business. They want to jeopardize Dan's and David's paychecks and replace them with welfare checks, and they call that compassion. Eddie Alexander owns Triple S Electric in Henderson County, Texas. They are an electrical contracting business. For the first 3\1/2\ years he was in business, it was just him and one part-time helper. Since the passage of the President's economic growth plan, he has been able to hire two more additional employees named Jarad and John, both of whom were out of work but both of whom now provide homes for their families. The Democrats now want to raise taxes on Eddie Alexander and his small business. They want to jeopardize Jarad's and John's paychecks and replace them with welfare checks; and this they call compassion. Gill Travers owns Travers & Company. They are a home building company in Athens, Texas. Thanks to the housing boom created by President Bush's tax relief plan, Travers & Company has had to hire three new workers. Jan, who was previously unemployed, was hired to help clean up the job sites. Business is so good she had to turn around and hire Calvin and Christy. They were unemployed, too. The Democrats now want to raise taxes on Gill Travers and his small business. They want to jeopardize Jan, Calvin, and Christy's paychecks and replace them with welfare checks; and this they call compassion. Mr. Speaker, tax relief has created over 4.4 million new tax-paying jobs of the future; 4.4 million hard-working Americans can now provide for their families this Christmas. More than just providing food and shelter, these jobs are providing newfound hope and opportunity. The Democrats would take all of this away. We cannot go back. We must prevent this massive Democrat tax increase. We must support jobs and support the rule for H.R. 4297.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, unless we enact H.R. 4297 and defeat the Democratic substitute, Americans will receive a most unwelcome Christmas gift from the Democrats, a huge automatic tax increase. This will cost families billions of dollars and jeopardize millions of their jobs. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you just about a few of those jobs that could be lost in my east Texas district if the Democrats have their way in raising taxes. Hugh Dublin owns a small business called East Texas Right of Way in my district. He specializes in the leasing of land. Due to tax relief, his company has grown from two full-time employees to four full-time employees. His two new employees are called Dan and David. They were unemployed. They were out of work. But due to the expansion of this business, they were able to start new careers. The Democrats now want to raise taxes on Hugh Dublin and his small business. They want to jeopardize Dan and David's paychecks and replace them with welfare checks, and this they call compassion. Eddie Alexander owns Triple S Electric in Henderson, Texas, an electrical contracting business. Since the passage of our economic growth program with tax relief, he has been able to hire two more full- time employees, Jared and John, both of whom were out of work, but both now provide homes for their families. The Democrats want to raise taxes on Eddie Alexander and his small business. They want to jeopardize Jared and John's paychecks and replace them with welfare checks, and this they call compassion. Gil Travers owns Travers & Company, a home building company in Athens, Texas. Due to the housing boom from tax relief, they have had to hire three new workers, Jan, Calvin and Christy. They were all previously unemployed. They have been hired to help clean up all of the job sites from the new homes. But the Democrats now want to raise taxes on Gil Travers and his small business. They want to jeopardize Jan's, Calvin's, and Christy's paychecks and replace them with welfare checks, and this they call compassion. Mr. Speaker, tax relief has credited 4.4 million new tax-paying jobs with a future: 4.4 million hardworking Americans can now provide for their families this Christmas. And more than just providing food and shelter, these jobs are providing new-found hope and opportunity. We cannot go back. We must prevent this Democratic tax increase.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Mr. Scott Coulson and the Poteet High School Pirate Marching Band for their recent victory at the University Interscholastic League State AAAA Marching Band Championship. On November 8, 2005, the Pirates competed against more than 20 other bands from across the State of Texas and won their second State Championship since 1997. This year mark's Mr. Coulson's 25th year of service to the Mesquite Independent School District and his 18th year on the faculty of Poteet High School. In addition, Mr. Coulson will also soon be inducted into the John Phillip Sousa Foundation Legion of Honor, where he will be recognized as an outstanding high school band director. A graduate from Mesquite High School, Scott Coulson has been a strong role model and exceptional leader for the Poteet Pirates Marching Band. In 1987, he was named Director of Bands at Poteet High School in Mesquite, and has since then received multiple Interscholastic League Sweepstakes awards, led the band to four Grand Championships at the Plano East Invitational Marching Festival and five state Marching Championships. As the Congressional representative of the students, parents, and teachers involved with the Poteet High School Marching Band, it is my pleasure to recognize their tremendous victory. This is an accomplishment that Mr. Coulson and these young men and women will remember for years to come.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor Lake Highlands High School's Parent Teachers Association (PTA) for achieving the Parent Involvement Schools of Excellence certification from the National Parent Teachers Association in 2005. Lake Highlands High School (LHHS) is the only school in the Dallas- Fort Worth area to achieve certification from the National PTA and only one of three recipients in the State of Texas. The award is based on excellence in six areas: communication between school and parents, promotion of parenting skills, parent assistance in student learning, recruitment and support of parent volunteers, school decision making and advocacy, and collaborating with the community. Today, I would like to recognize the LHHS Parent Involvement in Schools Excellence certification committee, including chairwoman, Liz Luthans, Bonnie Blackman, Bob Iden, Sharin Clark, and Jenny Wagner. I would also like to recognize parents Paula Davis, Beth Hanks, Tami Trostel and Lake Highlands Exchange Club representative Jerry Allen who also served on the committee. As the Congressman for the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, I am very proud to represent Lake Highlands High School. Lake Highlands High School's PTA is truly helping to shape a brighter future for our community and our country. I would like to offer my congratulations on this occasion and best wishes for their continued success.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to honor Pastor Jerome Brimmage and the congregation of First United Methodist Church of Mineola. In the hours and days before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the First United Methodist Church began preparing, so when the time came they were able to offer assistance, shelter, and other words of help to victims of these 2 devastating hurricanes. Members of the First United Methodist Church stockpiled relief supplies for victims, including over 150 hygiene kits. The church itself opened its doors to house evacuees and volunteers and within hours, residents of Mineola began arriving with towels, sheets, blankets, as well as other items for those in need. More than 40 businesses, churches and civic organizations helped by donating money, food, and clothing. Approximately 450 volunteers also gave their time to make the evacuees' stay as pleasant as possible. I am proud of the residents of the Fifth District who gave their time and energy to help those in need--from individuals cooking meals in the church kitchen to local health care facilities providing free supplies and services to evacuees. Today, I am pleased to honor Pastor Jerome Brimmage of the First United Methodist Church, and the entire community of Mineola, Texas, for their part in providing relief to the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Well, this is an excellent line of debate that the gentlewoman is developing here. And again it is very important that the American people know this week we do not have a bill on the floor to provide tax relief for the American people. We have a bill on the floor to prevent a Democrat tax increase. There will be an automatic tax increase on the American people if we do not pass this legislation, and one of the things that we will lose is the ability of small businesses to expense what we call depreciable assets up to $100,000. Now, before I became a Member of Congress, I was a small businessman. I have gone out there, I have rolled up my sleeves, and I have risked capital. I have signed the front of a paycheck. I helped start a business that had a dozen employees, and it was not easy. It was not easy. We could not have started that business without capital. Yet the Democrats want to take away our ability to form capital and create small businesses, which is the job engine of America. That is where all the new jobs come from, is small business. Now, what is going to happen if we lose this? Let me give one example, one story from my congressional district. I am very proud to have the ability to represent the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. It starts in east Dallas and goes through great communities like Mesquite. It takes in rural east Texas, which is a wonderful place to live and raise a family, but sometimes a tough place to make a living. I went to visit a business, small business called Jacksonville Industries, in my congressional district, located in Jacksonville, TX. They are a zinc and die cast business, and I do not totally understand what they do; but they had 20 employees when I went to visit them. Well, due to competitive pressures, prior to being able to benefit from our tax relief economic growth program, they were on the verge of having to lay off two people. Now, that is 10 percent of their workforce. They were going to have to lay off 2 of 20 workers. Thanks to this provision, small business expensing that we passed way back, they were able to go out and buy a new piece of machinery. Now, I do not recall what it is called or precisely what its function was, but I know what it did. It made them more competitive. And instead of laying off two workers, they hired three new workers. And that is one small business in one rural part of Texas, but that is happening all over the Nation. We are allowing families and small businesses to keep more of what they earn, and yet the Democrats want to take that away from them. They want to take that capital back. We were talking earlier about how do you cut tax rates and increase tax revenue. Think about this one example in Jacksonville Industries. They were getting ready to lay off two workers, and they end up hiring three because they are more efficient and keep more of what they earn and buy new equipment and machinery. That is five people that could have been on unemployment and food stamps and welfare, five people taking from the Federal Treasury because they had dire needs. But instead of five people taking from the Treasury, it is five people paying into the industry. That is how it happens. That is how you cut tax rates and increase revenues. That is five Americans who are putting a roof over their family's head and start putting money in the college fund. That is the difference that this has made. And yet the Democrats want, at Christmastime, if you can believe that, want to present the American people with a big, fat tax increase.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentlewoman for yielding and certainly appreciate her leadership in this body on helping promote policies that promote economic growth in jobs and being a true leader in trying to help reform government programs that too often take away from family programs because they are wasteful, they are duplicative, they are inefficient, there is no accountability. She is one of the true leaders in Congress on these issues. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of good news that Americans have tonight. Clearly, this Nation faces a number of challenges and we know about them, and families are still struggling to meet high energy costs. Yet this Republican Congress has been bold in enacting new energy legislation to help address that. Families still have challenges in the high cost of health care, but this Republican Congress is doing things to help bring down the costs, particularly for small businesses and to make it easier to see a doctor in America as opposed to sue a doctor in America. But although we still face a number of challenges, as we have just have come away from our great Thanksgiving holiday, we need to remember the things that we need to give thanks for and all the good things that are happening in America. One of the things that I do not think a sufficient number of Americans appreciate is just how great this economy is today. It is absolutely amazing, Mr. Speaker, that this economy, not this government, not this government but the economy, men and women all over the Nation, rolling up their sleeves and risking capital, have gone out and created over 4 million new jobs since President Bush's economic growth program was enacted by this Republican Congress. That is over 4 million new taxpaying jobs, jobs with a future, jobs that allow the American families to create their housing program, their nutritional program, their health care program, and their educational program. That is incredibly good news. We have now had 2\1/2\, 2\1/2\ years where the economy has grown at over 3 percent a quarter. That is just unparalleled historic economic growth that is helping elevate and enrich the lives of millions and millions of Americans and allowing them to take care of their families and for them to realize their American Dream. Now, another aspect that too many people do not realize, because some people, particularly the Democrats, tell us that tax relief is a bad thing for the American people, that tax relief somehow hurts the deficit, well, we know that the deficit is too high. But guess what? The deficit has been falling. And why? I wish it were because spending was decreasing here. We are fighting those battles. But tonight we are here to talk about the values of tax relief and how important it is that we prevent a Democrat tax increase. And if we do not act this week, we will have yet another huge Democrat tax increase on the American people. The American people do not realize, or perhaps not enough of them realize, that in Washington, DC, spending is forever and tax relief is temporary. Unless we enact legislation this week, there will be an automatic tax increase on the American people. And besides what that is going to do to the American family, it will hurt the deficit. Tax relief has proven to be part of the deficit solution, not part of the deficit problem.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, again we have an opportunity to stand up for American families. Again, we have an opportunity to stand up for free trade and pass the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement. This is a simple matter. Free trade delivers a greater choice of goods and services to American consumers at lower prices. That means families can buy more using less of their paychecks. More trade means more competition, and competition has always helped the consumer. We have over 200 years of history to prove that. In fact, Mr. Speaker, over the past few years, prices have dropped for a wide array of goods and services which are produced around the world, such as video equipment and toys. Yet we pay a lot more for products that do not effectively compete with foreign companies, for example, prescription drugs and cable television. Again, competition works. Trade works. But beyond all of the obvious economic benefits of free trade, we must recognize that fundamentally this is an issue of personal freedom. Nations do not trade with nations; people trade with people. With the exception of national security considerations, every American should have the right to determine the origin of the goods and services they want to purchase. Is this not the land of the free? Have countless generations not fought and sacrificed to secure the blessings of liberty for all Americans? Maybe we in Congress have the power, but do we have the right to tell Americans that we will not allow them to buy cheaper products because those products may come from other nations? I think not, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this particular trade agreement not only stands for freedom; it stands for friendship. The nation of Bahrain is a friend of the United States and an important ally in the global war on terror. For over 200 years, America has benefited from trade and competition. I urge my colleagues to once again reject protectionism and, instead, stand for prosperity, stand for freedom, and stand with me in voting for this trade agreement.