Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I thank the chairman for his kind words. Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution honoring the accomplishments of Jimmie Johnson, the 2009 NASCAR Sprint Cup champion. Now, this is a politically charged issue for my district because I represent a number of drivers and a number of NASCAR teams; and to honor any one of them, well, it's tough. It's like baseball in certain areas of the country or football or college football or college basketball in North Carolina. But NASCAR teams are real and potent in my district. But this is a special resolution because Jimmie Johnson has achieved something no one else in NASCAR history has achieved, and that is four straight championships. He is with a great team, with a great crew chief, Chad Knaus. Powered by Hendrick Motor Sports and Chevrolet, the No. 48 Lowe's Chevy has done something unique in NASCAR history. Jimmie Johnson started out in very humble roots in El Cajon, California; and now he resides in my home State of North Carolina. He grew up in a working-class suburb, the son of a bulldozer operator and school bus driver who raised Jimmie Johnson and his two younger brothers in a modest home and made financial sacrifices to give their sons the best opportunity to pursue their passions; and for Jimmie, that was racing. His love of speed was evident even from the time he was just a young child. He began his racing career on 50cc motorcycles when he was just 5 years old. From there, he moved up to four-wheelers where he found his true calling with four wheels--not two--and moved into his 2002 rookie season in NASCAR at the top level of the series. And he became the first rookie to sweep both races at one track, and that was done at Dover International Speedway in 2002. He also became the first rookie ever to lead in the point standings; and to date, that remains the case. He is still the only one in their rookie season to lead the point standing. And he is named the Male Athlete of 2009 by the Associated Press, the 2009 Sprint Cup Series Driver of the Year, and was contender for Driver of the Decade for the 2000s. In 2006, together with his wife, Chandra, he founded the Jimmie Johnson Foundation to assist children, families, and communities in need throughout the United States. Jimmie rose from humble roots and achieved the pinnacle of success. Now he is on for the Drive for Five. He wants five in a row. His story is truly an embodiment of the American Dream. Jimmie Johnson and the No. 48 Lowe's Chevy have made history by being a part of the Nation's number one spectator sport. NASCAR represents the best of American professional sports, especially in my region. They're unmatched by the loyalty of their fans and participation by Fortune 500 companies more so than any other sport. And with the iconic Daytona 500 quickly approaching in just over a week's time, please join me in honoring Jimmie Johnson for his seven wins, 16 top fives, 24 top tens, an unmatched Race for the Chase. In the final 10 races of 2009, he had an average Chase finish of 6.8, which is absolutely amazing considering the competition they currently have in NASCAR. And we pay honor to Jimmie Johnson, Chad Knaus, and the whole crew of the No. 48 Chevrolet sponsored by Lowe's. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's very kind and appropriate words. And I, too, rise in support of House Resolution 1014, recognizing and supporting the goals and ideals of North American Inclusion Month, being the month of February. Approximately 41.2 million Americans have a disability of some kind, and many of them are unemployed or underemployed and struggling to live on what they make or even to survive. Mildly disabled individuals make less each month than those who are not disabled, and the severely disabled individuals take home almost $1,000 less than they otherwise would. And while there are programs in place that provide job training for those with special needs, they often do not focus enough on helping those individuals become independent or find permanent employment. Many do, and there are many programs in our communities across the country, but both the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America and Yachad, the National Jewish Council for Disabilities, have partnered together for 2010 to promote North American Inclusion Month, observed each February to bring public attention to the needs of those with disabilities. These organizations have taken it upon themselves to become leaders in promoting the message of Inclusion Month: The need for increased employment opportunities, better special education, and greater inclusion of disabled individuals at the family, community, and national levels. It's something we all should support. And I certainly believe that this is a bipartisan resolution. I urge my colleagues to support it. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, the American people continue to reject the notion that when it comes to health care, government knows best. Except this Congress and this Speaker of the House reject that. They say government can do whatever it darn well pleases. So we are presented with a 1,990-page bill that redefines health care and one-sixth of our economy. Hundreds of millions of Americans will be forced out of their current plans. Medicare cuts will mean fewer benefits to seniors. Bureaucrats will restrict health care services. Taxpayers will fund abortion. Illegal immigrants will receive taxpayer-funded benefits. Federal and State taxes will go up as a result, and furthermore, the cost to health care will continue to rise. There is a better way, a different plan than the Pelosi health care bill. That is what I will support. It will control the cost of health care by capping medical malpractice lawsuits and help individuals get the type of health care that they truly deserve.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of this legislation and the two other commemorating resolutions the Oversight and Government Reform Committee has put forth for consideration today on the House floor. I believe Congress should instead, though, be focusing on high- priority initiatives. We are facing record unemployment deficits that threaten to bankrupt this country and a stimulus that is failing to create new jobs, yet this Congress is considering legislation that is not a high priority for the American people. The Congress should be considering legislation that provides a real and immediate economic solution for the American people before naming and commemorating resolutions. But I do rise today, Mr. Speaker, in support of this resolution in celebration of Filipino American History Month. We have all seen the countless ways in which these Filipino Americans have advanced our Nation politically, economically and culturally. Filipino Americans have significantly contributed to this country through arts, science, math, sports, commerce and every other aspect of American culture since they first arrived in the 16th century. During World War II, over 200,000 Filipinos served in our U.S. military. They served in a variety of roles, such as the Philippine Scouts, the Philippine Commonwealth Army under U.S. command and as guerrillas during the Japanese occupation of their islands. The history of our country has shown that Filipino Americans have strengthened the United States in all facets of our growth and development. Over 3 million Americans have traced their lineage to the Philippines, making them the second-largest Asian American group in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say in response to my colleague, I certainly appreciate the substance of this resolution. It is important. However, my colleague's characterization that this is only one day that we do suspensions here in the House actually doesn't comport with the reality that we've faced over the last few weeks in the House of Representatives. On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of last week, the House of Representatives considered suspension items, which are noncontroversial pieces of legislation, many of which are commemorating in nature and are certainly important to the Members and to the group they're commemorating, absolutely. I agree. But we do have major work that we must contend with, and that was certainly the reason why I started this discussion by saying that we should be dealing with real major economic issues as a Congress and take those very seriously and, adding further, that the stimulus has failed our people, and I think we should be working to fix that, rather than simply to commemorate or change the building names of different Federal agencies and different governmental buildings. I certainly appreciate my colleague's comments, but we certainly have a different focus on that matter and that characterization, although I would say that I share the same focus as my colleague from Massachusetts, and that is trying to do what's right for the American people. I certainly appreciate his work in that regard as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I said in the previous resolution that I was managing here on the floor, while I am supportive of this legislation, the previous commemorating resolution and the additional one that the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is offering here for consideration today, I believe that Congress should be, instead, focusing on higher-priority initiatives. We're facing record unemployment, deficits that threaten to bankrupt the country, and a stimulus that is failing to create new jobs. Congress should be considering legislation providing real and immediate economic solutions for the American people before naming and commemorating anything. But having said that, I do think it is important to recognize the State of New Hampshire for their major milestone, and I rise in support of H. Res. 159, honoring the New Hampshire State Senate for becoming the first statewide legislative body with a majority of women in the United States. It is a significant achievement. As a result of the 2008 statewide elections, 13 of 24 seats in the Senate are now held by women, an increase of three members which resulted in their majority status. On the national level, less than one in four legislators is female and eight of 50 Governors is a woman. These numbers continue to grow with each election year throughout the country. I'm pleased to salute the women of New Hampshire for their commitment to public service as well as women throughout the United States who choose to serve our citizens on the local, State and Federal levels as their elected representatives. We certainly commend the wonderful work and addition that New Hampshire has been able to meet by this wonderful milestone. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I said in the two previous resolutions that have come forth from the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, while I do support the legislation at hand and the motivation behind it, I do think that Congress should be focusing instead on higher-priority initiatives. We're facing record unemployment, deficits that threaten to bankrupt the country, and a stimulus that is failing to help our people and create new jobs. Congress should be considering legislation providing real and immediate economic solutions for the American people before naming and commemorating resolutions. I certainly appreciate the initiative of my colleagues to acknowledge the Gettysburg Address and the anniversary that we are fast approaching. I do find it quite interesting as a Congressman from a Southern State that my colleague that controls the majority's time is from a Northern State. It's kind of interesting that actually those dynamics still persist of both Southerners and Yankees alike, or New Englanders. But we can have an honest debate in this country, which is certainly worthwhile, and I think that Lincoln's Gettysburg Address certainly is a wonderful and enormous milestone for all Americans. Whether or not your State was in the Union at that point, whether it even existed at that point, it's certainly important. On November 19, 1863, President Lincoln delivered a carefully crafted address that was assumed by many to be overshadowed by Senator Edward Everett's 2-hour oration. So unsuspecting was the crowd and so swift was the speech that no pictures were taken while the address was given. If the crowd had known that they were witnessing the defining speech of the War Between the States, I'm confident that many more would have been better prepared for the occasion. In 10 lines and 272 words, the President redefined the war as an effort to solidify the American political system, our Republic, calling upon the Nation to dedicate themselves to a new birth of freedom so that government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the Earth.'' We all know these words, Mr. Speaker. We all care about these words. Though brief, his oration was powerful. In these few appropriate remarks, Lincoln honored the fallen but also paid homage to the Founding Fathers and their commitment to a Nation led by its people. Mr. Speaker, I would say in closing on a larger issue for the American people that this commemorating resolution, while certainly it's important to honor the Gettysburg Address, and though delivered in 1863, I think today we are at an anniversary of the 146th year for the Gettysburg Address, and it's important that we remember and commemorate this; but I think it's also important that we have a real debate about health care. I do appreciate my colleague saying earlier that we're going to have a debate. We have 72 hours to review the 1,990-page health care bill, which is good, and certainly we're grateful, as a minority party, to have that time to review such a massive piece of legislation. But I also think it's important that we have significant debate on this legislation. And rather than having just 2 or 3 hours, which has been the news this week that we will have to debate such a far-reaching piece of legislation on this House floor, that we would be able to spend more time, even on a Monday, debating health care and the importance of getting this approach right for the American people not just for today but for tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. The Democrats' health care bill is bad legislation. But don't take my word for it. All you have to do is look at the chaos on the other side of the aisle as their leadership freely admits August would be like kryptonite to their proposal. If they truly believe this legislation was a cure-all for health care reform, they would relish the opportunity to send their Members home to build public support for it. But, no, the Democrat leadership is in desperation mode because they know their bill will not hold up under public scrutiny. So let's tap the brakes, let's engage our constituents and the American people in this discussion about our goals for health care reform. August can become health care month in America if only the Democrat leadership will listen to reason and we can engage our constituents in the debate. The Democrats' goal should not be to get this done fast, but to get it right for the American people. That's what I'm fighting for, and that's what this debate should be all about.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, the Office of Inspectors General throughout our government do a yeoman's task at providing oversight of Federal spending, and I think it's important that these matters be brought before the House. Mr. Chairman, at a time when Congress is burning through unprecedented amounts of taxpayer dollars, oversight and accountability are of greatest importance. We need to know who's getting the money and what it's being used for. As of the end of June, this Congress has already spent $2.6 trillion, and we're on pace to have a $1.8 trillion deficit this year--the largest in our Nation's history. The American people know we're spending a lot of money in Washington. Whether they like it or not is another question. But we need to make sure that we're getting value for our dollar. Amtrak has recently benefited from this unprecedented funding by taking in $1.3 billion from the so-called stimulus bill in addition to their annual appropriations of $1.4 billion. This makes it all the more troubling to find out that in the course of conducting his oversight activities, Amtrak's former inspector general, Fred Weiderhold, was being misinformed, deceived, and circumnavigated by lawyers and bureaucrats within his agency in his effort to track down stimulus money. And the same day that a report came out highlighting the ways in which Amtrak officials were interfering with his job, Mr. Chairman, Inspector General Weiderhold unexpectedly resigned. This raises many questions about the sudden departure of a career official, particularly where there is political pressure from the current administration for him to step down. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee--of which I am a member--is launching currently an investigation into this matter, which occurred last month, and I look forward to seeing what comes out of this investigation. The reason why I bring it before the House is so that Members know what's happening with inspectors general across the government. However, it doesn't just stop with the Amtrak inspector general. His resignation is only one of what seems to be a larger pattern of inspector general purges throughout the Obama administration. Gerald Walpin, the long-time inspector general for the Corporation of National and Community Service, which overseas AmeriCorps, was fired in June after his investigation into the use of grant funds for political purposes turned up some disturbing information. Judith Gwynne, the acting inspector general for the International Trade Commission, was also fired last month, coincidentally right after Senator Grassley of Iowa expressed concerns in a letter to the International Trade Commission chairwoman about the potential agency obstruction of Ms. Gwynne's investigations of contractors' activities. Even Neil Barofsky, who is a special inspector general for the TARP-- or the bailouts--has expressed worry after Treasury Department officials informed him that the Department had legal authority over his office. We need to make sure that we have proper oversight and accountability of the funds that we're spending in this government. The American people deserve comprehensive, around-the-clock oversight of spending. That's why we have inspectors general. The administration's pattern of undermining and removing oversight when it becomes politically inconvenient makes this all more important to be brought to the attention of the House. And the reason why I rise today is under these limited rules that we have on appropriations bills, it's very difficult to bring issues before the whole House. And so that's why I speak today to make sure that we have inspectors general throughout the government, not just in Amtrak, that are able to do their job without political interference from any administration or any outside forces. So that's why I rise today, to make sure that I have this opportunity to bring it before the House of Representatives and its Members. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. McHENRY. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Today I rise in opposition to the Democrats' so-called PAYGO scheme. It sounds good, but the reality is far different from the sound of it. It does nothing to control out-of-control spending and reckless government spending. The proposal does nothing to hold accountable discretionary spending, which is 40 percent of the budget. As American families face difficult decisions about every dollar they spend, the majority of this Congress believes that 40 percent of their budget should be exempt from fiscal discipline. Because Congress must show the fortitude and resolve to rein in these spending issues and to control reckless spending, I support the Republican alternative. The Republican alternative sets discretionary spending caps for the next decade. The caps would not impact defense, veterans funding or Social Security. And to adequately fulfill our obligations, discretionary spending would be allowed to grow at the rate of inflation. Unlike the majority of this Congress, our proposal would reduce budget deficits in the years to come. It's noteworthy that this PAYGO scheme has been the rule of the House for the last 3 years. Well, what has happened in the last 3 years? Federal spending went from $2.7 trillion to $3.6 trillion. That is a 25 percent increase, Mr. Speaker. Why? Well, simple. The Democrat majority chooses to waive the rule when it is inconvenient and simply spend like drunken sailors. It is unfortunate. In order to have fiscal discipline and in order to rein in reckless spending and the debt it fuels, we need to focus on these issues and have real spending caps. It is counterproductive for this Congress to spend so much because it will hurt our economy, and yet the folks in charge of this Congress are spending, spending, spending. I think that is going to have a negative impact on our economy, small businesses and families alike. The Nation's finances are on an unsustainable path. Everyone knows that. The majority's reckless PAYGO scheme does nothing and misses a great opportunity for us to rein in spending.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? Unemployment in my district has hit 14 percent--14 percent. Failed stimulus aside, Washington is doing nothing but making matters worse. Put yourself in the shoes of the only people that can lift us out of this economic recession--small business owners. Let's see what they're facing. They're facing higher energy costs because of this Democrat cap-and- trade tax on energy. They're facing higher health care costs because of a government takeover of health care. They're looking at higher energy taxes, higher health care costs, and the kicker is, higher personal income taxes. The liberals are already proposing it. The folks that are running Washington are out of touch with small business owners and are doing the wrong thing on our economy. And I urge the leadership of this Congress to do the right thing. Don't kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Don't kill small business owners. And don't hurt this economy any more.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, had I been present to vote on S. 407 ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2009'' my vote would have been cast in support of this bill. In addition, had I been present I would have cast my vote in support of the following bills, H.R. 1016 ``Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009'', H.R. 1211 ``Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act'', H.R. 1172 ``To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to include on the Internet website of the Department of Veterans Affairs a list of organizations that provide scholarships to veterans and their survivors'' and H.R. 1777 ``Making technical corrections to the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended''.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and ranking member for yielding. I thank my colleague from North Carolina as well for his honest efforts on behalf of his constituents. I respectfully disagree with the conclusions the gentleman's made, but I certainly respect him and his abilities in representing his constituents and the hard work he's offered on this legislation. But I rise today in opposition of H.R. 31, the Lumbee Recognition Act. I believe all groups seeking Federal recognition as an Indian tribe should go through the administrative process at the Department of the Interior. It's clear that this process does need reforming, but Congress should do the hard work of reforming that process. In this case, the Department of Indian Affairs has stated that the 1956 Lumbee Act prevents the Lumbee from going through the proper course of action to attain this status. I believe Congress should act to lift that restriction, and that is why I joined with my other North Carolina Democratic colleague, Congressman Heath Shuler, in submitting an amendment to the Rules Committee to remove the barriers set forth in the 1956 Lumbee Act and provide the Lumbee with the same opportunity to attain Federal recognition as other tribes have. I think that's the proper path. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee disallowed us that opportunity to vote on that legislation here on the House floor, and I think that's unfortunate. To the extent that the process needs to be reformed, we should let Congress or the agency focus on those specific areas, instead of passing individual recognition bills. I cannot support the underlying legislation, which would allow the Lumbee to circumvent this proper recognition process and their hard work in diligently working toward recognition through the Office of Federal Acknowledgment. This would be unfair to those tribes who have gone through the proper requirements to attain their official status. Also, it's unfair to existing federally recognized tribes who do not want to see their cultural identity undermined by legislation such as this. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and allow the Office of Federal Acknowledgment to carry out its appropriate responsibilities. That's why we instituted, as a Congress, the Office of Federal Acknowledgment, and we should make sure it does its proper work.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, there is a coffee shop in my district and Richard Warren owned that coffee shop, and to every veteran that walked in the door, he said, Welcome home. And today, tonight, on Memorial Day, I rise to honor the life and legacy of Richard Warren of Mooresville, North Carolina. He was the owner and operator of Pat's Coffee Shop and a Vietnam veteran. Richard Warren served in the 68th Attack Helicopter Company of the United States Army, and for the last 14 years, Richard ran Pat's Coffee Shop in Mooresville. Now, this is not your ordinary coffee shop. Pat's became known as the most patriotic coffee shop in America. In no time, that little coffee shop became exactly what Richard had envisioned: a gathering place for local veterans. Veterans from all across Iredell County and around the region, even, would come together every day to share their tales and stories--boy, were there some stories--over coffee and a bite to eat. Before long, veterans started bringing mementos from their time in the service. Richard hung those pictures and memorabilia on the wall and acknowledged every veteran--as I said every veteran who walked in that door got a very honest ``welcome home'' from Richard Warren. Pat's Coffee Shop became a living shrine to the men and women, the veterans, who risked their lives to defend America. On one special occasion, former Senator Bob Dole of Kansas stopped in and spent several hours talking to veterans, exchanging stories and tales and reminiscing with his fellow brothers-in-arms. Pat's Coffee Shop has had a number of visitors. I've visited a number of times. But Richard didn't stop there. Richard founded also the Welcome Home Veterans, a local nonprofit group. He would actively help veterans find jobs in the community and could have been considered an unofficial veterans caseworker for my office and for Senators' offices as well. Richard frequently contacted my office on behalf of veterans who had challenges, who had problems, but there wasn't anything Richard would do or wouldn't do to help a fellow veteran. So it's a little wonder that those who knew Richard Warren best called him a true patriot. In fact, I've got a picture of a young Richard Warren, he couldn't have been more than 3 years old, sitting in front of a stoop in front of his boyhood home with a big backdrop of an American flag. It's a black and white photo that I've got hanging in my office to this day, and I will continue to have hanging on my wall. It's a true young patriot there, and it's really wonderful American history. And I honor Richard by keeping that on my bookshelf and in my office. Now, I was proud to visit Pat's Coffee Shop on a number of occasions and to call Richard Warren a friend. I look forward to returning to Pat's Coffee Shop not only to honor the veterans but to honor Richard Warren. Our Nation has lost a hero, a man who served his country and more and then made his life's work that of service to his fellow man. Richard Warren will be missed by many. He will be missed by the young and old alike, veterans and those who didn't have the honor of serving will miss him as well On this Memorial Day, we honor our veterans, the fallen, and I honor of Richard Warren. And I know when he was greeted at the Pearly Gates, he got a solemn and heartfelt ``welcome home.''

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the ticking time bomb in Tehran. The IAEA reports that Iran has enriched enough uranium to make a nuclear bomb. Once weaponized, Iran's nuclear capabilities threaten the existence of Israel and our allies throughout the region. President Obama's open hand of soft diplomacy has been met with firmly clenched fists by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. With the clock ticking, the President must heed the advice of Defense Secretary Gates and proceed with stricter economic sanctions on Iran. The administration has threatened to drag its feet on Iran until Israel accepts its terms for a two-state solution. While peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians should be a priority, I urge the President to reconsider using this as a precondition for stopping the Iranian nuclear threat and nuclear weapon.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, in 2007 this bill passed the House with no subsequent action in the Senate. Since then, the Federal Reserve has finalized rules establishing a new category of ``high-priced mortgages'' under HOEPA that will virtually eliminate all subprime lending. When the Fed released these new regulations, Chairman Frank described the Fed's response to tighten the HOEPA restrictions as a ``very strong consumer protection position.'' I have heard the arguments made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the Fed's regulations eliminating all subprime lending don't go far enough, that even more lending in the marketplace needs to be eliminated. Now, I say ``eliminated'' instead of ``prohibited'' because by defining a class of loans under HOEPA, you are essentially killing that class of loans, never mind the fact that they may be a reasonable option for a number of consumers. Now, I say ``eliminate'' because these loans under HOEPA are simply not originated, financed, or securitized in a normal marketplace, much less the severely restricted marketplace we currently have in lending that is very clear to the American people. The reason why there is not lending under HOEPA is due to the significant risk of loss on the holder of these loans. In 2006, when we had a normal functioning mortgage marketplace, of the 10 million loans made, less than 1 percent were HOEPA loans. By expanding the loans that would fall under HOEPA even further than the Fed has already done, we would be killing options for millions of people to get future lending and ensuring that in an already restricted marketplace, things will become even more restricted. Mr. Chairman, Members need to ask themselves, if the marketplace for mortgages is going to become so heavily regulated, further regulated with so many new protections included in the rest of this bill, then why in the world do we need title III of this bill? My amendment strikes title III. During the committee hearing earlier this month, Massachusetts Bank Supervisor Steven Antonakes expressed his concern that the dramatic expansion of HOEPA will result in much fewer loans being made. Is this really the direction the Congress wants to take right now, further restricting the mortgage marketplace? Mr. Chairman, I ask support of my colleagues for striking title III of this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. McHENRY. As a proponent of the legislation, do I have the right to close?

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, in summation, my colleague from North Carolina has made the argument why you should strike section III. His quote is, ``Yes, we intend to limit choices, Mr. Chairman.'' I think that is the wrong attitude this Congress should take. The fact is, for those that have less than perfect credit, this section of the legislation will hamper their ability to get mortgages and purchase homes. That is the simple fact. In fact, my colleague from North Carolina says that, yes, they intend to limit choices, they want to eliminate choices in the marketplace for lending and for further restricting lending. I think that is the wrong path, Mr. Chairman. I think that is the wrong attitude this Congress should take. I think it limits choices for our consumers. Mr. Chairman, when this becomes law, if we do not strike this section, Members will have to go home and answer to their constituents, Why can't I get the lending I need to purchase a home? And we can point to this very vote on whether or not they are in favor of more options in the marketplace or fewer, restricting choices, restricting opportunities, eliminating certain types of mortgages in the marketplace. I think we should eliminate section III. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member for yielding time on this important debate of the day. Today, we are talking about the budget resolution. The budget passed by this Congress--I voted ``no''--increases spending at a rapid rate. We haven't seen such a rapid growth of government since Jimmy Carter was President of the United States in the malaise days of the 1970s, but I think it's equally interesting that we're debating the budget resolution today because, just yesterday, President Obama announced that he is finding savings in the budget, and they're trying to find savings of $100 billion out of our budget. Well, today, this budget resolution will spend over $3 trillion, and so the savings that President Obama has announced is the equivalent of an average family of four in the United States deciding not to buy a Starbucks coffee--just one day, not for the year, just one day. The equivalent savings for a family is about $1.25. Actually, I don't even think you can buy a Starbucks coffee for $1.25 anymore; but instead of doing the hard work of paring down government spending and finding priorities and funding those priorities and finding those areas of government that are inefficient and ineffective and are not getting results for people, this budget simply taxes too much, spends too much and borrows too much. In the end, with our borrowing costs going up as government, we'll see inflation in the coming years, inflation that will erode seniors' ability to purchase health care, inflation that will erode families' capacities to educate their children and fund their education. These things are real. Unfortunately, though a budget deals with people, we're not doing the right thing for the American people because we're going to see a massive tax increase in this budget. We're going to see a carbon cap-and-trade, a national energy tax. We're going to see health care changes where the government takes more capacity and control away from individual patients and doctors and puts it in the hands of government bureaucrats. Our tax dollars will continue to go up, and our tax rates will go up. Now, this is not for the rich. It's for everyone when you have the tax bills going up that much. What I would urge my colleagues to do is to reject this motion to go to conference. I think it's time that we do the right thing for the American people and not increase spending to the rapid tune that this budget does, not tax them more and not borrow more. With that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from California for yielding. Madam Chair, folks in western North Carolina are hurting. We've seen the rise in unemployment. We've seen the economic dislocation that this recession has created. We've seen the impact it has on small towns and communities, on families that are struggling to make ends meet, and we've seen the rise in unemployment that generally has occurred. These are tough economic times, and I think we have to have a responsible Federal budget to meet these tough economic times. Families have to tighten their belts during these tough times. Likewise, I think the Federal Government should do the same. I think it's wrong to raise taxes in a time of recession. I think it's wrong to raise taxes on people who are already hurting. That's why I oppose this budget that's being presented here today. In fact, it's not simply enough as a public policymaker to reject a proposal, but you should offer your own, your own ideas on the way to properly act. Therefore, I am voting for two alternatives that will be better than the budget offered here today--the Obama-Pelosi budget-- that I'm offering through the Republican Study Committee and through the Republican Members. We have a budget that spends far less without raising taxes and that borrows far less than this current budget. Moreover, I'm supporting a budget alternative that balances the budget without raising taxes, in fact, making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, which will help families and small businesses. After all, we should not be taxing and spending and borrowing more. We should be cutting, saving and incentivizing great economic growth, and we should be helping small businesses expand and maintain even the workers that they currently have, and we should be helping small families as well. So I think it's reasonable to support a balanced budget without raising taxes, and I think it's irresponsible to support a budget that raises taxes, especially to the magnitude of this liberal budget offered here on the House floor. With that, I urge the adoption of the Republican Study Committee alternative, of the Republican alternative, and urge the rejection of the Obama-Pelosi budget and especially of this very liberal budget offered here on the floor today.

Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield?