J. Gresham Barrett

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that many homeowners around the country require affordable insurance against natural disasters. However, I also know that the Federal Government cannot afford spending at the excessive levels we are spending at. By expanding the National Flood Insurance Program, the NFIP, H.R. 3121 would put the Federal Government on the hook for even more billions of dollars. Coming from a State prone to hurricanes, I am sensitive to those needs and to those who live in high-risk areas for natural disasters. But it would be irresponsible for the Federal Government to expand its program without fully understanding the repercussions. Unfortunately, many Americans will likely once again find themselves affected by devastating natural catastrophes such as hurricanes. The NFIP already owes the Department of Treasury around $18 billion, and it is unlikely that they will ever be able to repay this amount; $18 billion. So should we now increase the NFIP's exposure, thus increasing the Federal Government's liability, by expanding this program to include wind insurance? To do so would be unfair to the taxpayers who would be stuck with this bill, Mr. Chairman. Expanding this already distressed program will increase the Federal Government's liability, and will almost definitely increase government spending on a huge scale while crowding out private insurance markets. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, due to a family obligation, I unfortunately missed recorded votes on the House floor in the afternoon of Friday, September 7, 2007. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 862 (on agreeing to the Conyers amendment to H.R. 1908), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 863 (on passage of H.R. 1908), and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 864 (on passage of the conference report H. Rept. 110-317 to H.R. 2669).

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the plan for General Petraeus' surge was designed to improve Iraq's security so that political and economic progress could follow. Stability measures implemented in violent areas in and around Baghdad and across the nation have produced recognizable results. There is an increased security in Iraq, and optimistic reports are traveling back from Members of Congress, war critics, and, yes, even the liberal press. Areas once considered terrorist strongholds are now relatively secure. Progress. Sunni and U.S. forces are working together for victory. Progress. Tribal leaders are turning their backs on terrorist insurgents and helping American forces. Progress. Next week, General Petraeus will deliver a comprehensive report on Iraq and what the surge has produced since he has been on the ground, and I am confident his report will be detailed and honest. Mr. Speaker, the level of progress is evident, and I believe the continued success of the surge will pave the way for the only way out of Iraq: Victory.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, one reason America has remained free of attack for the last 7 years is because we have given the tools necessary to those on the front lines, whether it be our military or our intelligence officers. Many tactics to defend and protect this country have been used, one being electronic surveillance to gather foreign intelligence through the FISA Act. Madam Speaker, FISA was first implemented to assist the gathering of information during another era, well before the invention of cell phones, satellite tracking, or even the Internet. Terrorist groups and, more specifically, al Qaeda, have adapted to modern technology, and it's time the U.S. did the same. We're not talking about skirting the legal process but, rather, giving our intelligence officers the ability to gather information coming from foreign and/or known terrorists in the United States. I urge the majority to fix this problem now and help keep our country safe.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, last week the National Intelligence Estimate report stated that al Qaeda is the most serious threat to the U.S. homeland. On Tuesday President Bush flew to my home State of South Carolina to speak to troops in Charleston. In his speech he reminded the Nation of the threat that al Qaeda poses to our Nation and the stability of Iraq. The threat is real. I would like to share with you a Fourth of July blog entry from Lieutenant Colonel Clarence Bowser, who is currently serving with the South Carolina National Guard in Kandahar, Afghanistan: ``I am so proud of my service here and to this Nation. I don't know the politics; I'll leave that to the politicians. But it is my prayer for their leadership and that we as a Nation do the right thing for this country and Iraq.'' Mr. Speaker, my hope and my prayer is that we as politicians have the courage to do the same: win this fight.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, we must find ways to be less reliant on foreign supplies of oil and gas. And this is more than an energy issue; this is a national security issue. We cannot be beholden to our enemies for our energy supply. But the good news is we're making progress domestically to find a diverse energy supply using alternative energy sources. South Carolina, which is becoming a front-runner in alternative energy for the Nation, received $1 million to fund cellulosic ethanol process development. These funds will support a bioethanol project that Clemson University, SC Bio, Savannah River National Lab and the Queensland University of Technology collaborated on using novel technology. The time is now to provide a secure energy future for generations to come. And fortunately, we are working domestically to ensure that ethanol technology here at home is a permanent fix to solving our dependency on foreign energy sources.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today to thank Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of South Carolina for their continued support of the Rosa Clark Free Medical Clinic in Oconee County, South Carolina. For more than 50 years, BCBS of South Carolina has worked to increase access to quality health care for all South Carolina residents with the hope of providing a higher quality of life to individuals and families across the state. The BCBS of South Carolina has shown leadership in attempting to tackle the problem of preventative health care for the uninsured. Their work is a good example of how the private sector, and not the Federal Government, is better equipped to find innovative solutions to the challenges facing our Nation. In addition to serving nearly 1 million customers and employing 12,000 South Carolinians, BCBS of South Carolina has also awarded millions of dollars in grants to local schools and medical facilities. These philanthropic efforts facilitated the hiring of health care professionals, furthering health care education, and ensuring South Carolinians have access to affordable quality health care. One example of this giving exists in my home district, the Third District of South Carolina. In 2006, BCBS of South Carolina contributed $100,000 to the Rosa Clark Free Medical Clinic in Oconee County, which helps provide health care to low-income residents who have no private medical insurance and are ineligible for government insurance programs. In addition, this year they are contributing an additional $34,040 to the facility as a measure of support for the clinic's ongoing mission of serving those in Oconee County. I ask my colleagues in the 110th Congress to join me in applauding BCBS of South Carolina for being an active partner with the local community and for their ongoing efforts to help reduce overall health care costs for my constituents and our State. I also want to thank those at the Rosa Clark Free Medical Clinic in my home county for all they do to improve the lives of others on a daily basis.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this would basically eliminate funding for the Byrd Honors Scholarship program by saving about $40.6 million. And I guess what I'm here to talk about today, Mr. Chairman, is that this program, which is certainly a merit-based scholarship program, was rated as ``results not demonstrated.'' When we talk about funding, when we talk about scholarships, when we talk about trying to make government more effective and more efficient, I think this is a perfect example, Mr. Chairman, of duplicative services. I understand the need of helping our high school seniors, and I applaud the effort. But in a time when money is scarce and we're trying to be good stewards of the taxpayers' dollar, doesn't it make sense, Mr. Chairman, to take programs like this, and all other associated programs, take a look at them from the bottom up and look at what is effective? Why was this particular program rated ``results not demonstrated''? Was it because of a lack of funding, Mr. Chairman? Was it because of a lack of information that high school students didn't know what was going on? Was it because of a lack of organization on how the scholarship is administered? I don't know. I don't know these answers. So all I'm saying is, if we're going to continue to help seniors, and I hope we do, let's try to do it in a more responsible manner. Let's just not create another government program. Let's not create a duplicative service. Let's take a look at what we're doing, how we're doing it, bring things together. It may be that this program needs to be increased, I don't know. It may be that it needs to go away and this money go to a program that is far more effective. All I'm saying is that I think this is the wrong way to go about it. I think if we took a real hard look at all these programs, we could pull our resources together, we could help our high school seniors much more effectively and maybe, at the same time, save $40.6 million of hard- earned taxpayers' money. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct the chairman. This is a merit-based program, not a need-based program. And I understand that we need all the education we can get. All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman is, is this the best way to spend this money? Can it not be rolled into another program or taken a look at to make sure that we're getting our best bang for the dollar, that we're spending the taxpayers' money wisely, and we're being the most effective helping our high school seniors with a higher education degree? Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I hope the chairman of the Armed Services Committee knows how much I respect him and truly love this man. Mr. Speaker, I know of no other place than Washington, DC, where it's okay to look a man in the face, tell him we're going to give him the time, the resources and everything he needs to accomplish a mission, and then halfway through the process, say, oops, I'm sorry, time's up. We made a mistake. Mission over. No one person I know or have known executing this war on radical Islam has more credibility than David Petraeus, a gentleman who was confirmed unanimously in the United States Senate, but instead of giving GEN David Petraeus, a man whose boots are on the ground, a fair opportunity and allowing him the time he needs to better implement the plan and report back, we once again see legislators trying to micromanage this war. The problem is, we've turned this into a political war, a war where politicians are pulling the strings, not the man we said could do it. If anyone can pull this off, David Petraeus can. If any armed services in the world can be successful, the men and women of the United States Armed Forces can. But let them accomplish the mission. Let them continue to win. Let them bring us victory. In recent weeks, we've witnessed in Great Britain how real the threat remains. Whether we're talking about Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the enemy is there, the enemy is real; and to ignore the threat that they pose to this Nation is unconscionable. We owe it to our troops on the ground, to those who have served, to those who have died, and the American people to allow the plan General Petraeus developed to take effect. Mr. Speaker, the stakes are too high. Keep this country safe. Keep this country strong. Do the courageous thing. Vote against this legislation.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the American public asked Congress to change their spending habits and to be more responsible with the people's money. Last fall, the majority party promised Americans greater fiscal responsibility and more spending restraint. I believe Congress needs to deliver a responsible Federal budget worthy of approval of the American public. Unfortunately, the majority has only introduced legislation that has promised the largest tax increase in history, runaway entitlement spending, and an out-of-control appropriations process. If Congress as a whole does not pledge to change, the American public will continue to be let down by the actions of the majority party. The Republicans are not going to let them down, Mr. Speaker. I understand the immediate need for spending restraint and the Republicans will continue to oppose excessive spending by the majority party. Therefore, I will vote against H.R. 2643, the Interior and Environment appropriations bill, later today.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the very first reform passed by the new majority in the 110th Congress was a rule to create transparency publicizing projects earmarked for Federal money. Now the majority party is suggesting to the American people that it's okay to bury these earmarks in conference bills, which we know cannot be amended or challenged in any way. Republicans last year brought more sunshine and transparency into this process, and instead of building on that, as promised by this new majority, Congress is taking a giant step backwards. As a member of the House Budget Committee, I'm highly concerned that waiting until the very end of the law-making process to hide pork barrel spending is the simplest way to create a slush fund in the budget. This way of spending will lose America's trust. Mr. Speaker, Americans have trusted us to spend their taxpayer money wisely and honestly. We have a responsibility to show them exactly how their money is being spent and defend it on the House floor.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, several times I have stood here and adamantly spoken against embryonic stem cell research. I understand that stem cells are necessary for the advancement of medical science. I am encouraged and hopeful of the promising effects stem cell research has for those struggling with debilitating diseases and disabilities, but these solutions can be found without destroying innocent life. We no longer have to choose between medical advancement and the protection of life. In fact, stem cells derived from adults and umbilical cords have produced over 70 successful therapies, while embryonic stem cell research has produced none. Mr. Speaker, I do believe in the wonders of science and medical research, and I am hopeful that together we can find cures to these devastating diseases and disabilities, but the end does not justify the means. The citizens that I represent cannot stand at this podium and speak for the protection of the innocent and those unborn yet do not have a voice, so I ask my colleagues to vote against S. 5. Let's work together to advance the science that we know works and does so without using taxpayer dollars to destroy life.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, over 100 days have passed since the President's first request of additional monies for our troops, and still no money. As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to ensure men and women in our military have the resources and tools necessary to succeed. Just 2 weeks ago, we heard from nearly 3,000 of those men and women asking for our support. Mr. Speaker, politics should never interfere with wartime decisions. Unfortunately, some have taken this opportunity to score what they believe to be political points and undermine our Commander in Chief. Our troops deserve a clean supplemental that does not embolden the enemy with language of retreat and defeat. Mr. Speaker, the Democrat leadership should stop the rhetoric of empty promises of ``we support our troops'' by giving them the critical funds they need today so they can finish the mission we gave them and come home in victory.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to conference report S. Con. Res. 21, the Democratic congressional budget for 2008. By not addressing the Bush tax cuts, the Democratic budget resolution conference report calls for at least a $217 billion tax hike, the second highest in American history. This budget resolution also includes a trigger which would automatically turn the tax increase into the largest in American history. Mr. Speaker, the government spends too much money. We have serious challenges facing this Nation and spending more money is not a solution. The conference report increases non-defense appropriations by $22 billion above 2007, and $21 billion above the President's request. It fails to maintain emergency funds included in last year's budget resolution. Also, emergency spending is loosely defined in this budget resolution and does not prevent future abuses in emergency supplemental appropriations. The conference report has 23 reserve funds which include the promise of more than $190 billion in additional spending which I can only assume will be paid by additional taxes. The House Budget Committee listened to many testimonies from budget experts, indicating our Nation was facing a fiscal crisis when it comes to entitlement spending; yet the conference report does nothing to address this issue. We cannot simply raise taxes and hope our entitlement problems will solve themselves. Mr. Speaker, I hoped at least some of the commonsense solutions put forth in the Republican substitute would have been settled, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget resolution.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding and also for Representative Davis today. I would also like to thank Chairman Henry Waxman and Ranking Member Tom Davis of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for facilitating such swift consideration of this bill that recognizes such an honorable man. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1335, a bill that honors the life and sacrifices of Staff Sergeant Lewis Watkins who gave his life for his country in the Korean War. Lewis Watkins was born on June 6, 1925, in Seneca, South Carolina. He graduated from Greenville High School in South Carolina in 1949. He was a member of the Greenville Police Department where he enlisted in the United States Marine Corps on September 12, 1950. After training at Parris Island, South Carolina, he served at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and Camp Pendleton, California, before being deployed to Korea. On October 7, 1952, Sergeant Watkins' platoon was assigned to retake an outpost from the enemy. Even though Sergeant Watkins had been wounded during the fight, he continued to lead his men and return gunfire on the enemy machine gun position holding up the assault. At one point, an enemy grenade landed among his men. Selflessly and without thinking, he pushed his men out of harm's way and picked up the grenade. While attempting to throw the grenade back toward the enemy, it exploded in his hand, fatally wounding him. Sergeant Watkins heroically sacrificed his life to save the lives of his fellow marines under his command, and in doing so, helped contribute to the overall success of his unit's mission during the Korean War. I thank Sergeant Watkins and his family for his service. Every American owes a debt of gratitude for his service and his sacrifice. In addition, every member of the South Carolina delegation cosponsored this legislation as a way to say thank you and honor a man who gave his life for his country. Mr. Speaker, Staff Sergeant Lewis Watkins is the only known native Oconee County resident to receive a Medal of Honor. To designate the post office facility located at 508 East Main Street in Seneca, South Carolina, as the S/Sgt Lewis G. Watkins Post Office Building is one way we can pay tribute to his life. It will allow all who enter the post office and view the dedication plaque a unique opportunity to be mindful of the sacrifices our military have made and continue to make today. In addition to the Medal of Honor, Watkins' decorations include the Purple Heart Medal; Korean Service Medal with two bronze stars; and the United Nations Service Medal. Lewis Watkins made the ultimate sacrifice for his country, and I am honored that this country is about to bestow upon his memory and his family yet another recognition. There is a verse that says, ``No greater love hath he,'' and Lewis Watkins proved that. Mr. Speaker, I urge swift passage of H.R. 1335.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, yesterday a petition signed by nearly 3,000 men and women currently serving in Iraq was accepted by the House of Representatives by Leader Boehner. The appeal simply states, ``As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. The war in Iraq is a necessary and just effort to bring freedom to the Middle East and protect America from further attacks.'' This petition was organized by two U.S. servicemen serving in Iraq, Lieutenant Jason Nichols and Staff Sergeant David Thul. In a statement released yesterday, they said, ``We are respectfully asking for full support in finishing the mission you assigned us here in Iraq. Patience and resolve will result in a stable democratic country in the Middle East. Early withdrawal will result in a stronger enemy, a weaker America and a demoralized united armed forces. We need your support to finish the job.'' Mr. Speaker, these are the thoughts of men and women fighting this war. We owe it to them to listen. They've earned it.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Republican motion to instruct conferees on the fiscal year 2008 budget. This budget motion rests on one simple premise: to reject the largest tax increase in American history contained in the Democrats' House-passed budget. By not addressing the Bush tax cuts, the Democratic budget resolution calls for a $393 billion tax hike, Mr. Speaker. In my home State of South Carolina, approximately 1.5 million people will see an average $2,400 increase in their tax bills. In my district alone, about 2,448 people will be forced to pay higher taxes, and estimates indicate a $182 million loss to the local economy, which translates in about 2,200 jobs being lost. Mr. Speaker, the government spends too much money as it is. I can't imagine what it would be like with an additional $400 billion of spending. We have serious challenges facing this Nation and more money is not the solution. Instead of increasing the burden on American citizens, we have an obligation to find real workable solutions. The Republican motion to instruct calls for a simple up-or-down vote on whether Congress should increase taxes on working Americans by $393 billion, as the House Democrat budget does. It directs conferees to commit to two things: Number one, reject the massive tax increase in the House budget that increases marginal tax rates, reimposes the marriage penalty, reimposes the death tax, cuts the child credit in half, and raises a range of other taxes as well. And, number two, stop the raid on Social Security cash surpluses. Conferees should produce a budget with a surplus sufficient to halt the raid on cash surpluses in the Social Security trust funds by fiscal year 2012. Mr. Speaker, these challenges aren't going to go away, and delaying addressing them just makes them worse and burdens future generations. The Republican alternative offers solutions, and for this reason I urge my colleagues to support the Republican motion to instruct.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, 79 days and counting since President Bush committed his request for critical funding needed for our troops fighting on the front lines. The Democratic leadership should bring the emergency supplemental to the floor without a timetable of defeat. It's not a decision of this House to arbitrarily pick a date this war should end. It's our job to ensure our military personnel have the resources they need to win and come home in victory. I wonder what men and women risking their lives every day for our safety, our security, our freedom, think about the Members of Congress sitting in their comfortable offices, playing politics with their money. I came to the House floor this morning to speak to them and let them know there are Members of Congress who believe our military can succeed, and we are doing everything within our power to ensure victory. As long as I am United States Congressman, I will never turn my back on you. I will not stand in Washington, D.C., and tell your generals how to fight this war, and will never put politics above your safety or that of our Nation.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I tell you, I had a wonderful speech prepared tonight, Mr. Speaker. It had a lot of facts and figures and a lot of things that a lot of people may not know, but I just want to comment and share tonight. I will tell you, I was talking to Jeb Hensarling earlier, who spoke a little bit earlier, Mr. Speaker, a dear friend of mine, and we were talking about what a smile we had on our faces today. A celebration of life. Something that we have been waiting for, for a long time, and I am just ecstatic. I look to my left over here and see the colleagues that are going to be speaking, and every one of them has got a smile on their face, and it is just exciting. It is a tremendous day; it is a tremendous moment for our country. And I come here tonight for three reasons, three simple reasons: The first one is Madison Finley Barrett, my oldest daughter. The second one is James Edward Barrett; we call him Jeb, Cowboy, my middle son. And the third is Charles Ross Barrett, my baby. I think about them every day. I think about watching my wife give birth. I think about how precious they are. I know it was a tremendous moment for me both physically and spiritually, and I don't think any person can witness something like that and not know that there is a God in heaven. But I think about, Mr. Speaker, my children and my family, and I celebrate for them today. I celebrate for all the families across this Nation and the lives that we will save. I think about their first steps. I think about their first falls. I think about the first time they drove a car. I think about the excitement and the joy I feel and the satisfaction that I have because they are so precious. And out there tonight, Mr. Speaker, there are Madisons and Cowboys and Pally Pals that are being born. Each one of them special, each one of them a gift from God, each one of them with the ability to change the world. It is a first step. It is a great step. I am just proud to be here to celebrate, to celebrate life, to celebrate freedom, to celebrate this wonderful thing. What a great country. What a great life. What a tremendous success.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, this week, the Democrats will bring to the floor their budget, fiscal year 2008, that they passed out of committee. This budget promises to do two things: Raise taxes and increase spending. My Republican colleagues and I will put forth a substitute that uses common sense to balance the budget in 5 years. It lowers spending, reforms unsustainable entitlement programs, and encourages economic growth without raising taxes. Madam Speaker, as a result of the Republican supported tax policies passed in 2001 through 2005, every taxpayer who paid income taxes this year will get tax relief. My Republican colleagues and I believe government should limit taxing and spending and ease the burden on the economy. Let the country grow. The difference between the two budgets are plain and simple: The Democrats trust government, the Republicans trust people. I urge my colleagues to support the fiscally responsible Republican substitute when it is brought to the floor later this week.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, our friends on the other side have complained that I guess we Republicans don't know what fiscal mismanagement is. What does it mean? I guess our Democrats, by their actions this year, especially looking at this budget, I think that fiscal mismanagement means that we are not spending enough. Apparently, if the Republicans had spent more money on everything, including everything in this budget, everything would be perfect, but we certainly know that is not the case. The Democrats seem to think that the IRS tax collectors just need to bring in more money. But let me tell you exactly what has happened. Collections over the past year are up $2.5 trillion. That figure keeps going up every year. We are collecting more tax revenue, as a share of the economy, more than the average over the past 40 years. So I guess they are telling me it is not enough. According to the Democrats, there is still too much uncollected tax revenue out there. So their budget, like the budget in the Senate that was produced last week, calls for the IRS to make up the difference trying to close this magical tax gap. I am sure somebody will tell me exactly what this magical tax gap is some time tonight. In short, this Democrat budget has found that the Federal Government budget is almost perfect. I guess all we need to do is spend more money. Clearly, my colleagues and I have a different approach. Number 1, we think prosperity and economic growth mainly comes from economic investors and workers, not the Federal Government. We think creative ideas, the ones that lead to progress and higher standards of living come from thinking outside the box, not inside the box, because that is government. I guess last of all, we believe, as President Reagan said in his first inaugural address, we are a Nation that has a government, not the other way around. We believe these things, because we believe the government should limit its taxing and spending, ease the burden on the economy, and let it grow. Judging by this budget, the Democrats, they don't see that. They think government should call the shots and keep widening its control. For that reason, this budget trusts the government more than the people that are paying the tax bills. We believe this budget is fundamentally a failure. If you want to bring it home, in South Carolina terms, so I can let the folks in South Carolina know, this is about a $2,500 tax increase for my average South Carolinan home, $2,500. We believe in freedom. With freedom comes less government, and that is a good thing.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. My friend was exactly right. We are talking about the largest tax increase in our history, $292 billion. My friend from California was exactly right. When you talk about facts and figures, it's one thing. But when you try to bring it home and let people understand exactly what it means to them personally, it's another thing. Let me just give you some examples. Nationwide, if the Democrat budget were to happen to pass, we are talking about some nationwide impacts. Here we go, a family of four earning $40,000 will face a tax increase of $2,052. That is a family of four nationwide and 113 million taxpayers will see their taxes go up by an average $2,200. Actually, $2,216, but what the heck, it's government work, let's round it off a little bit. Over 5 million individuals and families who would have seen their income tax liabilities completely eliminated will now have to pay taxes. So not only people that haven't paid taxes in the past now, another 5 million individuals are going to have to hit the tax rolls; 45 million families with children will face an average tax increase of $2,864; 15 million elderly individuals, elderly. Now, most of these are on fixed incomes, will pay an average tax increase of $2,934. And 27 million small business owners will pay an average tax increase, listen to this one now, listen to this one, $4,712. Let me read that one again, 27 million small business owners will pay an average tax increase of $4,712. Unbelievable. Let's bring it home. I am from South Carolina, born and raised there. Let's put it in South Carolina terms. In South Carolina the impact of repealing the Republican tax relief would be felt. Here is how. It's higher than I thought: 1,300,000 taxpayers statewide who are benefiting from the new lower 10 percent bracket would see their taxes go up. In South Carolina alone, 1.3 million people added to the 10 percent bracket; 447,000 married couples in the State of South Carolina would see higher taxes because of the increase in the marriage penalty. We are penalizing people to be married; 427,000 families with children would pay more taxes because the child tax credit would expire; and 212,000 investors, including seniors, would pay more because of an increase on tax rates on the capital gains and dividends. The gentleman from California was there last Wednesday into Thursday morning when we passed it, we voted against it, but the Democrats passed their budget. It's full of empty promises, with the exception of two, more spending and higher taxes. That is a done deal; it's going to happen. The Democrat budget says it's the largest tax increase in American history. The Republican budget will say no tax increases. The Democrat budget will say, immense new spending. The Republican will say, we will hold the line and we were going to increase accountability. Entitlements, on the Democratic side, it is a complete failure, $77 million worth of entitlement savings, $77 million when we are talking about literally hundreds of billions of dollars in entitlement spending that they are going to do. The Republican budget says reforms, improvements in reforms, trying to make entitlement more sustainable and adding to the longevity of it. So it is plain and simple. Again, the figure that the gentleman from California, Madam Speaker, quoted a little bit earlier, when you bring it home in South Carolina terms where everybody can understand it, where it hits their pocketbook, we are talking per year average for 5 years if the Democratic budget passes, $2,482.66 that my people in South Carolina will have to pay more. And I ask the gentleman from California, I don't think that is a pretty good deal, do you?

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding; and, no, I don't. Again, broken promises. One of the ways that the Democrats want to fund all this new spending is reserve funds. And you talk about a shell game. We are talking about setting up reserve funds so we can spend more money, but there is actually no money in the reserve funds because we are going to put the money in there later on.