Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, but I think it is again important for the American people to know that President Bush's pro-growth economic policies are working. It is absolutely incredible to think that we have just had the greatest economic growth, the greatest quarterly economic growth in almost 20 years, to think that productivity has increased precipitously, to think that consumer spending on nondurables is up 7.9 percent, the best in a quarter century, that, as I said, productivity increased almost 4 percent during the first two-and-a-half years of this administration, the fastest pace of any presidency since JFK. It is important that the American people know that shareholder wealth is up almost $3 trillion, an increase of 22 percent since October 2, where we are helping to rebuild nest eggs. There is so much great economic news that is out there, totally in contrast to what we heard from people on the other side of the aisle, who said that these were failed economic policies. We need to do more work to create jobs, but the question is where do we go from here? I often feel as my colleagues follow the debate and I follow the debate, that Democrats seem to love jobs. They just hate the people who create them. They want to tax job creators. They want to regulate job creators. They want to sue job creators, and then they wonder where are all the jobs, and then they continue to want to engage in this class warfare which I just believe is so uncharacteristic of the American people. I have held a lot of jobs in my life. I used to clean out chicken houses for a living. I used to bus tables for a living. I used to tote luggage at a hotel. I worked as an officer in a small business before. I have run my own company. Actually, for a short period, I actually practiced law, though I am trying to live that one down, but my point is, in all the jobs I have ever had, no poor person ever hired me. It was somebody who might have been poor once, but they went out and they worked hard, and they were allowed to accumulate capital. They were allowed to keep their earnings, and so they went out and they took a risk and they put a hamburger stand over here or a transmission shop over there or a new software company over here. That is the way that we grow the economy. That is the way that we are going to create jobs. I am a former small businessman, and I know that one of the great challenges we face as small businesspeople is how do we acquire capital. We do not acquire capital from the Federal Government. When they take our money, we do not have capital to go out and create new businesses. Another great challenge small business faces is in health care costs, and yet as we work to try to improve the quality of health care and bring the cost of health care down, the folks on the other side of the aisle have fought us every step of the way, particularly in reforming medical liability insurance. Lawsuit abuse is adding 15 percent to the cost of welfare, and we care about doctors and patients, and they care about trial lawyers, but every single step of the way, trying to create an energy practice to bring down the cost of energy, to help the economy move further and create more jobs, they have fought us every step of the way. So I appreciate what the gentleman has done tonight to bring the facts to this great body and to the American people, and I thank my colleague for the opportunity to be a part of that.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I especially thank the gentleman for his part in helping bring about this great economic growth plan of President Bush, and especially for his leadership in helping fight waste, fraud, and abuse within the Federal Government that is so hurting our family budget. Mr. Speaker, thanks to President Bush, we have had some of the best economic news that we have heard since the recession occurred in March of 2001. As my colleagues heard earlier, the economy grew at a whopping 7.2 percent, the best in almost 20 years. Again, let me repeat that. The economy has grown at 7.2 percent, the best in 20 years. Now, while economic cycles, with their peaks and valleys, have occurred over the history of America, the events of the past 3 years have been especially challenging to our economy and our financial markets. The burst of the high-tech bubble; 9-11, which cost the economy close to $2 trillion, along with the corporate scandals that we saw with Enron and WorldCom, all of these were significant factors in contributing to a downward economy. But thanks to President Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress, we have had an extremely shallow recession, and we have moved from negative economic growth to positive economic growth, and we have moved to it in a most dramatic way. Now, earlier this year, the President offered his progrowth positive economic growth plan that I was happy to cosponsor. It included tax relief for families and tax relief for small businesses. It was designed to spur economic growth by allowing Americans to keep more of what they earn, giving them more money to spend and save and invest in our economy. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that plan is working. The growth of America's gross domestic product is the strongest it has been in 20 years. The third quarter economic growth of 7.2 percent is the best since 1984. The third quarter spending on big-ticket items like cars have increased by an astounding 26.9 percent. Consumer spending on nondurables like food and clothes increased by 7.9 percent in the third quarter. This is the best in almost a quarter of a century. This is good economic news. Consumer confidence is up. Business spending on equipment and software increased by 15.4 percent, the largest increase since the first quarter of 2000. Productivity has increased 3.9 percent during the first 2\1/2\ years of this administration. This is the fastest start, the fastest pace of any Presidency since JFK. Productivity is what makes us competitive, more good economic news resulting from President Bush's progrowth economic plan. Exports rose for the first time in four quarters to over $1 trillion. Inflation, once the scourge of the elderly and those on fixed incomes, continues to be almost nonexistent. And this is an important one, Mr. Speaker: shareholder wealth is up $2.9 trillion, trillion with a T, an increase of 22 percent since October of 2002. Now, 50 percent of this increase in the stock market wealth has occurred since the economic growth agreement was reached in May. This is so important because half of all American families own stock, most of which or much of which is in 401(k) retirement plans; and half of those stock-owning families, Mr. Speaker, make less than $50,000 a year. These shareholders are families investing in their future. They are parents saving for their children's education. They are seniors who are dependent upon investment income for retirement. They are Americans making $50,000 a year. The President's progrowth economic plan is helping Americans rebuild their nest egg. This is great news. But, Mr. Speaker, there is even more great news, and that is that homeownership in the third quarter was 68.4 percent, the highest level ever in the history of America. Let me repeat that, the highest level of homeownership in the history of America, thanks to President Bush and the Republicans in Congress passing this economic growth package. Now, homeownership has been a time-honored American tradition and a central part of the American Dream since the founding of our Nation. And because of the President's leadership, because of the tax relief that we fought so hard for for the American people, more young couples, more families are realizing that dream of homeownership. This is indeed great news. Now, just a few months ago, as my colleague said, Democrats were saying that the economic growth tax relief program did not work. They called it unreasonable, haphazard, reckless, and fiscally irresponsible. I am not sure what is unreasonable about having the highest rate of homeownership in the history of America. I do not know what is haphazard about the stock market going up 22 percent and helping American families build a nest egg. I am not sure what is reckless about productivity gains. But they called President Bush's blueprint for the economy a failed policy that would hurt long-term economic growth. But, Mr. Speaker, as usual, their rhetoric was wrong, their reasoning was wrong, their economics were wrong, their predictions were wrong. In the end, they were just flat wrong. The success of the Bush jobs and growth plan and the positive economic news that we have heard comes as no surprise to economists. The chairman of the Federal Reserve back in June, Alan Greenspan, stated, ``Fortuitously, this particular cut in taxes is happening at the right time.'' He said that the fiscal boost created by President Bush's tax relief plan would ``create a fairly marked increase in after-tax income in the third quarter,'' and that is what we have seen. Now, although we have had some great economic news, Mr. Speaker, we still have much work to do. Unemployment is still too high; but the good news is, it is improving. In the month of September alone, the U.S. economy created 57,000 net new jobs, the first time in 9 months that we have added jobs to our economy. Since the 2003 economic growth plan, initial claims for unemployment insurance have declined by more than 10 percent. And if history is our guide, historically, employment is the last economic indicator to come in line. Now, Democrats continue to criticize our President for 6 percent unemployment. Frankly, compared to the unemployment rates of much of the Western world, many still envy us. European nations such as France and Germany report unemployment rates of almost 10 percent. Spain's unemployment rate is almost double that of ours at 11.4 percent. Frankly, inheriting a recession, coupled with 9-11, corporate scandals, fighting the war on terror, I believe this President deserves credit for keeping 94 percent of the American workforce employed. Without his plan, let there be no doubt: we would still be in recession and millions more would be unemployed, but we will not rest until every American that wants a job has a job. Our economic growth plan is working, but the Democrats want to roll it back. Today's Wall Street Journal included a column on"Demo- nomics,'' explaining how all nine of the Democrat candidates for President are proposing to raise taxes. Now, I am not sure what is news about that, but it further explained how the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and Howard Dean are proposing to repeal every single dime of the President's progrowth tax relief, regardless of income. Mr. Speaker, permit me to quote from the Wall Street Journal: ``Dr. Dean then goes further and proposes lifting the income cap on payroll taxes, a huge marginal rate increase on anyone making more than $87,000 a year. All of this plays well with liberal primary voters who loathe all things Bush, but it would amount to the largest tax increase in history if they prevail.'' Once again, the leaders of the Democrat Party are proposing the single largest tax increase in the history of America. Mr. Speaker, I do not know, do Democrats have a problem with families who make $50,000 a year getting a better return on their investments? Do Democrats have a problem with more homeownership? Do Democrats have a problem with economic growth? Do Democrats have a problem with productivity gains? Do Democrats have a problem with 401(k) gains? The Democrats have fought us on tax relief; they have fought us on lawsuit reform. Most recently they have even fought us on trying to get rid of only 1 percent, 1 percent of the waste, fraud, and abuse that is so rampant within our Federal budget. Mr. Speaker, the simple truth is that the Democrats' vision is about growing government. The Republican vision is about growing the economy. We want to grow the family budget. They want to grow the Federal budget. And the plan the House Democrats put forward would have raised taxes yet again and increased government spending by almost $1 trillion for new programs. That is their plan for America's future. Mr. Speaker, the latest economic news proves, once again, that the Democrats are wrong. The answer to promoting more economic growth is not to raise taxes; it is not to take more money away from hardworking American families. The answer is to continue to promote small business, to promote entrepreneurship, to promote more freedom, to make the Bush tax relief permanent, to let more Americans keep more of what they earn. Because, Mr. Speaker, if we will only preserve freedom and all of its essentials, there is no limit to what we, the people, can achieve.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield? Mr. Speaker, he brings up an excellent point about the Federal budget deficit. And what many people may not realize is that, and he and I serve on the Committee on the Budget, so we know this, but the pro- growth economic tax relief that President Bush proposed was $350 billion over a 10-year period contrasted to $28.3 trillion, trillion with a ``T'', worth of spending over that same time period. So if you do the math, what you discover is that the pro-growth tax relief was 1.2 percent of the spending. And so as those on the other side of the aisle continue to attack us for a Federal budget deficit, one, tax relief is part of the solution, not part of the problem. That is how we have the highest rate of home ownership in the history of America. That is how we have the productivity gains. That is how we have an increase of 22 percent in the stock market, helping Americans go back and rebuild those nest eggs. Tax relief is part of the solution, not part of the problem. That is how we have economic growth. That is how we have the most, the greatest increase in economic growth in 20 years. If you care about the deficit, do not look to 1.2 percent of tax relief, look to the 98.8 percent of the spending which, as we well know, Democrats refuse to do. When we proposed finding 1 percent, a mere 1 percent of waste, fraud, and abuse that is so widespread in this Federal budget, the Democrats fought us every step of the way. And as my esteemed colleague has pointed out, on top of the Democrats fighting the tax relief, not focusing on the spending, they actually proposed almost $1 trillion more spending over and above the budget we passed. That is their vision for America, and their vision fails.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. HENSARLING. Reclaiming my time, actually during 1999, I believe President Clinton, a Democrat, was President of the United States. That brings up a greater problem. Frankly, there is a Federal bureaucracy that is out of control, and Republicans are trying to do something about it. To continue, in 1999, the Department of Education made a number of improper payments, during the Clinton administration, I might add, including about $125 million in duplicate payments to 45 different grantees, $664,000 in duplicate payments to 51 different schools, and a $6 million double payment to a single school. What accountability. And Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? In fact, Mr. Speaker, over a 3-year period, from 1999 to 2001, during the Clinton administration, the Department of Education wasted almost one-half billion dollars, enough to pay for 194,000 extra Pell grants, increase the charter school program by 80 percent, or double the amount given to States to keep schools free and clear of drugs. $450 million wasted. And Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? Mr. Speaker, these are just a few examples of the types of waste the American people are paying for. When you look at the reports, it is easy to see that many other Federal programs routinely waste 10, 20, even 30 percent of their taxpayer-funded budgets, and have for years. In the real world when people lose this much money, they are either fired or they go to jail. But in Washington, it is simply an excuse to ask for even more money next year. If we care about our children, we will begin to measure success by focusing on the outputs of education, test scores and the realization of students' potential, and quit measuring success by merely focusing on the inputs, money thrown at the problem. There are a thousand ways that we can save money in Washington without cutting needed services and without raising taxes on hardworking families as the Democrats propose. Because when it comes to Federal spending, it is not how much money the government spends, it is how the government spends the money.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise again this week as part of Washington Waste Watchers, a Republican effort dedicated to bringing the disinfectant of sunshine into the shadowy corners of the wasteful Washington bureaucracy. We are here to show the American people how Federal agencies need to be held accountable, for they routinely lose huge portions of taxpayer-funded budgets to waste, fraud and abuse. This week, let us talk about the Department of Education. Today America's schools face a number of challenges. The Democrats have said time and time again that the answer is simply more Federal money, more Federal spending. Unfortunately, that is simply not true. Congress has already dramatically increased Federal spending for education. According to the Office of Management and Budget, from 1994 to 2002, funding for the Department of Education grew by a greater percentage than any other cabinet-level agency, number one. Yet test scores have either stagnated or actually declined. The problem is not how much money the government spends, the problem is how government spends the money. Unfortunately, much of the money that we spend on education is not going to the children. Enormous sums of the American people's hard- earned tax dollars intended to help teach our children are lost in waste, fraud and abuse. Mr. Speaker, let me just give you a few examples. Over a 3-year period, just one executive director of a Head Start program received over $814,000 in salary and bonuses. One of those years he received over $343,000, more than the Secretary of Education, more than a four- star general, more than the Vice President of the United States. This same Head Start program leased this government employee a Mercedes-Benz SUV for $600 a month, in part with Federal funds. And Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? This compensation is being paid with Federal funds that are intended to help 3- to 5-year-old school children. While this administrator's salary could pay for the education of 50 Head Start kids, the program he administered was over $1 million in debt. And Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this?

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, as has been noted earlier, this October we recognize the 19th anniversary of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. This year alone, more than 200,000 of our mothers, daughters, sisters, and wives will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and close to 40,000 will die from this dreadful disease. My wife and I first became aware of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month through our volunteer work with the American Cancer Society. We decided to get involved because so many of our friends and families had been impacted by this terrible disease and we wanted to make a difference. Over its short history, the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month has successfully raised awareness for the early detection and prevention of breast cancer. As a result, mammography screening rates have doubled since 1985, and breast cancer mortality rates have steadily declined. Mr. Speaker, the best way for all of us to join in the battle against breast cancer is to help spread the word to as many women as possible that early detection saves lives.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise again this week as cofounder of the Washington Waste Watchers, a Republican effort designed to bring the disinfectant of sunshine into the shadowy corners of the wasteful Washington bureaucracy. Last week, the Treasury Department reported the current fiscal year deficit, excluding Social Security receipts, closed at $535 billion, one of the largest deficits ever. Faced with this growing budget deficit and obvious unparalleled homeland security needs, surely we must do something. Now, Democrats say the only way to cut the deficit is to yet again raise taxes on the American family. I disagree. We do have a historically large deficit, but not because the American people are taxed too little. It is because Washington spends too much. Since 1998, just 5 years ago, Federal spending has increased 22 percent and the amount the Federal Government spends per household has increased from $16,000 to $21,000 per household. This is a 5-year spending binge, the likes of which we have not seen since World War II. But the binge did not start just yesterday. The Federal budget has been growing seven times faster than the family budget for the last 2 generations. This assault on the family budget is unfair, unsustainable, and unconscionable. Mr. Speaker, much of the spending in Washington is also pure waste, fraud, and abuse. And by attacking it every day, we can begin to reduce this deficit. That is why the Washington Waste Watchers are here. Mr. Speaker, tonight, let us just look at a few questionable examples of spending in one Federal agency, the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. NIH is funding a 6-year grant to study American Indian and native Alaskan lesbian-gay, bisexual, transgender, and ``two-spirited'' individuals. This study is estimated to cost the American taxpayer over $3 million. Part of the purpose of this study is to ``facilitate future goals of designing and evaluating interventions to address the urgent needs of two spirits.'' We are fighting a war on terrorism and this is urgent? And, even worse, Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? NIH is also paying approximately $276,000 for a 4-year study on the sexual behavior of 80- and 90-year-old men. What are we supposed to do with this information? NIH has also handed out over $107,000 to fund a research on mediums or, in their words, ``individuals who regularly enter altered states of consciousness as part of a religious ritual.'' Combined, that is $383,000 of the American people's hard-earned tax dollars. And Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? NIH is also funding studies on reactions to pornography, sexual risk- taking, and they also chipped in for a conference on sexual arousal, all of which will end up costing the American taxpayer an estimated $650,000 over 2 years. Mr. Speaker, $650,000, and Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? They are spending an estimated $1.2 million over 6 years on Chinese panda research, and we have no native pandas in America. They are also spending $4.6 million on sexologists. Mr. Speaker, the few items I just mentioned are from just one government agency, and it will waste over $10 million of the American taxpayers' money. Now, tonight I wish I could say these were unique examples but, unfortunately, this type of waste has been going on in this city for years and years. Now, Mr. Speaker, I certainly support scientific research, and NIH has done some very great work, especially in the area of cancer research. But where are our priorities? Where is our common sense? Where is the accountability? Does anybody really believe at a time of historically large deficits, with enormous homeland security needs, that we need to be spending over $10 million of hard-earned American family money on sexologists and Chinese panda research? If these are the grants that are approved by NIH, I would hate to see the ones they turn down. Mr. Speaker, there are so many different ways that we can save money in Washington without cutting any needed services and without raising taxes on hard-working Americans. Because when it comes to funding programs in Washington, it is not how much money Washington spends; it is how Washington spends the money.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on the Budget, I have heard hours and hours of testimony from Democrats about funding Federal programs. They claim that if we do not vote for an increase in the budget of welfare, then we do not care about the needy; if we do not vote for an increase of the budget of the National Institutes of Health, we do not care about cancer patients; if we do not favor major increases for the Department of Education, we must not care about our children learning their A, B, C's. In other words, in their world, support can only be measured by money. I have heard this line of reasoning over and over again in countless speeches by my Democrat colleagues, but when it comes to protecting the American homeland, all of the sudden the Democrats throw that reasoning out the window because now, Mr. Speaker, we are being told by the leader of the Democrats that they support our troops, they just do not support funding them. Which is it? If they support our troops but they do not want to fund them, what are we to do? Are we to pass around collection boxes at sporting good stores asking for donations of ammunition for our troops? Are we to start food drives at churches and synagogues and mosques in order to feed our soldiers who are in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are we to shop at Goodwill for the uniforms that they need? I think not. Mr. Speaker, almost a year after 9/11, the leader of the Democrats in the House said she really did not consider that we were at war. I hope she has now come to a realization that we very much are. This is the same Democrat leader that described our simple resolution to support our troops in the field as a bitter pill to swallow. The real bitter pill to swallow is the realization that so many Democrats claim to support our troops, but they will not vote to arm and equip them. But the Democrat leader in the House is not the lone Democrat making outrageous political statements at this time in our Nation's political history. A Democrat leader in the other body stated that the war on terror is a fraud, made up in Texas. Let us ask 68-year-old mother Zahra Khafi if this war is a fraud. After her 28-year-old son was summarily executed 2 years ago by Saddam Hussein's regime for merely practicing his religion, she said, ``Should I be afraid? Is Saddam coming back?'' Let us ask Ali Khemy if this war is a fraud. After the 1st Marine Expeditionary Unit liberated his village, he said, ``Americans very good, Iraq wants to be free.'' Let us ask one of their religious leaders if this war is a fraud. When his country was being liberated by our troops, he said ``We need freedom more than we needed air.'' A recent survey showed that 70 percent of the Iraqis are clear they want our help. Clearly, the people of Iraq know that this war is about something real and tangible: freedom, democracy, security, not just theirs but, more importantly, ours. For any Democrat who still believes that there is no war, no threat from the forces of terrorism, let us ask the families of the nearly 3,000 innocent Americans who lost their lives in the terrorist attacks after September 11. Let us ask the family members of those who recently lost their lives in terrorist attacks against the U.N. headquarters, those who lost their lives in Baghdad's Jordanian embassy or against the Shrine of Ali Mosque. Let us see if they believe that there is no war with terrorists. There is an old adage, Mr. Speaker, that those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them. Today, those who do not consider our Nation at war or consider it a fraud, clearly have not learned the lessons of history. During 8 years under President Clinton when he deployed our troops 37 different times, Republicans came to the floor of the House and voted to support our men and women in uniform. In those 37 deployments, Republicans gave President Clinton the funding he needed. Now, if Republicans can support a Democrat President during time of war, why do so many Democrats refuse to support a Republican President during time of war? If Democrats are unwilling to recognize the war that we must confront, if they are unwilling to support our troops against these threats, then what do they propose that we do to avoid another attack against Americans on American soil? What is their solution to avoiding another potential attack with chemical, biological or a nuclear weapon that can make 9-11 pale in comparison? Under this President, with the support of Republicans and some Democrats in Congress, we are winning and fighting the war on terror. We are restoring stability and order. Just this month, the United States military and Iraqi police conducted joint raids, arresting more than 50 terrorists and criminals. Approximately 50,000 Iraqi police officers are back to work, Coalition forces are working with 36,000 local Iraqi workers to refurbish 1,600 schoolhouses across Iraq, and last week Iraqis started a new path towards economic stabilization by introducing a new currency. Mr. Speaker, I hope my Democrat colleagues will move beyond the political rhetoric of their party's leadership and their Presidential candidates. We must continue the hard and expensive work of seeing freedom and democracy take root in Iraq and Afghanistan. For as they do, those countries will cease to offer safe haven to terrorists and the safer America will be. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I rise again this week as cofounder of a new Republican effort, dedicated to bringing the disinfectant of sunshine into the shadowy corners of the wasteful Washington bureaucracy. We call ourselves the Washington Waste Watchers, and we are here to look after the family budget by checking the growth of waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal budget. Madam Speaker, I am sure that all of my colleagues are well aware of the size of our Federal budget deficit. It is large, and growing larger every day. To compound the challenge, we are presently faced with an additional $87 billion supplemental appropriation request to help fight the war on terror. Now, I believe, after much debate and due diligence, that this body will pass most, if not all, of this request, and I for one, agree that it is far better to fight this war on terror over there than it is over here. So, faced with unparalleled homeland security needs and a growing budget deficit, what are we to do? Democrats say the only way to cut the deficit is to yet again raise taxes on the American family. Sound familiar? It is the only budget idea that they have. We do have a large deficit, but it is not because the American people are undertaxed, it is because Washington spends too much. Since I was born in 1957, the Federal budget has grown seven times faster than the family budget. Seven times faster. This is unconscionable and unsustainable. And over and above the expenses connected with the war on terror, Democrats have voted to spend almost $1 trillion more than the budget allows, $1 trillion more in spending, and they claim to be concerned about deficits. Madam Speaker, much of this spending in Washington is pure waste, fraud and abuse, and by attacking it every day, we can begin to close this deficit. Once again this week, let us talk about duplication. The Federal Government administers 50 different programs scattered across eight Federal agencies to assist the homeless. Combined, these duplicative programs cost Americans close to $30 billion a year. Fifty different programs all engaged in roughly the same mission. Yet Democrats want to raise taxes to pay for more of this? Six different agencies administer 26 programs offering food and nutrition benefits to the homeless, including the USDA, HHS, Department of Education, FEMA, HUD and the VA. What is it that one of these agencies knows about feeding the homeless that the other agencies do not know? Whatever it is, I hope they figure it out pretty soon, because these duplicative programs cost roughly $43 billion a year. Just think how much we could save the American taxpayer over 10 years through consolidation of just some of these 26 programs. Yet Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? More than 50 different Federal agencies are responsible for waging the war on drugs. Four agencies are responsible for coordinating and developing narcotics detection technologies, more than 70 programs in 13 Federal departments and agencies are eligible to dispense resources to prevent substance abuse, and 16 different agencies deal with treatment. How many billions could be used to lower the Federal deficit if we simply consolidated a few of these programs? Yet the Democrats wanted to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? Sixteen Federal agencies operate roughly 75 international education, culture and training programs. Seventeen agencies monitor and enforce trade agreements. Ten of them operate export subsidy programs, and 12 oversee importation of agricultural products. How much more could we save if we simply consolidated a few of these programs. Yet the Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? Madam Speaker, these are just a few of the examples of the rampant duplication in waste in our Federal Government that has been here for years. Once you begin to look closely, it is easy to see that many Federal programs routinely lose 10, 20, even 30 percent of their taxpayer-funded budgets in waste, fraud and abuse. In the real world, when people lose this much money, they are either fired or they go to jail; but in Washington, it is yet another excuse to take even more money away from the American family. Mr. Speaker, there are many ways that we can save money in Washington without cutting any needed services and without raising taxes on the American family. Because when it comes to Federal programs, it is not how much money Washington spends; it is how Washington spends the money.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight, along with my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), as cofounder of a new Republican effort dedicated to bringing the disinfectant of sunshine into the shadowy corners of the wasteful Washington bureaucracy. We call ourselves the ``Washington Waste Watchers.'' Do not be confused, the Washington Waste Watchers are not about counting calories. It is about counting the myriad of ways that the Federal bureaucracy routinely wastes the hard-earned money of the American family. We are here to look after the family budget by checking the growth of the Federal budget. Madam Speaker, I am sure all of my colleagues are well aware of the size of our Federal deficit. It is large and getting larger every day; and, to compound the challenge, we are presently faced with a supplemental appropriation request of $87 billion to help fight the war on terror. I believe, after much debate and due diligence, that this body will pass most, if not all, of that request. I, for one, agree that it is far better to fight this war over there, as opposed to over here. And although I have concerns about portions of the request, I fundamentally believe that helping rebuild the infrastructure and the civil society of Iraq is just as important in winning this war as are additional combat troops and munitions. So, faced with unparalleled homeland security needs and a growing budget deficit, what are we to do? Democrats say the only way to cut the deficit is to yet again raise the taxes on the American family. Sound familiar? It is the same refrain we have heard from them for years. We do have a large budget deficit, but it is not because the American people are undertaxed. It is because Washington spends too much. Since I was born, the Federal budget has grown seven times faster than the family budget; seven times. This is unconscionable. And putting aside the war on terror, the Democrats, who claim to be concerned about budget deficits, have voted to spend almost $1 trillion more than our budget allows; $1 trillion more. There is a spending problem in Washington, not a taxing problem. Much of the spending in Washington is pure waste, fraud, and abuse; and by attacking it every day, we can begin to close this deficit. For a moment, let us talk about the waste of duplication. There are more than 90 programs across 11 different agencies to support the early development of children. For example, there are 9 Federal agencies and 69 different programs to educate and care for children under the age of 5. There are 29 different programs offering early education for children within the Department of HHS, itself having 4 separate programs to educate those from low-income families. And Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? The Federal Government operates 342 different economic development programs; 342. And, by the way, what does the Federal Government know about economic development anyway? There are 86 different programs in 9 Federal agencies to assist teachers in improving their teaching skills. This is on top of the thousands that already exist at the State level. Also, if we already have a Department of Education, why do we need teaching programs spread over 9 different agencies? Yet Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this. Madam Speaker, 12 different Federal agencies are responsible for food safety. For example, the Department of Agriculture inspects meat pizzas, while vegetarian pizzas are under the purview of the Department of Health and Human Services. Only in Washington, D.C., could this absurd result happen. The Federal Government operates at least 70 programs dedicated to helping the disabled. About half of these duplicate programs cost taxpayers close to $110 billion annually. That is a quarter of the cost of the 10-year prescription drug bill for our seniors. And Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? Madam Speaker, these are just a few of the examples of rampant duplication and waste throughout our Federal Government. After we begin to look closely, it is easy to see that many Federal programs routinely lose 10, 20, 30 percent of their taxpayer-funded budgets to waste, fraud, and abuse, and they have for years. In the real world, when people lose that much money, they are either fired or they go to jail. But in Washington, it is only an excuse to ask for even more money from the American family next year. There are many ways we can cut the deficit without cutting any needed services, because when it comes to Federal programs, it is not how much money Washington spends, it is how Washington spends the money.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise as cofounder of a new Republican effort dedicated to bringing the disinfectant of sunshine into the shadowy corners of the wasteful Washington bureaucracy. We call ourselves the Washington Waste Watchers. Do not be confused, the Washington Waste Watchers is not about counting calories. Instead, we are about counting the myriad of ways that the Federal Government routinely squanders the hard-earned money of the American family. We are here to look after the family budget by checking the growth of the Federal budget. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all my colleagues are well aware of the size of our Federal deficit. It is large and getting larger every day, at a time when our homeland security needs are paramount. Now, Democrats say the only way to cut the deficit is to yet again raise taxes on the American family. Sound familiar? It is the same refrain we have heard from them for many, many years. We do have a large deficit, but it is not because the American people are taxed too little; it is because Washington spends too much. Since I was born, the Federal budget has grown seven times faster than the family budget. Seven times faster. This is unconscionable. And the Democrats who claim to be concerned about Federal deficits have voted to spend almost $1 trillion more than our budget allows, $1 trillion more. There is a spending problem in Washington, not a taxing problem, and much of the spending is absolute pure waste, abuse and fraud. For the moment, let us talk about fraud. In many instances, our government stands idly by while criminals routinely defraud the American people of billions of dollars each year. Here are just a few examples. In just five individual cases, the United States Department of Agriculture was defrauded of almost $6 million in food stamp benefits; $6 million wasted by the Washington bureaucracy. And Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? Over a 4-year period, a California law student helped two companies bilk Medicaid out of $9 million in false claims; $9 million wasted. And Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? In Los Angeles, a woman and three coconspirators were convicted of wire fraud after they were caught helping unqualified borrowers obtain $70 million in fake FHA-insured loans; $70 million wasted. And Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? One Veterans Administration employee embezzled over $11.2 million from the VA. The woman, a 30-year VA employee, was the last of 12 coconspirators arrested in the scheme which involved the resurrection of claims filed for deceased veterans; $11 million wasted. And Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? Twenty-three percent of the people who have had their student loans forgiven due to disability actually hold full-time jobs, costing the Federal Government $40 million a year; $40 million, just wasted. And Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? Mr. Speaker, these are just a handful of examples of the types of fraud that are being perpetrated against the American taxpayer every day, and we have just begun to scratch the surface. One of the hallmarks of the recent Enron scandal was not just the profound outrage at the criminals who committed the fraud, but the recognition that the system had to be reformed. It was not enough just to catch the crooks, we had to change the system of accountability to make sure that it never happened again. Washington spending is a scandal, and it must be changed. Once you begin to look at the reports, it is easy to see that many Washington programs routinely waste 10, 20, 30 percent of their budgets due to waste, fraud and abuse, and have for years. Yet Federal agencies routinely spend next to nothing policing these multibillion-dollar budgets. In the real world, when people lose this much money, they either go broke or they go to jail, but in Washington it is simply another excuse to take more money away from the American family. Mr. Speaker, there are many ways that we can save money in Washington without cutting any needed services and without raising taxes on our hard-working Americans, because when it comes to Federal programs, it is not how much money Washington spends, it is how Washington spends the money. Mr. Speaker, at a time of huge Federal deficits, unparalleled homeland security needs and a crushing family tax burden, the Washington Waste Watchers are here to let Americans know there is an alternative to even more Democrat tax increases on the American family.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the New Beginning Center on the recent groundbreaking and renovation of their domestic violence shelter in Garland, Texas. For almost two decades, the New Beginning Center has been a silver lining for the victims of domestic violence in the North East Dallas area. Through crisis intervention, counseling, education and advocacy programs, the New Beginning Center provides a safe environment for women and children fleeing life-threatening situations. But the services they provide go well beyond shelter or legal services. The Center's staff and volunteers are responsible for rebuilding lives, restoring hope and opening up new opportunities for families under some of the most difficult and dangerous circumstances imaginable. I recently had the opportunity to tour the New Beginning Center to learn more about the important service they provide to our community. I was touched by the stories I heard from the staff and volunteers. During my visit I was able to see firsthand how we can pull together to help end the scourge of domestic abuse. With the help of HomeAid Dallas and Beazer Homes, the New Beginning Center's new 1,300 square foot Shelter Service Building will expand the center's capacity by 38 percent so they can provide safety to more families. Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate the New Beginning Center, HomeAid Dallas, Beazer Homes, and the 31 other local sponsors who made the beginning of this new facility possible. I thank the hard working staff and volunteers there. Most importantly, I applaud the Center's efforts to put and end to domestic violence in our community.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to challenge the fact that Americans have the most accessible and lowest cost credit in the world. Uniform national standards have played a major role in this development. These national standards have led to an increase in access to credit for many previously underserved populations, especially lower income Americans. This has created new economic freedoms for many who could not dream of such opportunity in the past, including unprecedented rates of homeownership and automobile ownership which are the envy of the world. The FACT Act protects these standards. The FACT Act also protects consumers because the best consumer protection is a competitive marketplace and a free flow of accurate information. National standards allow numerous credit providers throughout the country to more effectively compete for each other consumers' business. In turn, consumers benefit through lower cost in a dizzying variety of credit products. Mr. Speaker, the FACT Act plays an integral role in job creation as well. The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has testified that seven out of 10 small businesses are started with less than $20,000 and over 45 percent of them use credit cards as a major source of financing. If the national standards provided by the Fair Credit Reporting Act are allowed to expire, small businesses, the job engine of our economy, would face new obstacles and new burdens in obtaining much needed start-up and expansion capital. This will hurt jobs. Some argue that national standards for credit reporting are not necessary and that consumer information and privacy would be more effectively regulated on a State-by-State basis, but most credit transactions take place across State lines, and such a patchwork of State-by-State laws would clearly interfere with the free flow of reliable information and the access to instant credit upon which our economy is dependent. Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that identity theft is a growing problem in our society. As a former victim of identity theft myself, I am pleased to see that the FACT Act takes many steps to ensure that all the parties involved in identity theft are doing their part to protect both consumers and businesses. Law enforcement officials agree that national standards are vital, or play a vital role in combating identity theft, and this legislation works towards that end. For the sake of jobs and the economy, for the sake of low-cost available credit, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this rule and vote for the bipartisan FACT Act. And I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for their leadership on this vital issue.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the memory of A.C. Barger of Centerville, Texas, a constituent, friend, and distinguished American who recently passed away. A.C. Barger was a patriot who loved his country dearly. As an Army veteran, he fought for freedom. A.C. saw action on the front lines of the Korean War. He put his life on the line for others. He knew freedom is never free. A successful businessman who worked his way from the ground up, A.C. became the owner of the Wormser Hat Company, creating jobs and hope and opportunity for others. A.C. Barger was an entrepreneur. A loyal Republican, A.C. worked tirelessly to elect Republican candidates and was responsible for leading the Leon County Republican Party in my district, and all agree he was the heart and soul of that party. As one who loved his fellow man, A.C. was well known for his volunteer services. From serving as the director of the Leon County Crime Stoppers, to leading the local VFW, to volunteering at the senior center, A.C. Barger made a difference in people's lives. A devoted Christian and devoted family man, A.C. was a lay minister in the Methodist Church and was married to his lovely wife, Darlene, for 45 years. Mr. Speaker, in 8 days I am due to become the father of a son. I can think of no greater tribute to pay a man than to say I would be proud to have my son grow up and be like A.C. Barger. I have no doubt that A.C. has been received with the words ``Well done, good and faithful servant.'' I was proud to know A.C. Barger, and we will miss him.

Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from Texas, a dear friend of Mr. Barger's.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I am privileged to honor some of the most treasured individuals in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, our public school teachers. As a product of the public school system, from kindergarten to graduate school, I am especially proud to recognize the work of teachers in my district. Public school teachers are unsung heroes who labor tirelessly in the classrooms and on the playing fields. They are the backbone of our education system in Texas and truly worthy of high praise in this chamber. While you will never find a teacher on a Fortune 500 list, teachers train and educate the men and women who become leaders in our nation's economy, government, and houses of worship. Teachers push our children to learn and make a contribution to our communities, and all too often they do so without the thanks that they so richly deserve. Public school teachers are some of our communities' most valued leaders. Many school districts in the Fifth District of Texas honor their Teachers of the Year, and today I am pleased to showcase several individuals whose care, dedication and hard work have earned them that special recognition. They include: Nancy Bagwell--Dallas ISD; Paula Conditt--Malakoff ISD; Jason Cunningham--Malakoff ISD; Lisa Cunningham--Richardson ISD; Shannon Hansel--Palestine ISD; Joy Hounsel--Sunnyvale ISD; Betty Mendoilea--Elkhart ISD; Nancy Northcutt-- Palestine ISD; Jennifer Pugh--Malakoff ISD; Cindy Smith--Malakoff ISD; Rick Urbanczyk--Richardson ISD; Ann Wilson--Mabank ISD. Mr. Speaker, these teachers have gone above and beyond the call of duty. I thank them for their service to our children and our future.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement implementation. When signed into law, this agreement, as with other free trade agreements, will help boost exports of Americans' goods and services. It will help create more net jobs for American workers and will help fuel economic growth. Mr. Speaker, when trade grows, income grows. Free trade not only creates opportunities for the unemployed and underemployed, it helps increase wages and improves the standard of living of our workers and consumers at home and abroad. It is that simple, and we have 200 years of experience to prove it. For example, free trade benefits small business, the job engine of America. Ninety-seven percent of U.S. exporters are small businesses with fewer than 500 employees. Free trade benefits farmers. U.S. agricultural exports support hundreds of thousands of jobs. Nearly 25 percent of farmers' gross cash sales are generated by exports. Perhaps most importantly, trade benefits families through a greater choice of goods through lower prices so more families can get better products using less of their paychecks. But, Mr. Speaker, besides the obvious economic benefits, fundamentally we must recognize that it is not nations that trade with nations, it is people that trade with people. Every American should have the right to determine the origin of the products they want to purchase, be these products from next door, down the street or even Chile and Singapore. With the exception of national security and safety considerations, it should not be the role of the Federal Government to tell consumers from where they should buy their goods. It is a fundamental economic liberty that is at stake here. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject protectionism and to support jobs and freedom by supporting this Free Trade Agreement with Chile.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to appeal to my fellow conservatives to open markets and help seniors by supporting this act. Some critics say this act will merely import price controls. But every day in America we import a myriad of products from food to machinery that have some form of government price controls embedded within them, be they subsidy, tax preference or direct price controls. Yet we do not block their import even though their prices are not derived in a truly free market. The relevant question for us ought to be: are we working for more competition or less competition and whether or not we respect the economic liberties of our citizens. Now, other critics say this bill will cause less research and development. I am uncertain if this is true, but I do know that closing our borders to trade and denying Americans their economic liberties is not the answer. Typically, we let private individuals within a competitive marketplace make these R&D decisions. If we choose to second guess them and believe that they have underinvested, then Congress can easily remedy the situation by a variety of means, like tax credits and subsidies. This body does it every day, wind energy, aerospace technology, semiconductors, the list goes on. Finally, critics contend that seniors will be hurt by a rash of counterfeit imported drugs. Are thousands dying in Europe and Canada from fake drugs? Can counterfeit drugs not be produced domestically as well as overseas? Every year we import tons of food and occasionally this food may be tainted, yet we do not prohibit agricultural imports. Should pharmaceuticals be different? Perhaps the safety argument may have some merit, but I also know it is usually the first argument of the protectionist. Mr. Speaker, it is time for my fellow conservatives to choose. We can choose free trade over protectionism. We can choose to side with seniors' interests over pharmaceutical companies' interests. We can choose less government and more freedom. The choice is ours. And if there should be any doubts whatsoever, we should err on the side of freedom.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to salute Captain Hugh Whitaker on the occasion of his retirement, a lawman who has dedicated more than 50 years of his life serving the people of Freestone County, Texas. A decorated Marine Corps veteran, Hugh Whitaker returned home to Fairfield after fighting in the Pacific during World War II. Starting in 1948, Hugh Whitaker was elected Constable, beginning a 55-year-career of public service. Hugh became the county's Emergency Management Coordinator in 1955, a position he's held for the past 48 years. During the 1960's, Hugh organized the Freestone County Emergency Corps and the Freestone County Reserve Deputies. More recently, he served as Chief Deputy Sheriff up until his retirement last month. Freestone County Judge Linda Grant said, ``Captain Whitaker is a blessing for the people of Freestone County. He is always there to help in any way.'' Mr. Speaker, today we honor Captain Whitaker for his service to his community in the name of public safety. In the words of his fellow lawman, Freestone County Sheriff Ralph Billings, ``No one can build boots big enough to fill those of Captain Whitaker.''

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a co-founder of the Washington Waste Watchers, a project of Republican freshmen dealing not with calorie counting but with counting all of the different wasteful programs of the Federal Government. We are dedicated to bringing the disinfectant of sunshine into the shadowy corners of the wasteful Washington bureaucracy. From this point forward we will be highlighting a myriad of examples of how the Federal Government routinely squanders the hard-earned money of the American families, and we will offer reforms to end these long-held Washington wasteful practices. Why is this initiative important now? Although we have heard some good economic news, positive economic growth, a growing stock market, a strong housing market, we have also heard some not-so-good economic news. The budget deficit is still too high. Now, Democrats say the only way to cut deficits is to raise taxes on the American family. Does that sound familiar? It is the same refrain we have heard from them for years. We have a deficit, but it is not because we are taxed too little. It is because Washington spends too much. And in Washington we have a spending problem, not a taxing problem; and much of this Washington spending, Mr. Speaker, is pure waste, fraud, and abuse. Recently, we passed a budget resolution in Congress asking every authorizing committee to make recommendations for eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in their jurisdictional areas. We asked them to find savings equivalent to one percent of their budget. Something nobody ever does around here, find savings. We asked for only 1 percent and the Democrats fought us every step of the way, saying it is impossible to save money in Washington without gutting Federal programs. Mr. Speaker, they are wrong. Let me cite just a few examples. The Department of Housing and Urban Development made $2.6 billion in section 8 overpayments. Almost 10 percent of their entire budget just disappeared into thin air. That is enough money to pay the down payment for 300,000 people to get into their first homes. Now, instead of using it to help families, the Washington bureaucracy just wasted it. And Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? The Medicare program paid out $13.3 billion last year to people who did not even qualify for the program. That is enough money to pay one- third of the cost of a prescription drug benefit program for our seniors this year. But instead of using the money to help seniors, the Washington bureaucracy just wasted it. And Democrats want to pay our taxes to pay for more of this? In another example, as you heard my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) say, the National Parks Service spent $800,000 on an outhouse and it does not even work. The only thing it flushes is the money of the hard-working American family down the drain. And Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? The list goes on. Social Security pays benefits to dead people. Over the past 5 years, law enforcement has arrested over 7,000 fugitives who were illegally receiving food stamps. They include 1,500 accused drug offenders, 31 murderers, 45 sex offenders and child molesters, and hundreds wanted for assault and robbery. Over a 3-year period, the illegal food stamp practice known as trafficking has cost taxpayers $660 million. And Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? Twenty-three percent of the people having their student loans discharged due to disability actually hold down full-time jobs, costing the Federal Government $40 million a year. And Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for this? Medicare pays five times as much for a wheelchair as the Veterans Administration does. Five times as much for the same wheel chair? Why? Because the Veterans Administration will competitively bid the wheelchair and Medicare will not. Fortunately, the Republicans in the House just fixed this one without any help from the Democrats. Mr. Speaker, these are just a few examples of the Washington waste, and we are just scratching the surface. One can see that many Federal programs routinely waste 10, 20, even 30 percent of their taxpayer- funded budgets and have for years. Mr. Speaker, in the real world if you lose that much money, you will go broke or you will go to jail; but in Washington it is just an excuse to ask for even more money from the taxpayer next year. Mr. Speaker, this has got to stop. There are a thousand different ways we can save money in Washington without cutting any needed services and without raising taxes on the hard-working American families. When it comes to Federal programs, it is not how much money Washington spends; it is how Washington spends our money. And that is what the Washington Waste Watchers is about.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today Texans and people across America celebrate Juneteenth. On this day in 1865, Union soldiers, led by Major General Gordon Granger, landed at Galveston, Texas with news that the war had ended. Two and a half years after President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, Texas slaves heard for the first time they were free. Mr. Speaker, there is no other land on earth like America, but we've had our share of failings. And we've had no greater failing than allowing slavery to exist in the land of the free. Here we are, 140 years later. And although we have made great progress, we still live in a color conscious society. We should all remember and aspire to the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King . . . to live in a nation where our children will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Juneteenth reminds us to live our lives toward that dream. To make a more perfect Union by making America more free.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I believe, as do most Americans, that it is simply unconscionable that anybody would have to visit the undertaker and the IRS agent on the same day. It is unconscionable; it ought to be illegal. The death tax is nothing more than a tax on the American dream. Americans work hard all their lives to build farms and small businesses in hopes that maybe one day they can pass them along to their families, but after payroll taxes and income taxes and sales taxes and property taxes, all of which the left is so fond, many family businesses do not make it, and those that do, the Government can step in and take over half of what someone worked their entire life to build. A while back I heard from a rancher in my district who spent 30 years building a cattle ranch, almost lost it once or twice to drought. His hope was to leave that ranch to his family. It was his greatest dream, but with sadness in his voice, he told me when the Government takes their share, there is just not enough to go around. People on the other side of the aisle want to talk about fairness. Where is the fairness in taking this ranch away? Where is the fairness in taxing Americans twice on the same income? Where is the fairness in having Uncle Sam have an inheritance of 55 percent of a family farm, business, or nest egg? Mr. Speaker, it is time to reject the politics of class warfare and envy and support the permanent repeal of the death tax. And by ending the death tax, we can help resurrect the American dream.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of H.R. 8, the permanent repeal of the estate tax, more honestly described as the death tax. Mr. Speaker, I believe as most Americans do that it is unacceptable for a grieving family who has recently lost a loved one to get a visit from the undertaker and the IRS agent on the same day. It is simply unconscionable and it ought to be illegal. The death tax is really a tax on the American dream. Americans work hard their whole lives, they save, they invest. They build farms and shops and factories, hoping to pass along their dream to their families once they are gone, but after years of paying payroll taxes and income taxes and sales taxes and property taxes, many businesses do not make it, and those that do, the government can step in and take over half of what someone worked their whole life to build. Mr. Speaker, I grew up working on a farm. I represent a large portion of rural Texas, and rural Texas is a great place to live, but it can on occasion be a challenge to be a good place to earn a living. I know firsthand that farmers and ranchers and small business owners have to work extremely hard to provide for their families. A while back ago, I heard from a constituent, a rancher in Leon County. He told me how he had worked hard for over 30 years to build a cattle ranch. He almost lost it once or twice through draught and low beef prices, but he persevered, and with his family by his side, he made it into a great success. His greatest dream was to leave this ranch to his son and his daughter who had worked alongside of him, but with sadness in his voice, he told me by the time the government takes its share, there is just not enough to go around. Many of my colleagues like to talk about tax fairness, but Mr. Speaker, is it fair to take this man's ranch away from him? Is it fair that Americans are being taxed twice on the same income? Is it fair that after a family member is gone that his loved ones are presented with a tax bill? Is it fair that the Federal Government can automatically inherit 55 percent of the family farm, business or nest egg? Aside from the fact that the death tax is inherently unfair, what about its impact on our economy? Mr. Speaker, while small businesses create two out of every three new jobs in our Nation, death taxes can kill those small businesses and the jobs that they represent. In fact, death taxes are the leading cause of dissolution for small businesses in America. According to the Center for the Study of Taxation, 70 percent of businesses never make it past the first generation because of death taxes. Eighty-seven percent do not make it beyond the third generation. How do death taxes kill American jobs? With the death of a small business owner, many employees often lose their jobs when the relatives of the deceased are forced to liquidate the business just to pay the taxes. One-third of small businesses are sold or liquidated to pay death taxes, and half of those businesses are forced to eliminate 30 or more jobs. Furthermore, small and mid-sized manufacturers spend $52,000, on average, just for death tax planning. Now, $52,000, that is a good paycheck that could be going home to somebody back in the fifth district of Texas. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, repealing the death tax can create 200,000 extra jobs a year helping more Americans get back to work, giving them a paycheck instead of an unemployments check, and giving yet another boost to our recovering economy. According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, nearly 60 percent of business owners say they would add jobs in the near future if the death taxes were eliminated. And what does our society get for the death tax? Nothing. According to the Joint Economic Committee, the cost of compliance with the death tax to the economy is roughly equivalent to the tax shield. All of those family businesses liquidated, all of those jobs lost, all of those family farms sold and all of those nest eggs cut in half. For what? Mr. Speaker, I have heard those on the other side of the aisle use the same old tired class warfare rhetoric again and again in dealing with the death tax issue. The politics of envy. But when something is wrong, Mr. Speaker, it is simply wrong; and it does not matter if the death tax only affected one person in America. Taxing anyone twice for the same work, for the same income, for the same savings is unconscionable; and it ought to be illegal. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the permanent repeal of the death tax. It is time to end the death tax so we can resurrect the American Dream.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today the House passed landmark legislation in the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003. Lawsuit abuse is everywhere. It is harming American businesses, consumers, and families. Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong with our legal system when it is easier to sue a doctor than it is to see a doctor. There is something wrong with our legal system when a plaintiff can be awarded millions of dollars because McDonald's serves hot coffee and not lukewarm coffee. There is something wrong with our legal system when people can sue Kentucky Fried Chicken for their weight gain because they ate too much fried chicken. And, Mr. Speaker, there is definitely something wrong with our legal system when the awards and settlements from class action lawsuits more often than not benefit the trial attorneys and not the purported victims. That is right, studies show that over half of all tort liability costs go to trial lawyers and administrative expenses, not the victims, real or imagined. In one egregious example, a Bank of Boston settlement ordered $8.64 to each class member, but then turned right around and assessed each of those members $90 in trial lawyer fees. In a case against Blockbuster, the attorneys took home $9.25 million in fees, while customers got a $1-off coupon for future video rentals. In a suit against Cheerios, the trial lawyers were paid nearly $2 million in fees, while the customers from the suit received coupons for a free box of cereal. Mr. Speaker, the examples go on and on and on; millions for trial lawyers, pennies for purported and real victims. In recent years, State courts have been flooded with interstate class action lawsuits, many without merit. In fact, more than 15 million civil lawsuits were filed in 1999 alone. That is one lawsuit for every 18 people in our country. Over the last 10 years alone, class action filings in State courts have increased 1,000 percent. That is right, 1,000 percent. Why is this happening? Well, with so many class action suits and so much at stake, most companies are deciding to settle these suits, even if they do not have merit, enriching trial lawyers and giving little or nothing to victims and costing the rest of us dearly. How does it cost us, Mr. Speaker? The cost of litigation accounts for one-third of the price of an 8-foot aluminum ladder, it doubles the price of a football helmet, it adds $500 to the sticker price of a new car, and it increases the cost of a pacemaker by $3,000. Mr. Speaker, the American people may not realize it, but they are paying $1,200 a year more for goods and services because of lawsuit abuse. That is enough to pay a couple of months of day care, purchase a home computer for a child, or buy 9 months of prescription drugs for a senior citizen. That is what each of us is losing. It costs us in other ways as well. Another survey has found that for fear of product liability, almost half of small businesses have had to withdraw products from the marketplace, and 39 percent decided not to introduce new products. Litigation concerns have led several companies to postpone or cancel promising AIDS vaccines. Class action lawsuit abuse especially hurts small businesses, because small businesses are often named as defendants in these suits so that the suits can be kept in trial-lawyer-friendly local courts. These suits cause huge increases in insurance premiums, causing many small businesses to either pay up or go belly up. What a loss, Mr. Speaker, because two out of three jobs in America are created by small business. Mr. Speaker, we must make the class action process more fair. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2003 will implement several important changes to dramatically improve our judicial system. By expanding Federal jurisdiction for truly multistate lawsuits, the Class Action Fairness Act will reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits and help prevent venue shopping by trial attorneys for favorable rulings. The judicial review and approval process will prohibit courts from awarding larger settlements to plaintiffs based solely on their proximity to the courthouse, and, very, very important, it will provide a much-needed safeguard for plaintiffs from being shortchanged by trial attorneys. Mr. Speaker, many class action lawsuits are valid, meritorious, and address legitimate grievances by groups of people with similar claims. But the abuse of this legal tool is overwhelming. It is costing us jobs, bankrupting businesses, depleting businesses, and gouging consumers. We must have reform.