Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. I also want to thank Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker for all of their good work in bringing this bill to the floor, because it addresses a very, very serious challenge that we have. We all know that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita represented a great physical catastrophe for this generation. I think it is incumbent upon us to make sure that it does not turn into a great fiscal tragedy for the next. I remember speaking to a factory worker at the Pepsi plant in my district in Mesquite, Texas. He said, Congressman, I want to do everything I can to help those people on the gulf coast, but tell me you are going to do a few things differently so I don't have to do it again. We know that the National Flood Insurance Program is not actuarially sound. It is not fiscally solvent. Congress is having to bail it out. Yet if you look at the legislative history, since 1981 it was supposed to be fiscally solvent. So the underlying bill takes a number of steps to start taking us in that direction. But if we are going to have a National Flood Insurance Program, we should not be subsidizing people and incenting them to live in places that, frankly, put them in harm's way, especially at the taxpayers' expense. If they are going to put themselves in harm's way, that is the decision they need to make, but we should not be a party to incenting them to do it. So I think that the gentleman from New Jersey, his amendment takes a very, very reasonable small step towards helping make this program a little bit more fiscally solvent, and I think it is fair. It is one thing to say on the pre-FIRM properties when we were trying to incent people to get into the program, okay, to some extent you are grandfathered. But new people who are coming in, if we are going to save this program for new future generations, I believe we need to take more steps toward fiscal responsibility, and the gentleman from New Jersey, his amendment is a very reasoned amendment that takes us in that direction, and I believe the House should support it.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin for his principled leadership in the area of the budget and to bring the line item veto back to the House. But watching this debate, Mr. Speaker, I find it both sad and amusing to see how many Democrats who have supported line item veto in the past now oppose it. In trying to justify their new-found opposition, we are now witnessing acrobatics and contortions that we haven't seen since the circus came to town. The line item veto has been supported by such Democrats as President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Senator John Kerry. The last time it was enacted in this body and became law over two-thirds of the Democrats voted for it. But, Mr. Speaker, it is now an election year. The Democrat leadership again says no. But no is not an agenda; no is not a vision. And by saying no to the legislative line item veto, Democrats are saying yes to more wasteful spending. Mr. Speaker, we know that almost every Governor in America already has some form of the line item veto to help combat wasteful spending. It brings transparency and accountability into a process that sorely needs it. Now, this bill before us is frankly a very simple one. It allows the President to highlight examples of wasteful spending, submit them to Congress on an expedited basis, and have Congress vote on it. That is all it does. Nothing more, nothing less. But what is really important, Mr. Speaker, is that the savings, the resulting savings can only go for deficit reduction. Mr. Speaker, Democrats can't have it both ways. They can't oppose the legislative line item veto and then claim to be for deficit reduction. It cannot be done. Now, we have just been lectured about the issue of fiscal responsibility from the gentleman from Maryland, but let us examine the record of the Democrats. For the last 10 years, every time the Republicans offer a budget, our friends from the other side of the aisle offer a budget that spends even more money. They criticize our prescription drug program, yet theirs cost even more. And thanks to their stonewalling, we were not able to reform and save Social Security for future generations. Instead, there is an extra $2.5 trillion of unfunded obligations thanks to their stonewalling. That is what their record is. Mr. Speaker, if you want to help end the railroads to nowhere, the hydroponic tomatoes, the indoor rainforest, say ``yes'' to the line item veto, say ``yes'' to our children's fiscal future, and let us vote for this legislation.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge passage of the Legislative Line Item Veto Act. It provides a budget savings tool that almost every governor in the Nation already possesses. It will enable the President to identify questionable and wasteful earmark projects that have been slipped into spending bills so that Congress can vote separately on their merits. Surely, Mr. Speaker, at a time of war, historic national debt, and record high tax revenues, it doesn't seem too much to ask that legislators show a little bit more accountability on how the people's money is spent. Just last month the Social Security and Medicare trustees reported that both Social Security and Medicare are going broke sooner than expected, and, thanks to Democrats' stonewalling, $2 trillion have been added in unfunded obligations. We must have some fiscal restraint. The line item veto will help pull back the curtain on the earmarking process, which some have termed the gateway drug to spending addiction. By requiring specific votes, it will make it harder for Congress to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on railroads to nowhere, the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, and indoor rain forests. Let us enact the line item veto.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana. Certainly there is no government agency or no government Department that is immune from having waste, fraud, or abuse and duplication; and this does indeed include the Department of Defense. I have no doubt that there is much hard work that has been done by the gentleman from Florida, the chairman of the subcommittee, but I also believe that every single Member of this body has a responsibility, has a duty in these challenging fiscal times to root out the waste, the fraud, the abuse, and the duplication wherever they can find it. I think that once again, as we look at how much money the taxpayers have already invested in a system that clearly does not work, when 85 percent, approximately 85 percent of the travel out of DOD is booked in other systems and only 15 percent in the DTS, clearly there are alternative systems available. GSA has already approved two E-travel systems that are being used throughout the Federal Government and could also be used by DOD. So what we have now is already $.5 billion that is being invested in a system that doesn't seem to save any money, and certainly I don't think the case can be made that it is essential to our national security or essential to our war effort. We are sitting here in very challenging fiscal times, when our national debt, in just a few years, has gone from $5.5 trillion to $8.5 trillion, Mr. Chairman. Of course, at the same time, tax revenues have escalated. We have personal tax revenues up 15 percent and corporate tax revenues are up 40 percent. That would seem to indicate that the challenge in the national debt is on the spending side. So when you have 10,000 Federal programs spread across 500 to 600 different agencies, it is almost impossible for any one Member or any one committee to have effective oversight on each and every one. So I applaud the gentleman from Indiana on his work here. Because we all know that soon, soon in America's future we will face a very, very bad fork in the road. One fork is going to lead us to a Federal Government that consists of almost nothing but Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. There may be no Department of Defense. There may be no Border Patrol. We will see that in one generation. The other fork in the road is going to lead to doubling of taxes on the American people. And that is unconscionable, Mr. Chairman. It is just unconscionable. We all know the old saying a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon we are talking about real money. Well, it looks like we have at least $.5 billion here that has been spent on a system that nobody is using, that costs way beyond what the marketplace is charging now, and there are alternative systems developed by private enterprise that are doing a better job and being utilized by others. So, indeed, our Nation faces two great threats. The war on terror, of course, is the greatest threat; but we have another threat, and that is out-of-control spending. And every Member, every Member of this body has the responsibility to root out the waste, the fraud, and the abuse; and that is why I salute the gentleman from Indiana for what he has done. I don't think the case has been made that this is essential to our national defense. I don't think the case has been made that it is helping taxpayers. So we need to prevent future tax increases. We need to prevent more debt being placed upon our children and our grandchildren, and I think we need to adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana, and I once again salute him for his work.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate very carefully for the last day. There are clearly those who want to debate whether we should have gone into Iraq. That point is moot. There are some who want to debate immediate withdrawal regardless of the consequences. That is dangerous. Some just want to criticize the administration yet offer no plan of their own. That is political posturing. Finally, there are some who want to debate that victory is not only possible in Iraq, it is essential to our security. Count me among their numbers. Like many Members of this body, I have been to Iraq to visit with our troops. Those whom I have spoken to, they believe we are winning. And they also believe it is essential, like one soldier told me, Congressman, I hate being here, but I know how important it is to my family and how important it is to my country that we succeed. Mr. Speaker, I know that the American people are anxious, and I know that many days progress comes three steps forward and two steps backwards. And unfortunately, the national media tends to only portray the two steps backwards. Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein has been captured. He has been defeated. Last week al Zarqawi, the number one terrorist in the region, has been eliminated. A quarter million of the Iraqi troops have been trained, equipped, and on patrol. After years of halting progress, we now have a fully functioning, democratically elected government in Iraq. This is important because we are not threatened by democracies. We are threatened by despotic regimes and terrorist ideologies. But the news stories that are most important about why we are there are never written. I come from Dallas, Texas. I have never read the story that today no suicide bomber exploded in North Park Mall. I have never read the story that today no car bomb went off in Poteet High School, and I know I have never read the story that today Jeb and Melissa Hensarling put their 4-year old and 2-year old to bed in a safer, more secure Dallas, Texas, U.S.A. Victory is costly. Defeat is even more costly.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize the outstanding service commitment of the people of Herb's Paint & Body, a local icon around the Dallas metroplex, as they celebrate their 50th year of business and continue to make our community a better place to live. Founded in 1956 by Herb Walne, Herb's Paint and Body originally was a Humble Gas Station located in the northeast Dallas neighborhood known as Lake Highlands. Over the years, Herb's Paint and Body grew to include a mechanical repair shop, an automatic car wash and a full service paint and body shop. There are now 5 locations, each of which prides itself on following Herb's original goal of offering superior customer service. Today their commitment extends beyond excellent customer service and reaches beyond the Fifth District. Herb's Paint and Body holds an annual Golf Tournament to support Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) that successfully raised $21,000 last fall. During the Christmas season, Herb's Paint and Body collects toys and canned goods to support the White Rock Center for Hope and help brighten underprivileged families' holidays. Although Herb's has expanded north, they continue to be deeply rooted in Lake Highlands through community involvement with schools and students. Recently, Herb's Paint & Body joined me in honoring the Lake Highlands High School Varsity Cheerleaders at the ``Red Out'' celebration that raised money for the Red Cross to help Hurricane victims. Thanks to the generosity of Herb's, the cheerleaders were able to sell the red T-Shirts that Herb's Paint and Body donated and raise almost $14,000. As the congressional representative of Herb's Paint & Body, it is my pleasure to recognize their excellence in service to the communities of the Fifth District of Texas.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will be the first to admit that I know little or nothing about this particular earmark, but here is what I do know: We need to step back and focus on the larger picture of where we are as a nation. In just a handful of years, the national debt has gone from $5.5 trillion to $8 trillion. Now, some will tell us it is because the American people are undertaxed. We happen to be awash in tax revenues. They were up 14 percent last year. I think the problem that we have is we have a spending problem. We look at the long-term trends in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, we simply cannot keep with the pace in spending. We have 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 agencies. How much government is enough? This may be a great earmark. I don't know. It could be the greatest earmark known to mankind. But when do we finally say, enough is enough? It reminds me of what President Reagan once said, ``the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program,'' and every earmark can give birth to a Federal program. We are spending $22,000 per American family. When do we stop? Mr. Chairman, I think the challenge we have is, if we say yes to everybody's project today, we end up saying no to our children's future tomorrow. So when we are a nation that has this type of debt, when we have the recent announcement that Social Security is going to go broke a year earlier than thought, Medicare 2 years earlier, when do we stop and say, enough is enough? When do we say no to somebody's project today so we can say yes to our children tomorrow?

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to thank a very special group of dedicated Americans who have spent considerable energy assisting me in authoring this year's Republican Study Committee--RSC-- budget: the Contract with America Renewed. Russell Vought, the policy director at the RSC, and Stephen Sepp, my legislative director, dedicated themselves this spring to helping me compile a budget that reflected the spirit of the first budget that the new Republican majority passed in 1995. I am very proud of the work that Russ and Stephen produced, and they deserve special recognition for their dedication to the advancement of freedom. Additionally, I would like to thank the valuable members of my Washington, DC, staff who assisted with this effort: Mike Walz, Leigh Carter, Jennifer Daniels, Jamie Notman, Kyle Jackson, John Martin and Melanie Davis. Each individual provided legislative and administrative support for me during this extremely demanding project, and I am grateful for their service. I would also like to thank my staff located in the Fifth District of Texas. Each and every one of them contributed to this budget, and I would like to publicly recognize Richard Sanders, Rebekah Kay, Margaret Smith, Barbara Luce, Beth Peters and Amanda Hodges. I am personally indebted to them for their service and sacrifice to the cause of freedom.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about what this debate is about. That is not what it is about. This is not about whether or not this House is going to support our brave men and women in uniform as they fight this war on terror. Every time the Commander in Chief has come to us and asked us to pass a supplemental appropriation to put guns on the front lines, ammunition on the front lines, gasoline on the front lines, equipment on the front lines, we have done it. We have done it. That is not the question. But as was brought up earlier in the debate, Mr. Chairman, if you look at this bill, we see that roughly half a billion dollars of projects are coming from what might be viewed as a contingency fund to fight the war on terror. It is not literally called an emergency fund, but functionally that is what it is. Although I have great admiration and respect for the gentleman from New York when he opines about the purpose of that fund, as a member of the Budget Committee and one who has spoken with the chairman of the Budget Committee and the gentleman who wrote the budget and the gentleman who put that into the budget, this is not the purpose for which it was put there. That is not it. Mr. Chairman, again, there are at least half a billion dollars of Member projects in this legislation. Now had those projects not been there, we would not have been here today. Half a billion dollars of spending that the Commander in Chief did not request, the Pentagon did not request, and I certainly hear my friends from the other side of the aisle be very vocal about wanting to take away tax relief because we have to support the brave men and women on the front. I wonder if they would be as interested in reducing spending on their particular earmarks in order to achieve that particular purpose. Again, Mr. Chairman, the question is not whether or not we are going to support our troops, the question is how are we going to do it and is our budget a farce. Is our budget meaningless, or does it actually stand for something? Those on the other side of the aisle will never lose an opportunity to raise taxes, but maybe there is another option here. Maybe we ought to look at other spending. We know there will be a number of appropriation bills to come to this floor. I do not know what will be in all of them. I certainly know looking in my rear view mirror what some of the spending has been in the past. In appropriation bills for 2006, we added $273,000 for garden mosaics in New York. Maybe that is money we could have spend today on this military construction. We added $179,000 for hydroponic tomato production. Maybe that money could have been spent on military construction. There was a million dollars for the Water-Free Urinal Conservation Initiative; maybe that money could have been spent. Again, we are debating where this money is going to come from.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order under clause 2 of Rule XXI against the proviso beginning with ``Provided'' on page 59, line 13, through page 59, line 18. This language carries a designation of special budgetary treatment for contingency operations. This language constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order under clause 2 of rule XXI against the proviso beginning with ``Provided,'' on page 59 line 13 through page 59, line 18. This language carries a designation for special budgetary treatment for contingency operations and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2, Rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of Order under clause 2 of Rule XXI against the proviso beginning with ``Provided'' on page 59, line 22, through page 60, line 2. This language carries a designation for special budgetary treatment for contingency operations. This language constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order under clause 2 of rule XXI against the proviso beginning with ``Provided,'' on page 60, line 6, through page 60, line 11. This languages carries a designation for special budgetary treatment for contingency operations. This language constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order under clause 2 of rule XXI against the proviso beginning with ``provided'' on page 60, line 15, through page 60, line 20. This language carries a designation for special budgetary treatment for contingency operations. This language constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling of the chair.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HENSARLING. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, this represents appropriations that took place in last year's appropriations bills, and I am using them as an example of pools of money that have been available. Again, there are earmarks in this bill that did not have to be there. They did not have to be there, Mr. Chairman. So what we have is a budget sleight of hand. The ink is not even dry on the budget, and we are already attempting to violate it. And that is simply not right. Clearly, the greatest threat, the greatest threat to our country is the war on terror. But we also have another threat, and that is out-of- control Federal spending. If we are going to buy the guns, we had better get a little lean on the butter, and we had better quit wrapping the butter in the American flag in this sleight of hand. It is wrong, Mr. Chairman. It is wrong to do it. We will support our troops, but to sit here and pay for all of these earmarks and all the pork projects wrapped in the American flag is the wrong thing to do.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order under clause 2 of rule XXI against the proviso beginning with ``provided'' on page 58, line 20 through page 58 line 25.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor the Edgewood Bulldogs golf team who recently won the Texas University Interscholastic League State 2-A Championship. On Thursday and Friday, May 11-12, 2006, the golf team competed in the University Interscholastic League Championship tournament at the Jimmy Clay Golf Course in Austin, Texas, for the State Championship. The Bulldogs competed against 200 other 2-A schools, holding to a one- stroke lead that brought home their first ever Boys Golf Championship and second team title in Edgewood High School history. Today I would like to congratulate Head Coach Stan Williams, and players Dillon Phillips, Brett Perry, Garrett Cecil, Justin King, and Michael Waites. As the Congressional representative of the players, families, coaches, and supporters of the Edgewood Bulldogs, it is my pleasure to recognize their tremendous victory and outstanding season.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Morgan Mayse of Athens High School for her first place finish in the Texas University Interscholastic League State 4-A Track and Field Meet. On Friday May 12, 2006, Morgan competed at the University of Texas in Austin's Mike A. Myers Stadium for the Girls High Jump earning the gold with the record jump of 5'9". As the Congressional representative for Athens and the Fifth District of Texas, I would like to congratulate Morgan, as well as her family, coaches, and supporters on her tremendous undefeated season and her second straight District 14-AAAA and Region II-AAAA titles.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor the Palestine Wildcats golf team who recently won the Texas University Interscholastic League 3A State Championship. On Friday, May 12, 2006, the Wildcats golf team competed at the Jimmy Clay Golf Course in Austin, Texas, for the High School Boys State Championship. The Wildcats shot a 2-day total of 594 to claim the University Interscholastic League Class 3-A Title. The Wildcats, who represented four out of the top five players in the tournament, were the only team not to have a single round in the 80's. Today I would like to congratulate Head Coach Tommy Allison, and players Jacob Taylor, Nicholas Verela, Joseph Totah, Jeremy Lambright, and Steve Harrington. As the Congressional representative of the players, families, coaches, and supporters of the Palestine Wildcats, it is my pleasure to recognize their tremendous victory and outstanding season.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. I find it a little surreal to be lectured by a Democrat on the subject of spending since for the last 10 years every time the Republicans have introduced a budget, they have introduced a budget that spends more. If the gentleman is really concerned about spending, he should support the budget that spends the least, which is this budget. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman who is of the class of 1994 who voted for the original Contract With America, a former chairman of the Republican Study Committee and one of the great conservative leaders in the House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, before I begin my formal remarks, I want to acknowledge our dear friend and colleague Chairman Nussle for his great work. It has been one of my great honors and privileges to serve on his Budget Committee. I have thought that Chairman Nussle has had the hardest job in this body, and he has always chaired the Budget Committee with fairness and principle and diligence, and, I might add, success. Again, it has been an honor and a privilege to serve with him as he introduces his last budget. All I can say is Congress's loss is certainly Iowa's gain. Mr. Chairman, over 10 years ago, visionary men and women of the Republican Party came forth with a very bold budget plan called the Contract with America budget. The Contract with America captured the imagination of the American people, and it gave the Republicans control of the people's House for the first time in decades. More than just numbers, Mr. Chairman, the budget was about bedrock values. It called for true compassion by removing the yoke of dependency fashioned by the welfare state and replacing it with an opportunity society. It spoke of restoring personal freedom by ending centralized bureaucratic micromanagement of the Federal Government. It called for reforms, it called for accountability, and finally, Mr. Chairman, it actually balanced the budget without tax increases on hard-working American families. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the Contract with America budget was never enacted. Washington ignored the budget's ominous warning that if it failed to pass, within 10 years the national debt would grow to over $7.5 trillion from excess spending. That has proven true. Today, members of the Republican Study Committee introduce the Contract with America Renewed Budget, a budget that is dedicated to achieving the goals of the original, chiefly balancing the budget in 5 years without raising taxes. This is the only budget proposed in Congress that would do so. Mr. Chairman, not enough Americans realize it, but you can actually balance the budget without cutting 1 penny of Federal spending. That is right, without cutting 1 single penny. Even our budget will still grow government, but we slow its rate of growth, as we must. For the last 10 years, the Federal budget has grown beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it. Washington has spent twice the rate of inflation and 50 percent faster than the family budget, and yet Democrats want to spend even more and tax more. Every time Congress grows a Federal program, it takes money away from a family program, like a down payment on a home, college tuition for a child, or money to launch a small business. American families have to prioritize their spending every year. They have to balance their budget every year. They should expect no less from their Federal Government. Now, to achieve a balanced budget without increasing taxes, our budget demands accountability, performance, and priorities. We propose the elimination of over 150 Federal programs. After almost 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we should still not be funding Radio Free Europe. The citrus canker program is not of equal priority to Kevlar vests for our brave troops, and we simply do not need other bridges to nowhere. Our budget prevents the massive, the massive planned Democrat tax increase that threatens the 5 million new jobs that have been created since Republicans in this body enacted tax relief and progrowth job policies in 2003. Our budget proposes to reform out-of-control entitlement spending and then saving, actually saving, Medicare as we know it for our children. The budget proposes a number of reforms, like a constitutional line item veto, a sunset commission, and earmark reform, all geared towards saving the family budget from the onslaught of the Federal budget. Now, Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that soon Democrats will stand up and call this something akin to a tough and heartless budget. But, Mr. Chairman, the tough and heartless budget is theirs. Their budget ignores out-of-control spending and will lead the next generation to desperate economic times. According to the General Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and anybody else who has looked at the problem, without spending reforms we will soon be faced with the choice of having a Federal Government consisting of almost nothing but Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, or actually doubling taxes on the next generation. That is the Democrats' budget plan for America. But if we will simply embrace the principles of a balanced budget and limited accountable government, our future is bright. We can ensure unlimited freedom and unlimited opportunity for this generation and the next. We should enact the Contract with America Renewed Budget. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).