Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives approved the conference report for H.R. 3057, legislation to fund American projects abroad in Fiscal Year 2006. I would like to mention how much I appreciate the hard work of my friend from California, Chairman Lewis, in bringing this bill to the floor. This is no easy task. Unfortunately, I cannot support this legislation because I believe it represents a disservice to taxpaying American families. Several times already this year, I have opposed legislation that violates either the Budget Act or increases spending by significant levels. Congress must learn to live by these funding levels or we will leave our children and grandchildren a huge and unfair financial burden as their inheritance. At this crucial time in our Nation's history Congress needs to make the necessary and tough choices about spending. Unfortunately, H.R. 3057 does not achieve that goal and vastly exceeds funding in previous years. Although H.R. 3057 was within the limits of the budget allocations, the bill costs $1.24 billion more than last year's bill, for a total price tag of almost $21 billion, a 6 percent increase. It also includes a gratuitous 40 percent increase in funding for the Export Import Bank, as well as several questionable earmarks, including $2.3 million for the International Fertilizer Development Center. We must show more fiscal responsibility and more accountability. While I cannot support H.R. 3057 because of its budgetary implications, I am pleased that the bill contains $2.5 billion in important assistance to aid our friend and ally, Israel. The package includes $2.2 billion in military aid and $240 million in economic assistance, as well as important oversight provisions to ensure that aid to the Palestinians is spent properly. Further, the bill spends $50 million for Israel to help facilitate the movement of people and goods in Palestinian areas. Israel continues to be a bastion of freedom and democracy in a part of the world where too many despots and dictators rule. I believe the United States must support and stand by Israel or its very existence could be jeopardized. Earlier this year, Israel took the unprecedented and expensive step of dismantling certain settlements located in disputed areas. Because of this, and other good-faith gestures on the part of Israel, I will continue to do everything in my power to ensure that U.S. foreign policy is geared towards achieving a just and lasting peace in the region. As a Member of Congress who has been to Israel and has seen Tel Aviv teeming with life and commerce, it is my hope that one day the people of the Middle East will experience democracy, freedom, peace, economic prosperity and tolerance. I believe this funding is critical to achieving that goal and must remain a top priority for Congress. I know many other parts of the world have come to depend on American foreign aid, and clearly there is no more generous nation than the United States. I believe this bill does not go far enough in addressing the looming fiscal crisis our Nation currently faces. We must protect the integrity of the budget laws and rules Congress has established and work harder to protect the family budget from the federal budget. Thus, I cannot support H.R. 3057 as written.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership in the area of government reform. Mr. Speaker, you have heard how important it is that we have a plan that is going to reform government, that will help achieve savings for the American people. It is so sad that the Democrats on the other side of the aisle, not one, not one has risen up to join us in this effort to try to reform government. We know that our Nation faces a number of challenges. We have Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. We have important programs, but they are growing beyond our ability to pay for them. Now we have had the devastating hurricanes hit. We know there are only three ways we can pay for all of this: one, we are going to pass debt on to our children; two, we are going to raise taxes on the American people; or, three, we are going to find smart ways to hold government accountable and decrease the rate of growth in spending and bring about reforms. Well, the Democrats have attacked all of our reforms. They claim that somehow these are massive cuts, notwithstanding the fact that the Federal budget is going to grow next year over this year in what we call mandatory spending that has most of the welfare programs growing next year over this year. TANF is going to grow. Medicaid, Medicare, it is all going to grow. But they attack all of our reforms, and they claim that they do not want to pass debt on to our children. Well, what does that leave us? That leaves us with tax increases. They do not like to talk about it, but it is the only other option on the table. In this case, massive, unconscionable tax increases that, if imposed on the American people, will leave the next generation with a lower standard of living than we enjoy, because the government we already have is growing beyond our ability to pay for it. Chairman Greenspan of the Federal Reserve recently said, ``As a Nation, we may have already made promises to coming generations of retirees that we will be unable to fulfill.'' The Brookings Institute, which is no bastion of conservative thought, says expected growth in these programs, speaking of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, along with projected increases in the debt and defense, will absorb all of the government's currently projected revenue within 8 years, leaving nothing for any other program. That is the Democrats' plan. That means no veterans funding. That means that beloved Pell grants are gone. All of this is gone because they refuse to join us in any of these reforms. The Government Accountability Office said in order to balance the Federal budget in the next 30 years, total Federal spending is going to have to be cut in half or Federal taxes doubled. Mr. Speaker, we have a chart that shows what is happening to the size of our government. This shows here the percent of our economy that we are devoting to government. Right now it is about 20 percent. Our revenues, which is this line here, runs pretty consistently between 18 and 20 percent of our economy. But the government programs that are in place today, not all the ones that the Democrats want to add, but the government programs that we have today that are on automatic pilot, without the reforms, if we do not reform them, if we do not achieve success in our vote for reform, in just one generation we are going to go from 20 percent of our economy devoted to government to 40 percent, Mr. Speaker, in just one generation. And that, Mr. Speaker, is the cost of it. Here we have the year 2005, and look at the tax increases on the average American family as the years go by. Again, what does that mean? It means in just one generation we are going to end up doubling taxes on the American people. And, Mr. Speaker, I just believe that that is absolutely unconscionable, particularly for a party that continues to want to preach compassion to us. Right now, right now, they want to cut the child tax credit in half. And that is their idea of compassion? That is what they are telling us. That is what their tax plan is. They want to reinstitute the death tax so that people have to visit the undertaker and the IRS on the same day. And that is their idea of compassion, Mr. Speaker? They want to bring back the marriage penalty. They want to punish people. They want to tax people extra because they choose to fall in love and marry somebody. And that is their idea of compassion? That is just what they want to do today. But what they want to do to my children and your children, my 3\1/2\- year-old daughter and my 2-year-old son, they want to double taxes on them. An average family of four, what that means to them is that as they spend $11,000 a year in housing today, under the Democrat doubling of taxes plan, that will go down to $8,500. That means that although you may own a home, your children will not be able to afford one. When it comes to transportation, this average family of four spends about $5,300 today. But under the government plan where we double taxes, that will go down to about $4,000. Mr. Speaker, people are struggling to fill up their cars now. I suppose under the Democrat plan they will not have to worry about it because Americans will not be able to afford to buy cars anymore. Let us talk about food. The average family of four is spending about $5,300. That goes down to $4,000. The Democrats in their so-called compassion plan and fighting our reforms just took 3 months of groceries away from the average American family because they have their plan to double taxes on the American people. And, Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on and on. We have a common-sense plan, a common-sense plan, to reform government and achieve savings for the American people. I mean, who is going to argue with the fact that we should not be giving food stamps to illegal aliens? Who is going to be arguing with the reform that we ought to quit paying twice the market rate for student loans? These are common-sense reforms. And, Mr. Speaker, as this debate continues to unfold, we have to remember what the Democrats really want to do, and that is massive tax increases that are going to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living than we enjoy, and that is unconscionable. Compassion, Mr. Speaker, ought to be measured by how we treat the next generation and how many paychecks we create, not how many welfare checks we create. Our reform plan will help create paychecks. We have already created 4 million new jobs in this economy. Theirs is more of the same: more government, more spending, tax increases for future generations. There is no compassion there, Mr. Speaker. No compassion whatsoever.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to commemorate two significant anniversaries of Rotary International. This year, Rotary International celebrated its 100th anniversary. From its humble roots in Chicago, Illinois, Rotary has grown into a worldwide organization of business and professional leaders who provide humanitarian service, encourage high ethical standards in all vocations, and help build goodwill and peace in the world. Since 1943, Rotary International has distributed more than $1.1 billion to combat Polio, promote cultural exchanges and encourage community service. I also want to recognize the Jacksonville Rotary Club for their 85 years of service to Cherokee County. Throughout its history, the Jacksonville Rotary Club has achieved great success in carrying out the mission of Rotary International. The Jacksonville Rotary Club has benefited numerous organizations and programs that serve the local community including the Anderson/Cherokee Crisis Center and the Jacksonville Literacy Council. The Ambassadorial Scholarship program has enabled local students to enrich their lives and further their education by helping them study abroad. Their valuable community service has also been seen through annual events such as the Pancake Supper, United Fund activities, support of Boy Scout Troop 407, and benefit golf tournaments. Through these initiatives, the Jacksonville Rotary Club exemplifies the values of service and charity that lie at the heart of American society. As the Congressional representative of the members of this outstanding organization, it is my distinct pleasure to honor them today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes another great point, and that is that only the government, only the government would be so foolish as to pay two and three times the market rate for a loan to send somebody to college. Yet, in the twisted logic of our friends on that side of the aisle, they say, well, you are cutting student loans by not giving all of these great surpluses to the lenders. I mean, it is complete nonsense. Again, there are so many other reforms we can make that I believe will help improve retirement security and health care at a lower cost. I am very happy that another gentleman from Georgia has joined us this afternoon who is a doctor, and this body could use more doctors; somebody who has extensive experience in dealing with Medicare and Medicaid. We are hearing all the scare tactics on the other side of the aisle. Frankly, we have heard them for 50 years, but we continue to hear it. What we do know is this: Medicare is growing at 9 percent a year. Medicaid is growing at 7.8 percent a year. Now, these are important programs but; Mr. Speaker, they were designed back about the time I was born. They have not kept pace with the pace of medicine. They are not helping the people today as they once were, and there are so many reforms we can make to save them, because if we do not save them today, if we do not take the steps to reform, Medicare and Medicaid will simply not be around for my children. With that, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) to tell us a little bit about his insights into those programs.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments to help illustrate the point again that almost every single budget for these programs will increase next year over last year. That is just a simple fact. It is hard for me to believe that there are people in America who are going to find it highly controversial that those who supposedly signed a contract not to be wards of the State, those who came here for jobs and for freedom and for opportunity, that somehow it is a draconian cut to ask them to wait for 7 years instead of 5 years to be on food stamps. Dollars have alternative uses. So the millions you save by this simple reform are millions of dollars that instead now can go to help relieve human suffering along the gulf coast. It could go to increase the number of mammograms for indigent women in the Medicaid program. It is dollars that could be used to help fund more college scholarships. But instead, our friends on the other side of the aisle said, no, we cannot have any reforms, we cannot have any reforms. It is all about massive cuts.

Mr. HENSARLING. It is such an instructive chart, Mr. Speaker, to show the American people that, contrary to the rhetoric of the Democrats who speak of their massive cuts, look how much money we have spent on what we call mandatory spending in 2005, roughly $1.5 trillion; and in our 5-year budget, if we are successful and achieve these savings, these mandatory programs will grow at 6.3 percent a year instead of 6.4, a most modest, modest step of reforms, yet necessary and important. And I will yield back to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, since the gentleman serves on the Agriculture Committee, which has jurisdiction over the food stamp program, we just heard folks on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, talk about massive cuts in the food stamp budget. But is it not true that even after we reform these programs, we will spend more on food stamps next year than we did last year?

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield again, does that not mean, though, as we listen to the rhetoric by our Democratic friends on this side of the aisle, though, that by rooting out just this one waste, we would say somehow that we have cut health care for the poor by $5,000 because we found this waste, we found this fraud? It is again just one story out of countless stories about how you can reform government and still save money for American families.

Mr. HENSARLING. Well, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his clarity in debate, for his leadership on this floor, for helping be one of the very clear voices in trying to protect the family budget from the Federal budget and bring about reforms. Mr. Speaker, I am now very happy to be joined by one of my dear friends in this body, someone who I believe exhibits more principle and more courage than just about anybody else in this body, one of the strongest leaders we have for limited government in the United States House. And with that, I would be happy to yield to my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentleman for his leadership on health care issues in this body and his leadership in trying to protect the family budget for the Federal budget. The gentleman did such a great job tonight in helping illustrate, Mr. Speaker, that again, there are so many ways that we can help reform these programs to achieve savings for the American people. If we do not do it, again, we are looking at a future of having to double taxes on the American people just to balance the budget, an unconscionable future. Now, Mr. Speaker, again, this whole Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 is designed to help reform government programs to bring about savings. More so than any other event that precipitated this was the terrible hurricanes that ravaged our Nation recently; and Congress, rightfully so, joined together, Republicans and Democrats, came together to help relieve this human suffering, and it was important that we do that. A great tragedy had occurred in our Nation. But many of us were convinced that we could not let a great natural tragedy of this generation turn into a great fiscal tragedy for the next. So I think one Member, above all other Members, came to the floor of this House of Representatives and said, we need to offset this spending. He launched something called Operation Offset, as chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Congress's largest caucus, made up of those who care about faith and family and free enterprise and freedom and, due to his actions, we were able to come to this point today. Because we know there are only three ways, Mr. Speaker, that we can offset this spending. More taxes on our children, more debt on our children, or finding a plan to reform government to achieve these savings. And with that, I would love to yield to the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, my dear friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. HENSARLING. If the gentleman will yield, I will be glad to read this.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for joining us this evening. I thank him for his leadership. I thank him for reminding us that ultimately this is a debate about the role of government in a free society, because too often it seems that our friends on the other side of the aisle believe nothing good has ever happened in America that was not the result of a Federal program: Without the Federal Government there would be no motherhood. Without the Federal Government, there would never be a meal placed on the table, there would be no Boy Scouts, there would be no baseball. The truth is that it is freedom, it is individual freedom that counts in the lives of individuals and helps lift people out of poverty. Mr. Speaker, I am now very happy that we have been joined by one of the true leaders and one of the more articulate and dynamic voices in this body on government reform, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments tonight, and especially reminding us that once again in this great body people are entitled to their own opinions. They are just simply not entitled to their own facts. The facts are that even after our exceedingly modest reform proposals are enacted, all this spending, all this Federal spending on automatic pilot will grow at 3.6 per year instead of 6.4, notwithstanding the threat to future generations, the incredible burdens on their futures and their hope and their opportunity. Under this reform plan, Medicare will grow, Medicaid will grow, food stamps will grow; but we make commonsense reforms so that we manage to hopefully save the next generation from a fiscal tragedy. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see that we have been joined by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), another member of the Republican Study Committee, one who cosponsored the Family Budget Protection Act to try to reform this process and again save the family budget from the Federal budget.

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for joining us this evening in this very, very important debate. Mr. Speaker, I think when you hear about all the different commonsense reforms we can make and how modest they are and how this juggernaut of government spending is going to continue on, unfortunately, for years and years and years to come, again it cries out for us to take a stand and be courageous and begin the program of reform. We need to remind ourselves why we need to do this. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me give you a couple of quotes, one from Chairman Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve. He says, Mr. Speaker, ``As a Nation, we may have already made promises to coming generations of retirees that we will be unable to fulfill.'' He said that about Social Security, he said that about Medicare, important programs, important programs for seniors; but they are on automatic pilot, automatic pilot to eventually go bankrupt if we do not start the process of reforms. Mr. Speaker, the Brookings Institute, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought in this Nation, said in a recent report, ``Expected growth in these programs, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, along with projected increases and interest on the debt and defense, will absorb all of the government's currently projected revenue within 8 years, leaving nothing for any other program.'' The General Accountability Office has said that right now we are on automatic pilot: ``We are heading to a future where we will have to double Federal taxes or cut the Federal spending by 50 percent.'' That is the future this Nation is facing, Mr. Speaker, unless we begin and enact this plan, to begin these modest reforms, so that we can begin to achieve savings for the American people. Again, if we do not do it, this is what the Democrats have planned for us. These are the tax increases, a sea of red ink, a tsunami of red ink, a hurricane of red ink. It is all tax increases, or it is all going to be debt, passed on to our children, because our friends on the other side of the aisle will not join us in these modest reforms. In fact, they tell us every single day that somehow tax relief to the American people is part of the problem. What they do not tell you is the massive tax increases that are going to be necessary just to pay for the government we have, not even the government that they are trying to add on top of the government programs that we already have. Under their program, they will be bringing back the marriage penalty. They will be bringing back the death tax. The new child tax credit, say good-bye to it, accelerated depreciation and the list goes on and on. Mr. Speaker, that is not a future that the American people want, and so we are going to debate this spending. To me, Mr. Speaker, when we see that this spending is out of control, there was a time very recently until this last Congress when Medicare paid five times as much for a wheelchair as the Veterans Administration did, five times as much, because one would competitively bid and the other would not. Well, according to our friends on that side of the aisle, somehow we cut health care for the elderly when we began to pay market prices for wheelchairs. It is absurd, Mr. Speaker. Now we are offering reforms saying that, you know what, if you are not a citizen of the United States of America and you signed a contract not to become a ward of the State, maybe you ought to wait 7 years instead of 5 before you qualify for food stamps so that maybe we can send that money to help relieve human suffering along the gulf coast. But somehow, again in this body, notwithstanding the fact that food stamps will grow next year over this year, it is somehow called some kind of massive cut. It is just not true, Mr. Speaker. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Mr. Speaker, what is important is that we do not let the Democrats put double taxes on our children. It is important we not allow them to increase taxes today, because the tax relief we have passed has been great for this economy. It is what is helping people. Right now, we have passed tax relief, and guess what, Mr. Speaker, we have more tax revenue. Mr. Speaker, right now, on this chart you can see that after we passed tax relief for the American people, allowing small businesses and families to keep more of what they earn, in 2003 we have almost $1.8 trillion in revenue, in 2004 almost $1.9 trillion in revenue, and now in 2005, $2.1 trillion in revenue. Tax relief has proven to be part of the deficit solution, not part of the deficit problem. Mr. Speaker, that may be counterintuitive to some people, but let me tell you just one story about one small business in my district back in Texas. It is an outfit called Jacksonville Industries, employs 20 people, an aluminum and zinc die cast business. Before we passed our economic growth program that had tax relief, they were getting ready to have to lay off two of the individuals due to competitive pressures, but because of tax relief, Mr. Speaker, they were able to go out and invest in new machinery that made them more efficient. Instead of having to lay off two people, Mr. Speaker, they hired three new people. That is five people that could have been on welfare, five people that could have been on food stamps. That is five people who could have been on unemployment, but instead, Mr. Speaker, it was five people who had good jobs with a future, who had their own housing program, their own nutritional program, their own education program called a job. So, to listen to our friends on the other side of the aisle, they would say somehow that is a cut. It is not, Mr. Speaker. It is about freedom and opportunity, and that is what helps the poor.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for just one point, and I think I heard the gentleman correctly that the government paid over $1,000 for a prescription that should have cost approximately how much?

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, as the Members can tell, we are having a rather spirited debate in this body over something called the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. It is a little surprising that we would come here and not work in a bipartisan manner to try to actually reduce the deficit. So we need to explore, Mr. Speaker, exactly why is it that we need to do this, why is it important that we on the Republican side of the aisle have put forth a plan to help reform the government, to help achieve savings for the beleaguered American family? I believe it is very important, Mr. Speaker, because I still believe that although we face a number of challenges, we still have enemies, terrible enemies, who want to seek to do our country woe; that we have challenges in filling up our cars and pickup trucks; that the cost of health care needs to come down. We have a number of challenges, Mr. Speaker, but ultimately we can address them. America has faced even greater challenges than that before. If we will just preserve freedom, if we will preserve opportunity, if we will protect the family budget from the explosive growth of the Federal budget, I still believe there is no limit to what we, the people in America, can achieve. But this is a very important debate. And the vote on this act, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Mr. Speaker, is going to be one of the most important votes that we cast this year because as our Nation faces a number of fiscal challenges in trying to pay for a number of our programs like Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and, on top of that, the devastating hurricanes that have hit our great Nation, as we seek ways to pay for those, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day there are only three different ways we can do it. Either, number one, we are going to raise taxes again on the American people, as the Democrats want to do, and they do not claim they want to do it, but I assure the Members, Mr. Speaker, they do. So number one, we are either going to raise taxes on the American people; or number two, we are going to pass debt on to our children yet again, as unconscionable as that is; or number three, Mr. Speaker, again we can go to our plan, our plan to reform government programs so that we can achieve savings for the American people. And that is what this debate is going to be about. We can have a bright future. But if we do not do it, Mr. Speaker, if we do not start today on this plan to reform government programs to achieve savings for the American people, I fear that our future could be dark. For example, Mr. Speaker, I have a chart here. It is a multicolored chart, and it talks about what we call in Washington ``entitlement spending,'' kind of mandatory spending that is on automatic pilot. Much of it is good, but it is growing beyond our ability to pay for it. This is 2003, and on this side of our chart we have a percentage, and this talks about the percent of our economy that we are spending right now on government. Right now, Mr. Speaker, all of this spending here, and this year is 2003, just a couple years ago, we were spending roughly 20 percent of our economy on the Federal Government. This line here is our tax revenues, which stays fairly consistent, just a little bit below 20 percent of our economy. But, Mr. Speaker, as the years go by, if we do not reform these programs, we can look at the year 2015, the year 2030, and the year 2040. Mr. Speaker, if we do not start to reform today, we are on the verge of doubling the size of government in one generation. What is that going to mean to our children? What is that going to mean to their standard of living? We are on the verge of being the first generation perhaps in the entirety of American history to leave our children a lower standard of living than we enjoyed. And, Mr. Speaker, I just believe that is absolutely unconscionable. We must begin this process of reforms. Again, we are on the verge of doubling the size of government, and that is just leaving the programs alone. Doing what the Democrats want us to do, turning our back on future generations, is going to double the size of government, taking away that hope, taking away those jobs, taking away those opportunities. How are we going to afford then to put gas in our pickup trucks? How are we going to afford to send our children to college? How are we going to afford paying our heating bills when Uncle Sam says, No, we are going to have to take twice as much of the economy just to pay for the Federal Government. What does this translate into for families all across America? Again, if anybody was listening to the earlier debate, we did not hear the Democrats say this, but this is their plan. We have a plan to reform government programs, to achieve savings for the American people. They have a program to double taxes on the American people in one generation. Look at what is going to happen to the average family as the years go by, and this is 2005. If the Democrats have their way, they will increase taxes on American families almost immediately by $4,000 a family. Well, there just went a down payment, a huge down payment on a car to get, perhaps, a parent to work. There just went, in some places, a semester or two of college. There just went no telling how many months of child care with the Democrat plan to immediately increase taxes on the American people. And as time goes by to 2009 and 2017 and 2027, increasingly, taxes go up and up and up. So, again, Mr. Speaker, it really comes down to the question: Do we have a spending problem in Washington or do we have a taxing problem in Washington? And I think as we carry on with this debate, the American people will agree that what we really have here is a spending problem, that spending is out of control in Washington, DC. But I believe, Mr. Speaker, as do so many of my colleagues, that with a good plan of reform to achieve these savings, that we can actually deliver better health care, better retirement security for our seniors at, frankly, a lower cost. And it is just so sad, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot seemingly get any Democrat from this side of the aisle to come join with us. And it is my fear, Mr. Speaker, that they are more concerned about the next election than they are the next generation.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield again, it reminds me that in this great body everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. The fact is that these budgets are still increasing, even after our reforms. But another question for the gentleman: is not one of the suggested reforms that we are offering here simply to extend for noncitizens, people who are not citizens of the United States of America, supposedly people who came here who wanted to roll up their sleeves and seek freedom and opportunity, a waiting period of 7 years instead of 5 before they receive food stamps, for noncitizens? Is that correct?

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, private property has been among the most sacred rights of the American people since our founding as a Nation. Likewise, the government's duty to protect private property has remained among its most sacred responsibilities. John Adams once wrote, ``The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.'' Well, Mr. Chairman, the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London has commenced the tyranny. It is laying siege to the idea that a man's home is his castle. While it is true that the principle of eminent domain is established in our Constitution, it exists for an extremely limited purpose. The dissenters in the Kelo case correctly note that the Court has abandoned a ``long-held basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner.'' The Court essentially now gives local governments the power to seize property to simply generate tax revenue. Under their ruling, your local city council can now take your home and give it to Starbucks so they can sell vente mocha lattes. Mr. Chairman, are we still in America? By passing the Private Property Rights Protection Act, Congress can help secure this most sacred right. H.R. 4128 will rightfully increase the penalties for States. We should stand for freedom and private property and support this act.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) for their leadership in getting this bill, H.R. 1461, to the House floor. Reforming the regulatory structure for the housing GSEs has clearly been a long time in the making. I am going to vote for this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I believe that we must act as a body to move this process forward, and work with the Senate to draft a bill that President Bush can sign into law. We are all aware of the economic damage that took place in the wake of other corporate accounting scandals, be it Enron, WorldCom or Tyco. It is important to remember that in terms of assets, Enron was only about one-sixteenth the size that Fannie Mae is today. WorldCom and Tyco were about one-tenth the size of Fannie in terms of assets. These facts cannot be ignored. Legislation is long overdue. However, I continue to have many concerns about certain provisions in H.R. 1461 that I believe could do more harm than good to our housing markets. Primarily, I am concerned that H.R. 1461 does not go far enough to protect our financial markets from the systemic risk posed by the giant portfolio holdings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has warned us that without the needed restrictions on the size of Fannie and Freddie's portfolios, our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets is significantly put at risk. H.R. 1461 would not give the new regulator the necessary tools to appropriately limit the size of the portfolios of these two institutions. The combined retained portfolios of these two companies now exceed $1.6 trillion, up from $136 billion in 1990. Portfolios of this size do nothing to promote liquidity in the secondary market. Unfortunately, H.R. 1461 will do nothing to protect American taxpayers from having to bail these institutions out should they fail. I am also concerned about what is commonly referred to as ``mission creep'' of these two entities. Congress has given Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac very special charters, unique government-granted benefits that we do not grant their competitors. These benefits exist so that they can create liquidity in the secondary mortgage market and help create the American Dream for middle and low income families. In recent years, these entities have been clearly engaging in areas outside of this charter, including airplane leasing, purchasing tobacco bonds, and providing international consulting. H.R. 1461 does not provide the necessary bright line between the activities in which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can and cannot engage. While Congress prohibits Fannie and Freddie from originating loans, we clearly need a better definition of loan origination and what separates the primary market from the secondary market. Not only would a bright line provide clarity, it would enhance competition in the primary market and prevent these taxpayer-backed institutions from engaging in activities outside of the scope of their charters. Further, I have concerns about raising the conforming loan limits for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as H.R. 1461 does. Raising these limits will do nothing to help Fannie and Freddie meet their affordable housing goals. The conforming loan limits were originally established to ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are focused on increasing the availability of housing for middle and low income Americans. These limits are necessary to prevent Fannie and Freddie from competing with private sector lenders, who already meet the demand for larger home loans. Raising the conforming loan limits is a clear extension of Fannie and Freddie's charters. That is not the purpose of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee worked diligently and in good faith with myself and many of my colleagues who had serious concerns about the creation of an affordable housing fund for both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in H.R. 1461. I applaud him for his willingness to include language in this bill that seeks to prevent affordable housing fund monies from being abused for political purposes. However, it is my hope that as this bill moves toward conference with the Senate, we take a serious look at the need to create another housing fund of this nature, especially one that has the potential to be abused for political purposes. Our housing finance system is driven by the creation of jobs, supported by sound economic policy. Under the policies of this administration and this Republican Congress, this system has never worked better, and we now have achieved the highest rate of homeownership in the entire history of the United States of America. Mr. Chairman, the truth is there is no greater housing program than the American free enterprise system.

Mr. HENSARLING

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, tonight, we are coming here to talk about a very important piece of legislation titled the Deficit Reduction Act. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is seeing a number of challenges here, obviously 9/11, which we have heard a lot about. Recently our Nation has been hit with a number of hurricanes, natural disasters that have proven very, very costly to our Nation. Now we have seen the threat of avian flu. There are a number of different challenges our Nation faces, and we will meet these challenges; but meeting these challenges is not free. Particularly within the context of the hurricanes that have hit, at the end of the day, when we look at the Federal response, how much money the Federal Government is going to spend, there are really only three ways that we are going to be able to pay for this. Either number one we are going to raise taxes on hardworking American families yet again as they are facing challenges in meeting the cost of filling up their pick-up trucks and heating their homes, or we are going to pass debt on to our children, even more debt to be passed on to our children. But, Mr. Speaker, we on the Republican side of the aisle believe that there is another way, and that way is to restrain the growth of government. That way is to protect the family budget from the Federal budget. We are going to spend some time, Mr. Speaker, this evening bringing up some very interesting facts that we believe the American people need to know. Number one, you will hear this evening about how tax relief that we have brought to American families and small businesses, that has been part of our deficit solution, not part of our deficit problem; and we will talk about that later this evening because there has been a lot of misinformation there. In addition, we have heard the other side talk about gross and draconian cuts in the Federal budget. Well, what we are going to discover, Mr. Speaker, is what they call a draconian cut is trying to restrain the growth of government so we do not have to raise taxes, so we do not have to pass on debt to our children. It is the same old song we have heard from them for 50 years. What we also hear from them is that somehow any reform, any accountability that we institute in the Federal budget is somehow tantamount to hurting the poor. Mr. Speaker, we do not buy that. The American people do not buy that either because we know that year after year after year, as we dump new programs on top of old programs, as the Federal Government refuses to measure the success, the progress, the ability of these programs to meet goals, that we have a budget now that is fraught with waste. It is fraught with abuse. It is fraught with duplication. Mr. Speaker, finally, not all spending is created equal. Families all over America have to make some tough decisions occasionally at the end of the month when that paycheck begins to run out, and this is what people do in a great Nation. In my own family, if we are a little low on money at the end of the month, I am not going to tell my two children, my 3\1/2\-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son, I am sorry, children, you just cannot have anymore milk because your mom and I have got this great movie we want to go see. What happens is my wife and I do not go to the movie. Instead, we buy the milk for the children. Some spending in the Federal budget is just not high priority, not when compared to trying to relieve human suffering along the gulf coast that has been wrought by these hurricanes. So the American people, I think they instinctively know, but occasionally we have to remind them about what is in this Federal budget. Mr. Speaker, often when we spend money here in Washington, D.C., many good things come from it: Kevlar vests for our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and fighting in the global war on terror. Occasionally money is spent to help start a small business; but more often than not, though, we see that this money is spent for an $800,000 outhouse in a national park and the toilet does not even flush. We see it spent on 342 different Federal economic development programs, 342. Does that not suggest some duplication? More often than not, it is spent on food stamps where 10, 20, and sometimes 30 percent of the recipients do not even qualify because we are not checking their income levels, and the list goes on and on and on. The important thing, Mr. Speaker, that we need to know this evening is that there are plenty of places in the Federal budget where we can save money so that families do not have to cut their budgets because every dollar we spend here is a dollar that we cannot spend back in Texas or Tennessee or Virginia or New York. At the end of the day, it is not the government's money. It is the people's money, and we need to institute more accountability in the system. I wish more of our friends on the Democrat side of the aisle would come and help us, but too often they have bottled up each and every reform. They do not believe that there is any waste in the Federal budget. They do not believe there is any duplication in the Federal budget. They believe all spending is great spending, that nothing good has ever happened in our Nation unless it as the result of a Federal program; and that is not true. So, Mr. Speaker, the first thing that we want to discuss this evening is to talk a little bit about what is in this Federal budget, this $2.4 trillion budget, a budget that over the last 10 years has been growing at least a third faster than the family budget, a Federal budget that, in my lifetime, Mr. Speaker, has grown seven times faster than the family budget. That is an unconscionable growth rate. That is an unsustainable growth rate. Again, our purpose here is to provide reforms. It is to provide accountability, and it is to spare our children the future of having to have a massive tax increase or massive debt placed on them. So we want to talk about different ways that we believe that we can save money in Washington, D.C. without cutting vital programs. We want to make sure that the social safety net is in place; but we know that the greatest social welfare program, the greatest housing program, the greatest education program in the history of mankind is a job, a job provided by the American free enterprise system, which is what our economic policies are all about. That is why we have been able to create 4 million new jobs in this economy, with tax relief for small businesses and American families. So there are a lot of things that we need to do to protect that family budget from the Federal budget; and I am very, very happy, Mr. Speaker, that I have been joined by a number of our colleagues who are leaders in this Congress on trying to help root out this waste and this fraud and this abuse and this duplication in the Federal budget so that we can indeed protect that family budget. One of the individuals who is joining us this evening is one of the leaders in government reform, a colleague of mine that I have been very proud to know, a real leader in this Congress on that subject, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn); and I would be glad to yield to her.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentlewoman for her insight and leadership on this subject. Mr. Speaker, she brought up just a number of different examples illustrating the point that, again, there is so much waste and there is so much fraud and there is so much duplication and low-priority spending in this budget, yet Democrats do not want to work with us to try to reform this. Mr. Speaker, we have 10,000 different Federal programs spread across over 600 different agencies, and we have many pressing needs, but we owe it to the American people to bring some accountability here. Now, again, as my able colleague, the gentlewoman from Tennessee, talked about, we know what the Democrats will say about these different programs. Well, wait a second, that is really massive cuts in spending. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, anybody in this body is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. Let me talk a little about what the facts are, and then we will go back and talk about even more waste and fraud in this budget. When they talk about massive cuts in the Federal budget, let us put this in perspective. If we are, among other things, besides trying to reduce the deficit, if we are trying to pay for the hurricane damage, so far that bill for the Federal Government has totaled about $62 billion. Yet the Federal budget over this same 5-year period is $13.9 trillion. Mr. Speaker, as I do my math, we are talking about less than half a cent, less than half a penny, and this is called some type of massive cut? What it tells me is that, as we are trying to fight the deficit, all we hear about from the Democrats is tax relief, we hear about massive cuts, and yet we are talking about half a cent. If we cannot find a half a penny of savings on the dollar in a $13.9 trillion budget, well, we are just not looking. Any small business in America, any family in America would laugh in our face if we told them, well, there is just no way that we can find a half a cent of savings on the dollar to protect your family budget. No, we are going to have to increase taxes, or maybe we will just pass debts on to your children. Mr. Speaker, that is just totally, totally unacceptable.

Mr. HENSARLING. Yes, I will be happy to yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech Act. My bill is a simple one. It is only one sentence long. It achieves one goal, but that goal is a worthy one: the protection of free speech on the Internet. Without this legislation, I fear that the cold, callous, and clumsy hand of Federal regulation may stifle political speech in cyberspace. Recently, we know the Federal judiciary ruled that, absent our congressional action, the FEC must regulate this form of speech, even though the FEC clearly does not want to. The newest battlefield in the fight to protect the first amendment is the Internet. Today, the Internet is free from FEC regulation. Clearly, it should remain that way. The Internet is a marketplace of ideas that welcomes all participants on equal footing. It is extremely cheap. In fact, if one has access to the Internet at home or a public library, it can be free, absolutely free. A Web site's success is driven by the quality of its content, not the quantity of funds that are poured into it. It is one of the most democratic forms of speech that we know today, and it is an outstanding opportunity for all individuals across our Nation to participate in our democratic process and impact public policy. The Internet, Mr. Speaker, is the new town square; and campaign finance regulations are not appropriate there. Not only would such regulation be a nightmare to administer and enforce, it would place complex responsibility on ordinary citizens that would functionally restrict their political free speech and violate their first amendment rights. Today, thousands and thousands of Americans run blogs that are focused on politics, and millions of viewers visit their favorite bloggers' Web sites for commentary often not found in the mainstream media. Without H.R. 1606, I fear that bloggers one day could be fined for improperly linking to a campaign Web site, or merely forwarding a candidate's press release to an e-mail list, and the list goes on. If bloggers are compelled to hire lawyers to navigate this complex, gray, murky world of Federal regulation, many will simply cease to operate. That would only leave the wealthier participants in this blog-osphere and undermine public access to information and the chance for smaller groups to participate in our democracy in this fashion. Those opposing the bill claim that some day, somehow, somewhere, there may be corruption. Yet the FEC itself could not see the threat of corruption that is present in a ``medium that allows almost limitless, inexpensive communication across the broadest cross-section of the American population.'' Let those who cry corruption cite examples and carry the burden in this debate to abridge the first amendment rights of our citizens. Mr. Speaker, it is a heavy burden to carry. In 2002, before I came to this body, Congress passed a sweeping new campaign finance law; and, in a rare moment of restraint, nowhere in the new law did Congress impose restrictions on the Internet. Consequently, the FEC, the entity solely devoted to regulating campaign activity, left that promising new technology alone. Under the new law, public communications were clearly defined; and, just as clearly, the Internet does not appear on this list. Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain that Congress was aware of the Internet's existence 3 years ago. Indeed, it is mentioned in other parts of the legislation. So, logically, the FEC declined to regulate public communications online, equating the give and take on the Internet to candidate forums and rallies and debates that are open to the public. Just like on the street corner, people can talk back to a blog by writing their own posts or establishing their own sites. How do you talk back to a radio ad except with another radio ad that costs perhaps tens of thousands of dollars to run? This is very different. Web sites and messages are very effective, very democratic, and very affordable tools, a different means of communication. Despite congressional silence on this matter, in 2004, a Federal court instructed the FEC to regulate Internet communications, and that process is under way. Because the vast majority of Web sites are independently and inexpensively operated, regulatory burdens are going to limit the Internet's usefulness as a political forum. I am gratified to see the thoughtful and energetic response of the blog-osphere to these proposed rules. It is just this type of free exchange of opinions that we are trying to protect today. The bottom line is that campaign finance laws must enhance, not hinder electoral participation; and I should note that campaign blogs and all official campaign activities will still be regulated by the FEC after the passage of this legislation. I am proud that my democratic colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, has cosponsored this bill, signifying that this is truly a bipartisan effort. In the other body, the distinguished Senate minority leader has partnered with my friend, Senator Coburn, to defend American freedom of speech online by introducing this identical language in the other body. Over 200 years ago, in this House of Representatives, James Madison stated, ``The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments.'' Today, Congress finds itself debating the very same rights under far more modern realities. New regulations are not the answer each time a new technology emerges. The bipartisan Online Freedom of Speech Act protects the first amendment rights of Internet users and prevents the FEC from making needless and arbitrary distinctions. When the choice is between more regulation and more freedom, we should always err on the side of freedom.