Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, we all know that Social Security faces challenges. Fortunately there is no need to change Social Security for current and near-retirees like my parents. They can and should be able to count on 100 percent of the benefits they have earned. But due to longer life spans and fewer workers supporting each retiree, serious problems are on the horizon for future generations like my children. Social Security faces an unfunded liability of almost $11 trillion. Unless we act today younger workers are going to face either a benefit cut of almost one-third or a 43 percent tax increase by the time they retire. This is unacceptable. Washington is part of the problem. The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided 59 different times. Benefits have been cut half a dozen times. Payroll taxes have been raised more than 20 times. Clearly the riskiest plan for Social Security is leaving retirees' money in Washington for government to squander.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to enter into a very important discussion that our President has kicked off for the Nation, and that has to do with strengthening and saving Social Security. Social Security has historically been a vital program in the history of America, saving many seniors from poverty, giving them peace of mind and giving them greater security. Madam Speaker, this is far more important than just a congressional debate to me. It is something that is very personal. You see, my parents are in their seventies. Social Security is part of their retirement. And I am committed to ensure that the Social Security benefits that my parents have earned, that they keep. But, Madam Speaker, not only do I have a sacred obligation to my parents, I have a sacred obligation to my children as well. My children are in diapers. Their world consists of Barney and Big Bird. They do not know about Social Security, but if we do not take action now, Social Security as we know it will not be there for my children. We have a number of challenges in Social Security. We have the challenge of demographics. When Social Security was first created, there were over 40 workers supporting every one beneficiary. By 1950, we were down to 16 workers for every beneficiary. And today, Madam Speaker, just three workers for every beneficiary. In addition, when Social Security was created, the life span of the average American was 60 years old. You could not even retire and get your benefits until 65. Thanks to the marvels of modern medicine, the life expectancy of seniors today is 77, and increasing. Another phenomenon we have, because we have fewer people paying into the system, we have declining rates of return. My grandparents enjoyed about a 12 percent rate of return on their Social Security. My parents will enjoy about a 4 percent rate of return on Social Security. I myself about 2 percent. And if we do not reform Social Security, my children will pay more into Social Security than they take out. Madam Speaker, that is simply not fair. Besides the declining rates of return, we have a large, large deficit that we are facing in the future. The cost of doing nothing is profound. In the year 2008, the Social Security surplus begins to decline and by the year 2018, Social Security begins to go bankrupt. It begins to pay out more money than it takes in. That sea of red ink there, Madam Speaker, adds up to $10.4 trillion. Nobody knows what that is, but I can tell you, that adds up to about $35,000 for every man, woman and child to save Social Security. If we do not do that, if we do not write out that check today, future generations are looking at unconscionable options. Number one, people who enter the workforce today, by the time they retire, if we do not take moves to strengthen Social Security now, they will be looking at having their benefits cut by almost a full third. How many seniors can afford to have their Social Security benefits cut by almost a third? And if we are not looking at massive benefit cuts, we are looking at massive tax hikes. This same group of people, people who enter the workforce today, if we do not take movement today, action today, they are going to be looking at a 42 percent increase in their payroll taxes. What will that do to families in America? How many hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs because of that massive tax increase? But, Madam Speaker, there is a better way. And that better way is to do what the President has suggested, and that is to create personal Social Security accounts that take the best of traditional Social Security, our government guarantee, our inflation control, our social safety net, and add to it elements of the best of what company pension plans offer, and that is real assets that people own, giving workers and families a chance to start their own nest egg and pension grade investments that have proven over time to have a superior rate of return and be safe. Madam Speaker, some say that this is risky. I say it is risky to leave one's retirement security in Washington. Already Congress has raided the Social Security trust fund over 59 times. They have cut benefits a half dozen times. They have raised taxes 20 times. Madam Speaker, we need to move to personal Social Security accounts. Working together, Republicans and Democrats, we can save Social Security for my parents. We can save Social Security for my children. We can save Social Security forever.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my special order at this time.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to commemorate two significant anniversaries of Rotary International. On February 23rd, Rotary international will celebrate its 100th anniversary. From its humble roots in Chicago, Illinois, Rotary International has grown into a worldwide organization of business and professional leaders whose mission is to 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 provide special recognition to an important member of this outstanding organization, the Rotary Club in Terrell, Texas, on the occasion of their 85th anniversary on December 1, 2004. Throughout its 85 year history, the Terrell Rotary Club has achieved great successes in carrying out the mission of Rotary International. In past years, the Terrell Rotary Club has raised money to combat Polio, bought wheelchairs for people all over the world, collected food for a food distribution center in Terrell, and provided benches for the city park. In addition, they have assisted with blood drives, helped with the Special Olympics and Relay for Life, and collected books to help support the Head Start program in Terrell. For the past 30 years, they have also issued the Community Service Award for Terrell. Through these actions, the Rotary Club of Terrell, Texas, has exemplified 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 be able to honor them today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Mrs. Georgia Vickery on the occasion of her 90th birthday on March 1. Mrs. Vickery was born in Edgewood, Texas to Thomas and Willie Ann Vickery. In February of 1946, she and her husband, Marion Pugh, opened up Pugh Hardware and Furniture in downtown Grand Saline, Texas. From 1970 to 1982 Mrs. Vickery managed this store while her husband served as Grand Saline's City Manager. A mother to three children, Mrs. Vickery was also very active in the community, serving as a Sunday school teacher, a member of the United Methodist Women's organization, and a member of her Church Council. Today, at ninety years old, Georgia Vickery continues to work for Pugh Hardware by preparing and sending out its monthly statements. She also exercises five days a week, keeps an eye on her farm, and continues her work at the Methodist church. As a mother, a wife, a devout churchgoer, a small businesswoman, and a community leader, Mrs. Georgia Vickery's life has embodied the values of family, faith, and hard work that lie at the core of American society. As her representative in Congress, it is my distinct pleasure to honor her today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. And I certainly want to recognize her for her great leadership in the United States Congress in helping root out waste and fraud and abuse. Her work on the Committee on Government Reform is known throughout the United States Congress. She has been a champion to make sure that there is accountability for taxpayer dollars so that we do something in this institution to protect the family budget from the Federal budget, and I appreciate her leadership. And I also appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Mississippi, who spoke earlier. I had the pleasure to serve on the Committee on the Budget with him, and he has been a champion of less government and more freedom on that particular committee. Mr. Speaker, I especially tonight want to thank our President. There is no doubt in my mind why our President was reelected. He is a man of vision and a man of bold leadership. It is under his leadership that we are going to be able to not only strengthen Social Security for my parents, who are in their 70s, but save it for my children who are both in diapers and know a whole lot more about Big Bird and Barney than they do about Social Security. And I appreciate the President's leadership on this budget because the only way that we are going to be able to save Social Security for future generations is to do something to rein in the growth of the Federal Government, to root out that waste and that fraud and that abuse and duplication that we know permeates every single nook and cranny of the Federal Government. For years and years, decades and decades, Washington has squandered money out of the Social Security trust fund. It is time for Washington to put it back. And the way that Washington puts it back is to rein in the growth of government. I have listened to part of the debate earlier this evening, and I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker, that we first agree on what the facts are. We heard a lot this evening about cuts here and cuts there and cuts here and cuts there. What I find interesting is in the budget that the President is proposing, government is still going to grow. It is going to grow 3.6 percent more in the next budget than it did over this budget. What the President is doing, though, and something that it is absolutely novel in this town, is, it is not going to grow quite as fast as it has in the past. Most people would be very interested to know, if they just look in their rear-view mirror for a decade, government has grown on average 4.5 percent a year. That is over twice the rate of inflation. In other words, if we are happy with the government we had 10 years ago, its level of spending, if we just wanted to keep that same government, we would have grown at the rate of inflation. Instead, we have done almost twice that. And perhaps more importantly, Mr. Speaker, the government budget has grown almost three times faster than the family budget over this same time period as measured by median worker income. I have a hard time believing and my constituents in the Fifth District of Texas have a hard time believing, why, with the exception of a national emergency, does the Federal Government budget have to grow so much faster than the family budget? And guess what? They are related. That money is coming from somewhere. It is coming out of the family budget, and it is going into the Federal budget. What we call mandatory spending now amounts to 11 percent of our economy for the first time in the history of America. What we call discretionary spending in this body is now approximately 7 percent of our economy for the first time in a decade. We are spending over $20,000 for American households for only the fourth time in the entire history of the United States of America and for the first time since World War II. It would be wonderful, Mr. Speaker, if all of this money that we were spending somehow magically turned into love and happiness and kindness. Unfortunately, all too often it does not. We have thousands and thousands and thousands of Federal programs spread across hundreds and hundreds of agencies. I defy anybody in this town to be able to tell me, what do they all do? And the examples we have of the waste and the fraud and the abuse and duplication are just profound. We read about it in our local newspaper every day. It was not that long ago that we picked up our newspaper to find out that our Federal Government with our money spent $800,000 for an outhouse in one public park and the toilet did not even flush. The only thing it flushed was hard-earned taxpayer money down the drain, $800,000. And then we read about the millions and millions that were recently spent for an indoor rain forest in Iowa. And this does not even talk about a number of the questionable studies that we end up funding with taxpayer dollars. I am not sure who thought up the use of taxpayer funding to figure out how and why college students decorate their dorm rooms. I am not sure exactly what vital Federal interest was being served by that. I think a number of my constituents would be surprised to learn that we spent over $2 million of their money to study the sexual habits of older men. Mr. Speaker, I do not particularly care to know what is in that study, and I feel fairly confident that my taxpayers in the Fifth Congressional District do not really care to pay for it. And, Mr. Speaker, let me talk a little bit about duplication. We have over 342 different Federal economic development programs, 342 at last count. That is probably 342 different executive directors and deputy directors. How many different Federal economic development programs do we need? And, by the way, a very good question that needs to be asked is, what does the Federal Government know about economic development anyway? The Federal Government, at last count, administers 50 different programs to aid the homeless, 50 different programs spread across eight different Federal agencies. Four agencies administer 23 programs offering housing. Six agencies administer 26 programs offering food and nutrition. Three agencies and ten programs attempt to protect homelessness. Three different agencies, 17 different programs provide mental health treatment. And, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important cause. We need to make sure that something is done about the homeless in our society. But how many different programs do we need trying to do the same, exact thing? It just speaks out for some kind of consolidation. Drug control, we have more than 50 Federal agencies responsible for waging the war on drugs. Early childhood development, we have more than 90 different programs spread across 11 different agencies. Job training, seven agencies and 40 different programs. Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on and on, and that is just talking about duplication. Some of the fraud that goes on that I believe our constituents would be shocked to find out, in the last year of the Clinton administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development just lost 10 percent of their budget, roughly $3 billion lost in improper payments. I mean, can one imagine for $3 billion how many Americans could have paid the down payment on their first home? Instead, government just squandered the money. Why does this happen? It happens because government does not do anything as well as we the people. As one of my colleagues said, it is intoxicating to spend other people's money, and unfortunately, there are a number of Members of this body that are quite intoxicated with that power to go out and spend other people's money. And it is always easy to do it. And speaking of other news articles that I have seen recently, I saw where a government official paid a taxidermy service with taxpayer funds to prepare a shoulder mount of a mule deer head, and according to the General Accounting Office, the deer was road kill and found by the official on the side of the road. And there are Members in this body who want to raise people's taxes to pay for more of that. It is example after example. Recently, the Republicans in this House finally cracked down on one abuse, and that is, for years and years and years, the Medicare program paid almost four times as much for a wheelchair as the Veterans' Administration did. Mr. Speaker, how could that happen? We scratch the surface and what we discover is that one agency would competitively bid and the other would not. I wonder how many small businesses across Texas and Kansas and Oregon and Vermont would be able to stay in business if they did not competitively bid their supplies? Fortunately, we managed to discover that one and do something about it. I could go on and on all evening, Mr. Speaker, but the point is that these are just a handful of examples. If we cannot find 1 or 2 or 3 percent of waste in a government budget, Mr. Speaker, we are simply not looking. We are just not looking. And if we are going to save Social Security for future generations, we have to moderate the growth of the Federal budget. Now, again, liberals in this body are going to say the President is cutting here and he is cutting there. But you need to listen to the language of Washington, because it is not the language of the American people. When people in Washington say ``cut,'' what they mean is it is not growing as much as they would like to see it growing. It is kind of like if your son comes up to you and says, Gee, Dad, you are giving me a $5 a week allowance, and I really need $10. You sit there and you think about it a while and you say, Well, Son, you make a good case. I have listened to what your expenses are. I am not going to give you $10 a week, but I will raise you to $7 a week. He says, Gee, Dad, that is a $3 cut. Don't you know I wanted $10? That is the language of Washington. So I hope as the American people listen to the debate over this budget, that they listen very, very carefully, because what liberals call cuts really tend to be a moderation in the growth of government. Again, if we are going to save Social Security for our children, we are going to have to moderate the growth of government. As my esteemed colleague from Tennessee was saying earlier, where is it chiseled in stone that we have to spend more money next year on a program than we spent last year? I have not read it in the Constitution, I did not read it in the Declaration of Independence, I have not read it in the Budget Act. But there are people here that say that if you care about farmers, or if you care about veterans, or if you care about school children, the only way you can show it is to spend more money next year than you did last year, regardless of what the results are, regardless of whether any kind of standards of accountability are being met. So, again, Mr. Speaker, as people are telling us that all these budgets have been cut, they may be interested to know, for example, that over the last 10 years, education spending has increased 128 percent. It does not sounds like a cut to me. Agricultural spending has increased 42 percent over the last 10 years. It does not sound like a cut to me. Health and Human Services has grown by 80 percent. It does not sound like a cut to me. The Energy Department has grown by 56 percent. It does not sound like a cut to me. Agency after agency after agency has seen large increases in their budget for the last decade. What we really have to be asking ourselves are two different things: What is the essential role of government in the free society, and how can government most efficiently meet those goals? It is time, again, Mr. Speaker, that we do what the President wants us to do, and that is to moderate the growth of the Federal Government, so we can start to root out all the examples of waste, fraud, and abuse and be accountable to the people who work hard back in our districts and send this money to Washington. Again, there is so much of this throughout the entirety of the budget; and if we only start to moderate the growth of Washington, then we can start to root some of this out. And we must do this. Our deficit is too high; our debt is too high. We need to save Social Security. Yet Democrats who will talk about the deficit and decry the deficit, all they want to do is increase more spending, more taxes. They tell us that tax relief is the reason that we have a deficit. Well, I would invite them to go talk to the people at the IRS, talk to the people at Treasury. What you will discover is that tax revenues are up. We cut tax rates and tax revenues came up because we promoted economic growth. Tax revenues are up almost 10 percent over last year, because more people are saving and they are working and they are investing. Tax relief is part of the deficit solution, not part of the deficit problem. Besides that, it is the deficit which is a symptom. Spending is the disease. By any measure whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, spending is absolutely out of control in Washington D.C. In some respects, this is not a debate about spending. What it really is is a debate about who is going to do the spending. All my colleagues would like to see more money spent on education, housing, and health care; but we are not indifferent as to who does the spending. Bureaucrats and liberals want Washington to do the spending. We want American families to do the spending. We know who has our children's best interest for the future in mind, and it is not Washington. It is our constituents back home. We must remember what Ronald Reagan once said, and that is the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program. We need to change that, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of our children, for the sake of Social Security, and for the sake of the Republic. I appreciate again the opportunity to speak out about the budget and to speak about ways we can protect the family budget from the Federal budget. I appreciate the gentlewoman from Tennessee for yielding, and I appreciate her great leadership on this issue.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity tonight to aid Florida without imposing costs on our families, on our children, on our grandchildren. Either we must tighten the Federal budget, or we must force families to tighten their budget. I would ask each Member to think about families in their district before they make this vote. I think about the Kings in Athens, Texas, and how this supplemental will impact their ability to pay for that last tuition payment for their son. I think about the Williams in Mesquite, Texas, and their small business, their paint and body shop. How is this supplemental going to impact their ability to hire two more workers? I think about the Evans in Garland, Texas, and I wonder how this supplemental will impact their ability to make those health insurance premiums. We are going to relieve the people in Florida. The question is, is the $10 billion going to come out of the government budget, or is it going to come out of the family budget? Again, we believe it should come out of the government budget. We believe that we should protect the family budget. I would urge all Members to vote for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Florida have the right to close?

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), the author of the rainy day amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, such reductions can be made by department heads. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), who has seen hurricanes up close.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself of such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I first want to congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for his good work to help those devastated by the recent hurricanes. My amendment represents a very simple proposition. But before stating that proposition, let me state the proposition it does not stand for. Specifically, nothing contained in this amendment would deny one penny of relief to those who suffered the ravages of the hurricanes that hit Florida; not one penny less, not one penny delay. The proposition this amendment does stand for is that so-called emergency spending for natural disasters should come out of the budget. In other words, this supplemental spending should be offset with lower- priority spending, which, frankly, was our practice throughout the decade of the nineties. In every single year of the nineties, when supplemental spending bills were enacted, so were rescissions of other spending. In that spirit, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce 2005 discretionary spending approximately 3 percent, exempting national defense, homeland security and veterans spending. Unfortunately, today, when we pass supplemental spending, we just add it to the deficit. We pass the bill along to our children and grandchildren. Many, many Members have come to the floor to decry deficit spending. It will be interesting to see how many of them truly want to do something about it and support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the true question before us is, who will tighten their belt to pay for this $10.9 billion of hurricane damage? Families, or government. I vote for the government. Opponents of this amendment will argue that it will gut vital government programs. I simply reject that notion. I believe the government spending is already out of control. For only the fourth time in our Nation's history, the Federal Government is now spending over $20,000 per household. Over the last decade, almost every major department of government has grown way beyond the rate of inflation. Interior is up 42 percent; HHS, 110 percent; education, 125 percent; and the list goes on. Mr. Chairman, much of the Federal budget helps our Nation in vital ways, but much of it does not: $800,000 outhouses, rain forests constructed in Iowa, wheelchairs costing four times as much as they should. Again, the $10.9 billion will either come out of the Federal budget, or the family budget. Let us look at the family budget. The average down payment on a home in America is $21,600. If we defeat this amendment, might we be denying half a million Americans their first home? The average home computer costs $482. If we defeat this amendment, might we be denying over 20 million school children an invaluable educational tool? To pay for hurricane relief, we must either tighten the Federal budget, or ask families to tighten theirs. This amendment comes down on the side of families.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to welcome Dr. Greg Ammons to Garland, Texas, as the new pastor of the First Baptist Church. The First Baptist Church of Garland was founded in 1868. They currently have over 3,500 active members and offer countless mission and service opportunities for their members to help serve the community. The First Baptist mission statement reads, ``To know Jesus and make him known.'' I can tell you that, through their faith and through their dedication to service, they are living up to that statement and doing the Lord's work in the Garland area. Today, I would like to offer my heartfelt welcome and prayers to Dr. Ammons, his family and his entire congregation at the First Baptist Church. I know firsthand that the members are very excited to have Dr. Ammons, Lisa and young Camden join their congregation. May God continue to bless Dr. Ammons, the First Baptist Church of Garland, and may He continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize fellow Eagle Scout Clint Flatt, of Mexia, Texas, for recently being honored with the Silver Beaver Award from the Boy Scouts of America. This award was presented to Clint for his ``noteworthy service of exceptional character to boyhood.'' Clint is a third generation Boy Scout, who started his Scouting experience as a Cub Scout at eight years of age. Since then, he has earned numerous honors including the Arrow of Light Award in 1980, the God and Country Award in 1986, the Eagle Scout badge and a Palm in 1987 and his Wood Badge beads in 1993. Throughout his life, Clint has remained committed to promoting the principles of Scouting. He has provided his leadership skills to the Boy Scouts of America in many posts and capacities, from Assistant Scoutmaster in several troops to Den Leader and Cubmaster for his son Tyler's Pack 698. Since 2001, Clint has served on the Twin Arrows Junior Leader Training Staff and is the Scoutmaster of the new National Youth Leader Training Pilot course at Camp Tahuaya. He is a Vigil member of the Order of the Arrow and has served on the Eagle Board of Review for the Comanche Trails District since 1995. Currently, Clint is serving as District Chairman and member of the Council Executive Board. Clint is not only a third generation Boy Scout, he is also the third recipient of the Silver Beaver Award in his family. His grandfather Leon, his mother Linda, and his father Dick have also earned the Silver Beaver Award for their distinguished service to Scouting. I would like to congratulate my friend Clint Flatt on this outstanding accomplishment. I would also like to thank him for his continued service to the Boy Scouts of America. Clint's example of leadership, citizenship and community service is a shining example to the young men he leads. Through his life-long commitment to Scouting, Clint is helping build the character of our country's next generation of leaders and helping shape a better America.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Baker) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) for their work on this compromise legislation that is so important to our economy. H.R. 3574 would prevent the proposed FASB rule from hurting start-ups and other small companies who very often rely on stock options as an incentive to hire and retain employees. If FASB is permitted to require these companies to report their options as an expense, the result will be a distorted view of earnings by investors and less confidence in our markets. This bill will help improve the transparency and disclosure of stock options, while not negatively impacting the ability of businesses to provide this valuable incentive to their employees. As our economy continues to improve and investor confidence rises, we must be careful not to place any excessive burdens on private business or act in any way that would reduce confidence in our markets. If expensing options is mandated, I believe inaccurate and certainly misleading information will be produced, leaving investors with more questions than answers about a company's financial statements and economic conditions. Also, Mr. Chairman, studies have shown that companies with broad- based option plans are generally more productive, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today in strong support of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Study after study shows, and history confirms, that nations that are open to trade grow faster and enjoy higher per capita incomes than those that hinder trade. That means better housing, better health care, and better nutrition for all Americans. Mr. Speaker, we must recognize that nations do not trade with nations, people trade with people. By restricting trade, we are denying Americans access to more abundant and less costly goods and services. Just think about the local grocery store for a moment. Alongside the cheese from Wisconsin and beef from my home State of Texas, we have melons from Mexico, olive oil from Italy, and coffee from Colombia. By closing markets, by restricting markets, we limit choices for consumers and we drive up the cost of products that American families must purchase every day. Mr. Speaker, more importantly, when we restrict trade, we deprive Americans of their fundamental economic liberty. I believe Americans have a right to determine which products they want to purchase and from where those products come. With the exception of national security, it should not be the role of the Federal Government to tell American consumers where they can buy their goods. Also, when we restrict trade, we invariably put Americans out of work. We invite trade sanctions. Nearly one in every 10 jobs in the United States is directly linked to the export of U.S. goods and services. Last year, my home State of Texas exported almost $730 million in manufactured goods alone to Australia. From agriculture to aerospace, to computers and chemicals, jobs in Texas and America depend upon trade, including trade with Australia. Now, I have heard some Members talk about fair trade. But, Mr. Speaker, we must also remember that policies that protect some industries invariably hurt others; and protecting specific industries does nothing to protect the interest of American consumers or protect their economic liberties. I urge all of my colleagues to support the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Today, I would like to congratulate a very special organization on a very special anniversary. On Saturday, July 10, 2004, White Rock Lake's ``For the Love of the Lake'' organization will mark the 100th consecutive month of shoreline spruce-ups that have helped keep the shores of White Rock Lake clean and the surrounding park looking beautiful. For the Love of the Lake is a truly grassroots effort, made up of caring volunteers who are dedicated to improving White Rock Lake and the surrounding area. The organization is a shining example of conservation and volunteerism in action. For the Love of the Lake shows what good people can do when they come together to accomplish something for the betterment of their community. My wife, Melissa, and our two young children enjoy White Rock Lake very much. The lake area is important, not just to those who live in the neighboring streets, but to all of the people that come to White Rock Lake to enjoy the beautiful landscape, water, trees and parks. For the Love of the Lake volunteers understand that we have a duty to protect and preserve these wonderful natural resources for our children and future generations. Since its inception in 1995, thousands of people have given their time, effort and energy in a variety of ways to help keep White Rock Lake looking beautiful, from picking up litter, to painting murals and buildings at the park, to attending fund raising events, or helping with White Rock Marathons. Over the years, For the Love of the Lake has been honored with countless awards and recognized by numerous organizations for their outstanding work. Dallas Observer magazine said, ``For the Love of the Lake is easily one of Dallas' best volunteer service organizations,'' and I could not agree more. On behalf of all of the people in Dallas, especially those who live in neighborhoods near White Rock Lake, I would like to congratulate the For the Love of the Lake organization and volunteers on their tremendous accomplishment. I would also like to thank them for their continued and valuable service to our community.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. I am not sure which bill the gentleman was reading. He appears not to have read this one. Every single government program grows some by a factor of inflation. No government program is cut here, only the rate of growth. However, the gentleman and other gentlemen and ladies on that side of the aisle in the last budget resolution voted for an extra trillion dollars in spending. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), a coauthor.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. In the past when this House has not agreed with the other body on a budget, occasionally we have faced a government shutdown, a train wreck. The government has shut down 17 times since 1977, for a total of 109 days. These shutdowns should not happen. They are not good for the American people. Parks close. Applications for visas go unprocessed. Toxic waste clean-up is postponed. This amendment is very simple. It says if for whatever reason we cannot come to an agreement on the budget, we do not shut down the government. We go back to the last agreement on the table. We put in place a continuing resolution until such time as we can come to agreement so we do not hold the American people hostage. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida for allowing me to bat 500 with him. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).