Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the esteemed chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this amendment. I am not sure how it benefits this House to vote on categories that have no enforcement ability whatsoever. When we have 13 appropriation bills and 20 budget functions that never meet, we are losing sight of another very important function that this budget ought to serve, and that is the function of protecting the family budget from the Federal budget. Spending is out of control. It is a very important debate between relative expenditures within the Federal budget, but we also have to focus on how much money are we going to take away from the American family; how are we going to impact their dreams and their ability to realize their housing programs, their education programs, their child care programs. We need to focus on what is enforceable, and we need to focus on protecting the family budget from the Federal budget. And if we believe in limited government, we will support this amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest amount of respect for the gentleman from Florida, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, but it seems to me rarely has an amendment been endowed with such common sense as this one. Why do we shut down the government if we cannot get our business done? Do we understand the implications to the average American out there in the street? This is common sense. It needs to get done. On behalf of the people of America, I would urge its adoption.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to offer my congratulations to the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) for his fine work on an incredibly important topic that we take up today, and that is the topic of limiting the size, the scope, the power, the expense of government. In his underlying bill, he has placed a cap on the growth, on the growth of discretionary spending. This amendment would also offer a cap on the growth of mandatory spending, again, a cap on the growth. Under this particular amendment, mandatory spending would grow by either CPI, the consumer price index, or the program inflator, plus new enrollees. There are certain exemptions, certain programs that, if this were to be enforced by a sequester, would have a 2 percent protection. But the truth is this is an amendment that goes to the heart of the question: Does this body believe in limited government? Is government ever too big? Is spending ever out of control? Should we ever do anything to protect the family budget from the Federal budget? Many of us believe that spending is indeed out of control. Mr. Chairman, since I have been on the face of the planet, the Federal budget has grown seven times faster, seven times faster, than the family budget as measured by median worker income. I believe that is an unsustainable growth rate, and an unconscionable growth rate. If we look at it on a per capita basis, net interest outlays have increased 3.6 percent faster than inflation each year since 1997. We see where the trend lines are headed. Ten years of spending history: total spending growth has averaged 5 percent each year since 1994, and the incline gets greater and greater and greater. Until we finally draw a line in the sand and tell the American people at some point we are going to quit taking money away from them, at some we are going to go in and begin to reform programs, we are going to prioritize programs, we are going to go in and begin to root out the waste, the fraud, the abuse, the duplication that permeates every corner, then American families will not be able to realize their dreams, their dream of a better tomorrow, their dream of better education for their children, their dream of better health care for their family. We must decide at some point that we are going to limit the growth of government, and this amendment would do that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, since coming to Congress, I have heard a number of bad ideas, but I cannot think of one worse than raising taxes on small businesses in America, the job-creating machine in America. Let me just give you one example of why this is such a bad idea. Recently I was in Jacksonville, Texas touring a plant, Jacksonville Industries, a zinc and aluminum die cast business. Because of competitive pressures, they were considering laying off two of the 22 workers that they had. But thanks to President Bush's economic growth program that we passed in this House, that tax relief for that small business enabled them to buy a new piece of machinery, I could not tell you what its name is, I could not tell you what it does, it is big, it makes a lot of noise, but most importantly, it makes them more efficient. And instead of having to lay off two people, they hired three new workers in just one plant in one small town in Texas, thanks to tax relief. That is five people who could have been on welfare, five people that could have been on unemployment. But instead it is five people with good, productive, tax-paying jobs. Mr. Speaker, we have a choice today. We can choose to continue the historic economic growth we have seen over the past year or we can turn back the clock to recession and stagnant growth. We can choose to keep creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs or we can send Americans back to the unemployment line. We can choose to limit the growth of government or we can expand the Federal bureaucracy by another $150 billion over the next decade. Mr. Speaker, thanks to tax relief that Congress has passed, our economy is growing at the fastest rate in two decades. Thanks to tax relief, we have created 1.4 million new jobs since last August. Thanks to tax relief, the stock market is up, incomes are on the rise and the national rate of homeownership is at an all-time high. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to choose tax relief. I urge all of my colleagues to choose economic growth. I urge all of my colleagues to choose jobs for American families and soundly defeat the Obey amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, how much government is enough? Can we ever have enough? It seems many Members in this Chamber would say no. They seem to believe there should be no limit to the size, to the power, to the expense of the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, the Founding Fathers disagreed. They believed in limited government. They warned us of the pitfalls of allowing government to grow out of control. James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers: ``There will be little avail to the people that laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read or so incoherent they cannot be understood.'' Thomas Jefferson wrote that the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground. Well, Mr. Chairman, just how much ground has government gained? Since I was born, the Federal budget has grown seven times faster than the family budget, as you can see from the attached chart. For only the fourth time in the history of our Nation, the Federal Government is now spending over $20,000 per household. This figure is up from $16,000 per household just 5 years ago. This represents the largest expansion of the Federal Government in 50 years. Last year what we call mandatory spending reached 11 percent of our economy for the first time ever. Nondefense discretionary spending is now almost 4 percent of the economy for the first time in 20 years. In fact, almost every major department of the government has grown precipitously way beyond the rate of inflation. By any reasonable measure, spending is out of control. And when we get more government, we get less freedom, fewer opportunities, fewer opportunities for Americans to choose the best health care for their families, to choose the best educational opportunities for their children, or to find the best job in a competitive market economy. You cannot have unlimited government and unlimited opportunity. What else do we get for all this government spending? Unfortunately, we get a lot of waste, fraud, abuse, and duplication. Until recently, Medicare had routinely paid as much as five times for a wheelchair as the VA had, simply because one would bid competitively and the other did not. In the last year of the Clinton administration, HUD wasted over 10 percent of their budget, $3 billion just lost making improper payments to people who did not qualify. We have spent almost $800,000 on an outhouse in one national park, and it did not even work. We have over 342 different economic development programs in the Federal Government, and by the way, what does the Federal Government know about economic development anyway? We are just scratching the surface here. Example after example shows that many Federal programs routinely waste 5, 10, 15, even 20, percent of their taxpayer-funded budgets in the last 4 decades. Government is inherently wasteful. It does almost nothing as well as we the people; and until we limit it, we will never prioritize, much less root out, the waste, the fraud, the abuse, the duplication that permeates every corner of the Federal Government and robs every family. Recently, many of us in this Chamber spoke very eloquently about the legacy of President Ronald Reagan. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would remind us that it was President Reagan who said the answer to a government that is too big is to stop feeding its growth. It was President Reagan who said we can no longer afford things simply because we think of them, and it was President Reagan who stood in this Chamber and called on Congress to limit government and fix a broken-down budget process. Now, there are many ways that we can honor the memory of President Reagan. Tonight, I can think of no better way than passing the bill that would accomplish his dream. Mr. Chairman, the time to act is now. We have the opportunity to realize the vision of Ronald Reagan, or we can continue with the largest expansion of government in 50 years. We can protect the family budget from the Federal budget, or we can continue to operate under a budget process that only serves to grow bigger and bigger government. That is why, along with my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), I offer as a substitute the Family Budget Protection Act, along with more than a hundred cosponsors. And our bill has two simple propositions. Number one, it says the Federal budget should not grow faster than the family budget. Quite simply, there should be some ceiling on the growth of government. At some point we say enough is enough. We will take no more money away from American families. Secondly, it says if Congress passes a budget, it ought to abide by the budget. It ought to enforce the budget. It ought to live by the budget. It is really that simple. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to the time I have remaining?

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, if people will read this legislation, this puts a cap on the growth of the government. Every single government program will grow under this legislation. After 6 hours of debate, we have heard much angst, anxiety, and grave concern over the deficit, over explosive spending, over a broken budget process. But, unfortunately, we have also heard that we just cannot do anything about it; there are committee jurisdiction issues, there are complexity issues, there are balance of power issues. When do we address family budget issues? This debate before the House boils down to two simple questions. Number one, does this body believe once a budget is passed it should be enforced? Yes or no. Number two, does this body believe that the Federal budget should not be allowed to grow faster than the family budget? In other words, should there be any limit whatsoever placed on the government? For the sake of the family budget, for the sake of personal freedom, for the sake of America's future, I hope the answer is yes and people support the Family Budget Protection amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), a coauthor of the amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think this is an incredibly important debate that this House needs to have today. Not only is it a critically important debate to have; but, frankly, it reduces itself down to a very simple debate to have. Simple perhaps, not easy. The simple proposition is this: Do we believe there should be any limit to government? It is a very simple proposition. Do we believe that there should be any limit to government whatsoever? Many in this body do not believe it. Many do, however. Many know the struggles and challenges that families face. Some of us believe that it is time to protect the family budget from the Federal budget. Since I have been alive, the Federal budget has grown seven times faster than the family budget when measured by median worker income. Seven times faster. I believe that is an unsustainable and unconscionable growth rate. The government is now spending over $20,000 per American household for only the fourth time in the entire history of our Nation and for the first time since World War II. That figure is up from $16,000 per household just 5 short years ago, just 5 short years ago. This represents the largest expansion of the Federal Government in 50 years. At what point do we say enough is enough? I know the Founding Fathers believed in limited government. The question is do we believe in limited government? There is going to be a bill. There are going to be a number of substitutes. There are going to be a number of amendments. But all of them are going to reduce down to two simple propositions: Should the family budget be protected from the Federal budget? Do we believe in limited government? And second of all, once we pass a budget, will we abide by that budget? Will we live by that budget like American families do each and every day? Because we cannot have unlimited government and unlimited opportunity. Many of us believe strongly that we must have unlimited opportunity. It would be wonderful if all of this government spending magically turned into love and happiness and kindness; and, indeed, there is much great work done by the Federal Government. But, indeed, there is also much waste and much fraud and much abuse and much duplication. And I fear until we limit, limit, the growth of government, that this body will not take the steps necessary to protect the family budget from the Federal budget and root this out. Up until recently, Medicare would routinely pay three, four, five times as much for a wheelchair as the VA did and had for years. Why? Because one would competitively bid and the other would not. The Department of the Interior maintains approximately 31,000 Web sites, almost one for every two employees. Does this meet the reasonableness test? I do not believe so. In the last year of the Clinton administration, HUD spent over 10 percent of their budget, $3 billion, paying out payments to people who did not even qualify for the program. We spent over $800,000 for one toilet in one national park, and it did not even work. My point is we are just scratching the surface here. When we begin to look at the 10,000 Federal programs spread across 500, 600 government agencies, we discover that they routinely waste 5, 10, 15, perhaps 20, percent of their taxpayer-funded budgets and have for years. This money is not free. It is not ours. It belongs to the families of America. And when we take it away from their kitchen tables to fund our programs, what are we taking away from them? Maybe the opportunity for them to buy a computer, a home computer, to further the education of their children. Maybe it is that first downpayment on a home. Maybe it is a couple months of child care. We must limit the size, the scope, the power, and the expense of the Federal Government. And this is what this legislation is all about. So no matter how many different ways people try to obfuscate it and try to make it confusing and cumbersome, it boils down to one simple proposition: Do we believe in limited government, or do we not believe in limited government? And that is why we need this rule for this very critical debate to go forward. I know, from listening to the debate on the other side, what we will hear all day. We will hear about Draconian cuts in the budget. As I read the legislation, government is still going to grow under every single amendment. Government will still grow. All we are saying is that maybe, just maybe, the government budget should not grow faster than the family budget. And we hear so much about how tax relief is causing these massive deficits. Well, it is interesting, when we actually look at the numbers, and last year's budget, which was a 10-year budget, we had almost $27 trillion of spending compared to $350 billion of tax relief. Now, if we buy into the opposition's argument, that tax relief represents a government expenditure, if we do the math, we figure out that the tax relief is roughly 1.5 percent of the spending. We could take it all the way and make no dent in the challenge whatsoever. I continue to be perplexed why people who talk so much about their concern for the deficit will focus all of their rhetoric on 1 percent of the challenge and ignore 99 percent of the challenge, which is on the spending side. And, by the way, tax relief is proven to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I want to express my most sincere congratulations to Dr. Wesley E. Pittman who will soon be installed as the President of the American Optometric Association. A lifelong resident of Mexia, Texas, Dr. Pittman and is a fourth generation optometrist, who has practiced optometry there since 1984. Dr. Pittman has been a leader in his community and in his profession at the state, regional and national levels. Like his father, the late William D. Pittman, O.D., and grandfather, the late W. Duke Pittman, O.D., he has been a member of the Texas Optometry Board, where he served as Chairman. He has served on the board of the Foundation for Education and Research in Vision, the Southwest Council of Optometry, and is the past president of the Heart of Texas Optometric Association. Dr. Pittman has also received many prestigious awards including Texas Young Optometrist of the Year, the Texas Optometric Association's President's Award for outstanding contributions to the profession and Texas Optometrist of the Year. In March 2003, he received the University of Houston College of Optometry's William D. ``Bill'' Pittman Leadership award, named for his father. An active member of his community, Dr. Pittman has served as a director of the Mexia Industrial Foundation. He is a past president of the Mexia Chamber of Commerce and Rotary Club. Dr. Pittman has served on the Bricks and Mortar Board of the Parkview Regional Hospital and is a consultant to the Mexia State School, a mental health facility. Later this month, Dr. Pittman will become the 83rd President of the American Optometric Association, a professional association of specialized doctors with more 34,000 members nationwide. I join with Dr. Pittman's friends and neighbors in Mexia in congratulating him on this prestigious achievement and wishing him the very best in all his future endeavors.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, one of my top priorities in Congress is to help ease the overwhelming tax burden on families and small businesses. I am also a firm believer in fighting for less government and more freedom, and one of the underlying tenets of this philosophy is promoting free trade. Free trade policies provide consumers--not government--the opportunity to make their own decisions about how to spend their money. Americans benefit from free trade and open markets every day. Free trade undeniably delivers a greater choice of goods and services at lower prices to Americans. Free trade also boosts local economies and jobs for our trading partners, which in turn, creates jobs, improves wages and the standard of living for American workers and their families here at home. When trade grows, income flows. Reducing and eliminating barriers to trade both at home and abroad is vital to a robust U.S. economy. Nearly one in ten jobs in the United States is directly related to the export of American goods and services. I believe it is vitally important to the future of our Nation that we continue to expand trade in an effort to promote economic growth, peace and prosperity at home and abroad. Because of my commitment to promoting unfettered trade and untying the hands of American workers and businesses I voted for the American Jobs Creation Act. This legislation will end the damaging tariffs that the European Union has imposed on a host of American goods that have hampered free trade and hurt American businesses since they were imposed in March of this year. In addition, it will decrease the tax rate for small businesses, farmers, and manufacturers and increase America's competitiveness with our global trade partners. The United States has the second higher corporate tax burden in the world. The American Jobs Creation Act is a step in the right direction to making American companies more competitive in the world marketplace. The American Jobs Creation Act will also help Texans and taxpayers in eight other states achieve equity under our tax code by allowing them to deduct state sales taxes from their federal income tax returns. The current system is clearly unjust, as it allows a federal tax deduction for state and local income and property taxes. Millions of people from those states that rely on sales taxes are clearly disadvantaged and overlooked by the current system and this jobs bill removes this inequity. It is estimated that the lack of this deduction robs Texans of over $700 million and 16,000 jobs. However, the House passed version only provides this relief for two years. I strongly support a permanent state sales tax deduction, and am hopeful that Congress will make this provision permanent in the future. Of course, I would ultimately prefer a simpler, more equitable tax- code that treats taxpayers fairly and stops trying to pick winners and losers. All Americans would be better of if Congress repealed both deductions for state and local income tax and the new state sales tax deduction, and put in their place new lower tax rates for both individuals and corporations--and made them permanent. Many of my colleagues keep forgetting that it is not our money; it's the people's money. I am committed to letting Americans keep more of what they earn, without the government stepping in and creating carve-outs, loop-holes and special interest niches. While this legislation accomplishes several very important goals such as the elimination of tariffs and providing for state sales tax deductibility, it was not all that I had hoped for. I have serious concerns about several of its provisions, particularly the inclusion of a tobacco bailout. This bill ended a decades old government quota and price support system for tobacco--and that alone is a very good thing. The federal government should not purposefully manipulate markets to try to fix prices. However, I find it highly objectionable that the American taxpayer is asked to foot the bill for buying out tobacco quota owners and tobacco growers. As a former board member of the American Cancer Society in Dallas, I am well aware of the harmful and often fatal affects of tobacco use. While the government has absolutely no business setting up quotas for any product and affecting the market price, I find it abhorrent that Congress would force taxpayers to cough up billions in order to subsidize tobacco. This quota system can and should be ended without the use of taxpayer money. Unfortunately, rather than decreasing corporate tax rates across the board, this bill also included numerous corporate pork provisions through special tax shelters. Special breaks and exclusions for certain industries, companies and products should not be a policy of the U.S. Congress. This bill includes special treatment for the cruise ship industry, former car dealers, makers of bows and arrows, and others industries. I have nothing against any of these industries, but Congress should not be promoting one product, company or industry over another. All American companies, taxpayers and consumers deserve lower taxes, not a chosen few.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Well, frankly, Mr. Chairman, there are many agencies.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, for only the fourth time in the history of our Nation, the Federal Government is now spending over $20,000 per family. This figure is up from $16,000 per family just 5 years ago, representing the largest expansion of the Federal Government in 50 years. Almost every government department has grown over some large multiple over inflation. We are experiencing an explosion of the Federal budget at the expense of the family budget. Unfortunately, too often this government spending equates to waste, fraud, abuse and duplication and has for decades. Mr. Chairman, I belong to a group known as the Washington Waste Watchers, a Republican working group dedicated to rooting out waste, fraud, abuse and duplication in the Federal Government, and it is not an easy task, because what has accumulated in the Federal city over many decades is now 10,000 different Federal programs spread across 600 different Federal agencies, accountable to almost no one, with little transparency and poor knowledge of their activities. Mr. Chairman, I know that President Bush and Secretary Norton are serious about this effort to root out waste in government. The President's management agenda is working. For example, the number of Federal agencies with verifiable financial data has now increased up to 20. That is up from 10 agencies under the Clinton administration. Mr. Chairman, this is a major accomplishment, 100 percent improvement, but why has it taken decades just to get a set of books that can be audited? Recently, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) exposed wasteful foreign travel by employees of the National Park Service and for that I know the taxpayers and I are grateful. This is progress. Today we have another opportunity to take a small step to protect the American taxpayer from more wasteful Washington spending. The Inspector General at the Department of Interior has discovered last year that the department has over 31,000 different websites on the Internet. That is right, Mr. Chairman, over 31,000 different websites. They contain between three and five million pages of information. No one knows for sure the exact number. What we do know is that the Interior Department now has one website for roughly every two employees. One website for every two employees. Mr. Chairman, these numbers are staggering. I mean, they do not pass the smell test, the look test, the touch test, the laugh test or any other test, especially when you compare it to the private sector. Bank of America, the most visited financial services web presence in the world, and in the top 10 most visited web services in America, has 80 percent fewer websites and yet they have over 3 times as many employees. The difference between government and the private sector is stark. In addition, the Inspector General has added that the department does not have a comprehensive inventory of its websites or of other components of its web presence. In addition, the Inspector General has found that the department had ``an excessive amount of duplicated, inconsistent, outdated and redundant information on its websites.'' The Inspector General estimates that taxpayers are forced at a minimum to pay between $110 and $220 million annually to maintain and operate this web presence, 31,000 websites, again which contains inconsistent, outdated and redundant information. My amendment will limit the amount of taxpayer funding to operate the department's web presence to $50 million and limits funding to manage and maintain more than one site for every 10 Department of Interior employees. I think this is more than reasonable, Mr. Chairman. During the time of war and unparalleled Federal spending at the expense of the family budget, can we ask our families to pay up to $200 million each year to fund an out of control and poorly managed web presence at just one Federal agency. This funding could be put to better use at the Department of Interior or other important priorities. If we use the most conservative estimate on what this amendment would save taxpayers, about $50 million, we could take those savings and buy over 31,000 Kevlar vests for our soldiers in Iraq or 1,600 Humvees with armor plating. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I know the Department of Interior does a lot of good work and performs a lot of valuable services, but we as a body have a responsibility to strike out at waste wherever we find it. Mr. Chairman, we have certainly found it here. I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment. We must protect the family budget from the Federal budget.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HENSARLING. I disagree with the gentleman's factual assertion, and the gentleman's party has been in control for the years that created this.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, hearing of the chairman's concern and knowing of his good work in this area, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. I would also like to answer an earlier question posed. I think it is very interesting that the gentleman earlier had indicated an interest in finding waste, fraud, and abuse but fought the amendment that would cut 1 percent, a mere 1 percent of waste, fraud and abuse from the Federal budget. Also, those gentlemen on the other side of the aisle voted to increase Federal spending over a trillion dollars in our last budget.