Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to give my Special Order now.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute a young man from Groesbeck, Texas, William ``Boo'' Barton, a 17-year-old high school junior with an incredible athletic gift, an incredible story and an incredibly big heart, as big as the State of Texas. Last September while playing for the Groesbeck Goats football team, Boo Barton suffered a tragic injury on the field. Shortly afterwards, doctors were forced to amputate his left leg 4 inches below the knee. The doctors told Boo with luck he would be able to walk, but Boo and his track coach, Phil LaFountaine, had bigger dreams. Three months after being fitted with a prosthetic leg, with family, friends and teammates looking on, Boo Barton defied all the odds by running the 100-meter race at the Groesbeck Goat relays. His time: 14.06. Some may say that was not the winning time that day, but I and everyone in the stands know better. Mr. Speaker, Boo Barton is an inspiring example to all of us. He shows us with the power of positive thinking and persistence through adversity, you can still dream bold dreams in America.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with a lot of interest to this debate concerning aspects of the Jobs and Growth Act, a bill that I was happy to cosponsor. America needs jobs, needs growth, but I think some on the other side of the aisle forget where jobs come from. Jobs do not come out of this United States Congress. They do not come out of Washington, D.C., or out of the Federal Government. If we want jobs, the people who need tax relief are job creators. Often when I listen to some of the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, it is as if these people love jobs, but they hate job creators. Another point, tax relief ought to be for taxpayers. We have a welfare system. I decline those who would take our Tax Code and turn it into a welfare system. We already have a welfare system; and as Republicans have controlled Congress, we have managed to move people off welfare and onto work. This is an excellent debate because it shows the clear differences between the two parties. It is as if the other side will not be happy until everyone is dependent upon a government check. We will not be happy until every American has an opportunity to have a paycheck, and that is a clear difference between the two parties. So what we need to do once again, if we want to have jobs, we need to give tax relief to job creators. If we want to be fair, we need to give tax relief to taxpayers. That is the difference here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1474, the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act. This bill, which modernizes check-clearing transactions, is a win-win for both consumers and financial institutions. Check 21 will result in fewer errors in check transactions while providing consumers with more choices. Because of increased on-line access, consumers can now have more confidence when inquiring about the status of their personal checks, and they can receive a much quicker response from their bank. Consumers will further benefit by the reduced cost associated with modernization of check clearing, and Check 21 ensures that banks remain fully accountable to the consumers they serve. Mr. Chairman, the act will make banking more efficient, reduce transactional cost, provide consumers with more choices, and help our financial services industry remain preeminent in the world. I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and my friends, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), for their leadership on this important legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 1474.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday President Bush signed the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003, a bill that I was proud to cosponsor. As a former small businessman, I believe I know something about what it takes to help build businesses and create jobs. But although our bill had to be compromised, it still has the ability to create more and better jobs for the American people. Yet there are some in this body who say that this legislation is not fair. They say there is not sufficient tax relief for low income Americans. Mr. Speaker, number one, they are wrong; and, number two, this is just another example of Democrats trying to foment class warfare in America. Let us get beyond the usual class warfare rhetoric and examine the facts. First of all, for all practical purposes, low-income people do not pay income taxes. In fact, in this bill we take 3.7 million Americans off the tax rolls. That is right, almost 4 million people who paid income taxes last year will pay no income taxes this year. None. How much more tax relief can you receive than having your tax bill torn up, thrown away, abandoned? These Americans join millions of other low-income Americans who have already been taken off the tax rolls in recent history. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, by lowering marginal rates, other low- income Americans benefit as well. Millions who were in the 15 percent tax bracket last year are now in the 10 percent tax bracket. More tax relief for low-income families. The net result now is this: The bottom 50 percent of wage earners in America pay only 3.9 percent of the income taxes. In other words, half of all Americans, low-income Americans, pay almost none of the national income tax burden. In contrast, the top 10 percent of wage earners in America pay almost two-thirds of the income taxes. Mr. Speaker, the critics of the jobs and growth bill fail to appreciate two other important facts: Number one, tax relief is for taxpayers. If you do not pay taxes, you should not expect tax relief. Number two, if you want jobs, give job creators tax relief. Tax relief is about capital. You cannot have capitalism without capital. You cannot claim to love jobs and then vilify job creators. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that some in this body want to turn our Tax Code into a welfare system. Well, guess what? We already have a welfare system. Fortunately, under a Republican Congress we have continued to move millions of Americans from welfare to work. And, to dispel the Democrat's disinformation campaign, we have increased Federal child care funding by 166 percent. We have increased Federal funding for housing by 75 percent. And, just this past year, we committed $17 billion to the TANF welfare program. Tax relief is different from welfare. Tax relief is about allowing taxpayers to keep more of what they earn, earn through their hard work, helping to keep them keeping more of their own wages for their own families. Mr. Speaker, let us not forget, it is not the government's money, it is the American family's money. Furthermore, if critics of the Jobs and Growth Act truly care about low-income people, they should join us and help us move them off of welfare checks and onto paychecks, move them up from smaller paychecks to bigger paychecks. In other words, these critics should help us join together and create more jobs. But Mr. Speaker, jobs are not created here in Washington, D.C. They are not created by the Federal Government. Jobs are created by hardworking risk-taking visionary men and women who, when granted access to capital, will roll up their sleeves and work hard to create that next generation of software or that new automobile repair shop or that innovative sign painting company, or any other enterprise. That is where jobs come from. But Mr. Speaker, the number one impediment to launching new job- creating enterprises in America is access to capital. That is why we cut capital gains and dividend taxes in this bill. Additionally, we have lowered marginal tax rates. That is important because 80 percent of the tax relief at the top marginal rate goes to small businesses and entrepreneurs. If we truly care about low-income families in America, let us quit trying to turn the Tax Code into a welfare system. If we want jobs, tax relief should go to job creators. If we want job fairness, then tax relief should go to taxpayers.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, in the early morning hours of Thursday, May 15, Deputy Sheriff Shelby Green, of the Anderson County, Texas, Sheriff's Department, was brutally murdered in the line of duty by an unknown assailant. After attempting to stop a suspicious vehicle, Deputy Green pursued the assailant for 10 miles as bullets were smashing through his windshield. When the chase ended, Deputy Green was left dead with a fatal gunshot wound to his chest. A decorated law enforcement officer, last year Deputy Green received the Award of Valor from the Drug Enforcement Administration. Mr. Speaker, today we honor and mourn the loss of this 39-year-old hero, a family man. He served and protected our community with distinction and valor. Our most heartfelt thoughts and prayers go out to his family, his friends, his fellow deputies, especially to his wife, Diane, and their three sons, Steven, Trey, and Scott. May his killer be brought to justice and may God bless and keep Deputy Sheriff Shelby Green.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday President Bush signed the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003, a bill I was proud to cosponsor. After liberating the people of Iraq from despotism, it was time to liberate the American family from economic uncertainty. The best way to do that is to create jobs and economic growth, and although this bill has been substantially compromised, the bill was designed to do just that. Yet there are some in this body who still complain. They say the bill is not fair. They say that there is not tax relief for the poor. Mr. Speaker, they are wrong. First, for all practical purposes, poor people do not pay income taxes. In fact, in this bill, we take 3.7 million Americans off the tax rolls. That is right, almost 4 million people who paid income taxes last year will pay no income taxes this year. None. How much more tax relief can you receive than having your tax bill canceled, torn up, thrown away? These Americans join millions of other low-income Americans who have already been taken off the tax rolls in recent history. By lowering marginal rates, Mr. Speaker, other lower-income Americans benefit as well. Many who were in the 15 percent bracket last year are now in the 10 percent bracket. The net result is, the bottom 50 percent of wage earners in America now pay 3.9 percent of the income taxes. In contrast, the top 10 percent of wage earners in America pay over 50 percent of the income taxes. What the critics of this bill fail to appreciate is that tax relief is for taxpayers. If you do not pay taxes, you should not expect tax relief. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that some in this body are confusing tax relief with welfare. Welfare is about direct government assistance to those who are at or near the poverty line. Fortunately, under a Republican Congress we have continued to move millions of Americans from welfare to work, and we have increased Federal child care funding by 166 percent. We have increased funding for housing by 75 percent. Just this past year we committed $17 billion to the TANF program. Tax relief is different from welfare. Tax relief is about allowing taxpayers to keep more of what they have earned, earned through their hard work, keeping more of their own wages for their families. Mr. Speaker, let us not forget, it is not the government's money, it is the American family's money. If critics of the Jobs and Growth Act truly care about low-income people, they should help move them off of welfare, off of welfare checks, onto paychecks. In other words, they should join us in creating jobs. But, Mr. Speaker, jobs are not to be found hanging in the trees, nor do they fall from the sky, and they sure are not brought to us by the Federal Government. Jobs are created by hard-working, risk-taking, visionary men and women who, with access to capital, roll up their sleeves, and they work hard to create that next generation of software, a new automobile repair shop, an innovative sign painting company, or any other enterprise. Small business is the job engine of America. It creates two out of three jobs in our country. But, Mr. Speaker, the number one impediment to launching a new job-creating enterprise is access to capital. That is why we cut capital gains and dividend taxes in this bill. You cannot have capitalism without capital, and by lowering these tax rates, we will spur capital formation, the lifeblood of small business. Additionally, we have lowered marginal tax rates. This is important, because 80 percent of the tax relief from reducing the top marginal rate goes to small business owners and entrepreneurs. Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of jobs in my life. I used to clean out chicken houses. I used to bus tables. I have loaded windows on a loading dock. I have been an officer in two companies and started my own small business. In all of those jobs, not one low-income person has ever hired me. It was a taxpayer, a taxpayer who had vision, who had access to capital and went out and took a risk. If we want jobs, these are the people who need tax relief. If we really care about low-income families in America, and if we truly want to be fair, let us quit trying to turn the Tax Code into a welfare system. Let us give tax relief to taxpayers, to small businessmen, to entrepreneurs, and go out and create jobs, jobs, jobs and more jobs.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today we recognize the distinguished career of my colleague, friend, and fellow Texan, Congressman Larry Combest. Mr. Speaker, Larry Combest has faithfully represented constituents of the 19th Congressional District of Texas for the last 18 years, truly representing the very best of West Texas from the Panhandle to the Permian Basin. As a legislator, Larry Combest has dedicated his entire career to helping farmers and ranchers, educators and small business owners live the American Dream. As the former Chairman and current member of the House Agriculture Committee, Larry Combest has put his background as a fourth generation West Texas farmer to work to improve agriculture in the United States and better the lives of farmers and ranchers everywhere. Since he was first elected in 1984, Larry Combest has been a common sense conservative leader in Congress, fighting for fiscally responsible government, less regulation and lower taxes on American families. Mr. Speaker, as proof of his outstanding service to his constituents, voters in his district have re-elected Larry Combest by ever increasing margins each year. You know you're doing something right when the people that know you best return you to Congress with more than 90 percent of their vote. On behalf of my colleagues and my fellow Texans, we salute Larry Combest for his service and his leadership and we thank him from the bottom of our hearts for all that he has done for Texas and for America. We wish him and his wife Sharon the very best.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule for H.R. 2, the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003. American families need more job opportunities, and they need them now. The Democrats' plan for the American family is the same it has been for 50 years: tax and spend, tax and spend. In other words, to take a larger slice of the family income pie. Our plan, the Republican plan, is to grow the size of that family income pie by growing the economy. Democrats have a plan to create more government. Republicans have a plan to create more jobs. The Republican plan will create 1.2 million new jobs by the end of 2004 alone. The Democrat budget plan grows the government and erases tax relief, actually increasing taxes by $128 billion on American families and businesses, threatening, dramatically threatening our economic recovery. Mr. Speaker, we cannot have capitalism without capital. The Democrat plan does nothing for capital formation. It does nothing for jobs. Democrats claim to love jobs; they just seem to hate the people who create them. Under the Republican jobs and growth plan, 23 million small businesses in America would face a simpler, fairer Tax Code. They will benefit from a reduction in marginal income tax rates and face lower capital gains taxes.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2, the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003. Now that we have won the battle for Baghdad and liberated the people of Iraq from despotism, it is time to win the battle for jobs and liberate the American family from economic uncertainty. American families need more job opportunities and they need them now. The Democrats' plan for the American family is the same that it has been for 50 years, tax and spend, tax and spend, in other words, to take a larger slice of the family income pie. Our plan, the Republican plan, is to grow the size of that family income pie by growing the economy. Democrats have a plan to create more government. Republicans have a plan to create more jobs. The Republican plan will create 1.2 million new jobs by the end of 2004. The Democrat plan grows the government and erases tax relief, increasing taxes by $128 billion, dramatically threatening our economic recovery. Mr. Speaker, Americans want more jobs, not more government. When economic growth occurs, businesses generate greater profits, more people go to work, they get better jobs, and they get better wages. But to encourage individuals and families to risk their time, to risk their savings on that new software idea, a transmission repair shop or any other enterprise, they need tax relief. Our plan provides it. Mr. Speaker, we have historical evidence that tax relief works. Each time our Nation has significantly reduced income tax rates, economic growth has followed. After President Reagan lowered tax rates in the 1980s, real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent per year and Federal revenues actually increased by 20 percent. When President Kennedy reduced marginal rates in the 1960s, we experienced several years of 5 percent economic growth. The same is true of tax relief during the 1920s, where economic growth averaged 4.3 percent. The Democrats criticize the Jobs and Growth Act because they claim tax relief causes deficits. But as I just explained, history shows us that tax relief and business incentives can grow our economy and create jobs. That is the way to fight deficits. And while the Democrats protest job-creating tax relief on the one hand, they want to bust the budget by increasing Federal Government spending by over $1 trillion on the other. The tax relief proposed in the Republican Jobs and Growth Plan amounts to just 2 percent of the budget. In other words, 98 percent of the deficit problem is on the spending side, the Democrat side. No Democrat in Congress should be able to look the American people in the eye, claim to care about deficits, yet propose to spend billions and billions more on Federal programs. The Democrat plan guts the family budget. It is wrong. It is unfair, and does nothing to create jobs. Democrats claim to love jobs. They just seem to hate those who create them. Now, Mr. Speaker, before becoming a Member of Congress, I was a small businessman for 10 years. And small business is the job engine of America, creating two out of three new jobs in our Nation. While consumer spending has grown over the last 2 years, total business investment has declined for 8 consecutive quarters. We must reverse this trend. Mr. Speaker, we cannot have capitalism without capital. Small business needs greater access to capital. Under the Republican jobs and growth package, 23 million small businesses in America would face a simpler, fairer Tax Code. They will benefit from a reduction in marginal income tax rates; they will face lower capital gains and dividend taxes; they can increase the amount of plant and equipment they can expense, all of which will allow them to grow their businesses and hire new workers. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2 will indeed create new jobs and jump-start the economy. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Jobs and Growth Act and do the right thing for our economy and do the right thing for our American families.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage with the treatment of Justice Priscilla Owen, a fellow Texan and a highly qualified nominee for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Mr. Speaker, despite unanimously receiving the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association, despite appearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary twice to answer every single question posed to her, despite the fact that the bench to which she has been nominated has been designated a judicial emergency, despite the strong bipartisan support of former Texas supreme court judges and 15 past presidents of the state bar of Texas, Justice Priscilla Owen has still not received an up-or-down vote in the Senate for almost 2 years. When Republicans held the majority during President Clinton's term, no judicial nominee was ever deprived of a vote due to a filibuster. Now Democrats want to undermine our Constitution and change the rules. Mr. Speaker, the President has a right to get a vote on his nominee.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge all of my colleagues and to urge all Americans to unite and support our troops now engaged in battle in Iraq. Our Commander in Chief, with the approval of Congress, called our Armed Forces into action to disarm a rogue regime that threatens our freedom and our security. With our troops now in the line of fire, with more than four dozen Americans having made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom, the time for protest has passed. The time for unity has arrived. Madam Speaker, we live in a free society. We all share the right to debate the best policies for our Nation; and in a free society each of us also have the right to assemble and to protest. These are sacred rights; but once our Nation, through our democratic process, has decided to commit troops and once those troops have been put into harm's way, the time for debate and protest is over. Just as we share sacred rights, we also share sacred duties. Today with American troops in the field, we all share a duty to unite behind them and ensure that our actions do them no harm. But, Madam Speaker, even as recently as yesterday, Democrat Members of Congress were still denouncing Operation Iraqi Freedom. And Madam Speaker, if just one of these floor speeches by a Member of Congress, if just one acceptance speech by a Hollywood director, if just one street protest causes Saddam Hussein and his forces to continue the fight for 1 day longer, then those responsible would have done a terrible, terrible disservice to those serving so bravely in our name. Now, I would never question Americans' right to speak or protest. I only question the wisdom of doing so at this time. No matter what political beliefs we hold we are all Americans, and those soldiers in uniform fighting on the front lines are our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, our mothers and fathers. Those who undertake further protest at this point only fuel the resolve of our enemy, and they must take full responsibility for their actions. Now, perhaps some need to be reminded why we are fighting and what we are fighting against. Americans were sent to disarm an evil regime that has stockpiled weapons of mass destruction that threaten the peace and security of the Free World. Madam Speaker, 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas, and VX nerve agents; enough chemical and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans in a single act of terrorism. I agree with our President. The risk of doing nothing is far greater than the risk of doing something. Madam Speaker, Americans were also sent to Iraq to end a regime of terror, a regime that has used chemical weapons against their own people, a regime that has made rape and torture an instrument of public policy, and now a regime that uses innocent people as human shields and savagely executes prisoners of war. Just ask a 68-year-old mother, Zahra Khafi, why we are in Iraq. As she was recently liberated by American forces, she let it be known that her 28-year-old son was summarily executed by Saddam's regime for merely practicing her religion. She greeted our troops saying, ``Peace be upon you, peace be upon you.'' ``Should I be afraid?'' She asked, wiping back her tears. ``Is Saddam coming back?'' Ask Ali Khemy, who said after the First Marine Expeditionary Unit liberated his village, ``Americans very good. Iraq wants to be free.'' Madam Speaker, President Ronald Reagan once said, ``No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'' Madam Speaker, the minions of tyranny and evil are learning that lesson today. Now, our Nation has faced much greater challenges and has seen darker days. During the Civil War when brother fought brother, our great President, Abraham Lincoln solemnly stated, ``I have often been driven to my knees with the overwhelming conviction I had nowhere else to go.'' I believe now is a good time for all Americans to be driven to our knees, to pray for a speedy victory, to pray for our men and women in uniform, to pray for their families and pray for a peaceful world no longer threatened with weapons of mass destruction. Madam Speaker, our cause is just, our victory is inevitable. Freedom will prevail. But we, all Americans, must unite behind our troops and unite today.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 522, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2003. As a member of the Committee on Financial Services, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), for their work on this legislation and for acting quickly in this new Congress to address this matter of importance to banks and depositors alike. This legislation will help create a more stable and a more fair and secure banking system. By combining the Banking Insurance Fund and the Savings Association Insurance Fund into one fund, the risks that a couple of large institutions could fail and impair each fund is greatly reduced. Merging these funds will help increase fairness in our banking system as well by eliminating the possibility that two institutions of similar sizes would essentially be paying two completely different premiums. Further, the merged fund will make reporting and accounting less burdensome for both the institutions and the FDIC as well. Our deposit insurance system plays a vital role in our economic security. This legislation will give the FDIC the necessary flexibility to respond to varying economic conditions and allow them to properly price premiums to reflect actual risk. By eliminating the 23 basis point premium ``rate cliff'' required under current law, more institutions will have more capital to invest in our economy. That means more jobs, more hope, more opportunity. Mr. Chairman, FDIC Chairman Powell stated in his testimony before the Committee on Financial Services last month that H.R. 522 gives Congress ``an opportunity to remedy flaws in the deposit insurance system before those flaws cause actual damage, either to the banking industry or our economy as a whole.'' As a member of that committee, I am glad to see this body act so expeditiously on this legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for H.R. 522.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I urge all Americans to unite in support of our troops now engaged in battle in Iraq. Our Commander and Chief, with the approval of Congress, called our armed forces into action to disarm a rogue regime that threatens our freedom and security. With our troops now in the line of fire, with more than 28 Americans having made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom, the time for protest has past. The time for unity has arrived. We live in a free society where we all share the right to debate the best policies for our nation. And in a free society, each of us also has the right to assemble and to protest. These are sacred rights. But once our nation has decided to act through our democratic process, and once our troops have been sent into harm's way, the time for debate and protest is over. Just as we share sacred rights, we also share sacred duties. Today, with American troops in the field, we all share a duty to unite behind them and ensure that our actions do them no harm. But if just one floor speech by a member of Congress, just one acceptance speech by a Hollywood director, or just one street protest causes Saddam Hussein and his forces to hold on for even one day longer, then those responsible will have done a terrible disservice to those serving so bravely in our name. I would never question any American's right to speak or protest, I only question the wisdom of doing so at this time. No matter what political beliefs we hold, we are all Americans--and those soldiers in uniform fighting on the front lines are our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers. Those who undertake further protests at this point only fuel the resolve of our enemy, and they must take full responsibility for their actions. Perhaps some need to be reminded why we are fighting and what we are fighting against. Americans were sent to disarm an evil regime that has stockpiled weapons of mass destruction that threaten the peace and security of the free world. 26,000 liters of anthrax. 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin. 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas, and VX nerve agents; enough chemical and biological weapons to kill millions of innocent people in a single act of terrorism. I agree with President Bush, the risk of doing nothing is far greater than the risk of doing something. Americans were also sent to Iraq to end a regime of terror. A regime that has used chemical weapons on its own population, a regime that has made rape and torture an instrument of public policy. Just ask 68-year-old mother, Zahra Khafi, recently liberated by American forces, whose 28-year-old son was summarily executed two years ago by Saddam Hussein's regime for merely practicing his religion, a branch of Islam out of official favor. She greeted our troops saying, ``peace be upon you, peace be upon you.'' ``Should I be afraid?'' she said, wiping her eyes. ``Is Saddam coming back?'' Ask All Khemy, who said after the 1st Marine Expeditionary Unit liberated his village, ``Americans very good . . . Iraq wants to be free.'' President Ronald Reagan once said ``no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'' The minions of tyranny and evil are learning that lesson today. Our nation has met much greater challenges and we have faced darker days. During the Civil War when brother fought brother, President Abraham Lincoln solemnly stated, ``I have often been driven to my knees with the overwhelming conviction I had no where else to go.'' I believe now is a good time for all Americans to be driven to our knees and pray for a speedy victory . . . pray for our men and women in uniform, and pray for a peaceful world no longer threatened with weapons of mass destruction. Our cause is just. Our victory is inevitable. Freedom will prevail. But we must all must unite behind our troops today.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this budget resolution. With America at war and with families having to make tough decisions around their kitchen tables, should we not in Congress at least be expected to make smart decisions to promote economic growth and to take a stand against waste and fraud? Many across the aisle oppose this budget and attack the tax relief. But, Mr. Chairman, less than 5 percent of this budget is about tax relief; 95 percent of this budget is about spending, 3 percent more, more, than last year. Unfortunately, much of it continues to be waste and fraud. The Department of Housing and Urban Development made $2.6 billion in section 8 overpayments, 7 percent of their entire budget just lost. That is enough money to pay the downpayment for 300,000 people to get into their first homes. The Medicare program paid out $13.3 billion in 1 year to people who did not even qualify. That is enough money this year to pay one third of the cost of a prescription drug benefit for our seniors. The list goes on. Social Security pays benefits to dead people. Twenty-three percent of the people having their student loans discharged due to disability actually hold jobs. The National Park Service spent $800,000 on an outhouse, and it does not even work. In the real world when people lose this much money, they are fired or they go to jail. In Washington it is just an excuse to ask for even more money next year. Mr. Chairman, there are a thousand ways we can save money in Washington without cutting any needed services and without raising taxes on our hard-working families and our men and women in uniform. People should quit trying to fool the American people into thinking otherwise. If we fail to endorse this budget and just promote even more government spending without reform, we are simply sanctioning fraud. What an insult to the American people.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this Democrat budget. I find it fascinating that we have so much angst about the deficit on this side of the aisle. I have a lot of angst about the deficit. I do not want to leave our children a legacy of debt. I have a 1-year-old. I want to leave them a legacy of freedom and opportunity. But, Mr. Chairman, the tax relief in the Republican package accounts for less than 5 percent of this budget. If there is so much angst over the deficit, why does the Democrat budget not focus on 95 percent of the problem, which is spending? Our budget increases spending, increases it by 3 percent. How much is enough? Over 5 years we have increased the VA, HUD, and independent agencies by 35.7 percent, Transportation by almost 80 percent, HHS by 96 percent. If every Government program was so great for the American people, why do we not simply double these budgets? Why do we not triple these budgets? Why do we not quadruple the budgets? Why do we not tell the American people to quit sending us State, local, and Federal taxes of 40 percent? Why do they not just send it all to us? The point we are making is that good things can be done perhaps outside of this Government. I mean, the Democrats talk and accuse us of cutting programs. It is their budget that cuts education programs. It is their budget that cuts housing programs because in our budget we help American families pay for their programs. Our budget is going to allow 46 million married couples to keep over $1,700 more of what they earn. That is enough to pay two mortgage payments. That is a housing program and the Democrat budget cuts it. Under our budget, 34 million families with children would keep an additional $1,500, enough to purchase a personal computer for their children. That is an education program and the Democrat budget cuts it. Six million single mothers would keep $541. That is enough to purchase a month of daycare. That is a childcare program. And the Democrat budget cuts it. Mr. Chairman, we cannot tax our way into prosperity, spend our way into prosperity, or sue our way into prosperity; and we need to reject this Democrat budget.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the Toomey amendment to the budget resolution. I congratulate our chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), on presenting a wonderful budget to this Congress. But indeed, there is even a better budget, and that is one that presents less government and more freedom. Now, many people criticize this budget. They said there is not enough government spending involved in this budget. But, Mr. Chairman, over the last 5 years, we have increased VA, HUD and Independent Agencies 35.7 percent; Commerce and Justice 32.3 percent; Transportation, 79.7 percent; Education, 132 percent, and the list goes on. How much government is enough? Does anything good happen in America that does not result from a government program? And if not, perhaps we should just double these budgets every year, or perhaps even triple them. But let me tell my colleagues, since I have been on the face of the planet, the Federal budget has grown seven times faster than the family budget. If the family budget grew as fast as the government budget, right now that family budget would be at $79,059, instead of $51,407. Mr. Chairman, if all of these government programs did us so much good, then perhaps we ought to look at increasing the funding for each and every one. But instead we know that HUD has spent $2.6 billion in Section 8 overpayments out of $31 billion. The National Park Service spends $800,000 for an outhouse, and it does not even work. And the list goes on and on and on. I believe, Mr. Chairman, particularly at a time of war, and when families, hard-working American families, are having to make tough economic decisions around their kitchen table, should they not at least expect their Congress to make smart decisions? I do not think anything less should be expected out of this body. We can indeed save money without cutting needed programs and without raising taxes on the American people.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the majority budget resolution. Some critics across the aisle believe that the only answer to our Nation's challenges is to take a larger slice of the family income pie. This budget works to increase the size of that pie by growing the economy. At a time of war, it is irresponsible to do anything else, but to get economic growth, to get better jobs, to get better wages, to get families and small businesses to risk their time and their savings on that new software idea, that transmission repair shop, they must have tax relief, and they need real and permanent tax relief. Our plan does just that. The Democrat plan, more taxes, more waste, more fraud, more spending, more big government. Mr. Chairman, it is not just faith that we have, but historical evidence that tax relief works. When President Reagan lowered tax rates in the 1980s, real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent a year, and Federal revenues actually increased, increased by 20 percent. President Kennedy reduced tax rates in the 1960s, and we experienced several years of 5 percent economic growth. The same is true of tax relief in the 1920s. Some of the colleagues across the aisle criticize this budget because they do not believe it grows government fast enough. This budget is growing the government by 3 percent, almost twice the rate of inflation, but more importantly, it helps American families pay for their programs. Forty-six million married couples would keep $1,700 more of what they earn. That is enough to pay two mortgage payments. That is a housing program. Thirty-four million families with children would keep an additional $1,500, enough to purchase a personal computer. That is an education program. Six million single mothers would keep $541, enough to purchase a month of day care. That is a child care program. Mr. Chairman, contrary to what our colleagues across the aisle believe with their budget, we cannot tax our way into prosperity. We cannot spend our way into prosperity. We cannot sue our way into prosperity. We can only grow our way into prosperity.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I rise to commend the House on the passage of H.R. 5 and to encourage the other body to immediately take up meaningful medical liability reform, the lack of which constitutes the number one health care problem in America today. Doctors are being driven out of their practices by staggering medical liability insurance premiums, a direct result of the incredible increase in medical liability lawsuits and the mind- boggling sums of money paid in jury awards and settlements, much of which ends up in the pockets of personal injury trial attorneys. In the last 10 years in Texas, my home State, we have seen a 500 percent increase in medical liability awards. But the money is not going to the injured. Studies show that 57 percent of medical malpractice premiums go towards attorneys' fees. Frivolous lawsuits have caused professional liability premiums to jump anywhere from 50 percent to 200 percent in Texas, and the amazing fact is that most of these suits are frivolous. In fact, more than three out of four liability claims against Texas doctors are simply dismissed, dismissed for no merit. Yet, in all cases, doctors are forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves. Because of the skyrocketing cost of insurance, many physicians are simply closing their doors, moving away from high-risk specialties, refusing to perform certain medical procedures or, frankly, taking early retirement. For example, in Mexia, Texas, in my district, the regional hospital had four family practitioners 1 year ago. But because of the increased costs of their liability insurance, three doctors are now lost. This will leave the hospital with only one OB-GYN in a service area of 70,000 people. Madam Speaker, this is unacceptable. In this same town in my district, another practitioner closed her clinic and ended up filing bankruptcy, principally due to the skyrocketing cost of liability insurance. Madam Speaker, I fear without meaningful reform we will lose the best and brightest. They will avoid or exit the medical profession altogether, and where are we going to be 10 years from now if we do not have enough quality doctors to serve our patients? I know personally how important it is to have the best and brightest practicing medicine. One year ago, our first child was born, a daughter we named Claire Suzanne; and I honestly believe she is the most beautiful baby in the world. But there was a point last year when I was not certain she would be with us, because after almost 12 hours of labor, at 4:30 a.m. in the morning, our baby was in a breech position, apparently undeliverable. Losing her heartbeat with every contraction of my wife, the atmosphere in the delivery room turned very serious. Fortunately, due to a greatly skilled OB-GYN, an immediate C-section was performed in time to save our precious child's life. I do not want to contemplate what might have happened to my child or what could happen to someone else's child if the best and brightest are no longer there to practice medicine and save lives. There are further problems, Madam Speaker. Doctors are being forced to practice defensive medicine just to protect themselves from being sued, ordering extra tests, invasive procedures and medications that they do not believe are medically necessary. Hospitals, doctors, and nurses are reluctant to provide care, even in emergency situations, because they live in fear of lawsuits. As one of my House colleagues recently noted, ``Something is wrong with the system when it is easier to sue a doctor than it is to see one.'' Madam Speaker, we know that there are 40 million people in this country without health insurance. Most simply cannot afford it. But for every 1 percent increase in individual health care premiums, 300,000 people nationwide are forced to go without medical insurance. Madam Speaker, the answer to a medical tragedy or a grossly negligent medical act is not to pay personal injury trial lawyers millions of dollars, it is not to drive up the costs of health care for the rest of us, it is not to add more Americans to the ranks of the uninsured. The simple answer is to pull the license of the grossly negligent physician. Madam Speaker, medical liability reform as we passed today will lower cost, improve quality, and provide more access to health care for all Americans.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of President Bush's plan to grow the economy, create jobs, and provide meaningful tax relief to hardworking Americans. In these troubling times, some critics across the aisle believe that the answer to our Nation's problems is to take a greater slice of family income pie. President Bush and I, instead, want to grow the size of that pie by growing the economy. When economic growth occurs, businesses generate greater profits, more people go to work, they earn better wages, and they have greater opportunities. To encourage individuals and families to risk their time and to risk their savings on that new software idea, that transmission repair company, that hamburger stand, that new enterprise, Mr. Speaker, they need tax relief. They need permanent tax relief. And the President's plan does just that. We have historical evidence that tax relief works. It is not just faith, it is evidence. Each time our Nation has significantly reduced income tax rates, economic growth has followed. When President Reagan lowered rates in the 1980s, it fostered economic growth averaging 3.2 percent a year, and Federal revenues actually increased, I repeat, increased by 20 percent. When President Kennedy lowered tax rates in the 1960s, we had several years of real economic growth of 5 percent. And the same is true of tax relief during the 1920s, where economic growth averaged 4.3 percent. History has shown us that tax relief can spur economic growth and can allow hardworking American families to keep more of what they earn and increase government revenues. Now, Mr. Speaker, some say that tax relief is too expensive. But in fact, under a worst-case scenario, if the President's plan generates no economic growth at all, the package would account for only 5 percent of the $2.2 trillion budget proposed for next year. Yet as many of my colleagues from across the aisle decry deficits and tax relief on the one hand, they are the first to demand more Federal spending on the other. Instead of focusing on the 5 percent of the budget that constitutes tax relief, perhaps we should all focus on the 95 percent which constitutes Federal spending, much of which is pure waste and duplication. Today, we have nearly twice as much inflation-adjusted Federal spending per family than when I was born. Do we really need that much Federal Government? And over this same period, inflation-adjusted Federal spending has grown seven times faster than our family budgets. Is it any wonder that our family tax burdens are near an all-time high? A middle income American family can now pay up to 40 percent of their income in Federal, State, and local taxes. That is not tax fairness. The President's economic program is tax fairness because it provides tax relief to taxpayers, especially middle income Americans. Mr. Speaker, 46 million married couples would keep over $1,700 of what they earned, enough to pay two mortgage payments. Now that is a housing program. Thirty-four million families with children would keep an additional $1,500, enough to purchase a new personal computer for their children. That is an education program. Six million single women with children would keep $541, which could purchase a month of day- care. That is a child care program. Middle-income families would also receive additional relief from accelerated reduction of the marriage penalty, a faster increase in the child care tax credit, and immediate implementation of the new, lower 10 percent tax bracket. To boost investor confidence and encourage investment, the President's plan also eliminates the unfair double taxation on dividends. The elimination of this unfair double taxation on dividends is expected to produce a one-time increase in equity values of up to 5 percent, at a time when we desperately need to increase stock values and consumer confidence. Mr. Speaker, about half of all dividend income goes to our seniors who often rely on those checks for a steady source of retirement income. Mr. Speaker, we cannot tax, spend, or sue our way into prosperity. We can only grow our way into prosperity. I strongly encourage Members to support the President's jobs and growth plan.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, I rise on this occasion to salute the tremendous courage and profound sacrifices that American POWs made for our country during the Vietnam conflict. One of those courageous POWs is my friend and our distinguished colleague, Congressman Sam Johnson of Texas. Forced to endure severe torture, solitary confinement, malnutrition and attempts by their captors to force confessions for propaganda, Sam Johnson and countless other American POWs conducted themselves with uncommon courage and heroic strength of character. I recall a veterans breakfast that Congressman Johnson attended in my District with our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a fellow Vietnam veteran. While trying to convey the ideals that kept him going as he once thought capture by the North Vietnamese was imminent, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) was choked by emotion. Putting his arm around him, Sam Johnson finished his sentence, stating those ideals simply and eloquently, ``God and country, God and country.'' Every veteran in the room rose to their feet in standing ovation. Madam Speaker, as a Texan and as an American, I am proud to rise and salute patriot Sam Johnson.