Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, in specific, this amendment would strike the earmark that would fund the computer and science equipment at Emmanuel College Center for Science Partnership. Again, following up on some of the debate in the earlier amendments, I simply question why, at a time when our Nation continues to face great fiscal challenges in the future, that although these individual earmarks may be small amounts, I almost feel like the story of the three bears, whether the porridge is too hot or too cold. You come to debate spending on the floor, and sometimes people will tell you, well, that program is so big it is a sacred cow, you can't touch it. And then other times, Mr. Chairman, you hear, well, we are dealing with a very small amount of money here, so why are we bothering with that? You almost believe it is part of the NIMBY syndrome, the ``Not in My Back Yard.'' And, again, I will say I am sure the sponsor of this earmark knows far more about it than I do, knows far more about the educational institutional, and I have no doubt that good things could be done with that money. But that is not really the relevant question. The relevant question ought to be, number one, is this something the Federal Government ought to be doing in the first place, given all the other challenges and needs that we have. Second of all, is this a priority? Is this a priority? Because we know now that as, recently, Congress voted to increase the debt ceiling, continues to raid the Social Security fund. Is it worth taking money out of the Social Security trust fund to fund this particular earmark or any other particular earmark? And that is what Members have to decide. And although I am sure the sponsor of the earmark can make a very good defense and tell us all the wonderful good ways that this money will be used, and I am sure he will tell us that he knows his district better than anybody else, I stipulate that. I stipulate that. But, Mr. Chairman, I think I know my district, the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, better than anybody else in this institution; and I am fearful that every time the people of the Fifth Congressional District are called upon to fund somebody else's earmark somewhere else across the Nation, because, again, as we are trying to fund Federal energy and water programs, we are taking away from family energy and water programs, including in many of those in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. Recently, I heard from Ken of Mabank, Texas. He was concerned about this single largest tax increase in the history that was passed as part of the Democrat budget. And as you spend more money, you have to tax more money. And so we know that the average American family in the next 5 years is going to be faced with an extra tax burden of about $3,000 a year, and part of it pays for earmarks like these. I heard from Ken in Mabank, and he said: ``Dear Congressman, any increase in taxes will hurt my family budget and cause us to cut back in other key areas. The rising gas prices have already made us cut back on spending. Why does the Federal Government continue to have an open checkbook based on the backs of the taxpayer, me?'' Well, I get letters like these every day, Mr. Chairman. And, again, we have to be cognizant as these so-called investments are made in Washington, we are taking away the ability of families including those in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas to make their investments in energy, their investments in water. And, again, I have no doubt that the sponsor of this amendment believes that good things can be done with the money, but is every good thing in America due to receive a Federal subsidy? Shall we start to subsidize Girl Scout cookies? How about cut flowers in everybody's home? My children, who are age 3 and 5, are just now learning to swim. Maybe we should subsidize swimming pools in every community across America. Where does it all end? Where does the madness stop? This kind of spending fuels the single largest tax increase in history and threatens, threatens, to double taxes on our children. I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I would just add, there is a number of amendments I have, not just simply those in the gentleman's district, I suppose I could be here all day speaking about them. I might also add that I am pleased to have a historically black college in my district, Jarvis Christian College in Wood County, Texas. Last I looked they don't have any money in this particular bill. But the question again is, if we are going to help people with education, doubling taxes on the American families, which the budget resolution has done, which this bill is a part of, is no way to help an education. I would urge adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment would save the taxpayers $1.5 billion. This would strike the funding for the South Carolina HBCU Science and Technology initiative. Let me say at the outset that I have no doubt that good use could be made of these funds by this institution in South Carolina. Let me also stipulate I have no doubt that the gentleman from South Carolina, who has offered this earmark, knows far more about the good work they do at this institution than do I. But I do believe that it is critical that every single penny of Federal spending be put in the context of its impact, not only on the taxpayer, but of future generations. I think if you are going to lead, you have to lead by example. Now, I wish we had the opportunity to come to the floor each and every day and debate what will happen to future generations if we don't alter the spending patterns that we presently have in Congress today. In fact, the chairman of the Federal Reserve has recently spoken, ``Without early and meaningful action to address the rapid growth of entitlements, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened with future generations bearing much of the cost.'' A report from the Government Accountability Office, the rising cost of government entitlements are a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America. I know that principally our spending patterns are driven by entitlement spending. But as the late Everett Dirksen once said, $1 billion here, $1 billion, we are starting to talk about real money. By one estimation, we already have 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 agencies, and it seems like week in, week out, we just add, add to those particular programs. The question I have here today again is when we look at this one expenditure, and, yes, earmarks are a small part of Federal spending, but I believe that they are a large portion of the culture of Federal spending. I am not religiously opposed to earmarks. Again, maybe good things can be done with this money. But looking at the fact that the Federal budget is going way beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it, at what point do we say that maybe, maybe the Federal taxpayer shouldn't be asked to spend money that goes to, I believe in this case, a private college. Again, as I understand it, the funding would be used for math and science research at the respective institutions. Well, we have got some of these institutions in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. I am sure they could use the money at Eastfield College. I am sure they could use the money at Trinity Valley Community College. I am sure my alma mater, Texas A&M University, which is not in my district, could use this money as well. But out of the hundreds of thousands of institutions of higher learning, why are we deciding that the taxpayer is supposed to fund this one? Is there any good purpose, any good program, any good project in America that shouldn't receive a Federal subsidy? That's kind of the question that we have here today. When I see a group of earmarks that are going to institutions in Members' districts, and I reflect upon the fact that we are now on a collision course to either double taxes on the next generation, or, for all intents and purposes, have no Federal Government, save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, we have got to start saving the pennies. When we start saving the pennies, eventually, the dollars will take care of themselves. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue on somewhat with some of the themes that were touched upon in the last amendment. But before I do, I do want to say a few words about the overall bill. I do want to say that I think a lot of good work was done by the committee, by the chairman, by our ranking member. It is my understanding that the dollar value of the earmarks has declined substantially from the last bill. I am going to say that I view that as progress. But I also want to say that when we are approaching as a Nation a very nasty fiscal fork in the road, and in this institution unfortunately there is a nasty habit of just kicking that can down the road as I mix my metaphors; but, again, don't take my word for it, look at the analysis of the Congressional Budget Office, look at the analysis of the General Accountability Office, look at the Office of Management and Budget. Just dealing with the government that we have today, if Congress just disappeared and created no new government, we are going to reach this fiscal fork in the road in the next generation, where we are either going to have to double taxes on our children and grandchildren, or for all intents and purposes there will be no Federal Government save Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It is not my analysis. Look at the analysis of these other bodies. And so I believe again that, unfortunately, although earmarks today are a small portion of the Federal budget, they are a large portion of the culture of Federal spending. Another reservation I have is my fear that too often they teach people and teach institutions to become dependent upon the Federal Government. I come from Dallas, Texas, and a part of the Fifth Congressional District takes in the eastern part of the City of Dallas. I was dealing not long ago, taking a tour with one of the very revered and esteemed medical institutions within the City of Dallas that said that for years and years and years they were always happy to competitively bid through the NIH process or other processes for their research grant money. But they have awakened to the dawn of a new day now to where so many of their other competing medical education, medical research institutions were receiving their Federal funding via the earmark track. And so finally, after all these years, they broke down and invested in a Federal lobbyist. Now, they were happy with a competitive system, but they have realized that, unfortunately, that is increasingly not where this Congress is headed. And so I believe that that is a bad thing, again, to try to somehow move away from what should be a more competitive process into one that does something else. Now, again, I think there is a lot of wonderful earmarks here. I have no doubt about it. But, unfortunately, more often than not we see earmarks representing a victory of the special interests over the national interests, a victory of seniority over merit, and too often a victory of secrecy over transparency. I am glad that the Democrat leadership recently reversed themselves to allow the transparency that we see today, and I believe that that is a good thing. But two things we have to remember as we hand out money to one specific educational institution, and in this particular case the Environmental Science Center at the University of Dubuque. Maybe good things can be done with that money, but how about the good things that the taxpayers who fund this, how about the good things they could have done? I recently received some correspondence from a lady in my district, Joyce of Tennessee Colony, Texas: ``Dear Congressman, please do what you can to stop the wasteful spending. I am retired; I am disabled. I am raising three grandchildren and now one great grandchild. I sometimes cannot afford my own medicine. It takes everything I have to get us from month to month. Gas has become a problem. I can't go to church at the end of the month because I don't have gas to get to town.'' So here we are, Mr. Chairman, in an energy and water bill, and we are harming the energy program of American families to put energy earmarks in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike the earmark used to fund the equipping of two laboratories, creating 48 state-of- the-art work stations at Roosevelt University Biology Laboratory. Again, Mr. Chairman, there are so many great colleges, so many great universities across our Nation. How do we get into the business of subsidizing some and not subsidizing others? Again, there are many worthy colleges in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, Jarvis Christian College, Eastfield College, Trinity Valley Community College, and a much greater list beyond that. And so somehow, the students who attend those colleges in the Fifth District of Texas, either they or their peers are being asked to take money that would be destined for their education programs and send them somewhere else, in this case Illinois, to fund somebody else's education, somebody else's research. I again stipulate that I have no doubt that good things could be done with this money. I don't know what. I'm sure the gentleman who sponsored the earmark would be happy to let us know the good things that can be done with this money. But too often, Mr. Chairman, we seem to forget whose money it is in the first place. And so that's why I bring these letters, this correspondence from people from the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, because we should never ever forget that as we're plussing up some Federal program, be it in energy or water or education, you're taking away from some family's program where they're trying to fund their energy, their water, their education. And again, Mr. Chairman, I just don't know how people can be aware of the fact that this Nation is on a collision course for a fiscal calamity. Just the government we have today threatens to double taxes on the American people. Now, a lot of those people today can't vote. Some of those people aren't even born yet. But we know it's going to happen. Go to the Congressional Budget Office. Go to the Office of Management and Budget. Listen to the Federal Reserve Chairman. Let me quote from some other sources. I quoted earlier from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, that without early and meaningful action, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost. CBO, either a substantial reduction in the growth of spending, a significant increase in tax revenues relative to the size of the economy, or some combination will be necessary to promote the Nation's long-term fiscal stability. A famous economist, Robert Samuelson, the rising cost of government retirement programs, mainly Social Security and Medicare, increase taxes or budget deficits so much that they could reduce economic growth and this could trigger an economic and political death spiral. And so what I hear from too many of my colleagues is, well, this is just a few dollars in my particular district. Well, the challenge is great. The challenge is great. We must lead by example, and by leading by example, we shouldn't be bringing a bill to the floor, number one, that has a 4.3 percent increase over last year, 3.7 percent over the administration's request, and quite often they request too much, that I believe contains 5.6 billion in earmarks. Where does it all stop? Is this truly a Federal priority? Or should the priority be to assure that we leave the next generation with greater freedom and greater opportunity? That fight starts today. I know too often the focus in the Nation's capital is on the next election and not the next generation. We ought to put it on the next generation because if we don't there'll be no money for them to fund their education programs. There'll be no money at all. And so we need to start today, and in this area of earmarking funds to these private educational institutions is a good start. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure we're having a debate over how much money we're going to spend over education. We are certainly having a debate over who should do that particular spending. I'm sorry that the gentleman from Illinois doesn't see the logic of American families who are working hard trying to save money, trying to put their children through college, and yet he has an earmark that is helping being funded by the largest tax increase in American history. I heard from Joy in Dallas, ``I could not pay for a semester of college for my daughter if I had to send $2,200 more dollars to the government.'' We can ask her about the logic of the gentleman's earmark.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, now, I have never met Sister Janet, but I have heard from Melanie in Chandler, who said: ``If I have to pay more taxes, then I can't afford to go to school.'' I have heard from Rose in Garland who says: ``I am a divorced mother with a child in college. An increase in taxes would wipe out hope of the first college graduate in the family.'' Fueling earmarks like these take away from family education programs, Mr. Chairman. And that is why I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor the 50th wedding anniversary of Lowell and Carolyn Daughtry. Lowell was born in Titus County, Texas. He attended Mt. Pleasant High School and graduated from University of Texas at Tyler. After college, Lowell worked in the accounting office at the Continental Can Plant for fourteen years. He then worked in sales at Tyler Pipe for three years. Lowell rounded out his career working at the United States Post Office in Azalea Station, finally retiring in 2002. Carolyn is a native of Tyler, Texas. She graduated from Tyler High School in 1957 and went on to the University of Texas at Tyler. Carolyn worked for Coca Cola in the marketing department, where she advanced from head bookkeeper to Manager of Automatic Buffet/Coca Cola, becoming the first female manager. She then went to work for Buford Television/Friendship Cable as Vice President and General Manager, responsible for building over 40 television systems for Buford. While there, she bought, sold, and managed over 60 franchised areas. In 1991, Carolyn left Buford to work for Harron Cablevision as their Texas manager, overseeing 60 systems. Through Harron, she negotiated and bought the rights to Direct Television in 13 counties. Lowell and Carolyn had two daughters; Rhita and Mikki. Rhita lives with her family in Canton, Texas. Sadly, Mikki passed in March, 1993 leaving behind her husband Kyle and their two sons Ross and Luke. Her memory is cherished by all those she left behind. Lowell and Carolyn can be found working on their farm, happily tending their garden and traveling. I might note that Lowell now serves as Elder at the Chandler Church of Christ and Chaplain for the VanZandt AARP, for whom Carolyn is President. As the Congressional representative of Ben Wheeler, Texas, it is my distinct pleasure to honor the 50th wedding anniversary of Lowell and Carolyn Daughtry today in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Section 8, if the gentleman will yield.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to offer an amendment with my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who just offered the previous amendment, and I certainly associate myself with his efforts on the previous amendment. This amendment represents what many of us consider to be a very, very important principle, and that fundamental important principle is if you're an able-bodied adult under the age of 62 receiving means-tested Federal assistance, you ought to be on the road to self-sufficiency. That's what this amendment is all about, and that's what the principle is. This, we believe, will further encourage people to make the transition from dependency upon section 8 rental assistance to self- sufficiency. Not only is that important to them, it's important to the taxpayer who we're asking to pick up the tab. And this is, I believe, over a $2 billion bill. Now, specifically, our amendment would require people receiving section 8 rental assistance for 7 consecutive years to perform a certain amount of work-related activities, which includes work, looking for work, job training, education and a host of other activities that are reflected in the TANF statute, which we mirror. There are a number of exemptions. It exempts those under age 18, over the age of 62, blind, disabled, those already working, already exempt under TANF, single parents of children under six who are unable to find appropriate child care. Over 10 years ago, the Nation embarked on a bold new experiment with TANF, and we said that Federal assistance should be temporary and based on work and self-sufficiency and responsibility and personal dignity. That is a principle. Now many naysayers then said that it was mean. They said it was unworkable. Some even implied it was racist. Well, they were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Under TANF, the number of families receiving cash welfare steadily declined from a peak of 5.1 million families in March of 1994 to 1.9 million families. Child poverty has fallen dramatically. The employment of young single mothers has doubled, and the employment of mothers who have never been married is up by more than 50 percent. Now, the lessons are clear. But we didn't finish the job 10 years ago, and we should finish it. Again, this is a vote on a very simple principle. If you're an able-bodied adult receiving means-tested Federal assistance, should you be on the road to self-sufficiency? I believe the answer is yes. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. In that case, Madam Chair, I would like to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is left on my side?

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. This particular amendment mirrors the TANF statute, and so there may be confusion there.

Mr. HENSARLING. I yield myself the balance of the time. Again, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for coming down to support this important amendment. I continue to fail to see what is mean-spirited about asking people, after 7 years, who get means-tested assistance, to be on the road to self-sufficiency, something good for them, something good for the taxpayer. I must admit, I really regret, Madam Chairman, that the gentleman from Georgia chose to characterize this as ``bigoted.'' Perhaps I could have taken his words down. I sense when you run out of anything else to say, you characterize someone else's motivations and you use the term ``bigoted.'' And that, I regret. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Will the gentleman yield for an explanation?

Mr. HENSARLING. If the gentleman will yield?