Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. In its current form.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I thank my good friend from Georgia, Dr. Price. Thank you for your leadership and for being here on the floor and being so active. Your constituents should be proud of you. And I thank them for electing you. Madam Speaker, here on Tax Day, in 2007, I hearken back to the words that Ronald Reagan said. He said, our Federal Tax Code is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust, and completely counterproductive. It reeks with injustice and is fundamentally un-American and has earned a rebellion, and it is time we rebelled. That is a quote from Ronald Reagan in 1983. Well, I think it is high time we rebel. Today is one day in every American's life where they realize how complex and how horrible our Federal Tax Code is. The Tax Code stands at an astonishing 16,485 pages in length, and there are 1,638 different tax forms on the IRS's Web site. That is outstandingly horrible for the American people. In 2006, the average taxpayer spent 37.8 hours crunching numbers to complete even the most basic tax form, Form 1040. That is nearly an entire work week spent in filing taxes. Even worse, small businesses spend about 80 hours in preparing their tax returns. That is a 2-week vacation for the average working American family. And, in total, the American people in a recent poll think the Tax Code is obscene. Eighty percent think the Tax Code is too complicated while only 3 percent believe the Tax Code is just fine the way it is. I concur with that 80 percent, Madam Speaker. Although just empowered a few months, the new Democratic majority in the House with our new Speaker, they have proposed the largest tax increase in American history. The largest tax increase in American history. They propose a $2,066,675,000,000 tax increase. What does that mean for the average American? Well, the average American, a family of four making $50,000 a year, will see a tax hike of roughly $2,092 this year. What is worse is that my constituents back home in North Carolina will see an average tax increase of $2,671 per year. That is money they could be spending on education. That is money they could be spending on their kids. That is money they could be spending in their community. Instead, the Democrats want that money to come here to fund the bloated bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. Now, you understand the Republicans have cut taxes over the last decade, and that is very positive. Actually, as the Republican majority for 12 years, we proposed a tax cut every year. Every single year we proposed that. Now, Democrat President Bill Clinton didn't support it, but once we got George Bush in office in 2001, he proposed a massive tax cut. What has that done? Well, the Democrats say that it is not enough money coming into government. Well, they are wrong. They are absolutely wrong. The Democrats are wrong when they say government doesn't have enough money. Just this last year, government income amounted to over $2.4 trillion. Now, let's put this in historical context. That is the largest income to any government in the history of the planet. Now, let's think this thing through. $2.4 trillion, is that enough to fund our Federal bureaucracy? According to the Democrats, the answer is ``no.'' They want more. They want the American people to give more to the Federal Government. Let's put that $2.4 trillion in context. Well, there are only two countries on Earth that have economies larger than our Federal Government. Aside from ours, Germany and Japan are the only countries on Earth that have economies larger than our Federal income. Now, the scary part is that Germany only barely beats the Federal Government with its roughly similar size economy. There is a lot of talk about how the Chinese economy is booming and it is on the rise. Well, it is true and it is a big threat to our jobs here in the United States, and it is a big economic concern for us as a nation. But the Chinese economy, though booming, is only $1.9 trillion, and that means it is a half trillion dollars smaller than our Federal income. The total gross domestic product of China is smaller than the income to our Federal Government. So, Madam Speaker, if we look at a recent poll by Pew Research, people were asked what they thought was the best way to reduce the Federal deficit, and in that poll the result was pretty simple. Only 9 percent said that tax increases were the best way. A combined 69 percent said they would rather see government reduce spending. Now, not only do I agree with the 80 percent of the American people that say the Tax Code is too complex, that it is obscene; I also agree with that 69 percent that say the way to reduce government is to reduce spending. That is pretty simple. It is common sense to the American people. Madam Speaker, I urge this Democrat majority to rethink their tax increase strategy, because it is going to raise taxes on every American who pays taxes. And, furthermore, those that are in the low income of our economy are actually going to see their taxes increase as well because they are going to roll back all the Bush tax cuts over the last 7 years. I think that is the wrong thing for the American people. It is the wrong thing for my constituents of western North Carolina. And I think that that is something that is going to harm our economy, the strength of our growing economy. So I think the Democrats should rethink their tax increase strategy and do what is right for the American people. Reform the Tax Code. Cut taxes at the very least, but reform the Tax Code so we can actually inject more capital into the marketplace and allow people to keep more of what they earn because it is good for their families and good for our economy, and I think it is generally good for America. With that, I thank you, Congressman Price, for hosting this important hour, especially on such an important day to the American people when they have to go file those tax returns. We know how frustrated they get because we have to file those same tax returns, and it is important that we remind our constituents that we are subject to the same laws that they are, and that is a very good thing and a great motivation for tax reform.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, of all of the budgets before Congress, this one hits the taxpayers the hardest. Over 5 years, the Progressive Caucus budget will raise taxes by $949.3 billion. Over 10 years, the Progressive Caucus budget will raise taxes by $2.4 trillion. Over the next 10 years, they will essentially double the budget. There is nothing progressive about Democrats raising taxes. That has been their only fiscal strategy over the last 70 years. This budget spends $643 billion over 5 years and new entitlement spending over and above what the President has asked. It also spends far less when it comes to military spending on our national defense. It drastically cuts military spending by $781 billion over 5 years. This is unconscionable. Beyond that, it says that Iraq and Afghanistan and our global war against Islamic extremists is the largest single waste of U.S. taxpayer money. That is coming from their budget. Their budget assumes a dream world where we are not fighting a global war on terror. It is the ostrich approach, where you stick your head in the sand and hope everything goes away. It is ridiculous, and it is not safe for the American people. Alternatively, the Republican budget that we propose here today takes Social Security off-budget, stops the raid on Social Security, and achieves balance while not raising taxes. It is a huge difference between what Republicans are proposing and the liberal left of the Democrat Caucus is proposing here on the House floor. Beyond that, what the Democrats are saying with their full budget on the floor, as well as this Progressive Caucus budget, that they are going to punt on entitlement reform. Every known economist says we must reform entitlements. I oppose this budget.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, this is a landmark day in the House of Representatives; and records are being broken. In fact, they are being shattered here on the House floor. Democrats are poised to pass a $392.5 billion tax increase to this Federal budget and a spending increase to match it. And, you guessed it, it sets the record for our Nation's history, the record of the largest tax increase in American history. Now, they should be proud, because they have outdone themselves from their budget in 1993, which was then the largest tax increase in American history. One hundred and fifteen million taxpayers will see their taxes increase by $1,795; 48 million married couples will see their taxes increase by $2,899; 17 million elderly individuals will see their taxes increases by $2,270. This isn't chump change for the American people. It is real money. It is real money the Democrats believe the American people owe them. And why do Democrats feel entitled to this money? Because it is what they do. It is what they do. They tax and they spend. They spend and they tax. It is what the Democrat Party here in Washington does. And why is that? Well, I think it is because they haven't had a new idea in 70 years with the advent of the New Deal. But as a side note, for the American people listening today, Mr. Chairman, I think it is very interesting, very striking, the level of hypocrisy in this budget. Because it also does something very interesting with this budget today. It accepts the President's funding levels for the troops in Iraq through 2009. Well, this is pretty interesting, because just last week the liberal majority voted to cut off funds in 2008, right before the general election, didn't they? I think this is a high level of hypocrisy out of this budget. And what they said last week is ``we are standing against the war in Iraq. Get our troops out in 2008.'' What they are saying with this budget here today is, ``we will fund it a little longer.'' It is a level of hypocrisy here in Washington, D.C., Mr. Chairman, that the American people need to know about. They say, forget about last week. This Democrat party is the party of consistent inconsistencies. Another glaring error is, in their first majority budget in 13 years, they don't tackle the entitlement programs. They don't tackle reforming entitlement programs to make sure Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security can last for generations. We need entitlement reform. Republicans, when we were in the majority, we had $280 billion worth of entitlement savings and reform to preserve Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and all the entitlement programs. But the Democrats ignore the looming entitlement crisis. I think what we have to go back to is this is the tax-and-spend party, and we must oppose them. I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are setting some records this week, but these are not landmarks we should be proud of. In fact, it won't make the Democrats famous, but it will most certainly make them infamous. The Democrats are poised to pass a $392 billion tax increase on this House floor, the largest tax increase in American history. Rewind to 1993, the last time the Democrats had control of this House Chamber, and what did they do? They proposed the largest tax increase in American history. They're one-upping their own history. It's amazing, Mr. Speaker. That means 115 million Americans will see taxes increased on average by $1,795. This isn't chump change. It's real money to the American people. And why do Democrats feel they're entitled to this money? Because that's what they do. They're Democrats. They tax. They spend. It's not a new idea. They've been at it for 70 years. If it weren't so infuriating, it would just simply be so sad.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, according to the definition of an earmark, as I interpret it, because the Chair won't provide a definition, how does section 2101 of the legislation before us today----

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, at what time would it be timely for consideration?

Mr. McHENRY. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHENRY. Am I correct to interpret the Chair's statement to mean that even if an earmark is clearly present in the bill under consideration today, that the mere inclusion of a statement certifying that there are no earmarks within the provision effectively neuters the rule?

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, it is a fact, not a hypothetical. This bill contains earmarks. And the rule under the House is that----

Mr. McHENRY. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, it simply takes a waiver submitted by the chairman to make this rule, this no earmark rule, in fact, noneffective; is that not correct?

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHENRY. How does the Chair understand the definition term of ``earmark'' as it relates to rule XXI, clause 9?

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHENRY. Under the rules of the House, what is an earmark?

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHENRY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, is a point of order in order against page 87, the subsection appropriating $35 million to NASA, which I believe to be an earmark?

Mr. McHENRY. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, according to the definition of an earmark under rule XXI, clause 9, the section 3103 of this legislation which appropriates $35 million to spinach growers, does this not qualify as an earmark under rule XXI, clause 9?

Mr. McHENRY. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, according to the definition of an earmark under rule XXI, clause 9, which the Chair recognizes from the House rules, how does section 3104, which appropriates $20 million to a particular agricultural interest in a particular district, not qualify as an earmark?