Floor Statements

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. 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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.