Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 40: Page 8, line 18, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $203,082,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 41: Page 9, line 23, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $195,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 42: Page 12, strike line 13 and all that

follows through line 17.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 43: Page 23, strike line 17 and all that

follows through line 8 on page 26.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 44: Page 28, strike line 7 and all that

follows through line 11.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 30: Page 49, line 23, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $13,860,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 31: Page 50, line 8, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $47,700,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 32: Page 51, line 17, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $1,203,480,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 33: Page 70, line 7, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $27,563,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 34: Page 70, strike line 11 and all that

follows through line 15.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I was happy to yield to the gentleman, and I want to thank him for his leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage the House to adopt this amendment.

Right now on the heels of our Democrat colleagues enacting the single largest increase in history, we should leave no stone unturned in trying to find more ways that we can help the poor beleaguered taxpayer, who actually pays for all of these programs.

Now, I have no doubt that there are many good things in this legislation, and I know we in Congress are only limited by our imagination on how we can spend the taxpayers' money.

Already, just with the programs that are already on the books with the Federal Government before people create new programs, we're on a collision course. We're on a collision course to either, one, have taxes doubled on the next generation, just to pay for government we have, or within one generation there is only going to be, for all intents and purposes, a Federal Government consisting of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Now, many people don't understand how the institution works, but already

so much of the Federal spending is on automatic pilot, so-called entitlement spending. This is actually one of the few opportunities that Members have to come to the floor of the House and actually try to save taxpayers' money.

Now, we know that the President has issued a veto threat, and there is a $23 billion savings that he's trying to achieve.

For many of us, we believe the President is trying to spend too much money. But the President is the President, and the President is the one who has the veto pen.

If we would adopt the gentleman's amendment, the gentleman from Georgia, we would at least take one small step towards the pathway of saving that $23 billion and maybe, maybe take one small step towards saving the next generation from that nasty fiscal fork in the road to where either, one, they are going to have their taxes doubled, right on the heels, again, of the single largest tax increase in American history that the Democrats have brought to us, or we are going to see a Federal Government consisting of little more than Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

What's ironic about this, Mr. Chairman, is if we don't start taking steps to save money today, and this amendment would save $30 million, if we don't start taking these steps today, tomorrow there might not be an Energy and Water appropriations bill. All the money would go somewhere else, and we continue as an institution to kick the can down the road.

Now, some in this body say fiscal responsibility simply means balancing the budget no matter what the cost. Well, for those who are going to have to have their taxes doubled in the next generation, they may differ with that assessment of what fiscal responsibility is.

Again, as the gentleman from Georgia has said, the Corps already has a large background of ongoing construction work. We know that; all Members know that. By limiting the Corps investigations, this amendment would help ensure that current Corps projects are completed.

Again, it's one very, very small step; but we cannot send this country again under Democrat leadership into some kind of tax-and-spend economic death spiral. We have to take every step possible to save the American people from, number one, the single largest tax increase in American history that threatens to impose over a 5-year period up to $3,000 of taxes per family. We have to save them from that. Then we have to save them from the other spending.

So this is a very modest amendment that would put us on a pathway to ensure that the President doesn't veto this bill and that we achieve some level of fiscal responsibility.

I urge the House to adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership and trying to bring some level of fiscal sanity and fiscal accountability back to this body.

And I'm not unsympathetic to what I just heard our ranking member say. But I guess I get somewhat frustrated when I see spending bill after spending bill after spending bill, and I see the largest single tax increase in American history enacted by the new majority.

I see absolutely no effort on the part of the new majority to do anything to rein in out-of-control entitlement spending. Unfortunately, there are few opportunities to try to save the poor, beleaguered, American taxpayer some of his funds.

And again, I'm not sure that this bill is being shortchanged. It does exceed the President's request. It does provide funding above last year, in this case, increasing funding by roughly twice the rate of inflation.

There are many American families who don't have the luxury of seeing their incomes go up by twice the rate of inflation. Why are we expecting families to do with less so that government can do with more?

And again, I'm not unsympathetic to what the ranking member had to say. But there are so few opportunities.

And I understand good things can be done with these funds. But occasionally, Mr. Chairman, we have to stop and we have to take a look at where this funding is coming from. And I talk about the poor, beleaguered, American taxpayer who, if the Democrats have their way and the largest single tax increase in American history is allowed to be imposed upon the American people, will see their taxes go up by roughly $3,000 a year.

And I hear from some of those taxpayers from around the country. I heard from Debbie in Lake Zurich, Illinois. She writes, ``I cannot survive a $3,000 tax hike. I am a single, 53-year old woman living in Lake Zurich who is drowning in taxes. Because of taxes I've been forced to put my house on the market. Any more tax increases will create a huge financial burden.''

I heard from Rose in Turnersville, New Jersey. ``As an older adult still in the work force, I'm living paycheck to paycheck. Between property taxes and all the other taxes I pay, I will soon

give up my home. Just affording gas to get to work in my car is now a trial. Please keep the tax cuts we already have.''

As we talk about things we're going to do to safeguard people's homes, how ironic it is, with the largest tax increase in history we're going to spend the money and help take their homes away.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Again I want to commend the gentleman from Georgia for his amendment in this series of amendments, which, as I understand it, would bring the funding to the President's level, which, in most cases for many of us, is still too much.

As I stated earlier in the debate, Mr. Chairman, I am still concerned that although clearly good cases are made for how these funds can be used, I look at the larger picture. We still have a bill before us that is growing this part of government at over twice the rate of inflation. Again, we are asking American families to somehow do more with less, and sometimes you wonder if government isn't doing less with more.

This is on top of the pressure that has been put on the family budget by the new Democrat majority's enacting the largest single tax increase in American history in their budget. This is on top of the Democrat majority that is trying to increase what we call nondefense discretionary spending by $23 billion above the level of last year. This is in addition to the $6 billion, Mr. Chairman, that they added to the omnibus spending bill at the first of the Congress and the $17 billion in nonemergency spending that they tried to put into the emergency supplemental to support our troops that somehow we all know ended up with funding for peanuts and spinach and many other items that many Americans would consider being part of a pork-barrel spending effort.

So, again, I would have more sympathy with those who oppose the bill if I saw any indication whatsoever that the new Democrat majority was trying to save the family budget from the Federal budget. And, instead, I see this explosion of spending, and I haven't even included what the gentleman from Georgia aptly observed, that we hadn't even completed 6 months of the year but already the new Democrat majority, on top of all the old spending, has now authorized over the next 5-year budget window an additional $105 billion of new spending. And you wonder where does it all end? Where does it all end?

I said earlier that I wish we could be debating on this floor opportunities to actually reform entitlement spending. We are dealing with a smaller portion of the Federal budget now, but we know that the longest journey starts with the first step. And, Mr. Chairman, we need to observe, and don't take my word for it, about what is going to happen to the American family and the American economy if we don't take some small steps to try to reduce the rate of growth of government.

Let's listen to our Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, who was quoted in a House Budget Committee. Without ``early and meaningful action'' to address the growth in entitlement spending, ``the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost.''

Let's listen to the Comptroller General, our chief fiduciary officer in the United States. He said, ``The rising costs of government entitlements are a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.'' Instead, this body kicks the can down the road.

And now we have a bill before us which, although it does many worthy things, is increasing the rate of spending of this part of government twice the rate of inflation; again, taking money away from American families after the single largest tax increase in history, threatening to double taxes on their children.

And so, we've had three amendments here in a row that would take incredibly modest steps to try to reduce the rate of growth of government. You don't even have to cut government, you just have to reduce the rate of growth to bring some fiscal sanity from this new spending and tax economic debt spiral that the Democrats seem to want to foist us into.

So, I would urge the House to adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia. I wish we could do more, but it is a modest start on a very, very long journey.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I would like to associate myself with the comments of the ranking member of the Budget Committee. What is of great concern here and why once again I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) for these series of amendments to at a minimum look at various spending levels and try to at least keep to the President's level, which so many of us already consider to be overinflated, particularly when we look at the fact of how much more the Federal budget has grown over the family budget. Since I have been on the face of the planet, the Federal budget has outgrown the family budget by a factor of about five to one. This cannot continue.

And so the gentleman from Georgia offers several amendments, all that would at least put us on the path to avoid the Presidential veto and spend less than what the new Democrat majority, tax-and-spend majority, wants to do.

Again, I think it's very important that we focus on the fact that this is part of a larger plan that we see unveiled in the budget resolution. This is our third appropriations bill that puts us on the course to spend the funds that will arise from this single largest tax increase in American history.

Mr. Chairman, for all those who are watching the proceedings of the House today, it might be interesting to note for them that the last time the Democrats had the majority, they enacted the single largest tax increase in American history. So they are at least consistent in what they are trying to do. The big debate in Washington is whether you want to tax more and spend more or whether you want to try to constrain the growth of the Federal budget to where the family budget can actually afford it.

I have heard other speakers rise and somehow point the finger at Republicans for fiscal irresponsibility. I must admit on occasion that perhaps is correct, but, Mr. Chairman, since I have been here and since I look in the rearview mirror, every time the Republicans have brought a budget to the floor, the Democrats have brought even a larger budget to the floor. They have decried the prescription drug benefit program of the Republicans for being overly expensive, but their alternative cost even more. And now already in just the first 6 months of this 110th Congress, we have the Democrats wanting to increase nondefense appropriations by $23 billion of taxpayer money, we should never forget that it's the taxpayers' money, above what we spent in 2007. They already added $6 billion to the omnibus spending bill at the first of this Congress. They added $17 billion in nonemergency supplemental spending to the bill that would support our troops in harm's way; but as we notice, as we read the fine print, we discovered it included spinach and peanuts and shrimp and everything else. And now we also understand that the Democrat majority has provided new spending on top of the old spending, $105 billion over 5 years.

What the Republicans are trying to do is keep the tax relief that Americans have already been provided, keep it alive, make it permanent. Democrats say that we're not trying to increase taxes on the American people, although in their budget they have the single largest tax increase in American history, they just say, well, we're just going to let this tax relief expire. Well, Mr. Chairman, if you're a hardworking individual in the Fifth District of Texas and you make the same amount of money this year that you made last year and your tax bill goes up, now, that may be called in Washington, DC. letting tax relief expire, I can assure you that is a tax increase on hardworking people in the Fifth District of Texas and all over America.

That's why when this bill comes to the floor, and I know there are many worthy programs in this bill, but we can never forget the worthy energy bills that are in the family budget and the worthy water bills that are in the family budget, and you cannot fund the Federal budget without taking money from the family budget. That's why again one modest step would be to vote for this amendment from the gentleman from Georgia, and I once again want to commend him for his leadership on fiscal responsibility in this body.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

First I'm heartened that nobody has risen to oppose the amendment. I've heard many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in a different context criticize the administration for not always having what they considered to be a sufficient competitive bidding process on contracts, and so I'm a little curious how this language ended up in the bill in the first place. But why wouldn't we want more competition?

Again, after our colleagues on the other side of the aisle helped put in place the single largest tax increase in American history, and then start to spend that money in our third appropriations bill that will again grow government way beyond the rate of inflation, we had better look for savings everyplace we can find it.

How can you criticize the administration for no-bid contracts, and then here's an opportunity here for competitive bidding, to somehow turn it down? So I don't know why this language is in the bill in the first place, but I want to congratulate and commend the gentleman from Texas for his amendment.

It has, I think, the potential to save the poor, beleaguered taxpayer millions, if not billions, of dollars. Is there anything not more ingrained in the American character than competition? We ought to try to make these contracts as competitive as possible.

Again, we have to put this whole piece of legislation in context. It's the third appropriations bill arising from a budget resolution that calls for the single largest tax increase in American history, approximately $3,000 of increased taxes for hardworking American families as they try to meet their education needs, as they try to meet their health care needs, as they try to meet their housing needs.

So I know there's a number of good programs that are contained within this legislation. In many respects, we're not having a debate today about how much money we're going to spend. We are debating who's going to do the spending, and there are many of us on the floor today who want to make sure that American families get to do more of that spending.

We continue to kick this can down the road. It's simply unfair to place such a tax burden on the American people. The average American family already pays $22,000 a year combined in Federal taxes, and now as the Democrat majority is promising to impose an additional $3,000 a year in taxes, and then, even worse, because their budget resolution from which this appropriation bill follows is silent on the issue of what to do with out-of-control entitlement spending, which is putting our sons and daughters, our grandchildren, on automatic pilot to have their taxes doubled so they will never be able to afford their own homes, send their kids to college, start their own business. As the Comptroller General said, and I paraphrase, we are on the verge of being the first generation in American history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living.

Now, I wish there was a lot more that we could do today within this piece of legislation, but at least by adopting the amendment of the gentleman from Texas, we will take a few small steps in doing what every other American considers to be common sense, and that is to ensure a maximum of competitive bidding, we would take at least a few small steps towards trying to save the American people from this increased tax burden that, again, subtracts from their dreams of their first home, their dreams of launching a small business.

This is all part, again, of a budget that imposes the single largest tax increase on the American people in history. After trying to spend an additional $23 billion over the level spent last year, $6 billion that was added to the omnibus, $17 billion added to the war supplemental in nonemergency spending, the Democrat majority now is going to allow unlimited emergency spending, giving Members practically the ability to rubber-stamp anything with ``emergency.'' And not only does their budget not do anything to reform entitlement spending, it creates reserve funds that promises more entitlement spending, Mr. Chairman, to make the problem even worse.

So we should all adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Texas. I applaud his leadership. It's a small step, a commonsense step to try to save the family budget from the Federal budget.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, again, this amendment, as some previous amendments have, attempts to make a very, very modest step towards saving the family budget from the single largest tax increase in American history.

Specifically, over the requested level or the level in the bill, this would reduce funding for Interior's Water and Related Resources account to the President's request from roughly $871 million to $816 million, representing a $55 million savings to the American taxpayer. This account has been a traditionally earmarked account for certain water restoration activities in 17 Western States.

The bill's current funding level represents a 6.7 percent increase over the President's request. Again, I am sure this account funds many worthy projects.

But we need, I believe, a number of us believe we need a road map to try to bring fiscal sanity to the House in an appropriations bill that is already increasing spending twice the rate of inflation. So now we are having a debate over $816 million, as proposed by the administration, which I am sure many in this body might think is an overly large number when we recognize that money is coming from hardworking American taxpayers, but a difference of $816 million versus $871 million.

Again, as the majority in their budget resolution enacts the single largest tax increase in American history, they are asking American families to somehow do more with less. Don't we believe that the Federal Government ought to try to do more with less, and, in this case, we still have an increase, 6.7 percent increase over the President's request.

As I have taken to the floor on other occasions during this debate, we should never, ever forget that although something good can be done with the taxpayers' dollars in this account, I have no doubt, we have to remember the hardworking American families back home and how the single largest tax increase in history, which is funding this third appropriation bill, still twice the rate of inflation, we have to remember, we have to remember how this bill impacts them.

I sent out a letter to my constituents asking them how this tax increase of the Democrat majority would impact them.

I heard from Bruce in Garland. Garland's a city in my district. He said, ``In my particular case, an additional $2,200 in taxes would cut into the finances I used to pay for my son's college education. A control and reduction of spending is what is needed.''

Again, Mr. Chairman, what we realize is as we plus-up some Federal account, we are downsizing some family account. In this case, we're affecting a family's education account.

I heard from Joy in the city of Dallas. I represent the eastern part of the city of Dallas. She writes, ``I could not pay for a semester of college for my daughter if I had to send more money to the government.''

So as this account's getting plussed up by twice the rate of inflation, here are two individual families, just two out of millions across America, who are having their education accounts gutted by the plus-up in this particular bill.

I heard from Linda, also from the city of Garland. ``If we had to pay an additional $2,200 each year, it would make us have to decide between food or medicine.''

I've got a whole host of these letters, Mr. Chairman, to remind every Member in this body that as we talk about all the noble purposes we have for the American taxpayers' money, they too have noble purposes. They have health care programs in their family, they have education programs in their family, they have energy bills and programs in their family, paying their heating bills, their cooling bills, filling up their automobile. So certainly we could take one modest step in saving the taxpayer $55 million and plus-up the water and related resources account, a traditionally earmarked account. And we had a very vigorous debate over earmarks here recently, their transparency, their accountability.

But surely we could agree to hold to the President's level and try to save the family budget from the onslaught of the Federal budget.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 22: Page 70, line 24, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $27,563,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 23: Page 50, line 20, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $47,700,000)''.