Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in great opposition to this rule and to this conference report.

We are here, yet again, discussing a Democrat plan for a statutory date certain for America's defeat in Iraq. We are here, yet again, discussing the Democrats' ``slow bleed'' strategy for our brave men and women in uniform in Iraq, designed to gradually deny them the critical equipment, support, and reinforcements they need to do the job. We are here, yet again, discussing just how much pork and unrelated spending can be shoved into this conference report to encourage or persuade reluctant Members to support this legislation.

And, Mr. Speaker, according to today's L.A. Times and other major media outlets, we are likely to have this vote again and again and again because the majority party's leadership somehow believes it is in their political interests to do so.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know about the recent announcement of the Democratic leader in the Senate. He has announced to our troops, he has announced to al Qaeda, he has announced to the world that the war in Iraq is lost.

Mr. Speaker, Corporal Tyler Rock of the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines seems to disagree. I would quote him directly, but I believe the House rules would not permit it; so allow me to paraphrase that he has a quote for the Senate majority leader. Let me go on to say that he has said, ``We could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists, and then we could wait for 3,000 more American civilians to die before we say, `Hey, that's not nice again.' ''

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that Corporal Rock speaks for most of our troops. Let's not cut their support. There will be no greater event to empower radical Islam than our defeat and retreat from Iraq.

The terrorists that we fight there believe they have the moral authority to kill 2 million, 2 million of our children, two of them being my own.

They are the ones that say the battlefield is in Iraq. Why can't we understand that in the Halls of Congress?

There is no doubt that fighting this war is costly. There is no more difficult duty I have, or any of us have, than to meet with the mothers of those who have lost loved ones on the field of battle. But as difficult as that duty is, I

never, never, never want to meet with the mothers who lose children in the next 9/11 because we turned our back on our duty.

The cost of fighting this war is great. The cost of losing it is greater.

Madam Speaker, today, I would like to help celebrate the Mesquite Championship Rodeo and its 50th anniversary. This fine organization has entertained a wide variety of people over the years, from young children to our Nation's Presidents and foreign heads-of- state.

The Mesquite Rodeo opened its chutes in 1958 and has become an integral part of the community and the State of Texas; so much so that in 1993 the Texas legislature proclaimed the city of Mesquite the ``Rodeo Capital of Texas.''

Every Friday and Saturday night during the rodeo season, thousands of visitors experience the excitement of our Nation's original western sport: the rodeo. From cowboys to clowns, and fast horses to big bulls, the Mesquite Rodeo has come to exemplify championship rodeos. My family and I can attest to the entertainment value of the events and showmanship that the Mesquite Rodeo is known for throughout the United States.

As the congressional representative of Mesquite, Texas, home to the Mesquite Championship Rodeo, it is my distinct pleasure to honor them today in the United States House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, for the past six years, the greater Mesquite area has embraced the opportunity to honor many exceptional women in the community through the Women in Service and Enterprise (WISE) Award Luncheon and Style Show. Today I would like to honor this year's award recipient, Dr. Linda Henrie, who is an example of strong, capable and dedicated leadership. I would also like to recognize honorees Patti Hawkins, Pat Ogles and Marjorie Seward for their valuable service and commitment to their community.

Dr. Henrie is the Superintendent of the Mesquite Independent School District (MISD) where she oversees more than 34,000 students and more than 4,000 professional and auxiliary staff. She has served in this position with distinction since 2001.

Dr. Henrie has served on numerous boards in the greater Mesquite community including: The Board of Directors for Mesquite Social Services, the Board of Directors for the Mesquite Symphonic Band and as President of the Mesquite Education Association. Dr. Henrie also serves as President of the Texas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Dallas County Workforce Development Board. In addition to being active in the community and holding multiple leadership roles, Dr. Henrie has been recognized for the Association of Texas Professional Educator's Administrator of the Year Award in 2002 and was named one of the 100 Heroes of MISD.

Past WISE Award winners have served in a variety of ways, but they are united by the long-lasting impact they have made on their community. Their service, community involvement and dedication to enterprise continue to inspire younger generations.

Today, I would like to recognize all of the WISE honorees for their outstanding service and congratulate them on their awards. Thank you, ladies, for helping make our community and country a better place.

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the many students, civic organizations, Boy and Girl Scouts, service organizations, families and individuals who recently volunteered to ``Keep Seagoville Beautiful.'' On April 14, 2007, the City of Seagoville and the Keep Seagoville Beautiful Commission sponsored the first annual Keep Seagoville Beautiful city-wide clean up. On that Saturday morning, over 150 dedicated citizens of Seagoville met at City Park to clean up their community. By the end of the day, those hard working volunteers had persevered through wind, rain, and cold to collect over 12 truckloads full of trash.

This annual event strives to ``create an environment that continuously encourages the citizens to improve their quality of life and sense of pride in their community.'' It is the hard work of citizens like these, who take pride in their city, that will preserve our communities for future generations.

It is for these reasons that I have the distinct pleasure to honor the City of Seagoville, the Keep Seagoville Beautiful Commission, and the many dedicated volunteers who participated in this event. I am honored to represent them in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in support of this amendment. I rise to support it because I think it would make a bad bill less bad.

As I look at the underlying bill, I am reminded of a couple of things that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do well. One is mandate, and the other is class warfare.

Now, what we are debating here tonight on the underlying bill is a mandate, a mandate for a voluntary shareholder, non binding referendum on executive compensation.

I have listened to the debate today very carefully, and it seems to strike me that if there was ever a case of a remedy in search of a problem, this very well may be it. I have heard many of my colleagues come to the well and speak about outrageous and unreasonable executive compensation. I suspect

that unreasonable and outrageous are to be found in the eyes of the beholder. A CEO that rescues a troubled company, creates thousands of jobs, increases shareholder value by 80 percent so that folks can help send their kids to colleges, maybe help a parent with long term health care, my guess is that if that person made a gazillion dollars he was probably underpaid. A CEO who runs a company into the ground, who loses 80 percent of shareholder value, maybe he isn't worth 50 cents.

But the question ought to be, what is the state of corporate governance in America, and the shareholders, do they have say so? They have the most important decision that they can make. Mr. Chairman, they don't have to buy the shares in the first place. And we know that the SEC has just engaged in creating even greater and more disclosure. So if shareholders have the opportunity not to purchase this stock in the first place, I don't understand, and if we have disclosure where it should be, why we are trying to mandate a voluntary, non binding referendum on executive compensation. I don't quite understand. Clearly, in America, you still have a right not to buy a stock.

Now, I have heard a lot about what I would characterize as the typical class warfare that we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle. And it reminds me, sometimes, that one of the accepted forms, really in some respects of bigotry in this society is bigotry against those who are successful. And so we come and we see charts about this disparity in pay. But, you know, Mr. Chairman, the outrage seems to be kind of selective. Where is the outrage of the hundreds of millions of dollars made by personal injury, trial attorneys and tobacco attorneys, and their legal secretaries maybe make $30,000? Where is the outrage there? Where is the outrage at Hollywood actors and actresses making tens of millions of dollars, and the guy moving the set around, maybe he is making $20,000?

I recently learned that Julia Roberts made $25 million for the film Mona Lisa. It cost $65 million to make, but only earned $64 million at the U.S. box office. I don't know for a fact a public company had to pay that salary, but I suspect they did. Now, where is the moral outrage there?

And, in addition, where is the proposal for the mandatory, voluntary non binding referendum on the compensation that may be paid to one of these individuals?

I mean, what comes next? Are we going to have the mandate for the non binding shareholder referendum on the amount of R&D expenditures that a company makes? Perhaps their marketing budget, Mr. Chairman? Maybe their choice of an auditor? I mean, why do we stop here at executive compensation?

And let me speak momentarily about the mandate. My guess is that to any individual company, this mandate may not be too costly. And I was very happy to have, in the last Congress, the chairman's support on a piece of legislation that I worked on that provided regulatory relief for our financial institutions.

And it is not one particular item. And every single mandate may sound pretty good, looking at it singularly, but collectively they are all adding costs to these companies, and you have to ask yourself, is it serving a good purpose? Because if it isn't, what is helping send jobs overseas is too much regulation, litigation and taxation and we need to support the amendment and vote down the bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Rarely do I rise with such trepidation as I do tonight in trying to follow the powerful eloquence of my dear friend and colleague from Arizona (Mr. Franks). I want to thank him for the passion and clarity that he brings to this body. And, again, my own voice is so meager compared to his, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to come tonight and really celebrate a great victory for life in America.

I want to thank my other colleagues with the Republican Study Committee who have come here tonight to participate in this 1-hour Special Order, Mr. Speaker. And for those who may be viewing the proceedings, Mr. Speaker, as we all know here, the Republican Study Committee is the conservative caucus in the House of Representatives, over 100 strong, promoting the values of faith and family and free enterprise and freedom that we consider to be the cornerstones of this great experiment in democracy and liberty that we call America.

And, Mr. Speaker, we always invite the American people to dialogue with us at the Republican Study Committee and our Web site at www.house.gov/Hensarling/rsc.

I really didn't know I would be coming here tonight, and so I have no prepared text whatsoever. It has been an emotional roller coaster of a week. I had a tele-town-hall meeting and got to speak to literally thousands of people from the Fifth Congressional District last evening. It started off talking about the tragedy at Virginia Tech, and I approached that discussion with my constituents not as a Member of Congress, but as a father.

I am privileged to be the father of a 5-year-old daughter and a 3- year-old son. And I can only imagine the pain that the families must be going through. And as I see all the reports on television of the promising lives that have been snuffed out in this evil, cruel act, I know that now is a time for comforting those who lost loved ones, it is a time to pray, it is a time to learn.

But as the Nation reflects on those 30-some-odd lives that are lost, maybe today is the day to reflect upon the millions of lives that are lost in America through abortion. And I am not naive; I know this is one of the most contentious issues debated in our society. But what right is more fundamental than the right to life?

I wish I knew how to talk to those who somehow didn't see life the way that we do or value life the way that we do. In my heart, in my head, I can come to no other conclusion but that life begins at conception, that life is a gift of our Creator, who endows us with this inalienable right to life. I don't understand how my countrymen come to other conclusions. I don't hate them, I don't disparage them, I don't yell at them, but I don't understand how they can come to different conclusions. It is something that I take as a

matter of faith. And if I didn't take it as a matter of faith, I don't know how any parent could ever look at that sonogram, that modern technology we have and see their tiny little baby just weeks old with their head and their arms and their fingers and their feet sometimes moving around in their mother's tummy. How can you conclude anything else but that this is human life? I don't understand that.

And so I really come here to celebrate a great victory in the Supreme Court today that affirms what was already said by an overwhelming vote in the United States Congress, that this terribly abhorrent act known as partial-birth abortion, that Congress has the right to outlaw that. And, Mr. Speaker, we could go into all the gruesome details about how this child is just seconds away from getting their first breath of life and how, instead, the instrument of death is plunged into them. I don't think we need to go into that graphic detail.

But regardless of how you feel on the pro-life debate or the pro- abortion debate, how anybody could conclude that a child that is just moments away from taking their first breath should have that life snuffed out in the land of the free is beyond me.

And so I am happy to come here with my other colleagues from the Republican Study Committee. And again, I come here with great trepidation. Anytime I go to the floor with my dear colleague from Arizona, I serve with many great individuals in this body, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot think of one who has a purer heart than the gentleman from Arizona. And so again, my own voice is quite meager to his.

But as I think about my own 5-year-old daughter, Claire, and my own 3-year-old son, Travis, and I remember getting the telephone call from my wife to let me know that they were there, that life existed in her that we created, and to think that somehow in this land of the free, where our Creator has given us this gift of life, that those precious lives could have ever, ever come to an end in this gruesome procedure known as partial-birth abortion is just so abhorrent, my mind can't even go there.

And so I celebrate tonight with millions across America. And I certainly celebrate with all the members of the conservative caucus in Congress, the Republican Study Committee, that as many setbacks as we have in America, as we read about great tragedies, today something great happened in America, and the right to life was affirmed.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, we have three different versions of essentially the same Democrat budget that is being presented today. They are all fiscally irresponsible. They all promote the Federal budget over the family budget. They all compromise the future of our children and grandchildren.

Let me tell you, Madam Chair, what they have in common. Each one would represent the single largest tax increase in the history of the United States of America.

Now this particular chart, Madam Chairman, because I didn't have the numbers available in the Progressive budget, shows what the Democrat Conference budget would do: Almost $400 billion of new taxes on working families; single largest tax increase in America's history. What did the Democrats do last time they were in power, Madam Chair? Well, that was back in 1993. And guess what? They gave us the single largest tax increase in America's history. This particular version of the Democrat budget, see that red there? I would have to have another chart to represent that tax increase because I believe they actually double what the Democrat Conference budget is doing.

And, Madam Chairman, people need to know that every time you are increasing the Federal budget, you are decreasing some family budget. Some hardworking family in America is trying to make ends meet. Many of those families are in my district, the Fifth Congressional District of Texas.

I heard from one of those families recently. I heard from Linda, I will use her first name, in Roulette, Texas. And she writes:

``Dear Congressman, that tax increase would mean the difference of whether my daughter and her husband would be able to purchase a car or not. For my husband and I, it helps us to continue for his radiation treatments for his prostate cancer. It allows us to continue to provide in-home assistance for my elderly parents, one who has Parkinson's and one who has dementia. Please allow us to retain this money for our needs. Please don't allow our government to take additional tax dollars from us. Please allow us to decide how this money will be spent.''

Madam Chairman, again, when they take money to fuel the Federal budget, to fuel the Federal bureaucracy, they are taking money away from hardworking families. They need that money for their educational needs, for their health care needs, for their housing needs.

When is it that you ever have enough of the taxpayers' money? Already in Washington we are spending over $23,000 per American household for the first time in American history since World War II. We must protect the family budget from the Federal budget and prevent this single largest tax increase in American history from being imposed on hardworking American families.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Madam Chair, the Republican budget allocates more to veterans than the Democrat Conference budget.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to a coauthor of the American Taxpayer Bill of Rights, the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the chairman of the Budget and Spending Task Force of the Republican Study Committee and the coauthor of the American Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

(Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Madam Chair, who has the right to close?

Madam Chair, in that case, I am very honored at this time to yield 4 minutes to the author of the Republican budget that will balance the budget, preserve the Social Security surplus without raising taxes, the ranking member on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Madam Chair, I will close for our side as I understand I have the right to close.

Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining on our side.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Madam Chair, all of the Democrats' budgets are breathtakingly bad and fiscally irresponsible for what they do. They impose the single largest tax increase in American history on hardworking American families. They each represent the highest level of spending in the history of our Nation at a time when we are taking $23,000 away, spending $23,000 per family for only the first time since World War II.

But as breathtakingly bad as they are for what they do, they are even worse for what they do not do because, Madam Chair, they are absolutely stone cold silent on the number one fiscal issue facing this Nation, facing the next generation, and that is, reforming entitlement spending, which will plunge the next generation into trillions and trillions of dollars of debt.

Don't take my word for it. Take the word of the Comptroller General, the chief fiduciary officer of the United States of America, who has said that we are on the verge of being the first generation to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living. I mean, think about that, Madam Chair, because we are spending so much of the people's money that these programs that have been vital to people for generations will go away. If you do not reform Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid, they will not be here for the next generation.

Madam Chair, as the father of a 5-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old son, I cannot sit idly by and let that happen. We must keep faith with prior generations by keeping faith with future generations.

Let's reform entitlement spending. Let's give the next generation more opportunity and more freedoms. Vote down this Democrat budget.

I thank my good friend and the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. It is anti-family, it is anti-tax, it is fiscally irresponsible. And I agree with my colleague from Texas. I can hardly believe some of the things I am hearing on the House floor.

The Democrats, Madam Speaker, obviously want to have it both ways. They claim on the one hand that they have done this incredible job of balancing the Federal budget, and then they claim that they actually preserve tax relief in the budget. But if anybody would bother to read the document, the only way they achieve balance is by taking away all of the tax relief that we have enjoyed in the last several years. They would bring forth the single largest tax increase in American history.

And guess what, Madam Speaker? Twelve years ago, the last time that they were in power, guess what they did? They brought forth the single largest tax increase in American history. Certainly they at least get an A for consistency, but you have to give them an F for fiscal responsibility.

I would point out to the preceding speaker, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, and I have the honor of serving with her on the Budget Committee, had the Democrats felt so strongly about preserving the tax relief, they had ample opportunity in committee to preserve the tax relief for American families, and they chose not to do it.

This is a budget which may be worthy of a Pulitzer Prize in fiction. It is full of Orwellian-speak. It is something that is worthy of the Twilight Zone. It makes no sense. You cannot claim that you are not reducing spending, you are

preserving tax relief, and you are balancing budget all at the same time. You are taking three different sides of the argument. It does not wash.

This Democrat budget is also silent, absolutely stone cold silent on the number one fiscal issue facing our Nation, and that is out-of- control entitlement spending. If we don't reform these entitlement programs, it will lead to a doubling of taxes on the American people, our children, and our grandchildren. The single largest tax increase in history will pale in comparison if we don't act today.

And this is a budget for the next election, it is not a budget for the next generation. You can't have a fiscally responsible budget and remain silent on the number one fiscal challenge facing the Nation today. If you want to save Medicare, if you want to save Social Security, if you want to save Medicaid, you have to reform these programs; and the Democrat budget, again, is stone cold silent.

They speak of their reserve funds, but, Madam Speaker, there is no reserve and there is no funds. Again, this is fiction. This is pure, unadulterated fiction.

What isn't fiction is the largest single tax increase in American history that is going to fall upon American families. It is going to fall upon them hard. Because every time the Democrats increase the Federal budget, they are cutting some family budget. They are taking away from a family's ability to send a child to college. They are taking away from a family's ability to help a parent with long-term health care. They are taking away a family's ability to buy that first home, make a down payment on their first home. Every time you take away, every time you increase the Federal budget, you are taking away from the family budget.

So these two documents stand in stark contrast. The Democrat budget, the single largest tax increase in history. Again, this contrast could not be more stark. The single largest tax increase in American history. And I remind my colleagues on the other side to please, please think about the families that are in your district that actually pay these taxes.

You may think we are having a debate on how much our society is going to spend on health care and housing and education. That is not the debate I think we are having. I think we are having a debate about who is going to do that spending. Is it going to be government bureaucrats, or is it going to be American families?

In my State of Texas, the average Texas family is going to have to pay an additional $2,700 a year under the Democrat plan to have the single largest tax increase in American history. I asked my constituents, Madam Speaker, what is this going to mean to you? And I heard from several of them.

I heard, for example, from Diana in Mesquite, Texas. She wrote, ``Dear Congressman, I wanted to let you know that I am a single mom that does not receive any type of child support, and an increase of this amount would break me. I would be at the risk of losing my home with this type of increase. I am writing to ask your help to keep this from happening. This would be devastating to middle-income families.'' That is what Diana in Mesquite wrote.

Brian in Dallas, ``This tax increase would affect our ability to pay tuition and books for our daughter to go to college. While she's a junior this year, we are trying to save money for her education. But as the cost of education increases this year, the loss of these funds, this increase in taxes, will have a negative impact on our ability to send her to college.''

Again, this largest single tax increase in American history will have devastating impacts on American families. So the two budgets sit in stark contrast. One preserves the tax relief that has helped bring down the deficit, has given us the most tax revenues we have ever had before. We are awash in tax revenues, because people rolled up their sleeves, they went out, they worked, they saved. And that is why we have to vote down this rule.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the chairman of the committee, and I want to thank all those who contributed to this underlying legislation. I thank them for their good work on behalf of our Nation's veterans.

I myself am not a veteran. I did not serve my Nation in uniform. My grandfather did. He served during World War II. My father did. He served during Korea. My brother did. He served during the Cold War. So I have the highest respect for the men and women who serve our Nation in uniform.

Mr. Chairman, as we approach the annual debate on our budget, one thing that I think that we hold in common, although there are many differences in our parties, is that we all believe that our veterans and especially our veterans health care ought to be one of the most important priorities that we have as a Nation. And as we continue to fight this war on terror, we know we are creating more veterans with more health care needs.

During the last congressional recess, I spent a lot of time visiting with the veterans of the Fifth Congressional District in Texas that I have the honor and pleasure of representing. I heard many good comments, frankly, about VA health care and some complaints. And I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that one of the most important complaints I heard was the complaint on the waiting time in order to actually get the appointment that the veteran has requested.

Now, I know that great strides have been made in reducing these waiting times. I know that the veterans health care system is serving entire new populations that they didn't serve years ago. And this is a good thing. But I still would hope that, number one, we could understand exactly the challenges that our veterans are facing and see if there are not some commonsense solutions, as earlier the gentlelady from Texas, my colleague, said, that essentially we can save time and save money and still help our veterans.

This amendment is a very simple amendment. I hope it is a very noncontroversial amendment. It simply directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to study the average length of time between the desired date for which a veteran seeks a scheduled medical appointment and the date in which the appointment is actually completed.

Now, I know that the vast majority of appointments are completed within this 30-day window, but I don't believe this body knows if that means the bulk of them happened on day 29 or the bulk of them may happen on day six. This is important information we ought to have.

I represent a district that is urban, suburban, and rural; and this study would not just concentrate on our urban areas but our rural areas as well, where a number of our veterans go to retire.

Additionally, this amendment would ask for the Secretary's recommendations on what we might do to shorten the length of time to 15 days and provide recommendations to our body to do that. Not only veterans in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, but if you look at the independent budget supported by numerous of our veterans service organizations, they speak to the need to see what we can do to reduce, in many cases, excess waiting times, something they flagged as a strong concern.

So I know the VA has made great strides, but there is still work that we can do to serve these people who serve us and protect freedom, the greatest commodity that we have in our land. And by supporting this amendment, Congress can make just one more small step in the direction of supporting our veterans.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his support. I know when to take ``yes'' for an answer.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I hope that the American people, Mr. Chairman, are paying very careful attention to this budget debate. The budget is really about priorities. We have heard about the priorities of the Democratic budget, and that is, let's increase the Federal budget at the expense of the family budget. I can hardly believe what I am hearing with respect to taxes. We know that, having been in power fewer than 90 days, the Democrats have now proposed the single largest tax increase in American history, almost $400 billion of new taxes on the American people.

Well, guess what? Last time they were in the majority, Mr. Chairman, they proposed the single biggest tax increase in American history. I suppose there is something to be said for consistency.

Now, I have heard from our distinguished chairman, and I have the utmost respect for him, and others that there is really not a tax increase. We just have expiring tax provisions.

Well, Mr. Chairman, when people all over America all of a sudden look at their tax bill and see how much they are going to have to pay, I think that is going to be a distinction that is lost on them. Either you are paying more in taxes or you are not.

And I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that all the members, all the Democratic members of the Budget Committee had the opportunity to make sure that the tax relief for American families was permanent, that we extended it. But, instead, they voted against it. They will have another opportunity tomorrow. So there is the old saying that your actions are so loud that I can hardly hear your words.

And so what are we left with? Again, the Democrats are proposing the single largest tax increase in American history.

Now, I have the honor and privilege of representing a lot of good people in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. And in my home State, the single largest tax increase in American history that Democrats are trying to impose is going to mean an extra $2,700 burden on a family of four in my State.

And I asked people, I asked people from the Fifth District, what is this going to mean to you? And I heard from a lady, and I will use first names here, Diana from Mesquite, Texas, a suburb of Dallas. She said, Congressman, I wanted to let you know that I am a single mom that does not receive any type of child support, and an increase of this amount would break me. I would be at risk of losing my home with this type of increase. I am writing to ask your help to keep this from happening. This would be devastating to middle-income families in my situation.

Mr. Chairman, what the Democrats don't seem to realize again is when they spend more money on the Federal budget, they are taking money away from the family budget with their single largest tax increase in American history.

Let's hear from Brian from Dallas. Dear Congressman Hensarling, the tax increase would most likely affect our ability to pay tuition and books for our daughter to go to college. She is a junior this year, and we are trying to save money for her education. The loss of these funds due to an increase in taxes will have a negative impact on our plans for her education.

They are taking money away from the family budget. They are putting Diana's home in jeopardy. They are putting the education of Brian's daughter in jeopardy.

Vote down this single largest tax increase in American history.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that the last speaker is reading the same budget that I am. I mean, it is incredible to be lectured here on the whole question of entitlement spending, and the Democrat budget alternative is stone cold silent on the issue, the number one fiscal issue that is challenging our Nation.

And don't take my word for it, Mr. Chairman. Look at the testimony of the Congressional Budget Office. Look at the testimony of the General Accountability Office. Look at the testimony of our Federal Reserve Chairman, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of OMB. Anybody who has any responsibility for fiscal policy in America will tell you that we are on the verge, we are on the verge, and to paraphrase the Comptroller General, we are on the verge of being the first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living.

So when we get lectured about entitlement spending, why is the Democrat alternative silent on it? Why have all the Democrats refused to join us in doing anything to save Social Security, save Medicare, save Medicaid for the next generation?

Let's look here. They speak about what has happened in the Federal debt, and they should be concerned about it. But when it increases $3 trillion, look at what has happened to the unfunded liability in Social Security and Medicare when they refuse to do anything, anything to reform entitlement spending. If you do not reform Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, they will not be there for the next generation. They will not be there. If you do not reform them, you lose them.

So how their budget, Mr. Chairman, can be described as fiscally responsible when they are absolutely silent on the number one fiscal issue that faces our Nation is beyond me.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the ranking member, for yielding once again; and I wish to follow up on his insights about this single largest tax increase in American history that the Democrats are trying to impose. Again, Mr. Chairman, it is reminiscent of what they did 12 years ago, the last time they were in the majority. Again, as I said, they at least get an A for consistency.

But, Mr. Chairman, this is very, very serious business; and we need to take a good hard look at the numbers. But beyond the numbers, Mr. Chairman, we need to look at the people.

Earlier this evening, I read some correspondence from some constituents from the Fifth District of Texas that I have the honor of representing in Congress. These are people who will be hurt by the single largest tax increase

in American history that the Democrats are attempting to impose upon America today.

I heard from Carrie of Dallas, and she said: ``Jeb, you asked us to let you know what we'd be sacrificing if I had to spend another $2,200 in taxes. Well my family's basic needs may not be met, food, shelter, school clothes for the kids. Not to mention not being able to pay my creditors. Please continue to do your best to help the working class and families.''

Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to let Carrie in Dallas know that I want her to be able to keep her earnings, and I am going to fight this single largest tax increase in American history that the Democrats are trying to impose.

Mr. Chairman, I heard from Lorri in Palestine, TX: ``Dear Congressman, I have a son going to college and my mother is on a fixed income and needs my help more times than less. The tax relief I received gave me the opportunity to help my family with their needs. If my taxes are increased again, my family would suffer tremendously.''

Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to let Lorri in Palestine know that I am going to do everything I can to make sure she can keep more of her earnings and fight this single largest tax increase in America's history.

Mr. Chairman, I had a particularly poignant letter from Linda from Rowlett, TX, that I have the honor to represent in Congress. She said: ``This tax increase would make the difference whether my daughter and her husband would be able to purchase a car or not. For my husband and I, it helps us continue with his radiation treatments for his prostate cancer. It allows us to continue providing in-home assistance for my elderly parents, one of whom has Parkinson's and one who has dementia. Please allow us to retain this money for our needs. Please do not let our government take additional tax dollars from us. Please allow us to decide how this money will be spent. Please do not allow the government to decide for us.''

Well, Mr. Chairman, again, I have a message for Linda of Rowlett. I am going to do everything I can to ensure that she gets to keep her earnings for her family, for her health care needs, for her housing needs, her transportation needs.

Vote against this largest tax increase in American history.

Mr. Speaker, tonight we start an important debate that we have here each year in this Nation, and that is a debate over the annual budget. I know for a lot of people, Mr. Speaker, this is a debate about numbers, kind of a green-shade visor exercise, but frankly, it is a lot more than that. It has a lot to do with values. It has a lot to do with principles.

And it is a debate that the American people need to pay very close attention to. Clearly, we know the results of the last election: there is a new majority party. The Democrat majority has taken control, which they have not had in 12 years. They won the election fair and square. But, Mr. Speaker, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I have the pleasure and honor of serving on the House Budget Committee, and just this last week the Democrats voted out their budget that has the single largest tax increase in American history in it. Now, Mr. Speaker, the last time that the Democrats had control of the House, guess what they did, they passed the single largest tax increase in American history. Again, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The single largest tax increase in American history. Mr. Speaker, people have to know what this is going to mean to them.

I have the honor and privilege of representing people in the Fifth District of Texas. It starts out in the city of Dallas, takes in the southeast Dallas County suburbs, and six really great east Texas counties full of small business people and agricultural producers. For the people in the State of Texas, for the people in the Fifth District of Texas, that is going to mean an additional tax burden for the average family of four of $2,700 a year. That is $2,700 a year, Mr. Speaker, that could have gone into funding the family budget that is instead going to go into funding the Federal budget. And every time, every time that we increase that Federal budget, we are taking money away from some valuable family budget.

Now, we are always going to hear from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, that these vital investments are needed for housing programs and for nutritional programs and health care programs. And certainly we need a social safety net. But, Mr. Speaker, this isn't really a debate about how much we spend on these vital programs. The real question is, who is going to do the spending? Democrats believe government should do the spending. We believe that families should do the spending. And when it comes to my constituents in the State of Texas, they need that $2,700. They need that $2,700 to help send a child to college, to help finance higher education. They need that $2,700 to

make a down payment on their first home and help realize the great American Dream for their family. They need that $2,700 a year to help with long-term care for an elderly parent. I mean, these are the priorities of American families.

Where do we believe that somehow we have all this perfect knowledge in Washington, D.C.? I mean, Mr. Speaker, how much is enough? The single largest tax increase in American history is now being proposed by the Democrats, and what is this going to do? What is this going to do to families all across America? Every family in America who is paying attention to this debate ought to go and look at their checkbook, and every night, every week they have to get around that kitchen table and they have to make priorities, something that Congress isn't particularly good at, and they have to decide how they are going to meet their bills.

And yet here is the Democrat majority saying, well, we need an extra $2,700 a year from your family because we know better than you do about the health care you need and the education you need. You can't handle that yourself. We need to do it for you.

That is just one difference, one difference that we have. Because in the Republican budget, we know the American people work hard for their money. We know they roll up their sleeves and work hard to put food on the table to feed their family, to put a roof over their family's head.

There is no tax increase on the poor beleaguered taxpayer, no tax increase on American families, no tax increase on small businesses in the Republican budget. But what do you find in the Democrat budget? The single largest tax increase in American history.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been joined by a number of my colleagues tonight who know a lot about what this Democrat budget would mean to their constituents and would mean to their people back home. I am very happy that we are joined by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), and I would like to yield to her to get her perspective on this single largest tax increase in American history.

I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership in this body on issues that are important to taxpayers of America and taxpayers of North Carolina.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we are very privileged tonight to have Republican members of the House Budget Committee and members of the Republican Study Committee, the conservative caucus within Congress, Congress' largest caucus, made up of people who want to further the conservative cause of

more freedom and more opportunity and limited government and accountable government, and people who understand that every time we inflate the Federal budget we are taking money away from the family budget.

Again, this single largest tax increase in history that the Democrats are proposing may fuel their vision of Big Government, but it doesn't do much to help fuel the budgets of families throughout our Nation, including some families in the State of Nebraska.

And I am very happy that we have been joined by one of the outstanding freshmen Members within our GOP ranks. At this time I would yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

I thank the gentleman for his contribution. I thank him for his leadership within the freshman class.

Again, Mr. Speaker, people need to know that once a year we come together and as a Nation debate what the Federal budget ought to be. There are clearly those who think that the American people are undertaxed, and I suppose that is why the Democrats have proposed the largest single tax increase in American history.

But talking to working mothers in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, talking to small business people and talking to farmers and ranchers, they don't seem to think that they are undertaxed. They think that Washington spends too much. But, instead, the Democrat response is almost $400 billion of tax increase. Nationwide, that is about $2,400, $2,500 per family of four that is going to be taken out of the family budget and put into the Federal budget if they succeed in their largest single tax increase in American history.

They are going to eliminate the marriage penalty relief. They are going to bring back the marriage penalty so people who fall in love and get married have to pay more taxes than if the two were single.

They are going to cut the child tax credit in half. They are going to cut it in half as working families and working mothers all over America are struggling to meet the needs of their children and of child care.

And for the working poor, this one is so hard to believe, but for the working poor in the 10 percent bracket, they are going to raise their taxes 50 percent. Fifty percent, Mr. Speaker, on the working poor and take them back to the 15 percent bracket.

Where does it all end?

I myself hail from the Lone Star State of Texas. We are what is known as a sales tax State. We do not have a State income tax. We are very blessed that we do not have one. Yet there has been this inequity in the Tax Code that allows taxpayers who come from a State income tax State to deduct their taxes, but for those of us from a sales tax State, we don't have that benefit.

Well, the Republicans knew that was not equitable, and we passed tax relief so all Americans would enjoy tax relief, whether or not they are from a sales tax State or a State income tax State. Now under the Democrats' plan, under the single largest tax increase in America's history, they are going to bring back the penalty if you happen to hail from one of these sales tax States.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that we are joined tonight by another Member who comes from one of those sales tax States, one of the great leaders of the Republican Study Committee, one of the co-authors of the American Taxpayer Bill of Rights. At this time I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing to the floor very important aspects of this debate.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I just do not know how anybody can justify this single largest tax increase in American history, almost $400 billion of taxes that are going to get imposed on American families. In Texas, it is going to be taking away $2,700 on average from every family of four. I mean, that is impacting real families in Texas. It is taking away from their family budget.

Mr. Speaker, I recently contacted my constituents and I asked them if the Democrats are successful with their plan to put forth the single largest tax increase in American history, what is it going to mean to you?

Well, I heard from Diana in Mesquite, and she said: Congressman, I wanted to let you know that I am a single mom that does not receive any type of child support, and an increase of this amount would break me. I would be at risk of losing my home with this type of increase. I am writing to ask your help to keep this from happening. This would be devastating to middle-income families and families in my situation.

Again, Mr. Speaker, every time you plus-up, you increase the Federal budget, you are taking away from the family budget. You are taking away from Diana's budget in Mesquite, as she works to try to keep her home.

I heard from Brian who came from Dallas, and I asked him, and he said: Congressman Hensarling, the loss of $2,700 would affect our ability to pay tuition and books for our daughter to go to college. While she is a junior this year, we are trying to save money for her education, and as the cost of education increases each year, the loss of these funds due to an increase in taxes will have a negative impact on our plans for her education.

Again, what the Democrats are doing with their single largest tax increase in American history is they are getting the family budget. They are making it more difficult. They are making it more difficult for Brian to be able to send his daughter to college. There is no fairness in this. There is no compassion in this.

I have heard from many other constituents and the Democrats have to realize once again how devastating this is to American families. It is not their money, Mr. Speaker. They did not earn it. It belongs to the American people. It is their money. They need to use it for their education program.

I think it is again important to point out that if the Democrats are successful in their plan to engage in the single largest tax increase in American history, it is going to take away from American families their ability to send their children to college. It is going to take away from their ability to purchase their first homes. It is going to devastate the family budget so that Democrats can bulk up on the Federal budget. This is not fair, Mr. Speaker. This is not right.

Another gentleman who has been a great leader within our conference and a great leader in the Budget Committee and somebody who represents the people of south Alabama very well in this institution, who knows about the devastating impact that this Democrat budget could have on family budgets, is the gentleman from Alabama, and I would be happy to yield to Mr. Bonner.

We should obviously inform our Democrat colleagues that last I looked, the IRS takes voluntary contributions. So if they don't believe their taxes are high enough, if they don't believe the taxes of their constituents are high enough, they can simply add a zero to that line on the 1040 and send in more. They somehow act that there is a revenue deficiency in Washington, DC.

I don't know how much government spending is enough, but just looking over about the last 10 years, I see where the agricultural budget has increased 126 percent, the Federal transportation budget, 97 percent, the education budget, 75 percent, Medicare has increased 137 percent, all at the same time where the family budget has increased about 36 percent. The Federal budget is outpacing the family budget by 3 to 1, 4 to 1. That cannot continue.

So, again, we come back to the basic question. Is Washington spending too much, or are the American people undertaxed? I think the gentleman from Alabama has hit the nail on the head.

No, it went down again on a straight party line vote. It was a very simple amendment. Budgets are about priorities. At a time our Nation is fighting this war on terror, it was a very simple amendment. It said, you know what? Whatever figure we decide is the right figure for veterans' funding, and I know you can never give enough, but whatever it is, let's make sure we put a floor under it. Let's give it a firewall. Because too often what we find out in what we call the appropriations process up here, sometimes these funds get raided for other purposes, just like Congress has too many times raided the Social Security fund.

So this was a simple amendment that said we are going to put a firewall around veterans' spending, and the number that we put in the budget is sacrosanct. Every single Democrat on the Budget Committee voted against that amendment. They voted against veterans. It was not a proud day for the institution.

I thank the gentleman for his contribution this evening. I thank him for his leadership on the Budget Committee. And he has brought up a very important point, Mr. Speaker, that we have yet to talk about this evening, and that is, as the Democrats offer up their single largest tax increase in American history, that is like the appetizer. That is the appetizer.

As the gentleman from Alabama talked about his family, and he has a wonderful family, and we all think about our children and our grandchildren, but do we really think enough about them? Because let me tell you, the single largest tax increase in history is just the start. The Comptroller General, the Chief Fiduciary Officer of the Federal Government has said that if we don't begin to reform entitlement spending, this spending explosion in Washington, unless, as a society, we find a better way, a smarter way to deliver health care and retirement security at a more reasonable cost, we are going to be on a path to double taxes, double taxes on our children and grandchildren in just one generation. And that is why I say, the single largest tax increase in American history, that is just the appetizer. The entree is, because the Democrats have no reforms, no reforms of entitlement spending in their budget whatsoever, which is the single largest fiscal challenge we face, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the Federal Reserve Chairman, the Secretary of Treasury, anybody who is responsible for fiscal or monetary policy in America, the Democrat budget is silent on it. They are putting us on a path to double taxes on our children. And the Comptroller General, and I paraphrase, has said, we are on the verge of being the first generation in American history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living.

And as the father of a 5-year-old and a 3-year-old, I will not stand idly by and let that happen. I will raise my voice about this single largest tax increase in American history.

Mr. Speaker, we are joined by another great freshman member of the Republican Party who has been outspoken on these budget issues and somebody else who hasn't lost his ability to be outraged on how this will impact, the single largest tax increase in American history will impact the people in his district. And I am happy now to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

I thank the gentleman from Ohio for joining us this evening, for this debate about the very important budget that will be introduced and debated on this floor tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

Another aspect of this debate that is important to note, and I am sure we will hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, how tax relief over the last several years has somehow been a bad thing for America.

I might note, Mr. Speaker, that as we have given small businesses and America's families tax relief, guess what we have? We have more tax revenue. And, in fact, Mr. Speaker, we have more tax revenue than we have ever had in the

history of America. We are awash in tax revenue. Why? Because if you let the American people keep more of what they earn, they will save, they will invest, they will work hard. They will expand the automobile transmission shop on one street corner. They will go out and start a barbecue stand on another street corner. It is called entrepreneurial vision. People go out and roll up their sleeves and work hard, and that is what they have done.

And not only, Mr. Speaker, are we awash in tax revenue. In this case, tax relief has proven to be part of the deficit solution. We also have new jobs. Since we have had tax relief, we have created 7\1/2\ million new jobs in America. 7\1/2\ million new jobs. The greatest health care program, the greatest nutritional program, the greatest housing program in the history of America is the American free enterprise system and the jobs that it creates.

But, Mr. Speaker, if the Democrats go through with their program to have the single largest tax increase in American history, you start taking the jobs away. And somehow they call it compassion when they hand you a government check and they take away your paycheck, because when they increase taxes on American families and they increase taxes on small businesses, they take away our jobs. They take away our careers. They take away our futures. There is nothing fair about that, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing compassionate about that.

The Republican budget will ensure that hardworking American families are not burdened with further tax increases. The Republican budget will make sure that the next generation enjoys greater freedom and greater opportunity, and that vital programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that are going broke, that we reform them and modernize them and that we can save them for the next generation.

The Democrat budget is absolutely silent, absolutely silent on the number one fiscal challenge to the next generation.

They present a budget for the next election, Mr. Speaker. We are presenting a budget for the next generation.

So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the American people will follow this very important debate closely, because there are two different visions. One believes in the family budget; one believes in the Federal budget. One believes in American families keeping more of what they earn; the other believes in the single largest tax increase in American history. And it is not too late for us to vote for the family budget and against the single largest tax increase in American history.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps this is the single worst bill to come to the floor since I have been in Congress.

It is likely unconstitutional. It creates 435 Commanders in Chief. It attempts to micromanage the war. It threatens our national security. It contains billions in unrelated spending. It wraps old-fashioned pork in the American flag. * * *

Twenty-five million dollars handed out to spinach growers, $74 million for peanut storage, $35 million for NASA.

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of having the House have its proceedings move forward, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the offending word or words.

Mr. Speaker, again, $74 million for peanut storage, $35 million to NASA, $283 million for dairy products.

I question, is this the Democrats' version of fiscal responsibility? Is this their version of reform? Our national security should not be handled so frivolously. The cost of fighting this war obviously is high. The cost of fighting this war is obviously high, but the cost of losing this war is even higher.

I would say to my Democrat colleagues, if you don't believe in the mission, if you don't believe that our troops can win, then you have the power to bring them home, and bring them home today. But we shouldn't employ this slow-bleed strategy that could deny our troops vital reinforcements and vital equipment and open up pork-barrel spending to finance it.

A great Nation deserves better. We should vote this bill down.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, first, I wish to associate myself with the comments of my colleague from Texas and complimenting our chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts, in having a very fair and open hearing on this legislation. I often disagree with his philosophy, but I know that he is sincere in what he is trying to do, and I appreciate the fairness with which he has operated the committee and allowed these amendments come to the floor.

I also want to thank Ranking Member Bachus for his contribution to this legislation in trying to ensure that we do the right thing in New Orleans, that things can actually be better, that we don't have to return to the way that things were.

Clearly, these hurricanes represented one of the great natural tragedies in the history of America, and so many of us had friends and family who were affected. My in-laws live in the New Orleans area. For several days, my wife didn't know if her father had survived the hurricane. It turns out he was at the convention center along with thousands of others in fairly deplorable conditions.

But my in-laws were among the lucky ones: they survived. Although their home was damaged, it has been rebuilt. But I know how this has impacted people. I have been to the gulf coast and seen the hurt, yet seen the hope as well, and hope is still alive.

But 18, 19 months later, we have to ask ourselves this question, How do we best help going forward? America has been very generous, very generous with both their public and private funds. People throughout the Fifth Congressional District of Texas opened up their arms, opened up their wallets, opened up their homes to victims of the hurricanes.

The Federal taxpayer has now contributed well over $100 billion to this effort. Nobody can say that the American people have not been generous.

But I think we have to ask ourselves, Mr. Chairman, how do we best help going forward? I do not believe that it is always an additional Federal check. We also have to make sure that a great physical tragedy of this century or this generation doesn't turn out to be a great fiscal tragedy for the next generation as well.

This amendment would try to take a modest step towards achieving those goals. It has everything to do with providing a work-related requirement that this Congress is already well acquainted with that helped revolutionize welfare reform 10 years ago, and apply it going forward to those who are recipients of the vouchers and the housing programs under this bill.

Over 10 years ago, when Congress passed Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, we began the process of ending welfare as we had known it. Instead, we replaced it in this program with a temporary assistance-based program that was based on work and self-sufficiency and responsibility and personal dignity.

Now, at the time there were countless naysayers who said this was cruel and unusual. I offered this amendment in committee. It was called un- American. They said it had no compassion. They said the program would never work, that young mothers would somehow be thrown out into the streets with starving children, that somehow they could not find a job, much less hold a job.

Mr. Chairman, the naysayers were wrong then, and the naysayers are wrong now. If you look at the record, you will see that after we passed this TANF welfare reform and created incentives for self-sufficiency, the number of families receiving cash welfare steadily declined from an all-time peak of 5.1 million families in March of 1994 to 1.9 million families in September of 2006. It represents the lowest number of people on cash public assistance rolls in over 35 years. This, I believe, is compassionate.

Child poverty has fallen and 1.6 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1995 because of the work-related requirements that were in TANF. Child poverty has fallen dramatically, as I said. Employment of young, single mothers has doubled. Employing mothers who have never been married is up by more than 50 percent. Employment of single mothers who dropped out of high school is up by two-thirds, and we have seen unprecedented declines in poverty among children of single moms, from 50.3 percent a decade ago to 41.9 percent in 2004.

Again, the naysayers were wrong then, and the same naysayers are wrong yet again today.

Welfare reform worked 10 years ago because we cared enough to tell people, when they were facing challenges, that we were not going to allow them to give up trying. Now we have the same chance to extend this, to empower people who have been impacted by these terrible gulf coast hurricanes, some who have been stuck in public housing for 10, 15 or 20 years. We can show them that there is a better life, and it is within their reach; but the work is key to obtaining this.

So, again, my amendment is a simple one. It takes the list of approved work-related activities that have already been established over 10 years ago in welfare reform, as we know in TANF, and applies it to the recipients of this special public housing assistance that we are providing in this bill. Those recipients would be required to perform a minimum of 20 hours per week of work-related activities to help them get back on the road to self-sufficiency and move beyond public housing once and for all.

Now, the precedent for requiring recipients of public housing assistance to earn benefits is not new. In 1998, this body passed a law requiring able-bodied people living in public housing to perform 8 hours a month of community service with the notion that individuals ought to give back to their communities. My amendment would simply build on that notion and help put people back on the road to self- sufficiency.

Now, I know some people will say that individuals can't find work because there are simply no jobs to be found; therefore, this amendment will not work.

But that is a false charge on two counts. First, there are clearly entry-level jobs that are still available, for

example, in New Orleans. Pick up the want ads. You will see plenty of entry-level positions that are there, and they are trying to rebuild a great city. Workers are still needed to help rebuild New Orleans. So it is false on one account.

Second of all, it is false because under the TANF requirement, no one is required to get a job if the jobs don't exist. Instead, there are 12 distinct categories of work-related activities to give individuals a broad spectrum of activities to satisfy this requirement. It includes attempting to find work, vocational education, community service and, in some instances, providing child care services to others. Again, these are all activities designed to help people begin on the road to self-sufficiency.

To ensure that only the able-bodied are affected by this requirement, my amendment exempts children, senior citizens, the disabled, those already exempt from TANF work requirements and those who cannot find appropriate or affordable child care.

Mr. Chairman, the lessons of welfare reform are very clear. By expecting more of people, you can help them expect more out of themselves. We have the opportunity to extend that, the great lessons and the great benefits of that today. We should not miss any opportunity to help break this cycle of dependency and help people change their lives for the better.

We need to help the people of the gulf coast, but we need to help the taxpayers as well. We need to ensure that the American people don't face a challenge like this going forward in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Does the gentleman yield time?

I am not sure what data you would be looking for. I believe it's a very important principle. The data that I have seen is the data that I have cited on the benefits of applying a work-related requirement to an income-based program.

Well, I would apply the statistics in the data that I have seen from the improvements in TANF to this program.

Well, to help answer the question of the gentleman from Georgia, I wasn't in Congress, so therefore I had no amendment to offer.

Well, as typical, what I would try to do is offer offsets. And I believe that any income-based program of cash assistance or other welfare assistance ought to be tied to a self-sufficiency requirement.

Again, I believe that anybody who is receiving income-based assistance from the Federal Government ultimately ought to be on the road to self-sufficiency. As I understand it, some of that--

Mr. Chairman, again, this is a very, very simple amendment. I have no idea what is so cruel and unusual about people having the opportunity to become self-reliant, to earn paychecks instead of welfare checks.

The gentleman from Georgia, who spoke with great stridency, I don't question his sincerity; I do question a number of his policies. I have no doubt that the gentleman has voted against tax relief to help create 7\1/2\ million jobs turning welfare checks to paychecks.

So the gentleman has different ways of trying to help people. I look at the statistics. What has helped people? What has brought down child poverty rates? What has helped single mothers find self-sufficiency?

So I don't understand, after 18 months, after $100 billion of taxpayer money, why it is so bad to say people ought to be on the road to self-sufficiency.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I certainly thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I especially thank her for her leadership. She was one of the prime architects of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights that was unveiled today in the United States Capitol. It is a very bold concept that we have, and that is that taxpayers, taxpayers ought to have rights that will be as respected and as revered as those that are enshrined in our United States Constitution.

Now, why is this so important? Just within the last 2 to 3 weeks, we have heard reports now from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the Government Accountability Office, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury, every single person, or every single department that is in charge of either the monetary or fiscal policy of our government have all come to the same conclusion; and that is the number one challenge that we face, the number one fiscal challenge that we face in America is the out-of- control spending represented by what we call entitlement spending.

Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle, they don't want to do anything to help reform entitlement spending. They don't seem to want to work with us to find better, smarter, more accountable ways to deliver health care and to deliver retirement security at a more reasonable and affordable cost. So what that means is, there will be a tax increase, yet another tax increase on the American people.

Now, immediately, they have their sights on the tax relief that was passed in the last few years, the tax relief that has now created over 7.5 million new jobs in America; 7.5 million more people are working now because of the economic growth due to that tax relief. They want to do away with that.

We have the highest home ownership we have ever had in the history of America, home ownership, part and parcel of the American dream, and thanks to this tax relief, we have that. Household net worth is up. The unemployment rate is lower than it was in the average of the 1990s, the 1980s, the 1970s, and even the 1960s. All of this is due to tax relief.

But our friends on the other side of the aisle, they want to take it away. They would take the working poor and increase their taxes 50 percent. They would take away the 10 percent bracket, bring back the 15 percent bracket. They bring back the marriage penalty, the marriage penalty. Tomorrow, if you fall in love, you get married, you pay higher taxes. The list goes on and on. Now, that is bad enough, but that is just what would happen immediately if we don't have a Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

More importantly, as time goes by, just to pay for the government we have today, the government programs which are on automatic pilot to grow exponentially, if I remember my 8th grade geometry, it's not growing like that, it's not growing like that, it's growing like that. These programs are growing exponentially. What is going to happen is, as time goes by, the children and grandchildren of our families, they will be facing a tax increase of almost double their present taxes.

Again, let me restate that, double taxes. The average American family today pays about $20,000 a year combined in their Federal income taxes and their payroll taxes. People who are viewing this debate now, their children, their grandchildren, are going to be facing a crushing tax burden of almost $40,000.

Again, don't take my word for it. Go to the Web site of the Office of Management and Budget. Go to the Web site of the Government Accountability Office.

The Comptroller General, I guess you would call him the ``chief green eyeshade guy'' for the Federal Government, our key actuary, has said something along the lines, and this is a paraphrase, that we stand on the verge of being the first generation, the first generation in American history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living.

Mr. Speaker, my wife and I have a 5-year-old daughter and a 3-year- old son, I am not just going to sit idly by and allow that to happen, allow that to happen. We have to have a Taxpayer Bill of Rights today to save the taxpayers of the future from this crushing burden. Shame on us if we do nothing, if all we do is look to the next election and not the next generation.

That is why it was so important, particularly having the help of the gentlelady from Tennessee in helping craft this Taxpayer Bill of Rights, four very fundamental principles that are so important to the future of this country.

Number one, and probably the most important principle, every taxpayer ought to have the right to have their Federal Government not grow faster than their ability to pay for it. What a radical concept to think that if your family budget grows 3 or 4 percent, why should the Federal budget grow 7, 8 or 9 percent?

Ultimately, we cannot sustain that growth rate, because every time, every time we balloon the Federal budget, we are putting the family budget in a vice. That means there are families all over the Fifth District of Texas, that I have the honor of representing in the hallowed halls of Congress, some family in the Fifth District of Texas, now they are not going to be able to send a kid

to college because there is a plan, they don't have any rights as taxpayers, and their taxes are going to get increased 50 to 100 percent.

Some family in the Fifth District of Texas will not be able to enjoy their version of the American dream, express their entrepreneurial spirit and start their first small business. Some family in the Fifth District of Texas, they are not going to be able to get the proper, long-term care for an aged parent, all because Uncle Sam will take more taxes, more and more taxes, just to pay for the programs we have today.

So we believe that every taxpayer ought to have the right to have their Federal Government not grow beyond their ability to pay for it. The Federal budget should not be growing faster than the family budget.

Second of all, we know how important Social Security is to our seniors. Not only am I a father, I am very happy that I have parents who have Social Security. It is part of their income. It is a very important program.

But every taxpayer who pays into Social Security ought to have the right to know that their Social Security taxes will be used only for Social Security. We know if we don't reform that program, if we don't take it away from big spending liberals in Congress, they are just going to blow it on something else. That is not right.

Every taxpayer should have the right, should have the fundamental right, who pays into Social Security, to have that money go to Social Security.

Third, the Tax Code is wrong. It is unfair, it is complex, it is unconscionable. It ought to be pulled out by its roots and thrown away. Every taxpayer should have the right to a fair and simple Tax Code, one that they can understand, one that they don't have to employ an army of lawyers and accountants to explain to them, a Tax Code where, if you call the IRS, you shouldn't get five different answers just because you talk to five different people about a problem.

They ought to have a right to a Tax Code that, due to its complexity, doesn't send jobs overseas.

It is time to sunset the Tax Code. We want to sunset the Tax Code in 3 years and force this body to replace it with something that will be fair, something that will be simple.

Winston Churchill once said that Americans will usually do the right thing once they have exhausted every other possibility. It is time to exhaust the other possibilities and help force this Congress to do the right thing and scrap the Code.

Fourth, the fourth right of the conservative movement in the House, the Republican Study Committee, we believe that every taxpayer ought to have the right to have their Federal Government balance the budget. Families all across America have to balance their budget. Why doesn't the Federal Government balance theirs and balance it without raising their taxes?

Of course, we can balance the budget if we double their taxes, if we take away their hopes to send a kid to college, if we take away their hopes to start a small business, if we take away their hopes of providing long-term care for an aged parent. Sure, that is one way of balancing the budget, but there is another way. It is for Members of Congress to actually do the hard labor of prioritizing all the Federal expenditures and getting there and reforming ancient programs that are no longer fulfilling their mission, or maybe they already have. Maybe they have already achieved success.

It wasn't too long ago that I figured out that we were still paying for Radio Free Europe. I don't know how many people who are listening to the proceedings this evening remember Radio Free Europe; it served a very vital role in helping win the Cold War. But if I remember my history properly, the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. We should have given everybody at Radio Free Europe a great party, given them a great bonus check and used that money to help shore up Social Security.

President Ronald Reagan once said the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program. So we have to decide, what is the priority around here? We need to balance the budget.

The easiest thing Members of Congress do is, they say ``yes'' to some constituency today, and then they just go ahead and send the bills to a future generation. Just by leaving government on automatic pilot they are sending bills to future generations, because we know again, if the Democrats on the other side of the aisle will not work with us to reform out-of-control, runaway entitlement spending, again, our children and grandchildren are going to face a doubling of their taxes. That is unconscionable, absolutely unconscionable.

So we, the conservatives within the House of Representatives, represented by the Republican Study Committee, believe that taxpayers deserve four fundamental rights: a right to have a government grow no faster than their ability to pay for it; they should have the right that every single penny of their Social Security tax dollars goes to Social Security; they ought to have the right to a fair and simple Tax Code; and they should have the right to have the Federal Government balance the budget so that they don't end up paying half of their tax burden for previous generations.

So I am very happy that 100-plus members of the Republican Study Committee have come together to embrace this Taxpayer Bill of Rights. It is a very exciting concept, and one, Mr. Speaker, that legislation will be introduced in the weeks and months to come, that we will be talking about from coast to coast, north to south, east to west, that we believe will capture the imagination of the American people so that finally some amount of fairness and some amount of rationality can come in, because if we say ``yes'' to everybody who walks in our office today with their hand out, we end up saying ``no'' to our children's future.

And, again, I don't want to be a part of the first generation in America to leave the next generation a lower standard of living. That is not the American way. That is not the American dream. There is a better way, and it is called the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

And with that I would be happy to yield back to the gentlelady.

I certainly thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for yielding. I particularly appreciate her leadership not only within the Republican Study Committee, the conservative caucus in the House of Representatives, but also her great leadership on issues that impact the family budget,

spending, because we know in this institution that you can't increase some Federal budget without decreasing some family budget.

At the moment we are talking about this thing, what most people call Card Check, which sounds innocent enough on its face, but I would note, as my colleagues have said, that it took the Democrats about 2 days to go ahead and waive their own pay-as-you-go provision that supposedly made sure we weren't going to get deeper in debt, it took them about 2 weeks to raise taxes on the American people, and, also, almost took them 2 full months before they started to try to repudiate the right to a secret ballot of American workers, before they try to take back the franchise from American workers. They have been very busy since they took over the House.

Now, the formal title of this piece of legislation that we are speaking about this afternoon is the Employee Free Choice Act. Now, Madam Speaker, we know that somewhere running around here in the Capitol are people who are paid to come up with clever titles for pieces of legislation. Well, whoever came up with that title surely deserves a bonus.

San Francisco, California, not exactly known as a bastion of conservative thought in America, one of their daily newspapers, the San Francisco Examiner, called that title exquisitely Orwellian, in referring to the famous author George Orwell and his book, 1984.

Madam Speaker, I don't know about you, but I know when I was in high school many, many years ago in College Station, Texas, that was required reading. For those who have read it either voluntarily or involuntarily, they may recall that to be Orwellian meant to turn things on their head to call black, white; to call up, down; to call good, bad. I must admit that the Orwell estate must be doing well, because people are still clearly buying his works.

This proposed Act has nothing to do with freedom. This proposed Act has nothing to do with choice. This proposed Act is nothing less, nothing less than a full frontal assault, a full, frontal assault of a worker's fundamental right to cast a secret ballot to choose whether or not they want to be a member of a labor union.

What is more fundamental to our democracy than the secret ballot? It is one of the pillars. It is one of the pillars of democracy, and yet the Democrats, in this cleverly titled bill, they want to take that away.

I might suggest that if they want to take that away, that Members of Congress who are going to vote for this Act, which will be on the floor tomorrow, maybe they ought to think about cosponsoring some companion legislation, and let's go ahead and just spread it all over America. Why don't we just go ahead and provide for card check for congressional elections?

Let's get rid of that secret ballot booth. Instead, why don't you publicly have to come down and take a little card and check in front of your friends, your neighbors, not to mention those who may not be too friendly to you, and just say who you are voting for. If it is good enough for congressional elections, it ought to be good enough for labor union elections.

Yet, again, Democrats are going to come to this floor tomorrow and vote on a piece of legislation to fundamentally take away the right to a secret ballot from workers all across America. By the way, poll after poll of labor union members say they are against this. They say it is fundamentally unfair to take away their secret ballot.

Now the labor union bosses making the six-figure salaries out of their dues, they have a different opinion. In fact, one was quoted saying ``there is no reason to subject the workers to an election.'' No reason to subject the workers to an election. Kind of sounds like something Hugo Chavez might say in Venezuela.

You know, there is just no reason to subject the people to an election. But it does appear to be every single reason to subject workers to pressure and intimidation, and that is what this bill is all about. There have been card check campaigns in the recent past. This is known, you can go to public sources.

Now there was a union organizing at MGM in Las Vegas and union organizers threatened those people who would not check that they wanted to join a union. They said if we want to take over, we will get your job one way or another. We will get your job.

There was a United Steel Workers official. He was told to threaten migrant workers with deportation if they would not pick up the card and check that they wanted to be in the labor union. I don't know where the freedom is. I don't know where the choice is, but I certainly know where the pressure and the intimidation is.

Recently, just this last week, we had testimony from a worker in Oregon who said that when she would not publicly check the card that she wanted to join a labor union, that her work life became miserable, miserable when she refused to do this. Again, this is nothing more than assault on a fundamental right to a secret ballot in a labor union election.

This overturns decades and decades of custom and practice and law in America on how people can choose.

Now, listen, we live in a free society. We should live in a free society. Workers ought to be able to choose if they want to be part of a labor union. That is not a question. There is only one question that is going to be before the floor and that question is, should workers have the right to a secret ballot? Are they going to be open to intimidation, pressure and shakedown? Not one worker in America, not one worker in America is going to be benefited by this.

Now, I can think of others who are going to be benefited by this, because all of a sudden, labor union bosses are automatically going to have access to hard-working Americans' paychecks where they used to not have that, to source the money, and unfortunately, so many of these issues come down to money.

Indeed, follow the money. It may be instructive. The Pew Foundation has indicated that over half a billion dollars of labor union money has gone to the Democrat party since 1994. You know, even in Washington DC, a half a billion dollars is a lot of money. Seven out of the top ten political contributors in America are organized labor. The American people don't want this, workers don't want this, even unionized workers don't want this, but labor union bosses do. They want a fundamental assault on the right, the right to a secret ballot. What a day of infamy it will be in this House, should we approve that.

I wanted to follow up on the gentlelady's point, again. We are trying to preserve the fundamental right to the secret ballot in labor union elections. No matter what the opposition says that this is going to do, what we know is from the actual people, actual workers who are subjected to this card check procedure, we know intimidation and harassment is taking place.

Madam Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record a statement from Mike Ivey, materials handler at Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation in Gaffney, South Carolina.

Statement of Mike Ivey, Materials Handler, Freightliner Custom Chassis

Corporation

My name is Mike Ivey, and I appreciate the opportunity to

share with the committee my experiences under an abusive card

check organizing drive which is still ongoing after 4\1/2\

years.

Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation (FCCC) in Gaffney,

South Carolina, has employed me for approximately 7 years. We

are a non-union facility and more than the majority of

employees are extremely proud of that fact. The problems we

have started in the fall of 2002.

During contract negotiations for their union facilities,

the UWA and Daimler Chrysler Corporation reached a card check

agreement to allow the UAW to try to organize their non-union

facilities. This agreement prevents FCCC from doing anything

positive for their employees, or discussing the situation

with the employees. This agreement also allows the union to

recruit and pay FCCC employees at this facility to handle

their card check system.

The card check system consists of coercing employees to

sign a card for the union. If enough cards are signed, 50

percent + 1, then the facility is considered to be a union

facility. In this process of obtaining the needed signatures,

there are a lot of untruths told.

Early on, the employees for a non-union FCCC signed and

submitted a petition which clearly states that they want no

union representation at this facility. More than 70 percent

of all employees signed this petition. The UAW and Daimler

Chrysler Corporation received these petitions with no

response, nor any halt in the card check drive.

In April 2003, the CEO of Daimler Chrysler promised the

employees of FCCC a wage increase at a plant-wide meeting. In

August 2003, when the time came to make good on that promise,

the union threatened a lawsuit against Daimler Chrysler if

the wage increase was implemented. They feared that

if employees got the wage increase they had long been

promised, it would reduce support for the union. We

obtained free legal aid from the National Right to Work

Legal Defense Foundation, and only after we filed charges

at the National Labor Relations Board, did the union allow

the pay increase.

Employees are told at off-site meetings that signing a card

only certifies that they attended the meeting. Employees are

also offered a free t-shirt if they sign a card. What they

are not told is that these cards are a legally binding

document, which states that the employee is pro union--thus

placing the union one step closer to their goal of complete

control of the employees' workplace lives without the

employees even realizing it.

In the workplace, the employees running the organizing

campaign for the UAW are relentless in trying to get the

employees to sign union cards. This has created a hostile

work environment, with employees who once were friends who

are now at odds with each other.

The employees who are not in support of the union should

have the right to go to work and not be harassed every day.

This harassment has been going on more than 4 years with no

end in sight. Faced with this neverending onslaught, we

employees feel that the UAW is holding our heads under water

until we drown.

In April 2005, the UAW obtained the personal information of

each employee. It wasn't enough that employees were being

harassed at work, but now they are receiving phone calls at

home. The UAW also had union employees from other facilities

actually visit these employees at their homes. The union's

organizers refuse to take ``no'' for an answer. If you told

one group of organizers that you were not interested, the

next time they would send someone else.

Moreover, in many instances, employees who signed cards

under pressure or false pretenses later attempted to retrieve

or void this card. The union would not allow this to happen,

telling them that they could not do so.

After 4\1/2\ years of trying to organize our facility, the

majority of employees are still against the union by roughly

a 3 to 1 ratio.

We feel that the aggressive behavior of UAW organizers will

only escalate in 2007. All the union Freightliner facilities

are facing major layoffs in the coming months. We expect the

UAW to turn up the heat at our Gaffney facility to make up

for the dues revenue shortfalls at the union facilities.

I understand that some members of Congress would like to

mandate this abusive card check process for selecting a union

so that employees everywhere will go through what we continue

to experience. Rather than increasing this coercive practice,

Congress should ban it.

Everyone in public office is elected by secret ballot vote.

Please give us a chance in our workplace to make the decision

on representation in the same manner.

I will read from it in part, ``My name is Mike Ivey, and I appreciate the opportunity to share with the committee my experiences under an abusive card check organizing drive which is still ongoing after 4\1/2\ years.''

So 4\1/2\ years this fight has been going on in Gaffney, South Carolina. Apparently it is dating back to fall 2002. This gentleman talks about what is going on in these 4\1/2\ years.

To quote from his letter, ``The employees who are not in support of the Union should have the right to go to work and not be harassed every day. This harassment has been going on more than 4 years with no end in sight. Faced with this never-ending onslaught, we employees feel that the United Auto Workers is holding our heads under water until we drown.''

Quoting from his statement further, ``In April of 2005, the UAW obtained the personal information of each employee. It wasn't enough that employees were being harassed at work, but now they are receiving phone calls at home. The UAW also had Union employees from other facilities actually visit these employees at their homes.'' The organizers would not take no for an answer.

``Some employees have had five or more harassing visits from these union organizers. The only way, it seems, to stop the badgering and pressure is to sign the card.'' That's the pressure, that's the intimidation.

I would quote further from this statement, ``Moreover in many instances, employees who signed cards under pressure or false pretenses later attempted to retrieve or void this card.''

The union would not allow this to happen. After 4\1/2\ years of trying to organize the facility, 4\1/2\ years, Madam Speaker, the majority of employees are still against it by roughly a 3-1 ratio.

He goes on to say, and imploring this body, Madam Speaker, ``Rather than increasing this coercive practice, Congress should ban it. Everyone in public office is elected by secret ballot. Please give us a chance in our workplace to make the decision on representation in the same manner.''

Madam Speaker, again, every single person who comes to the floor of the House, the Members of this institution, are elected by secret ballot. Our constituents, our workers, both union and nonunion, cry out for the same fundamental fairness and the same fundamental democratic rights.

But since labor union bosses helped the Democrats, since labor union bosses need more money in their coffers, they have found a new and innovative way to get money, and that is through this thing called ``card check.''

And what is interesting, also, Madam Speaker, if you will look at those who are bringing this legislation to the floor, for example, the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, well, he seems to have done a bit of a flip-flop on the issue. He and several other lead sponsors of this legislation, just a few years ago, for whatever reason, counseled the Mexican Government about labor union elections. Let me quote from their letter.

``We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for, but not required by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they may otherwise not choose.''

I mean, this was sent by the sponsor of this legislation. So 5, 6 years ago, he believed that Mexicans fundamentally should have the right to a secret ballot in labor union organizing. But now, in 2007, he wants to deny that very same fundamental right to American workers. I don't get it, Madam Speaker. What has changed?

Well, what has changed is clearly, number one, declining union membership and an election. And I understand elections have consequences, but the American people need to be watching very, very closely, very closely what this is all about, because my guess is most of them did not vote to fundamentally deny Democrat rights to American workers, to fundamentally strip them of their right to a secret ballot on whether or not they care to join a labor union. And so I hope, Madam Speaker, that the entire attention of America will be on this body tomorrow.

Again, 90 percent of Americans believe fundamentally you ought to have the right to a secret ballot in these elections. Survey after survey of workers, including unionized workers, believe this as well. But apparently the Democrat majority and labor union bosses who put all kinds of money into these races believe otherwise. And so it will be a very significant vote on this House floor tomorrow.

Will this body stand for democracy? Will this body stand for the secret ballot? Will this body stand for American workers? Or will this body stand for labor union bosses who want to get their hands on more worker money?

And with that I would be happy to yield back to the gentlelady.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding once again. And we are going to have a very important debate tomorrow in this institution about whether or not the Democrat majority will strip workers of their fundamental right to the secret ballot in labor union organizing elections.

But beyond that we know what is next on their agenda. It didn't take them too long, about 2 weeks, to first raise taxes on the American people; and that is the next big debate that will be taking place in this institution. It is all about the budget.

Now, everybody in this House, both Republican and Democrat alike, will all tell you they want to balance the budget. And you know what? I believe each and every one of them. But there is a very, very different way to go about it.

Today the debate in the House tends to be whether or not tax relief that has been granted over the last 5 years was a good thing or bad thing. Well, guess what? We put tax relief into the economy on this end, and let's see what comes out on the other end: 7.2 million jobs; 7.2 million Americans who used to

not have work now have work. How many of them used to have to settle for a welfare check, but now they have a paycheck?

How many took from the system, from unemployment and food stamps and Aid to Families with Dependent Children, who now get to pay in the system because they have a paycheck?

We have one of the strongest economies that we have had in decades. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates we have had. All of that was due to tax relief.

And, Madam Speaker, for purposes of this debate, and this is a very important point, and don't take my word for it, go to the United States Treasury. Tax rates have been lowered, and guess what? We have more tax revenue. We have more tax revenue than we have ever had in the history of the United States of America.

Now, how can that happen? Well, maybe it is difficult to understand in Washington, D.C., but it is pretty easy to understand in Tennessee Colony in Anderson County, Texas, that I have the pleasure of representing in the United States Congress. If you will allow farmers and ranchers, if you will allow small business people, if you will allow American families to keep more of what they earn, guess what? They will save. They will invest. They will go out and create their American dream and put a new automobile transmission shop on one street corner. They will add another couple of jobs at a barbecue stand. And guess what? They create jobs of the future, and we have more revenue.

Now, Madam Speaker, some people may reject this theory. You can't, you may have your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. You cannot debate that we have more tax revenue. But some people don't see a link between job creation and tax relief.

Even if I am wrong, Madam Speaker, if you will look at the Federal budget, if you will look at the Federal budget, if we had a line item called tax relief in the Federal budget, it is 1 percent, a little more than 1 percent of the entire Federal budget. Even if that money was wasted, burned, buried and didn't do any good to the economy, had no connection to job creation, to home ownership, to people being able to send their kids to college, it is about 1 percent of the budget.

My point is if you want to do something about the deficit, your focus needs to be on the spending side. We have a deficit not because we are undertaxed; we have a deficit because we are spending too much.

And listen, I take a back seat to no one as far as my concern about passing debt on to future generations. I am the father of a 5-year old and the father of a 3-year old. But even if we were to balance the budget today, and thanks to Republican progrowth economic policies, we will balance the budget, it has very little to do with spending discipline. We know we don't find any of that among our Democrat colleagues. It has everything to do with tax revenue growth.

But even if we were to balance the budget in the next few years, as my colleague from Tennessee has indicated, in Washington, D.C., tax relief is temporary, but spending is forever. So much spending has been put on automatic pilot. And it just doesn't grow horizontally, it grows exponentially.

If we don't do something now to reform the spending patterns in Washington, D.C., the next generation will face a nasty fiscal fork in the road. And don't take my word for it. Go to the General Accountability Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office. They will all tell you the same thing. We are on the verge of either having to double taxes on the next generation or practically cut out the entirety of the Federal Government except Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Just think about it, Madam Speaker. There will be no United States Marines. There will be no Border Patrol. There will be no student loans. There will be no airport security.

If we don't take fundamental steps now to end wasteful, unaccountable, runaway spending in Washington, D.C., that is the future we are facing. The Comptroller General of the United States has said in testimony before the Budget Committee that we may be on the verge of being the first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with fewer opportunities and a lower standard of living.

Madam Speaker, I don't plan to be a part of that, and I am going to do everything I can to fight this on this House floor. So those who go around saying we must balance the budget and those who won't do anything to try to find ways to get better retirement security and better health care at a lower cost, what they are really telling you, Madam Speaker, is, I want to double taxes on the next generation. I want to leave your children and your grandchildren with less freedom and less opportunity.

Madam Speaker, how anybody can look themselves in the mirror and do that, I don't know. Again, that is the magnitude of the tax increase that Democrats are going to have to have if they won't join us in a bipartisan fashion and do something about out-of-control entitlement spending. It will be a massive tax increase the likes of which America has never seen before. And once they impose that tax increase on the American people, how many of our children will be able to send their children to college? How many of our children will be able to realize their American Dream and start their first business? How many of our children will be able to buy their first home when this body doubles their taxes for refusing, refusing, to do anything to stop runaway spending?

So, Madam Speaker, that is where the fight is. That is where the fight is. Republicans want to try to reform. Democrats want to raise taxes, but they don't own up to the magnitude of the tax increases. But the future of our country is resting upon this debate, and I hope the American people will watch very, very closely.