Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, private property has been among the most sacred rights of the American people since our founding as a Nation. Likewise, the government's duty to protect private property has remained among its most sacred responsibilities.

John Adams once wrote, ``The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.''

Well, Mr. Chairman, the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London has commenced the tyranny. It is laying siege to the idea that a man's home is his castle.

While it is true that the principle of eminent domain is established in our Constitution, it exists for an extremely limited purpose.

The dissenters in the Kelo case correctly note that the Court has abandoned a ``long-held basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner.''

The Court essentially now gives local governments the power to seize property to simply generate tax revenue. Under their ruling, your local city council can now take your home and give it to Starbucks so they can sell vente mocha lattes. Mr. Chairman, are we still in America?

By passing the Private Property Rights Protection Act, Congress can help secure this most sacred right. H.R. 4128 will rightfully increase the penalties for States. We should stand for freedom and private property and support this act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech Act.

My bill is a simple one. It is only one sentence long. It achieves one goal, but that goal is a worthy one: the protection of free speech on the Internet.

Without this legislation, I fear that the cold, callous, and clumsy hand of Federal regulation may stifle political speech in cyberspace. Recently, we know the Federal judiciary ruled that, absent our congressional action, the FEC must regulate this form of speech, even though the FEC clearly does not want to. The newest battlefield in the fight to protect the first amendment is the Internet. Today, the Internet is free from FEC regulation. Clearly, it should remain that way.

The Internet is a marketplace of ideas that welcomes all participants on equal footing. It is extremely cheap. In fact, if one has access to the Internet at home or a public library, it can be free, absolutely free. A Web site's success is driven by the quality of its content, not the quantity of funds that are poured into it. It is one of the most democratic forms of speech that we know today, and it is an outstanding opportunity for all individuals across

our Nation to participate in our democratic process and impact public policy.

The Internet, Mr. Speaker, is the new town square; and campaign finance regulations are not appropriate there. Not only would such regulation be a nightmare to administer and enforce, it would place complex responsibility on ordinary citizens that would functionally restrict their political free speech and violate their first amendment rights. Today, thousands and thousands of Americans run blogs that are focused on politics, and millions of viewers visit their favorite bloggers' Web sites for commentary often not found in the mainstream media.

Without H.R. 1606, I fear that bloggers one day could be fined for improperly linking to a campaign Web site, or merely forwarding a candidate's press release to an e-mail list, and the list goes on. If bloggers are compelled to hire lawyers to navigate this complex, gray, murky world of Federal regulation, many will simply cease to operate. That would only leave the wealthier participants in this blog-osphere and undermine public access to information and the chance for smaller groups to participate in our democracy in this fashion.

Those opposing the bill claim that some day, somehow, somewhere, there may be corruption. Yet the FEC itself could not see the threat of corruption that is present in a ``medium that allows almost limitless, inexpensive communication across the broadest cross-section of the American population.'' Let those who cry corruption cite examples and carry the burden in this debate to abridge the first amendment rights of our citizens. Mr. Speaker, it is a heavy burden to carry.

In 2002, before I came to this body, Congress passed a sweeping new campaign finance law; and, in a rare moment of restraint, nowhere in the new law did Congress impose restrictions on the Internet. Consequently, the FEC, the entity solely devoted to regulating campaign activity, left that promising new technology alone.

Under the new law, public communications were clearly defined; and, just as clearly, the Internet does not appear on this list. Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain that Congress was aware of the Internet's existence 3 years ago. Indeed, it is mentioned in other parts of the legislation.

So, logically, the FEC declined to regulate public communications online, equating the give and take on the Internet to candidate forums and rallies and debates that are open to the public. Just like on the street corner, people can talk back to a blog by writing their own posts or establishing their own sites. How do you talk back to a radio ad except with another radio ad that costs perhaps tens of thousands of dollars to run? This is very different. Web sites and messages are very effective, very democratic, and very affordable tools, a different means of communication.

Despite congressional silence on this matter, in 2004, a Federal court instructed the FEC to regulate Internet communications, and that process is under way. Because the vast majority of Web sites are independently and inexpensively operated, regulatory burdens are going to limit the Internet's usefulness as a political forum.

I am gratified to see the thoughtful and energetic response of the blog-osphere to these proposed rules. It is just this type of free exchange of opinions that we are trying to protect today. The bottom line is that campaign finance laws must enhance, not hinder electoral participation; and I should note that campaign blogs and all official campaign activities will still be regulated by the FEC after the passage of this legislation.

I am proud that my democratic colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, has cosponsored this bill, signifying that this is truly a bipartisan effort. In the other body, the distinguished Senate minority leader has partnered with my friend, Senator Coburn, to defend American freedom of speech online by introducing this identical language in the other body.

Over 200 years ago, in this House of Representatives, James Madison stated, ``The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments.'' Today, Congress finds itself debating the very same rights under far more modern realities.

New regulations are not the answer each time a new technology emerges. The bipartisan Online Freedom of Speech Act protects the first amendment rights of Internet users and prevents the FEC from making needless and arbitrary distinctions.

When the choice is between more regulation and more freedom, we should always err on the side of freedom.

Mr. Speaker, tonight, we are coming here to talk about a very important piece of legislation titled the Deficit Reduction Act.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is seeing a number of challenges here, obviously 9/11, which we have heard a lot about. Recently our Nation has been hit with a number of hurricanes, natural disasters that have proven very, very costly to our Nation. Now we have seen the threat of avian flu. There are a number of different challenges our Nation faces, and we will meet these challenges; but meeting these challenges is not free.

Particularly within the context of the hurricanes that have hit, at the end of the day, when we look at the Federal response, how much money the Federal Government is going to spend, there are really only three ways that we are going to be able to pay for this. Either number one we are going to raise taxes on hardworking American families yet again as they are facing challenges in meeting the cost of filling up their pick-up trucks and heating their homes, or we are going to pass debt on to our children, even more debt to be passed on to our children. But, Mr. Speaker, we on the Republican side of the aisle believe that there is another way, and that way is to restrain the growth of government. That way is to protect the family budget from the Federal budget.

We are going to spend some time, Mr. Speaker, this evening bringing up some very interesting facts that we believe the American people need to know.

Number one, you will hear this evening about how tax relief that we have brought to American families and small businesses, that has been part of our deficit solution, not part of our deficit problem; and we will talk about that later this evening because there has been a lot of misinformation there.

In addition, we have heard the other side talk about gross and draconian cuts in the Federal budget. Well, what we are going to discover, Mr. Speaker, is what they call a draconian cut is trying to restrain the growth of government so we do not have to raise taxes, so we do not have to pass on debt to our children. It is the same old song we have heard from them for 50 years.

What we also hear from them is that somehow any reform, any accountability that we institute in the Federal budget is somehow tantamount to hurting the poor. Mr. Speaker, we do not buy that. The American people do not buy that either because we know that year after year after year, as we dump new programs on top of old programs, as the Federal Government refuses to measure the success, the progress, the ability of these programs to meet goals, that we have a budget now that is fraught with waste. It is fraught with abuse. It is fraught with duplication.

Mr. Speaker, finally, not all spending is created equal. Families all over America have to make some tough decisions occasionally at the end of the month when that paycheck begins to run out, and this is what people do in a great Nation.

In my own family, if we are a little low on money at the end of the month, I am not going to tell my two children, my 3\1/2\-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son, I am sorry, children, you just cannot have anymore milk because your mom and I have got this great movie we want to go see. What happens is my wife and I do not go to the movie. Instead, we buy the milk for the children.

Some spending in the Federal budget is just not high priority, not when compared to trying to relieve human suffering along the gulf coast that has been wrought by these hurricanes. So the American people, I think they instinctively know, but occasionally we have to remind them about what is in this Federal budget.

Mr. Speaker, often when we spend money here in Washington, D.C., many good things come from it: Kevlar vests for our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and fighting in the global war on terror. Occasionally money is spent to help start a small business; but more often than not, though, we see that this money is spent for an $800,000 outhouse in a national park and the toilet does not even flush. We see it spent on 342 different Federal economic development programs, 342. Does that not suggest some duplication? More often than not, it is spent on food stamps where 10, 20, and sometimes 30 percent of the recipients do not even qualify because we are not checking their income levels, and the list goes on and on and on.

The important thing, Mr. Speaker, that we need to know this evening is that there are plenty of places in the Federal budget where we can save money so that families do not have to cut their budgets because every dollar we spend here is a dollar that we cannot spend back in Texas or Tennessee or Virginia or New York.

At the end of the day, it is not the government's money. It is the people's money, and we need to institute more accountability in the system. I wish more of our friends on the Democrat side of the aisle would come and help us, but too often they have bottled up each and every reform. They do not believe that there is any waste in the Federal budget. They do not believe there is any duplication in the Federal budget. They believe all spending is great spending, that nothing good has ever happened in our Nation unless it as the result of a Federal program; and that is not true.

So, Mr. Speaker, the first thing that we want to discuss this evening is to talk a little bit about what is in this Federal budget, this $2.4 trillion budget, a budget that over the last 10 years has been growing at least a third faster than the family budget, a Federal budget that, in my lifetime, Mr. Speaker, has grown seven times faster than the family budget. That is an unconscionable growth rate. That is an unsustainable growth rate.

Again, our purpose here is to provide reforms. It is to provide accountability, and it is to spare our children the future of having to have a massive tax increase or massive debt placed on them.

So we want to talk about different ways that we believe that we can save money in Washington, D.C. without cutting vital programs. We want to make sure that the social safety net is in place; but we know that the greatest social welfare program, the greatest housing program, the greatest education program in the history of mankind is a job, a job provided by the American free enterprise system, which is what our economic policies are all about. That is why we have been able to create 4 million new jobs in this economy, with tax relief for small businesses and American families.

So there are a lot of things that we need to do to protect that family budget from the Federal budget; and I am very, very happy, Mr. Speaker, that I have been joined by a number of our colleagues who are leaders in this Congress on trying to help root out this waste and this fraud and this abuse and this duplication in the Federal budget so that we can indeed protect that family budget.

One of the individuals who is joining us this evening is one of the leaders in government reform, a colleague of mine that I have been very proud to know, a real leader in this Congress on that subject, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn); and I would be glad to yield to her.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentlewoman for her insight and leadership on this subject. Mr. Speaker, she brought up just a number of different examples illustrating the point that, again, there is so much waste and there is so much fraud and there is so much duplication and low-priority spending in this budget, yet Democrats do not want to work with us to try to reform this.

Mr. Speaker, we have 10,000 different Federal programs spread across over 600 different agencies, and we have many pressing needs, but we owe it to the American people to bring some accountability here.

Now, again, as my able colleague, the gentlewoman from Tennessee, talked about, we know what the Democrats will say about these different programs. Well, wait a second, that is really massive cuts in spending.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, anybody in this body is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. Let me talk a little about what the facts are, and then we will go back and talk about even more waste and fraud in this budget.

When they talk about massive cuts in the Federal budget, let us put this in perspective. If we are, among other things, besides trying to reduce the deficit, if we are trying to pay for the hurricane damage, so far that bill for the Federal Government has totaled about $62 billion. Yet the Federal budget over this same 5-year period is $13.9 trillion. Mr. Speaker, as I do my math, we are talking about less than half a cent, less than half a penny, and this is called some type of massive cut?

What it tells me is that, as we are trying to fight the deficit, all we hear about from the Democrats is tax relief, we hear about massive cuts, and yet we are talking about half a cent. If we cannot find a half a penny of savings on the dollar in a $13.9 trillion budget, well, we are just not looking.

Any small business in America, any family in America would laugh in our face if we told them, well, there is just no way that we can find a half a cent of savings on the dollar to protect your family budget. No, we are going to have to increase taxes, or maybe we will just pass debts on to your children. Mr. Speaker, that is just totally, totally unacceptable.

Yes, I will be happy to yield to the gentlewoman.

Well, the gentlewoman is so right. It begs the question, Mr. Speaker, how much government is enough? As we can see from this chart, already Washington is now spending over $22,000 per American family; and this is one of the greatest levels in history.

For only the fourth time in American history has the Federal Government taken that much money away from American families to spend up here. And look at this growth curve. $22,000 per family for only the fourth time in American history. Again, how much government is enough?

And, as I stated earlier, just look at the last 10 years. Look at the growth of the family budget, which is here, the blue line, versus the growth of the Federal budget. The Federal budget in the last 10 years has grown a third faster and keeps on growing and growing. And as we will discuss later this evening, the trend line is only getting worse.

But here is a very, very important point to make with this chart, Mr. Speaker, and that is, again, as we talk about ways that we can find efficiencies in government, as we talk about ways that we can reduce the waste, where money is taken from hard-working families in America and wasted up here, here is something that every American ought to know in this debate. Even once we are successful in passing this Deficit Reduction Act and engaging in this process called reconciliation, which is a fancy Washington term that just means we are going to start reforming these out-of-control entitlement programs, guess what, Mr. Speaker? They are going to grow at 6.3 percent instead of 6.4 percent.

That is the massive cut that the Democrats talk about. It is not a cut. We are increasing this spending, but we are not increasing it as fast as it would be on mere automatic pilot. But somehow, in Washington lingo, as my colleague pointed out, somebody calls that a cut. Now, only a liberal in Washington or an Enron accountant can look at that chart and somehow call that a cut.

Again, Mr. Speaker, maybe people are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

Mr. Speaker, again let me go over even more examples that we will have about where we can find savings in this Federal budget. Because, again, Mr. Speaker, either we are going to find savings in the Federal budget or we are going to attack the family budget by raising taxes or we are going to pass debt on to our children. So it is incumbent upon us to find ways to reform government and to make it more accountable.

With that, I notice we have been joined by two of our colleagues. I am very happy that we have been joined by the gentleman from Virginia, the deputy majority whip, who has been a real leader in this House for trying to bring accountability into the Federal budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) for his comments on this subject.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I certainly thank the gentleman for joining us this evening. Would it not be wonderful if they had a few accountants on the other side of the aisle who could actually let them know how you are supposed to count numbers?

The gentleman from Texas, my home State, made some excellent points. We have gone over a number of the different wastes that we find in the Federal budget. But, again, as we face our challenges, as we face trying to bring this Federal deficit down, and we are making progress, we are making huge progress under this Republican administration and this Republican Congress, but we still have a ways to go.

If we are going to bring the deficit down, if we are going to find the funds to help offset this hurricane relief, the money is only going to come from one of three places. The Democrats do not want to tell you, but they want to raise taxes. There are food stamp overpayments that cost $600 million annually, yet the Democrats want to raise taxes on American families. The school program abuse is costing over $120 million annually, yet Democrats want to raise taxes on American families. Veteran program overpayments cost $800 million annually, yet Democrats wants to raise taxes on American families. And the list goes on and on and on.

Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at tax relief, because all we hear from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that if we would only raise taxes on the American people, we could be fiscally responsible. Let us take a look at what tax relief is all about.

Number one, when you look at the amount of tax relief that we have passed in the Federal budget, let us assume for a second that all tax relief, as the Democrats would lead you to believe, is somehow wasted money. They do not realize it is not their money. It is money that belongs to American families, it is money that belongs to small businesses, people who go out and work hard and create jobs. Number one, it is not their money, it is the people's money, and we will never forget that.

But let us assume for a fact that somehow we wasted money by allowing American families to keep more of it.

Mr. Speaker, in a $13.9 trillion budget, tax relief is less than 1 percent of that budget. So when we talk about what is necessary to bring down the Federal deficit, again, over 99 percent of the challenge lies on the spending side. But the truth is, Mr. Speaker, letting American families and small businesses keep more of what they earn is not part of the deficit problem, it is part of the deficit solution.

Again, any Member is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. I have in my hand here the latest report from the U.S. Treasury talking about tax revenues. And what do we discover? Well, we discover that since we passed tax relief for the American people as part of an economic growth program, well, guess what?

Mr. Speaker, corporate income taxes are up 47 percent. Individual income taxes are up almost 15 percent. Total receipts are up almost $300 billion. Again, this is not my opinion, these are the facts.

Look at this chart, Mr. Speaker. Look what has happened since we passed tax relief for the American people. Every year we see tax revenue going up.

So in many respects, again, it is a bit of a tax increase, but it is the right tax increase. It results from economic growth. And what has happened is not only, not only, Mr. Speaker, have we managed to bring in more revenues to the government and bring the deficit down, the deficit has now declined $319 billion.

The deficit has now declined $319 billion, because we have more revenues. The deficit is coming down. But, not only that, 4 million new jobs have been created; 4 million new jobs. We are enjoying the highest rate of homeownership that we have ever enjoyed in the entire history of the United States of America, all due to tax relief. Yet, Democrats want to raise taxes on the American people. They are trying to raise them right now.

Mr. Speaker, that is just not right. They want to take the child tax credit away. They want to bring back the death tax. They want to take away accelerated depreciation for small businesses. They want to bring back the marriage penalty. All of this they are actively trying to do, trying to increase taxes on the American people to pay for all of this waste and all of this duplication that you have heard cited this evening.

But, Mr. Speaker, again, we cannot have tax increases. That is the wrong prescription for the economy.

Now, some people may say, well, it does not quite make sense. How do you cut tax rates and get more tax revenue? And how does this work into this whole debate about what is compassionate and what is not compassionate?

Well, Mr. Speaker, it was a number of months ago, but I went to go visit a small business in my congressional district back in Texas. I went to a small business that is called Jacksonville Industries in Jacksonville, Texas. They are a zinc and a dye-casting business and, due to competitive pressures, they were on the verge of having to lay off 2 people, 2 out of about 20, I believe, so that would have been 10 percent of their work force. That would have been pretty sizable. But due to our tax relief, they were able to go out and buy a new piece of modern equipment that helped make them more efficient. Now, I could not tell you exactly what it did, but I saw it, it was big, it was noisy, it was large. But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it made them more efficient. Instead of having to lay off 2 people, they were able to hire 3 new people. Now, think about that, Mr. Speaker. That is 5 people. Five people that could have been on unemployment, 5 people that could have been on welfare, 5 people that could have been on food stamps.

Now, that is how the Democrats measure compassion. They only know one way to measure compassion, and that is how many welfare checks do you write. We believe that compassion is measured by how many paychecks you write. So instead of having 5 people over here on welfare and unemployment and food stamps, there were 5 people that, due to tax relief, had good jobs. They were able to put a roof over their heads. They were able to put food on their tables. They were able to help provide education and transportation for their children.

Again, compassion is not measured by how many welfare checks are written, it is measured by how many paychecks that are written.

So, Mr. Speaker, we need to remember, as we are debating fiscal responsibility in the people's House, we need to think in terms of it is not a question of how much are we going to spend on education, how much are we going to spend on nutrition and how much are we going to spend on housing, but it is a question about who is going to do the spending. Democrats can only measure compassion by spending done by the Federal Government. And what we end up with, again, is all this waste, all this fraud, all this abuse, all this duplication. We want families to do the spending, and we know the difference between the 2. So tax relief is all about helping families, it is helping small businesses. So as we debate fiscal responsibility and how to bring down the deficit, we must recall that tax relief is part of the solution, it is not part of the problem.

Mr. Speaker, it is so important that we begin the work of reforming these different programs, because if we do not, the fiscal future of America, frankly, is very, very worrisome.

Right now, if you look at any of the different offices in Washington that are charged with accounting, the General Accountability Office, the House Budget Committee, the Congressional Budget Office, they will all tell you essentially the same thing, that we have spending patterns in the government today where we are going to have to double taxes on the American people in one generation just to balance the budget. You got medicare growing at 9 percent a year, medicaid at 7.8, Social Security, 5.5.

These are important programs and they need to be preserved, but they have to be reformed, because they were instituted many, many years ago, many decades ago in a different era. They were not built in the 21st century, they are not meeting the demands of the 21st century, and they will not be here for our children, unless we reform them.

So as the Democrats attack tax relief and as they claim that there are somehow massive budget cuts going on, remember what their alternative is. Their alternative is going to be to double taxes on our children. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that that is simply, simply unconscionable. It is unconscionable, and a future that we must avoid.

Mr. Speaker, this kind of graphically represents that future. Today, government is taking up roughly 20 percent of our economy, roughly 20 percent of what we produce. Look what is going to happen in one generation. If we do not do anything to reform this out-of-control entitlement spending, if we do not start on the deficit reduction today, you are going to see government double, absolutely double in one generation.

These are the tax increases that are going to be needed to pay for that, something that we never see the Democrats talk about, but it is their plan, because they say, well, we are going to balance the budget. That is what they tell us. They say, we are going to be fiscally responsible. Yet, they will not reform any single government program. They will not reform any of them. So what is left? Doubling taxes on the American people in one generation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I became a father 3\1/2\ years ago, and I am very blessed that my wife and I have 2 small children, a 3\1/2\ year old daughter and a 2 year old son. They have changed my life in so many wonderful ways. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I spend a whole lot of time now thinking about the next generation. Too many people here, though, are thinking about the next election. I do not want to leave my children this legacy of tax increases. I do not want to leave my children a legacy of debt. I want to leave my children and the children of America a legacy of more hope and more jobs and more opportunity and more freedom. That is what we are working on here. We have got to protect the family budget from the Federal budget, but we have to start today with this Deficit Reduction Act.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can come together. I hope we can work together as Republicans and Democrats and Independents and do something about this, because there is too much waste, there is too much fraud, there is too much abuse, there is too much duplication. The future can be brighter. It can be brighter for my children and your children and all children if we will only start today to save the family budget from the Federal budget by working on this Deficit Reduction Act.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 19 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, November 3, 2005, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, this week the House will begin work on reconciliation, which is a way that we begin to reform out-of-control spending programs in order to help pay for the hurricane relief. There are only three ways that we can pay for this hurricane relief. Either, number one, we are going to raise taxes on the American people yet again, we are going to pass debt on to our children, or we are going to find a way to moderate the growth of Federal programs.

The Democrats say that this is tantamount to massive cuts that will hurt the poor. Madam Speaker, next year's budget is going to be greater than this year's budget, which was greater than last year's budget.

What we call mandatory spending, which encompasses most of these welfare programs, mandatory spending is going to grow at a rate of 6.3 percent as opposed to 6.4. I believe only an accountant for Enron would call that a cut.

Also, Madam Speaker, the best way to help the poor is through paychecks, not welfare checks. And under the economic policies of this administration, 4 million new jobs have been created with a future. We have the highest rate of homeownership in the history of America and unparalleled economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, well, I certainly thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I certainly appreciate her leadership in this body and truly being one of the great leaders in trying to reform government, bring about accountability, and to help protect the family budget from the Federal budget.

Obviously, many good points were made about fiscal responsibility and the fact that somehow the Democrats, those on the other side of the aisle that we tried to work with, tell us there is no room for reform in the Federal budget, no room whatsoever; that somehow we have to spend even more and more money. Mr. Speaker, it begs the question how much is enough?

Mr. Speaker, again it is obvious that those on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats that we are trying to work with, somehow believe that we do not have enough government, that somehow there is no room for reform in the Federal budget.

Again, this chart shows that beginning in 1990 up to the present, that Washington is now spending over $22,000 per household. This is for only the fourth time in the entire history of the United States of America that the Federal Government has spent this much money. It is the first time since World War II, yet the Democrats say there is no room for reform in the Federal budget; that instead we need to increase taxes on hard-working American

families, or, even worse, that we somehow have to pass on more debt to our children.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better. And, Mr. Speaker, this simply amplifies the point, when you think about families, and I think about them in my district back in Dallas and in east Texas, who work hard for a living, some small businesspeople who have gone out to risk capital and start a new business and maybe employ three or four people, look at what has happened in the last 10 years.

You see the family budget, median family income for a family of four has risen from roughly $45,000 to $62,000. That is this line here, Mr. Speaker. But look at the same time what has happened to the Federal budget? We have gone from about $1.6 trillion in 10 years to almost $2.5 trillion.

In other words, the Federal budget is growing at least a third faster than the family budget in just the last 10 years. And yet our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, say, no, there is no place for reform. There is just no place for reform in the Federal budget, that somehow it is going to have to come out of the family budget instead.

But we reject this, Mr. Speaker, and I guess because it is getting close to Halloween, all of the sudden people are thinking about what costumes are they going to go wear for Halloween. I have got a 3\1/2\- year-old daughter who has decided to be Snow White. My 2-year-old son is going to become Superman. And now I have noticed that the Democrats want to don a mask called ``fiscal responsibility.'' The American people are not going to buy into that costume, because their plans are simply to spend more and more money because they do not believe in reform.

Every time that we have passed a budget in the last 10 years, Mr. Speaker, they have gone back and offered an alternative budget that spends even more, yet they call that fiscal responsibility? Let us just look in the past several years; for example, let us look at the budget for fiscal year 2004. On June 25 they offered an amendment to add a half a billion dollars to the Interior bill. On the same day they offered an amendment to add $8 billion to our Labor-HHS appropriations bill; on July 16 an amendment for almost half a billion dollars to the Commerce bill.

Let us look at what happened last year. Well, on June 9, an amendment to increase subcommittee allocations by $14 billion; on June 23, an amendment to increase subsidies to businesses by $79 billion; and now for our physical fiscal 2006 appropriations process, an amendment to increase foreign aid by almost a half a billion dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I think the American people are seeing a pattern here. It is a pattern of increased spending.

Again, as all this spending is done, sooner or later, somebody has to pay the piper.

Mr. Speaker, right now, as the Democrats have tried to fight every reform that we have brought forth, we know what is happening to our budget. We know that it is spiraling out of control, growing at a huge multiple over the family budget that one day is going to cause a day of reckoning.

This chart, for example, shows what is going to happen over the next generation when we look at Medicare growing at 9 percent a year, Medicaid at 7.8 percent a year, when we look at Social Security growing 5.5 percent a year. We know when the economy grows at a pretty good pace, that might be 3.5 percent.

Look at this chart here. Right now, the amount of money that we are spending, roughly 20 percent of the economy on government, in just one generation, if we do not engage in this process of reform, using the Washington term ``reconciliation,'' which is a process we started today, if we do not engage in this reform process, this is the future that the Democrat Party wants to provide us. That is a doubling of the size of government in one generation, and that is if they do not come up with anything new. That is just on the programs that we have today, Mr. Speaker. I believe that is simply going to be unconscionable.

Now, again, the Democrats tell us that there is simply no place that we can reform and that somehow reforms lead to massive budget cuts for the poor. Well, we think there is another way that we can help poor people in America, and we believe it has a lot more to do with a paycheck than a welfare check. We want to ensure that the social safety net is there; but, Mr. Speaker, there is something better, and that is a paycheck.

Under the economic policies of this administration and this Republican Congress, all of the sudden we have created now 4 million new jobs. Four million new jobs have been created. People have hope. They have opportunity. They can put food on the table. They can put a roof over their head, and that had everything to do with the policies of this administration and this Republican Congress.

So in many respects, Mr. Speaker, it is not a debate about how much money we are going to spend on housing, how much money we are going to spend on education and on nutrition; but it is a debate about who is going to do the spending.

The Democrat Party can only measure compassion in the number of welfare checks. We measure compassion in the number of paychecks. We are helping empower the American people to have their nutritional program, to have their educational program, to have their housing program.

Mr. Speaker, I am very honored that we have been joined by a couple of other colleagues here tonight who I know have a great insight into our programs for fiscal responsibility, into our programs to try to bring some accountability to the Federal Government, to engage in reforms that could help the American people and actually deliver better health care at a cheaper cost, better housing at a cheaper cost.

One of these Members that we have been joined by, who is a great leader in the freshman class and who is no stranger here to the floor of the House, is the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), my colleague; and I would be very happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's leadership and sharing his insights with us. I would like to try to amplify a couple of his points.

Again, there is a big debate and all of a sudden the Democrats are claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility. They are claiming something that they have claimed for 50 years, that somehow the Republicans when we try to reform government, that we are engaging in massive budget cuts that will hurt the poor.

Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in this process in Washington known as reconciliation, which is really a Washington term that means that we go back to our committees and say find a way to do it better. Let us be more accountable. Let us be more respectful of the family budget and figure out a way to do things better in the Federal budget. So we have something that is known as mandatory spending, which includes a lot of the welfare programs.

Mr. Speaker, as we attempt to reform a number of these programs, as we attempt to get better health care and

better housing at a lower cost, look at what we are trying to do. In the next 5 years, if we are successful in this plan, and so far our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, have said that none of them are going to help us, at the end of the day what we call mandatory spending is going to grow at 6.3 percent a year instead of 6.4 percent a year. That is the massive budget cut?

First, there is no cut. Only a liberal Democrat or an accountant for Enron would call 6.3 percent increase in the growth of mandatory spending a cut. All we are trying to do is reform programs, make them more accountable to the American people, and slow the rate of growth. People are entitled to their own opinions, but they should not be entitled to their own facts. Even after we do this, we will end up spending more of the people's money next year than we did last year.

When you think about the charges that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are lodging, we should also remember that these were the very same people who said that welfare reform would be horrible, that it would be the end of the world as we know it. We had such quotes like from the Democrat leader in the House at the time that a million children would be forced into poverty. One of the Democrat leaders in the Senate said that if we have welfare reform, we will have trauma that we have not known since the cholera epidemics, and the rhetoric went on and on and on.

Mr. Speaker, what happened? I can tell Members what happened. Case loads fell in half and millions and millions and millions found jobs, hope, and opportunity. The poorest 20 percent of single-mother families had a 67 percent increase in their earnings once we had welfare reform. Millions were able to leave the rolls. Child poverty fell when we reformed the welfare programs, and 1.4 million children have been lifted out of poverty due to welfare reform.

So we kind of have to check the source. Reforms can work, and they must work for the American people. There are so many different ways that we can improve health care and housing and do it in a way that saves American families money. Right now we could save $1.5 million a year in Medicaid if we just based drug payments on actual acquisition costs. We could save 2 to 3 billion a year if we would stop improper payments for States that do not qualify for the payments.

Mr. Speaker, if we would pass a simple, meaningful medical liability reform bill, we could save 5 to 10 percent on the cost of health care in America.

In 2003, the Federal Government can now not account for $24 billion that was spent, and yet the Democrats say we cannot reform government.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2001 in the last year of the Clinton administration spent $3.3 billion paying out money to people who did not qualify for the program. That was 10 percent of their entire budget, yet the Democrats tell us there is no room for reform in the Federal budget.

The Advance Technology Program spends $150 million annually subsidizing private businesses, 40 percent of which goes to Fortune 500 companies. Yet the Democrats tell us there is no room for reform in the Federal budget.

There was a time quite recently when Medicare would spend five times as much on a wheelchair as the Veterans Administration. Same model and manufacturer. Why? Because one would competitively bid and the other would not, and so they just wasted that money. Yet the Democrats would tell us that somehow we are hurting Medicare recipients when we cease to pay five times as much for a wheelchair as we should have. Fortunately, we have caught that one, and we have remedied that; but we have 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 agencies. There is so much room for reform.

When families are working hard to make ends meet, we need to be leaders in finding reforms in the Federal budget. I am very happy that tonight we are joined by one of the great deficit hawks and fiscal hawks that we have in the United States Congress, a real leader in helping root out a lot of the duplication and waste and fraud, a lot of the abuse that we find in the Federal budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I certainly thank him for his leadership.

Madam Speaker, we have now heard just example after example of waste that is in the Federal budget, fraud that is in the Federal budget, not to mention the duplication which is in the Federal budget.

We need to remember, Madam Speaker, that when it comes to paying for government, there are really only three different places where we can find money as we go forward and try to balance this budget.

Number one, we are either going to increase taxes on the American people, or we are going to continue to pass even more debt on to our children because we care more about the next election as opposed to the next generation, or we will engage in this process that we are engaged in today to find reforms in the government. And we have heard example after example after example.

Madam Speaker, I now would like to talk about really the tax side of the equation, because so many of our friends and colleagues from the other side of the aisle say the root cause of all of America's fiscal problems lie in tax relief, that tax relief somehow has caused and fueled all these deficits. We hear it speaker after speaker after speaker.

Well, Madam Speaker, first let me say this: If tax relief is the source of all of our problems, as we can see by this chart, let us assume for a moment that tax relief does absolutely no good, that all we are doing is wasting money when we allow small businesses and the American family to keep more of their hard-earned money. Even if that was true, Madam Speaker, we can see by this chart here that out of the budget we have passed, tax relief is less than 1 percent. Less than 1 percent. So even if Members accept the fact that all we are doing is taking this tax relief money and throwing it away, 99 percent of our challenges in fiscal responsibility actually sit on the spending side.

And this, Madam Speaker, is a very important chart because, again, we will hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle speech after speech about how tax relief is driving the deficit. Well, since we passed tax relief under President Bush and a Republican Congress, Madam Speaker, look at what has happened. Tax revenue has gone from $1.7 trillion in 2003 to $1.8 trillion in 2004, to $2.1 trillion in 2005. And, Madam Speaker, if people do not want to believe me, they should go to the United States Treasury report. Look it up. Individual tax revenues are up 15 percent. Corporate tax revenues are up almost 50 percent.

How is this happening? How do we cut tax rates and somehow get more tax revenue? It is pretty obvious to me, Madam Speaker. For example, I look at people in my district back in Texas, east Texas. I went to visit an industry called Jacksonville Industries. It is aluminum and dye cast business in Jacksonville, Texas. They employ 20 people. Prior to having the tax relief, due to competitive pressures they were on the verge of having to lay off two people, which in their case, a small business, was 10 percent of their workforce. But because of tax relief, Madam Speaker, they were able to go out and buy a huge new machine, and I do not remember what it is called. I could not even tell the Members what it does. But it is big, it is noisy, and it made them more competitive. And instead of having to lay off two people, they hired three new people.

Think about it, Madam Speaker. Listening to our friends on the other side of the aisle, they would say, wait a second, that is five people who could have been on welfare, and that is five people who could have, those are five people who could have been on food stamps, those are five people who could have been on a government housing program, and that is how they measure compassion: How many government checks do we write?

But, Madam Speaker, under our program, under the tax relief, not only do we have more tax revenue, but guess what? We have created jobs. Four million jobs across America. Got a few more in Jacksonville, Texas, at Jacksonville Industries. So instead of having five people on unemployment, five people on welfare, we have five people who have good jobs. They are able to put a roof over their head. They are able to put food on their table for their children.

Madam Speaker, that is what compassion is. Compassion is not measured by the number of welfare checks we write. It is measured by the number of paychecks we create.

So I just cannot believe how we continually hear this argument that somehow tax relief is driving the deficit, and somehow tax relief is causing all of America's fiscal woes. Madam Speaker, it is simply not true.

But, Madam Speaker, what is true, again, even if all of the big spending plans of the Democrats, if we are able to fight them back, even with the programs that we have on the books today, unless we reform, unless they will work with us in this reconciliation process, again look at what is going to happen. In just one generation, government is going to grow from 20 percent of our economy to almost 40 percent of our economy, in just one generation. We are on the verge of being perhaps the first generation in America to leave our children a lower standard of living because we cannot work together and reform some of these out-of-control programs that are growing way beyond our ability to pay for them.

Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle want to rail against our tax relief, but what they will not own up to are their own tax increases. In order to pay for all of this government, all of this out- of-control, growing government, this is what is going to have to happen: And that is these are tax increases needed to fund all of our current projected spending without deficits. They say they want to balance the budget, but they refuse to reform any government program, notwithstanding all the waste and fraud and abuse and duplication that we have pointed out this evening. They just refuse to join with us in that process.

So what is the consequence of their unwillingness to help reform government? Taxes are going to go up, on a family of four in just one generation, $10,000. We are going to have to double taxes on the American people just to balance the budget in 30 years, and it is going to go up and up and up.

And, Madam Speaker, that is why it is so critical that we come together, Democrat, Republican, Independent. This is the future we are looking at. It is like the Dickens of ``Christmas Carol.'' This is the ghost of Christmas yet to come. There is still time to do

something about this. Again, there are so many ways that we can get better health care, better housing, better nutrition at a lower cost. But we are going to have to come together as a Congress, as the American people, and find smarter, better ways to run a number of these programs.

We cannot simply measure compassion by the number of government checks that are written. True compassion is empowering people. True compassion is creating new jobs so that the American people can fund their housing program, their nutritional program, their education program.

Madam Speaker, it is not a debate, again, about how much money we are going to spend on these worthy goals, but it is a debate about who is going to do the spending. Democrats clearly want the government and government bureaucrats to do the spending. We want American families to do the spending, and that is the difference. It is really two different visions about the future of America. One wants more government and less freedom. Our vision is one of less government and more freedom and greater opportunity throughout this land, Madam Speaker.

So I think it is going to be a very important debate that takes place in the weeks to come. But, again, in order to avoid the future of either passing debt on to our children or doubling taxes on the American people, there is only one alternative, and that is to come together and reform these out-of-control programs before we leave the next generation a lower standard of living than we enjoy. That is unconscionable, Madam Speaker, and there can be a better, better future for all of our children if we will work together and reform out-of- control spending.

Mr. Speaker, we are soon going to debate how we pay for the relief for the devastating hurricanes that hit our gulf coast. There are only three ways: Either, number one, we are going to raise taxes yet again on the American people; number two, we are going to pass debt on to our children; or, number three, we are going to moderate the growth of the Federal budget so that families do not have to moderate the growth of their budget.

Now, you have heard the Democrats claim that somehow the Republicans want to cut, slash, and burn the Federal budget. Since I have been on the face of the planet, the Federal budget has grown seven times faster than the family budget. How much Federal Government do we need? And even if we offset all of this hurricane spending, what most people view as mandatory welfare spending will end up growing at 6.3 percent, instead of 6.4 percent.

Compassion for the poor is not measured by the number of government checks you print. It is measured by the number of jobs you create. Under tax relief policies and economic growth policies of this administration and this Republican Congress, we have created over 4 million new jobs so that families can go out and do their spending and create their American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in support today of this rule.

I have been listening with great interest to some of the debate, which I must admit is a little bit confusing to me. I hear some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that essentially this is a closed rule; yet I look at the fact that we will be voting on a number of amendments later today, a number of which were offered by Democratic Members.

I understand there is an accusation that somehow language dealing with the Affordable Housing Fund, that Members do not have an ability to weigh in on that. As I look at the manager's amendment, substantially all of it has to do with the Affordable Housing Fund issue. So if for some reason you do not like this language, you have an opportunity to vote on it. So it seems to me that the process and procedures dealing with this very important issue are quite open. If you do not like it, vote against the manager's amendment. Vote for the underlying bill.

Now, let us move to the substance of the arguments as far as the creation of the so-called Affordable Housing Fund. I for one am not convinced of the need for yet another government so-called affordable housing program. Already we have over 80 different government programs ostensibly aimed at affordable housing. We have got Community Development Block Grant for Insular Areas; Shelter Plus Care, S Plus C Emergency Shelter Grant. We have housing opportunities, the HOPWA program, One- to Four-Family Mortgage Insurance, section 203(b). We have got counseling for home buyers, Supporting Housing for the Elderly, and the list goes on and on and on.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is there is no greater housing program than the American free enterprise system, which is created by the creation of jobs, which, under the economic policies of this administration and this Republican Congress, are working. Over 4 million new jobs have been created. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? We now have achieved the highest rate of homeownership in the entire history of the United States of America. That is astounding. We have the highest rate of homeownership in the entire history of America.

The question or the debate is not how much money we are going to spend on housing; the question is who is going to do the spending? Is it going to be American families, or is it going to be government bureaucracies?

Now, I know this fund is included in the bill, and so be it, I support the legislation. But the question is, going forward, if we are going to have yet another housing fund, should not it be used for housing? Why open up the opportunity for it to be subverted into things like political activities? I do not understand if those who have advocated on behalf of the funds truly want to help the low-income, then why do we not simply increase the section 8 voucher program? Why do we not cut out the middleman? That is what we need to do.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I thank the gentleman for his great leadership on this bill, H.R. 1461. This has clearly been a long, long time in the making. It has taken unbelievable negotiation, incredible legislation, incredible patience from our chairman. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), as well, for his steadfast work, his incredible leadership in bringing this bill to the floor, something, frankly, that has been in the making for well over a decade.

I think it would be good, Mr. Chairman, to remind people why we are here in the first place. For a lot of Americans they do not quite understand what the GSEs are, Fannie and Freddie. Admittedly they play a very critical role in our housing market, in helping produce what we now enjoy, the highest rate of homeownership in the history of America.

But at the same time, we have given them a very special charter. We have given them unique government-granted benefits that we do not grant their competitors, and we give them these benefits so that they can create liquidity in the secondary mortgage market and help create the American Dream for so many people.

But, unfortunately, there have been abuses, a number of abuses. We have now seen in recent years the largest financial restatement in history, dwarfing the financial restatements that we saw at Enron and WorldCom.

Now, when we saw all of these accounting irregularities earlier on with the Enrons and WorldComs of the world, Congress was outraged. And Congress rightly answered with critical legislation, Sarbanes-Oxley, to address these types of corporate abuses.

But all of a sudden, there seems to have been a deafening silence when we see Fannie and Freddie engaged in activities that with respect to the financial restatements rival those that I have described. And so these people play an incredible role in our marketplace, but we have given them incredible powers as well, and there must be increased accountability.

So I think that this legislation takes a very significant step forward in bringing about a significant regulator for these enterprises, because we know that we have been warned by the Chairman of our Federal Reserve that particularly with respect to the portfolio holdings of their own mortgage-backed securities that this represents a systemic risk to our economy.

This is not something that we can leave unregulated and unabated. And I think this legislation takes a very good step forward. I hope in conference with the other body that we can came up with something that will help address this. I am also concerned about their mission creep.

Again, when we see them engaging in activities like airplane leasing and activities related to loan originations, and the list goes on, if they are going to receive government-granted benefits, we need to ensure that they use their charter to provide this liquidity in the secondary-mortgage market.

Now we know that there is a debate over the affordable housing fund. Again, I would ask my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, if we want to create more affordable housing, why do we not go directly to the people who need it? Why do we not simply increase that section 8 voucher?

Are we trying to have affordable housing, or are we trying to have affordable lobbyists and lawyers? I think we should have affordable housing and support the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I thank him for his amendment.

First, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) for bringing us to this position in the first place.

Clearly, there have been huge accounting irregularities at our GSEs. Clearly, something needs to be done; and with these accounting irregularities, we also know that we have very significant systemic risks to our economy that are involved with the GSEs' portfolio holdings.

Chairman Greenspan has testified before our committee on numerous occasions about this. It is time that we do something.

This is as straightforward an amendment as it can be. It simply adds a sentence to this legislation allowing the new regulator the authority to step in, where necessary, to reduce the size of Fannie and Freddie's portfolios, something that we know has nothing to do with their mission of creating liquidity in the secondary-mortgage market.

Again, as Chairman Greenspan said before, ``Without the needed restrictions on the size of the GSE balance sheets, we put at risk our abilities to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States, a key ingredient of support for housing.''

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today, Americans honor the life and legacy of Rosa Parks. Born in Tuskegee, Alabama, in 1914, Rosa Parks would become one of the most influential names in America's Civil Rights movement.

In December 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, after a long day of work at a local department store, Rosa Parks paid her fare and took a seat on the bus. When she was asked to move to the back of the bus so that white passengers could take her seat, she refused.

Through her quiet yet courageous action, Rosa Parks will forever remain a lasting example of dignity and nonviolent protest in the quest for equality. By refusing to go to the back of the bus, she moved America forward. And by refusing to stand up and yield, she empowered future generations to stand up for themselves and their civil liberties.

Rosa Parks not only helped change the laws of our country, she helped transform the hearts and minds of the American people, which has helped lead America closer toward the goal of a truly colorblind society.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that tonight the American people will hear from both sides of the aisle on a very important topic. That topic has to do with how we are going to pay for all of the relief funds that are necessary for the hurricanes that have caused such damage and wreaked such havoc upon our gulf coast.

What is very interesting for us to note tonight, and the American people need to know this, Madam Speaker, there are really only three different places that these funds can come from. Either, number one, in order to relieve human suffering along the gulf coast, we are going to pass debt on to our children, or we are going to raise taxes on the American people, or we can do what the Republicans on this side of the aisle want to do, and that is restrain the growth of government, ask maybe the Federal budget to tighten its belt just a little bit so that families do not have to tighten their belt instead.

Madam Speaker, everybody here wants to help relieve the human suffering along the gulf coast. We have seen the pictures. We have seen the devastation. I had family who live in New Orleans who were affected. They were among the lucky ones. They are alive. Their home is damaged, but standing. So all of us have felt in our hearts what has gone on there.

But, Madam Speaker, we cannot take a great natural disaster of this generation and turn it into a great fiscal disaster for the next generation. For us to sit here and pass on $62 billion of additional debt to our children is simply, absolutely unconscionable. I cannot believe, Madam Speaker, that anybody would want to do that. Yet I know many in this body contemplate that.

Madam Speaker, for anybody who heard the earlier discussion this evening led by the gentleman from South Carolina, the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, one would think that there is only one other answer and that is to increase taxes yet again on the American people. To some extent all we heard was how we have massive budget deficits because of tax relief.

Madam Speaker, as the Members will see developed this evening, tax relief has actually proven to be part of the deficit solution. It is tax relief that has created jobs. It is tax relief that has promoted economic growth. And yet those on that side of the aisle would take it all away from us. They have a plan. Whether or not they have owned up to it, they want to engage in the largest single tax increase in American history; and that, Madam Speaker, is not the right thing for America.

So at first I think it is important that we deal with some of the facts.

Not a particularly well kept secret is the fact that our entitlement spending today is absolutely out of control. We have Social Security growing at 5\1/2\ percent. We have Medicaid growing at 7.8 percent. We have Medicare growing at 9 percent. Every time we try to reform these programs that are far outstripping our ability to pay for them, the Democrats do everything they can to stymie this, and what we have discovered is that as time goes by, as these programs grow beyond our ability to pay for them, more and more massive tax increases are going to be necessary to pay for them. On this chart alone, if we start out at 2005, the average American family, in just less than one generation, is going to be faced with a $10,000 tax increase.

The Government Accountability Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the House Committee on the Budget, anybody who has looked at this problem all have come to the same conclusion, and that is that within roughly 30 years, we are either going to have to double taxes on the American people just to balance the budget or the entirety of today's Federal budget will pay for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; and there will be nothing else. There will be no Pentagon. There will be no VA benefits. There will be no student loans. There will be no other Federal Government.

So as the Democrats work every day to say we cannot do anything to control spending, what they are really telling us, Madam Speaker, what they are telling the American people is they want to double taxes on our children. That is the program they have signed up for. That is their program, supposedly, of fiscal responsibility.

But, Madam Speaker, that is not so; and we have a number of distinguished speakers here tonight to tell us about why that is not the fiscally responsible thing to do.

I first yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), one of the great leaders in government reform and fiscal responsibility in this Congress.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I certainly thank the gentlewoman for her observations.

Again, it is so interesting, as Democrat after Democrat speaks out against all the evils of tax relief and how somehow tax relief is the center of all fiscal irresponsibility, what they do not point out is that we have passed a 5-year 13.9 trillion, trillion with a ``t,'' budget, $13.9 trillion of spending versus less than $150 billion of tax relief.

So say, for example, that tax relief did absolutely no good to our economy. Let us just say we took that money and just put it in a hole and buried it. It is less than 1 percent of the budget. So when we think about all these massive tax increases that are going to be necessary to pay for all of this spending that the Democrats want, how is less than 1 percent of the Federal budget responsible for this? They are ignoring over 99 percent of the challenge. The challenge is on the spending side.

And, by the way, Madam Speaker, we did not take this tax relief money and put it in a hole. We did something else with it far more productive. Madam Speaker, what we did was we took that money and we gave it back to small businesses. We gave it back to families. We gave it back to hard-working Americans, entrepreneurs, who rolled up

their sleeves and created new jobs and went out and created new businesses. And guess what happened. We got in more tax revenue. We cut marginal tax rates and guess what. Our tax revenue went up in 2003 from almost $1.8 trillion to almost $1.9 trillion to now $2.1 trillion.

Madam Speaker, they just do not seem to get it. Tax relief, again, is what is helping America's economic situation. Again, do not believe me. Look at the Treasury report. This is from the United States Treasury. Already we see that tax receipts are up 15 percent. Individual income tax receipts are up 14.6 percent. Corporate income taxes, our businesses, they are up 47 percent. So it is interesting that, instead of this item being called tax relief in the budget, if it was called the Agency for Widget Production Subsistence, every Democrat would want to double its budget. But somehow because it is tax relief for small businesses, for people to go out and create jobs, they deride it. They claim that it is part of our fiscal challenge. Instead, we see that it is absolutely critical to ensuring that our children do not bear further debt.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, again, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership, and I thank her for her observations.

Madam Speaker, we have now been joined by one of the great leaders on budget matters in this Congress, someone who has coauthored the Family Budget Protection Act, to try to enforce our budget, to try to bring some accountability into the government, to try to protect the family budget from the Federal budget, and I am very happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his participation in this debate tonight. He brings up many good points.

I think that once again we need to look at the facts of what we are speaking about. When Democrats talk about all of these massive cuts that are going to take place, first let us look at how much spending has already taken place.

Madam Speaker, this is a chart that just talks about in the last 10 years, what has happened to the family budget and what has happened to the Federal budget? As measured by median family income, the family budget has increased from roughly $45,000 for a family of four to $62,000. Yet look at this red line showing what has happened in the same 10-year period to the Federal budget. It has increased $1.5 trillion to almost $2.5 trillion. In other words, the Federal budget is growing faster than the family budget by almost a full third. Madam Speaker, over the long term, that is unsustainable.

Again, the Democrats are setting us up to either pass on unconscionable debt to our children or to engage in the largest tax increase in the history of America. We cannot sustain this kind of spending growth.

They also tell us what heavy lifting it is to try to restrain the growth of government. Well, if we look at what we are trying to do here, the President so far has called for roughly $62 billion of hurricane relief for the victims on the gulf coast. That is to be contrasted with $13.9 trillion of other spending. So what we are trying to do here, Madam Speaker, is find roughly a half a cent on the dollar of savings, a half a cent.

If you went to any American family or any small business and said, you know what, we have got an emergency here, we have hit some tough times, can you go back and take a look at your budget and find a half a cent on the dollar? Of course they could do it.

Madam Speaker, they laugh at us when we say, oh, we cannot do this, we cannot find a half a penny of savings. And the truth is it is not even a cut. All we are doing is restraining the growth of government. What the Democrats do not want you to know is that even after we find these savings, government still is going to grow. It is still going to grow roughly 3 percent next year over this year.

What we call mandatory spending, if we achieve this plan, without any help from the Democrats whatsoever, if we achieve this plan, what we call mandatory spending is going to grow at 6.3 percent instead of 6.4. That is the massive cut of which they have spoken.

Madam Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman from Indiana.

I thank the gentleman.

Now, Madam Speaker, I am very happy that we have been joined by one of our colleagues, who is a great leader in our Operation Offset, to come forward and bring to the American people ideas about how we can find waste, fraud and abuse and duplication and lower priority spending in the Federal Government in order to help pay to relieve human suffering along the gulf coast. I am happy to yield to my fellow Texan, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership in Operation Offset. It was an interesting story he told about how you take the change out of your pocket and put it in a jar to benefit your grandchildren. Recently, as my colleagues might have read, the Democrats have launched something called the Campaign For Change, and now I suddenly understand what it is all about. It is taking your grandchildren's change away from them to fund the massive government spending that they want to go to and continue to grow. They want to grow big government. They believe in more government and less freedom. We believe in less government and more freedom.

And how much government is enough? How much spending does it take? Madam Speaker, as my colleagues can see from this chart, Washington is now spending $22,000 per household. This is a chart that starts in 1990, goes to the present; and we see that spending has gone from over, roughly a little over $18,000 per family to now $22,000 per household. This is the highest spending in inflation-adjusted terms since World War II. It is one of the highest levels of spending in the entire history of America. Yet, it does not seem to be enough.

In the last 10 years, again, median family income has grown about 38 percent. Yet Federal spending on international affairs is up 57 percent; space and technology, 46 percent; natural resources, 49 percent; agricultural spending, 206 percent; commerce and housing credits, 74 percent; transportation, 95 percent; community and regional development, 83 percent. Madam Speaker, the list goes on and on and on.

This is not a debate again about how much the American people and we as a society are going to spend on education, how much we are going to spend on housing, how much we are going to spend on nutrition. It is a debate about who is going to do the spending. The Democrats want government to do the spending. They want Big Government to take that money away from American families, throw it into a wasteful bureaucracy and have a few pennies come out on the other end. We want to empower the American family. We want to protect their budget. We want to help them realize their American Dream. We want them to be able to send their kids to college. We want them to be able to put a roof over their heads. That is really what this debate is all about.

Now, Madam Speaker, I am very happy that we have been joined by a member of the Republican leadership team, a leader in helping put together Speaker Hastert's plan to help offset this Katrina spending with lower priority spending, to help us start this process called reconciliation, which is Washington-speak for reform; someone who is very admired by the entire conference and Congress, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Well, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for joining in this debate. He made so many excellent points. It reminds me of the title of a rock and roll song that I listened to in high school, Do Not Get Fooled Again.

We should not get fooled again by the Democrats. We need to remember, these are the very same people who told us welfare reform would never work. They told us that families would fracture, and so the New Republic wrote.

The Democrat leader at the time said a million children will be forced into poverty. One of the Democratic leaders in the Senate said that we will experience a national trauma we have not seen since the cholera epidemic. And guess what? We gave people incentives to go out and become educated. We gave people incentives to go out and work. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? They did just that.

Welfare case loads dropped in half, and people found jobs, and they found hope, and they found opportunity. And millions went from welfare, from the dependency on a government check, to being able to feed their own children, to put a roof over their head, and to have pride in having their own job, and a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, again it is not how much money Washington spends that counts, it is how the money is spent. That is what counts.

With that, I would be very happy to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), who has been very outspoken in her commitment to fiscal responsibility, a great conservative leader in the freshman class.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for joining us for this debate. I appreciate her leadership in the freshman class. It is very interesting that you would use this metaphor of a shell game, because that is exactly what the Democrats are trying to do with the American people.

Because again, the spending that it is going to take to relieve the human suffering on the gulf coast can only come from one of three places. Either we are going to pass debt on to our children; we are going to engage in massive tax increases on the American people; or we are going to ask the Federal budget not to grow quite as fast, to get rid of some of the fraud, to get rid of some of the waste, to get rid of the lower-priority spending.

What they want to make sure in their shell game is that they never show the American people the massive tax increases they are planning. They have planted seeds in our so-called entitlement spending that American people are not going to be able to afford.

Their tax plan just grows and grows and grows. Again, Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen for the next generation? For the Democrats to fund all of their programs, when they refuse to work with us, and we have invited them to work with us to help reform some of this entitlement spending, if they do not work with us, this is the future our children and grandchildren are facing, massive and massive tax increases. We will be on the verge of being perhaps the first generation to leave our children a lower standard of living. We are going to have to double taxes on the American people just to balance the budget in 30 years if we do not do something to restrain the growth of Government.

And again, as I showed earlier, how much Government should we have? Already in just the last 10 years, we have seen that the Federal budget has outpaced the family budget by over a full third. Mr. Speaker, is there any reason why we should have the Federal budget outpace the family budget by over a third? Ultimately all of this spending has to be paid for.

Mr. Speaker, all this spending is not created equal. I mean, too often we hear from those on the other side of the aisle that any time we try to restrain the growth of spending, that somehow we are hurting the poor. Well, I am here to tell you, Mr. Speaker, compassion for the poor is not measured by the number of government checks you send out, it is measured by the number of jobs you create so that the American people can go out and realize their American dream.

And when we have had tax relief, not only, not only, Mr. Speaker, have we received greater tax revenues, the deficit has come down, but what we have also seen is millions and millions of Americans, 4 million new jobs created from tax relief.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the Federal budget and we look at this spending, sometimes many good things come from it: Kevlar vests for our brave men and women fighting in the war on terror, student loans for many needy folks who otherwise might not have an opportunity to go to college. But all too often we also see a Medicare who will pay five times as much for a wheelchair as the VA did simply because one would competitively bid, and the other would not. We see $800 spent on an outhouse in a national park, and the toilet does not even flush, $800,000. We see millions and millions of dollars spent for an indoor rain forest in the State of Iowa, and the list goes on and on and on.

Mr. Speaker, the American people just do not believe there is not waste, fraud, abuse and duplication in the Federal budget. For example, we have 342 economic development programs. We have 130 programs serving the disabled, 90 early childhood early development programs. The list goes on and on. How much duplication do we need? And yet the Democrats want to raise taxes to pay for more of this.

The Federal Government made at least $20 billion in overpayments in 2001. The Department of Housing and Urban Development spent 3.3 billion, 10 percent of their budget in 2001, on overpayments, yet Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this.

The Advanced Technology Programs spends $150 million annually subsidizing private businesses, 40 percent of which goes to Fortune 500 companies, and yet Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this.

And there are so many reforms that we can institute in this body that could, for example, brings us greater health care at a cheaper cost. If we would pass meaningful medical liability reform, we would bring down the cost of health care 5 to 10 percent in America.

Medicaid could save $1.5 billion a year if they would base their drug payments on actual acquisition costs. They could save 2 to $3 billion a year if they would stop improper payments to States that use that money for purposes other than Medicaid, and the list goes on and on.

We can find the reforms, but we must start this process of reconciliation, which, again, when we look at $62 billion of savings we are trying to find in a 5-year $13.9 trillion budget, that is a half a cent. That is one half of one penny, Mr. Speaker, that we are trying to find so that our children do not face massive tax increases as far as the eye can see, guaranteeing to lower their standard of living.

Mr. Speaker, this really comes down to two visions for America: one helping empower people, helping them realize their American Dream, about them going out, starting new jobs. It is really about a vision of less government and more freedom. Yet our friends on the other side on the aisle who will not work with us on reconciliation, who will not work with us to root out this waste and this fraud and abuse, who only want to continue with more spending and more spending and more spending, they believe nothing good happens in America unless it comes from the Federal Government.

Well, a lot of good things come from the American family. A lot of good things come from the free enterprise system. That is what we need to strengthen. In the days to come, Mr. Speaker, that is what this debate is all about, those who want to restrain the growth of the Federal budget so the family budget can expand and those who only want to grow government and impose massive tax increases on our children and grandchildren as far as the eye can see.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that when the American people will look at this, ultimately they will chose less government and more freedom.

Madam Speaker, after Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, we must ensure that a great natural disaster of this generation does not turn into a great fiscal disaster for the next.

To pay for Federal hurricane relief, there are only one of three places that the money can come from: Raising taxes on the American people, passing even more debt on to our children, or to actually reduce the growth of Federal spending by reforming programs and prioritizing spending.

Democrats want to raise taxes and thus destroy jobs. They want to inflate the Federal budget and thus decimate the family budget.

They accuse us of being fiscally irresponsible, but every time we pass a budget, they offer a substitute that spends billions and billions more. They claim our budget policies hurt the poor, but we instead have reduced the ranks of the poor by helping create 4.1 million new jobs so families can increase spending on housing and health care. Compassion for the poor is measured by the number of jobs you create, not the number of government checks you write.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act.

You may have heard about the overweight maintenance worker from New York, who sued McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, and KFC for causing his two heart attacks and diabetes. Or the class-action lawsuit against McDonald's where the lawyers named children as the defendants.

These stories may sound funny, but the facts show these types of frivolous lawsuits bankrupt businesses, deplete pensions, gouge consumers and deprive Americans with real complaints access to their day in court.

American consumers actually pay $1,200 more for goods and services every year because of lawsuit abuse. Studies also found that the cost of litigation accounts for one-third of the price of an 8-foot aluminum ladder, it doubles the price of a football helmet, it adds $500 to the sticker price of a new car, and increases the cost of a pacemaker by $3,000. We all end up paying a huge price for lawsuit abuse.

But perhaps the most potentially disastrous effect of frivolous lawsuits is the cost of American jobs. American businesses are a consistent target of frivolous claims, which bleed the essential capital they need to create jobs. And with such a lawsuit happy nation, many companies simply choose to pack up shop and move overseas.

At what point will we say enough is enough? At what point will we start supporting personal responsibility and stop supporting personal injury lawyers?

Options on a menu do not lead to obesity, but unhealthy habits do. At what point are we going to stop the frivolous lawsuits from personal injury trial lawyers that are simply trying to make an easy buck off of overweight Americans?

Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to pass H.R. 554. Let's take a stand for personal responsibility and freedom. Let's stamp out frivolous lawsuits. Let's preserve the integrity of our judicial system, and let's stop personal injury trial lawyers from ripping off American consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Richard ``Nub'' Brown of Winnsboro, Texas, for his effort to fight crime and support law enforcement through the Enough Is Enough Drug Task Force.

On April 18, 2005, in response to a drug-related tragedy in Winnsboro, Nub Brown gathered over 340 members of the community in the high school auditorium and cried, ``Enough is enough!'' Several committees were formed that evening to work with city officials and law enforcement officers to rid Winnsboro of drugs. Today this program is helping educate and inform the community of Winnsboro about drug awareness and to help achieve a safe and drug-free environment.

Nub Brown is an active member of his community, serving as the Youth and Education Minister of Pine Street Baptist Church since 1997. He is also an active member of his community, speaking on drug and alcohol awareness in many schools, civic clubs, youth groups and churches, as well as serving the prison ministry at the Clyde M. Johnston Unit in Winnsboro.

As the father of two children, I appreciate the leadership of Nub Brown and his commitment to rid his community of drugs. Today, I would like to thank him for his public service and for the outstanding contributions he has made to make his community and his country a better place.