Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, we have now come down to two budgets: one offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) and the majority and the most fiscally responsible budget we have seen in quite some time here; and another budget that wants to tax more and spend more, and that is their answer to the Nation's fiscal woes.

Clearly, we agree that this Nation has a deficit and a deficit that is too large. But those on the other side of the aisle seem to act like spending has nothing to do with the equation in the deficit. We have been spending money here at over twice the rate of inflation, 50 percent faster. The Federal budget has been growing 50 percent faster than the family budget. We are on an unsustainable growth path on the growth of Federal Government. We must do something to control the growth of Federal Government.

Now, previous speakers, I believe, have used the term ``auto pilot,'' that this budget puts the Nation on auto pilot. Well, let me tell you about the auto pilot that their budget puts this Nation on. That is an auto pilot that, if we do not do anything about spending, according to the General Accounting Office we are heading to a future where we will have to double Federal taxes or cut Federal spending by 50 percent.

Well, they do not want to cut any Federal spending. So what that means is we are on auto pilot to double Federal taxes on the American family.

Now, frankly, on our side, we have done our part. Tax revenues are up. We listened to the other side, and they talk about all the massive tax cuts. Well, I am sitting here, Mr. Chairman, and I have the latest reports out of the Congressional Budget Office. And guess what? We have cut marginal tax rates on the American family on small businesses. And guess what? Tax revenues have increased. Tax revenues are up. People go out and they save more and they invest more and they start small businesses.

I was in Jacksonville, Texas, a small town in my district, not too long ago and visited with a small business there that does aluminum die casting. Prior to the Bush tax relief package, they were getting ready because of competitive pressures to have to lay off two people. But because of tax relief, they were able to modernize their plant and equipment, and instead of laying off two people, they hired three new people. Now, that is five people that could have been on welfare, five people that could have been on unemployment. But instead, five people who represent part of that over two million new jobs that have been created in America, five people that are paying in taxes, as opposed to taking out. And that is why we see that tax revenues have increased.

And so, frankly, tax relief has been part of the deficit solution. And even if it were not, we are talking about a $2.6 trillion budget. And if you look at the line item, tax relief is $17 billion. Now, if you do the math, that means that tax relief is less than 1 percent of this Federal budget. So even if it was not bringing in new revenues to the government, how could tax relief amount to all of this problem?

The challenge has been on the spending side. Just look over the last 15 years: international affairs up 93 percent, agriculture up 165 percent, transportation 78 percent, education 95 percent. And the list goes on and on and on.

Now, often we get good things for our tax expenditures. We can have student loans; we can have Kevlar vests for our soldiers. But, unfortunately, quite often we do not get good things for our tax expenditures. Sometimes we get wheelchairs from Medicare that cost five times as much as those of the VA. Sometimes we get multimillion dollar studies of how college students decorate their dorms.

We are talking about reducing the growth rate of government. And I cannot believe, and no American family would ever believe, that you cannot find seven-tenths of 1 percent, less than 1 percent, of waste or fraud or abuse or duplication. American families would laugh at that.

And if we do not do this, Mr. Chairman, we are looking at this future, this auto pilot future that I believe is fiscally immoral, that will double taxes on our children and grandchildren. We need a budget, not for the next election; we need a budget for the next generation. And that is why I so strongly support the committee budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle's) budget, because it is that fiscally responsible budget for the next generation.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Mr. Randy Teague of Mabank, Texas for his longtime support of agriculture in and around Henderson County of

Texas. From 2000 to 2004, Mr. Teague served on the Henderson County Beef Committee, serving as its chairman in 2004. He has been an organizer of the Henderson County Livestock Show since 2000, and is a member of the Henderson County Show Board.

A father to three children, John Carter, Clara Jane, and Cash, Mr. Teague married his wife, Amy Morris, in January of 1999. Along with his agricultural activities, Mr. Teague is the Chairman of the Nominating Committee at the First Baptist Church in Mabank. He is also a supporter of the Kaufman County Women's and Children shelter, the Gold Card Luncheon Program for Mabank High School, the Special Olympics, and the Make a Wish Foundation.

As a father, a husband, a devout churchgoer, and a community leader, Mr. Randy Teague has embodied the values of family, faith, and hard work that lie at the core of American society. As his representative in Congress, it is my distinct pleasure to honor him today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to commemorate two significant anniversaries of Rotary International. On February 23, 2005, Rotary International celebrated its 100th anniversary. From its humble roots in Chicago, Illinois, Rotary International has grown into a worldwide organization of business and professional leaders whose mission is to provide humanitarian service, encourage high ethical standards in all vocations, and help build goodwill and peace in the world. Since 1943, Rotary International has distributed more than $1.1 billion to combat polio, promote cultural exchanges, and encourage community service.

I also want to provide special recognition to an important member of this outstanding organization, the Rotary Club of Mineola, Texas, for their sixty-five years of service to Wood County. Throughout its sixty- five year history, the Mineola Rotary Club has achieved great successes in carrying out the mission of Rotary International.

In past years, the Mineola Rotary Club has raised money to provide scholarships to local students, sponsored a reading program at the local library for students trying to learn English, and planted trees throughout the county. In addition, the club is an active fundraiser for the local library, has sponsored programs to teach students Spanish, and has been active with the Meals on Wheels program that brings food to the elderly population in the area.

Through these actions, the Rotary Club of Mineola, Texas, has exemplified the values of service and charity that lie at the heart of American society. As the congressional representative of the members of this outstanding organization, it is my distinct pleasure to be able to honor them today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Mr. Larry Teague, Mayor of Mabank, Texas for his longtime support of agriculture in and around Mabank, Texas. Mr. Teague is a recipient of the Woodrow Walker Award from the Henderson County Livestock Show Association, for which he has served as a buyer for 25 years, In addition, Mr. Teague has also been a buyer for the Kaufman County Junior Livestock Show and a member and officer of the Mabank Ag Booster Club.

A father to three children, Randy, Rachelle, and Robby, Mr. Teague married his wife, Linda Carter, in June of 1972. Along with his agricultural activities, Mr. Teague is a member, deacon, and trustee at the First Baptist Church in Mabank. He is the president of

Mabank Economic Development, and a supporter of a number of charitable programs including Kids Across America, the Special Olympics, and the Make a Wish Foundation.

As a father, a husband, a devout churchgoer, and a community leader, Mr. Larry Teague has embodied the values of family, faith, and hard work that lie at the core of American society. As his representative in Congress, it is my distinct pleasure to honor him today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to commemorate two significant anniversaries of Rotary International. On February 23, 2005, Rotary International celebrated its 100th anniversary. From its humble roots in Chicago, Illinois, Rotary International has grown into a worldwide organization of business and professional leaders whose mission is to provide humanitarian service, encourage high ethical standards in all vocations, and help build goodwill and peace in the world. Since 1943, Rotary International has distributed more than $1.1 billion to combat polio, promote cultural exchanges, and encourage community service.

I also want to provide special recognition to an important member of this outstanding organization, the Rotary Club of Athens, Texas, on the occasion of their 75th anniversary on December 1, 2004. Throughout its seventy-five year history, the Athens Rotary Club has achieved great successes in carrying out the mission of Rotary International.

In past years, the Athens Rotary Club has raised money to combat Polio, provided scholarships to two seniors from each high school in Henderson County, and sponsored exchange students from around the world. In addition, the club is active with the Boy Scouts of America, the Henderson County 4H club, the YMCA, the local Food Pantry, and numerous other charitable and civic organizations in and around Athens, Texas.

Through these actions, the Rotary Club of Athens, Texas, has exemplified the values of service and charity that lie at the heart of American society. As the congressional representative of the members of this outstanding organization, it is my distinct pleasure to be able to honor them today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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

Mr. Chairman, spending is out of control in the Nation's capital, and if we do not work to control this spending, we will leave our children and grandchildren a legacy of debt, a legacy of a lower standard of living, a legacy of more government, of less freedom, of less opportunity.

Many people in this Chamber have risen tonight to say that we are not spending enough money. I think we should take a look at the facts.

Number one, Mr. Chairman, we are now spending over $20,000 for American families. For the first time since World War II are we spending this much money. For only the fourth time in the history of our Nation, and if we look back just 10 years, almost every government agency has grown by a huge multiple overinflation.

International affairs is up 93 percent; agriculture up 165 percent; transportation, 78 percent; education, 95 percent, and the list goes on and on and on. We have been growing government at twice the rate of inflation and 50 percent faster than the family budget.

We believe that these growth rates are unsustainable and let us just not look at the past. Let us look at the future.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, over the next decade Social Security is due to grow by 5.5 percent a year, Medicaid by almost 8 percent a year and Medicare by 9 percent a year. We have an explosion of government spending, and yet many in this Chamber want to spend even more, at the expense of American families.

Where is this leading us? Mr. Chairman, most recently, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan said, As a Nation we may have already made promises to coming generations of retirees that we will be unable to fulfill.

According to the General Accounting Office, Social Security faces a serious and growing solvency and sustainability challenge that is growing as time passes.

According to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, referring to Social Security, such chronic and growing obligations in the Social Security program are properly understood by the American public, including investors, as a sign that the program is out of balance and headed for bankruptcy.

According to the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, ``We do not believe the currently projected long run growth rates of Social Security and Medicare are sustainable under current financing arrangements.'' The Comptroller General of the General Accountability Office said, ``How this is resolved could effect not only our economic security but our national security. We are headed to a future where we will have to either double Federal taxes or cut Federal spending by 50 percent.'' Let me repeat that. We are headed to a future where we will have to double Federal taxes or cut Federal spending by 50 percent.

Mr. Chairman, that is why it is so critical that today, not tomorrow, not next week, that we do something, something to begin to control spending in the United States Congress.

First, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) of the Committee on the Budget for bringing forth to this body a truly historic budget, the most fiscally responsible budget we have seen since the Reagan era, a budget that is serious about protecting the family budget from the Federal budget.

But a combination of hope and fear has propelled me, on behalf of the Republican Study Committee, to offer an alternative budget. The hope is, as historic as the gentleman's budget is, maybe given the seriousness of the challenge we have, maybe we can do just a little bit better on spending discipline. My fear is, as great as the budget is that the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) has brought to this House, I want it to be a real budget. I want to ensure that we have the mechanisms in place to ensure that we enforce the spending discipline.

How does this particular budget differ from the committee budget? There are a number of similarities, but let me describe a couple of differences. Whereas in the chairman's budget we have a discretionary savings of a little less than 1 percent, this budget would achieve savings of roughly 2 percent. It would further double the reconciliation savings in the Nussle budget. And finally, it includes a number of enforcement mechanisms to ensure that we can live with this budget, that the budget is something more than a suggestion, the budget is something more than a goal or an aspiration, that it is actually a limit on spending, that we draw a line in the sand and say we are going to take this much money away from American families and say this is it, we are going to live within our budgets.

Mr. Chairman, budgets tend to be about priorities; and, indeed, this budget, the Republican Study Committee budget, is about priorities. We have a priority of saving Social Security, and we congratulate our President for bringing this issue to the American people. I believe when the American people focus on Social Security, what

they will realize is that government has been part of the problem. They have raided the Social Security trust fund 59 times. Government took the money away from Social Security; government should give the money back.

How does government give the money back? Government can grow at a slower rate than it has in the past. The second theme of this budget, the second priority of this budget, is we believe we have to protect the family budget from the Federal budget. Is there really a compelling reason as families have to get around their kitchen table and have to make tough decisions that we in Congress cannot do the same thing? We do not believe that the Federal budget should grow faster than the family budget, and this budget achieves that goal.

Finally, we believe a budget ought to be a limit on spending. We ought to decide, subject to emergency spending that we understand, that we ought to draw a line in the sand and say this is all we care to take away from the American people; and when we tell the American people this is our budget, then this is the budget that we will live with.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), a member of the Budget Committee and a budget leader within the Republican Study Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), one of the most fiscally responsible Members of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, growing government and putting us on a path to doubling taxes on the American people meets nobody's definition of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), a real leader on budget enforcement in this Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), an outstanding freshman Member.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), one of the outstanding conservative leaders of this Congress, the chairman of the 100-member Republican Study Committee.

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

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

For some people, Mr. Chairman, we just cannot get enough government. But we are drowning in a sea of red ink already.

This is not a debate about how much we are going to spend on health care and education and housing. This is a debate about who is going to do the spending. We believe families should do the spending. We believe good things come from freedom, from opportunity, and freedom for families to choose the health care that is right for them, to choose the education opportunities for their children that are right for them, to find the best job in a competitive market economy. We cannot have unlimited government and unlimited opportunity. The Republican Study Committee believes in unlimited opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, we urge the adoption of this amendment; but should it fail, please, we ask the House to vote for the Nussle budget.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that Social Security faces challenges. Fortunately there is no need to change Social Security for current and near-retirees like my parents. They can and should be able to count on 100 percent of the benefits they have earned. But due to longer life spans and fewer workers supporting each retiree, serious problems are on the horizon for future generations like my children.

Social Security faces an unfunded liability of almost $11 trillion. Unless we act today younger workers are going to face either a benefit cut of almost one-third or a 43 percent tax increase by the time they retire. This is unacceptable.

Washington is part of the problem. The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided 59 different times. Benefits have been cut half a dozen times. Payroll taxes have been raised more than 20 times. Clearly the riskiest plan for Social Security is leaving retirees' money in Washington for government to squander.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my special order at this time.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to enter into a very important discussion that our President has kicked off for the Nation, and that has to do with strengthening and saving Social Security. Social Security has historically been a vital program in the history of America, saving many seniors from poverty, giving them peace of mind and giving them greater security.

Madam Speaker, this is far more important than just a congressional debate to me. It is something that is very personal. You see, my parents are in their seventies. Social Security is part of their retirement. And I am committed to ensure that the Social Security benefits that my parents have earned, that they keep. But, Madam Speaker, not only do I have a sacred obligation to my parents, I have a sacred obligation to my children as well. My children are in diapers. Their world consists of Barney and Big Bird. They do not know about Social Security, but if we do not take action now, Social Security as we know it will not be there for my children.

We have a number of challenges in Social Security. We have the challenge of demographics. When Social Security was first created, there were over 40 workers supporting every one beneficiary. By 1950, we were down to 16 workers for every beneficiary. And today, Madam Speaker, just three workers for every beneficiary. In addition, when Social Security was created, the life span of the average American was 60 years old. You could not even retire and get your benefits until 65. Thanks to the marvels of modern medicine, the life expectancy of seniors today is 77, and increasing.

Another phenomenon we have, because we have fewer people paying into the system, we have declining rates of return. My grandparents enjoyed about a 12 percent rate of return on their Social Security. My parents will enjoy about a 4 percent rate of return on Social Security. I myself about 2 percent. And if we do not reform Social Security, my children will pay more into Social Security than they take out. Madam Speaker, that is simply not fair.

Besides the declining rates of return, we have a large, large deficit that we are facing in the future. The cost of doing nothing is profound. In the year 2008, the Social Security surplus begins to decline and by the year 2018, Social Security begins to go bankrupt. It begins to pay out more money than it takes in. That sea of red ink there, Madam Speaker, adds up to $10.4 trillion. Nobody knows what that is, but I can tell you, that adds up to about $35,000 for every man, woman and child to save Social Security.

If we do not do that, if we do not write out that check today, future generations are looking at unconscionable options. Number one, people who enter the workforce today, by the time they retire, if we do not take moves to strengthen Social Security now, they will be looking at having their benefits cut by almost a full third. How many seniors can afford to have their Social Security benefits cut by almost a third?

And if we are not looking at massive benefit cuts, we are looking at massive tax hikes. This same group of people, people who enter the workforce today, if we do not take movement today, action today, they are going to be looking at a 42 percent increase in their payroll taxes. What will that do to families in America? How many hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs because of that massive tax increase?

But, Madam Speaker, there is a better way. And that better way is to do what the President has suggested, and that is to create personal Social Security accounts that take the best of traditional Social Security, our government guarantee, our inflation control, our social safety net, and add to it elements of the best of what company pension plans offer, and that is real assets that people own, giving workers and families a chance to start their own nest egg and pension grade investments that have proven over time to have a superior rate of return and be safe.

Madam Speaker, some say that this is risky. I say it is risky to leave one's retirement security in Washington. Already Congress has raided the Social Security trust fund over 59 times. They have cut benefits a half dozen times. They have raised taxes 20 times.

Madam Speaker, we need to move to personal Social Security accounts. Working together, Republicans and Democrats, we can save Social Security for my parents. We can save Social Security for my children. We can save Social Security forever.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to commemorate two significant anniversaries of Rotary International. On February 23rd, Rotary international will celebrate its 100th anniversary. From its humble roots in Chicago, Illinois, Rotary International has grown into a worldwide organization of business and professional leaders whose mission is to provide humanitarian service, encourage high ethical standards in all vocations, and help build goodwill and peace in the world. Since 1943, Rotary International has distributed more than $1.1 billion to combat Polio, promote cultural exchanges, and encourage community service.

I also want to provide special recognition to an important member of this outstanding organization, the Rotary Club in Terrell, Texas, on the occasion of their 85th anniversary on December 1, 2004. Throughout its 85 year history, the Terrell Rotary Club has achieved great successes in carrying out the mission of Rotary International.

In past years, the Terrell Rotary Club has raised money to combat Polio, bought wheelchairs for people all over the world, collected food for a food distribution center in Terrell, and provided benches for the city park. In addition, they have assisted with blood drives, helped with the Special Olympics and Relay for Life, and collected books to help support the Head Start program in Terrell. For the past 30 years, they have also issued the Community Service Award for Terrell.

Through these actions, the Rotary Club of Terrell, Texas, has exemplified the values of service and charity that lie at the heart of American society. As the congressional representative of the members of this outstanding organization, it is my distinct pleasure to be able to honor them today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Mrs. Georgia Vickery on the occasion of her 90th birthday on March 1. Mrs. Vickery was born in Edgewood, Texas to Thomas and Willie Ann Vickery. In February of 1946, she and her husband, Marion Pugh, opened up Pugh Hardware and Furniture in downtown Grand Saline, Texas. From 1970 to 1982 Mrs. Vickery managed this store while her husband served as Grand Saline's City Manager.

A mother to three children, Mrs. Vickery was also very active in the community, serving as a Sunday school teacher, a member of the United Methodist Women's organization, and a member of her Church Council. Today, at ninety years old, Georgia Vickery continues to work for Pugh Hardware by preparing and sending out its monthly statements. She also exercises five days a week, keeps an eye on her farm, and continues her work at the Methodist church.

As a mother, a wife, a devout churchgoer, a small businesswoman, and a community leader, Mrs. Georgia Vickery's life has embodied the values of family, faith, and hard work that lie at the core of American society. As her representative in Congress, it is my distinct pleasure to honor her today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. And I certainly want to recognize her for her great leadership in the United States Congress in helping root out waste and fraud and abuse. Her work on the Committee on Government Reform is known throughout the United States Congress. She has been a champion to make sure that there is accountability for taxpayer dollars so that we do something in this institution to protect the family budget from the Federal budget, and I appreciate her leadership.

And I also appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Mississippi, who spoke earlier. I had the pleasure to serve on the Committee on the Budget with him, and he has been a champion of less government and more freedom on that particular committee.

Mr. Speaker, I especially tonight want to thank our President. There is no doubt in my mind why our President was reelected. He is a man of vision and a man of bold leadership. It is under his leadership that we are going to be able to not only strengthen Social Security for my parents, who are in their 70s, but save it for my children who are both in diapers and know a whole lot more about Big Bird and Barney than they do about Social Security.

And I appreciate the President's leadership on this budget because the only way that we are going to be able to save Social Security for future generations is to do something to rein in the growth of the Federal Government, to root out that waste and that fraud and that abuse and duplication that we know permeates every single nook and cranny of the Federal Government.

For years and years, decades and decades, Washington has squandered money out of the Social Security trust fund. It is time for Washington to put it back. And the way that Washington puts it back is to rein in the growth of government.

I have listened to part of the debate earlier this evening, and I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker, that we first agree on what the facts are. We heard a lot this evening about cuts here and cuts there and cuts here and cuts there. What I find interesting is in the budget that the President is proposing, government is still going to grow. It is going to grow 3.6 percent more in the next budget than it did over this budget. What the President is doing, though, and something that it is absolutely novel in this town, is, it is not going to grow quite as fast as it has in the past.

Most people would be very interested to know, if they just look in their rear-view mirror for a decade, government has grown on average 4.5 percent a year. That is over twice the rate of inflation. In other words, if we are happy with the government we had 10 years ago, its level of spending, if we just wanted to keep that same government, we would have grown at the rate of inflation. Instead, we have done almost twice that.

And perhaps more importantly, Mr. Speaker, the government budget has grown almost three times faster than the family budget over this same time period as measured by median worker income.

I have a hard time believing and my constituents in the Fifth District of Texas have a hard time believing, why, with the exception of a national emergency, does the Federal Government budget have to grow so much faster than the family budget? And guess what? They are related.

That money is coming from somewhere. It is coming out of the family budget, and it is going into the Federal budget.

What we call mandatory spending now amounts to 11 percent of our economy for the first time in the history of America. What we call discretionary spending in this body is now approximately 7 percent of our economy for the first time in a decade. We are spending over $20,000 for American households for only the fourth time in the entire history of the United States of America and for the first time since World War II.

It would be wonderful, Mr. Speaker, if all of this money that we were spending somehow magically turned into love and happiness and kindness. Unfortunately, all too often it does not. We have thousands and thousands and thousands of Federal programs spread across hundreds and hundreds of agencies. I defy anybody in this town to be able to tell me, what do they all do? And the examples we have of the waste and the fraud and the abuse and duplication are just profound. We read about it in our local newspaper every day.

It was not that long ago that we picked up our newspaper to find out that our Federal Government with our money spent $800,000 for an outhouse in one public park and the toilet did not even flush. The only thing it flushed was hard-earned taxpayer money down the drain, $800,000. And then we read about the millions and millions that were recently spent for an indoor rain forest in Iowa. And this does not even talk about a number of the questionable studies that we end up funding with taxpayer dollars.

I am not sure who thought up the use of taxpayer funding to figure out how and why college students decorate their dorm rooms. I am not sure exactly what vital Federal interest was being served by that. I think a number of my constituents would be surprised to learn that we spent over $2 million of their money to study the sexual habits of older men. Mr. Speaker, I do not particularly care to know what is in that study, and I feel fairly confident that my taxpayers in the Fifth Congressional District do not really care to pay for it.

And, Mr. Speaker, let me talk a little bit about duplication. We have over 342 different Federal economic development programs, 342 at last count. That is probably 342 different executive directors and deputy directors. How many different Federal economic development programs do we need? And, by the way, a very good question that needs to be asked is, what does the Federal Government know about economic development anyway?

The Federal Government, at last count, administers 50 different programs to aid the homeless, 50 different programs spread across eight different Federal agencies. Four agencies administer 23 programs offering housing. Six agencies administer 26 programs offering food and nutrition. Three agencies and ten programs attempt to protect homelessness. Three different agencies, 17 different programs provide mental health treatment. And, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important cause. We need to make sure that something is done about the homeless in our society. But how many different programs do we need trying to do the same, exact thing? It just speaks out for some kind of consolidation.

Drug control, we have more than 50 Federal agencies responsible for waging the war on drugs. Early childhood development, we have more than 90 different programs spread across 11 different agencies. Job training, seven agencies and 40 different programs. Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on and on, and that is just talking about duplication.

Some of the fraud that goes on that I believe our constituents would be shocked to find out, in the last year of the Clinton administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development just lost 10 percent of their budget, roughly $3 billion lost in improper payments. I mean, can one imagine for $3 billion how many Americans could have paid the down payment on their first home? Instead, government just squandered the money.

Why does this happen? It happens because government does not do anything as well as we the people. As one of my colleagues said, it is intoxicating to spend other people's money, and unfortunately, there are a number of Members of this body that are quite intoxicated with that power to go out and spend other people's money. And it is always easy to do it.

And speaking of other news articles that I have seen recently, I saw where a government official paid a taxidermy service with taxpayer funds to prepare a shoulder mount of a mule deer head, and according to the General Accounting Office, the deer was road kill and found by the official on the side of the road. And there are Members in this body who want to raise people's taxes to pay for more of that. It is example after example.

Recently, the Republicans in this House finally cracked down on one abuse, and that is, for years and years

and years, the Medicare program paid almost four times as much for a wheelchair as the Veterans' Administration did. Mr. Speaker, how could that happen? We scratch the surface and what we discover is that one agency would competitively bid and the other would not. I wonder how many small businesses across Texas and Kansas and Oregon and Vermont would be able to stay in business if they did not competitively bid their supplies? Fortunately, we managed to discover that one and do something about it.

I could go on and on all evening, Mr. Speaker, but the point is that these are just a handful of examples. If we cannot find 1 or 2 or 3 percent of waste in a government budget, Mr. Speaker, we are simply not looking.

We are just not looking. And if we are going to save Social Security for future generations, we have to moderate the growth of the Federal budget.

Now, again, liberals in this body are going to say the President is cutting here and he is cutting there. But you need to listen to the language of Washington, because it is not the language of the American people. When people in Washington say ``cut,'' what they mean is it is not growing as much as they would like to see it growing.

It is kind of like if your son comes up to you and says, Gee, Dad, you are giving me a $5 a week allowance, and I really need $10. You sit there and you think about it a while and you say, Well, Son, you make a good case. I have listened to what your expenses are. I am not going to give you $10 a week, but I will raise you to $7 a week. He says, Gee, Dad, that is a $3 cut. Don't you know I wanted $10? That is the language of Washington.

So I hope as the American people listen to the debate over this budget, that they listen very, very carefully, because what liberals call cuts really tend to be a moderation in the growth of government.

Again, if we are going to save Social Security for our children, we are going to have to moderate the growth of government. As my esteemed colleague from Tennessee was saying earlier, where is it chiseled in stone that we have to spend more money next year on a program than we spent last year? I have not read it in the Constitution, I did not read it in the Declaration of Independence, I have not read it in the Budget Act. But there are people here that say that if you care about farmers, or if you care about veterans, or if you care about school children, the only way you can show it is to spend more money next year than you did last year, regardless of what the results are, regardless of whether any kind of standards of accountability are being met.

So, again, Mr. Speaker, as people are telling us that all these budgets have been cut, they may be interested to know, for example, that over the last 10 years, education spending has increased 128 percent. It does not sounds like a cut to me. Agricultural spending has increased 42 percent over the last 10 years. It does not sound like a cut to me. Health and Human Services has grown by 80 percent. It does not sound like a cut to me. The Energy Department has grown by 56 percent. It does not sound like a cut to me. Agency after agency after agency has seen large increases in their budget for the last decade.

What we really have to be asking ourselves are two different things: What is the essential role of government in the free society, and how can government most efficiently meet those goals?

It is time, again, Mr. Speaker, that we do what the President wants us to do, and that is to moderate the growth of the Federal Government, so we can start to root out all the examples of waste, fraud, and abuse and be accountable to the people who work hard back in our districts and send this money to Washington.

Again, there is so much of this throughout the entirety of the budget; and if we only start to moderate the growth of Washington, then we can start to root some of this out. And we must do this. Our deficit is too high; our debt is too high. We need to save Social Security.

Yet Democrats who will talk about the deficit and decry the deficit, all they want to do is increase more spending, more taxes. They tell us that tax relief is the reason that we have a deficit. Well, I would invite them to go talk to the people at the IRS, talk to the people at Treasury. What you will discover is that tax revenues are up. We cut tax rates and tax revenues came up because we promoted economic growth. Tax revenues are up almost 10 percent over last year, because more people are saving and they are working and they are investing. Tax relief is part of the deficit solution, not part of the deficit problem.

Besides that, it is the deficit which is a symptom. Spending is the disease. By any measure whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, spending is absolutely out of control in Washington D.C.

In some respects, this is not a debate about spending. What it really is is a debate about who is going to do the spending. All my colleagues would like to see more money spent on education, housing, and health care; but we are not indifferent as to who does the spending. Bureaucrats and liberals want Washington to do the spending. We want American families to do the spending. We know who has our children's best interest for the future in mind, and it is not Washington. It is our constituents back home.

We must remember what Ronald Reagan once said, and that is the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program. We need to change that, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of our children, for the sake of Social Security, and for the sake of the Republic. I appreciate again the opportunity to speak out about the budget and to speak about ways we can protect the family budget from the Federal budget. I appreciate the gentlewoman from Tennessee for yielding, and I appreciate her great leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I first want to congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for his good work to help those devastated by the recent hurricanes.

My amendment represents a very simple proposition. But before stating that proposition, let me state the proposition it does not stand for. Specifically, nothing contained in this amendment would deny one penny of relief to those who suffered the ravages of the hurricanes that hit Florida; not one penny less, not one penny delay.

The proposition this amendment does stand for is that so-called emergency spending for natural disasters should come out of the budget. In other words, this supplemental spending should be offset with lower- priority spending, which, frankly, was our practice throughout the decade of the nineties. In every single year of the nineties, when supplemental spending bills were enacted, so were rescissions of other spending.

In that spirit, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce 2005 discretionary spending approximately 3 percent, exempting national defense, homeland security and veterans spending.

Unfortunately, today, when we pass supplemental spending, we just add it to the deficit. We pass the bill along to our children and grandchildren. Many, many Members have come to the floor to decry deficit spending. It will be interesting to see how many of them truly want to do something about it and support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the true question before us is, who will tighten their belt to pay for this $10.9 billion of hurricane damage? Families, or government. I vote for the government.

Opponents of this amendment will argue that it will gut vital government programs. I simply reject that notion. I believe the government spending is already out of control. For only the fourth time in our Nation's history, the Federal Government is now spending over $20,000 per household. Over the last decade, almost every major department of government has grown way beyond the rate of inflation. Interior is up 42 percent; HHS, 110 percent; education, 125 percent; and the list goes on.

Mr. Chairman, much of the Federal budget helps our Nation in vital ways,

but much of it does not: $800,000 outhouses, rain forests constructed in Iowa, wheelchairs costing four times as much as they should. Again, the $10.9 billion will either come out of the Federal budget, or the family budget.

Let us look at the family budget. The average down payment on a home in America is $21,600. If we defeat this amendment, might we be denying half a million Americans their first home? The average home computer costs $482. If we defeat this amendment, might we be denying over 20 million school children an invaluable educational tool?

To pay for hurricane relief, we must either tighten the Federal budget, or ask families to tighten theirs. This amendment comes down on the side of families.

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

Mr. Chairman, such reductions can be made by department heads.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), who has seen hurricanes up close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), the author of the rainy day amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Florida have the right to close?

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

Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity tonight to aid Florida without imposing costs on our families, on our children, on our grandchildren. Either we must tighten the Federal budget, or we must force families to tighten their budget.

I would ask each Member to think about families in their district before they make this vote. I think about the Kings in Athens, Texas, and how this supplemental will impact their ability to pay for that last tuition payment for their son. I think about the Williams in Mesquite, Texas, and their small business, their paint and body shop. How is this supplemental going to impact their ability to hire two more workers? I think about the Evans in Garland, Texas, and I wonder how this supplemental will impact their ability to make those health insurance premiums.

We are going to relieve the people in Florida. The question is, is the $10 billion going to come out of the government budget, or is it going to come out of the family budget? Again, we believe it should come out of the government budget. We believe that we should protect the family budget. I would urge all Members to vote for this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to welcome Dr. Greg Ammons to Garland, Texas, as the new pastor of the First Baptist Church.

The First Baptist Church of Garland was founded in 1868. They currently have over 3,500 active members and offer countless mission and service opportunities for their members to help serve the community.

The First Baptist mission statement reads, ``To know Jesus and make him known.'' I can tell you that, through their faith and through their dedication to service, they are living up to that statement and doing the Lord's work in the Garland area.

Today, I would like to offer my heartfelt welcome and prayers to Dr. Ammons, his family and his entire congregation at the First Baptist Church. I know firsthand that the members are very excited to have Dr. Ammons, Lisa and young Camden join their congregation.

May God continue to bless Dr. Ammons, the First Baptist Church of Garland, and may He continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize fellow Eagle Scout Clint Flatt, of Mexia, Texas, for recently being honored with the Silver Beaver Award from the Boy Scouts of America. This award was presented to Clint for his ``noteworthy service of exceptional character to boyhood.''

Clint is a third generation Boy Scout, who started his Scouting experience as a Cub Scout at eight years of age. Since then, he has earned numerous honors including the Arrow of Light Award in 1980, the God and Country Award in 1986, the Eagle Scout badge and a Palm in 1987 and his Wood Badge beads in 1993.

Throughout his life, Clint has remained committed to promoting the principles of Scouting. He has provided his leadership skills to the Boy Scouts of America in many posts and capacities, from Assistant Scoutmaster in several troops to Den Leader and Cubmaster for his son Tyler's Pack 698.

Since 2001, Clint has served on the Twin Arrows Junior Leader Training Staff and is the Scoutmaster of the new National Youth Leader Training Pilot course at Camp Tahuaya. He is a Vigil member of the Order of the Arrow and has served on the Eagle Board of Review for the Comanche Trails District since 1995. Currently, Clint is serving as District Chairman and member of the Council Executive Board.

Clint is not only a third generation Boy Scout, he is also the third recipient of the Silver Beaver Award in his family. His grandfather Leon, his mother Linda, and his father Dick have also earned the Silver Beaver Award for their distinguished service to Scouting.

I would like to congratulate my friend Clint Flatt on this outstanding accomplishment. I would also like to thank him for his continued service to the Boy Scouts of America. Clint's example of leadership, citizenship and community service is a shining example to the young men he leads. Through his life-long commitment to Scouting, Clint is helping build the character of our country's next generation of leaders and helping shape a better America.