Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Baker) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) for their work on this compromise legislation that is so important to our economy.

H.R. 3574 would prevent the proposed FASB rule from hurting start-ups and other small companies who very often rely on stock options as an incentive to hire and retain employees. If FASB is permitted to require these companies to report their options as an expense, the result will be a distorted view of earnings by investors and less confidence in our markets.

This bill will help improve the transparency and disclosure of stock options, while not negatively impacting the ability of businesses to provide this valuable incentive to their employees.

As our economy continues to improve and investor confidence rises, we must be careful not to place any excessive burdens on private business or act in any way that would reduce confidence in our markets.

If expensing options is mandated, I believe inaccurate and certainly misleading information will be produced, leaving investors with more questions than answers about a company's financial statements and economic conditions.

Also, Mr. Chairman, studies have shown that companies with broad- based option plans are generally more productive, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today in strong support of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement.

Study after study shows, and history confirms, that nations that are open to trade grow faster and enjoy higher per capita incomes than those that hinder trade. That means better housing, better health care, and better nutrition for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, we must recognize that nations do not trade with nations, people trade with people. By restricting trade, we are denying Americans access to more abundant and less costly goods and services. Just think about the local grocery store for a moment. Alongside the cheese from Wisconsin and beef from my home State of Texas, we have melons from Mexico, olive oil from Italy, and coffee from Colombia. By closing markets, by restricting markets, we limit choices for consumers and we drive up the cost of products that American families must purchase every day.

Mr. Speaker, more importantly, when we restrict trade, we deprive Americans of their fundamental economic liberty. I believe Americans have a right to determine which products they want to purchase and from where those products come. With the exception of national security, it should not be the role of the Federal Government to tell American consumers where they can buy their goods.

Also, when we restrict trade, we invariably put Americans out of work. We invite trade sanctions. Nearly one in every 10 jobs in the United States is directly linked to the export of U.S. goods and services.

Last year, my home State of Texas exported almost $730 million in manufactured goods alone to Australia. From agriculture to aerospace, to computers and chemicals, jobs in Texas and America depend upon trade, including trade with Australia.

Now, I have heard some Members talk about fair trade. But, Mr. Speaker, we must also remember that policies that protect some industries invariably hurt others; and protecting specific industries does nothing to protect the interest of American consumers or protect their economic liberties. I urge all of my colleagues to support the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement.

Today, I would like to congratulate a very special organization on a very special anniversary. On Saturday, July 10, 2004, White Rock Lake's ``For the Love of the Lake'' organization will mark the 100th consecutive month of shoreline spruce-ups that have helped keep the shores of White Rock Lake clean and the surrounding park looking beautiful.

For the Love of the Lake is a truly grassroots effort, made up of caring volunteers who are dedicated to improving White Rock Lake and the surrounding area. The organization is a shining example of conservation and volunteerism in action. For the Love of the Lake shows what good people can do when they come together to accomplish something for the betterment of their community.

My wife, Melissa, and our two young children enjoy White Rock Lake very much. The lake area is important, not just to those who live in the neighboring streets, but to all of the people that come to White Rock Lake to enjoy the beautiful landscape, water, trees and parks.

For the Love of the Lake volunteers understand that we have a duty to protect and preserve these wonderful natural resources for our children and future generations. Since its inception in 1995, thousands of people have given their time, effort and energy in a variety of ways to help keep White Rock Lake looking beautiful, from picking up litter, to painting murals and buildings at the park, to attending

fund raising events, or helping with White Rock Marathons.

Over the years, For the Love of the Lake has been honored with countless awards and recognized by numerous organizations for their outstanding work. Dallas Observer magazine said, ``For the Love of the Lake is easily one of Dallas' best volunteer service organizations,'' and I could not agree more.

On behalf of all of the people in Dallas, especially those who live in neighborhoods near White Rock Lake, I would like to congratulate the For the Love of the Lake organization and volunteers on their tremendous accomplishment. I would also like to thank them for their continued and valuable service to our community.

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

I think this is an incredibly important debate that this House needs to have today. Not only is it a critically important debate to have; but, frankly, it reduces itself down to a very simple debate to have. Simple perhaps, not easy.

The simple proposition is this: Do we believe there should be any limit to government? It is a very simple proposition. Do we believe that there should be any limit to government whatsoever?

Many in this body do not believe it. Many do, however. Many know the struggles and challenges that families face. Some of us believe that it is time to protect the family budget from the Federal budget.

Since I have been alive, the Federal budget has grown seven times faster than the family budget when measured by median worker income. Seven times faster. I believe that is an unsustainable and unconscionable growth rate.

The government is now spending over $20,000 per American household for only the fourth time in the entire history of our Nation and for the first time since World War II. That figure is up from $16,000 per household just 5 short years ago, just 5 short years ago. This represents the largest expansion of the Federal Government in 50 years. At what point do we say enough is enough? I know the Founding Fathers believed in limited government. The question is do we believe in limited government?

There is going to be a bill. There are going to be a number of substitutes. There are going to be a number of amendments. But all of them are going to reduce down to two simple propositions: Should the family budget be protected from the Federal budget? Do we believe in limited government? And second of all, once we pass a budget, will we abide by that budget? Will we live by that budget like American families do each and every day? Because we cannot have unlimited government and unlimited opportunity.

Many of us believe strongly that we must have unlimited opportunity. It would be wonderful if all of this government spending magically turned into love and happiness and kindness; and, indeed, there is much great work done by the Federal Government. But, indeed, there is also much waste and much fraud and much abuse and much duplication. And I fear until we limit, limit, the growth of government, that this body will not take the steps necessary to protect the family budget from the Federal budget and root this out.

Up until recently, Medicare would routinely pay three, four, five times as much for a wheelchair as the VA did and had for years. Why? Because one would competitively bid and the other would not. The Department of the Interior maintains approximately 31,000 Web sites, almost one for every two employees. Does this meet the reasonableness test? I do not believe so.

In the last year of the Clinton administration, HUD spent over 10 percent of their budget, $3 billion, paying out payments to people who did not even qualify for the program. We spent over $800,000 for one toilet in one national park, and it did not even work.

My point is we are just scratching the surface here. When we begin to look at the 10,000 Federal programs spread across 500, 600 government agencies, we discover that they routinely waste 5, 10, 15, perhaps 20, percent of their taxpayer-funded budgets and have for years.

This money is not free. It is not ours. It belongs to the families of America. And when we take it away from their kitchen tables to fund our programs, what are we taking away from them? Maybe the opportunity for them to buy a computer, a home computer, to further the education of their children. Maybe it is that first downpayment on a home. Maybe it is a couple months of child care.

We must limit the size, the scope, the power, and the expense of the Federal Government. And this is what this legislation is all about. So no matter how many different ways people try to obfuscate it and try to make it confusing and cumbersome, it boils down to one simple proposition: Do we believe in limited government, or do we not believe in limited government? And that is why we need this rule for this very critical debate to go forward.

I know, from listening to the debate on the other side, what we will hear all day. We will hear about Draconian cuts in the budget. As I read the legislation, government is still going to grow under every single amendment. Government will still grow. All we are saying is that maybe, just maybe, the government budget should not grow faster than the family budget.

And we hear so much about how tax relief is causing these massive deficits.

Well, it is interesting, when we actually look at the numbers, and last year's budget, which was a 10-year budget, we had almost $27 trillion of spending compared to $350 billion of tax relief. Now, if we buy into the opposition's argument, that tax relief represents a government expenditure, if we do the math, we figure out that the tax relief is roughly 1.5 percent of the spending. We could take it all the way and make no dent in the challenge whatsoever.

I continue to be perplexed why people who talk so much about their concern for the deficit will focus all of their rhetoric on 1 percent of the challenge and ignore 99 percent of the challenge, which is on the spending side. And, by the way, tax relief is proven to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, since coming to Congress, I have heard a number of bad ideas, but I cannot think of one worse than raising taxes on small businesses in America, the job-creating machine in America.

Let me just give you one example of why this is such a bad idea. Recently I was in Jacksonville, Texas touring a plant, Jacksonville Industries, a zinc and aluminum die cast business. Because of competitive pressures, they

were considering laying off two of the 22 workers that they had. But thanks to President Bush's economic growth program that we passed in this House, that tax relief for that small business enabled them to buy a new piece of machinery, I could not tell you what its name is, I could not tell you what it does, it is big, it makes a lot of noise, but most importantly, it makes them more efficient. And instead of having to lay off two people, they hired three new workers in just one plant in one small town in Texas, thanks to tax relief. That is five people who could have been on welfare, five people that could have been on unemployment. But instead it is five people with good, productive, tax-paying jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we have a choice today. We can choose to continue the historic economic growth we have seen over the past year or we can turn back the clock to recession and stagnant growth. We can choose to keep creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs or we can send Americans back to the unemployment line. We can choose to limit the growth of government or we can expand the Federal bureaucracy by another $150 billion over the next decade.

Mr. Speaker, thanks to tax relief that Congress has passed, our economy is growing at the fastest rate in two decades. Thanks to tax relief, we have created 1.4 million new jobs since last August. Thanks to tax relief, the stock market is up, incomes are on the rise and the national rate of homeownership is at an all-time high.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to choose tax relief. I urge all of my colleagues to choose economic growth. I urge all of my colleagues to choose jobs for American families and soundly defeat the Obey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this amendment.

I am not sure how it benefits this House to vote on categories that have no enforcement ability whatsoever. When we have 13 appropriation bills and 20 budget functions that never meet, we are losing sight of another very important function that this budget ought to serve, and that is the function of protecting the family budget from the Federal budget.

Spending is out of control. It is a very important debate between relative expenditures within the Federal budget, but we also have to focus on how much money are we going to take away from the American family; how are we going to impact their dreams and their ability to realize their housing programs, their education programs, their child care programs.

We need to focus on what is enforceable, and we need to focus on protecting the family budget from the Federal budget. And if we believe in limited government, we will support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

First, I want to offer my congratulations to the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) for his fine work on an incredibly important topic that we take up today, and that is the topic of limiting the size, the scope, the power, the expense of government. In his underlying bill, he has placed a cap on the growth, on the growth of discretionary spending.

This amendment would also offer a cap on the growth of mandatory spending, again, a cap on the growth. Under this particular amendment, mandatory spending would grow by either CPI, the consumer price index, or the program inflator, plus new enrollees. There are certain exemptions, certain programs that, if this were to be enforced by a sequester, would have a 2 percent protection.

But the truth is this is an amendment that goes to the heart of the question: Does this body believe in limited government? Is government ever too big? Is spending ever out of control? Should we ever do anything to protect the family budget from the Federal budget? Many of us believe that spending is indeed out of control.

Mr. Chairman, since I have been on the face of the planet, the Federal budget has grown seven times faster, seven times faster, than the family budget as measured by median worker income. I believe that is an unsustainable growth rate, and an unconscionable growth rate. If we look at it on a per capita basis, net interest outlays have increased 3.6 percent faster than inflation each year since 1997. We see where the trend lines are headed. Ten years of spending history: total spending growth has averaged 5 percent each year since 1994, and the incline gets greater and greater and greater.

Until we finally draw a line in the sand and tell the American people at some point we are going to quit taking money away from them, at some we are going to go in and begin to reform programs, we are going to prioritize programs, we are going to go in and begin to root out the waste, the fraud, the abuse, the duplication that permeates every corner, then American families will not be able to realize their dreams, their dream of a better tomorrow, their dream of better education for their children, their dream of better health care for their family. We must decide at some point that we are going to limit the growth of government, and this amendment would do that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. In the past when this House has not agreed with the other body on a budget, occasionally we have faced a government shutdown, a train wreck. The government has shut down 17 times since 1977, for a total of 109 days. These shutdowns should not happen. They are not good for the American people. Parks close. Applications for visas go unprocessed. Toxic waste clean-up is postponed.

This amendment is very simple. It says if for whatever reason we cannot come to an agreement on the budget, we do not shut down the government. We go back to the last agreement on the table. We put in place a continuing resolution until such time as we can come to agreement so we do not hold the American people hostage.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida for allowing me to bat 500 with him.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the esteemed chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

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

Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest amount of respect for the gentleman from Florida, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, but it seems to me rarely has an amendment been endowed with such common sense as this one. Why do we shut down the government if we cannot get our business done? Do we understand the implications to the average American out there in the street?

This is common sense. It needs to get done. On behalf of the people of America, I would urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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, how much government is enough? Can we ever have enough? It seems many Members in this Chamber would say no. They seem to believe there should be no limit to the size, to the power, to the expense of the Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, the Founding Fathers disagreed. They believed in limited government. They warned us of the pitfalls of allowing government to grow out of control. James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers: ``There will be little avail to the people that laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read or so incoherent they cannot be understood.''

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground.

Well, Mr. Chairman, just how much ground has government gained? Since I was born, the Federal budget has grown seven times faster than the family budget, as you can see from the attached chart. For only the fourth time in the history of our Nation, the Federal Government is now spending over $20,000 per household. This figure is up from $16,000 per household just 5 years ago. This represents the largest expansion of the Federal Government in 50 years.

Last year what we call mandatory spending reached 11 percent of our economy for the first time ever. Nondefense discretionary spending is now almost 4 percent of the economy for the first time in 20 years.

In fact, almost every major department of the government has grown precipitously way beyond the rate of inflation. By any reasonable measure, spending is out of control. And when we get more government, we get less freedom, fewer opportunities, fewer opportunities for Americans to choose the best health care for their families, to choose the best educational opportunities for their children, or to find the best job in a competitive market economy. You cannot have unlimited government and unlimited opportunity.

What else do we get for all this government spending? Unfortunately, we get a lot of waste, fraud, abuse, and duplication.

Until recently, Medicare had routinely paid as much as five times for a wheelchair as the VA had, simply because one would bid competitively and the other did not. In the last year of the Clinton administration, HUD wasted over 10 percent of their budget, $3 billion just lost making improper payments to people who did not qualify.

We have spent almost $800,000 on an outhouse in one national park, and it did not even work. We have over 342

different economic development programs in the Federal Government, and by the way, what does the Federal Government know about economic development anyway?

We are just scratching the surface here. Example after example shows that many Federal programs routinely waste 5, 10, 15, even 20, percent of their taxpayer-funded budgets in the last 4 decades. Government is inherently wasteful. It does almost nothing as well as we the people; and until we limit it, we will never prioritize, much less root out, the waste, the fraud, the abuse, the duplication that permeates every corner of the Federal Government and robs every family.

Recently, many of us in this Chamber spoke very eloquently about the legacy of President Ronald Reagan. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would remind us that it was President Reagan who said the answer to a government that is too big is to stop feeding its growth.

It was President Reagan who said we can no longer afford things simply because we think of them, and it was President Reagan who stood in this Chamber and called on Congress to limit government and fix a broken-down budget process.

Now, there are many ways that we can honor the memory of President Reagan. Tonight, I can think of no better way than passing the bill that would accomplish his dream.

Mr. Chairman, the time to act is now. We have the opportunity to realize the vision of Ronald Reagan, or we can continue with the largest expansion of government in 50 years. We can protect the family budget from the Federal budget, or we can continue to operate under a budget process that only serves to grow bigger and bigger government.

That is why, along with my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), I offer as a substitute the Family Budget Protection Act, along with more than a hundred cosponsors.

And our bill has two simple propositions. Number one, it says the Federal budget should not grow faster than the family budget. Quite simply, there should be some ceiling on the growth of government. At some point we say enough is enough. We will take no more money away from American families.

Secondly, it says if Congress passes a budget, it ought to abide by the budget. It ought to enforce the budget. It ought to live by the budget. It is really that simple.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I am not sure which bill the gentleman was reading. He appears not to have read this one. Every single government program grows some by a factor of inflation. No government program is cut here, only the rate of growth. However, the gentleman and other gentlemen and ladies on that side of the aisle in the last budget resolution voted for an extra trillion dollars in spending.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), a coauthor.

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to the time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), a coauthor of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, if people will read this legislation, this puts a cap on the growth of the government. Every single government program will grow under this legislation.

After 6 hours of debate, we have heard much angst, anxiety, and grave concern over the deficit, over explosive spending, over a broken budget process. But, unfortunately, we have also heard that we just cannot do anything about it; there are committee jurisdiction issues, there are complexity issues, there are balance of power issues. When do we address family budget issues?

This debate before the House boils down to two simple questions. Number one, does this body believe once a budget is passed it should be enforced? Yes or no. Number two, does this body believe that the Federal budget should not be allowed to grow faster than the family budget? In other words, should there be any limit whatsoever placed on the government?

For the sake of the family budget, for the sake of personal freedom, for the sake of America's future, I hope the answer is yes and people support the Family Budget Protection amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to express my most sincere congratulations to Dr. Wesley E. Pittman who will soon be installed as the President of the American Optometric Association.

A lifelong resident of Mexia, Texas, Dr. Pittman and is a fourth generation optometrist, who has practiced optometry there since 1984. Dr. Pittman has been a leader in his community and in his profession at the state, regional and national levels.

Like his father, the late William D. Pittman, O.D., and grandfather, the late W. Duke Pittman, O.D., he has been a member of the Texas Optometry Board, where he served as Chairman. He has served on the board of the Foundation for Education and Research in Vision, the Southwest Council of Optometry, and is the past president of the Heart of Texas Optometric Association.

Dr. Pittman has also received many prestigious awards including Texas Young Optometrist of the Year, the Texas Optometric Association's President's Award for outstanding contributions to the profession and Texas Optometrist of the Year. In March 2003, he received the University of Houston College of Optometry's William D. ``Bill'' Pittman Leadership award, named for his father.

An active member of his community, Dr. Pittman has served as a director of the Mexia Industrial Foundation. He is a past president of the Mexia Chamber of Commerce and Rotary Club. Dr. Pittman has served on the Bricks and Mortar Board of the Parkview Regional Hospital and is a consultant to the Mexia State School, a mental health facility.

Later this month, Dr. Pittman will become the 83rd President of the American Optometric Association, a professional association of specialized doctors with more 34,000 members nationwide. I join with Dr. Pittman's friends and neighbors in Mexia in congratulating him on this prestigious achievement and wishing him the very best in all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, one of my top priorities in Congress is to help ease the overwhelming tax burden on families and small businesses.

I am also a firm believer in fighting for less government and more freedom, and one of the underlying tenets of this philosophy is promoting free trade. Free trade policies provide consumers--not government--the opportunity to make their own decisions about how to spend their money.

Americans benefit from free trade and open markets every day. Free trade undeniably delivers a greater choice of goods and services at lower prices to Americans. Free trade also boosts local economies and jobs for our trading partners, which in turn, creates jobs, improves wages and the standard of living for American workers and their families here at home.

When trade grows, income flows. Reducing and eliminating barriers to trade both at home and abroad is vital to a robust U.S. economy. Nearly one in ten jobs in the United States is directly related to the export of American goods and services. I believe it is vitally important to the future of our Nation that we continue to expand trade in an effort to promote economic growth, peace and prosperity at home and abroad.

Because of my commitment to promoting unfettered trade and untying the hands of American workers and businesses I voted for the American Jobs Creation Act. This legislation will end the damaging tariffs that the European Union has imposed on a host of American goods that have hampered free trade and hurt American businesses since they were imposed in March of this year. In addition, it will decrease the tax rate for small businesses, farmers, and manufacturers and increase America's competitiveness with our global trade partners.

The United States has the second higher corporate tax burden in the world. The American Jobs Creation Act is a step in the right direction to making American companies more competitive in the world marketplace.

The American Jobs Creation Act will also help Texans and taxpayers in eight other states achieve equity under our tax code by allowing them to deduct state sales taxes from their federal income tax returns. The current system is clearly unjust, as it allows a federal tax deduction for state and local income and property taxes. Millions of people from those states that rely on sales taxes are clearly disadvantaged and overlooked by the current system and this jobs bill removes this inequity. It is estimated that the lack of this deduction robs Texans of over $700 million and 16,000 jobs. However, the House passed version only provides this relief for two years. I strongly support a permanent state sales tax deduction, and am hopeful that Congress will make this provision permanent in the future.

Of course, I would ultimately prefer a simpler, more equitable tax- code that treats taxpayers fairly and stops trying to pick winners and losers. All Americans would be better of if Congress repealed both deductions for state and local income tax and the new state sales tax deduction, and put in their place new lower tax rates for both individuals and corporations--and made them permanent. Many of my colleagues keep forgetting that it is not our money; it's the people's money. I am committed to letting Americans keep more of what they earn, without the government stepping in and creating carve-outs, loop-holes and special interest niches.

While this legislation accomplishes several very important goals such as the elimination of tariffs and providing for state sales tax deductibility, it was not all that I had hoped for. I

have serious concerns about several of its provisions, particularly the inclusion of a tobacco bailout. This bill ended a decades old government quota and price support system for tobacco--and that alone is a very good thing. The federal government should not purposefully manipulate markets to try to fix prices. However, I find it highly objectionable that the American taxpayer is asked to foot the bill for buying out tobacco quota owners and tobacco growers. As a former board member of the American Cancer Society in Dallas, I am well aware of the harmful and often fatal affects of tobacco use. While the government has absolutely no business setting up quotas for any product and affecting the market price, I find it abhorrent that Congress would force taxpayers to cough up billions in order to subsidize tobacco. This quota system can and should be ended without the use of taxpayer money.

Unfortunately, rather than decreasing corporate tax rates across the board, this bill also included numerous corporate pork provisions through special tax shelters. Special breaks and exclusions for certain industries, companies and products should not be a policy of the U.S. Congress. This bill includes special treatment for the cruise ship industry, former car dealers, makers of bows and arrows, and others industries. I have nothing against any of these industries, but Congress should not be promoting one product, company or industry over another. All American companies, taxpayers and consumers deserve lower taxes, not a chosen few.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, for only the fourth time in the history of our Nation, the Federal Government is now spending over $20,000 per family. This figure is up from $16,000 per family just 5 years ago, representing the largest expansion of the Federal Government in 50 years. Almost every government department has grown over some large multiple over inflation. We are experiencing an explosion of the Federal budget at the expense of the family budget.

Unfortunately, too often this government spending equates to waste, fraud, abuse and duplication and has for decades. Mr. Chairman, I belong to a group known as the Washington Waste Watchers, a Republican working group dedicated to rooting out waste, fraud, abuse and duplication in the Federal Government, and it is not an easy task, because what has accumulated in the Federal city over many decades is now 10,000 different Federal programs spread across 600 different Federal agencies, accountable to almost no one, with little transparency and poor knowledge of their activities.

Mr. Chairman, I know that President Bush and Secretary Norton are serious about this effort to root out waste in government. The President's management agenda is working. For example, the number of Federal agencies with verifiable financial data has now increased up to 20. That is up from 10 agencies under the Clinton administration. Mr. Chairman, this is a major accomplishment, 100 percent improvement, but why has it taken decades just to get a set of books that can be audited?

Recently, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) exposed wasteful foreign travel by employees of the National Park Service and for that I know the taxpayers and I are grateful. This is progress.

Today we have another opportunity to take a small step to protect the American taxpayer from more wasteful Washington spending. The Inspector General at the Department of Interior has discovered last year that the department has over 31,000 different websites on the Internet. That is right, Mr. Chairman, over 31,000 different websites. They contain between three and five million pages of information. No one knows for sure the exact number.

What we do know is that the Interior Department now has one website for roughly every two employees. One website for every two employees. Mr. Chairman, these numbers are staggering. I mean, they do not pass the smell test, the look test, the touch test, the laugh test or any other test, especially when you compare it to the private sector.

Bank of America, the most visited financial services web presence in the world, and in the top 10 most visited web services in America, has 80 percent fewer websites and yet they have over 3 times as many employees. The difference between government and the private sector is stark. In addition, the Inspector General has added that the department does not have a comprehensive inventory of its websites or of other components of its web presence. In addition, the Inspector General has found that the department had ``an excessive amount of duplicated, inconsistent, outdated and redundant information on its websites.''

The Inspector General estimates that taxpayers are forced at a minimum to pay between $110 and $220 million annually to maintain and operate this web presence, 31,000 websites, again which contains inconsistent, outdated and redundant information.

My amendment will limit the amount of taxpayer funding to operate the department's web presence to $50 million and limits funding to manage and maintain more than one site for every 10 Department of Interior employees. I think this is more than reasonable, Mr. Chairman.

During the time of war and unparalleled Federal spending at the expense of the family budget, can we ask our families to pay up to $200 million each year to fund an out of control and poorly managed web presence at just one Federal agency. This funding could be put to better use at the Department of Interior or other important priorities. If we use the most conservative estimate on what this amendment would save taxpayers, about $50 million, we could take those savings and buy over 31,000 Kevlar vests for our soldiers in Iraq or 1,600 Humvees with armor plating.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I know the Department of Interior does a lot of good work and performs a lot of valuable services, but we as a body have a responsibility to strike out at waste wherever we find it. Mr. Chairman, we have certainly found it here. I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment. We must protect the family budget from the Federal budget.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Well, frankly, Mr. Chairman, there are many agencies.

I disagree with the gentleman's factual assertion, and the gentleman's party has been in control for the years that created this.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, hearing of the chairman's concern and knowing of his good work in this area, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

I would also like to answer an earlier question posed. I think it is very interesting that the gentleman earlier had indicated an interest in finding waste, fraud, and abuse but fought the amendment that would cut 1 percent, a mere 1 percent of waste, fraud and abuse from the Federal budget. Also, those gentlemen on the other side of the aisle voted to increase Federal spending over a trillion dollars in our last budget.

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to St. Patrick's School in Dallas, Texas, on the occasion of their 40th anniversary.

Education is one of the most important issues facing the future of our great nation. If America is to continue to be the leader of the modern world, we must offer a solid educational foundation for our citizens. To succeed in school and life, every student needs a basic set of skills. They need to listen attentively, speak persuasively, read with understanding, and write with command.

Over the past 40 years, St. Patrick's School has maintained a commitment to educational excellence, striving to provide a stimulating, well-rounded Catholic education by teaching their students to embrace the message of the gospel, pursue knowledge and make a difference in the world.

On March 17, 1963, Bishop Thomas K. Gorman issued a decree to establish St. Patrick's Parish north of White Rock Lake. Construction on the school began soon after and when it opened in September of 1964, the school was staffed by three Sisters of Notre Dame of the Dallas province and lay teachers for 326 students. Since then, the school has grown, expanding its buildings and facilities to help accommodate and educate more than 500 students.

Accredited by the Texas Catholic Conference of the Texas Private School Accreditation Commission, St. Patrick's School is an institution dedicated to offering students the tools they need to become genuine leaders in the community.

As the Congressman for the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, I am very proud to represent St. Patrick's Parish. I would like to offer my congratulations to their administrators, alumni, students, and parents on this momentous occasion and best wishes for their continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I need not state that last week was a very, very trying, yet very moving week for many Americans because we said goodbye to one of the greatest Presidents I believe in the history of America, and certainly one of the greatest that I have known in my life time, President Reagan. And I think many Americans recall so much about the President, about how he loved freedom and how optimistic he was.

There is a phrase that many people associated with President Reagan when he ran for reelection in 1984, and that phrase was, It is morning again in America.

Well, America has faced a significant economic challenge over the last several years, and that is we have faced a recession. Many people have been hurt by this recession and jobs were lost and businesses were padlocked. But I have to tell you, we have come out of the darkness. We are coming into the light. When we look the at our national economy, again it is morning in America.

One of the proudest days I have had as a Member of United States Congress was the day that I signed my name, co-authored President Bush's economic growth program. Now, that was a program that was all about tax relief, tax relief for American families, tax relief for small businesses, because we know that when you let families and businesses, the American people keep more of what they earn, they will roll up their sleeves. They will work hard. They will create new businesses. They will go out and open an automobile transmission shop on one street corner. They will open a barbecue stand on another corner. They will expand a mobile home business two blocks away.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we see in America today.

Now, many in this body want to debate who is to blame for the recession. Well, I can tell you there have been many, many recessions in the history of America. And I wish there was something we could do in this body to outlaw recessions but we cannot. But we do know that besides the obvious and huge loss of human life on 9/11, what a blow it was to our economy, in the trillions of dollars; not no to mention the stock market, the high tech bubble being burst, the corporate scandals. There are a whole lot of reasons. And we could play a blame game here between the Republicans and the Democrats, but I do not think that is what the American people sent us to Washington to do. They sent us here to work together and solve problems.

Mr. Speaker, in working with the President we have been able to solve a lot of these problems. If you look at where our economy is today, it is just a fantastic recovery that is under way. We are enjoying right now the highest economic growth that we have enjoyed in 20 years. In over 20 years we are seeing the highest economic growth that we have ever seen. And jobs, over a million and a half jobs have now been created over the last 9 months, in a blistering pace in the last several months, all due to President Bush's economic growth program.

Homeownership, the great American dream of homeownership, homeownership is at an all-time high. More Americans own their own homes than ever in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the explosive job growth that we have had in our economy, a million and a half jobs in just the last 9 months, people all over America being able to go back to work because of the President's economic growth program.

The stock market is up 20, 25 percent off of its lows, which is so important for so many people that have 401(k) plans that they have to plan for their retirement, and there is so much other good news.

We have other Members that are here to discuss that and how it relates to their congressional districts. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), to discuss this further.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for making time to come down this evening to the floor to discuss the wonderful news that we have had as we talk about the 1-year anniversary of the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003, and obviously there is so much good news to be had in Texas and Arizona and all the other States around the Nation, but there is still work to be done.

At this time, I yield to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), one of the great pro-growth leaders in the Congress, somebody who has made a real difference for West Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and how enlightening they were to enlighten us about what is going on in the State of West Virginia and how under the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003, how jobs are being created, how exports are up, how real income for families is on the rise so that families can go out and afford to spend more money on their education programs, their housing programs, their nutritional programs.

Although there is much work to be done, all this great progress was made possible by an act that at its core was all about tax relief, tax relief for small businesses, tax relief for American families, and Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, in the House of Representatives, that means that tax relief comes through our Committee on the Ways and Means. One of the great leaders of that committee, one of the pro- growth leaders in the United States Congress, is here to share his thoughts with us, and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his great leadership in ensuring that we did have tax relief for American families and small businesses which has ignited this great economic recovery that we are seeing from one shore to the other.

Indeed, there is great news and, indeed, there is still more work to be done. We have to make sure that those in Congress who want to take the tax relief away, raise taxes on the American people yet again, that that policy does not come about in the Halls of the United States House of Representatives.

We are joined tonight by a gentleman from the Committee on Ways and Means who was instrumental in ensuring that we pass the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003 and will be a key leader in ensuring this tax relief is not rolled back.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) for his comments and thank him for his leadership in ensuring that we had tax relief for American families and small businesses to help this wonderful surge of employment that we have had in the United States.

Again, as we can see from this chart, over the last 9 months almost a million and a half new jobs have been created, and in the last several months at a blistering pace. New jobs for Americans, and these are not just dry statistics that are appearing on some board, but I have the honor and privilege of representing the Fifth Congressional District of Texas which starts in the eastern part of the city of Dallas and takes in several of the suburbs of Dallas County and includes many rural areas in east Texas; and I have seen some great news in that area all due to President Bush's economic growth program.

I was in Jacksonville, Texas, not too long ago in Cherokee County, Texas. I

went to visit a plant called Jacksonville Industries. They are an aluminum and zinc die cast business. They were having trouble in some respects in competing in their marketplace. But once President Bush brought his economic growth package forward and once we passed it in the House of Representatives, all of a sudden they were able to afford a new piece of equipment that previously they could not afford. Now I could not tell you the name of this piece of equipment, I could not tell you what it does, but it is big and makes a lot of noise, and it makes them more competitive in a very competitive marketplace. Prior to being able to acquire this machine, they were on the verge of perhaps having to let two of their workers go because they could not be competitive without having the new plant, the new equipment.

Because of the equipment they were able to buy due to President Bush's tax relief program, instead of potentially laying off two workers, they hired three new workers. That is five people who could have been on unemployment, five people who could have been on welfare. Instead, thanks to our President and thanks to the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, those are five people with a real job, five people who are putting a roof over their own head, putting food on the table, helping educate their children, and realizing their own version of the American dream.

That is how important tax relief is in America to get this surge of economic growth, this surge of jobs that we see being created. I see it all over the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. I see it in the city of Garland where all of a sudden a new CiCi's Pizza franchise opened up just a couple of months ago. They created 30 new jobs in 2 months. In Mesquite, another superb of Dallas, a wonderful community, Coleman Homes, a home builder who came to Mesquite in 2002, has almost doubled their number of employees in just 2 years building homes.

Because as we said earlier, Mr. Speaker, we are enjoying the highest rate of homeownership that we have ever enjoyed in the history of the United States of America, thanks again to President Bush's economic growth program and a Republican majority in this House that would pass it.

In Dallas where I live in the Lakewood neighborhood, because of the economic growth, a new bank opened. They put in $600,000 to renovate an old building that went to builders and carpenters and refinishers, and in just 3 months they have added 12 full-time jobs to help serve all the demand as businesses grow and need the capital that the bank can provide. The stories go on and on and on.

Mr. Speaker, I know that tax relief works. I see it in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. We see it all over America, and it is not just the evidence we have today. It is the history. As we mourn the passing of one of the great Presidents of the United States, President Reagan, we have to remember tax relief worked again in his administration. We cut marginal tax rates, and we had an explosion of economic activity, and we had more tax revenue come into the government as well.

Mr. Speaker, there is other good news around this Nation. There is lots of good news, and that does not mean our work is done. We have much work to be done. We will not stop until every American who wants a job has a job. But another great leader that we have had in making sure that we have pro-growth economic policies for our Nation, to make sure that we create jobs in every corner of America is a great colleague of mine and cochairman of the Washington Waste Watchers, which has been on the vanguard of fighting waste, fraud and abuse in America.

At this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

I thank the gentleman for his comments. I especially thank him for reminding all of us that the government had nothing to do with this. It was the American people who went out and created these jobs. Not unlike my colleague from Indiana, I was a small businessman before I was elected to Congress. Government does not create jobs. Men and women who go out and risk capital and roll up their sleeves and work hard, they are the ones who create jobs in America. But for them to do it, government has got to get out of the way. Too many taxes destroy jobs. Too many regulations destroy jobs. Too much litigation destroys jobs. Fortunately due to President Bush's economic growth plan, due to this Republican majority in Congress, we took a huge step in providing this tax relief that has provided almost 1.5 million jobs in 9 months.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz- Balart), another great leader we have had on economic growth issues in the United States Congress, a gentleman who is the cofounder of the Washington Waste Watchers.

I thank my colleague from Florida for his wonderful comments and helping remind us that again there are two very different visions for economic growth in America. In one vision again is tax relief for small businesses, the job-creating engine in America. Another is tax increases on business, tax increases on families. It is often said that one is entitled to their own opinions but one is not entitled to their own facts.

Let me review again what has happened in the last 9 months. We have added almost 1.5 million new jobs in the last 9 months. And look at this. Look at the blistering pace in just the last 3 months of job creation in this economy due to tax relief. Look at this. The greatest economic growth in almost 20 years under this program, under President Bush's tax relief program, the greatest economic growth in almost 20 years. Look what is happening to the unemployment rate. It is going down. Job creation is going up. Unemployment is going down. Incomes are up. Family incomes are up. These are not just jobs. We are seeing good jobs, good job growth in the American economy. Again that foundation of the American dream, homeownership, is at an all-time high.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the question is where do we go from here, because there is work to be done. We do not want to rest until every American who wants a job has a job. We want to make sure that we have more tax relief, that Americans can go out and create more businesses and expand more jobs, so that every American can realize his American dream, that he can invest in his housing program, in his nutritional program, in his education program. But our friends from the other side of the aisle, they want to raise taxes on the American people. Mr. Speaker, we cannot tax our way into prosperity. That is a battle being fought in the House now. And another battle we are trying to fight, we want to reduce the litigation in America. Too often we do not love our neighbor, we sue our neighbor in America. There is something fundamentally wrong when it is easier to sue a doctor than it is to see a doctor.

There is something fundamentally wrong when one can sue McDonald's for millions of dollars because they spill hot coffee on oneself. Excess litigation hurts job growth. That is another difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.

And how about too much regulation? I know as a small businessman the huge regulatory burden on our economy. It is almost $8,000 per American family. How many mortgage payments is that for the average American family? How many semesters of college is that? Instead, we are paying more in regulation costs. We want to bring down that regulatory cost. The Democrats want to increase that regulatory cost.

Litigation sends jobs overseas. Regulation sends jobs overseas. And taxation sends jobs overseas.

We need to thank President Bush for his principled leadership in all the job growth that he has created in the economy.

Mr. Speaker, this week millions of Americans and people around the globe mourn the loss of one of our Nation's greatest heroes, Ronald Reagan. From the time that he took the oath of office until he left the White House, few American Presidents ever enjoyed the popularity, support and love that Ronald Reagan engendered. He developed a special bond with the American people, and one can see from the tremendous outpouring of sympathy and support across our great Nation that that special bond still endures today.

More than any other person, President Reagan is responsible for winning the Cold War. He engaged his Communist adversaries in the battle of ideas and achieved victory by winning the war for the hearts and minds of people. In his heart he knew these people. He knew the Bulgarian student who was never allowed to read Thomas Jefferson. He knew the East German mother who wanted a better life for her children. He knew the Polish factory worker who longed to be free of Soviet subjugation.

One 65-year-old Czech who lived under the Soviet regime said, ``For us, Reagan was important because we knew he was really anti-Communist, emotionally anti-Communist. For us, he was a symbol of the United States' genuine determination to bring communism to an end.''

A Romanian man who was recently interviewed struggled to find the words to describe President Reagan's legacy,

and then he simply said, ``It is due to him that we are free.''

Thanks to Ronald Reagan's determined leadership, untold millions were liberated from Communist tyranny and from the palpable fear of nuclear annihilation.

America was fortunate to have Ronald Reagan. At a time when our country needed a hero, Ronald Reagan was able to rekindle the American spirit. He inspired us with his powerful words and unwavering optimism. He had a steadfast belief in the goodness of America. No amount of pessimism, strife or tragedy could discourage that thinking or blur his vision of America as a ``shining city on a hill.''

I was one of perhaps hundreds of thousands of people that had the privilege to shake the hand of the former President, look him in the eyes and thank him for all he did for America. Frankly, next to my marriage and the birth of my children, it was one of the most profound moments in my life. An earlier generation was inspired to public service by Barry Goldwater. Many in my generation were inspired to serve by Ronald Reagan.

A woman in Santa Monica recently stated, ``When I think of him, I think of America. What is that saying, American, like Mom and apple pie. He should be in that, too, because he represented what this country is all about.''

President Reagan was what this country is all about. He believed in the American dream. He believed in the power of free men and free markets. He championed less government, lower taxes and lifting regulation. He believed in our country's ability to produce boundless possibilities and limitless opportunity. His policies ushered in a new age of entrepreneurship and innovation, and led to one of the greatest economic expansions in our Nation's history.

We believed in President Reagan because he believed in us. He always saw the best in us, and he never stopped believing in the decency and ingenuity of the American people. He believed deeply in the strength of democracy and never lost hope of America realizing its ``rendezvous with destiny.''

Our Nation will deeply miss Ronald Reagan. Undoubtedly future generations of Americans will remember him among the pantheon of America's great leaders, among the names of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, but there will never be another President Reagan.

Let us remember his words the way he wished to be remembered: ``Whatever else history may say about me when I am gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty's lamp guiding your steps and opportunity's arm steadying your way.''

Mr. Speaker, today should serve more than just a memorial, it should serve as a reminder. As President Reagan also said, ``There is much work before us. Not easy tasks perhaps, but I would remind you, they are not impossible, because after all, we are Americans,'' and perhaps none more so than Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Speaker, throughout our history, when our country called, millions of American men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice so that our Nation could enjoy peace and prosperity. From Bunker Hill to Baghdad, many of America's best and brightest have paid the price of our freedom with their lives, leaving behind their friends, their families and their futures.

Recently, the Fifth Congressional District of Texas lost one of our best. Lance Corporal James A. Casper of Coolidge, Texas, was a twenty- year-old Marine assigned to 2nd Battalion, 11th Marines, 1st Division, who lost his life near Al Asad, Iraq, while serving his country in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Lance Corporal Casper served this country well, as did the other brave men and women who have lost their lives in Iraq, helping to fight our enemies far away in order to prevent them from attacking us again here at home. Undoubtedly, it is through their sacrifice that future generations of Americans and others will enjoy freedom from terror.

As our families and friends gather together this Memorial Day to enjoy barbeques and baseball games, let us not forget the solemn purpose for this national day of remembrance.

Freedom is not free--it comes at an incredible cost. Today, let us show our deep appreciation for those who fought for our freedom and let us honor those, like Lance Corporal Casper, who died defending it. Let us commend their courage, their patriotism, their service and their sacrifice.

In the words of President Ronald Reagan, ``We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise again today as a member of the Washington Waste Watchers, a Republican working group dedicated to rooting out rampant waste, fraud, abuse and duplication in the Federal bureaucracy.

Despite the major economic recovery that is under way, despite more new jobs and historic rates of homeownership, Democrats keep demanding that we take tax relief away from American families. Take away the tax relief that is responsible for the unparalleled growth in our economy, the tax relief that is creating jobs, the very same tax relief that has actually added revenues to our Federal Treasury. That is right, the Treasury Department reports that revenues are up due to tax relief- generated economic growth.

When it comes to the Federal deficit, Mr. Speaker, our fiscal challenges lie on the spending side, not on the taxing side; and that is where we must focus our attention. And by any measure, spending is out of control in Washington. For only the fourth time in the history of our Nation, the Federal Government is now spending over $20,000 per family. This is up from just $16,000 just 5 years ago. This represents the largest expansion of the government in 50 years. Since I have been alive, the Federal budget has grown seven times faster than the family budget.

Clearly we have a spending problem, not a taxing problem. Now is not the time to raise taxes on American families, as so many Democrats seek to do; but it is time to take the trash out in Washington, the waste, the fraud, the abuse, the duplication.

Let me give you just a few typical examples we found recently in just one government department, the Department of Agriculture. The Office of Rural Rental Housing made $4.4 million in rental subsidy overpayments in just one State simply because they could not verify the income of the recipients.

Can you imagine going to a bank or an automobile dealer and having them just hand out a loan without verifying your income? Do they not typically ask for a pay stub or a tax return? It is only common sense in the rest of America, but apparently not with many Federal bureaucrats. And Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? $4.4 million of the people's hard-earned money squandered. That is enough money to fully armor 142 Humvees in Iraq.

Because the Rural Utility Service will not allow water and waste projects to be funded by both government grants and private loan sources, American taxpayers paid for more than $85 million of unnecessary grants over a 4-year period. This same agency made loans totaling about $100 million to projects that could have been financed with private credit. Instead, taxpayers, American families, were forced to finance them. This policy does not make any sense, yet Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this? That $85 million in unnecessary grants could have been used to purchase over 53,000 Kevlar vests for our troops in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, almost everyone believes that we should help provide adequate nutrition for the neediest Americans; but because a food stamp program State agency in the Midwest did not provide oversight over its field offices, and because they had not performed a management review in over 7 years, almost $2 million in Federal funding was improperly spent on administration of the food stamp program in the year 2000. That money could have bought 720,000 gallons of milk for food stamp recipients in Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine starting up a small business and not reviewing your finances for over 7 years? My guess is the business would go bankrupt. Yet Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this?

Mr. Speaker, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The list goes on and on and on, and so does the waste, the fraud, the abuse and duplication. It has been going on for decades.

Republicans are working hard to root out the waste of American tax dollars, but too often our Democrat colleagues keep fighting us every step of the way. Last year, the Committee on the Budget approved a budget asking for authorizing committees to identify just 1 percent, just 1 percent, of waste and fraud and abuse within their budgets. But again the Democrats fought us every step of the way. One of their leaders reviled our efforts, ridiculed it, and said it was ``a senseless and irresponsible exercise.''

Mr. Speaker, the American people disagree. With the Nation at war and with a large Federal budget deficit, there is no better time than now to root out this senseless waste, fraud and abuse, because when it comes to Federal programs, it is not how much money Washington spends that counts; it is how Washington spends it.