[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 143 (Wednesday, November 2, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H9547-H9552]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania). Under the
Speaker's announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hensarling) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the
majority leader.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, tonight, we are coming here to talk
about a very important piece of legislation titled the Deficit
Reduction Act.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation is seeing a number of challenges here,
obviously
9/11, which we have heard a lot about. Recently our Nation has been hit
with a number of hurricanes, natural disasters that have proven very,
very costly to our Nation. Now we have seen the threat of avian flu.
There are a number of different challenges our Nation faces, and we
will meet these challenges; but meeting these challenges is not free.
Particularly within the context of the hurricanes that have hit, at
the end of the day, when we look at the Federal response, how much
money the Federal Government is going to spend, there are really only
three ways that we are going to be able to pay for this. Either number
one we are going to raise taxes on hardworking American families yet
again as they are facing challenges in meeting the cost of filling up
their pick-up trucks and heating their homes, or we are going to pass
debt on to our children, even more debt to be passed on to our
children. But, Mr. Speaker, we on the Republican side of the aisle
believe that there is another way, and that way is to restrain the
growth of government. That way is to protect the family budget from the
Federal budget.
We are going to spend some time, Mr. Speaker, this evening bringing
up some very interesting facts that we believe the American people need
to know.
Number one, you will hear this evening about how tax relief that we
have brought to American families and small businesses, that has been
part of our deficit solution, not part of our deficit problem; and we
will talk about that later this evening because there has been a lot of
misinformation there.
In addition, we have heard the other side talk about gross and
draconian cuts in the Federal budget. Well, what we are going to
discover, Mr. Speaker, is what they call a draconian cut is trying to
restrain the growth of government so we do not have to raise taxes, so
we do not have to pass on debt to our children. It is the same old song
we have heard from them for 50 years.
What we also hear from them is that somehow any reform, any
accountability that we institute in the Federal budget is somehow
tantamount to hurting the poor. Mr. Speaker, we do not buy that. The
American people do not buy that either because we know that year after
year after year, as we dump new programs on top of old programs, as the
Federal Government refuses to measure the success, the progress, the
ability of these programs to meet goals, that we have a budget now that
is fraught with waste. It is fraught with abuse. It is fraught with
duplication.
Mr. Speaker, finally, not all spending is created equal. Families all
over America have to make some tough decisions occasionally at the end
of the month when that paycheck begins to run out, and this is what
people do in a great Nation.
In my own family, if we are a little low on money at the end of the
month, I am not going to tell my two children, my 3\1/2\-year-old
daughter and 2-year-old son, I am sorry, children, you just cannot have
anymore milk because your mom and I have got this great movie we want
to go see. What happens is my wife and I do not go to the movie.
Instead, we buy the milk for the children.
Some spending in the Federal budget is just not high priority, not
when compared to trying to relieve human suffering along the gulf coast
that has been wrought by these hurricanes. So the American people, I
think they instinctively know, but occasionally we have to remind them
about what is in this Federal budget.
Mr. Speaker, often when we spend money here in Washington, D.C., many
good things come from it: Kevlar vests for our brave men and women
fighting in Iraq and fighting in the global war on terror. Occasionally
money is spent to help start a small business; but more often than not,
though, we see that this money is spent for an $800,000 outhouse in a
national park and the toilet does not even flush. We see it spent on
342 different Federal economic development programs, 342. Does that not
suggest some duplication? More often than not, it is spent on food
stamps where 10, 20, and sometimes 30 percent of the recipients do not
even qualify because we are not checking their income levels, and the
list goes on and on and on.
The important thing, Mr. Speaker, that we need to know this evening
is that there are plenty of places in the Federal budget where we can
save money so that families do not have to cut their budgets because
every dollar we spend here is a dollar that we cannot spend back in
Texas or Tennessee or Virginia or New York.
At the end of the day, it is not the government's money. It is the
people's money, and we need to institute more accountability in the
system. I wish more of our friends on the Democrat side of the aisle
would come and help us, but too often they have bottled up each and
every reform. They do not believe that there is any waste in the
Federal budget. They do not believe there is any duplication in the
Federal budget. They believe all spending is great spending, that
nothing good has ever happened in our Nation unless it as the result of
a Federal program; and that is not true.
So, Mr. Speaker, the first thing that we want to discuss this evening
is to talk a little bit about what is in this Federal budget, this $2.4
trillion budget, a budget that over the last 10 years has been growing
at least a third faster than the family budget, a Federal budget that,
in my lifetime, Mr. Speaker, has grown seven times faster than the
family budget. That is an unconscionable growth rate. That is an
unsustainable growth rate.
Again, our purpose here is to provide reforms. It is to provide
accountability, and it is to spare our children the future of having to
have a massive tax increase or massive debt placed on them.
So we want to talk about different ways that we believe that we can
save money in Washington, D.C. without cutting vital programs. We want
to make sure that the social safety net is in place; but we know that
the greatest social welfare program, the greatest housing program, the
greatest education program in the history of mankind is a job, a job
provided by the American free enterprise system, which is what our
economic policies are all about. That is why we have been able to
create 4 million new jobs in this economy, with tax relief for small
businesses and American families.
So there are a lot of things that we need to do to protect that
family budget from the Federal budget; and I am very, very happy, Mr.
Speaker, that I have been joined by a number of our colleagues who are
leaders in this Congress on trying to help root out this waste and this
fraud and this abuse and this duplication in the Federal budget so that
we can indeed protect that family budget.
One of the individuals who is joining us this evening is one of the
leaders in government reform, a colleague of mine that I have been very
proud to know, a real leader in this Congress on that subject, the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn); and I would be glad to
yield to her.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
[[Page H9548]]
his words of wisdom and for the commitment that he brings to protecting
the Federal budget, just as he does the family budget. I appreciate the
diligence as he goes about this, whether it is Operation Offset or
Washington Waste Watchers. He has certainly worked very, very hard on
this.
{time} 2230
I was talking about his good work in my district one day in one of
the town halls and talked about how he felt like we should watch the
Federal budget like the family budget and some of the information that
he brought to us.
One of my constituents raised his hand; and he said, ``Mrs.
Blackburn, I tell you, I really appreciate that. You know, sometimes I
think the Federal Government does get out of hand. It does need to be
reined in.'' He said, ``They need to take a lesson from some of us.''
He said, ``Sometimes, you know, I have too much month left over at the
end of my money. And when that happens, we have to just sit down and
work things a little bit differently.''
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that that is the kind of wisdom we need to
put on the table here in Washington. Maybe we have too much year left
over at the end of our money, which means it is time for us to
prioritize and to focus and to do things a little bit differently.
We know that government does not have a revenue problem. Government
has a spending problem. And we also know that the government is never
going to get enough of the taxpayers' money. They are never, ever, ever
going to get enough of the taxpayers' money. Never happen. Because
there is always going to be one more program, one more activity, one
more department, one more need, one more something that they feel like
needs that money.
Now one of the things that we have done here is to talk about the
Deficit Reduction Act, and that is a piece of legislation that is going
to come before this body soon. The majority here in the House has
worked diligently on the Deficit Reduction Act. Many of our colleagues
across the aisle are fighting us tongue, tooth and toenail. Every time
we turn around they are just fighting us every step of the way on this.
Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you, I think there is a reason for this.
With over 40 years of Democrat control of this body, they have really
built a monument to themselves; and that monument is a huge enormous
bureaucracy. What it comes down to is that they would rather support
bureaucrats in buildings and trust them to make decisions for the
average American family and for taxpayers than to trust individuals and
families to make those decisions. Their focus is putting the attention
on preserving that bureaucracy and growing that bureaucracy.
As the gentleman from Texas has said, fiscal responsibility is what
our work focuses on: How do we rein this government in? How do we slow
the growth? How do we begin to work toward reducing spending, reducing
the deficit and being certain that this Nation remains a free and
productive Nation for our children and our grandchildren? That has
brought us to working out the budget, the Deficit Reduction Act, that
we are bringing forward this year.
My colleague from Texas mentioned a few things about waste, fraud and
abuse; and we have put some attention on that this year here in the
House. I want to highlight a couple of things. When we hear our
colleagues from across the aisle say, well, there is nowhere to cut. We
cannot find any savings. We cannot reduce these programs. My goodness,
what would they do if we slowed their growth and did not let them have
more money this year than they had last year?
Well, I just want to highlight a few things that when we talk about
we have reduced the deficit by $50 billion, an additional, additional
$50 billion this year, I want to highlight a few things where we have
found waste, fraud and abuse. We have only done a drop in the bucket,
and we have had to fight every step of the way to get this, but just
listen to some of these things that we highlight that we know are
there.
From 2003, the Federal Government cannot account for $24 and a half
billion that it spent. We think that accountability is important. A
White House review of just a sample of the Federal budget identified
$90 billion spent on programs deemed ineffective, marginally adequate
or operating under a flawed purpose or design, $90 billion. Well,
already if we could get support for going after these dollars we would
be well over $100 billion.
Housing and Urban Development, $3.3 billion in overpayments in 2001,
which accounted for over 10 percent of the Department's total budget.
Now many of us have supported across-the-board cuts, Mr. Speaker; and I
was joined by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) in filing bills that would call
for either a 1 or 2 or 5 percent across-the-board reduction in
spending.
Most folks would look at their budget and say, you know, I can find
1, 2, or 5 percent by just getting in here and cleaning up some of my
operations. Well, HUD had overpayments that accounted for over 10
percent of their budget. If they just cleaned up their books and cut
out the overpayments, there would be 10 percent right there.
Duplication. The gentleman from Texas mentioned duplication of
programs, and there is a lot of that here. We know that when you have a
big Federal program you have a bureaucracy, you have bureaucrats in
these great big shiny buildings all around Washington, D.C., and all
around our country that run the programs. We have on the books 342
different economic development programs, 130 programs serving the
disabled, 130 programs serving at-risk youth, 90 early childhood
development programs, 75 programs funding international education,
cultural, and training exchange activities.
Mr. Speaker, we are simply saying, let us put the money in the
programs where it is going to do good in local communities. Let us get
rid of the bureaucracy. Let us streamline some of this. Let us get rid
of redundancies and duplications and be certain that the money is going
for what it is intended: helping individuals in the communities.
Washington spends $60 billion on corporate welfare every year versus
$43 billion on homeland security. Priorities. They are important. Farm
subsidies go to several Members of Congress and celebrity hobby farmers
such as David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Scottie Pippin, and former Enron
CEO Ken Lay. Something to look at.
Medicare programs that pay eight times as much for the cost of drugs
as other Federal agencies are paying for medical supplies. This needs
to be dealt with.
Food stamp overpayments that are costing taxpayers $600 million
annually, many of those payments going to individuals who are not in
the country legally.
School lunch program abuse has been estimated by the GAO to be at
$120 million annually.
Mr. Speaker, these are all examples of waste, fraud, and abuse that
have been documented by the OMB, the CBO, and the GAO, agencies of the
Federal Government. These are agencies that work with Congress to say
go back and take a second look and look at how this money is being
spent. Exercise your oversight. And that is what we are doing as we
move forward on fiscal responsibility and accountability and as we
bring forward the Deficit Reduction Act.
I thank the gentleman from Texas for allowing me to join him tonight.
I thank him for his diligence and his leadership on this effort, the
leadership that he gives to the Republican Study Committee and that he
gives here to the entire body of the House.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentlewoman for
her insight and leadership on this subject. Mr. Speaker, she brought up
just a number of different examples illustrating the point that, again,
there is so much waste and there is so much fraud and there is so much
duplication and low-priority spending in this budget, yet Democrats do
not want to work with us to try to reform this.
Mr. Speaker, we have 10,000 different Federal programs spread across
over 600 different agencies, and we have many pressing needs, but we
owe it to the American people to bring some accountability here.
[[Page H9549]]
Now, again, as my able colleague, the gentlewoman from Tennessee,
talked about, we know what the Democrats will say about these different
programs. Well, wait a second, that is really massive cuts in spending.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, anybody in this body is entitled to
their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. Let
me talk a little about what the facts are, and then we will go back and
talk about even more waste and fraud in this budget.
When they talk about massive cuts in the Federal budget, let us put
this in perspective. If we are, among other things, besides trying to
reduce the deficit, if we are trying to pay for the hurricane damage,
so far that bill for the Federal Government has totaled about $62
billion. Yet the Federal budget over this same 5-year period is $13.9
trillion. Mr. Speaker, as I do my math, we are talking about less than
half a cent, less than half a penny, and this is called some type of
massive cut?
What it tells me is that, as we are trying to fight the deficit, all
we hear about from the Democrats is tax relief, we hear about massive
cuts, and yet we are talking about half a cent. If we cannot find a
half a penny of savings on the dollar in a $13.9 trillion budget, well,
we are just not looking.
Any small business in America, any family in America would laugh in
our face if we told them, well, there is just no way that we can find a
half a cent of savings on the dollar to protect your family budget. No,
we are going to have to increase taxes, or maybe we will just pass
debts on to your children. Mr. Speaker, that is just totally, totally
unacceptable.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. If the gentleman will yield.
Mr. HENSARLING. Yes, I will be happy to yield to the gentlewoman.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. To the gentleman's point as he is talking about the
budget and what we would do with making some adjustments within that
budget, Medicaid is an issue that we addressed in the Energy and
Commerce Committee last week and looked at some forms and some
redesigning and revitalization of Medicaid, being certain that we
preserve access to health care for Americans. In this process, we
looked at the annual expected growth rate of Medicaid, which is 7.3
percent per year. And by looking at pharmaceuticals, making adjustments
there, rooting out some waste and fraud and some abuse, closing some
loopholes, addressing some inefficiencies, we were able to slow the
growth from 7.3 percent to 7 percent growth per year.
But, in liberal lingo, the gentleman from Texas knows that that is
described by our colleagues across the aisle as a cut, when all we have
really done is to say, let us get the fiscal house in order and be
certain that we are using the technologies and availing ourselves of
the efficiencies available.
Mr. HENSARLING. Well, the gentlewoman is so right. It begs the
question, Mr. Speaker, how much government is enough? As we can see
from this chart, already Washington is now spending over $22,000 per
American family; and this is one of the greatest levels in history.
For only the fourth time in American history has the Federal
Government taken that much money away from American families to spend
up here. And look at this growth curve. $22,000 per family for only the
fourth time in American history. Again, how much government is enough?
And, as I stated earlier, just look at the last 10 years. Look at the
growth of the family budget, which is here, the blue line, versus the
growth of the Federal budget. The Federal budget in the last 10 years
has grown a third faster and keeps on growing and growing. And as we
will discuss later this evening, the trend line is only getting worse.
But here is a very, very important point to make with this chart, Mr.
Speaker, and that is, again, as we talk about ways that we can find
efficiencies in government, as we talk about ways that we can reduce
the waste, where money is taken from hard-working families in America
and wasted up here, here is something that every American ought to know
in this debate. Even once we are successful in passing this Deficit
Reduction Act and engaging in this process called reconciliation, which
is a fancy Washington term that just means we are going to start
reforming these out-of-control entitlement programs, guess what, Mr.
Speaker? They are going to grow at 6.3 percent instead of 6.4 percent.
That is the massive cut that the Democrats talk about. It is not a
cut. We are increasing this spending, but we are not increasing it as
fast as it would be on mere automatic pilot. But somehow, in Washington
lingo, as my colleague pointed out, somebody calls that a cut. Now,
only a liberal in Washington or an Enron accountant can look at that
chart and somehow call that a cut.
Again, Mr. Speaker, maybe people are entitled to their own opinions,
but they are not entitled to their own facts.
{time} 2245
Mr. Speaker, again let me go over even more examples that we will
have about where we can find savings in this Federal budget. Because,
again, Mr. Speaker, either we are going to find savings in the Federal
budget or we are going to attack the family budget by raising taxes or
we are going to pass debt on to our children. So it is incumbent upon
us to find ways to reform government and to make it more accountable.
With that, I notice we have been joined by two of our colleagues. I
am very happy that we have been joined by the gentleman from Virginia,
the deputy majority whip, who has been a real leader in this House for
trying to bring accountability into the Federal budget.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) for
his comments on this subject.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
And I also would like to join the gentlewoman from Tennessee in
really saluting the gentleman from Texas and his commitment to being a
prudent steward of the taxpayer dollar. I do not think there is anyone
who serves in this House who has more of a commitment to the notion
that the dollars that we spend and we raise here at the Federal level,
the fact that they are not really dollars that belong to the
government, they are dollars that belong to the people and the
businesses that earn them. Again, as a watchdog of the Treasury, I do
not think there is any other more adamant and loyal soldier than the
gentleman from Texas; and I do congratulate him on that accomplishment
and know that he will continue to serve in that capacity.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to also return and just set the record
straight for some of the statements that were made in the prior hour
regarding the war in Iraq. If I could just diverge a little bit from
the topic at hand here regarding the Federal budget, because of the
statements that were made: ``We are helping cause the local insurgency
in Iraq.'' The next quote was, ``If you want to end terrorism, get out
of Iraq. Go after Osama bin Laden.''
As for the first, I am having a little difficulty following the logic
of how the presence of American troops in Iraq would cause local
insurgency. We all know, as we read the news reports every day, that
there is a stream of outsiders coming in, joining with the Sunni
insurgency in Iraq, and it has become ground zero for the terrorists
who wish to do us harm in the United States, who wish to do Israel harm
in the Middle East and, frankly, wish to do harm to anyone in the free
world.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the individuals in the prior hour that,
make no mistake, Iraq, Afghanistan, other parts of the world where we
see the operation of terrorist organizations and cooperation by local
regimes, that dynamic, that formula is what continues to fuel the war
that we are engaged in. It is directly the sponsorship of unfriendly
regimes of these terrorist organizations that allow these organizations
sanctuary in which to train, that allow these organizations resources
on which to operate and, frankly, allow them to pull off the terrorist
attacks that we have seen, frankly, for almost two decades, if not
longer.
One of the gentlewomen who were involved in the discussion prior said
that we, if we want to go after the terrorists, should go after the
individuals that perpetrated the attacks on 9/11; and, of course, we
are. First of all, we know that 19 of them perished in their mission
and demonstrated that their hatred of us knows no bounds. They avenged
that hatred, including taking their own lives.
[[Page H9550]]
So we are engaged in a war for the free world, and the sooner that
all of us in this House recognize that and support this President and
this administration in what we are trying to do, and that is to secure
our homeland and to provide national security for Americans, the
quicker it is that we will see victory.
The fact that we are being accused by some on the other side of the
aisle for not having a strategy, nothing could be further from the
truth. Our strategy has always been very straightforward:
One, counter the insurgency and assist the Iraqis in forming their
own military police and military so that they can take care of
themselves. That is ongoing. Reports show that over 85 battalions of
Iraqis are engaging with our troops, embedded with our troops, and
fighting with us alongside our brave men and women in this War on
Terror.
Secondly, we are to identify the Islamic jihadists and allow our
Special Forces to deal with them; and I know that all of us in this
House know that that is being dealt with.
Thirdly, we are using the appeal of democracy to attract the Sunni
minority into the government to allow them the freedoms, allow them
protections that a minority enjoys in a democratic state. As we saw
1\1/2\ weeks ago, the ratification of that constitution guarantees
those minorities their rights, and we will see in another couple of
months the elections of the full and permanent parliament.
So, again, Mr. Speaker, to underscore my opposition to their
statements and the fact that I differ strongly with the representations
that were made.
Now, back to the subject that the gentleman from Texas and the
gentlewoman from Tennessee were engaged in and the fact that I, too,
join with them in calling on our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle to lay down their partisanship, to join us, as 51 of their fellow
party men joined the Republicans in 1997 in engaging in what was then
the first Deficit Reduction Act under reconciliation since the
Republicans took majority. I ask them to do that because it is
imperative that we renew our commitment in this House to the hard-
working American taxpayer and for what they do for their families every
day. We owe it to these families to be good stewards of their money.
We all were elected here in our various districts by constituents and
their needs. We certainly are here and are being judged each and every
day by what we do and how we cast our votes. I know, Mr. Speaker, that
I was elected by my constituents to take a good, long look at the way
the government operates and to try to make the improvements to
government and the structure so that it can be more efficient with the
use of the taxpayer dollars; so that we can, as the gentleman and
gentlewoman pointed out, root out the waste, fraud, and abuse that
unfortunately has continued to grow as the bureaucracy expands.
Both the gentleman from Texas and the gentlewoman from Tennessee
talked about the waste, fraud, and abuse in some of the entitlement
programs that exist. Take, for instance, the Medicaid program. This is
a program, as we know, that is a partnership between the Federal
Government and the States. It is a program that offers to some in this
country a very necessary support for the health care of those indigent
citizens in our society. But if we look at the pattern of growth of
this program, it is something that I think strays far from the original
intentions of those in this body that created and passed the enabling
statute. Over the past 5 years, this program has grown by 56 percent.
Frankly, it is an unsustainable growth rate, given the increasing costs
and escalating costs in health care.
So the reforms that we will have a chance to vote on next week, as
the gentlewoman pointed out, under the Deficit Reduction Act, these
reforms attempt to slow the growth and identify areas where waste,
fraud, and abuse has been fueling that growth. And even after we enact
the reforms under the Deficit Reduction Act, we will still see Medicaid
with a 7 percent growth rate. So what we are doing is identifying
savings.
How are we doing that? Well, first of all, we see the creation of
health opportunity accounts. This will be a pilot program that will
enable certain States to afford Medicaid beneficiaries the opportunity
to set up essentially a health savings account. And we know that we
provided that ability for anyone in the Medicare bill as well a few
years back. We created the opportunity for individuals to purchase
high-deductible catastrophic health care plans so that we could lower
the cost of health care for American families and also emphasize the
family's role in deciding the destiny, if you will, of their health
care provision and to emphasize the role of that family in making
choices as far as health care is concerned. We are going to afford the
same opportunity to beneficiaries under the Medicare program as well.
Additionally, once we pass the Deficit Reduction Act, we are going to
able to root out the asset transfer fraud that is going on with many in
this country, which essentially allows those who could otherwise afford
to pay for their health care services to become wards of the State.
Again, this is far from the original intention of those who enacted
this program of Medicaid. Medicaid is for the truly indigent, for truly
those who cannot help themselves and are in need of health care.
We also provide for, in the Deficit Reduction Act, the cessation of
States somehow going about double dipping, if you will, in order to
gain more access to Federal moneys. We want to cut that out as well
because, again, this goes against the original intention of what this
program was supposed to do.
And the list goes on. Areas such as student loans, we wanted to make
sure that we have an adequate supply or availability of financial aid
as we see enrollment continuing to grow in our colleges and
universities, as we see increasing tuition costs in our colleges and
universities. And that is exactly what this bill does assure as well,
that the financial aid will continue to be there. But, as it increases,
we also increase the loan limit amount but also reduce the fees that
our students will pay. Again, it is very important to afford access to
our students to our education system in this country but at the same
time make sure that the Federal dollars are used in the most
appropriate and efficient manner.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the gentleman to go back
to one point on Medicaid. I think it is so important, and many of our
constituents and many members of this House, I think, would be
interested in it. I would love for him to talk one more time briefly
about the health opportunity accounts, because this is something that
will give individuals ownership over the decisions that they make and
have to make in their health care choices.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the gentlewoman more.
Because there is one thing that I really have an aversion to, and that
is somehow Washington knows best, that somehow we are going to provide
a one-size-fits-all blanket solution to health care. And she is right,
these health opportunity accounts get away from that. They allow
individuals to determine the fate of their health care and how that
will be provided, and that is exactly what these health opportunity
accounts do.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think
this is something that is so very important because what it says is
every individual has the right to go in there and have that ability to
make decisions, establish that relationship with that physician; and if
they take responsibility and if they take ownership, then here is a
great way that they can do it.
In addition, we are going to see the flexibility that many of the
governors have said we need, flexibility in order to be certain that
health care remains viable and accessible for all of our citizens.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, the other gentleman from Texas I believe
also has been a champion for the restoration of fiscal sanity here in
Washington because we owe it to those American taxpayers.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
{time} 2300
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia and
also
[[Page H9551]]
the gentleman from Texas for having hosting this special hour.
I would like to make a couple of points of a general nature and talk
about some specific things. I am a CPA. I have spent 30-plus years in
business watching what happens when tax rates go up and businesses have
to deal with increased taxes. I have also helped businesses as their
tax bills go down and what they do with that money. They put that money
back into their business, they reinvest it in equipment, they hire
people. They do things that create jobs for this economy.
We have got a growing economy. One of the things that got lost in
some of the noise up here is that in January of this past year, the CBO
estimated the tax collections for the Federal Government to be $2.057
trillion.
The other side makes an awful lot of talk about raising taxes, that
we need to raise taxes. Well, I would submit that this Republican-led
House has raised taxes the correct way. We have raised taxes because we
have got more people working in America than have ever worked before.
We have got more people paying taxes than ever before. As a result of
that, the numbers that came in for out of the CBO for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2005, was in fact $2.154 trillion, or some $97
billion more than we thought we were going to have.
We kind of got lost in our Katrina efforts of $60-plus billion, which
were unexpected expenses. What we probably should have done is looked
at those unexpected revenues and said that is a good place to pay for
those Katrina expenses. We reduced the deficit by some 23 percent.
So we have a growing economy, and that growing economy is important
to the continuing fiscal responsibility of this House.
Cutting spending is difficult to do. Family budgets cannot run on a
deficit very long. Businesses cannot run at a deficit very long. About
the only entity in the world that can run on a deficit for any length
of time is the Federal Government. Simply because the Federal
Government can do it certainly is no reason why the Federal Government
should do it.
Let me put it in perspective. The budget that we passed in April and
we are chewing on right now called for us to spend some $2.56 trillion.
Now, under any circumstance, that is a lot of money. It is just a lot
of money. But it really does not mean much to us in those terms. Let me
give you a term that kind of helps put it in perspective.
In the fiscal year we are in right now, which started October 1,
2005, this government will spend $81,177 every second. I am going to
wait about 4 seconds here and well run up about $320,000. A lot of that
money is spent correctly, but much of it is spent in ways that we
probably ought to leave that money with our taxpayers.
My colleague from Texas said earlier, every single dollar that the
Federal Government collects came out of somebody's earnings, some
business' earnings. We have got people all over this country that go to
work every day to try to make money, they try to figure out a way the
services they can provide to an employer or some product they can build
and sell for a profit, use their ingenuity, use their sweat equity, use
the hard work to make that money, and the Federal Government comes in
and takes a slice of that to help run this Federal Government. That is
just the scheme we have in place.
But do not lose sight of the fact it is taken away from those
taxpayers really at the point of a gun, because we require that they
collect those taxes from you.
The other side always makes a lot about tax cuts and quote-unquote
paying for those tax cuts. Money that is collected in the general
revenue, general income taxes, goes into one large bucket. Let us put a
disconnect, as we should, between the way we collect the money and the
way that money is spent.
So when the other side talks about this reduction in spending as a
result of this tax cut, that is really illogical in the sense you
really cannot connect those dollars. We do not put in an increase in
capital gains to pay for some extra program. We do not do it that way.
So let us make sure we disconnect the tax connection scheme from the
way the money is being used.
Finally, let me give you one quick anecdote and help put some
perspective on this. I helped raise money in West Texas through the
United Way for a number of years, and generally every year we were
blessed with the philanthropy of that community giving more money to
the United Way and its agencies each year than it did the previous
year.
Well, we went through a string of about 15 years where we raised more
money than we did the year before, all the agencies got a little more
money. But we had a catastrophic year, it happened about the time that
the price of oil went to eight bucks a barrel back in 98-99, and we
actually raised less money.
So all of the agencies that were dependent on those United Way
collections actually got a real cut; not a reduction in the growth, but
a real cut in their spending. So they had to go back and look at
everything they did. They had to go back and make hard choices between
what were programs that they decided they had to set a priority on.
They had to force themselves through a catharsis of having to readjust
how they spent money.
Today, every single one of those agencies is still around, they are
still after their core mission, they are still doing the great work
they have done, but they are better at it as a result of having gone
through the tough times.
So when people talk about reducing the amount of funds available to
an agency, what we are really talking about is asking that agency to
figure out a way to do your mission better and more effectively.
So, the gentleman from Texas is great to have hosted this hour. We
have chewed up an awful lot of it. I suspect the gentleman has a lot of
things you want to say.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I certainly thank
the gentleman for joining us this evening. Would it not be wonderful if
they had a few accountants on the other side of the aisle who could
actually let them know how you are supposed to count numbers?
The gentleman from Texas, my home State, made some excellent points.
We have gone over a number of the different wastes that we find in the
Federal budget. But, again, as we face our challenges, as we face
trying to bring this Federal deficit down, and we are making progress,
we are making huge progress under this Republican administration and
this Republican Congress, but we still have a ways to go.
If we are going to bring the deficit down, if we are going to find
the funds to help offset this hurricane relief, the money is only going
to come from one of three places. The Democrats do not want to tell
you, but they want to raise taxes. There are food stamp overpayments
that cost $600 million annually, yet the Democrats want to raise taxes
on American families. The school program abuse is costing over $120
million annually, yet Democrats want to raise taxes on American
families. Veteran program overpayments cost $800 million annually, yet
Democrats wants to raise taxes on American families. And the list goes
on and on and on.
Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at tax relief, because all we hear
from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that if we would
only raise taxes on the American people, we could be fiscally
responsible. Let us take a look at what tax relief is all about.
Number one, when you look at the amount of tax relief that we have
passed in the Federal budget, let us assume for a second that all tax
relief, as the Democrats would lead you to believe, is somehow wasted
money. They do not realize it is not their money. It is money that
belongs to American families, it is money that belongs to small
businesses, people who go out and work hard and create jobs. Number
one, it is not their money, it is the people's money, and we will never
forget that.
But let us assume for a fact that somehow we wasted money by allowing
American families to keep more of it.
Mr. Speaker, in a $13.9 trillion budget, tax relief is less than 1
percent of that budget. So when we talk about what is necessary to
bring down the Federal deficit, again, over 99 percent of the challenge
lies on the spending side. But the truth is, Mr. Speaker, letting
American families and small businesses keep more of what they earn is
not part of the deficit problem, it is part of the deficit solution.
[[Page H9552]]
Again, any Member is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not
entitled to their own facts. I have in my hand here the latest report
from the U.S. Treasury talking about tax revenues. And what do we
discover? Well, we discover that since we passed tax relief for the
American people as part of an economic growth program, well, guess
what?
Mr. Speaker, corporate income taxes are up 47 percent. Individual
income taxes are up almost 15 percent. Total receipts are up almost
$300 billion. Again, this is not my opinion, these are the facts.
Look at this chart, Mr. Speaker. Look what has happened since we
passed tax relief for the American people. Every year we see tax
revenue going up.
So in many respects, again, it is a bit of a tax increase, but it is
the right tax increase. It results from economic growth. And what has
happened is not only, not only, Mr. Speaker, have we managed to bring
in more revenues to the government and bring the deficit down, the
deficit has now declined $319 billion.
{time} 2310
The deficit has now declined $319 billion, because we have more
revenues. The deficit is coming down. But, not only that, 4 million new
jobs have been created; 4 million new jobs. We are enjoying the highest
rate of homeownership that we have ever enjoyed in the entire history
of the United States of America, all due to tax relief. Yet, Democrats
want to raise taxes on the American people. They are trying to raise
them right now.
Mr. Speaker, that is just not right. They want to take the child tax
credit away. They want to bring back the death tax. They want to take
away accelerated depreciation for small businesses. They want to bring
back the marriage penalty. All of this they are actively trying to do,
trying to increase taxes on the American people to pay for all of this
waste and all of this duplication that you have heard cited this
evening.
But, Mr. Speaker, again, we cannot have tax increases. That is the
wrong prescription for the economy.
Now, some people may say, well, it does not quite make sense. How do
you cut tax rates and get more tax revenue? And how does this work into
this whole debate about what is compassionate and what is not
compassionate?
Well, Mr. Speaker, it was a number of months ago, but I went to go
visit a small business in my congressional district back in Texas. I
went to a small business that is called Jacksonville Industries in
Jacksonville, Texas. They are a zinc and a dye-casting business and,
due to competitive pressures, they were on the verge of having to lay
off 2 people, 2 out of about 20, I believe, so that would have been 10
percent of their work force. That would have been pretty sizable. But
due to our tax relief, they were able to go out and buy a new piece of
modern equipment that helped make them more efficient. Now, I could not
tell you exactly what it did, but I saw it, it was big, it was noisy,
it was large. But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it made them more
efficient. Instead of having to lay off 2 people, they were able to
hire 3 new people. Now, think about that, Mr. Speaker. That is 5
people. Five people that could have been on unemployment, 5 people that
could have been on welfare, 5 people that could have been on food
stamps.
Now, that is how the Democrats measure compassion. They only know one
way to measure compassion, and that is how many welfare checks do you
write. We believe that compassion is measured by how many paychecks you
write. So instead of having 5 people over here on welfare and
unemployment and food stamps, there were 5 people that, due to tax
relief, had good jobs. They were able to put a roof over their heads.
They were able to put food on their tables. They were able to help
provide education and transportation for their children.
Again, compassion is not measured by how many welfare checks are
written, it is measured by how many paychecks that are written.
So, Mr. Speaker, we need to remember, as we are debating fiscal
responsibility in the people's House, we need to think in terms of it
is not a question of how much are we going to spend on education, how
much are we going to spend on nutrition and how much are we going to
spend on housing, but it is a question about who is going to do the
spending. Democrats can only measure compassion by spending done by the
Federal Government. And what we end up with, again, is all this waste,
all this fraud, all this abuse, all this duplication. We want families
to do the spending, and we know the difference between the 2. So tax
relief is all about helping families, it is helping small businesses.
So as we debate fiscal responsibility and how to bring down the
deficit, we must recall that tax relief is part of the solution, it is
not part of the problem.
Mr. Speaker, it is so important that we begin the work of reforming
these different programs, because if we do not, the fiscal future of
America, frankly, is very, very worrisome.
Right now, if you look at any of the different offices in Washington
that are charged with accounting, the General Accountability Office,
the House Budget Committee, the Congressional Budget Office, they will
all tell you essentially the same thing, that we have spending patterns
in the government today where we are going to have to double taxes on
the American people in one generation just to balance the budget. You
got medicare growing at 9 percent a year, medicaid at 7.8, Social
Security, 5.5.
These are important programs and they need to be preserved, but they
have to be reformed, because they were instituted many, many years ago,
many decades ago in a different era. They were not built in the 21st
century, they are not meeting the demands of the 21st century, and they
will not be here for our children, unless we reform them.
So as the Democrats attack tax relief and as they claim that there
are somehow massive budget cuts going on, remember what their
alternative is. Their alternative is going to be to double taxes on our
children. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that that is simply, simply
unconscionable. It is unconscionable, and a future that we must avoid.
Mr. Speaker, this kind of graphically represents that future. Today,
government is taking up roughly 20 percent of our economy, roughly 20
percent of what we produce. Look what is going to happen in one
generation. If we do not do anything to reform this out-of-control
entitlement spending, if we do not start on the deficit reduction
today, you are going to see government double, absolutely double in one
generation.
These are the tax increases that are going to be needed to pay for
that, something that we never see the Democrats talk about, but it is
their plan, because they say, well, we are going to balance the budget.
That is what they tell us. They say, we are going to be fiscally
responsible. Yet, they will not reform any single government program.
They will not reform any of them. So what is left? Doubling taxes on
the American people in one generation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I became a father 3\1/2\ years ago, and I am very
blessed that my wife and I have 2 small children, a 3\1/2\ year old
daughter and a 2 year old son. They have changed my life in so many
wonderful ways. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I spend a whole lot of
time now thinking about the next generation. Too many people here,
though, are thinking about the next election. I do not want to leave my
children this legacy of tax increases. I do not want to leave my
children a legacy of debt. I want to leave my children and the children
of America a legacy of more hope and more jobs and more opportunity and
more freedom. That is what we are working on here. We have got to
protect the family budget from the Federal budget, but we have to start
today with this Deficit Reduction Act.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can come together. I hope we can work
together as Republicans and Democrats and Independents and do something
about this, because there is too much waste, there is too much fraud,
there is too much abuse, there is too much duplication. The future can
be brighter. It can be brighter for my children and your children and
all children if we will only start today to save the family budget from
the Federal budget by working on this Deficit Reduction Act.
____________________