[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 6, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H1250-H1257]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1500
                          OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) works 
very hard on organizing our Truth Squad and making sure that we are 
getting the word out about what needs to be gotten out in terms of the 
issues that are important, I think, to the American people. We are 
going to talk about the economy and what is happening to the economy in 
the United States, and I want to talk a little bit about that to begin 
with until Mr. Price gets here, and I probably will recognize my 
colleague from Tennessee, who is also here to speak on this issue, and 
ask him if he would share some comments.
  The first thing I want to say is that our economy is in wonderful, 
wonderful shape. It is the best economy that we have had in this 
country for many, many years. Now, a major reason that the economy is 
in such great shape is because of the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. I was 
not here when those tax cuts were passed, but I am very pleased that 
they were passed and that they brought about such a positive economy 
for this country. We have the lowest unemployment rate that we have had 
in 50 years. We have growth in all sectors. We have more people owning 
their homes than have ever owned them before. Incomes are up and 
revenues are up.
  And I want to say something about revenues, using some information 
from the Heritage Foundation. Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of 
gross domestic product, which is above the 20-year, 40-year and 60-year 
historical averages. The inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue 
increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest 2-year revenue 
surge since 1965 and 1967.
  There is a myth out there that tax revenues are low. Tax revenues are 
actually above the historical average, even after the tax cuts. We know 
that tax cuts are good for this economy; they are always good for the 
economy. The more money that we leave in the hands and the pockets of 
our taxpayers, the better off we are. When the government appropriates 
that money and spends it, the government is very inefficient in its 
spending of that money, and that does not grow the economy, contrary to 
what many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like 
to say.
  We are going to talk again more and more about the economy and the 
fact that it is in very good shape. And it is very unfortunate that the 
economy doesn't get the positive press that the economy has gotten 
under Democratic Presidents, when in fact most of the time the results 
of the good economy are coming from a Republican Congress, which knows 
how to do things in terms of growing the economy.
  I would like to recognize now my colleague from Tennessee, who is 
here to make a presentation on this issue, also. I know that he will 
bring some enlightened points to the discussion.
  Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. Thank you, Ms. Foxx. I appreciate your 
leadership and your friendship just across the mountain in North 
Carolina from Tennessee. And thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to 
speak today.
  It is an interesting time in America; things are going well in the 
economy. It is going well because Americans are working hard. I grew up 
in an era of politics looking back at Ronald Reagan, who was a great 
President. And as we all know, his birthday is today. If you go back 96 
years ago was the date of his birth. And one of his quotes was, We 
don't have a trillion dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough, we 
have a trillion dollar debt because we spend too much. And I think that 
is a good starting point as we look towards our economy and how we run 
this Congress and how we work for the people across America.
  Revenues are coming in at a record pace. If we continue the pace that 
we are at now, we will actually be able to balance our budget by the 
year 2012 without raising taxes; and I think that is exactly what the 
American people would like to see. I think they want us to hold the 
line on spending, I think they want a pro-growth economy, and they want 
a good, sound financial policy.
  If you look at the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, which is 
nonpartisan, it confirmed just last week that tax cuts of 2003 have 
helped boost our Federal revenues by 68 percent. That is good news. 
There are other signals that keeping taxes low, coupled with fiscal 
restraint and economic growth, help move us forward and help us balance 
our budget; and we can do that and take care of that deficit that we 
have.
  If you look at some other statistics that are vitally important, our 
economy has grown for 21 straight quarters. That is rather impressive. 
And in the period between 2004 and 2006, Federal tax revenues rose the 
largest margin in nearly 40 years, not because we had raised taxes, but 
because we had lowered taxes. In addition to that, the deficit has been 
cut in half 2 years early, or ahead of schedule. That is good news for 
Americans. I think that is the type of leadership that America is 
looking for.
  If you look at the way you balance a budget, like a small business 
does back in east Tennessee, or a family sitting around the kitchen 
table, and they have a small budget, their budget is tight, they are 
trying to decide what they need to do, they have to decide, do you cut 
what you spend or do you bring in additional revenue. And most people 
understand, as they sit around their kitchen table, you have to hold 
the line on spending; you can't spend more than you make, unlike 
government.
  I am excited about a good starting point that we see from the 
President in his budget. It calls for making the 2001-2003 tax relief 
provisions permanent. I think that is exactly what the American people 
want. And if we do that, the administration projects total revenue to 
grow an average of 5.4 percent per year. The way we maintain this 
healthy economy that we have today is keep tax cuts permanent; that is 
what the American people want us to do.
  We really have a simple choice, Mr. Speaker: we have the choice 
between a bigger economy or bigger government. And I really believe 
that if we look forward, what the American people want is us to hold 
the line on spending, hold the line on increasing the taxes and allow 
the economy to work the way it has worked in the past and the way it is 
working today.
  We also need to work very hard to make sure that we hold the line not 
only on spending, but we need to take a good strong look in a 
bipartisan way at reducing earmarks. I think we need to pass the line 
item veto. And if we do that, it will allow the President to have 
better control of how tax dollars are spent.
  I would also like to see a biennial budget process where we can 
actually sit back and let this House and this Congress take a breathing 
period from every other year and to find out if what we are doing 
works. And back in Tennessee, as State legislature, I was a State 
representative for 8 years, we had a balanced budget amendment in our 
constitution. We couldn't spend more than we brought in. And I signed 
on as a cosponsor to House Joint Resolution 1, which calls for a 
balanced budget amendment right here at the Federal level. I think that 
is exactly what the American people are looking for.
  And, again, going back to what Ronald Reagan had to say, just to 
reiterate, President Reagan said: ``We don't have a trillion dollar 
debt because we haven't taxed enough, we have a trillion dollar debt 
because we

[[Page H1251]]

spend too much.'' And if we can remember that in this body and over in 
the Senate and we pass a good balanced budget that would take care of 
the deficit without raising taxes, I think the American people would be 
very pleased.
  Ms. FOXX. I thank Mr. Davis, the gentleman from Tennessee, for his 
remarks. And I appreciate his being involved and sharing some 
information with us that is so important. This is his first term, and 
he has done a wonderful job.
  He is my neighbor to the west. His district in Tennessee joins the 
5th District in North Carolina. We both live in a wonderful, wonderful 
place. Every time somebody speaks to me about where I live, they say, 
what a beautiful place you live in, and I feel that way about it. And I 
want to say that it is a great honor to serve in Congress, but I can 
tell you that my feet are planted very firmly on the ground in the 5th 
District of North Carolina, and I don't ever forget where I came from 
and the people that I represent.
  I want to talk a little bit on this issue about the economy that Mr. 
Price set up today for the Truth Squad. And I know he is going to be 
here probably very shortly, and when he does I am going to yield back 
to the Chair and hope that the Chair will recognize him so that he can 
continue this discussion.
  I want to talk a little bit today about the economy and an egregious 
situation that we are facing here in the Congress as it deals with 
unions. I have come to the floor several times in this session and 
talked about what I consider the hypocrisy that is going on in this 
Congress by the majority party. We are having black called white and 
white called black in terms of pieces of things on the paper. It is 
astonishing to me the hypocrisy that is going on. And I think there is 
probably no more greater piece of hypocrisy than this so-called 
Employee Free Choice Act which has been introduced by the Democrats. It 
deals with the ability for unions to twist people's arms to get them 
into unions.
  The unions have been steadily losing ground in this country for many, 
many years. My understanding is that the percentage and number of U.S. 
workers that belong to unions declined again in 2006, after having 
stabilized a little bit in 2005. BLS data show that only 13 percent of 
all construction workers were members of building trade unions, and 
that is down from 18 percent in 2001.
  There is a steady erosion in the percentage of construction workers 
represented by unions in the past 23 years. What is happening is 
because the unions are losing membership, they want to take away the 
secret ballot.
  I am going to enter into the Record today several different pieces 
which I have in front of me that I am quoting from. I am going to quote 
from a Wall Street Journal article of February 2, and from some other 
information which I will enter into the Record. But I want to read the 
beginning of this article from the Wall Street Journal because I think 
it is so pertinent. It says: ``Why is the new Congress in such a hurry 
to take away workers' right to vote?'' It seems extraordinary, but the 
so-called Employee Free Choice Act is right there near the top of the 
Democrats' agenda. This legislation replaces government-sponsored 
secret ballot elections for union representation with a public card-
signing system.
  One of the reasons that union membership is down so much in this 
country is because of the abuses of the unions, and also because our 
economy is so good. And, again, I think that Representative Price is 
going to talk more about the economy. I mentioned earlier that it is 
the best that it has ever been in terms of wages, in terms of income 
and wages and homeownership and the burden that we place on the 
American people from the government. But people don't need to join 
unions like they needed to 125 years ago or so. We did have abuses in 
this country by employers, and I am very sorry about that, but those 
abuses don't go on anymore, and people are finding out they don't have 
to belong to unions.
  But the Democrats, who are so beholden to unions, want to take the 
right of a secret ballot, which is so fundamental to us in this 
country, and which they argue for on this floor for voters, and they 
want to take it away from union members or people who are thinking 
about forming a union. And I, again, want to make some quotes, because 
this article is so excellent.
  Most important, it is totally unreasonable to deny all 140 million 
American workers the right to a secret ballot election because some 
employers break the law. Yes, occasionally somebody may not do what 
they are supposed to do. Not only is such a remedy disproportionate, it 
is counterproductive. If one goal is worker empowerment, how can a 
worker be better off if both his employer and his prospective union 
boss know his views on the union when the secret ballot is replaced 
with a public card signing? For the worker, it is the ultimate example 
of being caught between a rock and a hard place.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Edwards, who is running for President, has said that if you can 
join the Republican Party, you should be able to join a union by simply 
signing a card. But Mr. Edwards' analogy is a very false one, because 
signing a card to join the Republican Party does not oblige you to vote 
for the Republican ticket in a secret ballot election. And I quote 
again from the article from the Wall Street Journal: ``The Employee 
Free Choice Act would take care of that by abolishing such elections. 
If the Edwards principle was applied to the political process in the 28 
non-right to work States, Karl Rove and Republican Party organizers 
could force all Democrats and Independents to become Republicans and 
pay dues to the party if a majority of voters signed Republican cards. 
That's free choice?''
  The final proof that this bill is about union power and not worker 
choice is revealed by its treatment of the flip side of unionization: 
decertification elections. These are secret ballot elections in which 
workers get to decide that they have had enough of the union. Under the 
Employee Free Choice, can a majority of workers decertify the union by 
signing a card? Not on your life. Here, unions want the chance to 
engage in a campaign to give workers both sides of the story and maybe 
do a better job of representing them before the union's fate is decided 
by a secret ballot vote.
  Again, the hypocrisy is absolutely mind-boggling, and is just one 
more example. We have bills called one thing and they do another. It 
just goes on and on and on. But I think it is very important that we 
point out this particular hypocrisy, because the title of this bill, 
the Employee Free Choice Act, is I think particularly egregious in this 
respect.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

          [From the Wall Street Journal Online, Feb. 2, 2007]

                       Abrogating Workers' Rights

                        (By Lawrence B. Lindsey)

       Why is the new Congress in such a hurry to take away 
     workers' right to vote? It seems extraordinary, but the so-
     called ``Employee Free Choice Act'' is right there near the 
     top of the Democrats' agenda. This legislation replaces 
     government-sponsored secret ballot elections for union 
     representation with a public card-signing system.
       Under the act, once a union gets a majority of the workers 
     to sign a card expressing a desire for a union, that union is 
     automatically certified as the bargaining representative of, 
     and empowered to negotiate on behalf of, all workers. In the 
     28 states that do not have right-to-work laws, all employees 
     would typically end up having to join the union or pay the 
     equivalent of union dues whether or not they signed the card. 
     Moreover, under the act, the bargaining process would be 
     shortened, with mandatory use of the Federal Mediation 
     service after 90 days and an imposed contract through binding 
     arbitration 30 days after that.
       I am sympathetic to the argument that strengthening the 
     negotiating position of workers is good public policy, and 
     that expanding the choices available to them is the best way 
     to accomplish that. So, for example, pension portability 
     unlocks the golden handcuffs that financially bind workers to 
     jobs they may become dissatisfied with after they have become 
     vested. Health savings accounts are an important first step 
     to liberating people from jobs they put up with only because 
     they fear a disruption in health-care coverage.
       When it comes to unions, it doesn't take a very deep 
     appreciation of game theory to understand that a worker's 
     best position comes when a nonunion company has a union 
     knocking on the door. Indeed, one allegation about ``union 
     busting'' by supporters of the bill is that, during union 
     certification elections, one employer in five ``gave illegal 
     previously unscheduled wage increases while a similar number 
     made some kind of illegal unilateral change in benefits or 
     working conditions.''

[[Page H1252]]

       In other words, they made workers better off. But, never 
     fear, the Employee Free Choice Act will limit these 
     unconscionable increases in pay, benefits and working 
     conditions by imposing fines of up to $20,000 against 
     employers who make such ``unilateral changes.'' Similar 
     penalties will be assessed against employers who caution that 
     unionization may cause them to shut down or move production 
     elsewhere.
       Sometimes the interests of workers and unions coincide, 
     sometimes they do not. The chief complaint by the bill's 
     sponsors is that unions only win secret-ballot elections half 
     of the time. Apparently workers, after they think things over 
     and when neither the union nor the company knows how they 
     vote, often decide they are better-off without the union. The 
     solution of the Employee Free Choice Act is to do away with 
     such elections. It is hard to see how that ``empowers'' 
     workers. And it is hard not to conclude that this bill has 
     little to do with employee choice or maximizing employee 
     leverage, and everything to do with empowering union bosses 
     and organizers.
       The unions allege that companies use unfair election 
     campaign tactics and that a pro-employer National Labor 
     Relations Board doesn't punish them. But statistics cited by 
     the leftwing Web site, Daily Kos, on behalf of this 
     allegation come from 1998 and 1999--when the entire NLRB had 
     been appointed by President Clinton. In any event, roughly 
     half the injunctions brought against companies by the NLRB 
     were overturned by federal courts: This does not suggest 
     under-enforcement of the law by the NLRB.
       All of this does not mean that there are no legitimate 
     complaints about the union certification process. Companies 
     have been found that fired workers for union organizing 
     activities. One careful examination of NLRB data found that 
     there were 62 such cases in fiscal 2005. This is not a large 
     number in a work force of 140 million, or in a year where 
     there were more than 2,300 certification elections. But it is 
     62 too many, and it would be reasonable to stiffen the 
     penalties for employers who break the law. But it is hard to 
     think of offering more pay or better worker conditions as 
     something that should be punished with draconian penalties, 
     as the Employee Free Choice Act does.
       Most important, it is totally unreasonable to deny all 140 
     million American workers the right to a secret ballot 
     election because some employers break the law. Not only is 
     such a remedy disproportionate, it is counterproductive--if 
     one's goal is worker empowerment. How can a worker be better 
     off if both his employer and his prospective union boss know 
     his views on the union when the secret ballot is replaced 
     with a public card signing? For the worker it is the ultimate 
     example of being caught between a rock and a hard place.
       The political rhetoric in support of this bill is a willful 
     exercise in obfuscation. For example, on the presidential 
     campaign stump John Edwards says, ``if you can join the 
     Republican Party by just signing a card, you should be able 
     to join a union by just signing a card.'' The fact is, you--
     and everyone else--can join any union you want by just 
     signing a card, and paying union dues and meeting any other 
     obligations imposed by the union. But, under this bill, 
     contrary to Mr. Edwards's false analogy, signing a card to 
     join the Republican Party does not oblige you to vote for the 
     Republican ticket in a secret ballot election. The Employee 
     Free Choice Act would take care of that by abolishing such 
     elections. If the Edwards principle was applied to the 
     political process in the 28 non-right-to-work states, Karl 
     Rove and Republican Party organizers could force all 
     Democrats and independents to become Republicans and pay dues 
     to the party if a majority of voters signed Republican Party 
     cards. That is free choice?
       The final proof that this bill is about union power, and 
     not worker choice, is revealed by its treatment of the flip 
     side of unionization: decertification elections. These are 
     secret ballot elections in which workers get to decide that 
     they have had enough of the union. So under the Employee Free 
     Choice Act can a majority of workers decertify the union by 
     signing a card? Not on your life. Here unions want the chance 
     to engage in a campaign to give workers both sides of the 
     story--and maybe do a better job of representing them--before 
     the union's fate is decided, by a secret-ballot vote.
       No one has ever argued that secret-ballot elections are a 
     perfect mechanism, either in politics or in deciding 
     unionization. But they are far and away the best mechanism we 
     have devised to minimize intimidation and maximize the power 
     of the people to really matter, whether citizen or worker. 
     Congress should think a lot harder before it decides to do 
     away with workers' right to vote.
                                  ____


            [From the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace]

The So-Called ``Employee Free Choice Act'' Union Leaders'' Rhetoric vs. 
                               The Facts

       Union Rhetoric: Secret ballot elections take too long and 
     delays of months or years are common.
       Facts: The average time for an election to be held is just 
     39 days and 94 percent of elections are held within 56 days. 
     The rare exceptions that take longer hardly justify 
     abandoning the entire secret ballot election process.
       Union Rhetoric: Card check procedures are the most 
     effective way to determine the wishes of a majority of 
     employees.
       Facts: Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that secret 
     ballot elections are the most foolproof method of 
     ascertaining whether a union has the support of a majority of 
     employees, noting that, workers sometimes sign cards not 
     because they intend to vote for the union in an election, but 
     to avoid offending the person who asks them to sign (often a 
     fellow worker), or simply to get the person off their back.
       Union Rhetoric: Employers illegally fire employees in 25 to 
     30 percent of all organizing drives.
       Facts: Those who falsely claim employers illegally fire a 
     large number of employees during organizing drives cite to 
     two studies, one by Cornell professor Kate Bronfenbrenner and 
     another commissioned by the pro-union group American Rights 
     at Work. Unfortunately, these reports are in fact surveys of 
     uncorroborated reports of union organizers--hardly an 
     unbiased source. National Labor Relations Board statistics 
     show that employees are illegally fired in just over one in 
     100 (1 percent) organizing drives. Furthermore, if the NLRB 
     finds that an employer illegally fired workers during an 
     organizing drive it has the power to order the employer to 
     recognize and bargain with the union, even if the union lost 
     the election.
       Union Rhetoric: The secret ballot election process enables 
     employers to wage bitter anti-union campaigns.
       Facts: In almost nine out of ten cases the employer and 
     union reach agreement on the most contentious issues 
     surrounding union elections: the scope of the bargaining unit 
     (who is eligible to vote), and the date and time of the 
     election.
       Union Rhetoric: In an election, management has total access 
     to the list of employees at all times, while union supporters 
     may have access very late in the process to a list that is 
     often inaccurate.
       Facts: Employers are required to submit complete and 
     accurate lists of employees within one week of the 
     determination that an election will be held. The list is then 
     provided to the union. If the employer fails to provide the 
     list or the list is inaccurate, the Board can set aside the 
     election and order another, especially if errors involve a 
     determinative number of voters.
       Union Rhetoric: The Employee Free Choice Act gives 
     employees the option of using a card-check system; it does 
     not replace the secret ballot election. Employees are still 
     free to choose a secret ballot process.
       Facts: The card-check process does not give employees a 
     choice at all. Instead, it gives union organizers the choice 
     of whether to organize through a card check process. If the 
     union chose to submit authorization cards, workers would be 
     barred from seeking an election. In addition, the card check 
     process can cut up to almost half of all employees out of the 
     organizing process because the union only needs signatures 
     from a simple majority in order to gain collective bargaining 
     rights. During the card-check process, those employees who do 
     not want a union do not have a voice and are in effect 
     removed from the process of making decisions about their own 
     jobs.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) is recognized 
for the remaining time as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to 
come to the floor again today and appreciate the confidence of my 
leadership in allowing me to organize this hour and come chat a little 
bit with our Members here and to point out some interesting information 
in another edition of the Official Truth Squad.
  The Official Truth Squad is a group of individuals who try to come to 
the floor on this side of the aisle at least once a week in an effort 
to bring some truths and some facts to the items that we talk about on 
this floor. I know it won't surprise you, Mr. Speaker, but oftentimes 
some of the things we hear on this floor aren't necessarily the truth. 
So what we try to do is to point out items that are of importance in 
terms of information to the American people and how we on this floor 
ought to be making decisions on their behalf.
  And in so doing, we have a number of individuals we like to point to 
as kind of leaders in the public arena, both present and past, who have 
had as one of their hallmarks making certain that they discussed truth 
and made certain that they used facts in developing their positions.
  One of my favorite quotes comes from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, 
former United States Senator from New York, and he had a quote that 
said: ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own 
facts.'' I think that is incredibly important as we talk about this 
issue that we are discussing today, the economy and the budget and 
issues that relate to how Washington spends hard-earned taxpayer money.
  One of the most important facts is it is the taxpayers' money, it is 
not the

[[Page H1253]]

government's. And there are many people who are here in Washington who 
believe that somehow, just by some miraculous nature, when the money is 
sent to Washington that somehow it becomes the government's money. 
Well, Mr. Speaker, I would hope you would agree with me that in fact it 
is the taxpayers' money and we need to spend it very, very wisely.
  One of the other relative issues that I think has seen a lot of 
naysayers and a lot of misinformation is the state of our economy right 
now. If you ask folks, most people across this Nation will say that 
their own economic situation is pretty good and they feel pretty good 
about the future. If you ask them how the economy in the Nation is 
going, the majority of them say that it is not going well at all. And 
that, I believe, to be in large part due to much of the messaging that 
comes out of Washington. Our good friends on the other side of the 
aisle have been down-talking this economy for years, literally years.
  So I was curious that over the weekend the Wall Street Journal had an 
editorial that they entitled: ``The Current `Depression,' '' and they 
used ``depression'' in quotes, because if you really look at the 
numbers, if you look at the facts, Mr. Speaker, they kind of belie the 
naysayers in what they have been saying: 110,000 new jobs in January, 
41 straight months of job growth in this Nation. The average job growth 
in 2006 was 187,000 jobs; 2.2 million new jobs in 2006, and 7.4 million 
new jobs since 2003; 7.4 million new jobs since 2003.
  When you compare this expansion to the expansion that all sorts of 
folks talk about as being the be-all and the end-all, and that is with 
the expansion of the 1990s, when you compare this expansion, the 
expansion that we are currently in, the economic success that we are 
currently in is better when you look at many, many parameters.
  Unemployment, for example. The first six years of the 1990s, 1991 
through 1996, had an average unemployment rate of 6.4 percent. The 
average unemployment rate for the first 6 years of this decade: 5.4 
percent. And as you know, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment rate is at 4.6 
percent. And the last time I looked, if the average unemployment rate 
is 4.6 percent, it means that 95.4 percent of folks are working.
  Real wage growth. Our friends on the other side of the aisle often 
talk about, well, this is a recovery, an economy that isn't resulting 
in real jobs; the wage growth isn't occurring, people's wages aren't 
increasing. Well, if you compare it to the vaunted years of the early 
1990s, real wage growth for those first 6 years averaged 0.6 percent 
per year increase. 2001 through 2006, real wage growth in this Nation 
up 1.5 percent, and last year it was 1.7 percent increase. And that is 
accounting for inflation. It is accounting for inflation, Mr. Speaker.
  Now, one might want to ask, given the success of the current economy, 
how did that happen? What happened? How did that occur? How are we 
seeing the kind of results in the economy, the good news that we are 
currently seeing?
  And I am fond of using charts because I think that they paint a 
picture that is oftentimes, at least for me, easier to comprehend and 
easier to get my arms around. This is a chart that runs from 2000 
through 2006, and we are going to update the numbers for this most 
recent quarter. But what it shows here on this vertical line, this 
dotted green vertical line is when we began this remarkable expansion. 
And what occurred on that at that point was, you guessed it, Mr. 
Speaker, appropriate tax reductions for the American people. So when 
you decrease taxes, what happens is that the blue line, you get more 
jobs; the red line, you get increasing business investment; and, lo and 
behold, something that President Kennedy knew and President Reagan 
knew, when you decrease taxes, which occurred at the nadir of this 
graph here, what happens is that you increase government revenue.
  It sounds counterintuitive, but in fact it isn't. If you decrease 
taxes, if you allow individuals to have more of their hard-earned 
money, what happens is that the economy grows and, because of that, tax 
revenue flows to the Federal Government.
  Now, an individual who is joining us today for this edition of the 
Official Truth Squad, an individual who is a new member of our 
conference from California who knows a lot about taxes and a lot about 
the issue of taxes and how they affect us on a daily basis, I am 
pleased to ask my friend Kevin McCarthy from California to join us and 
give us some insight into exactly where those taxes come from and how 
often we are taxed. I think that is the kind of truth and facts you 
would like to bring to us today.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time.
  I do come from California and I am a new Member, and I think as is 
only fitting we are talking about how letting people keep their hard-
earned money, how jobs grow, revenue grows, and individuals can spend 
the money on what they desire, like putting their kids through college. 
But we would be remiss if we didn't mention this day, because I think 
it is rather ironic. Today is the 96th birthday of Ronald Reagan, and 
nobody finer than that talked about taxes and talked about which way 
they went. And President Ronald Reagan was actually Governor of 
California at one time. That is where I come from prior to serving in 
this House; I served in the State assembly. And when I got elected to 
the State assembly, we had a $36 billion deficit.
  And much like the other side of the aisle here, the other side of the 
aisle there, their answer was to raise taxes. We sat down, the 
Republicans, and crafted a bill that actually proposed a budget that 
didn't raise taxes. It gave incentives that let people keep more of 
what they earned. We have seen revenues continue to grow. We are now 
about out of our deficit, which was fundamentally the biggest one they 
have ever had, and it has continued to move forward that we were able 
to bring more revenues in.
  But I want to put forth really the graphs you have been talking 
about, put it into everyday life, put it into where people understand 
it. Where you saw that graph continue to take off, that is when the tax 
cut happened.
  Now, what does that mean to the millions of Americans? Well, more 
than 100 million Americans have now had more than $2,200 of tax relief. 
That may not sound like a lot of money to Washington where they spend 
trillions of dollars, but that is $180 a month. Do you know what that 
means? That means day care, that means you can take your kids maybe to 
Disneyland, that means you can go and invest for your kids' college 
future. That is what it means when you send more than $1 trillion back 
to the taxpayers that actually earned the money.
  Now, to put it in a much broader perspective where a person can 
understand day-to-day life, I always like to see what I did today and 
what did it mean about taxes and what did it take out of my pocket on 
my money.
  When I woke up this morning, I took a shower. Do you know what? I 
paid a tax on that water. When I got out, a friend of mine needed a cup 
of coffee, I bought a cup of coffee. I paid a tax on that. We had to 
stop at the gas station and put gas in the car. We paid a tax there. 
When we got to work, most Americans work the first 3 hours just paying 
the taxes before they earn any money. When I go home, I am going to 
turn on the TV. Hopefully, I made C-SPAN. I am going to pay a cable tax 
just to watch the government at work. Then when I go out, somebody is 
going to have to travel for their work. They are going to buy an 
airline ticket; they are going to pay a tax on the ticket. They are 
going to rent a car; they are going to pay a tax on the car.
  They check into the hotel; they are going to pay an occupancy tax. 
And, God forbid, if the other side of the aisle gets their way and we 
are successful in individuals earning money, the death tax is going to 
come back. We are taxed from the morning we wake up to take a shower to 
the night we go to sleep. It is tax, tax, tax.
  And I am here to say, just like Ronald Reagan said: ``We don't have a 
tax issue when it comes to that, we have a spending problem.''
  Our revenues are coming in and coming in very strong. So I would 
proclaim and what I would like to see happen is we actually reform so 
that we can compete. I will tell you, I have two small kids, Connor and 
Megan who are just 12 and 10, and every day I call home when I'm back 
here and we talk about their education, we talk about if they have

[[Page H1254]]

done their home work. Because I am not concerned with my kids from 
Bakersfield, California competing with kids with Sacramento, California 
or even competing with kids from Georgia. Do you know who I am 
concerned with my children competing with when they grow up? Kids from 
China and India. And we need a system that allows us to be competitive. 
We need a tax system that creates jobs, we need a tax system that 
creates entrepreneurs. And the way we do that is let taxpayers keep 
more of what they earned.
  That is why I applaud you today for your truth, and I applaud you for 
coming down and doing this work.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for coming and joining us 
today and helping out and bringing truth and facts to the issue of the 
economy and especially taxation, because oftentimes people don't think 
about the times that they do indeed pay tax.
  I try to visit as many schools as I can in my district back in 
Georgia, and when I am in front of student groups, I oftentimes ask 
them, Do you pay any tax? And of course most often they say, Oh, no. We 
don't pay any tax. Our parents pay some tax, but we don't pay any tax. 
Then you ask them, Did you buy a pack of gum? Paid for any of your 
shoes lately? Have you bought any food? Anything that you buy, anything 
that you buy has taxes on it. So any consumable product whatsoever has 
taxes on it. So everybody contributes into it. And when individuals are 
able to keep more of their own money, what happens is that the economy 
is able to flourish to a much greater degree. So I appreciate the 
information that you brought about taxes.
  I also want to point out that you mentioned that our good friends on 
the other side of the aisle seem to be moving in the direction of 
allowing the appropriate tax reductions that resulted in this success, 
to allow those tax reductions to go away, which means a tax increase 
for the vast majority of Americans all across this Nation. And if they 
do what they have basically said they are planning on doing, and that 
is allow those tax reductions to expire, allow taxes to go up, the 
marginal tax rate, that is the rate, the percentage of income that each 
and every American pays to government to run the services, will be over 
50 percent for the first time since the late 1970s. And, Mr. Speaker, 
some of our Members may not remember the late 1970s, but I remember it 
and I know that my good friends here remember it, and that is that we 
had something called the misery index.

                              {time}  1530

  It was the last time that inflation and unemployment were just 
skyrocketing, both of them because of poor programs of the Federal 
Government.
  So I fear that what will happen if our good friends on the other side 
of the aisle get their way is that we will revisit the misery index. So 
we are here to try to bring truth and fact and light to the issue of 
the economy and taxation and the budget.
  I am so pleased to be joined by my good friend from Tennessee, the 
congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, who understands business, understands 
the economy and budgetary issues as well or better than the vast 
majority of folks in this Chamber. I look forward to your comments 
today as we talk about budget, economy and taxes.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia; and 
I was so pleased that the gentleman from California mentioned Ronald 
Reagan and his birthday and brought up the Ronald Reagan quote that 
government does not have a revenue problem; government has a spending 
problem. This is something that we all know and we all realize and 
certainly because of the tax reductions that were put in place, and the 
gentleman from Georgia showed us the charts that showed how the tax 
reductions went into place in 2003, and we have seen not only growth in 
our GDP, not only jobs growth but a reduction in the deficit and record 
revenues for the Federal Government. Because when those rates of 
taxation go down, we know that revenues to the government go up.
  I was listening to the gentleman from California, and I recalled a 
conversation with one of my constituents this weekend. He came to me 
and he said, Marsha, look at this here in the paper. It was a note that 
on February 3, 1913, is when the Federal income tax went into place. So 
here we are at a time when that is being remembered. February 3, 1913, 
a 1 percent temporary tax, only on the wealthiest, went into place to 
pay for a war.
  And look at what we have got now: an IRS that is big and is bloated 
and is cumbersome and wants more and more and more, a government that 
wants more and more and more of the dollar that the taxpayer earns. It 
is like another saying that Ronald Reagan had: The closest thing to 
eternal life on earth is a Federal Government program.
  1913, a tax was put in place to pay for a war, to fund a defense 
effort; and today it is bigger than ever and is still in place.
  So how appropriate that we come this week and we talk about the 
budget and we talk about what the President is bringing forth and we 
talk about the Tax Code and the changes that should be made and the 
changes that ought to be made and the steps that we should be taking to 
be certain that the American people retain more of their paycheck. It 
is an important thing to do.
  As I was looking through the President's budget that he is offering 
forth this week, one of the things that caught my eye and that I was 
pleased to see is that he is recommending the elimination of 141 
programs that maybe have outlived their usefulness, that need to be 
revisited, that the duties could be shuffled to another one, that could 
be merged with another program so that services are delivered more 
effectively and more efficiently. I was very pleased to see that 
because, as I said earlier, we know that there is a spending problem in 
Washington, DC.
  We have had our focus on addressing that; and what we want to do is 
reduce that spending, eliminate programs that have outlived their 
usefulness and make certain that we do not raise taxes. It is important 
that we move forward balancing the budget. It is important that we get 
the fiscal house in order. It is imperative that we do it without 
raising taxes.
  So I am looking forward to working to make certain that we focus on 
waste, fraud and abuse, working to make certain, Mr. Speaker, that we 
eliminate those programs and, Mr. Speaker, working to make certain that 
we keep the commitment to the American people that their tax bill is 
not going to go up, that their tax bill is going to be going down.
  I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank you so much for joining us again today 
and bringing light and truth to an issue that is so remarkably 
important because it gets to the bottom line for each and every 
American and each and every American family.
  What we do at home, when we have discussions about our family budget, 
is that we determine how much money we have to spend and then we 
determine what our priorities are. Depending on what those priorities 
are, that is how we allocate money, and we try to make certain that we 
set aside some savings as well for a rainy day, for a difficult time. 
That ought to be what the Federal Government does, as you well know, 
but, sadly, that appears to be not the plan of the new majority here.
  So it is important that we talk about family budgets, about how 
family budgets ought to parallel Federal budgets, government budgets.
  I would be pleased to yield if you have a comment.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
  One of my constituents this weekend was talking about this very 
issue, and he was very concerned. He had been reading some of the 
reports, hearing some of the things about the tax reductions that had 
been put in place in 2003 may be allowed to expire; and he said, Marsh, 
you know, it is all too often that I have got too much month left over 
at the end of my money.
  His point to me and his admonition was the time has come to achieve 
greater efficiencies. Every one of our constituents can go through 
their district and see any number of Federal agencies, State agencies, 
local agencies that are wasting taxpayer money. They know they cannot 
do that in their family budget. They know that they cannot do that in 
their small business

[[Page H1255]]

budget. As we have said time and again, this is the hold-on-to-your-
wallet Congress. They are determined to get more of the taxpayer money, 
and we are going to stand solid with the taxpayers to make certain that 
we help protect those pocketbooks.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and 
for again pointing out how important it is to have our budget here at 
the Federal level compare or track what we do at home.
  In fact, what we do at the State level, virtually every single State 
has a balanced budget because they cannot do what Washington does, and 
that is print money. Having served in the State legislature, we would 
spend days and weeks and months sometimes dealing with the hard-earned 
taxpayer money, again not government money, but hard-earned taxpayer 
money and make certain that our budget was balanced at the State level.
  In fact, in Washington I am distressed that is not exactly what 
occurs. I am a strong supporter of a balanced budget, and what you will 
see on some of the charts and information that we currently have is 
that the tax policies that have been put in place and the program 
changes that have been put in place, something that is not well-known, 
is that the nondefense discretionary money, which is about 16 to 17 
percent of our overall budget right now, has been actually decreasing 
as it relates to inflation. So Congress has been trying diligently to 
try to make certain that it reins in costs and spending. Because, Lord 
knows, we have not got a revenue problem; we have got a spending 
problem.
  If you track out the budget itself, and this is with Congressional 
Budget Office numbers, they are not the kind of numbers that I think 
demonstrate the upside that we receive from tax reductions, but, in any 
event, what they do show is that at about 2011 the budget is balanced. 
The budget is balanced, and that is if we keep our current programs in 
place. Now, we can get to that point a lot sooner if we get more 
responsible on the spending side.
  Now, my good friends on the other side of the aisle will tell you, 
well, we are going to balance the budget, too, and they can do that if 
they just left things alone. We would get to a balanced budget. But 
what they will tell you is we need to spend more in other areas, and so 
we need to tax Americans more. We are going to balance the budget, yes, 
but we are going to do it by taxing the American people more, and I 
would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the way in which we need 
to move forward.
  We will talk about some other revenue items and some other aspects of 
a balanced budget, but I want to address what has been termed by many 
myths, 10, 12 number of myths about President Bush's tax reductions. 
These are the tax reductions, appropriate tax reductions, that our 
friends on the other side of the aisle say they have to end. They have 
to increase taxes on the American people.

  The Democrat majority has to write a budget. They have to write a 
budget. Each year, the majority party has to write a budget, and the 
House has to pass a budget.
  The new majority, the Democrat majority, has three options in that 
budget as to how they are going to deal with these appropriate tax 
reductions that were put in place earlier in this decade. They can 
extend them. They can continue the appropriate tax reductions, 
something that I and the vast majority of folks on our side of the 
aisle believe ought to occur. They could allow them to expire. 
Virtually all of them are slated to expire in 2011.
  So, if no action is taken, then the other side will, in fact, 
increase taxes, or they can repeal them. They could increase taxes 
right way. So they have the responsibility of determining exactly what 
they are going to do with those appropriate tax reductions.
  There are a number of myths that have grown up around these tax 
reductions that I would like to highlight. One is that the tax 
reductions themselves or the tax revenues themselves remain low. In 
fact, Mr. Speaker, as I have on a previous chart shown, the tax 
revenues are above the historical average, even after these appropriate 
tax reductions.
  Tax reductions in 2006 were about 18.4 percent of the gross domestic 
product, which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year and 60-year 
historical averages. Now the inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue 
increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest 2-year surge in 
tax revenue since 1965 and 1967. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The 
revenue to the Federal Government increased 20 percent over a 2-year 
period between 2004 and 2006, which is the largest increase in revenue 
to the Federal Government since 1965 and 1967. So claims that Americans 
and the American people are undertaxed according to history are simply 
patently false, absolutely untrue, and so it is important to remember 
that tax revenues are up because of a decrease in taxes, decrease in 
liability to the American people.
  When you compare the tax revenues in the fourth fiscal year after 
each of the past recessions, it shows that the tax revenues were 
basically the same. So, in 1987, tax revenues were about 1.4 percent of 
gross domestic product; 1995, 18.5 percent; and 2006, 18.4 percent.
  All of that is to say, Mr. Speaker, that when you decrease taxes, the 
revenue that comes into the Federal Government stays about the same as 
a percentage of the overall economy, but you decrease the number for 
each and every American because the economy is increasing and the 
revenue increases to the Federal Government. So tax reductions are good 
for the government. Tax reductions are good for the American people.
  The second myth that I want to talk about and discuss as it relates 
to the appropriate tax reductions that were adopted by this Congress 
back in 2001 and in 2003, the myth that is out there is that these tax 
reductions substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget 
deficit. Well, the fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that nearly all 
of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the 
baseline.
  I am the first to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Federal Government, 
Washington, has been spending too much money, too much of hard-earned 
taxpayer money. That being said, I think it is important that our 
friends on the other side of the aisle, who say that they want to 
balance the budget, do so by doing the responsible thing and that is 
decreasing spending and not increasing taxes.
  In the first place, if you increase taxes, what you do is, over the 
long term, you get less revenue to the Federal Government, but in terms 
of budget deficit, what you see is that you will decrease the deficit 
more rapidly by decreasing taxes and by decreasing spending.

                              {time}  1545

  Now critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget 
surpluses in 1998 through 2001 to a $247 billion budget deficit in 2006 
resulted chiefly from what they call ``irresponsible'' tax reductions. 
This argument, however, ignores the historic spending increases that 
pushed Federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 
percent of spending in 2006.
  Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels 
projected. We have talked about that before. They were above the levels 
that were projected before the 2003 tax cuts.
  Now, immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the Congressional Budget 
Office projected that the 2006 budget deficit would be $57 billion. Yet 
the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. Now, the $190 billion 
deficit increase resulted from Federal spending, resulted from Federal 
spending that was $237 billion more than projected. So revenues were 
actually $47 billion above projections even after the $75 billion in 
tax cuts that the other side says hurt, hurt the bottom line and hurt 
the deficits.
  So these myths, I think, are important to correct to point out the 
factual nature of what is going on as opposed to just flying by the 
seat of your pants, which is not the way folks do their family budget 
and certainly ought not to be the way that we do our Federal budget.
  The next myth I want to talk about is the capital gains taxes; tax 
cuts do not pay for themselves. There is kind of this sense that folks 
say, well, if you keep capital gains low, those are the taxes that 
people pay on the profits that they made on investments.
  I am in favor of doing away with them all together. But if you keep

[[Page H1256]]

them low, what happens is you don't get the same amount of revenue into 
the Federal Government. Well, the fact of the matter is that capital 
gains tax revenues doubled, doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
  Did you hear that? Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 
2003 tax cut.
  Now, whether a tax cut pays for itself depends on how much people 
alter their behavior in response to that policy. Investors have shown 
to be the most sensitive to tax policy because capital gains tax cuts 
encourage new investment to more than offset the lower tax rate.
  This chart here is a demonstration of exactly that. What we see here 
is a chart that shows capital gains tax revenues that doubled following 
the 2003 tax cut. The yellow line here projected from 2003 through 
2006, the yellow line demonstrates what the Congressional Budget Office 
said would be the taxes gained from capital gains tax revenue. The blue 
line which you see is significantly higher than that are the actual 
revenues that came into the Federal Government following the 2003 
capital gains tax reduction.
  So in 2003 capitalize gains tax rates were reduced from 20 percent to 
10 percent, depending on income, to 15 percent and 5 percent. Now, 
rather than expand by 36 percent from the current $50 billion level to 
$68 billion in 2006, as the CBO projected, capitalize gains revenue 
more than doubled $103 billion, $103 billion, more than twice what was 
projected. Past capital gains cuts have shown similar results as well.
  The fact of the matter is, remember, you can have your own opinions 
as you walk through this discussion of the economy and of tax policy 
and of budget policy, but it is important that we look at facts so that 
we are making appropriate decisions here on behalf of the American 
people.
  The fact of the matter is that when you decrease capital gains taxes 
you increase investment in America and you increase the revenue to the 
Federal Government, which is demonstrated clearly by this chart that we 
see right here.
  Another myth that I want to talk about is the myth that says that the 
tax deductions are to blame for the long-term budget deficits. In fact, 
that isn't true at all. Projections show that entitlement or automatic 
spending, automatic costs, will dwarf the projected large revenue 
increases of the current tax reductions. As you remember, the graph 
that I had up here had revenue to the Federal Government increasing 
because of the appropriate reductions in taxes to the American people.
  However, those increases will all be eaten up by automatic spending 
that occurs here in Washington. Some folks call these programs 
entitlement programs. They are primarily Medicare, Medicaid and Social 
Security.
  These are the automatic programs where the spending continues to 
increase based upon a formula.
  I have a chart that I would like to share with you that demonstrates 
clearly the challenge and the problem that confront not just those of 
us representing Americans but all of America. These are three pie 
charts that demonstrate the mandatory or automatic spending that 
occurs, primarily again in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This 
is 1995. Those programs comprised approximately half of the Federal 
budget, 48.7 percent of the Federal budget.
  Now, the percent of the Federal budget that was utilized at that time 
for interest on the debt was 15.3 percent, a point much greater than 
current, and then discretionary spending where we have all of the 
Federal programs that people think about in terms of transportation, 
national park programs, all of those kinds of things, in addition to 
defense, that portion, in 1995, was 36 percent.
  Again, about 48.7 percent was the mandatory portion of the budget. In 
2005, just 2 years ago, that portion had grown from 48.7 percent to 
53.4 percent. Again, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, there were 
automatic spending increases over a period of time with those three 
specific programs.
  If you track out to 2016, you get to 63.9 percent of the Federal 
budget. So those are the automatic programs that are in place, the 
automatic spending programs that are in place. This is clearly, clearly 
unsustainable. Spending of the entire GDP has kind of hovered around 20 
percent for the past half century.
  However, with the retirement of the baby boomers, this is the first 
year that baby boomers will begin to receive Social Security. Social 
Security, Medicare and Medicaid will see significant increases in the 
amount of revenue projected to increase over 10.5 percent over the next 
10 years. What you see is an increase to 63.9 percent by 2016.
  Clearly, clearly, these French-style spending increases, not tax 
policy, are the problem. In Washington, lawmakers, all of us, all of us 
have a responsibility and should focus on getting these entitlements 
under control, as opposed to raising taxes on the American people. That 
not only will not work, they may be good bumper sticker politics, but 
they will not work to solve the problem. This is hard work, significant 
challenges that confront all of us.
  Next myth I would like to address very briefly is that raising tax 
rates is the best way to raise revenue. There is kind of this general 
belief on the other side of the aisle that all you have to do to get 
more money is to raise more taxes.
  As you know, tax revenues themselves correlate with economic growth, 
not with tax rates, so that as the government increases its revenue as 
the economy grows, many of those who desire additional tax revenues 
regularly call on Congress to raise taxes. But tax revenues are a 
function basically of two variables. One is tax rates and two is the 
tax base.

  Since 1952, the highest marginal income tax rate has dropped from 92 
percent to 35 percent, dropped from 92 percent to 35 percent. At the 
same time, tax revenues have grown in inflation-adjusted terms while 
remaining basically a constant percent of GDP. They are basically a 
perfect correlation between those two.
  I think it is exceedingly important for all of us here and the 
American people to realize and appreciate that raising taxes doesn't 
raise tax revenue. In fact, as we saw from the previous charts, it is 
decreasing taxes that increase tax revenue.
  One other myth that I would like to talk about very briefly is that 
there is this myth that reversing the upper income tax reductions, the 
upper income tax cuts, would raise substantial revenues. In fact, the 
lower income tax cuts reduced tax revenue more than the high income tax 
reductions.
  I have a chart that will show that as well. This chart oftentimes 
comes as a real eye opener for the American people and for so many of 
my colleagues here, as a matter of fact. This chart shows the share of 
individual income taxes that are paid by different portions of our 
society, and I would like to just point to the last two bars, the last 
two bar graphs down there.
  This one, the larger one, that demonstrates that over 96 percent of 
all tax revenue comes from folks in the upper half of the income 
bracket of this Nation, and that the bottom 50 percent, the lower 50 
percent pay less than 4 percent of the tax revenue that comes into the 
United States.
  Now, that is important because if you try to concentrate on just the 
middle-income folks, in fact, you will not generate the kind of money 
that you are talking about or that you need, and you also will 
significantly depress the economy.
  Again, it is important to talk about facts. It is important to talk 
about truth as we talk about making certain that we have the right 
policy here at the Federal Government.
  Finally, there is a myth out there that these reductions, tax 
reductions, haven't helped the economy. In fact, the economy has 
responded to the 2003 tax reductions in remarkable ways, as we have 
already pointed out. GDP grew at an annual rate of 1.7 percent in the 
six quarters before the tax reductions. The six quarters that followed 
the tax reductions, it grew at 4.1 percent; 1.7 percent before, 4.1 
percent afterward. It is a fact.
  Nonresidential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters 
before the 2003 tax reductions. Since then, it has expanded for 14 
consecutive quarters. Down 13 quarters before, up 14 quarters 
afterward. It is a fact, not an opinion.

[[Page H1257]]

  Standard & Poor's 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before 
the 2003 tax cuts. After, increased 32 percent over the next six 
quarters; before, down 18 percent; after, up 32 percent. That is a 
fact, not an opinion.
  The economy, six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts lost 267,000 jobs. 
In the six quarters after, increased 307,000 jobs, and, as you well 
know, since then we have burgeoned by having 7.3 million new jobs since 
the middle of 2003.
  What we have tried to do today is try to bring to the American people 
some truth, some facts as we talk about the budget that will have to be 
laid out here over the next month to 6 weeks, pointing out the 
remarkable fallacy of so many of the arguments that are used on the 
floor of this House to say that, well, we have just got to raise taxes. 
You have heard some of the Presidential candidates out there on the 
stump, saying, we have just got to raise taxes. In fact, some of my 
good friends on the other side of the aisle say just that, nothing we 
can do except raise taxes.
  You know and I know that the truth of the matter is that when you 
look at how the economy operates, how the Federal Government gains 
revenue, that, in fact, decreasing taxes, maintaining the appropriate 
tax reductions, allowing the American people to keep more of their 
hard-earned money is exactly what is the prescription that is necessary 
for America and for the economy to continue to flourish.
  So I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle. I look forward to a spirited debate. I think the question really 
is, when you get right down to it, the question becomes who ought to 
decide; who should decide how the American people spend their hard-
earned money. Should it be the government? Should it be more government 
programs? Regardless of whatever area of the society you want to talk 
about, is it the Federal Government and State governments that ought to 
be making those decisions?
  Or should it be, as I and so many of my friends on this side of the 
aisle believe, that those decisions are better left to individual 
Americans? They make better decisions about what to do with their hard-
earned money when they are allowed to keep their hard-earned money and 
not have it rolled into the Federal Government as tax revenue.
  I am pleased to be able to provide hopefully a bit of light, a bit of 
truth, a bit of fact for this Chamber, and deal with the issues that 
are coming before us over the next 4 to 6 weeks. I look forward to this 
discussion on this debate.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Bush sent us his budget 
request for Fiscal Year 2008. This request includes his spending 
priorities for each federal agency.
  I applaud his efforts to balance the budget by the end of the decade, 
and to do so without raising taxes on American families. I also applaud 
his recent efforts to reduce the burden of agency guidance documents 
through the Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices that was 
published on January 25th.
  In addition to federal regulations, which are burdensome enough, the 
past decade has seen an explosion in ``guidance documents'' that are 
not legislated but have the same effect as regulation on American 
employers and can stifle their growth. As OMB itself noted:

       The phenomenon we see in this case is familiar. Congress 
     passes a broadly worded statute. The agency follows with 
     regulations containing broad language, open-ended phrases, 
     ambiguous standards and the like. Then as years pass, the 
     agency issues circulars or guidance or memoranda, explaining, 
     interpreting, defining and often expanding the commands in 
     regulations. One guidance document may yield another and then 
     another and so on. Several words in a regulation may spawn 
     hundreds of pages of text as the agency offers more and more 
     detail regarding what its regulations demand of regulated 
     entities. Law is made, without notice and comment, without 
     public participation, and without publication in the Federal 
     Register or the Code of Federal Regulations.

  In this spirit, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to examine the agency budget requests not only with regard to fiscal 
matters but also with regards to how spending priorities affect our 
economic competitiveness.
  Taxpayer dollars should be used to benefit the public good. 
Unfortunately, we have seen over and over again that--often with good 
intention--agencies instead use taxpayer money to impose and enforce 
regulations that literally strangle businesses and impede job growth.
  Regulation imposes its heaviest burden on small and medium sized 
businesses because it is harder for them to handle the necessary 
overhead costs of paperwork, staff time and attorney and accountant 
fees.
  Richard Vedder, an economist at the Center for the Study of American 
Business, finds that federal regulations cause $1.3 trillion in 
economic output to be lost each year. This is roughly equivalent to the 
entire economic output of the mid-Atlantic region.
  I have to imagine that processing this paperwork also requires a lot 
of agency time and reduces their ability to clean up the environment, 
provide better health care, improve labor conditions, make our 
transport systems more efficient, etc. If the government instead worked 
with employers to create a better work environment and a cleaner and 
safer nation, both sides could better accomplish their goals. The real 
winner would be the American people.
  As we go through the budget and appropriations process, I hope that 
we do so with an eye towards keeping our nation economically 
competitive now and in the future. We should look for ways in which the 
government can better work with employers, and also for the best 
programs to fund to train our children and children's children for the 
21st Century economy.

                          ____________________