Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 24 (Wednesday, February 13, 2008)

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 13, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H929-H935]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

GETTING THE NATION BACK ON TRACK

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to come
tonight and talk a little about spending, talk a little bit about the
budget, talk a little bit about reform, talk a little bit about
entitlements, and talk a little bit about earmarks.
What we want to do, Madam Speaker, over the next hour is talk a
little bit about what is going on in Washington, what is broken, what
needs to be fixed and have a big-picture discussion. We can talk about
line items. We can talk about things down in the weeds. But what we
want to talk about tonight is a philosophical difference between the
Republicans and the Democrats on how we are going to get this country,
Madam Speaker, back on track.
Now the President's budget lays out critical fiscal issues that the
Congress is going to have to deal with in the near future. Key among
them are balancing the budget, promoting sustained economic growth,
slowing the growth of Federal spending and addressing the coming
entitlement crisis.
First on deficits. Last year at this time, after several years of
dramatic declines in the Federal deficit, we found ourselves on what
may be described as a glide path to balance in the near term. Now that
path has been interrupted, mainly due to the slowdown in the economy
and the stimulus package, but we will still balance the budget.
Even while addressing current challenges in the economy, the
President's budget achieves balance by 2012 without raising taxes. Now
let me say that again, because I think that is extremely important. The
President's budget achieves balance by 2012 without raising taxes by
demanding the Federal Government get in control of guess what?
Spending.
The budget also achieves balance through sustainable fiscal policies
that support economic growth and job creation. It maintains the tax
policies that have supported the solid growth which until only recently
succeeded in producing appreciably higher revenue, appreciably higher
revenue, and dramatic reductions in the deficit, and we have got some
charts to show you just that.
Finally, the President's budget recognizes that our Nation's
challenges go well into the next few years. It takes a significant
critical step towards addressing the greatest threat to our Nation's
future strength and prosperity, the unsustainable growth of our largest
entitlement programs.
While the President's budget doesn't fix the entitlement problem in
one fell swoop, it does propose specific reforms, ones which would
reduce Medicare's $34 trillion in unfunded liability by nearly a third,
and that would be a tremendous step, Madam Speaker, $10 trillion, and I
congratulate the President on this step.
These are issues that we can debate on how best to approach that. But
to cut the unfunded liability by $10 trillion is remarkable. And if the
people want to criticize the President's specific proposals for
addressing that problem, that's fine. Then let's make sure they come
forward with solutions on how we can fix this stuff. Don't just tell me
the problem. Tell me how to fix it.
We must reform these programs so they can meet their mission of
providing health and retirement security and a reliable safety net
today and in the future. The administration has a proposed plan, but it
is Congress who has the power of the purse strings. It is Congress who
will decide the Federal budget. And it is Congress who is ultimately
responsible and accountable for ensuring a sustainable path to our
Nation's future.
Let me show a couple of charts to kind of substantiate what we are
talking about, Madam Speaker.
The first chart. Now a lot of people have said the Bush tax cuts,
let's make them permanent. Let's do away with them. When we talk about
the Bush tax cuts, what are we talking about? We are not talking about
the Bush tax cuts. We are talking about real things. We are talking
about capital gains. We are talking about the marriage penalty. We are
talking about dividends. We are talking about a death tax. A child tax
credit. Things that affect everyday Americans, Madam Speaker.
Now this chart shows the best Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. If you
look at the red first, this shows what happened before the tax cuts,
and the blue shows what happened after the tax cuts. Now my friends on
the other side have always said, well, what we need to do, we need to
tax the rich. We need to make sure that they are paying more than their
fair share.
Let me show this. After the Bush tax cuts, the top 1 percent, their
taxes actually went up. That's right. The top 10 percent, guess what?
After the Bush tax cuts, their taxes actually went up. The top 50
percent, after the Bush tax cuts, guess what? Their taxes actually went
up.
Now, again, the Democrats will argue, well, we need to do more for
the little man, for the guy that is in the middle. Look at the bottom
down here. The bottom 50 percent after the Bush tax cuts went into
effect, their tax liability actually went down. So the argument that we
need to tax the rich more to save the little man doesn't quite fit that
chart, does it?
Let's show another one. Job creation before and after the Bush tax
cuts. If you look at the red lines going south, or below the line, this
is before the Bush tax cuts. Look what happened after the Bush tax
cuts. Now it appears to me on this chart that job creation went up. So
we have got the lower 50 percent that are actually paying less, and we
are creating more jobs.

{time} 1915

An interesting concept. Let me show another one.
Now, Madam Speaker, I really love this one. This is one that me being
from South Carolina can truly understand. This is before the Bush tax
cuts. Then, after 2003, everything was fully implemented. The line goes
increasingly up. So even after the Bush tax cuts were fully
implemented, revenues to the Federal Government soared through the
roof.
It just proves that when you allow Americans to keep more of their
hard-earned money, that they know how to spend it better than we do.
They are going to buy a new truck. They are going to build a new
building. They are going to hire a new employee. They are going to grow
the economy. And the way you grow the economy is through the private
sector and not the public sector.
Now, let's change subjects just a little bit. Spending. No matter
what we do, whether it is tax policy, whether it is changes here or
changes there, we have got to get spending under control. The red line
assumes that my friends on the Democrat side are successful and the
Bush tax cuts are going to go away. We will have higher taxes. The red
line shows here that the taxes are increasing.
But look at the green line. The green line, Madam Speaker, is runaway
spending, and you can't address one without addressing the other,
because unless we get our fiscal house in order, none of it is worth
anything.
Now, I want to read you a quote here. Comptroller General David
Walker came in front of our committee and said, ``You are not going to
tax your way out of this problem. You're not going to grow your way out
of this problem. You are not going to do it by constraining spending.
You are going to have to do a combination of all these things, and the
biggest thing is going to be entitlement reform, Social Security and
Medicare, health care being a much greater challenge. And

[[Page H930]]

we need to start soon, because time is working against us.''
Let's look at entitlements. Now, of course, the top of it says
``mandatory spending.'' There is actually nothing mandatory about this,
because Congress can change this if we need to. It is entitlement
spending.
In 1995, entitlement spending was roughly about 49 percent of our
Federal budget; in 2005, which, by the way, was 3 years ago, 53.4
percent of our budget. And, lo and behold, unless we do something to
address entitlement spending, by 2018, it will be 63.3 percent of our
budget.
Now, you look at the interest, how it has kind of stayed the same,
actually gone down a little bit. But discretionary spending has gone
from 36 to 29 percent. Roads, education, infrastructure, defense,
things that are vital to our Nation, things that are vital to our
national security, are being eroded because of this monster that we
call mandatory spending.
This is the last chart I want to show. Now, again, I want to applaud
the President for trying to attack entitlement spending. There is $34
trillion, as we speak, of unfunded liabilities. And what his budget
proposes is an estimated $10 trillion trying to trim that off.
Now, my chairman, Chairman John Spratt from South Carolina, an
honorable man, sat right in the committee and said these are draconian
cuts to Medicare, to Medicaid. But, Mr. Chairman, tell me how to fix
it? Let's have an open and honest debate on how to address entitlement
spending, because, Madam Speaker, this is the camel that broke the
straw's back literally; not the straw that broke the camel's back, but
the camel that broke the straw's back.
Madam Speaker, I can go on, and I want to do that, but I have some
tremendous partners here with me tonight that want to talk about
spending, that want to talk about runaway spending, that want to talk
about this system that, personally, I think is broken.
The first gentleman I would like to recognize is a dear friend of
mine, a classmate of mine from the great State of Minnesota,
Representative Colonel John Kline.
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, this is a huge topic that we are talking about tonight
of tremendous personal importance to every American. My dear friend and
colleague from South Carolina said that we want to talk a little bit
tonight about budgeting and about things that are broken in Washington
and about spending and all manner of things.
You know, when we budget, whether the President sends over a budget
and then Congress works its will on that budget, we are assigning
priorities on how we spend taxpayer money, how the government is going
to spend that money, and that ought to be a deliberative process, and
it is a deliberative process. But then we throw it out the window.
We have a couple of things that I wanted to touch on tonight which
break the system. One of them is a subject that has been much in the
news lately, and that is porkbarrel spending, earmarks. This is a
system that is completely broken in Congress and in Washington, DC.
Spending for pet projects for Members of Congress has nothing to do
with an orderly, reasoned system for setting priorities on how we set
spending. Decisions are made not on the merits of a proposed project.
No, not at all. Decisions are made based on how long a Member has been
in Congress, perhaps what committee they are assigned to, perhaps what
party they are in. It has nothing to do with the merits of the project.
So we spent last year over $15 billion, that is the entire yearly
budget for the State of Minnesota, $15 billion on these pet projects,
and done in a way that had nothing to do with an orderly system for
assigning priorities on how we spend money.
I don't think I ought to be asking the people of the Second District
of Minnesota to spend money on a project for the LA fashion district. I
am sorry, I just don't think that is the right set of priorities. We
ought to establish those priorities through the institutional system
that is here in Congress. We don't do that. We award money based on an
entirely arbitrary system.
My friend, our friend, my friend from South Carolina, Mr. Barrett,
and others that are here with us tonight know that we have a friend,
Congressman Jeff Flake from Arizona, and every time we have a spending
bill he brings up six or eight or 10 or 12 examples of this porkbarrel
spending and tries to shed some light on it and get a debate and give
us a chance to vote on whether or not we think that is the right
priority for how we spend taxpayer dollars. But do you know what? It is
not a debate. It is not a debate. It is not going to have anything to
do with the merits of the project.
Mr. Flake's amendments almost, I can only think of one exception,
never pass. And why is that? Because the system is broken. Members of
Congress don't want to vote against that earmark, because they are
afraid that somebody will vote against their pet project. It is a
broken system. We need to check it.
Is it a lot of money? Well, the entire annual budget for the State of
Minnesota, we think that is a lot of money, and we ought to get that
under control. And it is symptomatic of problems we have here.
Another problem that is symptomatic of a broken system is what
happens after we go through the process of debating the budget,
deciding on a budget, deciding on how much money we are going to spend
for defense, for education, for transportation and roads,
setting priorities in the way we should be setting priorities.

Then what happens? The system here in Washington, in Congress, says
that we have to have a spending bill, an appropriations bill that
dictates how much money we are going to spend in theory in keeping with
that budget. But what happens? These bills come up. They are loaded
down with this porkbarrel spending. We get to the end of the fiscal
year here in Washington, which is the end of September, and we don't
have these bills passed.
We get to the end of October, we get to the end of November, and
suddenly there is pressure to get the spending bills passed, and the
system that has been in place here for a long time is to do what? Take
all of these spending bills and roll them up into one great big
monstrous bill of spending which they call an omnibus. This omnibus
ends up breaking every rule, every priority of spending. It is just one
big, huge massive spending bill. That is part of what is broken in
Washington.
Now, my friend Mr. Barrett is talking about entitlement spending, and
I am sure we have colleagues here tonight that are going to talk about
that and other issues that are trillions of dollars, but we can't even
get the relatively small pieces right here.
I am very pleased to say that many people in my party, in the
Republican Party, have stepped up and said we have had enough of this
porkbarrel spending. We need to take serious action to stop this
nonsense. Some of us have said we are not going to participate, me
included, until it is fixed. Many of my colleagues have done the same
thing, some of them here in this room tonight. But as a party we have
taken the position that we need to fix this.
I was very pleased to see that one of our Democrat colleagues today
was in the paper saying no more earmarks, because the system is broken,
and we welcome that sort of bipartisan support and recognition of a
system that is completely, absolutely broken and needs to be fixed.
I know it is symptomatic of some bigger problems. It is not huge
money, but it is big enough money that we ought to step up and fix it.
And then we ought to fix these other underlying problems like this
gigantic omnibus mess, because the green line that my friend showed of
this increased spending has got to be brought under control. Even in
the wildest dreams of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
they can't raise taxes enough to fix that. We have to get the spending
part of this equation under control.
I believe, as I know Mr. Barrett does and some of our other
colleagues here tonight, that keeping the tax burden low and allowing
American families and businesses to spend money according to their
priorities will keep this economy growing and tax revenues will
continue to flow. We just have to get the spending side under control.

[[Page H931]]

I thank my friend for yielding some time to me and letting me address
a couple of the issues in this big picture that he has been trying to
lay out for us tonight. I know we have other colleagues, so I yield
back.
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, I guess it is a philosophical question: Who do you
trust? Who do you trust? Do you trust a Federal bureaucracy that has
grown and grown and grown? Or do you trust the men and women in South
Carolina? Do you trust the men and women in Minnesota? Do you trust the
men and women in Texas or Tennessee? Because they are the ones out
there day after day busting their humps, making a living, trying to
make ends meet. And all they want is a fair shake. All they want is for
us to spend their money wisely.
I have never met a constituent, Madam Speaker, that didn't say ``I
don't want to pay my fair share.'' But every one of them will tell you
``I don't want to pay more than my fair share.'' And it is incumbent
upon us, it is incumbent upon the United States Congress, to do the
right thing.
With that, Madam Speaker, there is a lovely lady in the Chamber
tonight that is a budget hawk, that is a stalwart when it comes to
conservatism in the House, a lady that speaks with a gentle voice but
carries a big stick, and I am talking about my dear friend from
Tennessee, Marsha Blackburn.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you so much.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding
the time, and I thank my colleagues for taking the time to come and
talk to our colleagues and also to the American people a little bit
about the issue of spending.
You have the right to know how we spend your money. Madam Speaker, I
think that that is something we need to think about. This is not our
money. It is not the government's money. This is the taxpayers' money.
And to each and every individual, each and every taxpayer who is
listening, you do have a right to know how your money is being spent.
The gentleman from South Carolina spoke so well to the issues that
are encapsulated in the budget process. Some of you may be wondering
about that budget document. Yes, the President did get it out to us
last week. You can actually download the budget document if you want to
see it. It is about 2,000 pages.
You think about how small the Constitution is and how big the budget
is for this one year. But at Whitehouse.gov/OMB/budget/FY2009, the
fiscal year 2009 budget, you can go to that Web site and you can
actually print it off and go through and search and look at it, as the
gentleman said, entitlements, and the entitlements that are there, the
mandatory spending, as it is called, even though it is items that just
don't seem to be addressed.

{time} 1930

They are put on auto pilot, if you will. And it really takes strength
to get in there and address Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security
and those items that have been put on auto pilot.
Are these items things that are going to continue to grow every year?
Yes, indeed, they do. Do they need to be addressed? Absolutely, they
need to be addressed. And the gentleman is right in that, as he was
pointing out the amounts of money. And then just making a small little
reduction in that spending, you have a Budget chairman who is saying,
oh, my goodness, draconian cuts. We can't do that.
So it is important to keep up with actually what is in that document.
And I do encourage everyone to print that out, look at it, and stay in
touch with us as we continue on a regular basis to come to this floor
and talk about how this body spends your money.
Now to follow the good members of the Budget Committee, the gentleman
from South Carolina and a couple of Members you will hear from yet a
little bit further tonight and to follow some of the process, the
process of getting this budget together. The President proposes that
budget. You can go to budget.house.gov/republicans, and you can follow
the actions that are going to take place as we talk about spending,
talk about how the limits are going to be set for the different
categories in the budget, as we go through amending that budget and the
House putting its mark on that budget. We are the keepers of the purse.
And I invite you to follow those actions.
Those of us that are in the Republican Study Committee, which are
bringing you this hour tonight and this discussion, you can follow what
we are doing with the budget at house.gov/hensarling/rsc, and we
encourage you to do that.
We do recognize this is your money, it is not the government's money,
and you deserve information on what is happening with spending. As you
have heard from the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), and also from
South Carolina (Mr. Barrett), you deserve that info so that you can
decide if you think you are getting a good value for the tax dollars
that you are sending into the Federal Government. So work through this
with us, and then you make the decision as to what kind of value you
think you are getting.
Now I will tell you, I am one of those that thinks the President
spends too much. I have disagreed with how much he spends. I think this
body spends too much. There are all sorts of good ideas that are out
there. But every time there is a good idea, you have a price that has
to be attached to that. And it is not only a price as to what we are
spending here, but it is also the price that is paid because neither
the private nor not-for-profit sector is going to fill that need or
address that need if the public sector is doing it.
I think as we talk through the issue and as you are listening to the
Members that will speak to you tonight, you will agree, government
spends too much. As you have heard tonight, taxes are too high. The
American people are overtaxed and government has overspent. The
bureaucracy is bloated and the bureaucracy needs to be trimmed back.
Every year they take a little more and a little more and a little more
and go through this process of baseline budgeting, never going back to
dollar zero like you do, like we all do with the family budget. Every
year they just add on. So the bureaucracy is bloated. And in this
season of a new year and new resolutions, the Federal budget is one
that needs to be put on a diet. But we all know that government has an
insatiable appetite for the taxpayers' money.
There are some actions that need to be taken. As you have heard
tonight, you see the mandatory spending, the things that are on auto
pilot approaching 60 percent of this budget. It's time to get our hands
around that. We're looking forward to beginning some of that process
this year, just as we've begun it every year with the budget discussion
and driving that debate a little bit further to make certain that
fiscal responsibility is restored to this House, to make certain that
future generations of Americans have a free Nation in which they can
grow up, which they can dream big dreams, where they can have great
adventures and they have the confidence of knowing they have a
government that is going to work well, a government that is going to be
efficient and effective in the tasks that they undertake and the
services they provide.
I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding.
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentlelady.
Madam Speaker, I couldn't have said it any better. Mrs. Blackburn
does a beautiful job, and we really appreciate her coming down and
sharing some thoughts with us tonight.
My next speaker again is a classmate of mine, a wonderful man, the
author of the Family Budget Protection Act, which was a fantastic piece
of legislation, and I hope he talks a little bit about it tonight, also
the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, and a dear friend, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for
his leadership in this body, and I thank him for his friendship.
Madam Speaker, I know of no one in this body who represents greater
integrity and greater honor than the gentleman from South Carolina. His
district was very wise to send him to the United States House of
Representatives. I want to thank the gentlelady from Tennessee who
preceded me who is one of the most dynamic Members

[[Page H932]]

we have in this entire body for the clarity and persuasion of her
speech, a lady who knows how challenging it is for families to be able
to put food on the table, put gasoline in the car, pay for their health
care expenses, and knows that ultimately it is the family budget that
ends up paying for the bloated Federal budget.
Now I didn't join the Budget Committee because I enjoyed numbers. In
fact, I think probably the worst grade I ever made in my life was in an
accounting course at Texas A&M University many, many years ago. But I
joined the Budget Committee because ultimately the budget is about
priorities. And, Madam Speaker, I came to this body because I believe
America needs greater freedom and greater opportunity. And you can't
have more freedom and more government. You have to choose between one
or the other. And sometimes, Madam Speaker, especially at a time of
challenging economic times, you have got to decide which is more
important, a government check or a paycheck. And right now government
increasingly is taking a bite out of that family paycheck to pay for
bloated Washington spending.
Well, Madam Speaker, I don't know if the American people know it, but
right now the Federal Government is spending over $23,000 per American
family. It is the first time since World War II that the government has
spent that much money, over $23,000. Madam Speaker, I wonder how many
families that are listening to this debate tonight think they are
getting their $23,000 worth out of the United States Federal
Government.
Now some will say government has great needs. But you know what, it's
not always how much money you spend in Washington that counts, it's how
you spend the money. And I want a Federal Government that does a few
things well, like guards my family and the families of all Americans
against radical Islamic terrorists. I want a Federal Government that
can control our borders. I want a Federal Government that will provide
a social safety net for those who are too old, too young, and too
disabled to help themselves. But outside of that, I want people to go
out and have greater freedom and greater opportunity, and have the
greatest welfare system known to mankind. And when I say welfare, I
mean greater education, greater housing, greater nutrition. That
program is called the American free enterprise system, and it is under
assault. And one of the things that is assaulting it is the Federal
budget.

Now let's talk about the fight that is taking place in Congress right
now, and that is a fight about whether or not Americans ought to
receive a huge automatic tax increase that our friends on the other
side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, the Democrats, have passed into
legislation.
Right now over the next 3 years there will be a huge automatic tax
increase on the American people. Now is that what this economy needs
now, when people are concerned about their job losses, when they are
having trouble filling up their Ford F-150 pickup trucks, when they are
having trouble buying milk at the grocery store? I have a 5-year-old
and a 4-year-old and they're very thirsty and they drink that milk. And
it is expensive.
And so the question right now is, should there be a huge automatic
tax increase on the American people? Well, Madam Speaker, the
Republicans think that there shouldn't be, that we shouldn't have a
huge automatic tax increase. Let me tell you what the Democrats have
passed.
Right now, if we don't change this, the top tax income bracket will
go to 39.6 percent, an increase of 13.1 percent. Now why is that
important? We always hear, well, you know, this is the wealthy and they
need to pay more taxes. Well, you know who files at this rate, Madam
Speaker, is small businesses. And, guess what, you can't have
capitalism without capital. I used to be a small businessman. I signed
the front of a paycheck. I used to sign the back of the paycheck, but I
signed the front of the paycheck and I have risked capital. So now all
of a sudden the Democrats have put into law a 13.1-percent tax increase
on hundreds of thousands of small businesses across our Nation at the
very time when they are trying to meet their payroll. What sense does
that make, Madam Speaker?
Capital gains. The capital of capitalism. Democrats want to increase
taxes on that 33.3 percent. If you want to talk about something that's
going to send more jobs overseas, it's increasing the tax rate on
capital gains. Dividends go up 164 percent. That's right, 164 percent,
under the automatic tax increases that the Democrats are going to
impose on us.
The death tax. You have already paid taxes on it once. You shouldn't
have to visit the undertaker and the IRS on the same day, and yet that
is going to go from zero up to 55 percent, Madam Speaker.
The child tax credit is going to get cut in half. And the lowest tax
bracket for the lowest wage earners in America, their taxes are going
to increase 50 percent. Under the Democrat plan, Madam Speaker, it is
going to go from a 10 percent bracket to a 15-percent bracket.
Now is this the recipe that our economy needs? I don't think so. I
don't think so. But yet Democrats tell us, well, we need more money
because we've got to do all this Washington spending. Well, if you look
in the rearview mirror, Madam Speaker, you will see that over the last
10 years government has grown by about 75 percent, and yet the family
budget, which has to pay for that Federal budget, has only grown 30
percent.
Now ultimately something has to give. And so again our Democrat
colleagues, Madam Speaker, tell us, well, we have to raise taxes. And
all those tax increases that they want to impose right when the economy
is having troubles, they say, well, we've got to raise taxes to somehow
balance the budget.
Well, Madam Speaker, if people would look at this chart, we don't
have a taxation problem, we have a spending problem. Right now the
difference between this blue line and red line is this huge massive tax
increase that the Democrats want to impose upon hardworking American
families, on farmers, on teachers, on small businesses. And look at how
much revenue it gains you. And this, Madam Speaker, not to get into too
much inside baseball, is what we call a static analysis. This assumes
that raising people's taxes has no impact on economic growth. We know
that's not true.
So given the Democrats' every single assumption, if they do this
massive tax increase which is going to amount to roughly $3,000 per
American family over the next 3 years, it doesn't get anywhere close to
the green line. That's the spending line. That is the line that
represents the Federal Government on automatic pilot. That is if no new
programs are added, that is how much is going to be spent. And what
does that represent? Don't take my word for it; take the Comptroller
General's word for it, the chief fiduciary officer in the United States
Government. He says that line right there represents either, number
one, a doubling of taxes on our children, or it represents a Federal
Government that consists of almost nothing but Medicare, Medicaid, and
Social Security. And anybody in charge of counting money for the
Federal Government will tell you the same thing. Where is the ethic in
that? Where is the morality in that? Imposing that kind of burden on
the next generation? But, no, we have so many colleagues that care
about the next election and not the next generation.

{time} 1945

Almost 6 years ago I got in the next generation business because I
have a 5-year-old daughter and a 4-year-old son, and I care desperately
about their future. So we have to do something about out-of-control
spending, and yet our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the
Democrats, every single day they add a new program, completely
oblivious to the cost on our children and grandchildren, the least of
these, those who cannot vote and those yet to be born.
If we are to work our way out of the economic challenges we have
today, much less spare our children and grandchildren a doubling of
their taxation to where we would be the first generation in American
history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living,
if we are going to keep our faith with our forefathers, if we are going
to show fidelity to the future generations and be good stewards

[[Page H933]]

of the American dream, we have to defeat these massive Democrat tax
increases. We have to defeat their massive increases in spending.
Madam Speaker, it all starts with something we call earmarks,
congressional earmarks. As a dear friend of mine in the Senate, Tom
Coburn of Oklahoma said, ``Earmarks are the gateway drug to spending
addiction.'' There are too many bridges to nowhere, there are too many
indoor rainforests. There are too many teapot museums. And the American
people are waking up that all too often somebody in this body has taken
a bite out of their paycheck so that some Member of Congress can keep
his. The system is broken.
Republicans in this body have called for an earmark moratorium. They
have called for a select committee to clean up this system where the
American people too often see money going into campaign contributions.
Money coming in one end of Washington, DC, and they see earmarks coming
out the other end. The system is broken. It has to be changed, and all
the Democrats have said is no, we are not going to join you. They have
gone the complete opposite direction.
I am proud to be a member of this Republican conference that is
trying to clean up this earmark mess, trying to control spending and
control taxation so we can get this economy going and Americans can
keep their jobs and have a brighter future for themselves and their
children and their grandchildren.
I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his leadership, and
thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Hensarling, I thank you for being
here tonight and for your hard work. Your steady leadership with the
RSC is truly appreciated. We appreciate you coming down here tonight.
Madam Speaker, my next speaker tonight is a gentleman that we call
our songmeister in the Members' prayer breakfast every Thursday
morning, a gentleman who is dogmatic when it comes to being a true
conservative, when it comes to spending constraint, and when it comes
to doing what is right in the United States Congress, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
Mr. AKIN. Well, thank you very much for yielding me some time here. I
agree with you entirely that Congressman Hensarling from Texas really
does us proud, and we think an awful lot of his constituents for
sending Mr. Hensarling here. He is a great leader and really
understands the basic principles and levers on what makes Congress
work.
Mr. Barrett from South Carolina, I appreciate your managing the time
before us this evening, and your integrity and leadership, and the fact
that you are pretty smart and on top of these issues. We need people
like that here.
The question before us tonight, do we want tax increases or tax
decreases. It is a pretty simple choice: Tax increases or tax
decreases. Historically there were two guys, one guy plugging each one.
One was called little Lord Keynesian economics. That is the one that
said what we want to do is we want to do tax increases. If the
government just spends enough money, by golly, it is just like standing
inside a bucket, grabbing the handle and lifting up, and we will just
float our way out of any economic problems. So the idea is government
will spend a lot of money and increase taxes. That is a Keynesian
approach.
The other approach was advanced a little later, after Keynes, and it
was Milton Friedman. He said no, when you have your economy in trouble,
you are starting to get into a recession, you want to do tax decreases.
Now that might sound like a crazy idea because if you cut taxes, you
think, I won't be able to pay for all of the things that government is
doing. We already have a deficit, how can you cut taxes.
Well, one of the ways to take a look at which one of these ideas is a
better idea is take a look at how it has worked historically. We have a
long record on that, actually. You can go back to the 1920s, and Calvin
Coolidge cut taxes at a time when the economy was having a hard time,
and the economy surged. In fact, they gave it a name, they called it
the Roaring 20s.
Next was FDR. Now FDR in his earlier years, he was in trouble
politically, so he got a clever idea. He said I am going to take some
Federal money and start building using Federal money in the States
where I need some votes. He goes out and doubles and then triples the
budget of the Federal Government. The Federal Government was only
spending about 3 percent, and he took it up to 9 percent. That was the
1930s and 1940s. And, of course, the Great Depression was brought on by
that extensive spending on the part of the Federal Government and the
tax increases that were necessary to try to cover that.
In 1960, and this is a place where we step a little out of the
political pattern. In general, Republicans have been on the side of
cutting taxes. But here was a Democrat, John F. Kennedy. In 1960 he
said the economy is in trouble, and we need to cut taxes. JFK did that,
and we had 7 or 8 years of very strong economy.
So again, when you cut taxes, the economy surged and did better.
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan was stuck with a very difficult economy.
He did a huge tax cut. Everybody says Reaganomics, it was foolish to
cut taxes, except it worked. We had a tremendously strong economy. It
was that strong economy that allowed Ronald Reagan to spend money on
defense and basically economically break the back of the Soviet Union,
thus winning the Cold War.
Then we came back with Bush I and Clinton. They went back to the
raise-taxes formula. The economy gets in trouble. Bush II comes into
office in 2000, and we have a recession starting. What happens, in 2003
he does a major tax cut particularly where it was necessary to help
small businesses to help invest in the economy, and now we have had
about 5 years of a very strong economy because of the tax cuts.
Well, where are we today?
The Democrats today are really into the idea of tax increases. Not
only have they raised billions and billions in additional spending in
2007, but they have proposed the mother of all tax increases. That does
make me scared around Thanksgiving when you hear about the mother of
all tax increases, a $3-plus trillion tax increase. That is going to
repeal all of the Bush tax cuts.
So now you have the economy that is pretty shaky right now, and what
are you going to do; you are going to slam it with massive tax
increases, and that is the formula that goes right back to little Lord
Keynesian that the Democrats are pushing.
The question could be asked, we are not being able to cover all of
our bills, how can you talk about cutting taxes, being responsible when
you talk about cutting taxes, wouldn't you have to pay all of these
bills for the government. Well, here is an interesting thing, and it is
one that I heard talked about but I never really quite analyzed it. I
would like you to picture in your mind that you are king for the day
and your job is to try to raise some money for your government to do
some programs. The only thing you get to tax is a loaf of bread.
So you start to think this one out. You see this loaf of bread
sitting in front of you, and you think, am I going to put a one penny
tax on a loaf of bread, and you start calculating how many loaves of
bread that we use in the country, and figure out what you raise. You
think, why not charge $100 for taxes on a loaf of bread.
Then you think maybe no one would buy the bread then. Common sense
says somewhere between a penny and $100 there is some level of tax on
the loaf of bread that if you increase it, you will lose tax revenue.
And if you decrease it, you will lose tax revenue. So what is going on
here is that there is some optimum level of taxing, and when you go
beyond it, even though you raise taxes, you are actually crashing the
economy and you are not going to collect as much money because the
economy is going to die.

You think about the fact in this last Bush administration people were
complaining about the tax cuts and the cost of the war. The interesting
thing is if you add the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the
cost of the tax cuts, they don't equal as much as what the recession
was costing us in the beginning of 2000. Recessions are very expensive.
So if you drive your taxes too much, the economy slows and you don't
get the tax revenue. You can raise taxes as much as you want, but if

[[Page H934]]

the economy is sick, you are not going to get revenue in.
So that's the logic. It is like a loaf of bread. If you tax it too
much, you actually get less revenue coming into the government.
Now the thing that I find ironic about this whole thing, we have all
of this history in America and we know that tax cuts are the medicine
you need when you have a recession. We don't want excessive spending,
and we cannot afford these huge tax cuts. And the ironic thing is that
the socialistic Europeans have figured this out. We have the economists
who figured it out, and yet we are not acting on the intelligence that
we have. The Europeans, they figured hey, this is a good deal, we will
cut taxes and our economy will grow. And so they whacked taxes 8 or 9
years ago, and their economy is going gangbusters. All of Europe asks,
What did Ireland do? Oh, Ireland cut its taxes. And so good old
socialistic Germany and socialistic France, they are working to cut
taxes. They figured it out.
And here we are, the people who actually came up under Milton
Friedman with this understanding of economics, and what are we doing,
we are talking about the mother of all tax increases. This is insanity.
I can't understand why the Democrats want to do this. If I were a
Democrat, I would want to hand out pork and programs to people; I would
want a strong economy. I would want to cut taxes so I would have more
money to spend. It doesn't make sense to pass these huge, massive tax
increases.
I think we could learn from history, or we could just learn from the
Irish.
I certainly appreciate the gentleman from South Carolina yielding me
the time to talk about this. The question is are we going to do tax
increases or tax decreases? If you care about the economy and if you
care about the future of our children, the answer has to be that we
have to use the Milton Friedman approach and we have to get control of
our spending and we have to cut our taxes.
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman. I can certainly
tell one thing, Madam Speaker, and I know the other folks in the
Chamber will agree, that the gentleman from Missouri is certainly
passionate and believes in what he is talking about.
Madam Speaker, now it is an honor and a privilege to turn to one of
our newer Members, but a Member who has proven himself time and time
again, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for
yielding, and appreciate this opportunity that RSC has put together to
talk about taxes and spending and some of the challenges we face as a
country.
We live in the greatest country in the world, but we do face some
serious challenges. Obviously we face the challenge of terrorism, the
threat from people who want to do our country harm and who don't
believe in the great values that made us the greatest country in human
history.
Also, we face another challenge, and that is the challenge of dealing
with the fiscal situation that confronts us as Members of Congress.
Just some numbers. The previous speaker from Missouri talked about tax
issues. It is important to understand, you hear from time to time tax-
and-spend politicians, it is really not that, it is really spend and
tax. Spending drives the equation, and we have got to get Federal
spending under control.
Just some numbers. The greatest economy in human history is the U.S.
economy. It is the largest economy ever, a $14 trillion annual economy.
The second largest economy in the world is the nation of Japan,
approximately $3.2 trillion.
The third largest economy, if I can use that term, is the Federal
Government. We all just saw the budget that came out last week, a $3
trillion Federal budget. We have a $3 trillion annual operating budget,
and we have a $9 trillion national debt. The Federal Government spends
$23,000 per year per household; the top 25 percent of income earners
pay 84 percent of the taxes. So when you hear these elected officials
say we have to give tax cuts to the middle class, we are going to tax
the rich, it is already happening. So when people talk about only
taxing the rich, what they really mean is they are going to tax
taxpayers. Every single family is going to pay more.
We have to get spending under control if we are going to keep taxes
low so families have more of their money to spend on their goals and
their dreams, their kids and their grandkids.
Last year I was proud to be part of the RSC who worked hard at
lowering spending. In fact, we didn't really work to lower spending.
What we said to the majority party is, let's spend what we spent last
year. We offered a series of amendments. The way the process works
around here is we have to have 12 appropriations bills in law by the
end of our fiscal year, which is September 30.

{time} 2000

So as those bills were moving through, we offered a series of
amendments that said, let's spend what we spent the previous year.
After all, all kinds of families, all kinds of business owners, all
kinds of taxpayers in this great country have had to do that from time
to time. Doesn't it make some sense for the Federal Government, where
everyone instinctively knows we have waste in spending, doesn't it make
sense for the Federal Government to maybe just live on what they did
the previous year? But no, the majority party wouldn't do that. And
they increased spending on those bills at three and four and in some
cases five times the rate of inflation. And all we said was, let's just
hold the line.
And the argument we got when we offered our amendments was, you know
what, if we can't spend more, the world's going to end, the sky's going
to fall, all kinds of terrible things are going to happen. We just
can't do that. We've got to spend more.
Well, as the process unfolded, and so that the American people
understand, Madam Speaker, we didn't have any one of those bills, not
one single bill was enacted by September 30. And so on September 30, we
had to pass what's called a continuing resolution, which is a fancy way
of saying, let's live on last year's budget.
A few weeks into that, I came to this floor, same spot here, and gave
a speech. I said, you know, a few months ago, a few weeks ago we had
talked about the fact that we wanted to hold the line on spending and
we were told that if we didn't increase spending, all kinds of bad
things were going to happen; the sky was going to fall, the sun
wouldn't come up.
I said, you know what? For the past 6 weeks we've been living on last
year's budget and imagine this: The government's still running. The
sun's still coming up; the world hasn't ended. I said, how can that be?
And my rhetorical question was, You know what? If we can do it for 6
weeks, I bet we could do it for 6 months, I bet we could do it for a
whole year, and save the taxpayers a lot of money and, more
importantly, and maybe most importantly, begin to better position
ourselves as a country to deal with the long-term problems that we know
are out there.
It is important that we get spending under control because when we
do, we can make sure our economy continues to grow, we can keep taxes
low, and we can let families have the kind of resources they need,
their resources, to spend on their goals and dreams.
The last thing I will say is this before yielding back to the
gentleman from South Carolina.
The way the world works is this: The economic leader in the world is
the military leader in the world. Right now that is one country, the
United States of America, and that's a good thing. It is good when
American leads.
You know, folks at home in Ohio, folks back home in Carolina, they
get it. They understand that instinctively. I think maybe the only
people who don't understand that fact is the editorial page of the New
York Times.
I love the line Cal Thomas has, syndicated columnist Cal Thomas. He
talks about how normal people perceive things, and how sometimes the
elite national press perceives things. And he has a great line. He
says, I get up every morning, I read my Bible and the New York Times so
I can see what each side's up to. And there's some truth to that
statement.
It's important that we lead economically. We can do that by keeping
spending low and keeping taxes low. And when we do that we can be the
leader of the world, which is a good thing for safety around the
planet.

[[Page H935]]

With that I would yield back to the gentleman. I appreciate again his
putting this hour together and talking about this very important
challenge that we face as a country.
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman from Ohio so
much.
My last speaker, Madam Speaker, I don't know what to say. I mean,
he's awesome. When you need somebody watching your back in a fight, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) is the guy I want beside
me. It is my pleasure to introduce him.
Mr. McHENRY. Thank you. I appreciate your kind words, Congressman
Barrett, and I really appreciate your leadership. I know the people of
South Carolina do as well. As deputy ranking Republican on the Budget
Committee, he has his work cut out for him leading us on the Budget
Committee.
I want to bring out just a few facts for the American people tonight,
Madam Speaker. Congressman Jordan pointed out very aptly the size of
the Federal Government, just so the American people can understand what
a $3 trillion government costs, what that actually means though. You
say $3 trillion. What does $1 billion look like?
Well, sure, Bill Gates could tell you what $1 billion looks like.
He's got that in his checkbook. But for the average American, what does
that mean?
And to point out the fact that it's larger than most countries are.
We have the third largest economy in the world held just in our Federal
budget; greater than the whole economy of China. It's absolutely
amazing.
But when we talk about boondoggles in government, folks in North
Carolina know about that. Look, in western North Carolina, where I
represent, in Hickory, where I'm from, Cherryville, I've got to tell
you, the American people know the government's wasteful.
If you're out in the eastern part of the State like in New Bern, for
instance, if you're out there, you recognize this stuff, but let's talk
about a great, enormous in size and scope boondoggle that we have here
in Washington, DC.
There are 111,000 bureaucrats here in Washington, DC. Some don't do
much. Others are very active. But 111,000 bureaucrats. The average wage
for those bureaucrats here in Washington, DC is $89,561 a year. That's
amazing to me that the sheer size of that, the average wage is so high.
It's enormous.
But in the Department of Education, we know that education is
critical. It's especially critical in western North Carolina. We have
3,224 bureaucrats here in Washington, DC in the U.S. Department of
Education. The average wage is $93,773. Now imagine that. The average
teacher in America makes $47,000 a year. I would much rather take that
money from the bureaucrats and put it in the hands of teachers who are
actually educating children.
Madam Speaker, we have a crisis on our hands with the size and scope
of government. We have to limit the size and scope of government. We
have to bring the budget to balance and do it without raising taxes.
I appreciate and applaud my colleague from South Carolina for hosting
this special order so we can bring out these facts to the American
people, because as their family budgets tighten, so should the Federal
Government's budget.
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. In closing, Madam Speaker, when I was
working in the furniture store, my furniture store in Westminster,
South Carolina, I had a guy named John R. McAllister. I called him
Hoss. And Hoss would come in every Friday to see me and he'd make his
payment. And it didn't matter whether I was working in the back or
working on a truck or unpacking furniture, Hoss would look me up and
come grab my hand and shake it and say, thank you for what you're
doing. You know, Hoss McAllister probably didn't have an idea close to
what I did. But I think about Hoss McAllister tonight, Madam Speaker,
and all the Hosses out there that want a fair shake.
We're going to do the right thing. We're going to keep taxes low.
We're going to give more money to Hoss so he can make a living.

____________________