[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24039-24043]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy, the balance of the majority leader's hour is 
reallocated to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, again it is obvious that those on the 
other side of the aisle, the Democrats that we are trying to work with, 
somehow believe that we do not have enough government, that somehow 
there is no room for reform in the Federal budget.
  Again, this chart shows that beginning in 1990 up to the present, 
that Washington is now spending over $22,000 per household. This is for 
only the fourth time in the entire history of the United States of 
America that the Federal Government has spent this much money. It is 
the first time since World War II, yet the Democrats say there is no 
room for reform in the Federal budget; that instead we need to increase 
taxes on hard-working American families, or, even worse, that we 
somehow have to pass on more debt to our children.
  Mr. Speaker, we can do better. And, Mr. Speaker, this simply 
amplifies the point, when you think about families, and I think about 
them in my district back in Dallas and in east Texas, who work hard for 
a living, some small businesspeople who have gone out to risk capital 
and start a new business and maybe employ three or four people, look at 
what has happened in the last 10 years.
  You see the family budget, median family income for a family of four 
has risen from roughly $45,000 to $62,000. That is this line here, Mr. 
Speaker. But look at the same time what has happened to the Federal 
budget? We have gone from about $1.6 trillion in 10 years to almost 
$2.5 trillion.
  In other words, the Federal budget is growing at least a third faster 
than the family budget in just the last 10 years. And yet our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, say, no, 
there is no place for reform. There is just no place for reform in the 
Federal budget, that somehow it is going to have to come out of the 
family budget instead.
  But we reject this, Mr. Speaker, and I guess because it is getting 
close to Halloween, all of the sudden people are thinking about what 
costumes are they going to go wear for Halloween. I have got a 3\1/2\-
year-old daughter who has decided to be Snow White. My 2-year-old son 
is going to become Superman. And now I have noticed that the Democrats 
want to don a mask called ``fiscal responsibility.'' The American 
people are not going to buy into that costume, because their plans are 
simply to spend more and more money because they do not believe in 
reform.
  Every time that we have passed a budget in the last 10 years, Mr. 
Speaker, they have gone back and offered an alternative budget that 
spends even more, yet they call that fiscal responsibility? Let us just 
look in the past several years; for example, let us look at the budget 
for fiscal year 2004. On June 25 they offered an amendment to add a 
half a billion dollars to the Interior bill. On the same day they 
offered an amendment to add $8 billion to our Labor-HHS appropriations 
bill; on July 16 an amendment for almost half a billion dollars to the 
Commerce bill.
  Let us look at what happened last year. Well, on June 9, an amendment 
to increase subcommittee allocations by $14 billion; on June 23, an 
amendment to increase subsidies to businesses by $79 billion; and now 
for our physical fiscal 2006 appropriations process, an amendment to 
increase foreign aid by almost a half a billion dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the American people are seeing a pattern here. 
It is a pattern of increased spending.

                              {time}  1830

  Again, as all this spending is done, sooner or later, somebody has to 
pay the piper.
  Mr. Speaker, right now, as the Democrats have tried to fight every 
reform that we have brought forth, we know what is happening to our 
budget. We know that it is spiraling out of control, growing at a huge 
multiple over the family budget that one day is going to cause a day of 
reckoning.
  This chart, for example, shows what is going to happen over the next 
generation when we look at Medicare growing at 9 percent a year, 
Medicaid at 7.8 percent a year, when we look at Social Security growing 
5.5 percent a year. We know when the economy grows at a pretty good 
pace, that might be 3.5 percent.
  Look at this chart here. Right now, the amount of money that we are 
spending, roughly 20 percent of the economy on government, in just one 
generation, if we do not engage in this process of reform, using the 
Washington term ``reconciliation,'' which is a process we started 
today, if we do not engage in this reform process, this is the future 
that the Democrat Party wants to provide us. That is a doubling of the 
size of government in one generation, and that is if they do not come 
up with anything new. That is just on the programs that we have today, 
Mr. Speaker. I believe that is simply going to be unconscionable.
  Now, again, the Democrats tell us that there is simply no place that 
we can reform and that somehow reforms lead to massive budget cuts for 
the poor. Well, we think there is another way that we can help poor 
people in America, and we believe it has a lot more to do with a 
paycheck than a welfare check. We want to ensure that the social safety 
net is there; but, Mr. Speaker, there is something better, and that is 
a paycheck.
  Under the economic policies of this administration and this 
Republican Congress, all of the sudden we have created now 4 million 
new jobs. Four million new jobs have been created. People have hope. 
They have opportunity. They can put food on the table. They can put a 
roof over their head, and that had everything to do with the policies 
of this administration and this Republican Congress.
  So in many respects, Mr. Speaker, it is not a debate about how much 
money we are going to spend on housing, how much money we are going to 
spend on education and on nutrition; but it is a debate about who is 
going to do the spending.
  The Democrat Party can only measure compassion in the number of 
welfare checks. We measure compassion in the number of paychecks. We 
are helping empower the American people to have their nutritional 
program, to have their educational program, to have their housing 
program.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very honored that we have been joined by a couple 
of other colleagues here tonight who I know have a great insight into 
our programs for fiscal responsibility, into our programs to try to 
bring some accountability to the Federal Government, to engage in 
reforms that could help the American people and actually deliver better 
health care at a cheaper cost, better housing at a cheaper cost.
  One of these Members that we have been joined by, who is a great 
leader in the freshman class and who is no stranger here to the floor 
of the House, is the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), my colleague; 
and I would be very happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I just want to say how honored I am to join you this 
evening for what is such a contrast to what is being offered on the 
other side of the aisle. The calm and reasoned and logical and 
thoughtful approach that you and others have taken I think is just so 
wonderful and heartwarming, frankly, to all Americans to know that 
there are individuals that are as thoughtful and logical in their 
approach to, truly, the challenges that we have.
  Before I begin, I do want to make a comment about what has seemed to 
become a nightly ritual, which is a level of personal attacks from the 
other side that frankly does a disservice to the discussion and the 
debate, and it really is a shame to see.
  We have really a once-proud party on the other side of the aisle that 
has degraded into what may be known as the ABC game, which is accuse 
and blame and criticize, really with no positive outlook and no 
positive proposals for the future.
  When they do offer alternatives, as my colleague from Texas just 
mentioned, what their alternatives do is

[[Page 24040]]

significantly increase the tax burden on Americans, significantly 
increase the size of government and the scope of government; and as was 
mentioned, they have offered some significant increases just of late. 
So I would like to share with the Members, Mr. Speaker, a couple of 
graphics that will demonstrate that.
  This demonstrates if the other side had their way, just so far this 
year in their proposals, for the next 5 years the amendments that they 
have offered would have added an increase in the amount of spending of 
over $67 billion. This is actually out of date a little bit because we 
have not got another bit to share with the Members something that 
happened today in committee, but $67 billion of increased spending.
  What about the increase in taxes that they have proposed? As was 
mentioned, the only alternatives that they truly put on the table are 
an increase in the amount of spending and an increase in taxes, which 
certainly increases the size and scope of government. The amount of 
increased tax revenue that they have recommended to date, $392 billion. 
Even in Washington, that is a lot of money, and many of these taxes 
obviously come out of small business and other business, which means 
jobs.
  I think it is important that people recognize and remember what 
happens daily here and what has happened during this session alone.
  We had a really very lean budget that was adopted by Congress, 
without a single vote, without a single Member of the other side, the 
Democrat Party, voting in favor of that budget. In fact, they were 
instructed by their leadership not to support it, and one of the 
members of their leadership bragged, I guess in essence, quote, they 
will not get a single vote on this budget. Now that is the kind of 
leadership that they are offering.
  The level of change that we have to fight for here, although it is 
significant because it is moving in the correct direction, is really 
not huge, and there is a great graph that I have. This graph I think 
says so much. Pictures really can say so much more than just words.
  This is the proposal for Medicaid changes that we have recommended, 
the savings in Medicaid, frankly, that increase and empower 
individuals; but you see the blue line here is without reform. The 
reform measures that we adopted and recommended you see are the red 
line. That is the difference over a 5-year period. That is what their 
screaming is all about. That is the hyperbole that they refer to when 
they talk about the kind of reform that we offer.
  Today, in the Committee on Education and the Workforce, we were 
struggling with how to provide appropriate moneys to allow the 300,000 
students who have been displaced by hurricanes Katrina and Rita the 
opportunity to go to school wherever they may now find themselves. The 
proposal that we put on the table had about 7 to $9,000 per student, 
which is relatively consistent with the kinds of moneys being spent 
around the Nation. The Democrat proposal that they put on the table in 
our committee, and it was defeated, but the Democrat proposal was to 
spend over $26,000 per student, adding literally billions to the cost 
of government. I do not know anybody that believes that that is a 
reasonable amount to spend on something that is as needed; but 
certainly, we do not need to increase the size and scope of government 
to do so.
  The record of fiscal responsibility of the Republican Caucus and this 
Republican government really is very, very strong. What that fiscal 
responsibility has done is cut the budget significantly.
  This year alone, the fiscal year 2005, which is already done, this is 
not projection, this is already done, cut the budget by nearly $100 
billion, cut the deficit by nearly $100 billion, from $412 billion to 
$319 billion. So it is a remarkable demonstration of the resolve that 
we have.
  When we have the challenges that we have had with the hurricanes and 
the like, I think it is important for people to appreciate that the 
Republicans always return to principle. Always, and first and foremost 
in the area of government spending for our side, as a principle, is 
that the taxes that Washington collects are not government money. They 
are the people's money. So we need to be absolutely as responsible as 
we can be with that.
  As I mentioned, we decreased in 2005 the deficit by nearly $100 
billion. What other results are there that we can point to that 
demonstrate that fiscal responsibility? Nondefense, nonhomeland 
domestic discretionary spending this year in the House is on track to 
be below last year's level, and that is for the first time since the 
Reagan administration. That is true fiscal responsibility.
  House Republicans have passed legislation trying to find 35, and 
hopefully 50, billion dollars in savings in the mandatory programs. 
This is the first time since 1997. House Republicans have recommended 
zeroing out the budget, the funding, for 98 Federal programs that are 
wasteful, that duplicate services, and that are out of date. Anybody in 
America, if they were to look at the kinds of programs that are 
offered, I am certain would agree that there are government programs 
that are certainly wasteful, that there are government programs that 
offer the same thing that another program does, and many, many programs 
are out of date.
  We have identified 98 of those Federal programs, and we are trying to 
make it so that we zero the funding for that so those programs are no 
longer on the books and no longer have that government waste. These 
savings themselves would save about $4.3 billion.
  For the first time since 1994, Congress has temporarily funded the 
government at the lowest level that is possible by law as we complete 
our work on the budget process; and last year we held the growth in 
nonsecurity discretionary spending to 1.4 percent, less than inflation.
  So that is true, I believe, fiscal responsibility; and the record is 
clear. The record shows that the party of fiscal discipline is the 
Republican Party.
  You say, well, what kind of results are we seeing in the economy with 
those kinds of policies? The gentleman from Texas alluded to many of 
the positive items that we are seeing in the economy.
  Real GDP grew by 3.8 percent in the first quarter of this year, but 
what we are seeing is the strongest growth performance and one of the 
strongest growth performances in the past 20 years.
  Payroll employment, that was mentioned, is up by nearly 3.7 million 
jobs in the past months. That is 3.7 million people that have 
employment that did not have it before.
  The unemployment rate is down to 4.9 or 5.1, depending on the month, 
over the last quarter. We used to learn in economics that an 
unemployment rate of between 5 and 6 percent was full employment 
because you have got folks that are either moving or they are changing 
jobs or the like, make it so that 5 percent unemployment is essentially 
full employment. That 5 percent is less than the average for the decade 
of the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. Again, fiscal responsibility 
and true results from that kind of responsibility.
  Manufacturing industrial production is up 3.4 percent over the past 
year and by 9.5 percent in the last 2 years.
  Real business equipment investment has increased by 13.5 percent at 
an annualized rate over the past 2 years. That is the best sustained 
growth in over 6 years, truly a remarkable performance, and the economy 
is the beneficiary of the programs that have been put in place by this 
Republican Congress and this Republican administration.

                              {time}  1845

  One of the things that I think is so incredibly important, when we 
look at how does it get down to the community and down to those people 
on the street, what we are seeing in terms of personal homeownership, 
it is at an all-time record rate, 70 percent or thereabouts. That 
record rate stretches across all demographic categories of our society. 
So the results of this fiscal responsibility are very clear.

[[Page 24041]]

  The results of the policies that have been put in place by this 
Republican Party, this Republican Congress, and this Republican 
administration have demonstrated clearly there is greater success for 
greater numbers of people.
  So I am proud to stand before my colleagues tonight and to 
participate in this discussion of what is truly fiscal responsibility 
in a thoughtful and a reasoned and calm manner, and I commend the 
gentleman from Texas for organizing this hour. I look forward to being 
back to talk about these issues and more.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's leadership 
and sharing his insights with us. I would like to try to amplify a 
couple of his points.
  Again, there is a big debate and all of a sudden the Democrats are 
claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility. They are claiming 
something that they have claimed for 50 years, that somehow the 
Republicans when we try to reform government, that we are engaging in 
massive budget cuts that will hurt the poor.
  Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in this process in Washington known as 
reconciliation, which is really a Washington term that means that we go 
back to our committees and say find a way to do it better. Let us be 
more accountable. Let us be more respectful of the family budget and 
figure out a way to do things better in the Federal budget. So we have 
something that is known as mandatory spending, which includes a lot of 
the welfare programs.
  Mr. Speaker, as we attempt to reform a number of these programs, as 
we attempt to get better health care and better housing at a lower 
cost, look at what we are trying to do. In the next 5 years, if we are 
successful in this plan, and so far our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, the Democrats, have said that none of them are going to help 
us, at the end of the day what we call mandatory spending is going to 
grow at 6.3 percent a year instead of 6.4 percent a year. That is the 
massive budget cut?
  First, there is no cut. Only a liberal Democrat or an accountant for 
Enron would call 6.3 percent increase in the growth of mandatory 
spending a cut. All we are trying to do is reform programs, make them 
more accountable to the American people, and slow the rate of growth. 
People are entitled to their own opinions, but they should not be 
entitled to their own facts. Even after we do this, we will end up 
spending more of the people's money next year than we did last year.
  When you think about the charges that our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are lodging, we should also remember that these were 
the very same people who said that welfare reform would be horrible, 
that it would be the end of the world as we know it. We had such quotes 
like from the Democrat leader in the House at the time that a million 
children would be forced into poverty. One of the Democrat leaders in 
the Senate said that if we have welfare reform, we will have trauma 
that we have not known since the cholera epidemics, and the rhetoric 
went on and on and on.
  Mr. Speaker, what happened? I can tell Members what happened. Case 
loads fell in half and millions and millions and millions found jobs, 
hope, and opportunity. The poorest 20 percent of single-mother families 
had a 67 percent increase in their earnings once we had welfare reform. 
Millions were able to leave the rolls. Child poverty fell when we 
reformed the welfare programs, and 1.4 million children have been 
lifted out of poverty due to welfare reform.
  So we kind of have to check the source. Reforms can work, and they 
must work for the American people. There are so many different ways 
that we can improve health care and housing and do it in a way that 
saves American families money. Right now we could save $1.5 million a 
year in Medicaid if we just based drug payments on actual acquisition 
costs. We could save 2 to 3 billion a year if we would stop improper 
payments for States that do not qualify for the payments.
  Mr. Speaker, if we would pass a simple, meaningful medical liability 
reform bill, we could save 5 to 10 percent on the cost of health care 
in America.
  In 2003, the Federal Government can now not account for $24 billion 
that was spent, and yet the Democrats say we cannot reform government.
  The Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2001 in the last 
year of the Clinton administration spent $3.3 billion paying out money 
to people who did not qualify for the program. That was 10 percent of 
their entire budget, yet the Democrats tell us there is no room for 
reform in the Federal budget.
  The Advance Technology Program spends $150 million annually 
subsidizing private businesses, 40 percent of which goes to Fortune 500 
companies. Yet the Democrats tell us there is no room for reform in the 
Federal budget.
  There was a time quite recently when Medicare would spend five times 
as much on a wheelchair as the Veterans Administration. Same model and 
manufacturer. Why? Because one would competitively bid and the other 
would not, and so they just wasted that money. Yet the Democrats would 
tell us that somehow we are hurting Medicare recipients when we cease 
to pay five times as much for a wheelchair as we should have. 
Fortunately, we have caught that one, and we have remedied that; but we 
have 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 agencies. There is so 
much room for reform.
  When families are working hard to make ends meet, we need to be 
leaders in finding reforms in the Federal budget. I am very happy that 
tonight we are joined by one of the great deficit hawks and fiscal 
hawks that we have in the United States Congress, a real leader in 
helping root out a lot of the duplication and waste and fraud, a lot of 
the abuse that we find in the Federal budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I want to salute the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hensarling), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), and the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black-
burn) for their being here tonight and focusing on the need to reduce 
spending.
  I have heard from a number of citizens as we are discussing our 
budgetary situation facing this Congress, this Nation, and our country. 
Many have said, please, the problem is not taxes too low; the problem 
is spending too high.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) is vice chairman of the 
Republican Study Committee. The Chair is the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Pence). These gentlemen and others, the men and women that make up 
the RSC, were leaders in focusing on Operation Offset. Our Nation has 
faced expenditures this year that 6 months ago, 8 months ago were not 
expected. I believe that their focus on Operation Offset is a correct 
approach.
  The first thing we need to do in looking at the aftermath of 
hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma and the other hurricanes that have 
hit the United States this year is do not spend unnecessarily in 
dealing with these tragedies.
  After that, we need to focus on savings in any way we can to deal 
with those problems and to manage our fiscal affairs as best as 
possible.
  One area that I think needs to be trimmed is foreign aid. Foreign aid 
for the last 3 fiscal years has hovered around $20 billion. In fiscal 
year 2005, it was between 19 and $20 billion. But that does not include 
the hundreds of millions that were in the supplementals that were 
passed in fiscal year 2005. We can look at across-the-board cuts in 
that area of appropriations and I think have very little negative 
impact on American citizens.
  Another area that we need to focus on is stopping illegal 
immigration. This costs the United States taxpayers billions of dollars 
every year. Now, I have seen wide estimates on how much the cost is to 
the Federal Treasury each year because of illegal immigration. The 
Center for Immigration Studies has estimated $10 billion. The 
Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform estimates $45 billion. A 
few months ago, I heard Bill O'Reilly on Fox News state that the figure 
was $68 billion. There may be disagreement as to the exact figure, but 
there can be no

[[Page 24042]]

disagreement that the cost is billions upon billions of dollars to the 
American taxpayer.
  This Congress and the Republican conference have been very supportive 
of community health centers. They have gotten significant increases in 
their budgets each of the last several fiscal years. But they have a 
situation that confronts many other health care providers. When persons 
come in the door, they have to treat those persons. I believe that some 
of the governments of those countries south of us have steered their 
citizens to those entities and to our hospitals, and they know the 
ropes. Emergency care cannot be denied anyone, whether they are legally 
or illegally in the United States, particularly emergency room service. 
A person has to be served.
  One way we can stop the influx of those who are not supposed to be in 
this country to our health centers, to our emergency rooms, to other 
health care providers is to stop them before they get here. I and 
others are working on legislation. Some would focus on a fence. I have 
a bill that would provide for a fence along the southern boundary. 
Other have suggested much tighter border enforcement, increased border 
patrol, while others say we need greater enforcement in the interior. 
We need to have the local sheriff and local chief of police, municipal 
officers, all have the authority to deal with this situation and have a 
partner with immigration services if they are detained or held at the 
local level, that they would be assured of cooperation and removal from 
the locality back to their home countries.
  We also have an impact on social services, and that is billions of 
dollars. So one area where we could save a lot of money would be to 
simply enforce our laws against illegal immigration, stop it at the 
border and in the interior, remove those that are not here legally with 
a proper visa or proper green card or other proper work permit.
  Another area of concern to me is the overuse of government credit 
cards. Another member of the RSC has proposed the Government Credit 
Card Sunshine Act. Following Hurricane Katrina, we had to raise the 
limit on credit card maximums. Now, I understand the need for our FEMA 
officials to have the use of credit cards, but in the Federal 
Government I believe we have overused credit cards. I know in my 
office, I do not use credit cards. Our congressional office is 
certainly not like FEMA, it is not like law enforcement, and it is not 
like the DEA. I know you have to have them in some situations, but I 
support the Government Credit Card Sunshine Act, which would require 
the posting, except in classified situations and certain law 
enforcement situations, of expenditures by government credit cards 
within 15 business days after the expenditure goes through.

                              {time}  1900

  A check of some of the credit card abuses involve payment for Ozzie 
Osborne concert tickets, tattoos, gambling, cruises, exotic dance 
clubs, car payments, and the like. This is an example of waste in the 
Federal Government that needs to be stopped, and I think this act would 
go a long way to stop that.
  This evening I have covered areas where we can focus on that will 
reduce the amount of Federal expenditures. But I want to close by 
emphasizing something that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), and the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) emphasized. We are focusing on the savings 
by curtailing the rate of growth. We are not even saying there shall be 
no growth. We are saying we just do not want the rate of growth to 
continue at such a rapid and accelerated pace. By curtailing the rate 
of growth, we can do a tremendous benefit for all of the taxpayers of 
the United States of America.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for his comments, and I certainly thank him for his 
leadership.
  Madam Speaker, we have now heard just example after example of waste 
that is in the Federal budget, fraud that is in the Federal budget, not 
to mention the duplication which is in the Federal budget.
  We need to remember, Madam Speaker, that when it comes to paying for 
government, there are really only three different places where we can 
find money as we go forward and try to balance this budget.
  Number one, we are either going to increase taxes on the American 
people, or we are going to continue to pass even more debt on to our 
children because we care more about the next election as opposed to the 
next generation, or we will engage in this process that we are engaged 
in today to find reforms in the government. And we have heard example 
after example after example.
  Madam Speaker, I now would like to talk about really the tax side of 
the equation, because so many of our friends and colleagues from the 
other side of the aisle say the root cause of all of America's fiscal 
problems lie in tax relief, that tax relief somehow has caused and 
fueled all these deficits. We hear it speaker after speaker after 
speaker.
  Well, Madam Speaker, first let me say this: If tax relief is the 
source of all of our problems, as we can see by this chart, let us 
assume for a moment that tax relief does absolutely no good, that all 
we are doing is wasting money when we allow small businesses and the 
American family to keep more of their hard-earned money. Even if that 
was true, Madam Speaker, we can see by this chart here that out of the 
budget we have passed, tax relief is less than 1 percent. Less than 1 
percent. So even if Members accept the fact that all we are doing is 
taking this tax relief money and throwing it away, 99 percent of our 
challenges in fiscal responsibility actually sit on the spending side.
  And this, Madam Speaker, is a very important chart because, again, we 
will hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle speech after 
speech about how tax relief is driving the deficit. Well, since we 
passed tax relief under President Bush and a Republican Congress, Madam 
Speaker, look at what has happened. Tax revenue has gone from $1.7 
trillion in 2003 to $1.8 trillion in 2004, to $2.1 trillion in 2005. 
And, Madam Speaker, if people do not want to believe me, they should go 
to the United States Treasury report. Look it up. Individual tax 
revenues are up 15 percent. Corporate tax revenues are up almost 50 
percent.
  How is this happening? How do we cut tax rates and somehow get more 
tax revenue? It is pretty obvious to me, Madam Speaker. For example, I 
look at people in my district back in Texas, east Texas. I went to 
visit an industry called Jacksonville Industries. It is aluminum and 
dye cast business in Jacksonville, Texas. They employ 20 people. Prior 
to having the tax relief, due to competitive pressures they were on the 
verge of having to lay off two people, which in their case, a small 
business, was 10 percent of their workforce. But because of tax relief, 
Madam Speaker, they were able to go out and buy a huge new machine, and 
I do not remember what it is called. I could not even tell the Members 
what it does. But it is big, it is noisy, and it made them more 
competitive. And instead of having to lay off two people, they hired 
three new people.
  Think about it, Madam Speaker. Listening to our friends on the other 
side of the aisle, they would say, wait a second, that is five people 
who could have been on welfare, and that is five people who could have, 
those are five people who could have been on food stamps, those are 
five people who could have been on a government housing program, and 
that is how they measure compassion: How many government checks do we 
write?
  But, Madam Speaker, under our program, under the tax relief, not only 
do we have more tax revenue, but guess what? We have created jobs. Four 
million jobs across America. Got a few more in Jacksonville, Texas, at 
Jacksonville Industries. So instead of having five people on 
unemployment, five people on welfare, we have five people who have good 
jobs. They are able to put a roof over their head. They are able to put 
food on their table for their children.
  Madam Speaker, that is what compassion is. Compassion is not measured

[[Page 24043]]

by the number of welfare checks we write. It is measured by the number 
of paychecks we create.
  So I just cannot believe how we continually hear this argument that 
somehow tax relief is driving the deficit, and somehow tax relief is 
causing all of America's fiscal woes. Madam Speaker, it is simply not 
true.
  But, Madam Speaker, what is true, again, even if all of the big 
spending plans of the Democrats, if we are able to fight them back, 
even with the programs that we have on the books today, unless we 
reform, unless they will work with us in this reconciliation process, 
again look at what is going to happen. In just one generation, 
government is going to grow from 20 percent of our economy to almost 40 
percent of our economy, in just one generation. We are on the verge of 
being perhaps the first generation in America to leave our children a 
lower standard of living because we cannot work together and reform 
some of these out-of-control programs that are growing way beyond our 
ability to pay for them.
  Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle want to rail against 
our tax relief, but what they will not own up to are their own tax 
increases. In order to pay for all of this government, all of this out-
of-control, growing government, this is what is going to have to 
happen: And that is these are tax increases needed to fund all of our 
current projected spending without deficits. They say they want to 
balance the budget, but they refuse to reform any government program, 
notwithstanding all the waste and fraud and abuse and duplication that 
we have pointed out this evening. They just refuse to join with us in 
that process.
  So what is the consequence of their unwillingness to help reform 
government? Taxes are going to go up, on a family of four in just one 
generation, $10,000. We are going to have to double taxes on the 
American people just to balance the budget in 30 years, and it is going 
to go up and up and up.
  And, Madam Speaker, that is why it is so critical that we come 
together, Democrat, Republican, Independent. This is the future we are 
looking at. It is like the Dickens of ``Christmas Carol.'' This is the 
ghost of Christmas yet to come. There is still time to do something 
about this. Again, there are so many ways that we can get better health 
care, better housing, better nutrition at a lower cost. But we are 
going to have to come together as a Congress, as the American people, 
and find smarter, better ways to run a number of these programs.
  We cannot simply measure compassion by the number of government 
checks that are written. True compassion is empowering people. True 
compassion is creating new jobs so that the American people can fund 
their housing program, their nutritional program, their education 
program.
  Madam Speaker, it is not a debate, again, about how much money we are 
going to spend on these worthy goals, but it is a debate about who is 
going to do the spending. Democrats clearly want the government and 
government bureaucrats to do the spending. We want American families to 
do the spending, and that is the difference. It is really two different 
visions about the future of America. One wants more government and less 
freedom. Our vision is one of less government and more freedom and 
greater opportunity throughout this land, Madam Speaker.
  So I think it is going to be a very important debate that takes place 
in the weeks to come. But, again, in order to avoid the future of 
either passing debt on to our children or doubling taxes on the 
American people, there is only one alternative, and that is to come 
together and reform these out-of-control programs before we leave the 
next generation a lower standard of living than we enjoy. That is 
unconscionable, Madam Speaker, and there can be a better, better future 
for all of our children if we will work together and reform out-of-
control spending.

                          ____________________