[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2486-2493]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, we are looking forward to spending 
some time on the floor over the next several months and several weeks 
and spending some time talking with our colleagues and talking with the 
American people about the budget.
  Everybody hears a lot about the budget and about this budget document 
that is several hundred pages thick, that it is what directs the 
spending, and I think that most Americans know that the House of 
Representatives is basically the keeper of the purse, if you will, for 
the American public.
  Now, some of my colleagues from the Republican Study Committee and I 
want to make certain that we all understand how this money is spent 
because we fully believe that the American people have the right to 
know, they have the right to know and they should know, how their 
budget gets spent, how those tax dollars get spent because we know, 
Madam Speaker, this is not the Government's money; it is the taxpayers' 
money. And we want to shine the light on how those dollars are being 
spent. We want to break down this process. We want to demystify the 
process and invite the American people to join us and follow us.
  We believe Government spends too much money. We believe that 
Government never gets enough of your money. They never get enough of 
the taxpayers' dollars and, indeed, one of my favorite analogies is 
from one of my favorite plays, ``Little Shop of Horrors,'' and I think 
we have many Americans who fully believe that the U.S. House of 
Representatives, the Congress, that the Federal Government, that this 
big enormous bureaucracy that liberals have built as a monument to 
themselves, the bureaucracy never gets enough of the taxpayers' money. 
It's like Audrey II in ``Little Shop of Horrors,'' never can get enough 
to eat. And what that bureaucracy wants to just chomp away on every day 
is your money. It is the taxpayers' money.
  So we want to make certain that we spend some time going through this 
budget process spelling out where those dollars get spent, how the 
dollars get

[[Page 2487]]

spent, actually, basically, holding a classroom for our colleagues, 
spending some time talking about the budget document; talking about the 
consequences that come with baseline budgeting; talking about what 
would happen if we went to zero-based budgeting; talking about 
performance-based budgeting; dissecting the appropriations bills; 
highlighting the risk of growing entitlements; and also addressing the 
waste that we find in earmarks.
  So today as our first session, we thought it would be a good idea to 
review how Washington spent the taxpayers' money last year.
  We have it broken down by household, and we always find that when we 
speak in terms of billions and trillions in Washington-speak, that we 
are talking about numbers that are really big. So we went in here and 
said how much is it per household that was spent in 2007 in the name of 
Government. What did we appropriate and spend of your money? Came out 
to be $24,106 per household. That's the highest total since World War 
II.
  The Federal Government collected about $21,992 per household in 
taxes. So what did that give us? If you are spending $24,106 per 
household and then you are taking in $21,992 per household, Madam 
Speaker, think about that. That is each household's share of taxes: 
$21,992.
  But it wasn't enough. That wasn't enough. Audrey II wanted a little 
bit more. The bureaucracy wanted more. The bureaucracy couldn't curb 
their spending. So they spent that $24,106. So that leaves the taxpayer 
and future generations a deficit each year that becomes a debt. And the 
deficit last year came out to $2,114 per household.
  All of that is going to land in the laps of our children, and in my 
case, a grandchild that is going to arrive in May. Welcome. Because 
there's going to be a debt from the U.S. Government on that child's 
head when he arrives.
  Madam Speaker, I want to yield at this time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) who chairs our Republican Study Committee 
budget committee and is doing great work on this issue. He's going to 
take the lead on many of these issues; and at this time I yield to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady 
from Tennessee very much for yielding on this important issue of the 
budget.
  Now you know in the next couple of weeks we will vote on a budget 
here, Madam Speaker, in this House. And that budget will undoubtedly 
have a deficit somewhere over $400 billion. Let me say that again: we 
will vote on a budget in the next few weeks with a deficit of somewhere 
over $400 billion.
  Now as Mrs. Blackburn indicated, these are big numbers and they're 
hard to relate to. I understand that. Until I was elected to Congress, 
they were pretty hard for me to relate to, too. When 9/11 happened, we 
had a big deficit. The economy dropped off, as you recall. We spent a 
lot of money going after al Qaeda and so forth at that time. But since 
then, we've had three straight years of declining deficits. It has been 
coming down. And in fact, this last year it looked like finally perhaps 
a balanced budget was in sight.
  But now this year, this year for the first time in 4 years, the 
deficit's going to go up, and it is not just going to go up a little; 
it's almost certainly going to more than double, more than double this 
deficit. And that's just this year. But if we look at the future, it 
gets even worse. If we look here at what is going to happen, and if you 
just look at this, this shows what will happen to the deficit, to 
spending in this Government over time if we don't change where we are 
headed.
  You see, the problem we have got is not that the American people are 
taxed too little. It's that this Congress spends too much. There were 
tax cuts back in 2003 and in 2001; but since 2003, the revenue of the 
Federal Government has risen almost 50 percent. Let me make sure people 
understand that. We reduced tax rates, but because economic activity 
was generated by that, revenue to the Federal Government actually went 
up, and it went up every year. But spending keeps going up faster than 
that, and that's what has got to stop.
  And where is it going up? It's going up in just about every category. 
As we pile deficits on deficits, the interest we pay goes up. Defense 
spending is continuing to rise; other spending is continuing to rise. 
But we also have Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, three things 
which currently take up over 50 percent of the taxes that everyone 
pays, Madam Speaker.
  If we leave them alone, if we don't reform them, if we don't change 
them, you will have to literally double tax rates on every single 
American in order to have Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and 
keep anything else like a military, like national parks, like anything 
else. Nearly double tax rates. That is unsustainable.

                              {time}  1615

  What are we doing in this budget to deal with that? Nothing. Not a 
single thing.
  Now, this isn't just me saying this or just Republicans saying this. 
Every single analyst, liberal, conservative, right, left, Republican, 
Democrat agrees that we're headed towards these numbers, that we are 
headed towards a situation that's unsustainable. Either Medicare goes 
away, Social Security goes away, Medicaid goes away, Defense 
Department, all military goes away, and pick two or three or four of 
those or we more than double taxes on the American people.
  Now, we can wait. That's what we always seem to do, we just wait, let 
time go on a little bit, let the next generation deal with it, let the 
next Congress deal with it. But the longer we wait, the worse it gets.
  And we're not making this hole any smaller right now. We're more than 
doubling the deficit. It will be proposed to more than double the 
deficit in what we're about to vote on in the next couple of weeks. So, 
we're actually making this chart much worse.
  The problem is spending. You can't tax the American people enough to 
spend everything that all of this is, that all of this that we're 
headed for, that all everybody in this Congress seems to want to spend, 
so we've got to control the spending.
  Now, I have a suggestion for that, Madam Speaker. Because if you 
look, since 1960, over the last, I think it's 48 years now, I believe 
this is right, it may be off by one, but since 1960, I believe we've 
had only 4 years in which there was a surplus, only 4 years in the last 
48 in which the government did not spend more money than it took in. 
So, that shows you that deficits aren't new. And they're not assigned, 
frankly, to either party. There have been deficits under Republican 
Congresses, Democratic Congresses, Republican Presidents, Democratic 
Presidents, and every combination thereof. Deficits seem to be a 
fundamental problem with this institution.
  Our Democratic colleagues came into power last year. And when they 
came in, they said these deficits are terrible, this debt we're putting 
on our children is terrible, we're going to solve these deficits. And 
what did they do? They set up a few rules which they've, within a year, 
decided they would waive and ignore, and now they're about to propose 
doubling last year's deficit. You see, the spending goes on.
  And there are people out there now talking about socialized medicine. 
They're saying, gee, we have to cover everyone with some government 
plan on health insurance. Where is the money going to come from? Where 
is it going to come from? You can't pay now for Medicare and Medicaid. 
The people that are currently under government function programs, you 
don't have enough money to pay for them for the next 20 years, where 
are you going to get it to pay for everybody else?
  Madam Speaker, that's why one of the suggestions that the lady from 
Tennessee and I have, and various other people, is that we're going to 
need a spending limit. You know, average Americans understand, Madam 
Speaker, that they should save for their retirement. Well, you know, 
it's tough sometimes because there's things you would like to spend, 
things maybe you need to spend money on

[[Page 2488]]

now, and it will eat up all the money you have if you let it. So, you 
set up an external discipline, like a 401(k) or something, where money 
comes out of your paycheck so I don't have the opportunity to spend it 
and I'm saving for the future.
  Congress can do the same thing as American taxpayers do, which is, 
set up an external discipline that keeps us from spending more money 
than is coming in. We need a spending limit. We need something that 
keeps Congress from spending money faster than the American taxpayer is 
earning it. Because, you see, if government grows faster than the 
income of the average American, the only way to get that money is to 
take more of the average American's money. And that means you're giving 
the average American less of their own money to spend on their 
priorities so that we here in Washington can spend more of their money 
on ours. And that's just wrong.
  Spending in this place should not be allowed to grow faster than 
American's incomes. And we will make some proposals to put that kind of 
limit on this Congress so that the limits are here and Americans have 
limits and restrictions removed off of them so they can earn more money 
and keep it, because that's what everyone wants to do.
  I yield back to the lady from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from California. And if he 
would yield for a moment of colloquy.
  I want to go back to the issue of the deficit, because you mentioned 
that the deficit had gone down over the past few years and this year 
the deficit is going to more than double. And of course we know that 
much of that is because of increased spending. And I would like for you 
to go back and touch on that point one more time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Sure. I appreciate the lady from 
Tennessee yielding for this.
  Yes, we have had increased tax revenues every year. In fact, all but 
one year out of the last 4 years it has been double digits, in other 
words, 10 percent or more. That's pretty good. I think a lot of 
Americans out there would love to see their paycheck rise by 10 percent 
a year. Well, the Federal Government's paycheck has been rising by that 
amount over the last 4 years, but we've continued to spend money. And 
so now revenue is dropping off a little bit, the increases aren't quite 
as big as they were the last 4 years, but government spending has 
proposed to keep on trucking, keep on going up. And that's why you're 
going to see this deficit nearly double, probably more than double.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. If the gentleman will yield. What we saw from the `01 
and `03 tax reductions was that the Federal Government's revenue, the 
money the taxpayers are sending in for us to appropriate and spend on 
behalf of them at the Federal level, that money has been increasing in 
double digits every year since we started the tax reductions, which 
allows our taxpayers to keep more money in their pockets. So, what we 
saw was we made those reductions, and then the Federal Treasury is 
bringing in more money from the taxpayers. But what we also saw was 
that Congress continued to increase the percentage and increase their 
spending.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. That's absolutely right. And again, as I 
pointed out, the Democrats who came into power, many of them campaigned 
and made a big deal about, their issues were, that they would, wanted a 
balanced budget, wanted to move towards a balanced budget, but now 
we're doubling the deficit.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. And if the gentleman will yield, what we also saw was 
that the deficit was down, both as a percentage of the GDP and also in 
the amount of the deficit, the dollar amount, much of that due to the 
Deficit Reduction Act that we passed that was the `06 budget. And then 
what has happened last year and what we will see this year is that that 
deficit is going to double because of increased spending.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. That increased spending, and the fact 
that revenue has dropped off some. I mean, the growth in revenue has, 
in fact, dropped off, the economy is down, and so people are not making 
as much money and paying as much taxes. So, there is that, too.
  But that's the point of all of this is that the government can't keep 
on spending; when times are good, increase spending a lot, and when 
times are bad, increase spending a lot, too. That's what we can't do. 
And that's what has gotten us in this mess, that's what has gotten us 
this big national debt, and that's what has gotten us into these 
deficits. And now we're having a little drop off in revenue. It's still 
probably going to increase, but just not at a 10 percent rate like it 
has before.
  And so I'm looking to see, where is the proposal on the part of the 
majority party here to reduce spending so that we can try and, if we 
don't balance the budget this year, so that at least we don't double 
it, at least we try to control it a little bit, try and get it back on 
track towards balance. But that's not what we're seeing. That's not 
what we're seeing.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. And if the gentleman will yield. One of the things 
that we have long supported is balancing the budget and making certain 
that we do have a balanced budget, like many of our States have and 
like many of our counties and cities operate under a balanced budget, 
but we don't. And we do have our entitlement spending with the chart in 
front of you.
  2050. I will yield back to the gentleman from California to show 
where we get to the point there at 2050 where it takes all of our tax 
revenue to pay our Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. And I 
yield.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Sure. If you look at this little red line 
here, that's the taxes that people pay. That's the 30-year average tax 
revenue. And this isn't in dollar terms; this is in terms of a percent 
of the economy. So it's not like this year you're paying the same 
dollars in taxes that you would in 2080; it's that you're going to pay 
the same percentage of the overall economy in taxes.
  So, if you look at that, that's the tax rates. And if you see right 
here, 2000-2010, we've been running deficits during all this period, 
but you still see that this line here is the total spending, it's a 
little bit over. And we don't like the deficits we have now. I mean, 
I've talked about it, people on the other side of the aisle talked 
about it. You don't like the deficits you've got now. Well, look at the 
difference between this red line and the spending now and what happens 
in 2030 or 2040 or 2050. It's huge. And when you get out here to 2060, 
you see that you have to just about double taxes to pay for everything 
at that point. And if you double taxes, people can't and won't make as 
much money because it will all be coming here and nobody will have 
money to invest. And so it's really worse. This chart, it's scary, but 
it almost actually makes it look better than it really is.
  And so we really have to tackle some of these things. We really have 
to take this on because we say, 2050, that's a long time, I may be dead 
by then. Whatever. But that's not what in this House we're supposed to 
be thinking. We're not supposed to be thinking about us; we're supposed 
to be thinking about the American people now and in the future. And if 
we're going to be thinking about the American people now and in the 
future, it's going to be a whole lot tougher to deal with this problem 
in 2020 than it's going to be to deal with it in 2010. And that's why, 
Mrs. Blackburn, we should be dealing with this now, in the budget now. 
But nope, it's just kick the can down the road; accept that doubling of 
the budget deficit and just kick the can down the road. And I yield 
back.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Well, I appreciate that. And especially when you 
consider the fact that 77 million baby boomers are going to retire 
between now and 2029. You were just pointing to 2030. And where we are 
with getting to that budget in 2030, you would be able to pay for 
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defense when you get to the 
line on 2030. And I think also, as we look at our entitlements and we 
look at Social Security, we know that in 1960, we had a 5:1 worker 
ratio, five workers for every one retiree. In 2007,

[[Page 2489]]

this past year, we've had three workers for every one retiree. And by 
the time we get to 2030, we're going to have two workers for every one 
retiree. So you're going to have a married couple with children 
supporting their family plus supporting a retiree, and I think that 
that adds to the push that we feel and the urgency that we feel.
  You're exactly right. And I thank the gentleman from California for 
all the leadership that he brings to this issue because beginning to 
deal with the long-term structural issues that exist in this budget are 
vitally important to us. It is something that has to be dealt with, and 
it's something we can't kick the can down the road. And I yield.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. And if the lady will yield for one last 
parting comment, as you look at this chart, if you look at this chart, 
because you will hear some people in the majority party talk about that 
the whole problem is the war in Iraq and it's defense spending. If you 
look at this chart over time, the width of this green defense bar 
doesn't change that much over time. Now, who knows what will happen, 
but projections are that defense spending as a percentage of the 
economy, which is historically not that high right now, but that it 
wouldn't change over time. The big problems, the ones that are small 
here and get really fat there, are if you take the two biggest. One is 
Medicare and the other is interest on the debt.
  Interest on the debt gets big because we keep throwing deficit after 
deficit after deficit. The way to get that down is simple: Balance the 
budget, stop running deficits. But we haven't, as I mentioned, except 
for 4 years, I think over the last 40-something, we haven't had the 
will here to do that.
  The other thing is Medicare. And what's so interesting is that that 
is government-paid-for medical insurance for older Americans, for 
seniors. But you have people out there now advocating that we should 
have Medicare for everyone, which you've got a problem with Medicare as 
it is, a huge problem in that it would almost take up all of your tax 
money by 2080, almost take up all your tax money all by itself.
  So, I thank the lady from Tennessee very much and yield back.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from California, and I look 
forward to hearing him talk a bit more as we go through the coming 
weeks about what we should do about entitlements, how we should address 
this issue, how we should make the budget process more transparent, and 
how we need to go about reforming these processes and changing how we 
spend the taxpayers' money, because we do fully believe, Madam Speaker, 
that the taxpayers do have the right to know and should know how this 
body spends their money.

                              {time}  1630

  At this time I want to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Garrett), who is a member of the Budget Committee and has been an 
advocate for reforming budget processes and reforming the way we go 
through this.
  And at this time I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey for his 
comments on how we make certain that the taxpayers know how we spend 
their money.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for 
yielding, and I also very much thank her for organizing this Special 
Order, to be able to have the opportunity to come to the floor tonight.
  As we have said, the bottom line up front, how much we take in and 
how much we spend. The American public must sit home and watch this and 
read the papers and live in a frustrated state, realizing that so much 
of their hard-earned money comes to Washington, and what we have here 
is a Byzantine system of archaic rules and what-have-you wrapped around 
policy statements, what-have-you, that the American public doesn't 
oftentimes get a clear picture to understand just where their dollars 
go.
  And that's what the purpose is here tonight and in subsequent weeks I 
believe as well, to try to remove that shroud of mystery behind the 
system that we have here, to shine the light of day, as we are 
oftentimes saying, on the budgetary process, to give the American 
public a clear picture of exactly where their dollars go to. And we do 
this with not just an educational point in mind or a goal but to also 
allow the American public and the voter and the taxpayer to be in a 
better posture to decide among themselves just where they want their 
Government to go in this election and future elections and of course 
over their lifetime as well.
  It was just this past week when we were back at home in the district 
work period and I was able to sit at my dining room table. Around this 
time of year, April 15 is coming up, tax time, and my wife said now is 
the time to start getting the paperwork out, Scott, and begin to look 
at it and getting all the stuff you need to send to the accountant to 
do our taxes, because I had given up, quite candidly, years ago trying 
to figure out myself, as I imagine most Members of Congress have, to 
try to figure out the Byzantine Tax Code that we have created for the 
American public as well.
  So I began the process of collecting all my documents. And, of 
course, some of those are some of the basic ones, like your W-2 to show 
you how much you've earned over the last 12 months, over the last year. 
And then there's one of those little boxes, I think box 8 or 9 on 
there, that also begins to show you just how much money has been taken 
out of your paycheck week after week. You don't see it so much, 
especially nowadays because so many people have direct deposit and it 
goes right into their checking account or bank account. You don't see 
how much is actually taken out.
  But at the end of the year you sure do. At the end of the year you 
get that W-2 and you look at that box, and I say, oh, my gosh, that's 
how much money. In payroll taxes and income taxes, you put them out all 
together, and it's in the five digits for a lot of middle-class 
Americans.
  I come from the great State of New Jersey where middle-class America 
lives and works hard to make a paycheck and pay their bills. They would 
be astounded if they looked at their W-2s, as I did and maybe you 
should as well, to see how much taxes are taken out and sent down here 
to Washington.
  The Government took in $21,992, almost $22,000, in household taxes. 
Now, mind you, those $22,000 are all household taxes. I believe that 
also includes payroll taxes alike. So your income taxes and payroll 
taxes, $22,000. The government spends $24,000 per household. So that's 
very easy math, and it's basically telling us that we are engaged in 
deficit spending. But look at that number: $22,000 taken out of the 
average middle-class American's paycheck.
  When the average household income in some parts of the country is 
around 40-some-odd-thousand dollars, half of that money, figuratively 
speaking, is going in taxes. I know it doesn't come out of that tax 
rate for that particular family, but that's enough for some Americans 
to live on entirely in certain parts of this country with a little bit 
of assistance on the side. And that's how much is being paid per 
household in U.S. taxes.
  For some of us, we think that's just too much. The numbers have been 
projected with a little bit of varying degree of certainty on this, but 
on average the American household, the American family, a middle-class 
American works starting on January 1, just a month or so ago, and works 
all the way to sometime in mid-May just to pay their Federal taxes, 
State and local taxes as well. And then if you want to add onto that 
all the burden and the costs of all the Federal regulations and 
everything that also is a burden on us as well, you have to work almost 
all the way until sometime in the summertime, the beginning of July. So 
think about that. You're working almost the entire half of the year 
just to pay your taxes and the burden of the Federal, State, and local 
Governments.
  And where do those dollars go? Well, that's something that we're 
talking about here. On average, first of all, the burden falls around 
18.3 percent of

[[Page 2490]]

GDP. What does that mean? The historical average of all the revenue 
coming into the Federal Government from the 1960s all the way up until 
the present time varies up and down, some years more, some years less. 
But on average as a percentage of GDP, it's around 18.3 percent.
  Now, what this means is that at certain times the tax rates and the 
burden on the American family is greater than others; sometimes it's 
less than others. But we're here to point out where those dollars go 
and what can we do to make sure that that tax burden does not continue 
to creep up higher and higher and higher so that the American family 
sees even more of their tax dollars go to that level and to purposes 
that they can only fathom a guess at.
  If you have listened to the debate on this floor in past times, 
you've heard talk about earmarks and waste, fraud, and abuse. Earmarks 
are part of the problem, but they are only a small, small percentage of 
where our tax dollars go. The gentleman who was just speaking before 
spoke a little bit about the entitlements, Medicare and Medicaid, a 
much larger percentage. Let me fall someplace in between. As I sat 
there at my dining room table looking at the double-digit numbers as 
far as what my family has to pay in Federal taxes, I realize, as most 
Americans do, that we have an obligation to pay taxes into our Federal 
Government to provide for such things as national defense and homeland 
security, and we don't begrudge the Federal Government for any of those 
things. But as I also sat back, being a Member of Congress, knowing 
about the waste, fraud, and abuse and the unnecessary expenditures, 
that's when I and middle-class America begin to be concerned.
  For example, nobody has to think back too far about all the dollars 
that we spent mistakenly in the area of Hurricane Katrina and the waste 
in portions of that spending. I had folks sitting in my office who did 
independent investigations on Katrina to see where those dollars were 
going to. Granted, there was a lot of necessary cost down there. But 
the waste, fraud, and abuse down there is telling. Fraud related to 
Hurricane Katrina spending is estimated to top $2 billion. One of the 
areas that the investigators who spoke to me were talking about was the 
debit cards, debit cards that were issued repeatedly to the same 
people. That means over and over again, even though they should have 
applied and qualified for one, in some cases debit cards and checks 
were being sent out to people regardless of need. In other cases, cards 
being sent out to people even though they did not live in the area, to 
be used for all sorts of things, from a Caribbean vacation to NFL 
tickets and so on and so forth.
  Likewise, auditors discovered that 900,000 of the 2.5 million 
recipients of emergency Katrina assistance provided false or duplicate 
names, addresses, and Social Security numbers. And the interesting 
thing there, and I will make this last point on Katrina, is that even 
though the fraud investigators found out about this and they told FEMA 
about it, FEMA continued to issue those cards.
  The other side of the aisle sometimes makes the case with regard to 
corporate welfare, and I agree with them. The Federal Government spends 
too much of wasteful money with regard to corporate welfare as well. 
According to some statistics, Washington spends $60 billion annually on 
corporate welfare versus $43 billion on homeland security. So note that 
we are spending more money on corporate welfare to some of the largest 
corporations in this country and the world than we are on homeland 
security. Likewise on corporate welfare, the Advanced Technology 
Program, which sounds like an admirable program, spends $150 million 
annually subsidizing private businesses, and 40 percent of that money 
goes to Fortune 500 companies.
  So as middle-class America sits at home saying, where are my tax 
dollars going, that's some of the places where it's going.
  I will yield back and maybe speak again in a moment on some other 
points. But let me just close on this: I have the honor and privilege 
of serving on the Budget Committee, the committee in which we have the 
opportunity to sit back and look at the entire Federal budget, the big 
picture overview, and I have had the opportunity to do this now for 5 
years. And during that time, many of these examples come before us; and 
during that time we have, let's call it, partisan differences from the 
other side of the aisle and ours on what we should be doing about it.
  But mind you, in the 5 years that I have served on this committee, 
the 5 years that I have served in this House, not one time do I recall 
anyone from the other side of the aisle suggesting that the solution to 
taking the burden off middle-class America is to reduce their tax rate 
and to do so by actually reducing tax expenditures. On the contrary, 
everything I have seen over the past 5 years, and as has been pointed 
out by the gentleman from California right now, has been in the 
opposite direction, an increase in Federal spending and, as we have 
seen now with the mother of all tax increases, an increase of the tax 
burden on middle-class America as well.
  Those are the points that I believe the American public has got to 
understand. As they pay their taxes April 15, where are their tax 
dollars going? It's going to, if the other side has its way, increased 
Federal spending on programs like these and other programs as well and 
an increased burden on middle-class America, things that those on this 
side of the aisle vehemently oppose and are doing our best to rein in.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey for his leadership and his guidance on so many of our budgetary 
issues and for his desire. Madam Speaker, it is a true desire that he 
has to be certain that we provide transparency to the American people 
and that we become good stewards of the tax dollar, that we exercise 
good stewardship, because these are dollars that the taxpayers send to 
us and entrust to us to use. As I said earlier and as the gentleman 
from New Jersey pointed out so well, $21,992 per household in taxes, 
and even that is not enough to meet the $24,106 that the Federal 
Government spent per household. And this is where some of that money 
goes:
  Social Security and Medicare, $8,301 of that $21,992 went to Social 
Security and Medicare. Defense saw $4,951. The anti-poverty programs, 
which are our TANF programs, supplemental security income, things of 
that nature, $3,500. Interest on the Federal debt, $2,071; Federal 
retiree benefits, $907. This is all out of that, per family, per 
household. Health research and regulation, $664; veterans benefits, 
$627; education, $584; highways and mass transit, $418; justice 
administration, $392; natural resources and the environment, $305. And 
certainly we know much of that money is going into bureaucracy, much of 
it is going into wasteful spending.
  At this time I want to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Tim Murphy), who has been a leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee 
and on the Energy Subcommittee, to talk a little bit about energy and 
environment spending and some of the ways that we need to put the focus 
on how the taxpayers' dollars are being spent on those issues, and I 
yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank my friend from Tennessee for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, when we look at the economy that our Nation is facing 
and what we should be doing about it, quite frankly, in the area of 
energy, what we need to see is our Nation take on the issue of energy 
as a scientific challenge of our time. Really, it should be nothing 
less than the Apollo Project of our time where our resources for 
research and development and our educational institutions look to 
answer the question: How do we make our country energy secure in a way 
that is respectful of the environment and our public health?
  I was noticing today that oil is trading at $100 a barrel. This will 
probably continue to climb. It will continue to climb as long as we 
continue to embargo our own oil resources off the Atlantic Coast, the 
gulf coast, the Pacific Coast, the Western States, and Alaska.

[[Page 2491]]

And, yes, we need to do a great deal to improve the efficiency of 
automobiles. We need to do a great deal to improve the efficiencies of 
our highways, which waste massive amounts of fuel. But in terms of our 
economy, we cannot continue to have our families suffer the high prices 
that come when we say we will continue to be more and more dependent 
upon importation of foreign oil sources. We also are more and more 
dependent upon the marketplace with regard to natural gas. When we see 
our chemical companies shutting down plants in America and instead 
saying they'll build plants in the Mideast because the cost of natural 
gas is so much cheaper there, perhaps 25 cents to $1 per million Btus, 
whereas here it may fluctuate to $6 or $8 or $10 or $12, it is 
something that's costing jobs and costing our economy.

                              {time}  1645

  It is something that is costing jobs and costing our economy. It is 
difficult to see our President of the United States go and talk to 
Saudi leaders and ask them to increase production of oil recognizing 
that we are at their mercy as OPEC continues to set prices. We can 
change that by saying we will explore in environmentally responsible 
ways Americans' oil resources.
  Let's look, for example, to shale oil in Colorado. Estimates are 2 
trillion barrels of oil there, 2 trillion barrels of shale oil. We cut 
that off in our omnibus spending bill. This is forcing us to continue 
to import oil, some 60 percent. We limit development on natural gas. We 
also have situations where we are hurting our coal development. Our 
energy bills that we are facing this week and have faced for a while 
have not done much to improve our use of coal, but we have some 300 
years' worth of coal.
  What we ought to be doing is focusing our research and development 
dollars into using coal and cleaning it up so it does not have 
emissions, so it does not have large levels of CO2s, so it 
does not pollute. That is a scientific challenge of our time. That is 
something we should be challenging our students as they go through 
school to think about how they can solve these issues, how they can 
create clean energy from our abundant resources of coal, how they can 
continue to find ways of using oil resourcefully and with environmental 
respect.
  This is not something we are doing enough of. So what happens? It 
costs families more to go to work, it costs families more to feed their 
families. Look at what is happening with wheat prices. Yes, there are 
problems with wheat production in other parts of the world, but a big 
part of those costs has to do with the cost of transporting things. 
Last summer, flour was sold at about $16 per hundredweight. Now it is 
$40 or so, probably climbing to $60. How will we handle it if a loaf of 
bread doubles on top of the increased prices people have to pay driving 
their cars to get to the grocery store? It is too much of a burden.
  If we treat our energy needs as our Apollo project of this 21st 
century, of this decade, we would find jobs and more jobs and more jobs 
come out of this. The best economic stimulus package is a job. That is 
where we should be focusing. What can we do to build our infrastructure 
there? What kind of jobs come from building energy power plants? What 
happens when we start to put all our laborers, carpenters, ironworkers, 
boilermakers and electrical workers to build these plants?
  Let me tell you how big this demand is. We have 400 old coal-fired 
power plants with inefficient or no pollution controls on many of them. 
We need to replace those 400 coal power plants, and because our energy 
demands of this country are going to double by 2050, we have to build 
an additional 400. We have to replace 100 nuclear plants and build an 
additional 100.
  What that means is, starting in 2010, a ribbon-cutting ceremony to 
open up a new coal-fired power plant every 2 weeks and a new nuclear 
plant every 2\1/2\ months. These are massive jobs for America. We 
should be making those investments so we have those jobs. And the best 
thing we can be doing is finding ways to clean up our resources. Why, 
the Pittsburgh coal seam alone, as my friend from Tennessee knows, 
overlaps my State of Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Tennessee, 
Kentucky, and Alabama. And that is just one of our vast resources.
  Let's focus our energy on doing what is right for the long-term for 
America, for America's jobs and America's economy, and stop saying 
``no'' to energy security.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
continuing the conversation about how we should be good stewards with 
the taxpayers' dollars and looking at how we spend those environment 
dollars, $305 per family, spent on environment and energy programs last 
year. Unemployment benefits, as he said, the best economic stimulus is 
a job, unemployment benefits, $299 per family. As you talk about 
developing energy resources, community and regional development, $282 
per family. But his point is it is imperative that regardless of what 
the sector, regardless what we are talking about, whether it is Social 
Security, defense, antipoverty programs, community development, or 
unemployment, it is imperative that we exercise good judgment and we 
use wisdom as we make these decisions, because the taxpayers do need to 
know how we are spending their money and how it relates to each and 
every family and what their share of that pie is.
  Really, the leading expert on the family budget in the House is the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) who is chairman of the Republican 
Study Committee which is embarking on this project to demystify the 
budget and to make certain that our constituents and our colleagues all 
understand how we bring the budget together.
  At this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas for 
his comments.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Well, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I 
certainly appreciate her leadership in helping illuminate for families 
all across America exactly how this process of the Federal budget 
works. It is very important, Madam Speaker, that people pay attention 
to this Federal budget because at the end of the day, it is the family 
budget that pays for the Federal budget. Unfortunately, there is no 
free lunch. Somebody has to pay for this. And all of government will be 
paid for, and it is paid for out of the family budget.
  It is especially important today, Madam Speaker, as families all 
across America are struggling to fill up their gas tanks. They are 
struggling to pay their health care premiums. They are struggling to 
send their kids to college. And every single dollar that is used to 
plus up a Federal budget has to come out of some family budget. If you 
are going to plus up the Federal budget, you are going to decrease the 
family budget. And so it is important that families pay attention to 
how their money is spent.
  So I applaud the gentlewoman from Tennessee for organizing a series 
of Special Orders on the floor of the United States House in order to 
help educate and enlighten the American people about this budget.
  The first thing that the American people need to know about the 
budget is that, contrary to almost every single thing we do in this 
body, the budget doesn't even have the force of law. That's right, 
Madam Speaker. At best, it is a mere suggestion. Now, it takes an act 
of Congress to change the name of a post office, but somehow, the 
United States budget, the United States budget doesn't bear the force 
of law. It is a suggestion.
  Now, many Republicans have come to this floor to try to say, at a 
bare minimum, the budget ought to be honest. And when we set a budget, 
it's supposed to be a ceiling on how much money we take away from 
American families, how much bread we take off of their table, how many 
opportunities we take away from them to give to government. There at 
least, at some point, has to be a ceiling where we say no more, we are 
not going to take any more away from American families. But instead, it 
is just a suggestion.
  And so if we look in our rearview mirror, Madam Speaker, we 
unfortunately discover, just look for the last 5 years, 10 years, every 
time there has

[[Page 2492]]

been a Federal budget, ultimately, Congress spent more money than what 
that budget provided. And so legislation has been brought by members of 
the Republican Study Committee, the Conservative Caucus of the House, 
to change that. But unfortunately we have yet to meet with success. But 
we will continue to ensure that there is a limit to how much money is 
taken away from American families.
  Well, today how much money is taken? Over $24,000 per family is what 
the Federal Government is spending. Now, whether it is paid for by cash 
or credit card, ultimately all government will be paid for. And this 
is, Madam Speaker, only the first time since World War II that the 
Federal Government has spent so much of the people's money. And that is 
an inflation adjusted number. Over $24,000.
  Madam Speaker, I just wonder how many people who are listening to 
this debate this afternoon really think they are getting their $24,000 
worth out of the Federal Government. Now, clearly there are many good 
things that the Federal Government does. But there has been an 
explosion of government, an explosion of government that, again, 
ultimately has to be paid for by the family budget.
  Over the last 10 years, Madam Speaker, the Federal budget has grown 
by 66 percent; yet the family budget, as measured by median family 
income, has only grown 30.2 percent, less than half that. So families 
who have to pay for it are having to take a bigger bite out of their 
paycheck in order to write out that IRS check. Well, Madam Speaker, how 
long can this go on? How long can the Federal budget exceed the 
spending of the family budget? American families need to know that. And 
that is why it is important that these Special Orders have been 
organized by the Republican Study Committee to let the American people 
know just how much money is being spent of theirs and how that money is 
being spent.
  Now, some will say, and we often hear it, this budget is being cut 
and that budget is being cut. I wish for once it were true. But there 
is this thing in Washington, and it is a little bit of inside baseball, 
called ``baseline budgeting,'' which as this series continues we will 
speak about more, Madam Speaker, but baseline budgeting is an 
accounting concept that would make an Enron accountant blush. It 
automatically inflates all the numbers of the Federal budget.
  Now, people all across America believe that if you spend the same 
amount of money on something next year as you did this year, but that 
is not a cut, but under the concept known as ``baseline budgeting'' and 
something called the ``current services budget,'' government 
automatically inflates all of these government accounts. And then say, 
for example, if you don't increase the Housing and Urban Development 
budget by 2.7 percent, say you only increase it 2 percent, that is a 
cut. That is what ``baseline budgeting'' means. Again, Republicans 
representing the Republican Study Committee have come to the House 
floor to try to introduce honest accounting and transparency on this 
House floor.
  Unfortunately, we have not had any cooperation by our friends on the 
other side of the aisle who want to continue with this thing called 
``baseline budgeting'' that inflates the government budget at the 
expense of the family budget.
  And just listen to some of these budgets, Madam Speaker. Over the 
last 10 years, the international affairs budget has grown 128 percent. 
The energy budget, what we call budget function number 270, has grown 
229 percent. The transportation budget, Federal transportation budget 
has grown 88 percent. Community and regional development, 132 percent. 
And the list goes on and on. And again, over the last 10 years, the 
family budget, which has to pay for it, has only grown a little over 30 
percent.
  So government, the Federal budget, is growing at a huge multiple over 
the family budget, and yet the family budget has to pay for it. And it 
is that family budget, that family paycheck that is getting stressed. 
And so it is another reason why the American people need to pay very 
close attention.
  Now, how is all of this government paid for? We have the single 
largest budget that is about to be proposed by the Democrats in the 
history of America. It is going to weigh in at over $3 trillion, 
continuing the exponential growth of government at the expense of the 
family budget. Well, how is it paid for? Well, two different ways: cash 
and credit. And the cash is taxes.
  Now, my friends and I on the other side of the aisle will say, well, 
all we need to do to balance the budget is raise taxes. Well, they 
hadn't balanced it yet. But they certainly, certainly have done an 
excellent job of raising taxes. Already, Madam Speaker, it is very 
important that the American people know this, but there are huge 
automatic tax increases that are scheduled, courtesy of our friends on 
the other side of the aisle, the Democrats. Right now, the single 
largest tax increase in American history is due to be imposed upon the 
American people over the next 3 years. This is written into law.
  The American people need to know what kind of bite is going to come 
out of their paycheck to inflate the Federal budget at the expense of 
the family budget. Already, with these scheduled Democrat tax increases 
due to take place over the next 3 years, the average family in America 
is going to be socked with an additional tax burden of over $3,000 per 
family. That's right, Madam Speaker, over $3,000 per American family 
courtesy of our friends on the other side of the aisle.
  What is going to happen? Well, at the bracket, ordinary income, the 
top bracket will go from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, which is an 
increase of 13 percent. Now, some say, well, that is the wealthy. Let's 
go tax the wealthy. Well, Madam Speaker, how many people in America 
when they hear that really believe it?

                              {time}  1700

  Anytime you hear that phrase, it is time for middle-income people to 
grab their wallets, because it means that Washington is going to go on 
another money grab.
  Also, Madam Speaker, it is important to note that approximately over 
70 percent of those people who file at that rate are small businesses, 
the backbone of the American economy. We on this side of the aisle want 
to help ensure paychecks. Paychecks are more important than welfare 
checks.
  So here it is: The Democrat party is getting ready in their budget to 
once again increase taxes on small business. The capital gains tax, the 
``capital'' of capitalism, the fuel of free enterprise, that tax is due 
to increase 33.3 percent over the next 3 years.
  Dividends are due to increase, a 164 percent tax increase on 
dividends, courtesy of our friends on the other side of the aisle, the 
Democrats.
  The death tax. You have already paid taxes on the income once; but 
yet under the death tax, American people, Madam Speaker, are compelled 
to visit both the undertaker and the IRS on the very same day. That is 
just an outrage. That tax is due to go from zero to up to 55 percent. 
People in the Fifth District of Texas, Madam Speaker, can work their 
entire lives trying to build a ranch, trying to build a farm, trying to 
build a small business, having the American Dream of thinking maybe one 
day I can leave that to my children or my grandchildren, only to see 
Uncle Sam come in and take 55 percent.
  The Democrats' budget proposals will gut the American Dream. They 
will just take away any opportunity to leave that farm, that ranch, 
that small business. I talked to a rancher in my district who said, 
Congressman, once Uncle Sam takes his piece, there is not enough left 
for the family. That shouldn't happen in America.
  I would be happy to yield back to the gentlelady from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I want to go back 
to a point that you made. The tax burden on the average family, already 
they are turning over $21,992. The Federal Government is spending 
$24,106. So they have got this debt, this deficit in there, that is 
being passed on to their children and grandchildren. But you said that 
tax burden is getting ready to go up $3,000?

[[Page 2493]]


  Mr. HENSARLING. That is right. If the gentlewoman will yield, over 
the next 3 years, on average, the average American family will see 
their tax burden increase by $3,000 per family to pay for the spending 
spree of Big Government by our friends on the other side of the aisle, 
the Democrats.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for that. So we have got the 
$21,992 that the average household paid in 2007, and then they had on 
top of that the $2,100 deficit for the year, and the Federal Government 
spending $24,106. But what you are saying is the current budget 
policies are going to push that up even another $3,000 per family over 
the next 3 years.
  I just highlight to my colleagues that we have talked a good bit 
today about the overall budget process and why we think the taxpayer 
has the right to know how this body spends your money. The taxpayer has 
the right to know what is going to be there in the form of a deficit 
and a debt that their children are going to have to pick up the burden 
on and carry that burden.
  The taxpayer has the right to know what is looming with Medicare and 
Medicaid and Social Security and the entitlements that are there that 
are put on automatic pilot. They have the right to know what the budget 
processes are, what is the difference in baseline budgeting and zero-
base budgeting and performance-based budgeting; what are the benefits 
that would be derived by transparency.
  They have the right to know how the Budget Committee goes through the 
process of setting the parameters on this budget. And certainly they 
have the right to know what takes place in the appropriations process. 
They have the right to know what is wasteful spending and what are 
earmarks and what is in front of us with this entire document.
  Madam Speaker, I thank you for the time that you have yielded to us. 
We are going to be back next week. We are going to continue to talk 
about this issue. I hope that people will follow this with us at 
House.Gov/Hensarling/RSC. We would hope that we hear from them and that 
we bring an element of transparency and therefore accountability to the 
budgeting process.

                          ____________________