Transportation, Housing And Urban Development, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008
Floor Speech
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 -- (House of Representatives - July 24, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I must admit, every time I come to the floor and a Democrat lectures me on fiscal responsibility, I feel like I am having an Alice in Wonderland experience; and that is because the deficit is the symptom, it is spending that is the disease. And so we have Democrats come to the floor and say, well, when you Republicans were in power, you spent too much. Well, some of us Republicans agree. So what is your answer, Mr. Chairman? Well, they want to spend even more.
For the last 10 years, look at the record. Every time the Republicans offer one budget, the Democrats offer a budget that spends even more. And then they say it is fiscally irresponsible that the national debt went up from $5 trillion to $8 trillion. I don't like that a bit. But, guess what? Because the Democrats' budget was stone cold silent on entitlement spending, the national debt unfunded obligations is $50 trillion. So I will be glad to accept responsibility for $3 trillion when my friends on the other side of the aisle accept responsibility for their $50 trillion.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I have heard many interesting things from the other side of the aisle tonight. I am reminded that people are entitled to their own opinions, but they shouldn't be entitled to their own facts.
I hear a lot of accusations that we have amendments tonight that cut Federal spending. I kind of wish it were true. But last I looked, we had an amendment that level-funded this bill, that spent the same amount of money this year as last year. Now we had an amendment that would increase funding in this bill 5.7 percent. Now we have an amendment that would increase spending up to 6.2 percent. Now, it is less than what the gentleman from Massachusetts desires, and so I guess under his definition that if you spend less money than somebody in the universe desires, that is a cut. So I think, one, we ought to have the facts on the table.
Second of all, I have heard many Democrats bristle at the idea that their budget resolution included the single largest tax increase in American history. Well, don't take my word for it, Mr. Chairman. The Washington Post, not exactly known as the leading conservative publication in America, wrote: ``And while House Democrats say they want to preserve key parts of Bush's signature tax cuts, they project a surplus in 2012 only by assuming that all these cuts expire on schedule in 2010.'' Now, that is the Washington Post, which most people view as one of the more liberal newspapers in America. That's what they say.
Now, my friends from the other side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, may say we are not raising taxes; we are just letting tax cuts expire. Well, Mr. Chairman, if you have the same salary or wage next year as you had last year, but somehow your tax burden is greater, I can tell you this much: Anybody in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas is going to call that a tax increase.
Now, something that my friends from the other side of the aisle don't seem to get, because they say that we need money for housing, we need money for transportation, we need money for this, we need money for that, there is another budget in America that funds housing, that funds transportation. Mr. Chairman, that is the family budget. And the only budget that is being cut tonight is the American family budget, and it is being cut by Democrat colleagues.
I talk to a lot of hard-working people in my congressional district, in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, and I hear from them because more spending like what is included in this bill fuels more taxes, the largest single tax increase in American history. And I ask them, how is this tax increase going to impact your family budget?
So I hear from people like the Peterson family in Van, Texas: ``If you divide the amount by 12 months of the year, this tax increase comes out to $229.58 per month. I am a widow, full-time college student, and single mother of a growing preteen boy. This amount would be impossible to squeeze out of my already overextended monthly income ..... This monthly amount is more than half of my monthly vehicle installment ..... A tax increase of that magnitude would mean that something would have to be given up in my household.''
That is the budget that is being cut here, Mr. Chairman. The Peterson family in Van, Texas, they are having their budget cut. They are having their transportation budget cut. They can't afford their monthly car payments because of this bill, which, even though they deny it, is part of the single largest tax increase in American history.
Or from the Jordan family in Forney, Texas, in my district: ``All of us have been affected by large increases in the price of gas for our cars, electricity rates, cost of water, and cost of food. My husband and I both drive older vehicles and turn up our thermostat to uncomfortable levels ..... This tax increase reinforces the feeling that elected leaders could care less about the struggles of families trying to avoid going into ever-increasing debt.''
Well, guess what? I agree, because once again we have a bill brought to the floor by the Democrat majority that is going to cut the family budget, that is going to cut the Jordan budget in Forney, Texas. And there are family budgets all across America that are going to be cut because this bill spends too much of the people's money. It takes away from their housing priorities, it takes away from their transportation priorities to fuel the government's, Washington's, view of their priority.
And that is why you are either part of the problem, or you are part of the solution. And the gentlewoman from Colorado's amendment is part of the solution, and we should adopt it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source