[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 160 (Wednesday, December 12, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6751-H6756]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               PUTTING OUR NATION'S FISCAL HOUSE IN ORDER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the designation of the time 
and appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor tonight and discuss 
the issues, the very serious issues, that are in front of us. Now, this 
is something that we Republicans have talked about for quite a period 
of time, that we had to get the Nation's fiscal house in order.
  The reason we had to do this was because we had a spending issue that 
was in front of us. Many of us felt that running deficits of several 
hundred billion dollars a year was not acceptable, and we've watched 
what has transpired through the years as this has continued to grow. 
And we all know that the last few years of the Obama administration has 
run deficits, annual deficits, of well over $1 trillion.
  Now, I am constantly hearing from people, How did this seem to happen 
so quickly? Well, it's been decades in the making. And as I said, 
indeed, many of us have come to the floor regularly, we've talked about 
it, and we've offered bills that would address this. A great example of 
this, every year I've offered bills that call for 1, 2 and 5 percent 
across-the-board spending reductions. Little bits add up over a period 
of time.
  We have the appropriations process where Members have come to the 
floor and they've offered amendment after amendment that would reduce 
what we are spending.
  We on this side of the aisle also believe that you have to have a 
budget. Now, the President had a proposed budget, and nobody wanted to 
vote for that. We put it on the floor, and I think it got one or two 
votes from the Democrats. The country has not had a budget in over 
1,300 days, and there's a reason for this. It is because the budget 
that we have passed out of this House has gone to the Senate each and 
every year, and it sits on Harry Reid's desk, and he does not take it 
up.
  We have passed this budget, and I commend Congressman Ryan who leads 
our Budget Committee. We passed it because we think you've got to 
tackle the drivers of the debt. You've got to bring out-of-control 
spending under control. You have to restore economic freedom and ensure 
a level playing field for everybody by putting an end to special 
interest favoritism and corporate welfare.
  We feel as if it is imperative to reverse this administration's 
policies that are driving up the cost of gas at the pump, that we need 
to be promoting an all-of-the-above energy strategy unlocking American 
energy production to help lower costs, to create jobs, to reduce 
dependence on foreign oil, and to strengthen our health care and our 
retirement security by taking power away--away--from government 
bureaucrats and empowering patients and letting patients and doctors 
make the decisions that are important to them.
  Now, as I said a moment earlier, so many times people will say, How 
in the world did we get here? Well, as I said decades--decades--in the 
making.
  Then we went through the Budget Control Act exercise a year before 
last in August. We had a select committee that was put in place. That 
didn't work out. So we ended up with the sequesters. And many of my 
constituents--and I'm sure other Members are seeing this too--they are 
saying, Tell me what the sequester is all about.

                              {time}  1830

  This is what it is. It's going to take place on January 2, 2013, and 
the defense budget is going to see the brunt of these spending 
reductions. Most everything gets 2 percent across the board. With 
defense, you're going to see additional cuts of $55 billion per year. 
That is going to give them a total of $492 billion additional cuts. 
This is going to leave our military with the smallest ground force 
since 1940, the smallest naval fleet since 1915, and the smallest 
tactical fighter force in the history of the Air Force. Medicare could 
see $16.4 billion in annual cuts, leading to the elimination of 496,000 
jobs in 2013. There will be 62,000 physicians that will be adversely 
impacted. We know that the sequester cuts are not fair to everybody.
  As I said, we've been taking steps. Every year for several years, 
we've talked about getting the fiscal house in order and cutting 
spending and fighting the growth in the debt. We've also passed some 
bills this year. And I would like to remind the Members of the body, 
Mr. Speaker, of these pieces of legislation that this House of 
Representatives has already passed, and that are sitting on the desk 
over in the Senate.
  On August 2 of this year, by a vote of 232-189, we passed the Pathway 
to Job Creation through a Simpler, Fairer Tax Code Act of 2012. That 
was H.R. 6169. It would provide an expedited pathway to pro-growth tax 
reform in 2013. To deal with the spending issues, to deal with the 
deficit, to deal with the debt, yes, you have to cut spending, you have 
to reform your Tax Code, and you have to have a pro-growth agenda. That 
legislation, as I said, was passed on August 2.
  On September 19 of this year, we passed the National Security and 
Jobs Protection Act that would deal with the sequester that I spoke 
about a few minutes ago. That passed with 223 votes. We also had on May 
10 the Sequester Reconciliation Act of 2012, H.R. 5652, which passed 
with 218 votes. We then had the Job Protection and Recession Prevention 
Act passed on August 1, and that was H.R. 8. It passed with 256 votes. 
H.R. 8 is the 1-year extension of all the tax rates.
  We keep hearing that the President wants to extend the tax cuts for 
those making $250,000 a year and less. What that would do is catch a 
lot of our small businesses. About 20 percent of our small businesses 
have already said that this would adversely impact them to the point 
that they would be cutting jobs, not growing, but actually cutting 
jobs. So I would point out that 256 Members of this Chamber, on a 
bipartisan basis, voted to extend the tax cuts for everybody.
  When people say, Why can't the House and the Senate get together, Mr. 
Speaker, our bills--as I've just mentioned, these bills are sitting on 
the Senate leader's desk dealing with the sequester, dealing with 
taxes, dealing with the reform issues that we have in front of us. 
These four bills are sitting there waiting for action. The House has 
done its job. We've agreed to not raise taxes on anybody. That's only 
one part of this issue.
  Certainly, with the way the President is wanting to approach tax 
reform, his proposals would raise enough revenue to run the Federal 
Government for about 8 more days. He's going to raise taxes on the top 
2 percent basically to pay for 2 percent of next year's spending. This 
is not sustainable. We do not have a revenue problem in this town, we 
have a spending problem. We have a crushing burden of debt. And now 
I've got some posters that I would like to show regarding that.
  This first poster that I want to call your attention to points out 
exactly what we have in this crushing burden of debt. You will see that 
in World War II, it lays out our country's long history with this debt 
and shows where this burden has been passed. As I said, it's been 
decades in the making. Take a look at this. In 1940, the percentage of 
our gross Federal debt was 52.4 percent. That's where we were. By the 
end of World War II, the debt had skyrocketed. It was up to 117.5 
percent of our GDP in 1945, and then it peaked in 1946 at 121.7 percent 
of our GDP. That was through the war. But you know what? We did what 
Americans generally do. When you have got a problem, you get behind it 
and you get it solved. So we doubled down on getting the spending under 
control, and you can see what happened. Then our Federal debt pretty 
much stabilized in the

[[Page H6752]]

mid-30 percent range. And during the Reagan administration in 1981, the 
gross Federal debt was 32.5 percent of GDP.
  Well, those old spending habits kind of die hard around this place. 
The Federal Government and the bureaucracy never gets enough of the 
taxpayers' money. When the President took office, our gross Federal 
debt was 84.2 percent of the GDP. This takes us back to swearing-in day 
in 2009. That's the figure that neither party could celebrate, and both 
parties share responsibility.
  This Federal Government spends too much money and has for decades. 
Today, according to OMB, our projected gross Federal debt is 105.3 
percent of our GDP. These are just simple facts. You can see what is 
going to happen if you look at where we are headed. Now we are over 100 
percent. Look at how quickly we're going to get to 200 percent, then 
300 percent, and 400 percent.
  This points out how unfair this debt is to our children and 
grandchildren. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think the debt that we have in 
this country is the ultimate cap-and-trade. What is happening? We are 
capping our children's futures, and we're trading it to the countries 
that own this debt.
  Let me point out who owns this debt. I've got another chart that I 
want to show you on this specific issue. A lot of people will ask about 
this. And of course last year during the debates on the debt, we had so 
many discussions about this. A couple of my colleagues and I went down, 
and we asked who owned our publicly traded debt. We wanted to know who 
was buying this American debt. Of course, we've been frustrated with 
the Fed monetizing some of this debt and running the printing presses. 
We know that devalues it. We're frustrated that we are running about $4 
billion worth of debt a day, and that is adding to the annual deficit, 
which accrues to the Nation's debt. That frustrates us. So what we've 
done periodically in my office, Mr. Speaker, is to go back in and check 
with Treasury and see who owns our debt.
  As of right now, China owns $1.15 trillion of our debt. Then number 
two on the list is Japan with $1.13 trillion of our debt. This is 
interesting. Out of this debt, number three on the list is OPEC. OPEC 
is an entity. That's the countries of Ecuador, Venezuela, India, 
Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, 
Algeria, Gabon, Libya, and Nigeria. Guess what? They now are number 
three on the list, and they own $267 billion of our debt. Brazil comes 
in at number four, $250.5 billion. And then number five on the list--
new to the top five list--the Caribbean Banking Centers, who now own 
$240.4 billion of U.S. debt. By the way, the Caribbean Banking Centers 
are the Bahamas, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Netherlands Antilles, and 
Panama. This is who owns us. This is who owns our debt. This is why on 
this side of the aisle what we continue to say is the spending has to 
be dealt with.
  We've heard from everybody. We are hearing from economists all around 
the globe, and they repeatedly say what we are saying, what we've been 
saying for years as we've come to this floor, that we have a spending 
problem. The spending has to be dealt with. We are drowning under a 
mountain of debt. You cannot continue to borrow nearly 50 percent of 
what you are spending. We think that it is problematic, if you will, 
Mr. Speaker.
  It is disconcerting that the President doesn't want to talk about the 
spending, but is instead offering to raise enough taxes to fund 
additional spending for 2 percent of the year by raising taxes on the 
top 2 percent. I guess he's not worried about the other 98 percent of 
the year. This is how we have to get this under control, by reducing 
this spending.
  I'm so pleased to be joined by my colleagues who share a passion for 
freedom and for economic freedom, and understand that economic freedom 
and political freedom are linked, and that this is a task that we are 
passionate about, we are given to solving this problem so that we 
remain a free Nation.

                              {time}  1840

  At this time, I want to recognize the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. McKinley).
  Mr. McKINLEY. Thank you, Congresswoman.
  I rise today in a belief that America can handle the truth. Abraham 
Lincoln said, ``I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, 
they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point 
is to bring them the real facts.'' To that end, Speaker Boehner has 
been candid about the fiscal challenges facing our Nation and has put 
forth a balanced plan. However, as the President continues to promote 
his own plan, he seems to be deliberately not sharing key details with 
the public.
  First, the plan will hurt nearly a million small businesses by 
treating them the same as the wealthy Americans. Secondly, the plan 
ignores the central driver of our deficit--government spending. It 
ignores that.
  On the first matter, why should we lump the owner of a hardware store 
together with Wall Street executives and tax them at the same rate? 
When the President talks about the rich paying their fair share, he 
fails to mention that he also raises the same rate of taxes on small 
businesses. Earlier this week, the President told factory workers that 
his plan is to ``ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a slightly higher 
tax rate.'' Previously, he said, ``Millionaires and billionaires can 
afford to pay a little bit more.'' But not once did the President 
publicly acknowledge his plan will raise taxes on owners of small 
family businesses.
  I'd like to give you an example of a small business owner who would 
fill out the tax form here, a 1040. This form is for a single woman, 
Mary Workman, who is in software development. She makes $50,000 in 
wages, and the company makes $150,000. She picks up some dividends and 
capital gains, so she has a total family income of $210,000. Under the 
President's proposal, Mary would be hit with the same tax rate equal to 
those of millionaires--at $50,000 in wages.
  Where is the fairness in that, Mr. President?
  It's one thing to ask Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, or Donald Trump to 
pay more in taxes, but it's something else to penalize the small 
businesses of Main Street, like the software developer, for example.
  This is not an isolated case. According to the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, 940,000 small businesses will face higher taxes under this 
President's plan. These are not the wealthiest Americans, but they're 
proprietors of small, family-owned businesses that are located in every 
town across America. According to the report by Ernst & Young this 
summer, 710,000 jobs will be lost by these companies if they're taxed 
at the same rate as corporate America.
  The President's proposal, curiously, would raise taxes on small 
businesses to as high as 39 percent, but for larger, mature 
corporations, the President is seeking to lower their tax rate to 25 
percent. Although reforming and lowering the corporate tax rate is a 
worthy goal, neither Congress nor the President should give tax 
advantages to large corporations at the expense of the owners of small, 
family businesses.
  Generally, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to raising taxes. However, if in 
the spirit of compromise Congress is forced to adopt new revenue in 
order to achieve reductions, then Congress should insist that personal 
wages be separated from small business income and taxed differently. 
This could be done by using the information already filed on the 1040, 
which is just like they do on capital gains, dividends, and interest 
payments.
  Now on to the second matter, the spending side of the equation. 
Surely, the President understands that raising taxes on small 
businesses and Wall Street executives won't sufficiently cover the 
deficit. Despite this reality, he consistently confuses the public by 
ignoring the role that reducing government spending would and should 
play in deficit reduction.
  According to the Office of Management and Budget, this 
administration's plan to raise the top rates generates an average of 
$43 billion a year, yet we are faced with a deficit of $1.1 trillion. 
This new revenue, as you pointed out, Madam Congresswoman, is only 
enough to fund the government for 8 days. During the campaign, the 
President proposed that there should be $2.50 in new spending 
reductions for every dollar in

[[Page H6753]]

new revenue, but now that the campaign is over, his latest plan calls 
for just the opposite--an unacceptable ratio of $4 in new revenue and 
only $1 in spending cuts.
  Speaker Boehner is right: America has a spending problem, not a 
taxing problem. While the President has consistently told the American 
public that he is merely asking the wealthy to pay just a bit more in 
taxes, when was the last time the President also reminded the American 
public that we borrow 46 cents out of every dollar we spend? Congress 
is chasing the wrong rabbit. Raising taxes on small businesses is no 
more a solution to fixing the deficit than is cutting worthy social 
programs. The problem lies much deeper than that.
  Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke admitted that the spending 
levels of this administration are unsustainable. Just as President 
Clinton declared years ago that the era of Big Government is over, this 
Congress needs to man up and declare the era of taxing, spending, and 
borrowing into perpetuity is over as well. Now is the time for the 
President to provide leadership, to level with the American people, and 
to set aside the campaign rhetoric of class warfare, division, and 
envy.
  Small, family-owned businesses cannot and should not be painted with 
the same broad brush as millionaires, billionaires, and Wall Street 
executives. We must protect our small businesses and stop promoting the 
treatment of their income to be the same as that of the wealthy.

                              {time}  1850

  At the same time, this administration needs to admit that raising 
taxes on businesses will not pay the excesses of spending that has 
occurred over the last 4 years. We must prioritize our fiscal 
negotiations by putting spending reductions before addressing new 
revenues.
  Mr. Speaker, I came to Washington 2 years ago to get something done. 
Speaker Boehner has shown that he understands the gravity of the 
situation and wants to find a solution that is balanced and realistic. 
I stand solidly behind him. Protecting small businesses and addressing 
our spending problems are too important to the economy to ignore. The 
situation demands that we deal in reality. Once again, Mr. Speaker, 
America can handle the truth if given all the facts.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman, Mr. McKinley, for his well-
thought-out presentation and for putting this 1040 form up here from 
the IRS. And it reminds me, we're coming up on the 100th anniversary of 
the income tax, the Federal income tax, which was to be a 1 percent tax 
on the top 1 percent for 1 year. Now the 100th anniversary of that is 
going to be February 25, 2013.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this is a grand time to say let's totally 
overhaul this Tax Code here in the United States. Let's make certain 
that, indeed, it is fair. The gentleman talked about the small 
businesses that he interfaces with. My goodness, a convenience store 
operator, a female that runs a seven-person service shop, a medical 
application device creator--I've met with all of them in the last 
couple of days. They can't afford to stay in business because, guess 
what, they will not be able to make a profit by the time they pay 
escalated tax rates and are treated, as the gentleman said, like 
they're some Wall Street business.
  Also the $63 per health insurance fee that goes on this next year, 
driving their health care cost up, the $3 medical device fee that is 
going to be applied to our mobile medical applications. You know, 
they're taxing every single thing they can find to tax. There are 21 
new taxes in ObamaCare, plus all of this we have. This is why we are so 
passionate about solving this spending issue.
  I want to welcome to the floor the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. 
Lummis) who has been a stalwart in making certain that we cut what we 
are spending. Cut, make some cuts, so that we're wise stewards of the 
taxpayers' money. I yield to the gentlelady.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentlelady from 
Tennessee for organizing this group to talk about this essential issue 
that is coming before the people of this country as described to be a 
fiscal cliff. Quite frankly, we need to look back at Alice in 
Wonderland to see from whence we have come.
  In the case of Alice in Wonderland, there's a line that says if you 
don't know where you're going, any road will get you there. Certainly 
in the case of Congress, the Republicans have laid out a road. It's a 
road map for America's future. It was designed by our House Budget 
Committee chaired by Congressman Paul Ryan from Wisconsin, and it lays 
out a plan for spending. It lays out a plan to sustain the viability 
and vitality of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid into the 
future, to make sure that seniors now can enjoy the benefits that 
they've earned through Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And the 
young people who are paying for it now will have those benefits 
available to them when they retire or when they need them.
  That is our road map to America's future. That is our budget. It 
passed this House unanimously through Members of Congress who are of 
the Republican persuasion.
  By contrast, the Democrats have not tendered or put forward a budget 
for over 1,300 days. Now, Tim Tebow was a quarterback at the University 
of Florida 1,300 days ago before his career at the Denver Broncos, 
before his career now in New York. So many things have happened in 
those 1,300 days in America. How could one important political party in 
this country not put forward a budget, a road map, to where we want to 
go with our spending and to retire our debt?
  Something that our budget, the Paul Ryan/Republican budget, put 
forward is a pathway to eliminate our debt and our deficit without 
raising taxes and while preserving America's social safety net. And yet 
the other side of the aisle put forth nothing in response. And the 
answer is because, I believe, they don't know where we're going so any 
road will get them there.
  The President's budget was presented by Timothy Geithner to the House 
Budget Committee. We asked him: When does it balance? At what point out 
in the future does it eliminate our debt and our deficit? And the 
answer was, Never. Never.
  Our country needs direction right now; and the people who are here 
tonight want to make sure that the people of America know where we're 
going and yet our President put forward a budget that never balances. 
And his answer now on this road to however and wherever we're going is, 
I want to tax people who can provide enough income for our Nation to 
fund it for 8 days. That's not a budget. That's not an answer. That's 
not an American value. That is not where we should be going.
  Our own Government Accountability Office has put together three 
volumes of reports that contain in them ways that we can consolidate 
spending, create efficiencies in government, save money, and make our 
government smaller, more robust, serve the people, and yet save $900 
billion a year. Now, that is three-fourths of the way to solving our 
entire deficit, and yet why aren't we grabbing that and running with 
it? Why are we talking about raising taxes on the American people, on 
our small businesses?
  I come from a State where there are no big cities, Madam Chairman. I 
come from a State where the largest town has less than 60,000 people. I 
come from a State where there are no Big Four, too-big-to-fail banks. A 
place where you go to your local Main Street banker if you want to 
borrow money and present a plan to pay it back, a secured loan that 
comes to you and that you do pay back, from people who know you, that 
know your reputation and your ability to repay. And yet laws like Dodd-
Frank and this mysterious creation called Basel III will put global 
banks and my little banks on Main Streets in Wyoming on the same 
capital plan. That was never intended. That's so irrational.
  Let's work together, Republicans and Democrats, to help our country 
rationalize and put things back on the right track and focus on our 
spending problems.

                              {time}  1900

  Use the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports to eliminate 
even half of the items that we're overspending. It would be a stunning 
victory for the American people, and we know how to get there.

[[Page H6754]]

  Mr. Speaker and Madam Chairman, you are leaders in this caucus, this 
conference, this country. We, in this House, know how to solve these 
problems. What we lack is gumption. What we lack is the relationship 
with the President of the United States to sit down and talk to him 
about these issues.
  One more thing, Madam Chairman. I realize we have very important 
remarks to be made from others here tonight, but I want to tell you a 
story. There is a group here in the House that gets together once a 
week. And one day we had Bob Schieffer come in and speak to us, Bob 
Schieffer of CBS News, a long time, highly respected journalist.
  And I had the chance to ask him, When you look at the crises in 
negotiations that are occurring now, between Members of Congress and 
the President, why are we having so much trouble communicating? Who 
have you witnessed in your lengthy, illustrious career that did it 
better? Who would you hold up as an example?
  Well, Bob Schieffer first started covering Lyndon Baines Johnson in 
Texas many years ago, and he told a story about how LBJ would have 
handled this. He mentioned that LBJ would religiously watch the Sunday 
morning talk shows. He would watch ``Meet the Press,'' and he would 
watch the shows that were on the networks because that's all we had 
back then was networks.
  He would watch the Speaker of the House on those programs. And if the 
Speaker would give an avenue for compromise, he had him on the 
telephone before the Speaker of the House left the studio. And he'd 
say, Mr. Speaker, why don't you come over to the White House tonight?
  Lady Bird and I'll put on some fried chicken and we'll just sit 
around in the kitchen and talk this over. I see an avenue for us to 
agree on 10 percent or 20 percent of where we need to go to solve this 
Nation's problems.
  He would connect, on a personal level, and on a level that found that 
crack in the armor of failure to communicate. And that's how he solved 
the problems.
  What we find now is that if the Speaker goes on television and leaves 
a crack in the armor, say an offer to come up with $700 billion or $800 
billion in new revenue, something that this President campaigned on, 
instead of having the President call the Speaker and say, Mr. Speaker, 
I think we're getting somewhere. Why don't you come over. We'll get 
together around the kitchen table and just talk about this. I think 
we're getting somewhere. Instead, the Speaker is blasted by the press 
shop at the White House within hours of his making a presentation on 
the Sunday morning talk shows. And people wonder why we can't solve 
these problems?
  There is a way to solve these problems. We know what to do to solve 
these problems.
  I compliment the gentlelady from Tennessee for her hard work to solve 
these problems, to illustrate for the American people that there's room 
for compromise in Washington. And I salute your efforts to reach out to 
everyone, to the American people, and across the aisle to make that 
happen.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back with my compliments.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the lady for yielding back, and I have to 
tell you, I loved her Alice in Wonderland example. Sometimes I feel 
like we should read the ``Emperor Has No Clothes'' because we're 
spending money we don't have, or maybe ``Goldilocks and the Three 
Bears'' because it's never quite right what seems to be presented.
  By the way, Mr. Speaker, I know our colleagues appreciate Mrs. Lummis 
and what she does; but when she talks about the Nation's Treasurer 
coming forward and having something that never comes into balance, she 
knows what she was talking about. She was a State treasurer in Wyoming 
before she came to Congress. She knows these issues. She knows how you 
balance a governmental budget. She's an expert in these issues.
  And to have a budget where you say you never plan for it to balance? 
Well, when my children were growing up and they were struggling and 
something was going to be too much of a heavy lift or too hard, I would 
say, if you fail to plan, then you plan to fail.
  For this great Nation, for the endurance of freedom, failure is not 
an option; and it is imperative that the fiscal house of this great 
Nation be put in order.
  Someone who knows how to do that so very well, who has done it as a 
wife, a mother, a State legislator and a small business owner is Mrs. 
Hartzler from Missouri, and I yield to you.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you. I sure appreciate your leadership on this 
issue and drawing attention to the very real crisis that we have in 
this country and the very real opportunity we have.
  You know, the real issue that is before us today is that it's time 
for Washington to stop spending money it doesn't have and the fact that 
Washington has a spending problem, not a taxing problem.
  The President's proposal is a nonstarter, and it's a red herring. It 
might sound good to some, but it doesn't solve the problem, and we are 
problem solvers and that's what we're here to do.
  Even if we gave the President what he wants and raised taxes on 
family business owners in America, it would only generate enough 
revenue to fund the government for 8 days. It would not make a dent in 
our yearly deficit or reduce our national debt.
  Only by creating jobs and reducing spending will we balance our 
budget, and the American people understand that.
  I would love to share with you a few comments that I received. I 
don't know about you and your office, but I've received hundreds of 
emails and phone calls from people at home who want to weigh in on this 
very important issue, and I love their commonsense advice. You know, 
the best knowledge and expertise on these issues is from the people. 
It's not from the bureaucrats here in Washington, D.C.
  Here's just a few of the comments that I've received this week from 
people back home. Mike in Sedalia says: The issue is not the raising of 
taxes, but good solid budget cuts.
  Curtis from Lebanon said: There are still a bunch of us out here that 
do not want a spend and tax government. New taxes mean new spending.
  And I thought that was a great comment, especially with the 
President's proposal that he brought forth the other day when he wanted 
more stimulus spending. So the cuts that he was proposing, just like 
Curtis said, were just going to be immediately funneled over to new 
wasteful stimulus spending. They would have nothing to do with reducing 
the debt or the deficit. I thought Curtis was right on.
  We have Lawrence from Pleasant Hill. He said: Good morning 
Representative Hartzler. I know we are being told we are at the edge of 
a fiscal cliff. We did not arrive there by not paying enough taxes. The 
Federal Government spends insane amounts of money, and even by reducing 
us all to serfs, the taxes will not cover the spending.
  Well said.
  Here's Jerri from Lamar. She said: Please stop spending our money. 
Walk away from the table if they are not willing to stop wasting our 
hard-earned money. Reform the entitlements and lower the taxes. Nothing 
else, in my opinion, is acceptable. Do not go back to the Clinton era. 
That administration led us into a recession. And do not raise the 
inheritance tax.
  And then listen to this. She said: I am from a family of farmers. 
That will kill our family and many others and make it impossible to 
keep farms that have been in our family for generations. That is the 
most unfair tax there is. This country will not survive more blows to 
small business and the middle class. Stop the insanity and stop it 
soon.
  And finally, from Patricia in Jefferson City, she said: I want to 
voice my opinion on what has happened in Washington right now. 
Politicians have put us in this mess with excessive spending. I want to 
see huge spending cuts out of the Federal spending before I see any 
taxes.
  Now, that's common sense. That's the voice of the American people.
  You know, Missouri is the Show Me State, and I believe it's time for 
Washington to show the hardworking taxpayers of my State and every 
State that they understand it's time for Washington to do what we do at 
home, and that's live within our means by cutting spending, tightening 
our belts, and not raising taxes on any American.

[[Page H6755]]

                              {time}  1910

  Washington would be better off focusing on job creation to raise 
revenue rather than taking more money from its citizens.
  So that's the common sense from Missouri I wanted to share tonight, 
gentlelady, and I sure appreciate your leadership on this issue.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentlelady. And I know that you're doing 
a telephone town hall with your constituents tonight. I know you'll 
probably hear some of the same things that you've said. I've heard from 
my constituents, too.
  I heard from one lady who is a small business owner, and she said, I 
wouldn't mind if my taxes went up and it helped pay down the debt; but 
she was astounded when she found out that the President wanted to spend 
this much, and more, and that her taxes would not go down. The money 
raised from the tax hike would be spent, plus another trillion dollars, 
and she was not going to see the debt paid down. She was very concerned 
about that.
  Well, coast-to-coast we're hearing the same thing. The gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tipton) is also on the phone with his constituents, and 
we appreciate that you're on the floor with us.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. TIPTON. I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for this time and 
for her leadership on this important issue for every American.
  I'm glad to hear my colleagues continue to talk about the real issue 
that we face in this country. We did not tax our way to a $16.3 
trillion debt in this Nation. The Federal Government spent its way into 
that debt. The responsibility that we need to have that comes from the 
Show-Me State of Missouri in terms of commonsense proposals is 
something that needs to be heard in Washington, D.C.
  This President has been focused on raising taxes. He is implying that 
Washington, D.C., needs the money more than our people at home. Well, 
if you come into my district, the Third Congressional District of 
Colorado, we go to Pueblo, and the real unemployment rate is now at 
better than 20 percent. My second largest community, Grand Junction, 
Colorado, the real unemployment level is at 19.5 percent.
  My folks aren't looking for an unemployment check. They're looking 
for a paycheck. They're looking for responsibility out of Washington. 
And when we are looking at this fiscal challenge that we face, this 
fiscal abyss, a fiscal black hole which is engulfing the economy of the 
United States, we need that responsibility out of Washington.
  But how are our dollars being spent? Are they being spent wisely or 
does Washington continue to waste the efforts and the hard-earned 
capital of the American people? Let me give you a few examples.
  We had $700,000 that came out of the pockets of hardworking Americans 
to be able to conduct a study on methane gas from dairy cows. Now, the 
gentlelady from Tennessee, you've got a few dairy operations in your 
State. I think we could have saved $700,000. It comes naturally. We 
need common sense when it comes to handling the American taxpayers' 
dollars.
  We had another $137,530 of American taxpayer dollars that was used to 
be able to create a video game called ``Layoff.'' That's what the 
policies of this administration have literally yielded. We are not 
growing the economy, putting people back to work.
  As we approach this Christmas season, we have families across the 
country right now that are hoping to be able to provide for their 
children. We can create that certainty by addressing an unwieldy 
regulatory process that's inhibiting our ability to be able to create 
jobs. And if Washington needs revenues--and we know that government 
needs revenue to carry out specific functions--let's get the American 
people back to work, those folks in Pueblo and Grand Junction, 
Colorado, who actually want to be able to have a job.
  But we need to be very concerned, once again, about where's that 
waste of the Federal dollars going. The gentlelady from Tennessee noted 
that $1.5 trillion of the debt of this country is owed to China. So 
what did the United States do? We sent 17.8 million American dollars 
for China to be able to study environmental programs and social 
programs in China. So effectively, what we did, we borrowed money from 
China to be able to send it back to China to be able to study problems 
there. Let's get Americans back to work.
  We took another $2.6 million to be able to train Chinese prostitutes 
not to drink too heavily. I think we have a better use for American 
dollars.
  Right now, America is facing a fiscal challenge, a fiscal abyss. The 
problem resides not with Americans being taxed too little but 
government spending too much. We have a caucus that's dedicated to 
getting Americans back to work, to bring fiscal sanity into the 
process, and to never, ever forget it is not Washington, D.C.'s money. 
It's the American people's money. Let's stand up for them first rather 
than for more and bigger government.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman. So well said--jobs, the 
economy, economic growth. We have to have economic growth. And 
continuing to raise tax rates, continuing to escalate spending doesn't 
do that. What we want to see is a healthy economy for our future 
because we know a healthy economy is going to give us jobs growth. Jobs 
are going to give us the economic growth and prosperity that is 
necessary for today, for tomorrow, for a healthy economy in this 
Nation.
  We know that a healthy economy is going to lead to continued economic 
freedom and, thereby, political freedom. We know that freedom leads to 
brighter futures for our children and our grandchildren, and that's 
what we want. We want these children to dream big dreams and to live in 
an America where they can come true.
  Someone who shares the passion on this issue is Steve Scalise, a 
Congressman from Louisiana, who has recently been elected as chairman 
of the Republican Study Committee for the next Congress.
  I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for her 
leadership and for hosting not only this hour, but for being so 
passionate about the need to control spending and to get our economy 
back on track. I know she was on one of the Sunday talk shows just this 
weekend talking about this issue and talking about conservative 
solutions to avert this so-called fiscal cliff. And if you look at how 
we got here and what American families are facing starting January 1, 
if nothing gets resolved out of Washington, it's an abyss that doesn't 
need to happen.
  If you just go back and look at some of the promises made by 
President Obama when he was running for office, when he was running for 
reelection, he talked about working across the aisle. He talked about 
bipartisan solutions. He talked about it a lot, and the American people 
expected that the President would keep that promise. But before the ink 
was even dry, before some of the States had even confirmed and 
finalized their vote totals for this last election, the President comes 
out with a hyperpartisan solution. That's his approach.
  First of all, when the President comes out with his plan to raise 
taxes on some and to not renew others and to threaten, literally, 
middle class families with a tax increase if some people don't get 
their taxes raised--there already was a bipartisan solution to avert 
this cliff.
  Just a few months ago, here in this House, we passed a bill with 19 
Democrat votes--a strong bipartisan vote--to make sure nobody sees 
their taxes go up, completely avoiding this coming crisis. We passed 
that bill and sent it over to Senate. Of course, the Senate has refused 
to take any action on it because President Obama, and his Treasury 
Secretary I think has confirmed this, they're eager to go off the 
cliff. They think they'll get political points by doing this. This is a 
political calculation by them to try to blame the other party, and 
let's have this crisis and then go and push more taxes on the American 
people.
  I think if you look at what the message of this campaign was--there 
were a lot of messages. One was people wanted us to work together on 
bipartisan solutions. And we've got those bipartisan solutions to avert 
this crisis but also to avert so many of the other crises facing our 
Nation.
  But another thing they said--and probably the loudest thing people 
said--is they wanted us to focus on the

[[Page H6756]]

economy and creating jobs. That's the biggest concern for most families 
across this country. People I talk to in southeast Louisiana, they're 
concerned about a sluggish economy, and, in many cases, it's some of 
the policies coming out of Washington that are creating all of these 
problems.

                              {time}  1920

  If you want to say, will tax increases solve any of these problems, 
first of all, let's go back and look at history. We've gone and combed 
through and there has never been a time in modern history where raising 
taxes got you to a balanced budget. Never. It's never happened. The 
last time that a Republican House has balanced a Federal budget was 
back in the year 2000. Not that long ago. It seems like a long time 
ago. Washington has balanced its budget. We were living within our 
means back then, and we weren't doing it through tax increases. It was 
done through controlled spending.
  The last time a Democrat House has balanced a Federal budget was 
1969. So maybe there aren't many people around here on the Democrat 
side that know how to balance a budget. But you don't do it by raising 
taxes. In fact, John F. Kennedy when he pushed through his economic 
plan that got growth going in the mid-1960s, it was through tax cuts. 
Go back and look at the quotes. Some of the best quotes against growth 
in government, against tax increases were made by John F. Kennedy when 
he pushed for a tax cut that ultimately was passed by President 
Johnson.
  So where do you get economic growth? Go back and look at those years. 
In the 1960s when they cut taxes, there was tremendous economic growth. 
A lot of jobs were created. In the 1980s when Ronald Reagan cut taxes, 
there was tremendous economic growth, one of the greatest times in 
history. Ultimately, if you look at the deficits in those periods, it 
came because you had a Congress that didn't control spending even with 
more money.
  And then you look at the Bush tax cuts, because that's what we're 
talking about here today: the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax 
rates. When those tax cuts were put in place in 2003, after that 
happened, within 3 years of tax cuts, the Federal Government took in 40 
percent more money. Now, you wouldn't believe that if you listen to 
some of the mainstream media. You would think that cutting taxes takes 
money away from government and you need to raise taxes to bring in 
revenue. The opposite is true when you look at history. Forget about 
what politicians in Washington tell you who want to take more of your 
money to go and spend it on Big Government. When they cut taxes in 
2003, within 3 years the Federal Government took in 40 percent more 
money.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. If the gentleman would yield, I think that is such an 
important point to make, that when you raise the rates, which is a 
regressive action as you look at tax policy, what you do is to drive 
down the revenues. If what the President says, Mr. Speaker, is that he 
wants more revenue, the way to get to more revenue is to clean up the 
Code, to actually lower your tax rates and to generate more economic 
activity and growth so that we can begin to grow and reshape our way 
out of this. You're never going to tax your way out of it. You can't 
spend your way out of it.
  I want to invite the gentlelady from New York into this because she 
is a physician. She knows, with all the ObamaCare taxes, that you're 
not going to be able to deliver health care with escalating the taxes 
that are on the books pertaining to ObamaCare.
  I yield to the gentlelady.
  Ms. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for leading this 
session and our chairman of the RSC. Indeed, it's true: as of January 
1, 2013, in fact, Congresswoman, there will be five new burdens, new 
tax burdens, on the American people related to the enormous cost of the 
Federal takeover of our health insurance and in certain respects of our 
health care.
  For one thing--and this is really, really a sad thing--right now, 
families with special needs children can use pretax dollars. They can 
protect those dollars to spend them on care and even education for 
their special needs children in flexible savings accounts. As of 
January 1, 2013, one of the new tax burdens on those families and on 
every family that relies on a flexible savings account will be that 
they will be limited to $2,500 per year. That's it.
  Now, tuition at some of the schools for our special needs children 
run to many thousands of dollars a year, $10,000 or more. It used to be 
that families could use those dollars for their special needs children. 
Now they won't be able to. Does that seem fair? It certainly doesn't to 
me.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. You said there are five taxes that go on January 1. 
If our colleagues want to look at this list of taxes, are they listed 
on your Web site?
  Ms. HAYWORTH. We will post a link, because I'm not sure they are 
right, but we will post a link. Dividend taxes are going to go up on 
our seniors, on our fixed income families, on our savers. That's 
another burden, the new taxes that are going to be related to health 
care, and there are three others other than the flexible savings.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. As the gentlelady yields back, to the gentleman from 
Louisiana, I would think that the Republican Study Committee has this 
linked on their Web site so people can see the taxes that are already 
going to go up on them because of ObamaCare. We reiterate that what we 
want to do is lower the spending and get the fiscal house in order.
  I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee again for yielding 
and the gentlelady from New York for pointing those important facts 
out, because if you look at an important point that was just brought 
up, under ObamaCare, there were more than 20 different tax increases in 
ObamaCare, many of which, by the way, hit the middle class. Sure, in 
ObamaCare the President went after those rich people that he despises 
so much. He's happy to take their campaign cash during elections, but 
he went after them in ObamaCare with tax increases. But he also went 
after middle class families. This medical device tax that hits January 
1 hits every single American that has medical procedures.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. To the gentleman from Louisiana, I hate to interrupt, 
but the Speaker is telling me that our time has expired. We have so 
much to cover. We were joined by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
DesJarlais) who's been on the phone. I regret that we are out of time. 
He has been doing a telephone town hall.
  We have solutions. The fiscal house has to be brought into order. I 
thank my colleagues for joining me on the floor tonight to help make 
the point to the American people. We are going to stay with this fight 
and solve the problem. Our children and grandchildren deserve it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________