[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 38 (Friday, March 15, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H1537-H1542]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BUDGET
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cramer). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank you, and I thank the majority
leader for allowing me to utilize the time today.
Mr. Speaker, a lot of folks, as votes have finished for the day, have
headed for their flights back home. A lot of folks are back in their
offices trying to finish up work for the week. I appreciate your being
here because what we've heard, when we haven't been debating the SKILLS
Act--that fantastic bill that consolidates so many important job
training programs from the multiple, duplicative programs that we have
today down into a few, effective, targeted programs--when we haven't
been talking about that important work today, folks have been taking
shots at the budget process.
I'm a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker. And, in fact, I'm
the chairman of the Budget Subcommittee on the Rules Committee,
Legislative and Budget Process, and I believe what we do here with the
budget is so important. I know my colleagues who will be debating this
next week share that same view.
I brought with me, Mr. Speaker, a copy of ``Path to Prosperity: A
Responsible, Balanced Budget.''
{time} 1330
This is the budget that we produced in the Budget Committee. We went
from about 10 a.m. on Wednesday through almost midnight. We took every
amendment that folks had to offer. We took a vote on every topic that
folks wanted to consider, and we produced a responsible budget that
deals with the fact that spending is the problem.
I heard my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, over and over again today on the
other side of the aisle talk in terms of heartlessness, of callousness,
talking in terms of the production of this budget in a way that does
not reflect American values. I tell you, that's just patently false,
which is why I had to come down and speak to it this afternoon, Mr.
Speaker.
What I have here is a chart that shows taxes. This begins in 2006; it
runs out to 2041. It shows taxes as a percent of the size of the
economy. You know, population grows, inflation devalues our currency.
Quantitative easing devalues our currency. That's a different topic for
a different day.
But we measure that in terms of size of the economy what our burden
of taxation is, and, historically, that burden of taxation has been
about 18.1 percent. We had a dip in the recession back in 2009, 2010
that took that level of taxation down below historical norms.
And so when we talk about that here on the floor of the House, we,
together--Republicans, Democrats, moderates, liberals, conservatives--
everyone agrees we need revenue at historical levels to fund the
historical obligations of the government.
[[Page H1538]]
But here's the thing, Mr. Speaker. You look out from--here we are in
2013, on out across the horizon as far as the eye can see, you see a
level of funding of our tax burdens. You then, here, in this blue line,
see a graphical representation of every single tax increase that the
President proposed. I mean, hear that, because so often on the floor of
the House, Mr. Speaker, we talk about spending reductions on one side
of the aisle and tax increases on the other side of the aisle. This
blue line represents every single tax increase proposed by the
President of the United States.
So we have all the taxes we have today. We have all the taxes in the
blue line proposed by the President. And then in the red line, we have
a reflection of the promises that this Congress has made to the
American people and future generations in terms of spending.
Now, again, Mr. Speaker, green represents historical taxes; blue
represents all the taxes imagined by the President of the United
States; and the rest represents the spending that is flooding the town
of Washington, D.C.
Spending is the problem, Mr. Speaker. If we took everything from
everybody, if you and I got together with our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle and we decided we needed a 100 percent tax on
everything that everyone in America has or will have and we took it
all, we still couldn't fund this red line.
There's no level of taxation--this is 40 percent of the economy we're
talking about here, Mr. Speaker. There's no level of taxation that we
could have that could pay for the spending promises we've already made,
and there are some on the floor of this House who want to make new
promises tomorrow and the next day and the day after that.
It's not a function of where our priorities are. In terms of taking
care of one another as Americans, we share that priority. It is a
function of whether or not we can afford to do it all from Washington,
D.C., and we can't.
Spending is the problem, Mr. Speaker. This is hash tag spending is
the problem. You'll see that trending on Twitter as folks come to the
realization that we can't tax our way out of this circumstance.
So what do we do in the Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker? What did we do
for 12 hours on Wednesday and, in fact, months and months and months of
preparation?
Well, this is one of my favorite charts, Mr. Speaker. It's a chart
that tracks the deficits. Sometimes we get confused as we're talking
about it, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the deficit is what you're adding to
your credit card each year. The debt is what that total balance on the
credit card is. This is a reflection of what we're adding to the credit
card each year. And what you see, Mr. Speaker, is a dramatic reduction
in those deficits in 2013, 2014, and 2015, and let me tell you why.
You're part of this new freshman class, Mr. Speaker. I'm part of the
freshman class that came in just 2 years ago. And we have a natural
suspicion of all of these wonderful plans in Washington, that they're
laid out over a 10-year timeframe. And we say, Oh, goodness. Out there
in years 8, 9, and 10, we're going to do all these wonderful and
difficult things. But today, in years 1, 2, and 3, what we really need
to do is raise your taxes to get there.
If I make a promise to you about what I'm going to do in year 10, you
need to be suspicious. You need to ask me what I'm going to do between
now and the next election, between now and your next opportunity to
vote me out of office, if I'm making the wrong decisions.
And what you see reflected here in this red line, which represents
current law, Mr. Speaker, you see the path that current law has our
deficits on. Folks say, Golly, Rob, that looks kind of good. We're
headed straight down. Looks like Congress is doing a lot of good work.
Well, yes and no. We are headed down. We're headed down from record
deficits begun in the Obama administration, record deficits, deficits
four times higher than the worst deficit ever experienced in the Bush
administration. The Bush administration was the former record holder
for the most deficit spending in this country. President Obama dwarfed
that annual budget four times higher.
So I came in this freshman class, Mr. Speaker, this freshman class of
almost 100 folks on both sides of the aisle who decided to run for
Congress because they wanted to solve problems. They didn't want to
talk about who to blame for the problems. They wanted to talk about how
they could solve the problems. And we got together, over the last 2
years, and we turned the corner on those rising deficits, began to
bring deficits back down.
But when these tools that we've been able to put in place, Mr.
Speaker, expire, those deficits start heading right back up under
current law. What can we do about it?
We can change the way we do business in Washington, D.C., which is
what we did in the budget that we've passed out of the Budget
Committee, the budget that's going to be on the floor of the House next
week. And as you see represented by this green line, Mr. Speaker, we go
from the record-setting deficits of 2010 and 2011 down to a budget that
balances for the first time since the Clinton administration. First
time since Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, Republicans and Democrats,
came together on the floor of this House to balance budgets; the first
time in about 15 years we're doing that, Mr. Speaker. And we're not
doing it out in year 10.
This budget, Mr. Speaker, that I'm so proud of that I've had just a
small part in helping to craft, it begins the tough decisions today,
because we don't need to make promises about how we're going to fix
things 10 years from now. We have certainty about how difficult things
will be 10 years from now. We need to fix those things today. Every day
we put it off it gets harder.
But we're having a tough time finding agreement, Mr. Speaker. And I
don't mean agreement on how to reduce the deficit. I don't mean an
agreement on how to eliminate the debt. I mean an agreement on whether
or not the debt, in fact, needs to be eliminated.
Now, at the end of this presentation, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to get
to why this is important. This is not a mathematical exercise. This is
not a green eyeshade exercise. This is an exercise that impacts the
quality of life of every single family in America. Every child growing
up in America today is going to have their opportunities curtailed by
the debt that their parents and grandparents are leaving to them if we
fail to act today, a debt that is growing faster and faster and faster.
This isn't about numbers. This is about real lives and real
opportunities. But I want to talk about the numbers before we get to
the real lives and the real opportunities, because I want you to
understand the magnitude of the challenge.
This is World War II, Mr. Speaker. This is a chart that reflects the
debt, the debt held by the public. In World War II, when we were
fighting for freedom around the globe, when, literally, the future of
the world hung in the balance, we borrowed an amount of money
theretofore unheard of in America, almost, well, just over, in fact,
100 percent of the size of the economy America borrowed to win freedom
around the globe. We began to pay that back, of course. And over the
years, that debt became lower and lower and lower and lower and lower
and lower.
Well, here you see the spike in modern times, Mr. Speaker, that spike
in the end of the Bush years, the beginning of the Obama years, running
on until today; and you see the red line that projects the current path
of debt, again, if we do nothing.
Folks often tell me back home, Mr. Speaker, they say, Congressman,
why don't you just go shut the government down and save some money?
Well, I have some bad news. If we closed the Congress today, if we
locked the doors to the White House this afternoon, if the Congress and
the President never passed another law, never made another promise,
this red line represents the promises we've already made.
{time} 1340
This red line isn't what happens if we act poorly. This red line is
what happens if we fail to act at all. It takes affirmative action in
order to bring that debt crisis down.
Look at the green space, Mr. Speaker. That's the path to prosperity.
Remember, this chart represents debt.
[[Page H1539]]
Debt. Not the deficit when you try to bring a budget to balance, but
the debt that we're trying to pay back when you bring a budget to
balance, when you create a surplus and use that surplus to pay back the
folks from whom you've borrowed.
The Path to Prosperity, this budget, Mr. Speaker, that we've crafted
in the Budget Committee that I hope this House will pass next week,
puts America on track not just to eliminate annual deficits, not just
to end the increase of our $16.7 trillion in Federal debt, but to begin
to pay that debt down so that we owe the world zero. Zero. Balancing
the budget is not an exercise in and of itself. Balancing the budget is
what has to happen first so that you can pay back the folks from whom
you've borrowed. We take debt down to zero.
This is what the President said on Sunday morning television, ABC's
George Stephanopoulos, March 13 of this year:
We don't have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. In fact, for the
next 10 years, it's going to be in a sustainable place.
Here it is, Mr. Speaker. That red line you see rocketing towards the
top of the page, it doesn't actually end up here at the top of the
page; I just ran out of ink, Mr. Speaker. That red line continues
straight up off the chart in perpetuity. This is what the President
calls ``a sustainable place.''
But this is what's even more important. And every mom and dad in
America knows this. When you're planning for your children's future,
you don't begin with what you want for them today. You begin with what
you want for them 10 years from now and you begin to plan and work and
save and scrimp so that it will be a reality 10 years from today. And
not just 10, but 20 and 30. To achieve the goals we want in the future,
we have to begin today.
And, Mr. Speaker, when I quote the President back home, folks often
think I'm mean-spirited. They say, Rob, why do you say those awful
things about the President? I say, I'm not saying awful things about
the President. I think the President is a good man. He's got some awful
ideas, but he's a good man. And I'm just telling you what his ideas
are. And if he were here, he'd tell you the very same thing. I don't
need to engage in hyperbole on the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker,
because the President believes that we don't have a debt crisis. The
President believes that it's all right if the debt continues to go
higher and higher and higher forever. Forever. That's not hyperbole. He
would tell you that if he was standing here today.
In fact, we can look at every budget the President has ever
submitted. Now he hasn't submitted a budget this year. He's going to go
down in the record books as the President who has introduced his budget
the longest past the legally required deadline in the history of
Presidents presenting budgets. That's not a title that folks aspire to,
but that's where we're going to be today.
He has never introduced a budget that balances. But more importantly,
he's never introduced a budget that stops raising the debt. Not only
does the President not pay back a penny of debt in any budget he's ever
introduced--and I just don't mean a 1-year window, a 5-year window, and
a 10-year window; I mean in a 75-year window. He increases that debt
more and more each year. And he believes--again, I'm not trying to say
anything that he wouldn't tell you himself, Mr. Speaker--he believes
that what our goal should be as America is not to actually pay the debt
back, as we try to do in our budget, taking that green line down to
zero, but what our goal should be is just to slow the rise of the debt
below the rate of growth of our economy.
What does that mean? In practical terms, it means if you have a
credit card, your goal should not be to pay your credit card back. In
fact, your goal shouldn't even be just to pay the interest on your
credit card. What your goal should be is to make sure that as that
balance on your credit card continues to rise, it rises slower than
whatever your income is rising to be. If your credit card balances go
on in perpetuity and get higher and higher, it's as if your goal as a
family is to keep that rise from going any faster than your paycheck is
rising.
It's a crazy philosophy, Mr. Speaker. Absolutely no family in America
shares that philosophy. That's what the President said on George
Stephanopoulos, that's what he believes today, that's what he told the
Republican Conference when we met together this week.
So let's talk about what those alternative ideas are. The President's
plan is not to balance, our plan is to balance. Again, when the
President says a balanced approach, that means he wants tax increases
and spending reductions. That's the definition of a balanced approach.
But it's an approach that never balances.
Our friends in the Senate have not passed a budget for 4 years. But
it looks like they're at least trying this year. And I applaud them for
that. This is an editorial from The Wall Street Journal this morning,
Mr. Speaker, that talks about that outline of the Senate budget that
was shared with America yesterday. The Wall Street Journal says this:
The bill manages the unique achievement of offering no net
non-defense spending cuts and no entitlement reform worth the
name while proposing to raise $1.5 trillion in new tax
revenue in such a way that would ruin the prospects for
bipartisan reform.
Spending, Mr. Speaker. Spending is the problem. The problem we have
is spending. And what The Wall Street Journal observes is that the
budget that's being proposed over in the United States Senate--and,
again, I applaud them for at least beginning that process. The law
requires them to do it every single year. They haven't done it for 4. I
hope they'll do it this year. We passed the No Budget, No Pay Act. So
at least if they don't do it, they won't get a paycheck for that
dereliction of duty. But this is what they have proposed: a bill with
no net spending cuts, no entitlement reform, and tax increases of $1
trillion, so says The Wall Street Journal:
Democrats admit to raising taxes by $975 billion over 10
years by increasing the fairness and efficiency of the Tax
Code. Ms. Murray provides few details. The real tax increase
is closer to $1.5 trillion because the budget omits about
$480 billion in more unspecified taxes to replace
sequestration and $100 billion to offset the cost of the new
stimulus.
New stimulus.
Spending, Mr. Speaker, is the problem. The House budget puts us on a
track not just to a balanced budget within 10 years, but paying back
every penny of debt that we've borrowed from Americans and the world.
And the Senate budget has yet to pass committee--it remains to be seen
if they can pass it in the Senate--but the proposal is to increase
spending and increase taxes.
We're not up here bickering about how to name a post office, Mr.
Speaker, or whether or not we ought to meet on Tuesdays or Thursdays or
Fridays. We're up here arguing about whether the future of the
Republic, whether opportunity for our children and grandchildren, lies
in a future where you have paid back all of your debts or lies in a
future where you allow those debts to rise forever. That is a
legitimate discussion. Only in Washington--there's not a kitchen table
around the country where that would be the discussion that we'd have.
I read from The Wall Street Journal, and I know there might be some
folks back home, Mr. Speaker, who say, Rob, that Wall Street Journal,
that's a conservative publication. No wonder they don't like what the
Senate is doing. What do the liberal publications think? Well, it just
so happens, Mr. Speaker, since you and I are in Washington today, I had
a copy of The Washington Post in my office. They're no fan of
conservatives. That's certainly no conservative rag.
This is what the official editorial from The Washington Post said
this morning about the Senate budget:
Partisan in tone and complacent in substance, it scores
points against Republicans and reassures the party's liberal
base--but deepens the Senators' commitment to an
unsustainable policy agenda.
They go on. The Washington Post says:
It is on the issue of entitlements that the Democrats'
document really disappoints. There is literally nothing--not
a word--suggested of trimming Social Security, whether
through greater means-testing, a more realistic inflation
adjustment, or reforming disability benefits. The document's
fuzzy call for $275 billion in ``health savings'' is $125
[[Page H1540]]
billion less than the number President Obama has floated.
{time} 1350
There's plenty of excoriation of the GOP ``premium
support'' plan. But there's no explanation of how the
Democrats would pay for their ``promise''--nary a hint of the
many cost-saving reforms that would extend Medicare's life
without embracing the GOP plan.
Washington Post.
It scores points, but it deepens an unsustainable policy agenda.
There is literally not a word suggested of reforming entitlements. It's
less ambitious than even President Obama's agenda. It excoriates the
GOP's plan, but provides no explanation of a Democrat alternative.
And it closes with this, Mr. Speaker:
In short, this document gives voters no reason to believe
that Democrats have a viable plan for--or even a responsible
public assessment of--the country's long-term fiscal
predicament.
That's The Washington Post talking about the Democrat plan in the
United States Senate. ``In short, this document''--and to be clear, Mr.
Speaker, the first budget to be produced by the Senate in 4 years; it
remains to be seen if they can actually produce it, but at least
they're suggesting they're going to produce one. The Washington Post
assessment of that plan is that ``this document gives voters no reason
to believe that Democrats have a viable plan for--or even a responsible
public assessment of--the country's long-term fiscal predicament.''
Mr. Speaker, that's what we're talking about here. This isn't a bunch
of children bickering about who gets to take home the ball. We're
talking about whether or not opportunity will exist a decade, two
decades, three decades from now. There's not a family in America that
believes they can borrow in perpetuity without consequences. There are
terrible, terrible consequences.
Lest you think--and I'll be the first to say, Mr. Speaker, I have
been suspicious of newspaper editorials. I don't believe the media
always gets it right, so I brought a quote from actually the hearing
that was going on yesterday.
Senator Mike Crapo is over on the Senate side. He was questioning the
Democratic staffers who put together the budget. I know, serving on the
Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker, what happens is budgets are very
technical documents. When you craft one, they take all the committee
counsel and they put them at a table in front of all of the Members,
and all the Members get to ask the staffers who helped to prepare all
the complicated numbers about the details of the document. So it's a
give and take with the folks who actually prepare the document.
This is what Senator Crapo asked:
``In terms of overall deficit reduction that is to be achieved,
whether through taxes or spending reductions that are claimed in the
budget, what percentage of those are achieved in year one?''
This is what he says. He says, I'm not asking whether you're raising
taxes or you're cutting spending. What I'm asking is what are you doing
in year one to begin immediately to put this country on the path to
paying its debts?
The committee staffer says, ``There are spending savings in year one,
but in total, it's about no in the first year.''
``It's about what?'' Senator Crapo asks. The staffer says, ``It's
zero in the first year in total because there are spending savings and
spending costs.''
You're thinking that sounds like Washington double-speak, Mr.
Speaker. Well, Senator Crapo thought so too. He says: ``So I didn't
understand you. It's zero in the first year?''
The staffer says: ``Yes, sir. On net, sir.''
Senator Crapo says: ``That confirms my worry.''
Understand, here's a budget that is increasing taxes by $1.8
trillion, and changes our deficit for next year by nothing. It does not
put us one dollar closer to a balanced budget. It does not put us one
dollar closer to stemming the rise in debt. Taxes going up in this
budget by $1.8 trillion, and they want to spend it all as it's coming
in, such that they change nothing about our fiscal condition in year
one.
It's one of those back-loaded budgets, Mr. Speaker, we hear so much
about. It was Wimpy, I think, in the Popeye cartoon who said, I would
gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today. That's what we have
going on right here--I'll gladly make the tough decisions 10 years from
now if only you'll let me keep spending today. Mr. Speaker, it is that
mentality that got us here. You can't measure budgets by what they do
10 years from now; you have to measure by what they do today.
I'm not alone saying this. This is President Obama, President Obama
in 2008. He said adding $4 trillion to the national debt was
irresponsible and unpatriotic. I want to read you the whole quote, Mr.
Speaker. He said:
The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the
last 8 years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of
China in the name of our children, driving up our national
debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42
presidents--number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his
lonesome--it was $5 trillion for all Presidents combined
up until President Bush. President Bush added $4 trillion
over his 8 years as President.
President Obama goes on:
So that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that
we are going to have to pay back--$30,000 for every man,
woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.
President Obama rightly noting that during 8 years of the Bush
administration our Federal debt rose from $5 trillion to $9 trillion.
Through the first 4 years of the Obama administration, it rose from
$10.6 to $16.6; $6 trillion in 4 years. President Bush, $4 trillion in
8 years, President Obama calls it irresponsible and unpatriotic. The
President is running up debts twice as fast, and since he has been in
office has produced not one budget plan that would stop that rise.
In case you couldn't follow it, Mr. Speaker--I blew it up in red
because I didn't want it to be missed at all--the national debt under
President Obama has risen $6.1 trillion, from 10.6 when he was sworn
into office in January of 2009 to 16.7 today; a 57 percent increase. It
was irresponsible and unpatriotic, the President said, to increase the
deficit $4 trillion over 8 years; $6.1 trillion for the President over
4.
I say this, Mr. Speaker, because we're not supposed to be arguing
about this. I mean, it's so frustrating. You're here in your freshman
year; I'm here just 2 years into the job. We didn't come here to find
out who to blame; we came here to make a difference. Tell me what that
is. Tell me what on the mandatory side of the ledger folks want to
begin to reduce, Mr. Speaker, what they want to reform, what they want
to do to guarantee that Medicare and Social Security survive for
another generation. I will partner with them to do it. Not one budget
that has saved not one dollar in 5 years of this White House, not even
a budget plan from the Senate in the last 4.
I don't want to tell the American people who to blame, Mr. Speaker. I
want to tell the American people who got together and worked with one
another to solve the problem. But what the President knew was a
problem--a problem he called irresponsible and unpatriotic while he was
running for President--he seems to have forgotten all about after
getting elected President.
Here he is in 2009, Mr. Speaker. In 2009, the President believed that
a failure to control the deficit would make it harder for the economy
to grow. How often have we been on the floor of the House talking about
jobs, Mr. Speaker? This is the part that really gets me excited--and I
don't mean excited because I'm happy about it, Mr. Speaker; I'm getting
excited because I'm energized about it. This is not a green eyeshade
exercise. We want to pass a budget so that we can pass on a more
prosperous America to our children and our grandchildren. The President
knew that. He said this--newspaper article, Bloomberg, February 2009:
``President Obama wants to reduce the deficit because he's
concerned that over time Federal borrowing will make it
harder for the U.S. economy to grow and create jobs,'' said
the official, ``speaking on the condition of anonymity.''
{time} 1400
Now, you shouldn't have to be anonymous about the fact that you
believe a growing debt is going to curtail job opportunity in the
future. Of course it is. We all know that to be true. Every economist
in this town knows that to be true. The President, before he was
President, and the President, right after he became President, knew
that failing to act on this would put the America that we all know in
peril and would put the opportunities that we have all had out of reach
for our children and our grandchildren.
[[Page H1541]]
If you don't believe it, Mr. Speaker, go to the Department of Labor--
not conservative Republican Rob Woodall's Department of Labor, not the
U.S. House's Department of Labor, but President Obama's Department of
Labor. They said this. They keep a record of entrepreneurial activity
in this country. I love that, Mr. Speaker. That's who we are. At our
core, we're not big corporations; we're individual mom-and-pop
operations who go out and risk it all because they have a good idea
that they think through the sweat of their brow and their hard work,
they'll be able to succeed. The Department of Labor keeps statistics on
that.
Sure, we're an entrepreneurial country. The Department of Labor is
tracking entrepreneurs. As the President was implementing his spending
agenda, that agenda I said that took us from the record high deficits
of the Bush administration to deficits three times higher in the Obama
administration, the Department of Labor told us this: the number of new
establishments--that's the new entrepreneurial activity--for the year
ending in March 2010 was lower than any other year since the series
began, since they began keeping records, Mr. Speaker.
In 2010, under this administration's stimulus policies,
entrepreneurial activity was at the lowest level in America since we
began keeping records. I don't mean at the lowest level of people
succeeding. I mean at the lowest level of people trying--the lowest
level of people trying, Mr. Speaker. What does it mean about us? What
does it mean about our future when we have beaten the enthusiasm to try
out of our people, frightened it out of our people?
Mr. Speaker, that's not just a Department of Labor report. We talk a
lot about that. What is it that the guys down at the agencies are
producing, those technical reports? I'll tell you what they're
producing. I'll tell you the impact it's had. The Federal Register, Mr.
Speaker, I don't know if you've picked up a copy since you've been
here. The Federal Register measures all the new regulations coming out
of Washington. In fact, they have to publish them there.
In 2012, last year, you and I--well, you weren't here yet, Mr.
Speaker, I've been here for 2 years--we were not passing a new
regulatory agenda. Those department agencies, they were not
implementing a new congressional regulatory agenda. They were
implementing the old one. They hadn't gotten the old one out yet, and
last year, $33 billion, 34, really, 33.9, $33 billion is what those own
agencies estimated the cost of complying with their new government
regulations would be. Those agencies, those agencies that put out their
regulations are required by law to explain to the American people
whether it's worth it or not. And so they have to certify how many
hours it's going to take the American people to comply with all of
their new regulations.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, 81 million hours, 81 million hours just last
year were added to the Federal regulatory code book in new work for men
and women across this country. Why is that entrepreneurial activity
low? Well, the Federal Government is borrowing all the money to spend
here; there's no prospect for tax relief on the horizon. In fact, taxes
keep going up. There's a brand-new health care bill in place that folks
don't understand. They're frightened it's going to destroy their health
care system, not to mention to add to their costs of their business,
and the Federal Government last year in the midst of this terrible
recession, in the midst of this difficult economy, added $33.9 billion
in additional costs through regulatory activity that's going to take 81
million hours to complete.
Now, let's just do some back-of-the-envelope math, Mr. Speaker: 81
million hours, let's say the average work year is 40 hours a week. If
you work 50 weeks a year, that's 2,000 hours--2,000 hours. That's
40,000 people who will spend every working hour of every working day
all year long just to meet the new Federal regulatory burden.
Mr. Speaker, I don't wonder why it is that entrepreneurial activity
is the lowest it's been since we began keeping records. The wonder is
that folks are still trying at all. I had someone say that to me, Mr.
Speaker. I was visiting with a group of honor students in Forsyth
County there in the north metro Atlanta area, and we were talking about
what do you want to do when you grow up. We were talking about America
as a land of opportunity where you can do anything that you want to do,
where it's our birthright to be filled with opportunities that our
parents never dreamed of having. A young woman on the front row raised
her hand. She said, Congressman, you're talking so much about going out
and hanging out your own shingle and being an entrepreneur. She said,
It looks really, really hard. She said, Why would anybody even try
today?
One of the best high schools in my district, an award-winning high
school, honor students in that school, asking the question, In America
why is it even worth trying today? You're making it so hard. Those
aren't just the words of a naive 18-year-old. Those are the words of
some of the most successful entrepreneurs in America today.
Up here in orange, Mr. Speaker, it's not quite Home Depot orange, but
it's orange. Home Depot is one of those great companies that was
founded down in my part of the world. It's grown across the country.
It's just a tremendous success story. We're so proud. They're a great
corporate citizen. They give back to us so much in the community. Ken
Langone, one of the four founders of Home Depot, wrote an open letter
to the President in The Wall Street Journal. Again, one of the captains
of industry, one of the most successful companies in America, this is
what the founder of that company wrote in an open letter to President
Obama:
If we tried to start Home Depot today under the kinds of
onerous regulatory controls that you have advocated, it's a
stone cold certainty that our business would never get off
the ground much less thrive.
These budget exercises are not about numbers. They're about families
and opportunities. And when the captains of industry in America, those
folks who risked it all with their ideas and every hour of their day
for years of their life to try to get something to grow their idea from
a concept into an actual business, into an international enterprise,
those folks, the most successful among us, say if they were trying to
do it today in the America that Washington, D.C., has created today,
they would fail.
Folks, this isn't about dollars and cents in a Federal budget. This
is about dollars that are going to regulatory agencies that are
crushing dreams and opportunities. This is about the failure of
government to weigh benefits and burdens, to do those things that don't
encourage opportunity but restrict it. And these are not the words of
folks who are here trying to pursue a partisan agenda. It's the words
of folks who put families to work and put food on the table.
It is not just Ken Langone. We heard it from the founder of Subway.
Just this month, late last month, in fact, February, being interviewed
on TV, Fred DeLuca said this--again, you see a Subway on every corner
in America. The $5 Foot Long happens to be one of my favorites. It's a
bargain in this town, and the $3 Six Inch, but the founder of Subway
said this just last month:
If I started Subway today, Subway would not exist.
If I started Subway today, one of the most successful restaurants
chains in all the land, Subway would not exist.
He didn't say that because he thinks Americans are unwilling to work
today. Americans work harder than any other people anywhere on the
planet. He didn't say that because we, as a people, are unwilling to
take risks today. There is no more entrepreneurial culture on this
planet than the American people. He said it because Washington,
government, has structured a landscape in which opportunity cannot
thrive--tax burdens, health care burdens, regulatory burdens, labor
burdens, on and on and on.
{time} 1410
Folks, there is nothing special about America that exists in our
landscape. What is special about America is the idea of who we are,
that we could break ties with the motherland such that we could come
here and try it our way so that we could take the risk that maybe we
succeed and maybe we fail, but the chance to succeed is such a great
motivator, hope is such a great motivator, that family after family
[[Page H1542]]
after family for over 200 years has risked it all to come here and
risked it all to make sure their kids have more opportunities tomorrow
than those parents have today.
Our captains of industry, our entrepreneurs are telling us that
government regulations, government overspending, government borrowing,
rising debt is crushing that dream for the next generation of America.
That's not news. President Obama knew it when he was running for
election and he knew it after he got elected. We just need a willing
partner to work with us today to solve that problem.
I'll go back to Home Depot again. It's just a fantastic Atlanta
company that has grown around the world. Bernie Marcus, a tremendous
philanthropist in Atlanta, gives of his time and his resources to every
worthy cause in town to try to make sure his neighbors are taken care
of. He believes to whom much is given, much is expected. He lives up to
that model every day. He says this:
Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell
you that today the impediments that the government imposes
are impossible to deal with.
Bernie Marcus, a huge philanthropist, a wildly successful
entrepreneur, looks out at the landscape today and says the impediments
put forward by government are impossible to deal with. He goes on to
say:
Home Depot would never have succeeded if we tried to start
it today. Every day rules and regulations from a group of
Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a
business--and I mean every day--is becoming stifling.
Let's go back to that chart, Mr. Speaker. This is what Bernie Marcus
is talking about, regulations coming out every day.
The Federal Register is published every day. You can pick it up at
your local Federal depository library. Sometimes it's this thick and
sometimes it's this thick. And for the last year, and last year alone,
this government, the Federal Government--not the State governments, not
the local governments--the Federal Government, and the Federal
Government alone, imposed $33.9 billion in new requirements on
Americans, requirements that, by the government's own estimation, are
going to take 81 million hours to fill out. That is 40,000 full-time
workers working every hour of every day for a year creating nothing, no
productivity, only complying with Federal regulations.
I'll finish, Mr. Speaker, where I began, and that's why it matters.
This is that chart of debt in America, borrowing from the Federal
Government. I read the President's words, Mr. Speaker, where he said it
was irresponsible to allow our children to have amassed a $30,000 per
child debt under the Bush administration. That debt, Mr. Speaker, is
fast approaching $60,000 for every child under the Obama
administration. And if we do nothing, this red line of debt, Mr.
Speaker, that destroys opportunity, that destroys America as we know
it, continues if we do nothing.
We can't ignore this problem away, Mr. Speaker. We must do something.
So year after year, Mr. Speaker--it makes it sound like I'm an old hand
at this. In the 3 years I've been here--2 years and 2 months--this
House has presented a budget every single year, budgets that make tough
choices, budgets that challenge each and every one of us to set those
priorities of things that must happen versus those priorities of things
that we would like to happen versus those priorities of things that we
could really do without if it means a better America tomorrow.
Three years in a row, Mr. Speaker, we've been touching things that
the prognosticators said would never be touched. Folks said Medicare
was doomed to failure, Mr. Speaker, because no Congress would ever be
bold enough to do those things necessary to save it for another
generation. But all 3 years I've been here, all three budgets I've had
the pleasure of helping to produce, we made those tough choices and
made those vital changes.
To fail to reform Medicare is to destroy it. To fail to reform
Medicare is to end it forever. In 2023, it runs out of money, Mr.
Speaker. We all know it. Those aren't my numbers. Those aren't your
numbers. Those are the numbers from the Medicare actuaries downtown
working for President Obama. In 2023, there is no more money.
How many of us have family members who rely on that program, Mr.
Speaker? We do them no favors by ignoring the problem and careening
towards that failure. We do the responsible thing, the hard thing, by
making those tough choices, as we have in this budget, that will save
that program not just for my mom and dad, not just for your parents and
your grandparents, but for more generations to come.
Our responsibility here, Mr. Speaker, is not to scare America. Our
responsibility here is not to tell America whom to blame. Our
responsibility here is to serve America and make the tough decisions
that previous Congresses have not.
There are two paths, Mr. Speaker, two paths. I'm not going to tell
you the path we've laid out in the Budget Committee is an easy path.
It's not. When you've been living beyond your means--and I mean $1
trillion beyond your means each year. Thirty-three cents out of every
$1 the Federal Government spends is borrowed. When you've been living
that far beyond your means, change is hard; but it's the right thing to
do and, I tell you, it's the only thing to do.
This chart, Mr. Speaker, that shows the red chart of where America is
headed today. I only ran that chart out to 2023. The truth of matter
is--and you can see for yourself the Congressional Budget Office
numbers at www.cbo.gov, Mr. Speaker.
The models we have that predict economic growth in this country, they
stop working in about 30 years because they cannot calculate, they
cannot see, they cannot imagine in those models how America could still
exist as an economy having borrowed as much money as it will have
borrowed in 30 years if we do nothing. The models break--there is a
little asterisk. At cbo.gov--see it for yourself--there's a little
asterisk that says we can't predict that we could even continue beyond
this point.
Paul Ryan is fond of saying that this is the most predictable crisis
America has ever faced. Everyone, every man and woman in every seat
from the most liberal Democrat to the most conservative Republican,
every Congressperson knows the economic destruction that awaits us if
we choose to do nothing.
Folks have been asking all day, Mr. Speaker: What's the ``there''
there in the Paul Ryan budget, and what is the House Budget Committee
budget? What I hope next week will be the House budget, what I hope
before the April 15 deadline will be the law of the land, will be the
American budget, the ``there'' there is that we shift directions from a
pathway that will most certainly mean the end of opportunity for our
children to a pathway that will mean more opportunity for our children
than even you and I have had, Mr. Speaker.
We are not in this Chamber talking about numbers. We are in this
Chamber talking about people. And if we fail to act, the devastation,
the destruction is not going to be measured in red lines on a ledger.
It's going to be measured in real pain for real families, and it
doesn't have to be that way.
I urge all of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to give prayerful
consideration to the House budget. Dig deep into these numbers, dig
deep into these choices. That is what America is. It is about making
the tough choices.
We have the freedom to succeed, and we have the freedom to fail. To
date, Mr. Speaker, Congresses have been adopting the freedom to fail.
We can change that this year. And I urge my colleagues in the Senate
and I urge the President to join us in that quest.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________