[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.

                          ____________________