[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 25 (Friday, February 13, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H1053-H1058]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time.
  I would like to begin by yielding to my friend from the Georgia 
delegation, Mr. Loudermilk.


                  Paying Tribute to Timothy F. Johnson

  Mr. LOUDERMILK. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to a 
constituent, a friend, and a brother in Christ, Timothy F. Johnson, 
who, on January 30, left this life to spend eternity with our Savior. 
However, I stand before you today not to mourn the passing of a friend, 
but to honor a legacy, a legacy of a statesman, a soldier, and an 
American patriot.
  Born and raised in Cleveland, Ohio, Tim's compassion towards others 
was evident through the earliest part of his childhood. Joining the Boy 
Scouts, Tim was able to develop his natural leadership ability, which 
advanced him to the rank of Eagle Scout by the age of 14. After 
completing college, Tim's passion for service led him to join the U.S. 
Army, where he rose to the rank of major.
  After a distinguished 21-year career as an officer, Tim retired from 
active military service, but not from community service. Tim was always 
committed to excellence. He believed that although we may do good, we 
can always do better. Not only did Tim dedicate his life to the 
service, he also inspired others to do the same.
  As a Black American who completely understood the vision of our 
Founding Fathers that all men are created equal, Tim wanted to help 
other conservative Black Americans to pursue elected service. Believing 
that actions speak louder than words, Tim cofounded the Frederick 
Douglass Foundation, which today is the largest Christ-centered, 
multiethnic Republican ministry in America.

[[Page H1054]]

  Tim also felt great compassion for his fellow veterans, especially 
those returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. To better help 
them transition back to civilian life, Tim accepted an appointment as 
the chairman of the Georgia Jail Diversion and Trauma Recovery for 
Veterans advisory council.

                              {time}  1145

  Tim never stopped serving others and remained active in minority 
engagement, veterans assistance, and community service until his 
passing.
  My friend, colleague, and constituent, Major Timothy F. Johnson lived 
a life that epitomizes the traditional American values of faith, 
family, and freedom. I knew him as a man of strong faith who loved God, 
his family, and his country. While he will be missed by many of those 
whose lives were touched by his service, we are comforted to know that 
what is our loss is Heaven's gain.
  Godspeed, Major Tim Johnson. Your legacy lives on.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend from Georgia.
  This is a country that is about individuals. It is about individual 
leadership, and it is about individual opportunity. The story you tell 
of Tim and the impact that he had on people's lives is going to be 
known long, long after he has gone to be with our Lord.
  I want to talk about opportunity at a much smaller level than what my 
friend from Georgia was talking about, Mr. Speaker. I want to talk 
about it in the context of the Keystone pipeline that we passed this 
week.
  At the end of the day, America is about opportunity. And if 
opportunity doesn't live here anymore, I am not sure what the point of 
America is. If freedom doesn't live here anymore, I am not sure what 
the point of America is. If families can't raise their children and 
believe that their children, if they play by the rules, if they work 
hard, can create a better life for themselves than their parents had, 
if you don't believe that anymore, the promise that is the American 
Dream is lost. And I think with one minor Federal regulation at a time, 
followed by a couple of major Federal regulations, followed by more 
minor regulations, we are eroding the ability of our young people to 
succeed and for their families to succeed.
  The Keystone pipeline we voted on this week, Mr. Speaker, it is about 
employment opportunities. It is a job-creating program. We have dozens 
upon dozens of pipelines across this country. Why in the world the 
President has chosen the Keystone pipeline to use as a political 
football is a mystery to me.
  Building pipelines is honorable work. It is hard work. It is often 
dangerous work. But it is important work that goes to the price of 
energy in every single one of our homes back home.
  Having passed it in the Senate, having passed it in the House, it now 
goes to the President's desk. He could create jobs tomorrow.
  It is about energy security, Mr. Speaker. It is energy from our 
friends in Canada, one of our most loyal partners across the globe. We 
need North American energy security. I don't want to rely on folks 
across the oceans who oftentimes wish us harm. I want to use those 
resources here.
  Creating this partnership with Canada gives us that energy security. 
It is enhanced safety, Mr. Speaker. You don't think about it. But if we 
are not moving oil through a pipeline, we are moving it on trains, we 
are moving it in trucks. Trains and trucks and their safety record, Mr. 
Speaker, are much less reliable than pipelines, not just in terms of 
spills but in terms of lives.
  I heard the gentleman from North Dakota down here earlier this week, 
Mr. Speaker. Of course those trucks and trains are moving through his 
district. He said if we put in the pipeline instead of using those 
trucks, lives would be saved. Traffic accidents would be avoided. Lives 
would be saved, not just oil spills but real human consequences.
  We talk about environmental protection, Mr. Speaker. This is going to 
be the most advanced pipeline ever constructed in the United States of 
America. Now that is just the environmental protection of the pipeline.
  We go on to talk about, where would that oil be refined if we don't 
do it here under U.S. safety and environmental standards? Well, the 
answer is we are going to ship that overseas. It is going to get 
shipped to China. It is going to get processed in a much less 
environmentally friendly way. We have an opportunity to take that step.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about an exchange with our 
friends in Canada. Can you imagine if we had a product we were trying 
to get to market, and the only way to get it there or the simplest way 
to get it there was to move it through Canada, and the Canadians said: 
No, I don't care about your economy, America; I don't care about jobs 
in America; I don't care about your resources; the answer is, no, we 
won't partner with you.
  If you read the comments coming out of the government in Canada, they 
are just flabbergasted that all they are asking is for this minor 
connection into the U.S. pipeline system, and the country they thought 
was their great friend--America--has been so resistant. For 7 years, we 
have been waiting on this solution, Mr. Speaker, and finally it has 
passed in this Congress this week.
  I want to talk about what is happening in this Congress because when 
you slow down things like the pipeline, Mr. Speaker, you are slowing 
down America. You are slowing down economic growth. You are slowing 
down job creation.
  I have here from Atlanta's own CNN a headline titled: ``Harry Reid: 
Dems won't engage in `obstruction.' '' This is from November 12, 2014.
  He is making the point as the former--at that time, he was the 
majority leader in the Senate. He is now the former majority leader in 
the Senate. He is making the point that America is not helped when the 
Senate engages in obstructionism. He says this: ``I am ready to work 
with'' Mitch McConnell--now the Senate majority leader--``in good faith 
to make this institution function for the American people.'' In good 
faith to make this institution function. He says: ``I saw firsthand how 
a strategy of obstruction was debilitating to our system. I have no 
desire to engage in that manner.''
  I am grateful to Harry Reid for that wisdom. I think he is absolutely 
right about that. There is a right way and a wrong way to run this 
institution. He has observed the wrong way to do it. Unfortunately, 
that was back in November.
  Fast forward to this month, Mr. Speaker. Look at the headlines from 
across the country. Washington Post: ``Senate Democrats should be 
careful about their filibuster strategy.'' As you know, the filibuster 
is the definition of obstruction. It is in full force in the Senate as 
we sit here today.
  February 4, from The Atlantic: ``The new Democratic 
obstructionists.'' That is the headline of the article, Mr. Speaker. It 
was just 3 months ago when Majority Leader Harry Reid said: This is not 
the right path for America; this is bad for America. And he was right 
when he said it. It has taken 3 months for him to change his mind and 
go in the other direction.
  Politico: ``Democrats learn to love the filibuster; party leaders 
change tune now that they are in minority.'' Change tune now that they 
are in the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, America's needs are no less great today. Job creation is 
no less important today. The American economy is no less fragile today. 
But the Senate Democratic leaders have changed their tune.
  Finally, back to CNN: ``Democrats block funding for DHS to protect 
Obama immigration orders.'' What that means, Mr. Speaker, is they have 
blocked debating the bill to fund DHS, that they are so intent on 
protecting the President and what he alone has done from the White 
House, they refuse to even allow the Senate to debate the merits of 
those issues.

  If this institution is not about debate, Mr. Speaker, I don't know 
what it is about.
  I begin with that to get us into the economy, Mr. Speaker. And I have 
to tell you, I have the vice chairman of the House Budget Committee 
down here today, the gentleman from Indiana, Todd Rokita.
  The Budget Committee right now is involved in the gargantuan task of 
trying to balance the Federal budget and present that budget to this 
House before April. But their task is complicated, Mr. Speaker. You 
can't see the chart that I have, but their task is complicated because 
economic growth

[[Page H1055]]

in America is slowing. The obstructionism in the Senate, the 
obstructionism from the White House can't build simple things like the 
Keystone pipeline.
  Do you know, Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest public works projects 
in the history of our Nation, the Hoover Dam? The Hoover Dam was built 
in less time than it has taken the White House to consider the 
application for this short pipeline connecting America and Canada. We 
built the Hoover Dam more quickly than we can sign off on the paperwork 
for a pipeline.
  Let me show you what the impact of that is. Economic growth--in 2013, 
Mr. Speaker, CBO projected that GDP would be growing about 3 percent a 
year, 2.9 to be precise. By last year, in February, when they gave us 
their projections, they lowered it to 2.5 percent. Today, January 2015, 
they have lowered it to 2.3 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not just 2.9 to 2.3 percent. That is trillions 
of dollars in economic activity. It looks small on this page, but it is 
giant on the Federal budget, and it is even bigger when you talk about 
the job creation that hasn't occurred. It is even bigger when you talk 
about Americans who are trapped in part-time work. It is even bigger 
when you talk about young people graduating from college who cannot 
find a job. That is the impact of obstructionism. That is the impact of 
inaction. That is the impact of having a former majority leader, now 
minority leader, in the Senate who, as the newspaper headlines say, has 
changed his tune.
  I have heard folks say--I laugh, Mr. Speaker. It is not funny. It is 
sad. But I have heard folks say, Well, what are you complaining about, 
Rob? Deficits have come down by half in President Obama's 
administration. They have come down by half.
  Well, that is true. When I showed up here 4 years ago, Mr. Speaker, 
deficits were at their single highest rate in the history of the 
Nation. And by ``single highest rate,'' I mean they were four times 
higher than they had ever before been. So they have dropped from being 
four times higher than ever before down to just higher than ever 
before. You can call that progress, but I don't.
  I have it charted here as a percentage of the size of the economy, 
Mr. Speaker. I go all the way back to 1965. We have had Republicans. We 
have had Democrats. We have had Republicans in Congress, Democrats in 
Congress; Republicans in the White House, Democrats in the White House. 
This isn't about the parties. For Pete's sake, if we look here for the 
only surpluses in our Nation's history, it comes at a time when we 
had--much like we do today--Republicans here in this institution, 
Republicans in the United States Senate, and Democrats leading from the 
White House. It was a bipartisan way we created some economic growth.
  But what I want you to see, Mr. Speaker, is that we come here into 
the current administration, deficits dramatically higher than ever 
before in American history, dramatically higher. Coming down to the 
dotted line I have on the chart, Mr. Speaker, is the historical 
average, from 1965 to 2014.
  Now it is embarrassing for the both of us that we have to talk about 
our Nation's finances by the historical deficit. Neither one of us came 
here to be involved in deficit spending. We came here to stop borrowing 
from our children and from our grandchildren, to start being 
responsible by paying the bills today, to improve opportunity in the 
future, not to diminish and borrow from opportunity in the future. But 
that has been the historical average.
  What you would see if you could see this chart, Mr. Speaker, is that 
even as the White House is preaching the good news of declining 
deficits, they have only declined from those record highs. They have 
declined to a level where they are going to continue to rise again at 
levels higher than the historical average.
  The President just sent his budget--2 weeks ago now, Mr. Speaker, he 
sent that budget. It arrived here on time for the first time in his 
administration. I applaud him for that. But it never balances--never, 
ever. Not this year, not next year, not 10 years from now, not 20 years 
from now, not 100 years from now.
  The idea of the United States of America and the budget that should 
control it, from the President's point of view, is a budget that should 
never, ever balance and, thus, a balance that should continue year 
after year to borrow from the prosperity of future generations so that 
we can spend it on ourselves. That is selfish in ways that I can't be a 
part of.
  What is the nature of the problem, Mr. Speaker? We are talking about 
this in the Budget Committee right now. Total spending in this country 
is about $3.5 trillion this year. The little part that Congress has 
control over, it is the defense and the nondefense discretionary--this 
little corner of the pie. We are able to control that.
  In fact, Mr. Rokita, the vice chairman of the Budget Committee, 
arrived here in 2010, as I did. Every single year since you have been 
here, leading at the Budget Committee, I would say to the gentleman 
from Indiana, we have reduced that discretionary spending every single 
year. It hasn't been easy. It has been hard, deliberate, bipartisan 
work. But you have done it because it was the right thing to do. $3.5 
trillion is a lot of money. But the small part that you have had 
control over, you have made a difference in. It is the rest of this pot 
that continues to grow.
  I yield to my friend from Indiana.
  Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman is exactly right. By the way, while I am at it, let me 
just say that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), in my humble 
opinion, is a blessing not only for this Congress and for the people of 
Georgia but for this country because of the tenacity you bring, the 
energy you bring. If I had a list of all the pieces of legislation, all 
the things that we have gotten done around here for the last 4 years 
that you and I have been in here, that you have had your fingers on, 
that you weren't mentioned about, the work you have done behind the 
scenes, that list would be very long and would probably go out these 
doors.
  One of the things that you have done, that we have done together, is 
for the first time since the Korean war, we have cut discretionary 
spending 4 years in a row. It hasn't been done since the Korean war.

                              {time}  1200

  Now, as you pointed out in earlier slides, there is a lot more work 
to do, and we are going to continue to get to it. We need a partner at 
some point. We need people to put on what I call their big boy pants 
and their big girl skirts and get to the bottom of this, and that is 
getting to a balanced budget.
  I will tell you that this pie chart is very good. You are exactly 
right. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Woodall is exactly right. The two blue pieces 
that we pull out for you in this pie chart are what you would get at in 
a traditional, regular budget process.
  This is what we call our discretionary spending both in the 
nondefense area and in the defense area. As you can see, it is really 
no more than one-third--or 40 percent--of our total Federal spending. 
The rest, all that red that you see there is on what we call autopilot 
spending because the budget, line by line, doesn't touch that. Why? 
Because it is on autopilot.
  That is your Medicare, that is your Medicaid, that is your Social 
Security, and that is your interest that we owe ourselves and other 
countries for all this debt because that is a contract. That red is 
just going to continue to grow as a percentage of that pie until it 
takes up nearly all of it over the next several years.
  Then we are not going to have the money we need to spend on the 
things that constitutionally we need to spend it on, like defense and 
like some of the other 167 other agencies around here. That is a bad, 
bad situation. It is unsustainable.
  Until you get to the underlying law, that is Social Security, that is 
Medicare, that is Medicaid, and that is the other mandatory spending, 
until you reform those programs, until they fit how we live in the 21st 
century, so they can be saved for our children and for our 
grandchildren, then you are really never going to get to balancing the 
budget or paying down this awful debt.
  I can't imagine anything more immoral than passing on to future 
Americans--our children and grandchildren who do not yet exist--this 
burden. Talk about taxation without representation.
  Well, thank you, Mr. Woodall. I appreciate your letting me as a 
member

[[Page H1056]]

of the Budget Committee, under the excellent leadership of Chairman 
Price, chime in here. We are going to have a budget, the fifth time we 
will do it in a row here, by the statutory deadline. We intend to get 
it over to the Senate, and we intend to move this country forward.
  Again, I say, Mr. Speaker, chiming in with Mr. Woodall, I hope we 
have a partner this time. I hope we have personal responsibility on the 
floor of this House and the floor of the other Chamber.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank the vice chairman of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, people think these things happen in a vacuum. They 
don't. They happen because folks like Mr. Rokita take time away from 
their family and away from their constituents back home sometimes to 
work the long nights and the early mornings it takes to get a budget 
like this done.
  Just to give you an example, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you have 
ever thought about it--$3.5 trillion is the size of our annual 
spending--annual spending. People often characterize--and I would tell 
you mischaracterize--Republicans as folks who want to shut down 
government. That is nonsense.
  You heard the gentleman from Indiana's heart as he was up here 
talking about his love for people, the needs that people have, and our 
opportunity to aid people and their families as they struggle with some 
of those challenges. We spend $3.5 trillion a year in that effort.
  It is not that we don't want to spend the money. It is that we want 
to spend it effectively, efficiently, and accountably. That is all 
folks ask for back home. They don't say, Shut the government down. They 
say, Spend my tax money effectively, efficiently, and accountably--$3.5 
trillion, Mr. Speaker.
  If any of the young people who are coming to Congress to watch what 
goes on here on the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker, if any of those 
young people were born the day that Jesus Christ was born and, 
beginning on that day, they spent $1 million every day, $1 million 
every day, 7 days a week, Mr. Speaker, from the day that Jesus Christ 
was born until today, they would have to continue spending $1 million a 
day, every day, 7 days a week, for another 732 years, to spend their 
first trillion dollars.
  As a Federal Government, we are spending $3.5 trillion every year, 
and we borrowed from those same young people $18 trillion that they are 
going to have to pay back one day. These numbers are mind-boggling, and 
sometimes, I wonder if we as a Chamber, Mr. Speaker, are taking this 
crisis as seriously as we must.
  It is, at its core, a spending crisis. It is not a revenue crisis. It 
is not that $3.5 trillion isn't enough to handle the needs of this 
country; it is. This chart, Mr. Speaker, you can't see it, but it is a 
historical chart of spending, which is in the red, and revenues, which 
is in the green.
  Now, when we have had this big economic downturn here, so many 
families out of work, so many families in part-time work, and so many 
young people who couldn't find jobs, revenues absolutely went down.
  They went down because there were no jobs, and if folks don't have 
jobs, they don't have incomes, and if they don't have incomes, they 
can't pay taxes. We want people to go to work. You can't pay taxes if 
you don't have a job.
  Historically, Americans have been willing to pay about 18 percent of 
GDP in tax revenue, so I draw that line on out for the foreseeable 
future.
  The red line represents spending in this town, Mr. Speaker. The red 
line represents if we did nothing, if we adjourned the Congress this 
afternoon, we went down to Pennsylvania Avenue, we picked up the 
President, and we all left Washington forever--I was wondering if there 
was going to be a loud group of cheers and applause that broke out when 
I said that, Mr. Speaker, I am not actually advocating for that--but if 
that were to happen, the laws that are already on the books have made 
promises to people that spend the money on this red line, going into 
historical debt territory, the likes of which we have never seen, and 
we cannot survive as a nation.
  Spending is the problem. The red line is the problem. The green line 
is what we take from American families in taxes. It has been constant 
over time--not constant in actual dollars, but constant as a percent of 
the economy. It is the red line that is growing ever faster.
  Now, if you will permit me to scare you just a little bit further, 
Mr. Speaker, let me talk about interest rates in this country--interest 
rates in this country.
  This chart right here, you can't see it, again, Mr. Speaker, but it 
is charting the interest rates that America is paying on its debt. We 
borrow in all sorts of different instruments from short-term, week-long 
instruments, all the way up to 30-year instruments. I put on the 3-
month bills and our 10-year notes on this chart.
  This chart covers most of my lifetime, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it goes 
a little further than my lifetime. What you are going to see, Mr. 
Speaker, going all the way back to 1965, it is charting the 3-month 
bills and the 10-year notes.

  This is where we are today. This is where we are today, and what you 
see here, Mr. Speaker, is that we are at the lowest level of interest 
in the history of our country. In the history of our country, we have 
never paid less on Federal debt than we are paying today; yet we have 
never had more of it.
  What do you think is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, when these low 
interest rates that we have today return to these historically high 
levels? In fact, The Economist, as I pointed out here in blue, projects 
that interest rates will return.
  By return, I mean that our 10-year notes are going to more than 
double, I mean the 3-month bills are going to more than sextuple. We 
are talking about an interest rate explosion around the corner, Mr. 
Speaker, that we are not going to be able to sustain.
  Now, let me take you back to what we are spending here today. As we 
sit here today, we are spending $229 billion in interest on our 
national debt--$229 billion--while we are at the lowest interest rates 
in American history.
  Now, if the rates on those 10-year notes are going to double, if the 
rates on those 3-month bills are going to sextuple, what do you think 
229 billion changes into within the next 3 or 4 years, Mr. Speaker?
  It doesn't change into 300 billion. It doesn't change into 400 
billion. It goes northward to $500 billion in interest. In fact, as the 
President lays out his budget, we are looking at almost $1 trillion a 
year in interest payments within the next 10 years, in a single year, 
at year 10.
  One trillion dollars, Mr. Speaker--enough money to pay for all of our 
national security, enough money to pay for all of the Medicaid program 
and the Medicare program, enough money to pay for the entire Social 
Security Program for a year, we are going to throw it away in interest 
payments because we didn't have the discipline to control spending in 
this bipartisan Congress that we have.
  The lowest interest rates in American history, Mr. Speaker, every 
economist projects a rise, doubling to sextupling in the next 10 years.
  We are only borrowing money, Mr. Speaker, because we have lots of 
spending going on. There are those who believe that the more we spend, 
the better results we are going to get. I want to tell you that is 
nonsense.
  If this Chamber were full to capacity today, Mr. Speaker, and we 
asked folks to have a show of hands of when was that great time in the 
American economy they remember, when were the cares of whether or not 
you could afford to pay your house note, whether you could afford to 
pay your car note, whether you could afford to take care of your 
children, when was the time that those cares were the least?
  I daresay most of the hands would think back to the 1990s. Whoo, the 
economy was on fire. You remember that. The stockmarket was on fire, 
you had to hide under a rook to keep from finding a good job--again, 
Republicans controlling this institution, Democrats in the White House. 
We were working together to constrain spending to grow the economy.
  This chart that I have here, Mr. Speaker, shows per capita spending. 
It is not really meaningful to talk about spending in the abstract. It 
all distills down to an individual man, an individual woman, an 
individual family, what are we spending on individuals here in this 
country?
  This is Federal outlays per individual. You will see a constant 
increase going back to the Truman administration. This is World War II, 
where we

[[Page H1057]]

were really fighting for the future of not just the Republic, but of 
the world, going through the Truman administration and the Eisenhower 
administration. This is per capita spending. You see that it increases 
as inflation does, as government does. It just naturally rises little 
by little, year after year.
  What you will see, Mr. Speaker, if you look here at the Clinton years 
in blue, that in those years that Americans would look back on with 
fondness and contentment, those years where the cares of the world 
seemed just a little bit lighter on their shoulders, we weren't 
spending more from Washington, D.C. It didn't require more spending 
from Washington, D.C.
  The stimulation of the economy is not dependent on spending from 
Washington, D.C. In fact, arguably, it is the opposite. The more 
Washington sucks out of America, the less that individual Americans 
have to grow their families, grow their businesses, and expand their 
opportunities.
  It is meaningful to me, again, you think about the Reagan years, you 
think about the first Bush years, and you think about the Clinton 
years, the economy was on fire and spending from the Federal Government 
held constant.
  Fast forward to today, Mr. Speaker, you see spending begin to grow 
out of control. It happened in the Bush years. Again, this is not a 
partisan problem, this is an American problem.
  Spending began to grow. We are fighting a war on terror. Folks are 
beginning to worry about their families and worry about their jobs. 
Spending today continuing on that rise--well, continuing until I 
arrived here in 2010, until you arrived here in 2014, when the cavalry 
arrived here to say, Wait a minute, I know the challenges are vast, but 
we can't just push the can down the road; we can't pass our problems on 
to the next generation; we have to confront those problems together.
  That is what we have been doing in this budget.
  Mr. Speaker, this chart shows if we do nothing, if we do nothing, if 
we never make another promise--and the budget the President just sent 
us is full of new promises to the tune of about $2 trillion over the 
next 10 years--if we never make another promise, if all we do is keep 
the promises we already made, if we never pass a new law or a new bill 
to do something else, simply by the force of the laws already on the 
books, debt grows to levels higher than we borrowed as a nation to 
defeat the Nazis in World War II.
  Think about that, Mr. Speaker. I was down in front of the White 
House. I had some friends in town. I took them down to see the White 
House. All Americans ought to make that journey. It is the center of 
the executive branch here in Washington, D.C.
  We walked over to the Old Executive Office Building because that is a 
fabulous, fabulous building. On the front steps of the Old Executive 
Office Building, they have two cannons from the Spanish-American War, 
1898, and they have a little plaque there on the fence.
  Of course, you can't get through the fence. In fact, they pushed you 
back a little further now with the new Secret Service regulations, but 
you can see the plaque hanging there on the fence. It says that we used 
to have more than 20 of these historic cannons around town, dating back 
to the Revolutionary War, but during World War II, we melted most of 
them down to be a part of the war effort.

                              {time}  1215

  Think about that. In World War II, the situation was so dire, Mr. 
Speaker, we were going around to our national monuments, we were going 
around to our Nation's history, and we were finding anything made of 
iron or steel, and we were melting it down. Because World War II wasn't 
a fight; it was the fight for freedom on the planet.
  And amidst that terror, ration stamps across the land, folks standing 
in lines for food at the end of the Great Depression, amidst all of 
that turmoil, all of that crisis, arguably the greatest crisis not just 
this Nation has known but that the world has ever known, America 
borrowed about 100 percent of the size of its economy. That is a heavy 
load, but it was for an important cause.
  As we sit here today, Mr. Speaker, we have borrowed about three-
quarters of that same load. And if we change no law and if we make no 
new promises, we will borrow not one time, not two times, not three 
times, but four times more than we borrowed to defeat the greatest evil 
the world has ever known, just to keep the lights on in the United 
States of America. That is dangerous and it is irresponsible.
  Mr. Speaker, you can count on a budget coming to the floor of this 
House. It is going to be here. I would guess it is going to be here on 
the floor by the end of March, because certainly we will have it here 
by April. It is going to be a budget that brings us back to balance, 
and it is going to be a budget that makes the hard decisions that have 
to be made.
  No one is saying don't invest in America. What they are saying is 
don't let growing interest payments on irresponsible borrowing push out 
the room in the budget to invest in America. Do you know we are 
investing less in America today, Mr. Speaker, than any other time in my 
lifetime? We are investing less. Now, we are spending more, but we are 
investing less because, as I showed you on that pie chart earlier, Mr. 
Speaker, what we are spending on isn't investments in America. It is 
income maintenance programs.
  If we do nothing, revenues continue and debt grows out of control. 
2046, Mr. Speaker, about the time you are entering your retirement, 
dead at 250 percent of GDP.
  Spending $3.5 trillion today--today--at the lowest rate of interest 
the country has ever known, and today, in that most favorable of 
environments, Mr. Speaker, we are almost spending more on interest than 
we are on our Medicaid program, the health care program that covers 
children and the poor across this land. We are spending more to pay our 
creditors than we are to protect our children's health--and that is at 
the lowest rates of interest the country has ever known.
  It only grows, and that is if the only thing that changes are the 
interest rates, Mr. Speaker. That is if we stop borrowing more money. 
But the President projects to borrow half trillion after half trillion 
after half trillion after half trillion. In fact, as I said, the budget 
he presented never ever, ever comes to balance. It borrows year after 
year after year after year, as far as the eye can see.
  I don't argue that that is not the easier decision to make today, Mr. 
Speaker. It is. Doing nothing is always easier than doing the heavy 
lifting. Spending and borrowing more, always easier than tightening 
your belt and making the tough calls. Sacrificing our children's future 
so that we don't have to make those tough decisions today, that may be 
the easy call, but it is immoral. It is immoral, Mr. Speaker.
  We have been able to cut budgets, as the gentleman from Indiana said, 
4 years in a row for the first time, for the first time in my lifetime. 
We are moving the needle, but there is more to do. And it can't be done 
alone. It can't be done with just Republicans, it can't be done with 
just Democrats, and it can't be done with just the Congress. It 
requires the House Republicans and Democrats, it requires the Senate 
Republicans and Democrats, and it requires the President of the United 
States to come together to make those decisions that matter.
  Mr. Speaker, we will be talking a lot more about this in the coming 
weeks. I want to make sure that every American has all the answers they 
need about how we are trying to prioritize in this budget.
  But I want to be clear: the days of kicking the can down the road 
ended when Republicans took over this Chamber in 2011. The trust and 
confidence that we have earned in a bipartisan way over the last 4 
years, we are going to continue today, and Senate willing--going back 
to the obstructionist provisions I noted at the very beginning of this 
hour, Mr. Speaker--Senate willing, we will conference the first budget, 
agree on the first budget, have the first American budget in my entire 
tenure in Congress.
  The House has always done its job. This year, we have an opportunity 
to have the Congress do its job collectively, and I look forward to 
that conclusion.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you for being down here with 
me this afternoon, and I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H1058]]



                          ____________________