[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H777-H780]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICA NEEDS SOLUTIONS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 9, 2023, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Roy) for 30 minutes.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona being
down here talking about the trajectory this Nation finds itself on with
respect to all spending, but in particular mandatory spending as we
call it, and the need for all of us to get serious about doing
something about it.
We sat here in this Chamber last night. The President of the United
States did what you do in a campaign speech, not in the State of the
Union. He did what you do when you have a failed agenda and you want to
try to scare the American people rather than inspire the American
people: Accuse your opponents of being against Social Security and
Medicare with no real backing, but offering no solutions himself to the
very problems articulated by the gentleman from Arizona.
Did anybody hear the President of the United States last night
address at all the reality that Social Security and Medicare are on a
path to bankruptcy in terms of their funding relative to the demands to
pay benefits? Of course not. Of course not. Because the President of
the United States, Joe Biden, has zero solutions to the problems facing
this country. Not one.
Not one solution last night was offered. Standing at the well where
the Speaker currently sits, not one solution was offered. Instead, it
was a campaign speech.
The fact is, the American people, I think, saw through it because in
the same speech that the President attacked Republicans for not having
a solution for Social Security and Medicare, accusing Republicans of
saying we were going to walk away from the obligations for Social
Security and Medicare, the President offered no solutions on the
border. None.
The President said not a word about our men and women in uniform. The
President referenced Ukraine but didn't provide an actual strategy or
desired outcome besides ``Putin bad, Ukraine good.''
Look, the fact of the matter is, the entire Nation is tired of
exactly what we saw last night. Tired of it. The President came in and
tried to offer populist rhetoric. Frankly, stealing some of the
rhetoric almost directly from President Trump.
He tried to offer some old school Democrat rhetoric, saying, we have
got a program for everybody in America. Don't worry, we are going to
pay for it. I gave a speech on the floor of the House about a year ago
entitled the United States House of free stuff about this body. A
number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle came down and
talked about all of the student loans that would be forgiven, all of
the spending that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would
offer with no indication of how it would be paid for because why would
you do that?
Look, the fact of the matter is, this body, the people's House, is
never going to be serious about representing the people until we stop
spending money we don't have, stop allowing for the printing of money
to carry out the very things the American people sent us here to stop
doing, stop funding the very bureaucracy that are carrying out the
actions that we decry in our own campaigns. We are never going to get
this country on track until we stop printing money, borrowing money,
and spending money we don't have.
I would defy any one of my colleagues, anyone this side of the aisle
or the other side of the aisle to come prove that statement wrong.
When we are $32 trillion in debt, or almost, and we keep having a
debate about who is going to spend more money on which program of our
choice, how is that going to save the country?
With all due respect to colleagues on my side of the aisle, I have
heard numerous Republicans say, ``We are not going to touch defense
spending.'' Okay. Good for you. Maybe I agree. Maybe we shouldn't touch
defense spending. Maybe we need more defense spending to beat China.
But then what, pray tell, is your solution to fund it? I promise
you--look, I request all my Republican colleagues
[[Page H778]]
out there, come on down. If you are the one saying you will not touch
defense spending, you come down here and you give me a solution. Don't
hide behind the men and women in uniform. Don't go, oh, no, we are not
going to touch defense spending, we need more defense spending, we need
to beat China.
I might agree with you, but I am not going to sell printing and
borrowing money that undermines the very national security that you are
going out and talking about.
To my Democrat colleagues, you come down here, don't say a word about
how you are going to pay for any of the spending, any of the programs
that you stood up and applauded last night when the President of the
United States was talking about it.
You say you want to have nondefense spending; you want to have more
funding for HUD, more funding for HHS, more funding for programs, more
funding for some cop grants or whatever it is. It wouldn't be for cop
grants. You want more funding.
How are you going to pay for it? The answer is, no one is going to
come down here and give an answer to that with the possible exception
of two things. My Democratic colleagues will come down and say taxes.
Okay. Come down, let's have a conversation about taxes. Come down and
show me what taxes you want to raise that will not cause economic
impact such that our revenues actually go down. Come show that to me.
Let's have a debate about that.
My colleagues on this side of the aisle will tend to say, well, it is
the mandatory spending, don't you understand? Don't worry about
discretionary spending, that is small ball. Well, a third of our budget
is discretionary spending still, so I am not sure that is small ball. I
mean, it is, after all, $1.6 trillion. I don't consider that small
ball.
My colleagues aren't incorrect that we have got to deal with
mandatory spending, but you can't hide behind mandatory spending, say
that is the problem, while you then say, whoa, we have got to increase
defense spending, and, well, I don't know that I would increase all
that other nondefense spending, all those agencies, but you know what?
That is what my Democrat colleagues want, so the only way I can get my
defense spending is to agree to what they want, and one day we will
deal with mandatory spending. What the hell, $32 trillion of debt and
counting.
That is exactly what happens. And, again, to any of my colleagues,
come down here and prove me wrong. Come on down. I am here. Come debate
me. The American people actually want to have a debate. Maybe we should
have that debate every day, all day, until we come to some conclusion
about how we are going to stop doing the same thing over and over
again. Stop spending money we don't have.
Now, I will tell you my solution. I actually believe you should come
to the floor and come here to debate and have solutions. I believe that
the bureaucracy of the Federal Government is plenty big. I don't
believe it needs to get any bigger.
Call me crazy, but I think maybe returning the bureaucratic state,
the administrative state, the bureaucracy, the Federal Government
bureaucracy, returning it to preCOVID levels--I am not asking for that
much. I am just saying, let's go back to the size of the bureaucracy
before COVID spending blew the spending out of the water. That would be
2019 spending levels. Are you with me? Let's just take the bureaucracy,
take it back to preCOVID spending levels.
Now, do that. Hold defense spending at 2023 levels that were just
passed, that all the hawks were running around going, all right, we got
more money for defense, we got a 10 percent increase in defense. Okay.
Let's hold that spending. If you do what I just said, freeze the
bureaucracy at 2019 levels, freeze defense spending at 2023 levels, the
one we just passed, if you do that and you do that for 10 years, freeze
that number for 10 years, you will save $3.6 trillion and reduce our
deficit spending. You will get about, I don't know, probably about a
third of the way toward balancing the budget in 10 years. I think that
is a pretty good start.
{time} 1930
Does anybody in America want to raise their hand and say that the
Federal bureaucracy in 2019 was too small? Does anybody want to come
down and say: The size of the nondefense Federal Government in 2019,
man, that government, oh, my gosh, it was so small. There were no
bureaucrats interfering with my life. There were no regulations cutting
off economic activity.
Again, come on down. Tell me how that government of 2019 just a few
years ago was so efficient, so great, such a good size; that you think
that is the right size and that we need it to be bigger; that it is not
the right size and that we need it to be bigger.
I don't know many Americans--if I go to my district that I represent,
750,000 Texans, I don't know many of them that would raise their hand
and go: Oh, please, I need that bureaucracy to be bigger. Hire more
Federal workers into all of those programs. Fill up more buildings in
Washington, D.C. We need more of that.
Defense spending, we just got defense spending increased a bit here
in 2023. Well, you say, do we need more spending for defense? There are
a lot of people who might say we might. Why? Well, is our Navy what it
needs to be to beat China? Do we have all the latest technology that we
need to be able to beat China or another world foe? Do we have all the
latest and greatest intel? Do we have all the personnel trained
properly at the levels we need to ensure that we can be the finest
fighting force in the world and that we can kill people and blow things
up when necessary? That is what our military is supposed to do.
We might need more spending. I will grant that.
I will tell you what, take my plan of freezing the Federal
bureaucracy, nondefense. Take last year's defense levels at 2023, and
now increase it 2\1/2\ percent for the next 10 years. Instead of saving
$3.6 trillion, we would save $3 trillion. It is still a pretty good
step toward a 10-year balance.
That is one idea. I think it is the right idea. I will tell you why I
think it is the right idea. I don't know why I want to give more money
to an EPA that puts Joe Robertson in jail because he had water on his
land and somehow that violated the waters of the United States laws.
I don't want to give more money to the bureaucrats at the Federal
Bureau of Investigation to build a new $400 million facility in
Maryland like we just voted through in December, to hire more FBI
agents to put more people like Scott Smith, a dad in Loudoun County, on
a list to be a domestic terrorist because he dared to go to a school
board and challenge a school board for not doing enough to protect his
daughter.
Scott Smith joined me in this Chamber last night and sat right up
there listening to the bloviating nonsense we heard coming from the
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue sitting here last night.
I don't want to give more money to those bureaucrats. I don't. I
don't mind saying it.
I was a Federal prosecutor for a couple of years. The Department of
Justice has plenty that it can cut. All I am talking about is going
back to 2019 levels.
Do we want to fund NIH or FDA or CDC further to carry out more gain-
of-function research? Anybody? Raise your hand. Raise your hand if you
want more gain-of-function research coming out of your Federal labs,
maybe even working with China to do it. Anybody sign up and say: Yes,
that is a great idea. Good use of money. Well done. Does anybody want
more of that, more of those programs, again, with borrowed printed
money?
Do you want more money to go to the Department of Labor to shut down,
for example, Rhea Lana Riner's children's clothing consignment company
because she violated some standards, according to the Department of
Labor?
How about more money for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives to issue by regulation--not a law that we passed--a
barring of pistol stabilizing braces that potentially make felons out
of, I don't know, 10 million or more Americans? Does anybody want to
give the ATF more money to go after and target the American people?
That is what we do here.
With all due respect to my Republican colleagues who like to go take
shots at my Democratic colleagues for
[[Page H779]]
a lot of good reasons, by the way, it is not enough to campaign against
this stuff and then come here and fund it. That is what we do. We
campaign against these terrible regulations and these terrible actions
by bureaucrats.
The IRS is going after nonprofits and faith-based organizations
because of their beliefs. The FBI is targeting Mark Houck, a dad. The
FBI showed up at 7 a.m. in the morning with a SWAT team to go after his
family in Philadelphia because he dared to defend his son when they
were outside of an abortion clinic engaging in their First Amendment
right to stand up in defense of life. Oh, but let's go give some more
money to them.
That is what we will do. Let's give more money to that bureaucracy,
the woke, weaponized, wasteful bureaucracy at war with the American
people, targeting the American people.
The truth is, we have an obligation to reduce Federal spending even
if it were filled with nothing but angels doing nothing but angelic
things because we are spending money we don't have. The truth is that
bureaucracy is doing anything but those angelic things.
Why do we continue to fund it? The funding that we continue to
provide for a bureaucracy that not only is at odds with and targeting
the American people, targeting the Scott Smiths, targeting the Mark
Houcks, targeting the Joe Robertsons for having water on his land,
targeting Marvin Horne for his raisin crop, fining him $685,000 because
he didn't comply with certain New Deal-era restrictions that the
Department of Agriculture put on him--think about that.
I am not saying that I can say every single thing that every example
you bring up that someone didn't violate some reg or some rule because
who the hell knows how many there are? I have asked. No one can tell
me. How many Federal laws are there? Again, if any of my colleagues can
come down here to the floor and bring me a footnoted cite and say this
is how many Federal laws there are, I would love to see it. Come tell
me how many regulations there are with laws and crimes attached.
According to one report I saw, there are an estimated 4,500 Federal
laws, statutes, criminal statutes--sorry, not laws, criminal statutes--
and some 300,000 crimes attached to regulations. That is just one
report that I saw. The Department of Justice apparently tried to
calculate this in the early 1980s, and they gave up. They came up with
a certain number, and they just kind of stopped.
How can any American engage in activity and not essentially be
violating something somewhere where some eager bureaucrat is just able
to go: Nope. You are in violation. You are shut down.
We were sitting up in the Rules Committee the other day talking about
vaccine mandates, and one of the witnesses testified. One of my
colleagues said: Well, why aren't you taking this end to the public
health emergency or this end of the vaccine mandate through regular
order?
Look, I am a big supporter of regular order. I think we should take
things through committees and bring them to the floor and offer
amendments. Let's keep in mind that is a one-page bill that is pretty
straightforward, and I will just say this: What was the regular order
carried out by the executive branch in just unilaterally executing an
order to force vaccines upon private citizens through OSHA
requirements--shut down by the courts, by the way. Where was the
regular order? Where was the sort of equivalent to due process for the
American people where we can at least go through and make some good
decisions for the executive branch when they said: Yes, you military
guys, you have to get this COVID vaccine.
Based on what? Well, Anthony Fauci said so. Rochelle Walensky said
so.
Wait, but didn't CDC Director Walenski say that the vaccines don't do
anything for transmission? Well, don't mind that. We will just keep
mandating needles get stuck in the arms of our men and women in
uniform, notwithstanding some of the concerns of myocarditis among the
young, healthy population that predominantly make up our military, by
the way.
Last night, my friend Senator Cruz was sitting right over here during
the State of the Union. He brought a young man, a member of our
military who has been kicked off the career track. They are coming
after him to get $75,000 of money from schooling. They are coming after
him. He has to write that check or they are going to keep coming after
him. They have not fired him because of the bill that we passed in
December saying we are not going to allow you to remove members of the
military if they don't want to take the vaccine, but he is still being
punished.
Right now, a patriot who signed up to serve his country has his
government going after him for money that he has gotten for his family
after his sacrifices to serve the country. They are going after him.
His government is going after him when all he wanted to do was serve
his country and not stick a needle in his arm because some bureaucrat
said so.
Let me be perfectly clear to my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle: This is going to change. We are not going to do this. We are not
going to allow the government to do this to the American people. I mean
that.
When we fund the government this year, things better change, Mr.
President. You come down here and make threats to us about what you
think is going to happen with respect to default. You come down here
and lecture us in the people's House. Well, let me tell you, Mr.
President, we are a coequal branch of government. We are not going to
allow the American people to continue to be targeted by the very
government that is supposed to protect them, that is supposed to do
their constitutional duty, that is supposed to secure the border of the
United States, that is supposed to stop fentanyl from coming in, that
is supposed to have operational control of the border so that neither
Americans nor migrants are dying, that it is supposed to stop dangerous
cartels, that is supposed to stand up to China, that is supposed to
have a strong military sparingly used but not woke.
We are not supposed to spend money we don't have. We are supposed to
balance our budget. We are supposed to defend the American people.
I am not going to agree, sitting in the Rules Committee or on this
floor, to continue the process of spending money we don't have, of not
changing the status quo, and not demanding that the President of the
United States act like it, act like he is the President, defend this
country, secure our border.
He doesn't get to come down here and lecture us. The people's House
decides how dollars get spent. The people's House represents the
people.
We need a reckoning. We need to stand up and fight, to stand up and
be counted. I am not going to go around in the circles that we
constantly go around in this place, having another meeting about
another meeting about another meeting.
How about we just stand up for something? How about people be on the
floor of this body debating? Get another hour of Special Orders,
another half-hour of Special Orders.
{time} 1945
I am sick and tired of watching my fellow Texans in the State
legislature debating right now spending more Texas taxpayer money to do
the job the Federal Government is supposed to do and secure the border.
I am sick and tired of walking around on eggshells around a body
comprised of Members on both sides of the aisle that refuse to do their
job to stop spending money we don't have and say, oh, well, what
political poll-tested 80-percent-issue can we put out there and go to
the American people with so that we can sound reasonable in our
demands?
How about you just demand what is right?
Why don't we just stand up and say, you know what? We are going to
balance our budget. Giddyup.
That is what every American does. It is what every business has to
do. But no, no, no. We will keep going around in circles, each side
going to their pet projects.
Meanwhile, the Federal bureaucracy is going to continue to be at war
with the American people like my friend, Scott Smith, who was here last
night. Not one single mention by the President, hasn't apologized a
lick for putting him through that, domestic terrorist.
Hasn't apologized a lick for the fact that his Secretary of Homeland
Security, who was here last night, stood up
[[Page H780]]
at a lectern and said that his own border patrol employees that work
for him whipped Haitian migrants when he knew full well--both from the
video evidence that we all saw with our eyes and a memo from his own
people in the Department of Homeland Security--that was not true.
He knew it. And then he blamed it on systemic racism.
Has he apologized? No.
And the reason he hasn't apologized is because he is at war with the
people of the United States and the fact that his job is supposed to be
to secure the border.
And the President knows it.
The President goes down and does a photo op with a preset visit in El
Paso where they literally go out and clean out the streets of the
migrants who are piling up in El Paso and sets up a photo op, and then
last night dares to come down here, lecture us, lie to the American
people that we are trying to go after their Social Security and
Medicare, and offer nothing about his constitutional duty as President
of the United States to secure the border.
Mr. Speaker, I will yield back here in a minute. I assume my time is
running short.
I will just close by saying this: The American people expect more out
of the people's House.
They expect more out of the President of the United States than what
we saw last night. It was not a State of the Union. It was a state of
confusion.
We have an obligation to do our job and stop spending money we don't
have, secure the border of the United States, and actually represent
the people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair and not to a perceived viewing audience. Members are
reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the
President.
____________________