Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 395, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated for:

Mr. Speaker, when the United States Congress was faced with raising the debt ceiling in 2006 Senator Barack Obama stated ``The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.''

I will not be party to a failure of leadership when it comes to the debt ceiling. Today, I will do what I stated when I ran for the House of Representatives, I will vote against increasing a debt ceiling absent of spending control measures to right our fiscal ship of state.

This resolution would increase the current statutory debt limit by $2.406 trillion, from $14.294 trillion $16.7 trillion. The 16.8 percent increase would be the fourth time the debt ceiling has been increased since February 2009.

Over the past two years, President Obama and congressional Democrats have overseen the largest budget deficits in the history of the United States. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid chastised the Republicans and President George W. Bush in 2006 when he stated ``Why is it right to increase this Nation's dependence on foreign creditors? They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they are right. I doubt it, because most Americans know that increasing the debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the baby boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.''

The American people have sent a Republican majority to the House of Representatives to reduce spending and put our country on a sustainable financial footing. If I were to close my eyes and abandon my principles, and vote yes to raising the debt limit I would allow Congress to continue to spend the taxpayers' money with no clear plan to reduce our long term debt. The problem in Washington is we do not have a revenue problem--the facts are clear we have a spending problem in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I will not vote for this debt increase and I will not vote for a debt limit increase unless all of the following criteria are met, or included in the final bill that would aim to raise the debt limit:

The United States Congress must pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

A failsafe trigger mechanism must be put in place that would automatically cut spending if we reached a set percentage limit towards hitting the debt ceiling. In other words, as Federal spending approached the debt ceiling, once a certain level was reached, automatic cuts in spending to Federal programs would be triggered, ensuring that future Congresses and Administrations would not have to consider raising the debt ceiling in the future.

Capping federal spending as part of the GDP at 18-20%.

The U.S. corporate tax rate is 35% at the federal level and 39% when the average state corporate tax is included. The average rate in the other industrial countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is just 25%. Only Japan has as high a rate. Businesses and corporations in the United States cannot succeed in an environment where they are among the highest taxed in the entire world. It is paramount that Congress lowers the corporate tax rate for American businesses by at least 10% before any vote on raising the debt limit is considered.

On May 14, 2011, the Wall Street Journal in article entitled ``What if the U.S. Treasury Defaults?'' interviewed Mr. Stanley Druckenmiller, the onetime fund manager for George Soros, regarding whether Congress should immediately raise the federal debt. Mr. Druckenmiller pointed out the grave danger if politicians give the government authority to borrow beyond the current $14.3 trillion without any conditions to control spending. He further went on to state that he was willing to accept a temporary delay in the interest payments he is owed on his United States Treasury Bonds ``if the results in a Washington deal to restrain runaway entitlement costs.''

I cannot, and will not, be part of President Obama's, and more than 100 of my Democrat colleagues in the House of Representatives, mantra that we need to raise the debt ceiling as a ``clean'' bill without any fiscal reform. For

without making meaningful attempts to reduce on every increasing national debt, this would be a vote not on a debt ceiling but more a debt recommendation.

The Congress would find themselves voting to increase the debt ceiling again, and again, and again. Enough is enough! Washington needs to stop spending money we do not have and not make our children and grandchildren pick up the tab for our reckless financial behavior.

I am even pleased that then Senator Joe Biden agrees with my thoughts, for in 2006, he stated: ``This is a record of utter disregard for our Nation's financial future. It is a record of indifference to the price our children and grandchildren will pay to redeem our debt when it comes due. History will not judge this record kindly. My vote against the debt limit increase cannot change the fact that we have incurred this debt already, and will no doubt incur more. It is a statement that I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point.''

Vice President Biden, I stand with you and refuse to be associated with the policies your Administration help precipitate, by spending beyond our means, and will not vote to raise the debt ceiling.

Mr. Speaker, deep within my heart I have a mistrust of the Obama Administration when it comes to the PATRIOT Act. However, I do have a greater trust in the law enforcement and judges on the FISA court to keep Americans safe.

I support the work that law enforcement does around the nation each and every day in order to protect our citizens and apprehend individuals who want to kill innocent people and try to destroy our way of life.

The PATRIOT Act was enacted shortly after September 11 to deal with the threat of international terrorism. Indeed, we are engaged in a global conflict against radical Islam. Those who are captured on this truly global battlefield should be treated as non-state, non-uniform belligerents, not as common criminals.

As you are well aware, I spent 22 years in the United States Army-- the tip of the spear tasked with protecting the citizens of this great nation. As a Member of the House of Representatives, I have taken an oath to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens of the 22nd Congressional District of Florida and all Americans.

Benjamin Franklin, one of the founders of our nation wrote ``They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.''

For many weeks I have reflected on this quote as I have studied this issue to make a decision on how I should cast my vote on the reauthorization of provisions of the PATRIOT Act. I have spoken with numerous individuals, including my fellow colleagues in the House of Representatives, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller, and the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers in order to try to understand the facts.

I have spoken to numerous constituents who are both experts on this issue and constituents who, while not experts, have a concern about these provisions. I reviewed testimony to Congressional Committees and have studied many documents in order to determine the proper balance between individual's rights and the responsibility of the Federal Government to protect Americans.

I have done what I was sent to Capitol Hill to do, to make an informed decision based on the facts and represent the people of the 22nd Congressional District of Florida. I have determined that the most important constitutional right, one which I have taken an oath to protect, is the right to life for all Americans. We must do whatever is necessary to prevent another terrorist attack on our soil and how to do this must be fully and openly debated.

When we killed Osama bin Laden, we may have killed the face of evil and the mastermind of numerous terrorist attacks, however, we face an emboldened enemy who now operates on a 21st century battlefield. The perpetrators of September 11th lived in South Florida and planned their attacks upon our nation there. And just this month, individuals were arrested in South Florida sending funds to terrorists in Pakistan.

The complexities of the 21st Century Battlefield require us to reassess and redefine how we confront our enemy. The men and women who serve in law enforcement throughout our country today face this non- state, non-uniform belligerent who has no regard for international borders or boundaries, to include our homeland. As we have seen by the terrorist attacks in Little Rock and Fort Hood, our fight against radical Islam is not just against the Taliban in Afghanistan or al Qaida in Iraq, but against a global movement who has infiltrated our borders.

We are at war with a radical ideology that has brought the fight to us time and time again. From Fort Hood, Texas, to Little Rock, Arkansas, Islamists have targeted American citizens. After each of these brutal attacks, I, like many Americans, was shocked at how this could happen on American soil. Political Correctness allowed Major Nidal Hassan to have so-called ``spiritual conversations'' with a radical element who preached and advocated violence against American citizens. Under the protection of the First Amendment, Carlos Bledsoe was able to travel overseas, become radicalized, return home to purchase weapons, plan and execute an attack against a Little Rock Army Recruiting Depot.

As I outlined to a letter I sent to FBI Director Robert Mueller earlier this month, I believe the execution of these provisions should be moved to the Counter Terrorism Division instead of the Criminal Division. Further, I do not support the extension of these provisions for four years and I am gravely disturbed that we did not allow an open process to review the extension of these provisions.

We must clearly focus on the enemy, not permit political correctness to drive our domestic security policy. No one recognizes the security situation better than I. However, I have not been fully persuaded that these provisions make us safe . . . as opposed to the illusion of feeling safe.

Based upon my research, I shall not vote for extending these provisions for four years. The most integral part of our focus on security against radical Islamic terrorism is to recognize and confront this enemy. And to do this we must openly debate the best way for this to be accomplished.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think as we look across this Chamber, there are very few Members that have ever served on a 21st century battlefield, a 21st century battlefield that is comprised of nonstate, nonuniform belligerents who have no respect for borders or boundaries.

All this amendment in section 1034 says is that we affirm that we are engaged in an armed conflict. It has a very narrow definition. And it also looks at the global conflagration in which we are in. And it also addresses that we should be seeking to remove these belligerents off of the battlefield.

I have had the experience in 2003 in Iraq. I have had the experience for 2\1/2\ years in Afghanistan. And if we allow an amendment such as this to go forth, it would have precluded us from going in and killing the world's number one terrorist, Osama bin Laden. And if this amendment is allowed to pass, then we will not be able to go after al- Awlaki and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. We will not be able to go after Mullah Omar, who is the head of the Taliban. We will not be able to go after Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who is in charge of the Haqqani Islamic terrorist network. It would not allow us to go and deny this enemy sanctuary.

I want to say this one last thing. There are two West Point cadets that are interns that are serving with me. If we do not have the courage to affirm and declare there is an enemy, how can we send them onto the battlefield?

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I had an important milestone occur in my life. My oldest daughter, Aubrey, turned 18 years old. It seems like it was only yesterday that I held this small baby in the palm of my hand and now she is a grown mature woman about to start college and begin the next phase of her life.

I flew back to Florida last Saturday so that I could be with her on this very special day in her life. Turning 18 is important for every American. Because at 18 years old, under the law, you are now considered an adult and she was proud to register for the most important right--the right to vote for our elected leaders.

When my daughter was born in 1993 the Federal Government debt was $4.3 trillion. Just 18 years later, I will shortly be faced with a vote on whether to raise the debt limit to over $15 trillion. When I held my daughter as a baby, I never thought that our Nation would be in such financial distress and on its way to a major economic catastrophe.

Over the weekend, as I celebrated with my daughter, I thought even harder about what the United States will be like when she will be my age and what would her son or daughter, my grandchildren, think when they look back in the history books at this critical time in our Republic's history.

Last November, the citizens of the 22nd congressional district, and millions of Americans, voted for a new direction for our country. They sent a message to our elected representatives that we needed to end out-of-control government spending, reduce our national debt, and get our fiscal house in order.

The Democrat majority and President Obama over the last two years have produced deficits of $1.4 and $1.25 trillion, and the President has produced a budget for fiscal year 2012 which would add another $1.6 trillion. The American people know that the Federal Government is collecting $2.2 trillion and spending $3.7 trillion this year.

The American people know that forty cents of every dollar the Federal Government spends is borrowed, much of it from China. The American people also know our Nation is piling up new debt at the rate of $4 billion a day.

The Era of Big Government Spending is Over! In 100 days the debate in Washington has gone from a freeze in government spending to addressing cuts in spending.

As we are all aware, the 111th Congress was controlled by overwhelming Democrat majorities in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Yet even with these enormous majorities, Congress failed to pass a budget or any of the appropriations bills.

Members of the former majority party in the House of Representatives have now resorted to the political rhetoric that the Republican Party is trying to kill women, starve seniors, and the budget deal is the functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians. They make these statements even after Majority Leader Reid and President Obama recognize that we need to cut Federal spending.

This type of political rhetoric is beneath us. We can disagree on the direction we are taking our nation, but let us have a debate on the facts and policies. The American people demand an adult conversation instead of childish name calling.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to briefly summarize my thoughts and votes during the negotiations for the budget for fiscal year 2011. I voted for the first short term Continuing Resolution in the 112th Congress in order to provide Speaker Boehner the necessary time to negotiate with an intransigent U.S. Senate and White House.

I voted against the second Continuing Resolution because I believed that we were continuing to kick a can down the road, and that the Obama administration and Members of the Democrat Party wanted to force the Federal Government into a shutdown in order to win political points. It seems their goal is the hope that by shutting down the Federal Government, the American people will perceive an inflexible Republican Party and return the Democrats to power in the next election.

I voted for the Department of Defense Appropriations bill, which contained another short term Continuing Resolution, in order to support my brothers and sisters in uniform. However, I made the leadership of the Republican Party aware that I believed using the military as a bargaining chip in the negotiations as a way to pass yet another continuing resolution was indefensible.

As the clock approached the time to shut down the Federal Government, an agreement was finally reached. In order to draft the bill and provide time for the American people to review the bill, the House considered, and I voted in favor of another Short Term Continuing Resolution. I always stated it was never my intention to shut down the Federal Government.

At the Army Airborne school in 1984 I had a black hat instructor say, ``If you set the bar low, you will jump low!'' Today, I will be voting against the negotiated agreement because I believe that we set the bar too low and it does not fulfill the promise I made to the constituents of the 22nd congressional district of Florida. While this bill is a step in the right direction, I am voting against the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2011, H.R. 1473 because it is important for elected leaders to stand by the pledges we make to the American people.

It takes five miles to turn an aircraft carrier. I am pleased, that finally, the Republican leadership has finally taken control of the helm and begun to turn the wheel. However, I believe we need to turn the wheel a little harder. At this moment in our Nation's history, when the facts are so clear and the political hyperbole is so hollow, my vote reflects that we need more to get our ship of state on the right course.

That is what my adult daughter Aubrey expects, that is what my teenage daughter, Austen expects, that is what my wife Angela expects and that is what every American expects.

Madam Speaker, will we be Chamberlain or will we be Churchill?

Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom between 1937 and 1940, will forever be known for his foreign policy approach of appeasement. Prime Minster Chamberlain, even with Germany's increasing aggression in Europe, turned a blind eye to the impending danger and did not prepare his nation for war.

Winston Churchill, who saw the dark clouds approaching, was looked upon as an alarmist at the time, even though he saw the true danger. Churchill stated: ``An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.''

Madam Speaker: I once again will not be feeding the crocodile. I once again will not be voting for yet another Continuing Resolution. However, having spent 22 years in uniform, having served on the battlefield in defense of this nation, I will be voting for the Department of Defense Appropriations bill in order to support our men and women in uniform. Our nation is involved in two conflicts and our President has now involved us in a third. It is my constitutional responsibilities to provide funding for the service members in uniform who are defending our nation both at home and abroad.

Some would argue that comparing World War II to the debate on the budget for Fiscal Year 2011 is not an appropriate comparison. However, I would argue that Winston Churchill was prepared to lead his country courageously, in the way that would ensure England's future. Today we are also faced with the question of protecting America's future.

Since we are discussing history it is important to be clear on the facts that have led us to this point. The Democrat Majority and President Obama over the last two years have produced deficits of $1.4 and $1.25 trillion and the President has produced a Budget for Fiscal Year 2012 which would add another $1.6 trillion. Our nation is faced with raising a debt limit of $15 trillion. Three years of trillion dollar deficits America is moving onto the same path that Spain, Ireland and now Portugal are on.

The American people know that the federal government is collecting $2.2 trillion and spending $3.7 trillion this year. The American people know forty cents of every dollar the federal government spends is borrowed, much of it from China. The American people also know our nation is piling up new debt at the rate of $4 billion a day.

The 111th Congress was controlled by overwhelming Democrat majorities in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. Yet even with these enormous majorities, Congress failed to pass a budget or any of the Appropriations bills.

In November of 2010, the people of this country voted for a change. They voted for a new direction for our nation. They voted because they saw, as did Winston Churchill, the dark clouds on the horizon.

The Republican Majority passed H.R. 1 and fulfilled a promise to the American people and sent the legislation to the U.S. Senate. However, the Democrat Majority in the Senate dismissed H.R. 1 as too extreme. Since the Senate rejected the legislation the chamber has not produced any bill to bring to conference committee or even to use to negotiate. Forty-seven days and we are still waiting.

President Obama appointed Vice President Biden as the Administration point person on the negotiations with the Congress and instead of getting down to a serious discussion he flew off to Europe. Clearly the economy of Finland was more important than the failing economy that the President's policies have produced for the United States.

All indications are that my Democrat colleagues want to get to the point of a government shutdown in order to win political points. It seems that their goal is the hope that by shutting the federal government that the American people will see an intransigent Republican Party and return the Democrats to power in the next election.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi waits in the wings to take the Speaker's gavel back. Should that happen we will go back to the days of spending, taxing and regulating and embrace the policies that will put our economic and national security again at risk.

However, the Republican Party must now share in the blame of how we have arrived at this point. The Republican Leadership is approaching 100 days since taking the Majority and is now playing a game of high stakes poker with the funding for the Federal Government. The House Majority has now placed the funding for the Department of Defense and the funding for the troops down as a bargaining chip.

In the last 100 days, the House Majority could have passed at any point in time a separate stand alone Appropriations for the Department of Defense and the funding for our men and women in uniform. However, I am disgusted at the perception that Leaders in my own Party who did not move a Defense Bill earlier and are now using the men and women in uniform, the individuals who are defending our freedom, as a way to pass yet another continuing resolution.

Madam Speaker, what will another week provide with regard to these negotiations? Will it provide an opportunity for the Democrat Party and Senator Schumer to create more exotic synonyms for the word ``extreme'' or will it allow the Leadership of the Republican Party to find other essential government program to be used as vehicles to pass another Continuing Resolutions.

Once again, it is time to conclude this debate on federal spending and get our nation back on track by cutting spending for the long term economic restoration of our Republic.

I voted for the Department of Defense Appropriation bill because, at this moment in time, due to the complete failure by the Democrat Majority in the Senate this is currently the only vehicle on the table. But more importantly, my ``yes'' vote today was for my Brothers and Sisters in uniform. My ``no'' sentiment reflects a disappointment in my own leadership.

I believe today, more than ever, in the words of Winston Churchill who said ``I was only the servant of my country and had I, at any moment, failed to express her unflinching resolve to fight and conquer, I should at once have been rightly cast aside.''

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1246) to reduce the amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense for printing and reproduction.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 1246. It is a simple, commonsense bill that calls for an overall 10 percent reduction in the printing and reproduction costs of the Department of Defense.

More importantly, the American people support H.R. 1246, as more than 150,000 people voted online via the YouCut program on passing this bill. The American people are behind this, and we need to be behind the American people. H.R. 1246 will help us keep our promise to the American people that we will cut waste, fraud and abuse in government spending and spend taxpayer dollars more efficiently, and that includes every department or agency.

In fiscal year 2012, the Department of Defense proposes to spend $357 million for printing and reproduction services. Now, I am not arguing that paper copies are no longer needed. We all still rely on paper. But I do not understand why we need examples of these expensive, high-gloss color briefing slides and slick books that the DOD sends over here for everything from briefing slides to budget rollouts and miscellaneous reports. If anyone is interested, the House Armed Services Committee has a boatload of these fancy printed reports. I think the information that DOD needs to get to us, as well as share internally amongst themselves or with the public, can just as easily be conveyed using plain black-and-white copies that are printed on both sides. Nowadays, a lot can be transmitted electronically.

During my 22 years of active duty service in the United States Army, I witnessed the growth of the excessive PowerPoint briefs and reproduction. I am well aware of areas where saving money is very possible, and this is one of those areas.

These cuts are aimed at wasteful Defense Department spending and will not affect the overall mission of our men and women in uniform in protecting our national security. Mr. Speaker, a mere 10 percent reduction to this one account would save taxpayers $35.7 million in fiscal year 2012 and nearly $180 million over the next 5 years. We owe it to the taxpayers to take this step.

Now, this may seem like a small amount to some, but imagine if every Member of Congress, all 435 of us, took it upon ourselves to do the exact same

and find where we could cut some wasteful spending. We would regain the trust and confidence of the American people as good stewards of their resources. Let's pass H.R. 1246.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would say this. I do believe that we must take a first step when we talk about deficit reduction. I think that this is one of the important things. As I said in my statement, if each and every one of us in this House, all 435, made the effort to find these instances of fraud, waste and abuse, then we could have more significant cuts into our deficit and, of course, into our debt. And I think at a critical time when, the gentlewoman from Guam just stated, maybe perhaps also following along with this, we do need to look at the amount of requests for reports that we are having.

But still, as we are talking about efficiency in the Department of Defense, this is a first step toward that efficiency occurring. And I think that anyone that would not be willing to support this says that they are not willing to take that first step toward getting the Department of Defense and all our departments and all of our agencies to be more effective and more efficient. But as well, that does start with us here in the Members of the House of Representatives.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further requests, and also apologies to you, Madam.

I am prepared to close after my colleague has yielded back her time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to take a stand, a stand that may not be popular with the Leadership of the House of Representatives, but a stand I must take because I believe we cannot kick the can down the road for even another 3 weeks. The American people recognize that we must no longer take these small calculated measures. Today I will vote against another short-term Continuing Resolution.

In the shortest month of the year, February, the Federal Government had the largest deficit of $223 billion in our nation's entire history. The American people know that we are in a fiscal crisis and have sent me to address out-of-control spending.

The majority in the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1 which reduced spending by $61 billion for the remainder of this fiscal year. Even though H.R. 1 only cut spending by approximately 1.5 percent of the entire requested budget for fiscal year 2011, H.R. 1 reversed the trend of the Democrat Majority which increased overall discretionary funding by 24% over the last 2 years. The United States Senate rejected this amount as too much. They believe that, after President Barack Obama and the Democrat Congress presented trillion dollar deficit budgets, a freeze is the only viable approach.

I am not a supporter of big government. However, the Federal Government does perform certain important functions. Many essential Federal agencies cannot move forward with planning and using resources if every several weeks they are faced with the threat that they will need to close their doors until we resolve this impasse. Could any business in America function this way? Can a family household function this way?

Madam Speaker, President Obama and the United States Congresses of the past have created the Nanny States of America. Vast segments of the American people are now dependent on our Federal Government and not dependent on their own ability, skills and entrepreneurial spirit to succeed in this Nation.

We are in this position today because the Democrats in the last Congress failed to pass a budget. Further, the President appoints Vice President Biden as the Administration point person on the negotiations while he flies off to Europe. The Democrats failed to show leadership last year and the President is showing a lack of leadership today. I will show what I consider appropriate leadership now and vote against this Continuing Resolution.

Madam Speaker, the American people are watching us closely. Today, with information so readily available on the Internet they know the truth of our desperate economic situation. The days of Washington, D.C. double-talk no longer works.

The American people know that the Federal Government is collecting $2.2 trillion and spending $3.7 trillion this year. The American people know forty cents of every dollar the Federal Government spends is borrowed, much of it from China. The American people also know our nation is piling up new debt at the rate of $4 billion a day. So, what does $6 billion of spending cuts really buy the American people?

Further, the General Accountability Office released a 345-page report detailing the redundancies of Federal programs and the $100 to $200 billion of savings that could be achieved if these programs were consolidated or eliminated.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to argue that these cuts in spending will weaken an already slow economy and contribute to an increase in the loss of jobs. I believe this is a disingenuous argument. The truth is, the spending over the last 2 years has not reduced the loss of jobs, but instead has contributed to the largest debt in American history which will be passed on to my children and my grandchildren.

In Wisconsin, we have seen what the unionized entitlement class can do and the pressure they can place on their elected officials. Wisconsin State Legislators running to a neighboring state to hide from making a hard vote and protestors storming the Wisconsin State Capitol are not in concert with the principles of a representative democracy.

Madam Speaker, Madison, Wisconsin is only 700 miles from the United States Capitol.

The Founders of our nation wrote in the Declaration of Independence ``We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'' The ``Pursuit'' of Happiness, not the Federal Government's ``Guarantee'' of Happiness!

Finally, Madam Speaker, we can continue to rehash the past of how we have gotten into this situation, but I would rather focus on the future. The future is now and the place is here for us to get our Nation back on track. I support the cuts in the Continuing Resolution. I support the elimination of these projects.

However, my ``No'' vote should not be construed as my willingness for a ``government shutdown.'' My ``No'' vote is based on a simple principle that we need to complete the Federal budget for 2011. It is time to have this debate on Federal spending and get our nation back on track by cutting spending for the long term economic restoration of our Republic.

Alexander the Great once stated, ``Fortune favors the bold.'' The American people are looking for principled and bold leadership. I understand ``political maneuvering'' but the time has come to engage in the battle for the fiscal responsible future of America. I take my position on the frontlines.

Madam Speaker, I stand here to support H.R. 4 for the repeal of the 1099 bill.

At a time when business owners are trying to survive in a sea of economic turmoil, our government has thrown them an anchor instead of a life preserver. Democrats have borrowed and spent $1 trillion of their stimulus program, and the unemployment rate has remained stuck at or above 9 percent for nearly 2 years. Our focus must be on measures that will actually help American workers and allow employers to focus on job creation. H.R. 4 will protect small businesses, their workers, and American taxpayers.

H.R. 4 repeals the onerous tax reporting provisions Democrats enacted last year to help pay for both their health care law and the TARP 3 legislation. It also protects taxpayers by reducing waste, fraud and abuse in the Democrats' health care law.

Finally, this bill will reduce the deficit by $166 million in the first 10 years and by billions of dollars over the long run, while reducing Federal spending by nearly $20 billion over the next 10 years.

During a time when the unemployment rate is at or above 9 percent, additional government mandates on small businesses is, from the standpoint of economic policy, nothing short of idiotic. We should be looking for ways to free small businesses and companies from unnecessary burdens. We should be looking for ways to encourage entrepreneurship. Instead, we have mandates that impose new obstacles for companies. We should be seeking ways to restart the engine of job growth.

Let me be clear that I accept the proposition that every person and every business entity has both a moral and legal obligation to fully report their taxable income. The fundamental problem with the new 1099 reporting requirement is that they are imposed on a broad universe of small business taxpayers that annually conduct more than $600 of transactions with other vendors.

The new filing requirements are both burdensome as well as overinclusive.

Madam Speaker, let us remember that even during the State of the Union Address, the President gave his support to repeal this onerous, burdensome, and misguided mandate.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.

As we are seeing unfold throughout our country and also especially my 22nd Congressional District in Florida, this health care bill has been detrimental to the survival and growth of our small businesses. Employers are choosing to drop health care for their employees, which will flood this government-run health care system, eventually leading to a lower quality of health care.

According to the Small Business Administration, the smallest firms spend 36 percent more per employee than larger firms to comply with Federal regulations. It comes out to about $10,585 per employee for all Federal regulations. The multitude of rules, restrictions and mandates imposes a heavy burden on Americans and the U.S. economy and could destroy an untold number of jobs.

The Obama administration promulgated 59 major regulations in 2009, 62 in 2010, another 191 regulations are in the works, and the Dodd-Frank permanent bailout bill alone requires no fewer than 243 new rules by 11 agencies over a dozen years.

The SBA also estimates the total cost for all Federal regulations is roughly $1.75 trillion each year. All of the Federal red tape is a tax and regulatory straightjacket that is crippling our economic recovery.

``And to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.''