Floor Statements

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee for yielding and particularly for his leadership in being the number one budget hawk in the House.

Mr. Chairman, hopefully by now, all Americans know we have a spending-driven debt crisis. We are now looking at the fourth--fourth-- trillion-dollar deficit in a row. Our debt-to-GDP ratio now exceeds the entire size of our economy for the first time since World War II. Again, we are in the midst of a crisis. We are mortgaging our children's future, we are bankrupting a great nation, and we are hindering jobs and economic growth in this country.

I've listened very carefully to friends--close friends--come to the House floor to argue against this bill, and I agree with much of what they say. This is one individual tool in a toolbox. They point out the absence of many more, and they are correct. And it is my hope and my aspiration that this House would take them up.

I want to also congratulate the gentleman from Maryland, the ranking member of the House Budget Committee. It's not always easy in these times to work on a bipartisan basis. We had an opportunity to work on the Joint Select Committee, to which he was a positive force. We often disagreed, but he has commanded my respect, and he commands my respect today for his bipartisan work.

I do want to congratulate the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the entirety of his committee. For the first time in my lifetime, under his leadership, discretionary spending will decline 2 years in a row--an incredible achievement.

I also want to thank our Speaker, Speaker Boehner, for his leadership on the entire subject of earmarks. Earmarks are not necessarily inherently bad. But, Mr. Chairman, we all know that too often they represented the triumph of seniority over merit and the triumph of local and special interest over national interest.

Under the leadership of our Speaker, with a little help from the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), they are no more. But in a different time, a different era, they may return. This is at least an insurance policy that the one individual who is elected to represent the entirety of the Nation, the President of the United States, can at least

put a spotlight on that type of spending and just ask the United States Congress to take that up-or-down vote.

It's about transparency, it's about accountability, and it's about a modest tool in a time of debt crisis to help with jobs, economic growth, and the survival of a great nation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate his leadership, and certainly his leadership as one of the foremost budget hawks in the entire United States Congress.

Madam Chair, we just learned that the President will not be a day late and a dollar short with his budget. Instead, he will be a week late and a trillion dollars short on his budget. We also learned from the Congressional Budget Office this will not be his first year, his second year, his third year, but his fourth year to be a trillion dollars short on his budget.

Now, Madam Chair, we received a little good news last month: 200,000 of our fellow citizens were able to find work. Unfortunately, 13 million--almost 13 million--remain unemployed, more people are on food stamps than ever before, and half of all Americans are either low- income or in poverty under the policies of this President. It is clear that this President's policies have failed. They have made our economy worse. And because he cannot run on his record, he has regrettably turned to the politics of division and envy.

To help the economy, to help create more jobs, Madam Chair, number one, we've got to quit spending money we don't have. And second of all, the American people and job creators have to be able to know that they have a fact-based budget, one that is as honest as the American people themselves.

We need fair value accounting. If you're a small business in the Fifth District of Texas and you don't have fair value accounting, you'll probably go broke. Well, the Federal Government doesn't use fair value accounting, and guess what? The Federal Government is broke. That's why we must pass the gentleman from New Jersey's bill, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act. No more Fannie and Freddies, no more Solyndras. Let's ensure that we account for these costs as part of the Republican plan for America's job creators to give our job creators the confidence they need to hire and grow this economy.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him and I thank our Budget Committee chairman for their kind words and their great leadership for fiscal responsibility and job growth.

Mr. Chairman, indeed, on Monday, the American people were reminded, yet again, that this President's policies have failed. It was on Monday when the Congressional Budget Office announced that this President is on track to be the first President in American history to produce trillion-dollar deficits every single year that he's in office. Part of what has created these trillion-dollar deficits is the failed stimulus program, which my friends on the other side of the aisle still tout.

The gentleman from Georgia is right: because the President can't run for reelection on his failed policies, he has, unfortunately, resorted to the politics of division and envy. But, Mr. Chairman, the American public isn't interested in a division; they're not interested in envy. They are interested in jobs. And in that respect, this President hasn't just failed; he has made our economy worse.

Almost 2 million more Americans have lost their jobs under this President's policies. We have the longest sustained period of high unemployment since the Great Depression. One in seven are on food stamps. That's the reason, Mr. Chairman, that House Republicans have a plan for America's job creators. Yesterday, we passed a bill trying to repeal a part of the job-killing health care plan of the President.

Well, today is a very modest step. It says, do you know what, before we pass another plan like the President's health care plan, wouldn't it be nice to get that report from CBO that estimated another million of our fellow countrymen might just lose their jobs. Shouldn't we empower Members of Congress with more information? Let's get the jobs that the American people so richly need and deserve. Let's empower Members of Congress to know how these pieces of legislation are going to impact jobs and economic growth.

Mr. Chairman, we must pass the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act.

Madam Chair, it is clear that the President's policies have failed. One in seven now have to rely on food stamps. Half of America now is either classified as low income or in poverty, and millions remain unemployed.

Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office announced one more of the President's failures, and that is, he is on track to deliver his fourth trillion dollar-plus deficit in a row.

Somebody needs to tell the President we've got to quit spending money we don't have for jobs we never get.

One more failure, Madam Chair, is the President's health care program. Not a week goes by that I don't hear from hardworking, small business people in the Fifth District of Texas.

I heard from a furniture businessman in Garland, Texas, who told me: I could start two companies and hire multiple people, but based on this administration and the lack of facts with ObamaCare, I'll continue to sit and wait.

I heard from a gentleman who ran a music business in Palestine, Texas: Our business is hampered by the uncertainty of tax policy, regulations, and ObamaCare.

I had one in Dallas, Texas, after having to lay off 24 people in the last 2 years, who wrote to me and said: You know what? We're going to have to terminate one more in February due almost entirely to the impact on my business of the health care reform we have. We are stymied.

There is no doubt that the President's health care plan is killing jobs. House Republicans have repealed it in its totality. It has been blocked by the President, by Democrats. So if we can't do it in its totality, we'll do it piecemeal.

We need to start out by repealing the CLASS Act, which Secretary Sebelius has said is totally unsustainable. Democrat Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad called it a Ponzi scheme of the first order.

The President's policies have failed. It's time to enact the House Republican Plan for America's Job Creators. It's time to repeal the CLASS Act.

The American people know why we are here today. We are here today because the President's economic policies have failed. Since the President was elected, unemployment has been at, near, or above 9 percent, one in seven on food stamps, small business startups at about a 17-year low. That's the Obama economy.

And because of that, Mr. Speaker, almost every single Member of the House and Senate agree that we should extend the payroll tax holiday for another year. What is so confusing to many of us is that, as my friends on the other side of the aisle say, yes, we need to do this for a year, like the President said, like the American people expect, and yet they all want to vote against it.

So the disagreement we have here is: Do you want to punt the ball down the field, do you want to do this for 60 days and do it again in 60 days for another 60 days, or do you want to solve the problem? That's the first debate. And it really begs the question: Why? Why do we have so many people saying they want to do this for a year and yet they're only willing to vote for 60 days? Are people more interested in making a law that will benefit the American people or are they more interested in making a campaign issue that may benefit their own reelection campaigns? That's the question.

The second point of debate is: The American people, many of whom are suffering because of this economy, they're willing to work over the holidays. Are we willing to work over the holidays? The House is willing to work. The question is: Where is the Senate; okay?

Since the dawn of the Republic, we've had this thing called a conference committee. You know, if you took Civics 101, you will remember it. The House passes a bill; the Senate passes a bill; they come together in a conference committee and they work out their differences. We stand ready to work over the holidays.

And here's the third point: Do you want to pass a bill for messaging purposes or do you want to pass a bill that works? ABC reported last night, ``Two-Month Payroll Tax Holiday Passed by Senate, Pushed by President, Cannot Be Implemented Properly, Experts Say.''

The National Payroll Reporting Consortium--this is the group that handles all the payroll issues for practically a third of all of the private sector workers in the country--said that it ``could create substantial problems, confusion, and costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S. employers and employees.''

And, in fact, the Associated Builders & Contractors have said: This sort of temporary fix underscores Congress's uneven ad hoc approach toward the economy and causes more harm than good for America's job creators.

So, Mr. Speaker, it really comes down to this: If you say you want to do this for a year, put your vote where your rhetoric is. If you are not willing to work over the holidays, admit to the American people you're not willing to work over the holidays. And if you want to support a bill that actually works, talk to the job creators in America.

That's the problem in Washington--people get isolated. Talk to the people who are absolutely responsible for this, and they will tell you this 60-day ad hoc approach doesn't work. That's why we need a rule to go to conference and put forth something the American people want and need.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we all need to be reminded of why we're here in the first place.

We're here because the President's economic policies have failed. They've failed this Nation. Ever since he was elected, unemployment has been at, near, or above 9 percent. And the people suffer. So that's why I believe almost every Member of this body believes that we must extend the payroll tax holiday.

That's not the debate, Mr. Speaker.

What is most curious, though, is our President. Our President has said it would be inexcusable for Congress not to further extend this middle class tax cut for the rest of the year. He didn't say 60 days. He said the rest of the year. The Democratic leader has said that she intends to fight to extend these provisions for a full year.

So, Mr. Speaker, I guess I'm confused.

I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle say they want to do this for a year. They say they want to do it for a year, but they're just not willing to vote to do it for a year. That's most curious, Mr. Speaker. I don't think I understand it. That's what the President asked for. It's what the American people deserve. They don't want us to punt the ball. They want us to do our job. So there is no point of contention on whether or not this should be extended.

But the question is: Are we going to do it for a full year, or are we going to punt the ball down the field and, once again, disappoint the American people?

Here is the next point of contention:

We stand ready to work over the holidays to get this done. That's the question. Are you willing to work over the holidays, or are you not willing to work over the holidays? The American people, most of them, are going to have to work over the holidays. Why shouldn't we be willing to do this?

Mr. Speaker, I guess it's just curious how many people seem to be unaware that there is this thing called a ``conference committee.'' Since the dawn of the Republic, these are how differences are settled between the House and the Senate. If you don't remember your Civics 101, and maybe if you have small children like I do, you can go back and watch the Schoolhouse Rock video. It's very clear. All we're asking is that the Democrats appoint conferees and negotiate in good faith-- except the Senate Democrat leader said he wouldn't do it, and the House Democrat leader said she wouldn't do it.

So it kind of begs the question, Mr. Speaker: Do they want to make laws that benefit the American people in a time of need, or do they want to perpetuate a campaign issue that maybe they believe helps their campaigns? That's really the question.

Then last but not least, we ought to pass laws that actually work around here. ABC News reported last night: ``Holiday Passed by Senate, Pushed by President, Cannot Be Implemented Properly, Experts Say.''

Well, isn't that interesting.

The National Payroll Reporting Consortium that handles payroll for about a third of the private economy said that this ``could create substantial problems, confusion and cost, affecting a significant percentage of U.S. employers and employees.''

The Associated Builders and Contractors, the people who actually go out and build things in America, have said: ``This sort of temporary fix underscores Congress' uneven, ad hoc approach toward the economy, and causes more harm than good for America's job creators.'' The leading building trade association in the Nation said the Senate's 60- day plan will cause more harm than good.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have passed a good and reasonable bill. It's for 1 year. It does what the President asks us to do. It does what the American people ask us to do. It's actually paid for. It doesn't increase the deficit, and it blocks tax increases. I don't know how my friends on the other side of the aisle think we're going to create jobs with temporary tax increases with permanent tax increases. It doesn't happen.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, if my friends on the other side of the aisle are confused about why we're here, let me enlighten them. It's because the President's policies have failed. In the Obama economy, employment has been at, near or above 9 percent ever since the gentleman was elected. One in seven are on food stamps, and small business start-ups are at a 17-year low. So, Mr. Speaker, that's why we're here today. I think almost everyone in this Chamber agrees, yes, we want to extend the Social Security payroll tax holiday.

But what is so curious to me, Mr. Speaker, is I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle say, we need to do it for a year, but we're only willing to vote for 60 days. I don't understand that, Mr. Speaker. And I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle saying, middle- income families deserve this $1,000 tax cut; yet they're only willing to vote for $160. And then they say, we have to pass it today, we can't let New Year's Day come without passing this; and yet they won't appoint

anybody to a conference committee, and everyone is getting ready to run to the airport. I don't understand it, Mr. Speaker.

So the question is, are my friends on the other side of the aisle interested in making a law that will help American families and hardworking taxpayers, or are they interested in making a campaign issue that they can recycle every 60 days? Only they can answer the question.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is inconvenient in tough economic times that our constituents have to work over the holidays. Maybe it should be inconvenient to us as well. We stand ready. We just can't do our job if the Senate Democratic leader refuses to appoint anybody and if the House Democratic leader refuses to appoint anybody to sit down and negotiate in good faith. I'm sorry it's inconvenient for my friends on the other side of the aisle to work during the holidays.

Then last but not least, I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle saying we need something that works for the American people. Well, guess what? Once again, they didn't consult with the American people. All of the employers that we hear about are saying this is unworkable. The Associated Builders and Contractors, I quote, talking about their 60-day plan: ``This sort of temporary fix underscores Congress' uneven ad hoc approach toward the economy and causes more harm than good for America's job creators.'' I hear from job creators from my own district in Kaufman County, Texas: ``The 2-month extension is more hassle than a help. It's impossible to budget and plan for an unknown.''

Mr. Speaker, if you want a year of tax relief, vote for a year of tax relief. If you want $1,000 in tax relief, vote for it and be willing to work over the holidays.

Mr. Chair, I am proud to support yet another jobs bill put forth by House Republicans to empower small business owners and eliminate burdensome Washington regulations that prevent job creation and hinder economic growth. This bill prevents the EPA from issuing new dust regulations. Additionally, it gives states the flexibility to address any rural dust issues rather than the federal government.

During this debate we have heard a lot about the need to protect our air quality and the need to ensure clean air for future generations. As the grandson of a farmer, I know the value and importance agriculture producers place on protecting the soil and water they use to grow quality food to feed the country. I would argue there are no greater stewards of the land than farmers, and that additional rules on these hard-working Americans to regulate rural dust are not only unnecessary, they can be detrimental.

In this time of record unemployment, Washington should be on the side of job creators and family farmers, not on their backs. We should support smart regulations that instill confidence in job creators, not abusive red tape that only leads to closed farms and longer unemployment lines.

You don't have to take my word for it though. Just listen to some of my constituents:

Mr. Cummins of Canton writes, ``Their proposed regulations on milk spills or dust . . . would create undue hardships and be economically unfeasible to attain.''

Mr. Johnson of Mineola writes, ``I feel like the government is passing a law, regulation, unfunded mandate at the drop of a hat these days. [. . .] farmers controlling dust, dairy farmers documenting and controlling milk spills, telling me what kind of light bulb to buy . . . what kind of health care I must have, it is just never ending these days.''

The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act is the 35th jobs bill produced by the House Republican Plan for America's Job Creators to restore the freedom and confidence our private sector needs to grow again.

After today, with this bill, there will be 27 House-passed bipartisan jobs bills stacked like cordwood on the doorstep of the Democrat- controlled Senate.

As America weathers through the Obama Economy and the worst jobs climate since the Great Depression, I urge my colleagues to support our nation's farmers and ranchers and pass this jobs bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, it was just a few weeks ago that our Nation celebrated Thanksgiving. Unfortunately, in the Obama economy, millions could not give thanks for having a job. In the Obama economy, unemployment remains mired at near or above 9 percent. In the Obama economy, one in seven are on food stamps. In the Obama economy, we have seen the fewest small business startups in 17 years.

That's why, Mr. Chairman, jobs are job number one for House Republicans.

That's why our jobs bills have been passed; but, unfortunately, 25 of them are stacking up like cord wood in the Democratic-controlled Senate. After today, it will be 26 because one of the most important pro-jobs bills is on the floor today, the REINS Act.

Mr. Chairman, whether I'm speaking to Fortune 50 CEOs out of Dallas, Texas, where I reside, or small business people in east Texas that I have the privilege of representing in this body, they all tell me the same thing: the number one impediment to jobs in America today is the Federal regulatory burden.

I hear from them each and every day. I heard from the Grasch family in the Fifth District of Texas:

``As a small business, I have to bring in an additional thousand dollars a month to break even.'' He's talking about his regulatory burden. ``This is while consumers have less money to purchase my services. I will not invest in any further expansion and therefore not hiring until smarter policies are being conveyed from Washington.''

I heard from the Rossa family, also in the Fifth District, who talks about the regulatory burden from the President's health care plan:

``My company has laid off all staff, and I myself will file for unemployment on Monday. That's about 23 people added to the unemployment rolls next week,'' again due to Federal regulation.

I heard from the Nixon family in the Fifth District of Texas. Federal regulation, again:

``We are giving up this part of our business. One person's losing their job. This is just one small example of how excessive government regulation is stifling business.''

It's the number one impediment, and all we're asking today with the REINS Act is that if a regulation is going to cost our economy jobs, if it's going to cost a hundred million dollars or more, let's have congressional approval. It's common sense. It forces accountability. It simply weighs the benefit of a regulation to be balanced with the cost to our own jobs.

Jobs ought to be number one in this House, and the number one jobs bill we can pass is the REINS Act. I ask for once that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle join me, and let's put America back to work.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us would increase taxpayer exposure to the housing market by raising conforming loan limits at the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).

Hardworking taxpayers, struggling to make their own mortgage payments, should not be forced to subsidize the purchase of $729,750 homes. Taxpayers have already spent almost $200 billion dollars bailing out the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--why should they also be forced to subsidize the purchase of costly homes for affluent borrowers through FHA?

If the GSEs with their implicit guarantee were a problem, then expanding FHA with its explicit 100 percent taxpayer-backed guarantee is a larger problem. I fear that raising conforming loan limits at FHA while allowing the GSE limits to remain at current levels will push all new mortgage originations between $625,500 and $729,750 into full taxpayer backing through FHA.

To make matters worse, FHA's present financial state is precarious. For the past two years, its single family Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMIF) has been undercapitalized.

This fund, which is supposed to hold sufficient reserves against unexpected future losses on its existing insurance, is statutorily required to maintain a 2% capital cushion. As of FHA's most recent actuarial report, the Agency is currently 88% below their statutorily required minimum capital ratio. To put that number in perspective, FHA is currently more than ten times more leveraged than Lehman Brothers was when it filed for bankruptcy.

Last week, Dr. Joseph Gyourko, an American Enterprise Insitute (AEI) scholar and real estate and finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, released a report suggesting that FHA is underestimating future losses by many tens of billions of dollars. Dr. Gyourko estimated that the recapitalization required will be at least $50 billion, and likely much more, even if housing markets do not deteriorate unexpectedly.

Dr. Gyourko is not the only one who thinks FHA will need a bailout. In FHA's November 15, 2011, annual report to Congress on the financial status of the MMIF, their independent actuary acknowledged there is a nearly 50% chance they will need a bailout: ``With economic net worth being very close to zero under the base-case forecast, the chance that future net losses on the current, outstanding portfolio could exceed current capital resources is close to 50 percent.''

Even the Obama Administration has acknowledged a need to scale back taxpayer support for the housing finance system. In its February 2011 report to Congress on options for the future of housing finance, the Administration encouraged Congress to let the elevated loan limits expire. I do not often find myself in agreement with the Obama Administration, but in this instance, we agree that the private sector simply cannot compete with government guarantees. The best way to get private capital in the game is to get the government out.

It is imperative that we work toward comprehensive housing finance reform that will end bailouts and get taxpayers off the hook for bad housing bets. Unfortunately, the underlying legislation works against this goal and for that reason, I must oppose the bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. Speaker, since the President was elected, our Nation has now seen its first trillion-dollar deficit, its second trillion-dollar deficit, and its third trillion-dollar deficit. The President and the previous Congress have been on a spending spree the likes of which this Nation has never seen before. And yesterday, Americans were greeted with the news that our national debt has now topped $15 trillion--$128,000 for every household. We are borrowing almost 40 cents on the dollar, much of it from the Chinese, and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. In short, there is a debt crisis. The debt is not just unsustainable, it is immoral.

And the American people know that it's because Washington spends too much, not because they are undertaxed. The problem is on the spending side. Now, taxes are temporarily down due to the economy, but they're going to come back. It is spending that is exploding from 20 percent of our economy to 40 percent over the course of the next generation. If that's solved on the taxing side, we'd be the most highly taxed industrialized nation in the world.

Now, the crisis should be solved on the spending side of the equation. I wish we were debating a spending limit amendment to the Constitution. We're not. We had no takers. I know of no takers on the other side of the aisle. So we're debating what is known as the classic balanced budget, the jump ball balanced budget, the clean balanced budget; equal opportunities for spending restraint and tax increases. Now, it's not my preferred policy; yet so many Democrats, Mr. Speaker, will come to the floor and say we need a balanced approach. But the question is: How many believe we need a balanced budget?

Now, we all agree that amending the Constitution is something that should be taken with great reverence, with great deliberation. It is a sacred responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, we know that our Founding Fathers set up a process by which to amend the Constitution, and no less of a Founding Father than Thomas Jefferson said: ``I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.''

Forty-nine of 50 States have some form of balanced budget requirement. Every family in America has to balance their budget. Every small business. Should we expect anything less from a great nation?

Sixteen years ago was the last opportunity we had in the United States Congress to vote on a balanced budget. We came within one vote, one vote in the United States Senate. Imagine where we would be today had that one vote made the difference and we had this amendment. It's sad.

I can tell you, Republicans and Democrats can't seem to agree on spending. We can't seem to agree on taxes. But as Americans, can't we at least agree it's past time, past time to stop mortgaging our children's future and bankrupting the greatest Nation in the history of the world?

There is a real crisis, and to paraphrase Winston Churchill: Haven't we now exhausted every other possibility? Isn't it finally time to do the right thing?

Amend the Constitution, save the country, balance the budget.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the Demisemiseptcentennial Celebration of the First United Methodist Church in Palestine, Texas.

On September 11, 2011, the First United Methodist Church of Palestine will celebrate 175 years of Methodism in Palestine and Anderson County, Texas as well as the 100th anniversary of its sanctuary and worship facilities. For 175 years evangelism, missionary service, youth development, Sunday school, Bible study, fellowship, and worship have been continually celebrated by the congregation from Fort Houston, through the Box home, Bascom Chapel, Centenary Church and now the First United Methodist Church.

As Thomas Jefferson said, ``It is in our lives and not our words that our religion must be read,'' it is an honor to represent the parishioners of the First United Methodist Church of Palestine, Texas whose lives exude service and faith.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the Centennial Celebration of the First Methodist Church in Brownsboro, Texas.

On September 25, 2011, the First Methodist Church of Brownsboro will celebrate 100 years of Methodism in Brownsboro and Henderson County, Texas. For 100 years evangelism, missionary service, youth development, Sunday school, Bible study, fellowship, and worship have been continually celebrated by the congregation.

As Thomas Jefferson said, ``It is in our lives and not our words that our religion must be read,'' it is an honor to represent the parishioners of the First Methodist Church of Brownsboro, Texas whose lives exude service and faith.

Mr. Speaker, the American people want more jobs and they want less debt. The American people are telling Washington, you have got to quit spending money you don't have. You have got to quit borrowing 42 cents on the dollar, much of it from the Chinese, and then send the bill to our children and our grandchildren.

Our crisis today is not the debt ceiling, it is our debt, and it is a spending-driven debt. That is why we are here today, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say that this bill solves our problem. It doesn't. It's a solid first step. Nobody, nobody on our side of the aisle wants to increase this debt ceiling. It's not in our DNA.

But we do believe that ultimately you ought to stay current on your bills, and you have got to quit spending money you don't have. And in this bill, although the sums are very, very small, when we pass this bill, if the President signs it into law, it will be the first time in my lifetime, the first time in my lifetime that for 2 years in a row we have actually cut discretionary spending in Washington, D.C., and made a very slight directional change in the right direction.

The numbers are small, the directional change is huge, but more importantly, Mr. Speaker, the seeds of the ultimate solution are planted in this bill, and that is the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The American people aren't looking for a

balanced approach; they are looking for a balanced budget. To have it work, it needs to be enshrined in our Constitution.

This bill will assure, for the first time in 15 years, both the House and the Senate vote on a balanced budget. Those are the seeds of the solution to save this country for the next generation.

I urge adoption of this bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this Nation has a debt crisis not because we are undertaxed but because Washington spends too much. And here we are days before the President's August 2 deadline, and the President of the United States has yet to submit a plan to deal with the debt crisis. Here we are days away from the President's August 2 deadline, and the United States Senate has yet to pass a single plan.

Days before the President's August 2 deadline, not only have House Republicans passed their first plan, in a manner of hours we will vote yet again on another plan to deal with the debt crisis that we must remember is spending driven. It's the President's spending that brought us here.

Now, the bill that we're bringing to the House floor, Mr. Speaker, is not the ultimate solution. But, Mr. Speaker, it ensures that this Nation pays its current bills, like families, like small businesses have to. It gives us the opportunity to actually cut spending.

The amounts are not what they should be, but for the second year in a row, we will have the opportunity to actually reduce spending to save our country and save our children's futures. But most importantly, within this legislation is the opportunity that brings us the ultimate solution, and that, Mr. Speaker, is a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. Every family, every small business, almost every State has a provision that says, we have to balance our budget. Should we expect less of a great Nation? Maybe that's why we have the $14 trillion debt. We must act today, approve this bill, balance the budget for our Nation and future generations.