Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, in Genesis, chapter 12, verses 1 through 3, God tells Abraham that he will bless the nation that blesses his people, and curse the nation who curses his people.

God says in that verse, starting at verse 1, The Lord had said to Abraham, ``Leave your country, your people, and your father's household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you. I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you, I will curse. And all people's on Earth will be blessed through you.''

Mr. Speaker, God gave the land in Israel to the Israelites, to the Jewish people. They're a sovereign nation. They have a sovereign right to protect their borders, to protect their lives, to protect their country, to protect their valid claim to the land that God gave them.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation has supported Israel since it was reestablished in 1947 by an act of the United Nations. This country has supported Israel ever since then. We've been blessed as a Nation since then. But I'm very fearful that this administration is turning its back upon Israel. I'm very fearful that God's blessing that has been on this land, as promised in Genesis, chapter 12, verses 1 through 3, will cease if we cease supporting the nation of Israel.

Israel is a sovereign nation that's protecting itself. It has an absolute right to do so. Mr. Speaker, if we turn our back upon Israel, as I'm fearful that we're doing as a Nation through this administration, not only will we cease to have God's blessings, but we will also start receiving the curses from God that he promised in Genesis, chapter 12.

Mr. Speaker, if we don't support Israel, and just by being silent, just by turning our back upon Israel, then we're supporting Hamas. We're supporting Hezbollah. We're supporting Iran. President Ahmadinejad has stressed over and over again that he wants to annihilate Israel from the face of the Earth. We have to support Israel, Mr. Speaker. The consequences for our Nation are too dire not to.

God has put his blessings upon this country. And I think a big part of that is because this country was founded on the Judeo-Christian principles that have made this country so powerful, so rich, and so successful as a political experiment. But that blessing will cease if we ever turn our back upon Israel. We must not. We cannot. America must support Israel. Our administration must support Israel. And I call upon our country to continue to do so.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Col. Edward J. Kertis for a distinguished career and the outstanding help that he has been to me, my staff, and the people in my district.

Col. Kertis assumed command of the Savannah District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, on June 29, 2007. Since his appointment, he has been responsible for a $4 billion military design and construction program; water resources planning, design and construction; hazardous, toxic and radiological waste cleanup; and real estate activities.

Residents of my district are especially grateful for his help with water resources management during an historic drought. As the rains finally began to return, Col. Kertis took the unprecedented step of stopping flow from Thurmond and Hartwell Dams, allowing the lakes to fill while water was flowing into the Savannah River from flooding creeks and streams. This common-sense decision provided economic relief to those communities who rely so heavily on the preservation of the beautiful lakes and parks of the upper Savannah River. But he has served his country in other ways as well.

Prior to his assignment to the Savannah District, Col. Kertis commanded the Walla Walla District, USACE, in Washington State from 2002-2004. He has also served as a platoon leader, staff officer, and battalion executive officer in the 27th Engineer Battalion; company commander in the 41st Engineer Battalion; and engineer company commander in the 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment--Delta. He was also the inaugural commander of the Northern District, Gulf Region Division, Iraq, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, where he managed construction projects in support of Coalition forces and the Iraqi government.

I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Col. Kertis for his service to the nation and the dedication he has given his duties, and in wishing him all the best as he assumes his new assignment as Pacific Ocean Division Commander.

The northeast corner of the State of Georgia. Athens and Augusta are my two major cities.

Well, thank you, Mr. Akin, for yielding.

I'll tell you what. I hope the American people paid attention to your explanation because it has been Democrats all along who have fought any reform of Freddie and Fannie. Freddie and Fannie are right in the middle of the cause of the financial downturn that we've seen today.

Just today, we voted on trying to name a committee of conferees from the House and the Senate to talk about financial services, and we tried to bring Freddie and Fannie into the fold, but Democrats across the board have rejected from 2003, all the way up to today, to solve the problem. When you have a fire going, you want to try and find out the source of that fire and put out the source.

I'm a medical doctor. When you have a medical problem going on, you try to find the source of that problem. If you have a cancer, you want to not just deal with the symptoms of the cancer or even of the metastasis--the spread--of the cancer, but you want to go with the primary tumor and get it out.

So Freddie and Fannie are the source of the problem, and Democrats across the board have resisted from 2003, all the way to today, the efforts the Republicans have made to try to cut out this cancer of Freddie and Fannie.

I'm a doctor.

Absolutely.

Taxpayers.

Well, I thank you, Mr. Akin, for yielding.

This has been described as Keynesian economics, which means bigger government spending and more borrowing. You've got a great quote there by Henry Morgenthau, who was FDR's Treasury Secretary. During part of the Great Depression, he made this great quote, which reads, in part, that we have just as much unemployment as when we started all of this massive government spending, and an enormous debt to boot. That's exactly what we're doing.

Most American people know--not all, and it's unfortunate. Most American people know that socialism never has worked and never will work, but this is socialistic, this type of philosophy of bigger government, of central control from wherever the capital is. We saw it in the Soviet Union. It is what Stalin put up there in the Soviet Union. In fact, FDR sent his lieutenants to Russia. Back during that period of time when the Great Depression started, which was early on in the Roosevelt Presidency, he sent his lieutenants to look at what Stalin was doing because they thought this was the greatest thing in the world and that we needed to put in place that kind of policy here. That's exactly what is going on right now with our leadership. They may as well send their lieutenants back. They should go back and look at the history of what Stalin did, and they should understand from history that it doesn't work, because it will not and cannot.

Will the gentlelady yield?

Well, I'm sorry. I apologize, Mr. Akin.

I just wanted to address those things that you were talking about, Mr. Akin--the Great Depression, the government spending and that the unemployment didn't go up. As to what Mrs. Lummis just so very capably showed us, government jobs are going up.

During the Depression, though, as you just said, there was a lot of spending on infrastructure during that period of time. It did not take care of the unemployment. If you look at the unemployment rate during the Great Depression, it stayed relatively flat. It went up and down some, but it stayed up a bit, and then it fell way off in spite of all the big government spending and all the spending on infrastructure.

Back then, though, under the Roosevelt administration, they created the WPA and the CCC camps and things like that. They put people to work, who were on government welfare, building all that infrastructure. Now we're paying people not to work.

It really has.

Will the gentleman yield?

I wanted to put some perspective on 2008, too. That's when the President's chief economic adviser--I guess the Treasury Secretary--told him that the sky was falling and that we needed to pass the Toxic Asset Relief Program, or TARP, which many Republicans voted against. I didn't buy the Democratic Treasury Secretary under a Republican President because that's exactly what Hank Paulson is. He's a Wall Street insider, a Wall Street banker. Wall Street believes in big government. That's the reason they support the Democrats. They overwhelmingly support Democrats financially.

That increase in 2008, under Bush, is principally because of the TARP bill that a lot of people didn't like. I did not vote for that. I've argued very much against it, and I have been a strong critic of the Bush administration's being big spenders, but they were pikers compared to the Pelosi Congress ever since she has been in charge.

And even that is just miniscule compared to what has happened just over the last 16, 17 months.

Thank you.

And I like this cartoon that you just put up, because this just shows what is going on here, not only with our debt, with health care reform.

I call it ``tax-and-trade'' because it is about revenue. The President himself said it was about raising more revenue for the Federal Government. It's not about the environment at all. In fact, a lot of what the President has said, he has admitted it is not about the environment. It is about revenue and a bigger government, greater control, central planning from Washington, D.C., and then the war tax.

They are adding tax after tax, and we are expecting the Chinese to buy our debt. In other words, we are spending our children and grandchildren's future, and the credit card is being held by the Chinese.

And it is something that is totally unsustainable. And what it is going to do, long term, is our children and grandchildren are going to live at a lower standard than we live today because this is totally unsustainable, totally unsustainable.

Will the gentleman yield before you take the chart away?

Well, there's a bull that's in that china shop that's not indicated in this cartoon, and that's the abject failure, non-stimulus bill, as I call it, which has been an abject failure. The non-stimulus bill has been an abject failure, and it's going to be a job-killer.

Everything that this administration, that this leadership in Congress today is doing is killing jobs. And it's not doing anything except for creating a bigger government and creating temporary government employees. It's creating a lot of jobs here in Washington, D.C., but they don't help my State of Georgia. They don't help New York State or California or Texas.

They are creating a bigger central government that's going to kill our freedom. And we've got to stop it.

Well, thank you, Mr. Akin, for yielding. And you are exactly right. Not only does excessive taxation kill the ability to do all the research and development that you were just talking about, but small business can't even buy inventory. So they can't sell their goods to consumers. The consumers don't have the money to come and buy the goods and services. So it kills the economy. It's just very, very simple economics.

The thing is we are going in the wrong direction. You talked about the energy tax that's been proposed, that Nancy Pelosi jammed through the House of Representatives here. It's what's called a regressive tax because it's going to hurt people on limited incomes and poor people the most. It's going to make their gasoline prices go up. In fact, I have heard many Democrats, many Democrats here on the floor of the House of Representatives say they would like to see gasoline at $10 a gallon.

Now, somebody who is out working hard today trying to make a living, who is just making the house payment and paying their bills and just scraping to get by and trying to get by, if their gasoline price goes to $10 a gallon, they are going to be just really out of economic luck, so to speak.

That's right. They can't afford their mortgage payment now, or some are just barely paying those things. And then the energy tax on their electricity when they flip on the light switch, or when their heating unit comes on, up North particularly. I, thankfully, live in the South, so we are more concerned about air conditioning.

A lot of old people in Georgia and Florida and all through the Southeast and through the Southwest are dependent upon air conditioning just to live. And if their electricity bills go sky high, as the energy tax is going to make it happen, if that ever passes, there are a lot of people that can't afford to run their air conditioning anymore. And people are actually going to have a hard time with hyperthermia is what we call it in medicine as a medical doctor, which means their body temperature is going to go up, they are going to get dehydration, and people are going to have a lot of problems. And it's going to make a greater impact on our health care system and people are going to die because of that.

But it's going to kill jobs too. And it's going to be a job killer just like the ObamaCare that's been estimated by experts to kill over 5 million jobs in this country.

Over 5 million. Five and a half million, to be exact, jobs that health care taxes. And what it's going to do, is it's going to mean that a small business man or woman who is trying to just make a living, they are not going to be able to hire new employees because of ObamaCare. We have got to repeal and replace ObamaCare. And that's just the bottom line.

Everything that this Congress has done since I have been here 3 years now, everything, and all of it has been under Nancy Pelosi's leadership, everything that this Congress has done in 3 years that I have been here is going to kill jobs, it's going to kill our economy, and it's going to be killing the future of our children and grandchildren. We have just got to stop this.

Absolutely. In fact, it's going to kill our freedom also.

Could you yield just a half a second?

I am going to.

And I want to remind the gentleman that during our debate over ObamaCare we were accused as Republicans of being the party of no. We are the party of k-n-o-w. We know how to solve this economic downturn. We know how to create jobs. We know how to lower the costs of health care. We know how to create jobs in the private sector instead of Big Government. We know how and are fighting to save freedom and to shrink the size of government, get government out of people's way so that they can run their lives without all this government intrusion. So we are the party of k-n-o-w. And I am excited about your launching into this idea about the solutions that we have.

With that, I yield back.

Mr. Akin, I am a pilot, and I want to say that you are exactly right about getting out of a death spiral. So we do push the yoke forward to stop the spin, to stop the stall, to get the airplane flying again. And that's exactly what needs to happen to our economy, by pushing the stick forward, by reducing taxes, particularly on small businesses.

I introduced my JOBS Act. My JOBS Act is an acronym for ``jump start our business sector.'' It would cut the taxes for business for 2 years. It would suspend capital gains taxes and dividend taxes. It would cut the two lowest income tax brackets down to 10 percent and 5 percent.

So if you think about it, that would leave dollars in the hands of business, leave dollars in the hands of consumers so that they would have the money to stimulate the economy. So it's something that would stimulate the economy and start creating jobs. And that is something that needs to happen. And it is by cutting taxes instead of raising taxes.

What we see here is our leadership here in the House, the Democratic leadership, wants to raise taxes. Our President wants to raise taxes. One thing that I want to go back to is something that you talked about when the President said he was going to raise taxes on people who made $250,000 or more, that these are rich people. The vast majority of those folks are small business men and women who are filing their sub S corporations as personal income taxes. And those are really not their individual income, but that's how much money comes into their business.

So they're not just wealthy people who are living lavish lives. They are men and women who are trying to make a living and create jobs and just take care of their families. So when we hear let's tax the rich, they need to pay more, actually what you're taxing people is out of jobs. You're killing the economy. You're taxing jobs. We need to lower taxes, and that's what you're fighting for.

Thank you.

We have 1 minute left I think, and I just want to say that helping poverty is a very simple formula. It's a good-paying job and the education to fill that job. That's another thing that we know as Republicans. We've got to create those good-paying jobs, and the way we do that is in the private sector by reducing taxes on small business men and women so that they can create new jobs. We will continue to fight for freedom.

There's a wide gulf, just like you were saying, between the philosophies of the leadership of the Democrat

Party here and our leadership on our side. It is socialism on their hand. On our hand, it's freedom, personal responsibility, and accountability, and we're fighting for freedom and continue to do so.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Col. Edward J. Kertis for a distinguished career and the outstanding help that he has been to me, my staff, and the people in my district.

Col. Kertis assumed command of the Savannah District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, on June 29, 2007. Since his appointment, he has been responsible for a $4 billion military design and construction program; water resources planning, design and construction; hazardous, toxic and radiological waste cleanup; and real estate activities.

Residents of my district are especially grateful for his help with water resources management during an historic drought. As the rains finally began to return, Col. Kertis took the unprecedented step of stopping flow from Thurmond and Hartwell Dams, allowing the lakes to fill while water was flowing into the Savannah River from flooding creeks and streams. This common-sense decision provided economic relief to those communities who rely so heavily on the preservation of the beautiful lakes and parks of the upper Savannah River. But he has served his country in other ways as well.

Prior to his assignment to the Savannah District, Col. Kertis commanded the Walla Walla District, USACE, in Washington State from 2002-2004. He has also served as a platoon leader, staff officer, and battalion executive officer in the 27th Engineer Battalion; company commander in the 41st Engineer Battalion; and engineer company commander in the 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment--Delta. He was also the inaugural commander of the Northern District, Gulf Region Division, Iraq, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, where he managed construction projects in support of Coalition forces and the Iraqi government.

I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Col. Kertis for his service to the nation and the dedication he has given his duties, and in wishing him a long and wonderful retirement.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment that is included in this en bloc amendment. It includes my language, which encourages the President of the United States to order that the U.S. flag be flown at the American outpost in Haiti. It is to be flown at this outpost as we continue to assist in our earthquake relief.

I would like to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for their hard work on this bill and for including my amendment in this en bloc package.

As the United States extends a helping hand to our neighbor nation of Haiti, I am disheartened that the President has decided that our service men and women should not work in their outpost under the American flag and that he has ordered that the American flag cease to fly over that outpost.

The American flag is a symbol that our men and women in uniform are promoting the American spirit of rebuilding hope, prosperity, and opportunity. As a marine and naval medical officer, I understand that it is critical for morale that our military should work under the American flag, especially when our presence in a foreign country is under peaceful conditions.

As a sign of respect and support for the selfless efforts of the service men and women, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I request that my full statement be entered into the Record.

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for their hard work on this critical bill, which is the life- blood for those defending our freedoms at home and abroad. And thank you gentlemen, for allowing me to offer this amendment before the House.

I rise today in support of my amendment which encourages the President to order the flag of the United States to be flown over all military and civilian outposts in Haiti during earthquake relief efforts.

As Memorial Day approaches, Americans will be honoring those brave souls who, as Abraham Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address, ``gave the last full measure of devotion'' to our nation, by flying the American Flag at their homes and places of business.

However, there is one place where the flag will not be waving, and that is in the Republic of Haiti, on American outposts where our servicemen and women are leading humanitarian efforts to aid those adversely effected by the magnitude 7 earthquake that devastated the island nation.

The President has decided that the stars and stripes would be viewed with disdain in Haiti. That our servicemen and women providing basic essentials would be viewed as an occupying force if they did it under our flag. So he has ordered the Department of Defense not to fly our flag in Haiti, for fear of being viewed unfavorably by the rest of the world.

I strongly disagree with the President, and I believe he could not be more wrong about how the world views the United States and our flag. I submit that every member of this body will agree with me when I say that when tasked with a mission of mercy, there are no better ambassadors for the United States than our men and women in uniform. In Berlin after World War II, and most recently in places like The Philippines, Bolivia, Djibouti, and Colombia, it has been our service- members who have delivered hope to those who have none.

In all these places our Flag has flown proudly over these merchants of mercy. The situation is no different in Haiti, our servicemen and women are still giving hope to an impoverished people, they should be allowed to do this under the symbol that embodies all that we hold dear.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that honors our military and their efforts in Haiti, and encourages the President to allow them to serve under our proud flag.

Mr. Speaker, the University of Georgia is the first land grant college in the United States. A lot of people don't know that.

The Graduate School of the University of Georgia is celebrating its centennial in June, as both speakers have just mentioned. In the hundred years since its organization, the University of Georgia's Graduate School has produced scholars of the highest caliber. Beginning with only seven pupils, it now boasts more than 7,000 students and hundreds of doctoral, master's and specialist degree programs.

At the center of advanced learn at the State's flagship university, UGA's Graduate School has contributed to new knowledge, advancements in academic research, and the economic development of Georgia and the United States.

Graduates of this great school occupy positions in school systems, businesses, and even the United States Congress. I'm honored to represent this great institution here in the U.S. Congress, and I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating the graduate school on this great occasion of its centennial.

The University of Georgia is a great institution for the people of the State of Georgia and this Nation. The graduate school has come within the purview of that great institution and has been a stellar school to produce some of the greatest leaders of our Nation. I congratulate them personally, and I'm glad that Congress, hopefully, is going to congratulate them with this resolution.

And with that, I have one thing to say. Go Dogs.

Madam Speaker, tonight the Doctors Caucus, people who are physicians, and those of us who are involved in health care on the Republican side, are going to be talking a little bit tonight about ObamaCare. We've talked about ObamaCare a lot over the last several months, and it's now law. We hear over and over again about how ObamaCare is beginning to filter out, and how it's going to affect the American people.

Our President has said, Madam Speaker, that when the American people know what's in the bill, they're going to like it. Well, to the contrary. As the American people get to know what's in the bill, they dislike it more and more, as they rightfully should, because ObamaCare is going to be extremely expensive for everyone.

It's going to be very onerous to almost everyone, except for the Federal bureaucrats who are going to be hired to put ObamaCare into place and who are going to be enforcing it. And in fact, we are even going to have to hire, I think it is 16,500 new IRS agents to enforce it. That's right, Madam Speaker, 16,500 new IRS agents just to enforce ObamaCare on small businessmen and women around this country. The more the American people discover about ObamaCare, the less they like it.

We just heard, I think it was last week, where the Congressional Budget Office said, Oops, we made a mistake. We made a mistake. We were $115 billion too little on our estimate, which puts it way over a trillion dollars. Our Democratic colleagues, their leadership-- actually, it's not even all the

Democrats, because there are many of them who are very reasonable over there on that side. But the leadership of the Democratic Caucus wanted to get ObamaCare and the President wanted to get ObamaCare passed, and forced the CBO through the parameters that they gave them to try to get the numbers below $1 trillion. Well, they are north of $1 trillion.

Frankly, if you look at Medicare, when CBO projected the cost of Medicare, CBO missed it, missed it terribly. And in fact, I think that's what's going to happen here too. I think ObamaCare is going to be $3 trillion, $5 trillion, maybe $10 trillion. And it's money that our children and our grandchildren are going to have to pay because we don't have the money.

In fact, we just had a lecture about hypocrisy by one of our colleagues just a moment ago, talking about saying one thing and believing another. Frankly, we are continuing to fight to stop this outrageous spending. As Republicans here, we are fighting against ObamaCare. Every single Republican voted against it. Even several Democrats, many Democrats, voted against it. The only bipartisan vote was a vote of ``no'' against ObamaCare, because it's going to be terrible. Unfortunately, it passed the House by five votes. Five votes. That's certainly not a mandate from the House.

The American people, as they study the bill, they are beginning more and more to see how bad it is. The feelings against ObamaCare have been described by one Democratic pollster as hardening against it. We need to repeal and replace ObamaCare. It's the only rational, reasonable thing to do. It's the only economically feasible thing to do.

We see colleagues on the other side talk about budget deficits. They don't care about budget deficits. They don't care about the huge debt that's created. In fact, just last week I was down here on the floor and heard several of our Democratic colleagues blame this economic woe that we have and this huge Federal debt and deficit on George Bush. Can you imagine? On George Bush. We have created more debt in the last year-and-a-half than George Bush did in 8 years. But my Democratic colleagues continue to blame George Bush.

I blame George Bush for bringing us the first tranche of the TARP bill. I voted against it. Many Republicans voted against it. I thought it was a mistake. Then the President came back, our current President, President Obama, came back and he wanted another $350-plus billion to bail out Wall Street even more. Now they are talking about a Financial Services bill to regulate Wall Street that they, the Democrat leadership in this House and the President, want to bail them out and then regulate them on the other hand.

And if the American people will look at who Wall Street gives money to, it's the Democrats. They give the Democrats and the Democratic Party a whole lot more money than they give Republicans. The best friends of big business and the best friends of Wall Street are our Democratic colleagues.

So we are here tonight to talk about spending and failed promises. I am joined in this discussion tonight with two very good friends, two great Members of the House, both freshmen. Both are physicians. We have got Dr. Phil Roe, who is an OB/GYN from Johnson City, Tennessee, and we have got my fellow family doctor, Dr. John Fleming, from Shreveport, Louisiana, that have joined us tonight. I understand that Dr. Phil Gingrey may join us. He is in a markup. And so is Dr. Burgess. They are both in markups in Energy and Commerce.

But now we've got three stellar Members of this U.S. House of Representatives, three stellar members of the Republican Caucus, three stellar members of the Doctors Caucus who have been leaders here. I want to thank the people of Tennessee and Louisiana for sending these two gentlemen here and being part of our conference and being part of this Congress, fighting for the interests of their constituents. I want to thank the people of Louisiana, Madam Speaker, and thank the people of Tennessee for sending Dr. Phil Roe and Dr. John Fleming here.

So to kick this off, I will go to Dr. Phil Roe to put in his input about failed promises and the huge spending that ObamaCare, as well as the Democrats not only with ObamaCare, but with their stimulus bill. Dr. Roe, we are fixing to have another bill that our Democratic colleagues are calling a jobs bill. If they liked the first nonstimulus bill--actually, it stimulated big government. It has been an abject failure. But they want to give us another bill. They call it the extenders bill here in Congress, but the American people are going to hear it described as a jobs bill. And that is just absolutely incorrect. Thanks for joining us.

Dr. Roe, let me interrupt you briefly and reclaim my time here.

The American people understand what you are having to say about balancing budgets because they have to do that every day in their own home and businesses. My State of Georgia has to balance its budget, our State government does. Many States around this country have to balance their budgets. You had to balance the budget of the city when you were mayor of Johnson City.

We don't even have a budget. First time in history since the last budget act was passed that we're not going to even attempt, not even attempt to have a budget. So how can they constrain their spending? I guess they don't want to have any constraints or anything to try to hold them accountable.

So the American people I think, Dr. Roe, need to know that we are not going to have a budget. They don't have a budget. We're not going to have a budget in this Congress. John Spratt, who is the chairman of the Budget Committee, said, ``If you can't budget, you can't govern.'' The majority leader on this side said that putting forth a budget is critical for governing. They're not governing. They're not budgeting. I just wanted to kick that in just so that our listeners tonight could understand they don't have a budget so they're not working under the constraints of a balanced budget.

I have introduced a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. There are three actually on our side that have been introduced. They are all slightly different. But all of them call for a balanced budget. But we on the Republican side want to balance our budget.

What? Not one doctor on our side? Not one?

Thank you, Dr. Roe. I appreciate it.

And you are exactly right. In the State of Georgia, they've just finished their session, a 40-day session. The general assembly just finished about 2 weeks ago. It took 40 legislative days, all the way to May to finish 40 legislative days, and it is because of the economic downturn and the lack of revenue. And we have a balanced budget requirement in our State constitution. So Georgia has to balance its budget, just like people have to balance their budgets, just as we should be balancing our budget here in the Federal Government.

And in doing so, people who are paid by the State--teachers, policemen, State highway patrol, as an example. Just talked to Jimmy Williamson, the police chief at University of Georgia, as a person who is employed by the State. All of these folks are being furloughed. They're being furloughed on a day-by-day basis. So they have to lose a day of work, maybe a day a month, a day periodically. They're not counted in these unemployment statistics. They're not counted in how the Department of Labor gives us all of those numbers on a monthly basis. So our administration and the leadership up here don't count those furlough days, but they're unpaid furlough days. It's hurting their salary. It's hurting families.

And it's because of this gross mismanagement of the Federal spending, this gross, outrageous spending that the Federal Government's doing that is going to put our children and our grandchildren in an economic squeeze where their standard of living is not going to be as high as ours. And ObamaCare is going to put a lot of people in a position, as you were just saying, where they can't find a doctor.

In fact, during another previous Doctors Caucus period of time of discussing things during Special Orders, I said that people may have a free health care card, Medicaid card or whatever card it is, but it will be as worthless as a Confederate dollar was after the War Between the States. And the reason for that, you just brought up, Dr. Roe, is that doctors are not going to be able to accept Medicaid and Medicare because of the rationing of care, the marked reduction of their payments from the Federal Government and doctors who are trying to take care of poor people. And the elderly today are struggling because the Federal Government pays providers--whether it's a hospital, a doctor, or a physical therapist--less money today than it costs them to provide that service.

I'll give you an example, just a number of years ago in my own practice when I was in an office. I've done house calls since 2002. So I'd go see my patients at home, and work was no longer office space. But when I was office space, Medicaid reimbursed us for the shots, immunizations for our kids, childhood immunizations, at less money than it cost to buy the serum. And then that doesn't count the cost of our nurses' time and the liability costs and the medical records costs and the syringe and the alcohol pad and these

other things. Government was reimbursing us at a lower level. So I had to send all of my pediatric patients for their childhood immunizations over to the health department, and they were getting them from a government entity because I could not provide those services.

But that comes back to another thing that you said, Dr. Roe, where just before ObamaCare was passed, our President said he wanted everybody in this country in one health care pool. What does that mean to the American people? What that means is that his desire is for us to have total socialized medicine where everybody in this country is in the same pool. Everybody's health care is controlled by the Federal Government. So there are panels here in Washington, D.C., that are going to ration care, as Dr. Roe was just mentioning. It's going to tell us who can go in the hospital, who can get a treatment, what medications we can get. There's going to be a tremendous rationing of care.

Before that happens, I think, Dr. Roe, you're exactly right in that this unfunded mandate that's being forced on the States by the expansion of Medicaid rolls is going to hurt my State of Georgia that much more. They're struggling now to balance their budget. The teachers are being released from their duties and are not going to be rehired for next school year because the State of Georgia doesn't have the money to pay for Medicaid today. And it's going to be expanded. And we're going to fire all of the teachers? I hope not. We need to be paying our teachers more. We need to be doing more for our teachers.

But we're in a bind. And the Federal Government, under this leadership of this administration and the leadership of the House and the Senate, are making matters worse and worse.

Dr. Roe.

Dr. Roe, just tonight I went to a meeting just before we came down for this last series of votes. In fact, I came from that meeting here to the floor of the House. And I was talking to a leader of a large transportation organization, and he told me that they've studied ObamaCare and they've decided that they're going to do exactly what you said. They're going to push all of their employees into the public exchange, which--they're just going to pay the $2,000. Just tonight I talked to a guy, just an hour and a half ago, who said that hundreds of their employees are going to be pushed into the public exchange.

This goes back to fulfill Barack Obama's promise of wanting to try to develop one pool for everybody. But he has failed in his promises because we were assured that their new law would be the answer to health care financing problems. Au, contraire. I am not good at speaking French. My wife, Niki, all the time chastises me for my not being able to speak these things and not even--she's from Indiana, so she doesn't even think I speak English.

But we see over and over again where these failed promises and this increased debt and all of the things that are going on are costing hundreds of jobs and are going to force people into government health insurance programs.

So the spending has to stop. This outrageous spending has to stop here. And unfortunately, we have failed promises by the Federal Government.

Dr. Roe is unfortunately having to leave, and I thank Dr. Roe for spending some time with us and with the American people this evening. Thank you, Dr. Roe.

I want to go to our next doctor who's here with us tonight, a good friend, great Member of Congress, Dr. John Fleming. Family doctor from the northwest corner of Louisiana. One of my favorite States. I love to go down there and go duck hunting. And they're struggling by the Federal Government's failure to deal with this outrageous economic as well as environmental disaster that's going on down there. In fact, failing--our Federal Government and this administration is failing to take care of what they're charged to do under Federal law.

In fact, Steve Scalise, our good friend from New Orleans, came to the floor yesterday and was talking about that. He was even chastised by one of our dear Democratic colleagues. But the Federal Government has a responsibility under Federal law on these major oil spills to get engaged in trying to deal with that. They failed to do so.

But thankfully, your district is up in the northwest corner. I know your patients miss you like my patients miss me. I am still practicing medicine, but, Dr. Fleming, thanks for joining us tonight.

And I yield to you, sir.

Let me interrupt you a minute, Dr. Fleming, and reclaim my time, but I want to ask you a question.

Have you heard any of our Democratic colleagues say we need to move on, it's now law and we need to accept it, and we just need to go forward and it's the law of the land and, thus, we're being sore losers? We're just being nothing but soreheads because we're talking about health care still.

But it's critical the American people understand that it's not put in place completely, and the most onerous parts of ObamaCare are yet to come, and it's a few years out. So we can repeal ObamaCare. We can replace it with something that makes sense. I've already introduced one repeal and replace bill. I had introduced a bill, H.R. 3889, prior to ObamaCare passing, which was my own comprehensive health care reform bill. Comprehensive. It dealt with Medicare, helped reform Medicare so that people could continue to get Medicare and could continue getting their money back that they invested in the Federal Government through Medicare through their FICA taxes and their payroll deductions and stuff like that. And I reintroduced it as repeal ObamaCare and replace it with my H.R. 3889.

Just this week I'm going to introduce another one that puts in place repealing ObamaCare and puts in place four things:

Number one, across-State-line purchases for individuals and businesses.

Number two, where anybody in this country can join an association just for a meager amount of money, 5, 10 bucks, $25, have multiple insurance products that they can buy and own themselves, have huge pools with these associations.

The third thing is to encourage the State to set up a high-risk pool.

The fourth thing is to have tax fairness for everybody in this country so that everybody can deduct every health care cost that they have, including purchasing insurance. Makes sense.

I have had many of my Democratic colleagues--when I challenged them before ObamaCare passed--I challenged Democrat after Democrat individually to introduce those four things in a bill, that I would give them the legislative language. I would give them the bill, have a blank. They would just write their name in the blank.

And then it would be a Democratic bill. They could claim that as being ObamaCare, as far as I was concerned, because it's not about my name being on anything. I am just concerned about policy. I had Democrat after Democrat say, Paul, I would love to do it. It makes sense.

Many of our Democratic colleagues said, Paul, that makes sense to do this and to work on this incrementally. Many Democrats wanted to work on this incrementally. But their leadership wouldn't let them, Dr. Fleming. They were forced to swallow ObamaCare just like the American public is being forced to swallow ObamaCare.

And those four things would radically change the health care financing, would solve a lot of problems, not all of them, but would solve a lot of the problems we have. It would help cover a lot of people who can't afford health insurance today, would cover a lot of people who can't get health insurance because of preexisting conditions.

We have very few people. In fact, ObamaCare is not going to cover everybody in this country either until we get everybody in the same pool that the President wants us to go in. But these are all failed promises and high spending that we are getting from our leadership. I just wanted to throw that in, Dr. Fleming.

Now, Dr. Fleming, you better explain about retro spectroscope because a lot of people haven't heard about that. They have heard of a colonoscope or sigmoidoscope, but you are not talking about the same thing.

Let me interrupt you again a half second, if you don't mind, Dr. Fleming, because I have got some news for the American people.

The Congressional Budget Office, even missing all the numbers, as Dr. Roe and I were just talking about, the Congressional Budget Office has stated that the law will raise the individual market premiums by an average of $2,100 per family, raise them. They are going to go up above what would have been if we did nothing. Now, I don't want to do nothing.

I know that you don't want to do nothing. You made that very clear in many hours here on the floor, talking. But the cost is going to go up by $2,100 per family on the average across this country. That's another failed promise by Speaker Pelosi and Barack Obama.

Say that again, please, so people can understand, because we just saw a report. I don't know if you saw the report, because we haven't talked about it.

There was a report just recently where businesses that were going to hire new employees, that are right on the cusp, have decided not to hire those new employees. So it's killing jobs, right?

That's another plus side, Dr. Fleming. We were told that the cost curve would go down. Now that may be a nebulous term to most people in the country, some of that congressional speak language we talk about up here. We have heard over and over again from our Democratic colleagues, particularly in leadership, that the cost curve would go down.

In other words, that the spending, the total level of spending, the total level of spending in this country on health care would go down with ObamaCare.

But what you are just saying is great information, so that the American people can understand and hopefully our Democratic colleagues will understand, the cost curve goes up, higher than if we did nothing. In fact, this new estimate does not include any cost for the 52 new programs, 52 new programs that are in the bill that the CBO could not even measure and give us a figure for the cost because each program was authorized for such sums, blank check, such sums, funding level.

So our leadership, Ms. Pelosi and company, have given us 52 new programs that are funded at such sums that they need and is not even scored or accounted in this new estimate of $150 million that the CBO missed because they couldn't even score that.

Tax increases.

Doc, let me interject something there.

One of our constituents in northeast Georgia in my 10th Congressional District just wrote us a note saying that he is a small businessman, and he said that his small business was going to survive this economic downturn. But the way it was going to survive was he was going to let all of his employees go, and he and his family were going to run the small business. That's the only way you can stay in business.

It is ObamaCare that is running his employees, even of a small business, very small business, where they are having to let employees go because of ObamaCare, right now today.

Those are big words. What's that mean?

Dr. Fleming, you and I talked about creative effectiveness research and comparative effectiveness of different treatments. For instance, as an example, my trout fishing buddy at home, a retired full bird colonel, Randy Dudley, served a stellar service in the United States Air Force, retired.

Randy Dudley has just undergone a series of treatments for his prostate cancer. He has been very open about it and that's the reason that I can bring that forward here tonight because HIPAA otherwise wouldn't let me do so.

But Colonel Dudley looked at surgery, looked at high-dose radiation therapy, low-dose radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or a combination of those, as he chose his treatment. We, as physicians, do comparative effectiveness evaluation or research to look and see whether the surgery for him is better or which of those treatments are a combination of treatments or better.

But this comparative effectiveness research that was started with a nonstimulus bill back a little over a year ago--that's when Nancy Pelosi and company funded the comparative effectiveness research--what the American people need to understand, Dr. Fleming, is something you and I understand very firmly; it's not about what's the best treatment, but it's how to spend dollars.

They are going to use age as the means of trying to determine how to spend dollars. That means that one of my patients who is 75 that has diabetes versus another one of my patients that's 35 with diabetes, they are going to decide whether they are going to spend $100 on my 75-year-old diabetic patient or $100 on my 35-year-old diabetic patient.

Dr. Roe was talking about seniors are very upset because we know where that decision is going to be, and that Federal bureaucrat who is not a doctor, that panel that is not going to be run by physicians, is going to be deciding the comparative effectiveness of spending dollars on an age-related basis with less dollars being divided by more people, which means rationing of care. And this panel is going to deny, deny, treatment to that 75-year-old.

And the reason Governor Palin was talking about death panels is because they're going to just say, So sorry, you can't get that treatment because comparative effectiveness says spending $100 on you, a 75-year-old patient who has diabetes, is not as effective as spending $100 on a 35-year-old, and our senior citizens are going to be denied treatment. And what's going to happen? They're going to get gangrene in their legs, and they're going to die from that. They're going to get pneumonia, and they're going to die from that. This panel is not going to put them to death, but it's going to deny treatment, particularly the more expensive treatment.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Now this is the head of CMS, who is going to be heading up the comparative effectiveness rationing panel. I call it a rationing panel.

A football player.

You're right, Dr. Fleming. Let me reclaim my time.

Just today, the consulting firm of Towers Watson just released a study of large employers across the country, what their response is to ObamaCare. And it's not at all surprising, really, to us because we've been talking about it. You and I and many of our Doctors Caucus members have been here on the floor talking about these things, you're just talking about it now, as we did for months and months before ObamaCare was put in place. But let me give you the data, some things that Towers Watson found that just released today.

The overwhelming majority, 90 percent of employers, believe that health care reform will increase their organization's health care costs. They're right. I don't know why it's not 100 percent, because it's going to; but 90 percent of employers believe their health care costs will go up, and they will. Sixty-eight percent plan to re-examine their health benefit strategy for active employees this year.

Now, I'll tell you something, just Sunday, I think it was in the Sunday Athens Banner-Herald, there was an article where the University of Georgia is very seriously considering not giving any new hire that the University of Georgia puts on their payroll retirement benefits once they retire, or health care retirement benefits because of the cost, because of ObamaCare, and because of the strain on the budget that University of Georgia is suffering from right now. So I know University of Georgia, there are a lot of people in Athens, Georgia, who want to go to work for the University of Georgia. It's a great place to work, it's a great school to go to. I'm a graduate of the University of Georgia. But 68 percent are going to re-examine their health benefit strategy. That, I'm sure, is going to please our President because he wants everybody to go off of private insurance; he said that himself. He didn't say it in those words; he said he wants everybody to be in the government pool, one pool.

Eighty-eight percent plan to pass increased costs from the law onto their employees through high premiums. So those people who are working today, those middle class people that Barack Obama said it wouldn't affect them, we heard over and over--still hear--95 percent of Americans are not going to see an increase in taxes. That's just totally erroneous; it's nothing but falsehood. Eighty-eight percent plan to pass on the increased cost to their employees through high premiums.

And let me give a couple more examples, and then I will yield back. Seventy-four percent plan to pass the law's higher costs onto their employees by changing the plan options, by restricting eligibility, which means more people won't be eligible to get insurance through their employer, or by increasing their deductibles or copays. More than one in 10 firms plan to pass on these higher costs of ObamaCare by reducing employment. Twelve percent say that they're going to do that, 12 percent, or by reducing employee contributions to their retirement plans, like their 401(k)s, 11 percent.

Forty-three percent believe that their plans will be subject to the Cadillac tax on high-cost plans. Of course, our leadership here in the House and our President want to get rid of Cadillac plans unless they're for who? The unions. In fact, they've given the unions a pass on the Cadillac plans because they want to do everything that they can do to support the unions.

Of those firms offering coverage, 43 percent said they are likely to eliminate or reduce retiree medical programs as a result of the law's enactment. That's what I just mentioned with the University of Georgia is a good example that is considering right now, very seriously--and I expect it probably will happen. Almost half of the companies in this country are going to reduce or eliminate their retirees' health care plans for their retirees.

I yield back to Dr. Fleming.

Thank you, Dr. Fleming.

We have just a couple of minutes left, and maybe I will get back to you in a second.

But I want to tell Madam Speaker and the American people that Republicans have been charged by our Democrat colleagues--and I've heard many a Democratic colleague come stand down here in the well or stand back there at the Speaker's desk and say that the Republican Party is the party of ``no.'' We are the party of ``k-n-o-w.'' So I'll admit that we are the party of ``know'' because we know how--k-n-o-w-- we know how to reduce the cost of health care for everybody in this country. We know how to solve the problems of insuring those people who are uninsurable today because of preexisting conditions. We know how to maintain that doctor-patient relationship; it's how health care decisions are made. ObamaCare doesn't do that.

That's another failed promise, another myth that our President and

Nancy Pelosi and company have given to the American people. President Obama said over and over again, If you like your insurance, you can keep it. And Dr. Fleming was just talking about, no, you can't. That's another myth; that's another failed promise. But the Republicans are the party of ``k-n-o-w,'' know, because we know how to do those things. We know how to create jobs. We've been asking over and over again, Where are the jobs?

The American people are hurting. We see the statistics, 9.9 percent, but that's not correct. It's much higher than that. As an example, one of my county commission chairmen just told me that 1 year ago the unemployment in their county was 14.3 percent. Now it's down to, according to the statistics, 10.7. I said to him, That is fantastic. Where did the jobs come from? He said, Paul, there aren't any jobs; people have just gotten discouraged and fallen off the rolls. And I think that's why we see it below 10 percent today.

We also mentioned earlier where teachers and policemen and other people are being furloughed and not being paid for those furlough days. There are millions of people who are unemployed. And people who are unemployed and getting jobs, the few that are out there, are being employed at a lower level than they are really qualified. So the unemployment, the underemployment, those that are off the rolls, it's much, much higher than 10 percent. I think it's above 20 percent, maybe even 25 percent; I don't have the data because we can't get those data. But the Republicans do have alternatives. And we're going to try our best to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with things that make sense, that will build jobs, build a stronger economy.

We're just going to see, in the next few days here on the floor of the House, a bill that they're going to call a ``jobs'' bill, and that's not correct. They are naming anything a ``jobs'' bill these days, but jobs are being killed by this outrageous spending.

The health care quality in this country is going to go down. The American people deserve better. We are going to try to repeal and replace ObamaCare and put in place something that makes sense economically and is good for the American people.

I yield back.

Madam Speaker, during the 5-minute speeches just a few minutes ago, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) was showing all of us this poster that he graciously made up: Where's the budget? That is what we will be talking about tonight because we have seen in this Congress this year that the leadership of the Congress is failing its responsibility, failing its duty, failing to bring us a budget.

Now, we saw the President put together a budget that he presented to Congress several months ago. We will talk about that a little bit. But under the Constitution of the United States--and I carry a copy in my pocket because I believe in this document as it was intended by the Founders, the people who wrote this document. One of the prime responsibilities of Congress is to pass a budget. From the original intent of our Constitution and what it says in the Constitution, the Congress should be making the budget, not the President.

Article I lays out all of the premises of the Congress of the United States. Section 1 says all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consistent of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2 goes on and talks about how the House is made up.

Section 3 is about the Senate.

Section 4 talks about the times and places and manner of holding elections for the same.

Section 7 starts off: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills. That is the first sentence of article I, section 7.

So all bills for raising revenue should start in the House. All budgets should be started in the House. And that's what our Founding Fathers meant to happen.

Section 8 lists the 18 things that Congress can pass laws about. There are only 18, folks. Obviously, we are passing laws about many more things than 18. In fact, in this little booklet, the Constitution of the United States, article I, section 8, starts right here and it goes to right here. It is one and three-quarter pages. That's all Congress has the constitutional authority to pass laws about.

And the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, says, and I want to read it to get it very clear so the American people can understand. It is basically one sentence. It says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, Congress is only supposed to be doing the 18 things in article I, section 8. We specifically have enumerated powers. That is what limited government is supposed to be all about. It is supposed to be enumerated powers that we are given by the people. The Constitution starts off with very three powerful words: we the people. ``We the people'' is the most powerful political force in this country under our Constitution.

But ``we the people'' is not acting as strongly as it should have been. And one of the things that Congress is supposed to be doing is passing a budget. In fact, families all over this country, State and local governments all over this country, pass a budget. If we don't have a budget, how do we know how to set out bills proposing revenue? How do we know how to spend the money, the taxpayers' money that we take from them through taxes?

Madam Speaker, we are doing a lot of things here in Congress that we shouldn't be doing. But one thing that we should be doing is passing a budget. It is critical. Mr. Goodlatte said during his 5-minute speech that he has introduced a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I have done the same. Mine is a little different. There are three balanced budget amendments that Republicans have introduced. But how can we balance the budget if we don't have a budget? I believe very firmly that the Federal Government should not be spending any more money than it takes in year to year. We should be balancing our budget.

My State of Georgia has to live under a balanced budget. In fact, the general assembly just dismissed a couple of weeks ago because they were desperately trying to balance their budget, which they eventually did, in this economic downturn. They were having tremendous struggles about how to cut the size of State government in the State of Georgia.

But the Federal Government should be doing the same, and the American people need to demand a balanced budget. Republicans are going to be offering a balanced budget. We have done it over and over again. In 1995, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution passed the U.S. House of Representatives. It lacked one Republican vote in the U.S. Senate from being law today. Unfortunately, we could not get one Republican more to vote for a balanced budget amendment. We wouldn't be spending our grandchildren's future, as we are doing today. The outrageous spending that Congress is doing has to stop. The American people need to demand a balanced budget, but we need to demand from our elected representatives a budget.

It puzzles me why almost at the end of May, Congress still has not enacted a budget resolution and has totally disregarded the April 15 deadline. The deadline. We have missed that deadline, as we miss a lot of things around here.

But we have seen over and over again big bills, big spending bills, a stimulus bill that has been an abject failure. It has stimulated government; it has not stimulated jobs in the private sector but very minimally. Most of those are temporary jobs. We see unemployment recently was reported at 9.9 percent; but that doesn't tell the whole story. Over 50 million people, workers in America, are out of work today. We have had a rise in the unemployment rate, but the 9.9 percent does not tell the true story.

I was talking to one of the county commission chairmen in my district just a few weeks ago. And he said: Paul, in our county the unemployment rate today is 10.7 percent; and 1 year ago it was 14.3 percent.

I said: Man, that is great. Where did the jobs come from? Where did you create all of the jobs in this county?

He said: Paul, sadly, there are no jobs. We have not created new jobs here. People have just fallen off the rolls. They have gotten discouraged and are not on the unemployment rolls any more. In Georgia, we have furloughed teachers. At the University of Georgia that I represent in Athens, Georgia, we have furloughed a lot of the employees of the university. Teachers all across the State of Georgia are going to be put out of work because the State of Georgia just does not have the money in this economic downturn to continue to hire and continue to employ the teachers that we so desperately need.

We just had a resolution that we all voted on, almost unanimously, to honor teachers. Teachers hold the future of our Nation, because what they teach our children is critical for the

safety and prosperity of America. Teachers are being put out of work in Georgia, but they're being put out of work all over this country. We have too many people in the administration in the school system. Unfortunately, teachers are losing their jobs and administrators are keeping their jobs.

But we absolutely have to have a budget. We absolutely must have something, a framework of how Congress is going to spend the taxpayers' hard-earned money. And Congress is ignoring the immediate budget picture. But we've also punted the long-term budgeting decisions to a deficit commission that is structured to avoid transparency and accountability. And it looks like we're not going to pass a budget resolution here in the House nor in the Senate. We may not even pass any appropriations bill.

But tonight we're asking, Where is the budget? It's nowhere to be found. I've been just joined by my good friend, Congressman Jim Jordan, who is very much part of the Budget Committee and has been a stalwart in fighting for a budget that makes sense and informing Members, on our side at least, about the budget and what's going on. And he's here joining us, and hopefully we'll have some other Members.

I see Marsha Blackburn, a stalwart conservative Congresswoman from Tennessee, from Nashville, a good friend, has joined us, and I appreciate you all joining us here tonight.

And so I want to yield time to Mr. Jordan. And tell us about the budget. Where is the budget?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Jordan, you're exactly right. And I'd like for you to talk about the Republican balanced budget that we introduced last year and again you're working on it this year.

But you brought up the President's budget. Todd Akin, our colleague from Missouri, was very generous to loan me this chart. This is about the President's proposed budget that he gave us. We don't have a House budget. We may not get a Senate budget.

This pie chart, I just want to pay attention to two figures. Total receipts proposed, $2.56 trillion. Total outlays, $3.834 trillion. Now, $1 trillion is a lot. People can't get their arms around or mind around what's $1 trillion. But if you subtract 2.5, in receipts, plus change from 3.8 plus change, you see we have a big budget deficit that's been proposed by this administration. This is actually unsustainable.

I've heard our colleagues on the other side talk over and over again about the deficit that was created by George Bush. And, in fact, all I hear from our colleagues over and over again is about the deficit, and they're still blaming the Bush administration.

Well, I've not been a great fan of the budget deficits that the Bush administration put forward, but if we look at this chart, these are the deficits under the Democratic budgets. This is in billions of dollars. We see in blue the deficits, 2004, 5, 6, 7, that were under the Bush administration. We did have budget deficits, and that was wrong, absolutely wrong. The Federal Government should live within the means that it has. But look at this paltry amount compared to the budgets that have been proposed by this administration and others.

And you hear over and over again the Obama budget--of course, this goes out from 2011 to 2020. These are the proposed budget deficits that the Obama administration has proposed in his budget. Huge, compared to the budget deficits that were actual under the Bush administration. We shouldn't even have had those. We should have been living under a balanced budget since 1995. And I blame the Bush administration and the Republican Congress for--control of Congress for these budgets. But this graph right here was when Nancy Pelosi took over as Speaker of the House. We've got to stop this outrageous spending.

I want to yield to my good friend Marsha Blackburn from Nashville, Tennessee, who represents a huge swath through the middle of Tennessee, and she's a great warrior on this issue. And I want to welcome you, Mrs. Blackburn.

Say that again so the people who are listening can understand that, if you would, please, won't you.

According to this chart, you are close; it is $2.567 trillion in revenues, and then $3.834 trillion in outlays.

I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Blackburn.

You are exactly right. Not only did we have the health care bill that was passed by this House, passed by the Senate first and then came over here, not one Republican voted for that bill. We just heard from CBO just this last week I think it was when they said, Oops, we made a mistake. It's going to cost at least $115 billion more than we first estimated. One hundred fifteen billion dollars more. That's not a paltry sum. And actually, it's going to still continue to climb. I think that the government takeover of health care is going to be an even bigger bill.

We saw Congress pass a nonstimulus bill, which is what I called it at the time. That's been an abject failure. That's another trillion dollars that we don't have the money. We have seen bill after bill come to the floor of the House passed by the Democratic leadership, forced down the throats of the American people, with just outrageous spending of money that we just do not have. That's the bottom line. We have got to stop the spending, this outrageous spending. We need to have a budget. The Federal Government needs to live within its budget, period.

Mr. Jordan, I yield to you.

Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

I agree with Steny Hoyer, the majority leader for the Democratic Party here in the House. When he was talking about passing a final budget and a spending blueprint, he said this, quote: ``It is the most basic responsibility of governing.'' The Democratic leader, Steny Hoyer, said passing a final budget and a spending blueprint is the most basic responsibility of governing. They are not governing. They are not doing what they should.

It is also real interesting to me, in 2006 the House Budget Committee chairman, John Spratt, said, quote, ``If you can't budget, you cannot govern.'' ``If you can't budget, you cannot govern.'' Quote and unquote. John Spratt, the Democratic chairman of the House Budget Committee. They are not governing. They are being irresponsible. The American public deserve better.

We have been joined tonight also by my good friend from Texas who has been an individual that has spent many hours, as I have, here on the floor talking about the ObamaCare bill and about ethics in governing. We are very honored to have Judge John Carter from Texas.

I yield to you.

Let me reclaim my time and just explain this chart.

We can turn it upside down.

We will turn it upside down. And then we will be coming from the right to the left.

That's a Nancy Pelosi line right here.

I appreciate it.

I just wanted to put in my two cents about the question you just asked about why the Budget Committee hasn't passed out a budget, why the House hasn't passed a budget. We have an April 15 deadline by law. A budget is supposed to be passed. The Senate hasn't passed a budget. We've been very busy this whole year, you know, Mr. Carter, since this year started under this administration. We've passed all of these big spending bills, and it is my belief that we don't have a Federal budget because they can't balance the budget. They can't show to the American people how awful the spending is up here, how outrageous, how egregious the irresponsibility is, and they do not want anybody to hold them responsible.

My 19-year-old son, Collins Broun, comes to me when he needs some money. And he's been in school. He's a freshman in college. And he's had some little jobs, but he doesn't have a budget because he depends on me to provide his needs.

Well, this government is relying on taxpayers, and the PAYGO, Mr. Carter, that you were talking about that we keep hearing touted by the Blue Dogs on their side about how great it is. We've suspended PAYGO over and over again on a health care bill the American public still doesn't want. They want it repealed. We, as Republicans, want to repeal and replace it. There's been a nonstimulus bill that's been an abject failure that's going to be over a trillion dollars. This has created some government jobs and some temporary jobs, but hasn't stimulated the private sector.

Most jobs that were created in the private sector were small business. Businesses are scared to death. They are not creating any new jobs because they look at these budget deficits and see spending bills that this Democratic Congress has been passing over and over again-- most times without any or sometimes with only very minimal Republican votes for them. But we've seen just over and over again these huge bills. They haven't taken the time. And I don't think they want to be held responsible, frankly. So I think that's a big part of the reason.

So to answer your question, I think that this Congress won't pass a budget in the House, probably not in the Senate because they don't want to be held responsible. They want to continue to do what even the majority leader said. It's the most basic responsibility of government. They are not doing it. John Spratt said if you cannot budget, you cannot govern. Well, they're not governing. All they're doing is spending.

I'll yield back to Mr. Carter.

Above what they're spending now.

I agree with you it's not only unfortunate, but it's irresponsible.

We're seeing Congress spend money, tons and tons of money that we don't have, trillions of dollars that we don't have, for programs that America doesn't want. It's not in the best interest of America. It's killing jobs. Killing jobs. And it's just not responsible governing.

We've been joined also tonight by my good friend from New Orleans, Louisiana, Steve Scalise, who's also been a great fighter for us here on the floor on many issues--on health care and other issues. And I want to welcome Mr. Scalise, and I'd like to hear you impart some knowledge in this.

Thank you, Mr. Scalise. You're absolutely right. The budget resolution simply sets forth an annual framework of priorities, sets forth the framework for taxes and spending. It's one of the few pieces of legislation that Congress must pass annually. We're not seeing that happen.

Since 1974 when Congress passed the Congressional Budget Act, which created the modern budget process, Congress has failed to enact a budget resolution only four times since 1974. This year will be the fifth. But it's the first time in history, the first time in history that the House does not make any attempt whatsoever, no attempt, to pass a first version of a budget bill--never since 1974 when the Congressional Budget Act was passed. That's just unconscionable.

Absolutely.

That's absolutely correct. In fact, an attempt was made to pass a budget. Through our legislative process, they did all of the things. A budget resolution was presented, an attempt was made to pass a budget resolution. And only four times since 1974 has a budget resolution not passed. But this is the first time in history that there is no attempt whatsoever to even pass a first version of a budget in the U.S. House. It's unconscionable.

I yield back.

Well, thank you for yielding back.

What are the consequence of not passing a budget? Well, first thing if we don't pass the budget, then there's no cap on discretionary spending for this fiscal year. So they can spend whatever they want to because they have no constraints within a budget.

I've got a friend whose wife said, Well, we have got plenty of money in the bank. I still have checks in my checkbook.

That's the way this majority is acting. They still have the checks in the checkbook. They still have a credit card that is being held by the Chinese.

But where does the money come from? With all this deficit spending, this outrageous spending that Congress has been doing, it is going to come from our children and great-grandchildren. They are going to live at a lower standard than we live today, be the first generation that has lived at a lower standard than the previous generation, and it is because of this ``gimme now'' attitude that this Congress, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, has been doing.

So passing a budget will at least help stop this outrageous spending and will put some caps, maybe, on the discretionary spending for this year.

Also, not passing a budget means that Congress will not muster the leadership to set any kind of framework for paring back the entitlement spending. We have got to control entitlement spending.

Our colleague who is the ranking member on the Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, introduced a bill in the last Congress, in the 110th where you and I both were here, that would set forth some parameters for controlling entitlement spending. We have got to do that. There is no question. In fact, about two-thirds of the Federal budget is on autopilot, and it just continues to grow exponentially.

We have got to change the whole budgetary process, and that is what I hope to see us do. And I think Republicans have that as part of what we want to do once we get control back of the House, is to change the budgetary process so that we balance our budget and we control entitlement spending. It is absolutely critical.

But thirdly, most importantly, not passing a budget means not carving out priorities for the spending and giving us an extension of the tax cuts that were put in in 2001 and 2002, even for low-income families. So we are going to see tremendous increases in taxes for everybody in this country, even the people who can afford it the least, those on limited incomes, fixed incomes, and the poorest people in this country.

In fact, we hear over and over again that our Democratic colleagues are interested in the middle class; but, actually, the middle class and the lower economic rungs of the ladder are going to be hit hardest by the health care bill that was passed, ObamaCare, by the nonstimulus bill that's been an abject

failure, and all the outrageous spending that our Democratic colleagues have been doing here in the Congress.

Beyond all these things, not passing a budget signals to the American people that we are not going to be held accountable. We are not going to deal with the Nation's spending addiction that Congress has, the deficit challenges that this government has.

We have got to stop it.

Families all over this country are balancing their budgets. My State of Georgia and many States have to live under a balanced budget. I believe the Federal Government should live under a balanced budget. But we are not even having a budget.

Mr. Carter, what do you think we are going to do? Are we going to continue spending? I yield.

Thank you, Mr. Carter.

Just in closing, in the last minute that we have, Americans know that you can't manage what you can't measure. If you don't have a budget, you can't measure anything. You can't set out spending priorities. Failing to enact a budget blueprint just doesn't allow Congress to measure any spending priorities that we see coming forth, and just see big spending after big spending bills.

Democrats are purposefully deciding to not pass a budget bill blueprint to hide the fact that our country's financial picture is in terrible shape and we are going down the same road that Greece is going down.

American families know that this is irresponsible. Congress needs to get its house in order and lead. It can start by passing a responsible budget resolution. American people need to ask: Where is the budget?

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5099 designating the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 15 South Main Street in Sharon, Massachusetts, as the Michael C. Rothberg Post Office.

A native of Sharon, Massachusetts, Michael graduated from Sharon High School and went on to receive his bachelor's and master's degrees from McGill University.

His family and friends described him as kind, generous and selfless. It was Michael who encouraged and financed his sister, Rhonda, to start her own business. Michael was known to work hard, excelling in his position on Wall Street, rising to the 104th floor of the World Trade Center, where he worked for Cantor Fitzgerald. He made friends with many of the clients and associates he worked with, helping them both in and out of the office.

His mother Iris tells of a time a friend found out she had cancer, and Michael immediately went to his staff and raised money for the Jimmy Fund. She also tells of a time a client needed surgery, and Michael sent a car for her and waited during the procedure to take her home.

On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by radical Islamic jihadists, those against what America considers good and just. Behind the devastating number of deaths were the individuals, each having family and friends they left behind. One of these victims was Michael C. Rothberg. He was 39 years old.

To honor Michael's dedication to his community, The Michael C. Rothberg September 11th Memorial Scholarship was organized by former classmates, friends, and family. The scholarship is awarded to students at Sharon High School who show qualities of academic integrity, ethical commitment, and service to the community.

Today we honor Michael, whose short life was dedicated selflessly to his friends and family. To celebrate and preserve his legacy, I ask all Members to join in supporting H.R. 5099.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of House Resolution 1256, which congratulates Phil Mickelson on winning the 2010 Masters Golf Tournament in Augusta, Georgia. His strong performance in the tournament and his exemplary community involvement throughout his career is an example not only for millions of golf fans, but for all Americans.

Mickelson's victory was his third Masters title and his fourth major championship of his stellar career. Despite the loud buzz surrounding this year's tournament, Mickelson quietly and consistently played each hole very well. He did not shoot above par on a single hole in the final round and won the tournament by three strokes. ESPN wrote that ``the signature moment came on the 13th, a hole Mickelson has dominated like no other at Augusta. With a 2-shot lead, he was stuck between two Georgia pines and had just over 200 yards to the hole. He never considered anything but a shot at the green.''

Mickelson took the risky shot, and as he said, ``it came off perfect.'' Mickelson ended the day by hitting a birdie on the 18th hole to increase his lead to 3. Even though Mickelson has 40 other tournament wins, this Masters victory may have meant the most to him because of all he has been through in the last year. Both his wife and mother were diagnosed with cancer in the past year.

The Masters was the first tournament that Amy, his wife, was able to attend in months since she was diagnosed with breast cancer almost a year ago. Amy had been unable to attend the tournament during the first few rounds and was so tired she did not think that she could attend on Sunday to watch the final round. However, she found the strength to go to the 18th hole and watch her husband win. All of the fans at the tournament and golf fans around the world cheered as Mickelson embraced his wife. It was a very touching moment. Afterwards Mickelson said, ``In the last year, we've been through a lot, and it's been tough. And to be on the other end and feel this kind of jubilation is incredible.'' What a gentleman, what a role model is Phil Mickelson.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution that recognizes Phil Mickelson's performance and great character during this Masters Tournament and also Augusta National for hosting another outstanding tournament.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 403, expressing the sense that the House of Representatives should establish a National Teachers Day to honor and celebrate teachers in the United States.

Every day thousands of men and women in this country wake up in the morning with a tremendous responsibility, the stressful and sometimes daunting task of educating our Nation's youth. We entrust these special people with our most precious gift, our children.

Education requires commitment and hard work from both students and teachers. Most of us can point to the one or two special educators, as Mr. Davis was just talking about his teacher, whose impact allowed us to get to where we are today.

Teachers have guided children throughout history instilling principles of good citizenship, hard work and the reward of doing one's personal best. Across all borders and around the world, teachers are a key factor in engaging the minds of their students and imparting knowledge for a lifetime.

Through their dedication and passion for service, teachers bridge the gap between the resources available and the vital need for a strong education. They provide the tools necessary for success, and their sacrifice deserves national recognition.

Madam Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in supporting this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, teachers around this country are overworked; they're underpaid. They have the future of our Nation in their hands, and they deserve the recognition that this resolution so duly gives them. And I urge support of this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

I just want to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks. He's absolutely right. We need to focus on teachers, not administrators and a lot of the auxiliary people who are in the educational system today. Teachers should be the primary focus.

In my State of Georgia, we're laying off teachers, and it's a crying shame. Teachers don't get the recognition that they deserve. They don't get the pay that they deserve. They're hamstrung by red tape and paperwork. They're struggling very hard to impart an education to the youth of our Nation. Many of these teachers have to come out of their own pocket to pay for supplies for kids in their own room, and that's a crying shame. It should not be that way.

This is just a simple token, but I hope a tremendous token, to honor the teachers that affect all of us and affect the Nation's future. And so I wanted to associate myself with Mr. Davis' words because he's very, very correct in what he said. These people need the much deserved recognition that this resolution gives them. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1297, recognizing and supporting the goals and ideals of American Craft Beer Week. The small and independent American craft brewing industry is making an increasingly valuable and substantial contribution to the American economy. Currently, the industry provides an estimated 100,000 jobs, and craft breweries are located in every State of the Union.

Not only are craft brewers responsible for providing a variety of quality, local jobs, they are responsible for the increased enjoyment and pleasure of craft beers, while customers discover the intricacies of aroma, color, body, and other variables in the beverage that makes it pleasurable to drink. These craft breweries also support American agriculture through purchases of barley, malt, and hops grown, processed, and distributed in the United States.

In addition, craft brewers are in the forefront of educating people about responsible drinking and the prevention of alcohol abuse, as well as supporting programs created to prevent underage drinking. If Benjamin Franklin were with us today, perhaps he would revise his famous statement where he said, ``Beer is living proof that God loved us and wants us to be happy.'' He might preface it with the words, ``American craft.''

I ask my colleagues to support this fine example of American entrepreneurship, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 792, honoring Robert Kelly Slater for his outstanding and unprecedented achievements in the world of surfing.

A native of Cocoa Beach, Florida, Kelly Slater has been a dominant surfer since first learning how to surf during his childhood. As an amateur surfer, he quickly entered the spotlight, winning six Eastern Surfing Association and four national titles.

In the 1990s, he was already a household name. In 1992, he won his first Association of Surfing Professionals World Championship when he was only 20 years of age, making him the youngest person ever to win the title. From 1994 to 1998, Slater continued to rack up world titles. He won the world championship title five times in a row, for a combined nine championships. He has won more championships than any other surfer. In 2002, he became a member of the Surfers Hall of Fame.

In addition to his success in surfing competitions, Slater has appeared in commercials and television shows, as well as having a wide variety of surfing sponsorships. Throughout his entire career, Kelly Slater has continued to make surfing more popular as more people across the globe become aware of his expertise in the sport. He also created the Kelly Slater Foundation to raise money for major charities, such as the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and the World Skin Cancer Foundation.

Madam Speaker, Kelly Slater has continued to excite surfers across the entire country and the world. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution to honor Kelly Slater's work.

Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from Florida (Mr. Posey), the sponsor of this resolution.

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