Floor Statements

I am struck here this afternoon. I've heard my good friends on the other side of the aisle and their concerns. I think it's legitimate that they would like to see long-term certainty in our infrastructure system. Yet, when the highway bill ended in 2009, they controlled the White House, the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. While in the majority of all three levels of government, they chose to extend the transportation authorization six times. So here we are, once again, with another delay tactic, letting the American people wait some more. They know that this motion to instruct is not going to go anywhere because there are important reforms that the American people have told us they want.

One of those reforms is my amendment, which is part of our bill that streamlines the redtape. Why in the world should we take 15 years to get a highway project finished? It's because we're waiting two-thirds of the time to get approvals done. It's nonsensical, yet we keep on promulgating the same problem over and over and over again. It's like Groundhog Day here. I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, it gets frustrating after a while.

We need to get on with this and move forward with something. Let's get this into conference so that we can go ahead and make our reforms. The American people have spoken. They spoke in the last election. They decided that they wanted a split government, that they wanted the majority over here in the House and a different majority in the Senate. That was their choice. The way a bill becomes law is that the Senate does its thing and then we do our thing, and then we come together and negotiate in between to find the best common ground for all Americans. That's what we plan on doing here.

I very strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion to instruct. Let us get to conference with our reforms and with the House- passed legislation, the bipartisan House-passed legislation. Let's get on with it so that we can get some certainty put back into this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the great work of the Ellis family of Rhinelander, Wisconsin, who worked to benefit the Ronald McDonald House of Marshfield, Wisconsin and are the 2012 Make a Difference Day winners. Make a Difference Day is a celebration of the power of neighbors helping neighbors. Created by USA Weekend, this annual day of service mobilizes more than three million volunteers to create change in their community.

The Ellis family has made a substantial impact on their community by collecting aluminum cans for the local Ronald McDonald House. Rick and Kela Ellis were heartbroken when they lost 2-year-old daughter Ashley to brain cancer in 1989. But within a year they'd found a way to honor her memory: by recycling aluminum cans to benefit the Ronald McDonald House of Marshfield, Wisconsin, their ``home'' while Ashley was hospitalized. Since giving their Cans for Cancer collection a ``huge boost'' by tying it to Make A Difference Day in 1998, the Ellises have recycled 6,000 pounds of aluminum, raising more than $2,500.

I want to congratulate the Ellis family for this honor and thank them for their service to our community.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the folders that I am holding here represent our dysfunctional Federal bureaucracy. They provide a stark example of the burdensome red tape that a Wisconsin business must go through just to get approval of a single project.

Mr. Chairman, in this folder is when the county controls a project. This folder is when the State controls the project. Mr. Chairman, this folder is when the Federal Government controls the project.

Well, these examples aren't specifically for a highway project. They are emblematic of the bureaucracy our Federal Government imposes in northeastern Wisconsin and across the Nation. My amendment today will smooth the road for our infrastructure projects by reducing the redundant permitting requirements that prevent us from rebuilding our roads and bridges across this country.

My amendment includes many of the practical reforms that I and my colleagues on the Transportation Committee have championed under Chairman Mica's leadership. Today, the average life span of a construction project is 15 years, but only 5 of those years involve actual on-the-ground construction.

Let me say that again. At least 10 years of a project are not spent building anything, but instead are spent filling thousands of folders just like these with millions of pages of paperwork.

My amendment expedites this process. In some cases we can cut this timeline in half merely by allowing the Federal and State agencies to work together. How about that for an idea, to work together on the review and permitting process.

My amendment sets hard deadlines for Federal agencies to approve infrastructure projects, no longer leaving them in limbo. There has been a lot of talk about shovel-ready projects in recent years. Well, my amendment will help States, municipalities, and contractors to put their pencils down and, Mr. Chairman, pick the shovels up. It's exactly what we need in a time when our economy is struggling.

The Federal Government needs to stop putting up roadblocks to job creation and figure out ways to make things easier and less costly. My amendment would do just that.

It also exempts certain unplanned emergencies from some of the review processes. When a State or city is hit by damaging storms or unexpected flooding, our top priority should be to get our roads and bridges repaired, not subjecting our communities to an endless permitting process that may further harm their quality of life.

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is not perfect, but then again no bill ever is. However, my amendment will put us on the road to reforming how we build and maintain our infrastructure throughout this country, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Our amendment takes that----

If the gentleman will yield, it's just in the right-of- way, though.

Will the gentleman yield?

I can say this to you, that I have full confidence in your State's environmental protection. I have full confidence in the leaders in the State of Wisconsin.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

I do want to thank the ranking member. We do have a disagreement, and disagreements happen in this Chamber a lot. But anyone who's traveled our roads and highways and tried to cross bridges that have been falling apart, that are filled with potholes, that have needed repairs for, sometimes, decades recognizes the real cost and real cause of the delay.

Mr. Chairman, I would note that my amendment in no way eliminates NEPA or the need for an environmental review to occur. However, our current process reduces redundant submissions, and approvals can render a road project obsolete before the ground has ever been broken.

My amendment merely ensures that Federal and State governments get to actually work together in doing the review. They get to work together to do this. And unlike others, I have full confidence in the people that live in the States where this work is going to be done. They're the neighbors of these road projects. They're the ones that swim in the lakes and streams and drink the water, breathe the air. They're the ones that live there. They ought to have more say on how these projects are completed, and we can actually get more projects done because of this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an organization called Roehl's Transport, which is celebrating its 50th year in business in 2012. I congratulate them for this historic achievement.

Their extraordinary growth since 1962 exemplifies what can be achieved through teamwork and the American spirit. The Roehl Way of Protective Driving has won the ATA President's Award in both 2008 and 2011, and their initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has earned the EPA's ``Smartway Award for Excellence'' multiple times.

I am honored to congratulate Roehl Transport on their 50th anniversary and extend my thanks for efforts to improve our nation by making our highways safer and advancing our air quality.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Village of Sister Bay in Door County, Wisconsin. Settlers first arrived in 1857, and the village was incorporated in 1912.

That same year, the village suffered from a drought, a heavy hailstorm, a grasshopper invasion, and a severe fire that consumed most of the businesses at the center of the village. The Village of Sister Bay not only endured these challenges, but also sought new opportunities. The community became a major shipping location for early steam and sailing vessels, and commerce thrived year round.

Mr. Speaker, the Village of Sister Bay embodies all of the finest qualities of Door County. In the early days, the community stood out as a tourist destination. Today, tourism continues to flourish in the Village of Sister Bay with small storefronts, restaurants, art galleries, and a beautiful marina that gives visitors a reason to keep coming back to this wonderful community.

Again, I congratulate the Village of Sister Bay on its 100th anniversary, and encourage all residents in northeast Wisconsin to celebrate this community's history and heritage on June 8 9, 2012.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the fiscal 2013 budget resolution. There has been some fiery rhetoric that the House budget will end Medicare, but this simply is not the case. Both Republicans and Democrats have worked on plans that will strengthen seniors' health care accessibility and security.

If our country remains on its current path, in 10 short years Medicare will go bankrupt. The Congressional Budget Office warns that in 2022, the Medicare trust fund will run out of money and default on its obligations to current seniors.

As representatives of the American people, we here in Congress have the responsibility to address this growing crisis so that millions of seniors now and in the future will not be left without the vital care that they've earned and deserve. As a father and grandfather, I cannot, in good conscience, pass that burden on to my children and grandchildren--or, for that matter, anyone else's.

The House budget will not only protect Medicare benefits for seniors today but will also ensure its solvency for future generations. It guarantees coverage for current and future beneficiaries, regardless of preexisting conditions.

Premium support programs have had a proud history of bipartisan support and would also give more assistance to lower-income and ailing individuals while reducing assistance to millionaires and billionaires.

Under our proposed fixes to preserve the Medicare program, beneficiaries

will also be able to choose from Medicare health plans competing for their business just like seniors currently enjoy with the very popular Medicare part D prescription drug coverage. This will drive down costs, improve value, and increase choice.

And speaking of choice, instead of 15 unelected bureaucrats choosing, we will see 50 million seniors with the freedom to choose for themselves.

With this proposal, those who are at or near retirement--meaning any individual 55 years or older--will see no change whatsoever to their current benefits. Because there has been a lot of misinformation out there, I want to stress that point: no one 55 and older will see any change to their Medicare under this plan.

Simply put, the House budget will improve Medicare. It will inject financial life into this critical but threatened program.

The Path to Prosperity budget does exactly what the name suggests: it will decrease costs while improving health care quality and coverage for millions of seniors today and millions more tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember and honor the life and sacrifice of Staff Sergeant Jordan L. Bear. A resident of Elton, Wisconsin, Staff Sergeant Bear died while serving our country in the Kandahar Province of Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He was assigned to B Company, 2nd Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Jordan Bear died protecting the freedoms we take for granted every day. His heroic sacrifice will not soon be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, Staff Sergeant Bear embodied the best qualities of a true American soldier. He served this country with honor and exhibited profound bravery and selflessness. Staff Sergeant Bear was a loving son, a devoted father and now he will forever be known as an American hero. He is remembered by friends and family as a man with a courageous and strong spirit who earned the unwavering respect of his peers. Although the loss of Staff Sergeant Bear left a void in the hearts of many, his dedication and exemplary service has made Northeast Wisconsin and his country proud.

It is my honor to commemorate him and I urge my colleagues to join me today in honoring the life of Staff Sergeant Bear for the sacrifice he made for the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the efforts of Girl Scout Ambassador Mara Scherer. Ms. Scherer has been a Girl Scout for 12 years, and recently unveiled her exhibit at the New London Public Museum celebrating the 100th Anniversary of the Girl Scouts in America. This exhibit represents her Gold Award project, the highest award a Girl Scout can attain.

Mr. Speaker, I also ask you to join me in celebrating the life of Juliette Gordon Low, the visionary founder of Girl Scouts in America. She established the first troop on March 12, 1912, in Savannah, Georgia. For the last century, Girl Scouts in America has had a positive impact on young girls throughout the country by teaching them values, life-skills and giving them opportunities to improve their communities.

I commend Ms. Scherer for this project, and I congratulate the Girl Scouts in America on their 100th anniversary for keeping their promise to serve God and country, to help their neighbors and to keep the Girl Scout Law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ducks Unlimited's 75 years of tireless efforts to promote conservation and wilderness protection.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in commending the Ducks Unlimited founders, members, supporters, partners and volunteers in Wisconsin and across the nation. Ducks Unlimited has had a positive impact on communities throughout America by helping to improve our culture and environment.

I congratulate Ducks Unlimited for the dedication of their volunteers and supporters, as well as the partners who time and time again have helped them succeed in their mission. This landmark anniversary represents the true legacy of this great organization and I applaud their efforts in conservation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an organization called FIRST.

FIRST is an acronym for the organization titled, ``For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology.'' FIRST has been working to help teams of students of all ages understand the importance of Math, Science, and Technology academic disciplines and how to best utilize them in real time problem solving.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in commending all students, mentors and teachers who participate in this program, especially FIRST Team 93 and all the other teams competing in the Wisconsin Regional in Milwaukee on March 22nd and 24th. I also rise to recognize those that will be at the World Championship in St. Louis, Missouri from April 26 28th. These participants can make a difference in our world and help change a culture.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly ask you join me in congratulating all FIRST participants for their accomplishments and for the efforts put forth in the pursuit of their endeavors and achievements.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen for bringing this very important piece of legislation.

Spending has run rampant in Washington, and it's because ``no'' is not a word that Congress is used to when it comes to spending. For too long, Members have been able to take advantage of the system and spend taxpayer money on projects that have proved to be unnecessary and frivolous. There are far too many examples of spending absurdity to share today; but the fact is that needless projects are squandering away millions of dollars at a time when our country is facing a record- breaking $15 trillion debt.

It's time to start changing the way Congress budgets and spends taxpayer money, and the line-item veto is a positive step. I would contend to you it's not that we have too much oversight. It may be that we have too little oversight. By allowing the President to target unjustified spending and send it back to Congress for a vote, we'll increase accountability and make Members think twice before they commit hardworking taxpayer dollars on some special interest project.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation and the sponsor of my own biennial budgeting bill which will help fix Washington's broken budget process. The time for change is now because if we don't strive to fundamentally fix this problem--not just some pretend fix--then it will be our children and grandchildren who will pay the price. Mr. Chairman, I urge my friends and colleagues to support this legislation.

I want to thank my friend from Texas. Thank you so much for allowing me to join you on the floor today.

I spent my entire adult life running my own business, so this is something that I've had the opportunity--or maybe the misfortune--to deal with firsthand. I found it interesting that, just a few weeks ago, on October 25, Politico ran an article which said right here: ``Regulations: Top Issue for Small Businesses.'' In fact, they cite a Gallup Poll that, indeed, 41 percent of small business owners said that government was somehow related to the biggest problem facing their companies. More small business owners view the costs of complying with government regulations as a bigger problem than any other issue.

I've heard this time and time again.

Just recently, I was up in northern Wisconsin, in Rhinelander, Wisconsin, where three other Members of Congress and myself held an all-day session with the timber industry. We invited Chief Tidwell, from the U.S. Forest Service, to come in to talk about harvesting timber in our national forests. I had a timber manager come up to me who harvests timber up in the Wisconsin North Woods.

She said to me, Congressman, I want to show you something. If I do a timber sale here that's regulated by one of the counties here in northern Wisconsin, this is the contract that I have to fill out to harvest timber. That's the county contract.

Then she said, But do you know what, Congressman? If the State of Wisconsin manages that timber sale, the contract gets about twice as long, and I have to manage that contract. However, if the Federal Government manages the timber sale, this is the contract that we have to fill out for the Federal Government.

There are pages and pages and pages of bureaucrat red tape just to allow them to harvest timber that's owned by the taxpayer.

So I thought, after hearing a lot of these things and after having run my business, that maybe what this country needs more than anything--and I certainly support Congressman Davis' REINS Act. I think it's exactly the right thing to do. But I'll take it a little step further.

You and I together put together a bill called the Regulatory Moratorium and Jobs Preservation Act. This bill simply does one thing. It says that the government can't promulgate any new rules until unemployment goes below 7.8 percent, because you and I know full well, in talking to all the businesses in our own districts, that unemployment and regulatory environment are connected. They're linked together.

Now I will have colleagues from the other side of the aisle say to me, Well, Congressman, you know full well that this is all about demand, that demand is causing the problem; and without demand, people aren't going to hire. And I would say back that every single page of regulation, every single page of trying to comply, every single page has to be responded to by some business owner, and that means that response will have a direct cost to it.

As you pile on cost after cost after cost, there have been 24,000 new rules promulgated on the American business owner since 2004, nearly 1 million pages of new regulations. Every single page, page after page after page, adds costs. And every single time the cost of any good or service goes up, there are fewer customers that can afford that product, so demand must go down. So every time we add a new regulation, costs go up, demand goes down.

Finally, we've come to a new end game here with over 9 percent unemployment. So we wanted to connect our bill to unemployment so that we can show the American people, prove to the American people the empirical evidence that if we would put a hold on new rules and regulations, if we would inject certainty in this regulatory environment where business owners knew what future costs were going to be, they could measure future costs because they know that government won't promulgate a new rule, they will begin to hire again. That new confidence will be there, a new certainty will be there, and unemployment will go down.

Then, here's what I suspect will happen: As unemployment goes down, the American people will demand from Congress that we extend this rule until unemployment reaches 6 percent, or we get to full employment as we find this out.

Now, this rule does not remove a single safety net. This rule does not remove anything that's already there. I have heard people say, Well, you are just trying to destroy the environment, as if I don't want to breathe clean air, as if I don't want to drink clean water, as if I want my grandchildren to swim in lakes and streams that are polluted. It's ridiculous on its face. I want to breathe clean air like every American. I want to drink clean water like every American. I want to eat safe food like every American. And this bill will do nothing to remove any of those protections whatsoever. What it will do, though, is stop the administration from, by executive fiat, creating rules and regulations that haven't been created by this Congress. It will stop.

I was listening as my colleague from Kentucky was speaking, and I was struck by something. I was struck by this: Article I, section 1 of the United States Constitution says, ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.'' Now, that word ``all,'' three simple letters, is pretty inclusive. ``All,'' it means all of them. And what the REINS Act does, it says that any rule that gets promulgated, the Congress, the duly elected Representatives of the citizens of the United States, get to say whether that makes a law or not. We get to say because the Constitution gave us, the Members in this body and the Members in the U.S. Senate, the authority to execute legislative power, not some Federal agency. And this REINS Act will reel it in.

My bill and your bill, Representative Carter, will extend this control by the Congress, and it will simply return the

power back to our legislative, duly elected Members of Congress.

I couldn't agree more. As a matter of fact, unemployment has never been lower since the day President Obama was sworn into office.

I'm a freshman Member of Congress. I had the privilege of sitting in this Chamber for the President's State of the Union address. And the President said in that State of the Union address that he was going to ask for a regulatory review of the executive branch. He wanted to know what they were going to be doing, and he would make jokes about some of the ridiculous regulations.

And what we've done now--we've got one more President who's followed the traditions of dozens of Presidents who have ordered another study. In the meantime, the American people suffer while we study something that we already know. This is not so much about whether the government can create jobs. It's about whether the government is obstructing job creation, which is exactly what's happening. And that's why we decided to pick that number.

I think there is something salient here that we really need to hit on. We, you and I, believe, as do many of our colleagues and, more importantly, small business owners and large business owners alike believe that this type of bill will actually increase employment. The very interesting point about this is it doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny. What this will cause is businesses that have now been putting their money in the bank and have been holding it because of fear, we will unleash that money back into the private sector to create jobs and get this economy going, and not a single penny of taxpayer dollars will be expended as a result of this. This is a simple thing.

You know, since the President talked to us back in January, over 70,000 pages

have been added to the Federal Register. Seven thousand pages. 539 rules have been deemed significant under Executive Order 12866. Stop and think about these numbers: 116.3 million hours of annual paperwork burden being added. And all of this continues to create that uncertainty. Why would you as a business owner spend any money when you have no clue what that future cost will be.

And just recently, I was talking to some friends of mine in my district at Thilmany Pulp and Paper Company in Kaukauna, Wisconsin, the hometown where my roofing company is; and they were sharing with me their concerns about the EPA clean-air ruling and a new rule called Boiler MACT. They said if that rule was promulgated, Wisconsin's paper industry would be decimated. But what is really most troubling is the fact that this is a revision of a rule that they just put in place a few years ago. So the entire paper industry in Wisconsin had to upgrade their boilers, spend millions of dollars of investment; and then a few years later the EPA came back and said, whoops, we made a mistake, we need to move the bar up again.

And rightfully so, these business owners are calling their Congressman. This time it's me. I'm sure you've heard from them in your own district, asking: Well, if we spend another $50 million or $60 million, what assurance do we have that the EPA won't move the bar next year? And then we have to spend it again and again and again. At what point is clean air clean air? And that's the problem.

I'll tell you, it would be very simple, when you start talking in the millions and millions of dollars, it's very simple to lose thousands and thousands of jobs. This is exactly where our national economy is at right now. There has been an onslaught of regulations dumped on the American entrepreneur.

Let's talk a little bit about access to credit. I've been very critical about the Dodd-Frank bill. I understand the intent was to get at Wall Street, and I appreciate the intent of getting at the things that caused our economic crisis back in 2008.

But what actually happened is it got at Main Street. So small business banks in my hometown of Appleton, they are now spending money and investing money and hiring regulatory analysts when they ought to be hiring commercial lenders. You know, most jobs created in this country are created by small businesses. But in reality, it's really small businesses under 5 years old, businesses that need access to credit.

I often wonder would someone like Steve Jobs be able to emerge in this type of environment today, building computers in his garage. I'm sure there's some rule against that now. You can't imagine. I chuckled the other day when I saw a famous television host on MSNBC standing with her hard hat by the Hoover Dam saying we need big projects like this; we need big thinking like this. Franklin Roosevelt ushered in these great programs to create jobs and generate energy. This was the boom day of the American mind. I had to chuckle thinking there'd be no way with the current EPA that you could ever, ever build the Hoover Dam today. It just wouldn't happen. The environmental rules alone wouldn't allow for it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just thought it would be interesting, the President was in here just a few weeks ago with his jobs bill, and I was struck--I actually came into the Chamber with the intent of not really being critical but to try to find out what is it that we could agree on so we could maybe, for the good of the American people, move those things forward. But I was struck that the President didn't mention energy a single time.

Now, we've lost millions of jobs in the energy sector. Just recently, the President decided to punt on Keystone, the TransCanada pipeline which would have created thousands of jobs by even the lowest estimate, thousands of high-paying union jobs. Fully, labor was supportive of it, and he decided to kind of punt on that and not let jobs.

It seems like the President's jobs plan is really at the regulatory agencies where, since he's been sworn into office, employment has increased 13 percent. While the private sector is shedding millions of jobs, the President has decided to hire thousands of people at Federal regulatory agencies. Now, I guess it is may be so they can implement the 3,573 new rules that have been put in place since January 2010.

We have to get to a place where we understand the connection between employment, the connection between costs and jobs, and just American competitiveness. How in the world can we have businesses compete in this day and age when there's a constant onslaught from the Federal Government?

I thought I might read a quote from CNBC. We asked several CEOs leading up to the President's speech what bold steps President Obama could take to reduce the 9.1 percent unemployment rate. John Schiller, chairman and CEO of Energy 21 said:

If the government would get out of the way from a

regulation standpoint and let us, 21, do what we do good,

you'll see us continue to hire and grow this economy. I think

that's a message from across the board.

And I believe it is a message. For some reason, it just doesn't seem like the executive branch fully understands how this economy actually works. Obstacle after obstacle after obstacle, layer upon layer of new rules and regulations, and each one of them hurting job growth and employment in this country.

David Park, President and CEO of Austin Capital, said:

Regulations have companies running scared. They are coming

at businesses, and some new regulations are already taking a

toll while others will soon. This could be a real deterrent

to future entrepreneurs.

And since most jobs are created by entrepreneurial companies under 5 years old, the difficulty of actually even forming and starting a company today is burdensome, and it's hugely complex, all because of this endless stream of control and regulations as if Washington, D.C., as if you and I, Judge, have all the answers. We don't have the answers. The answers are found in the private sector. The answers are found in the citizens of this great country.

Recently, we passed a bill just the other day on ballast water. I sit on the Transportation Committee, and I noticed while reading the bill that the Federal Government was going to promulgate rules for ballast water for ships that come into the United States and traverse throughout the Great Lakes. Now, my home is in Appleton, Wisconsin, just near Lake Michigan, just south of Green Bay, Wisconsin.

We have the Port of Green Bay there, and the concern was--I was reading the bill--that the Federal Government exempted themselves, that they were creating a whole new level of bureaucracy, red tape and rules that they were going to promulgate on private shipping companies but not on themselves. So a Federal science ship or an EPA vessel could traverse the whole globe and not have to manage ballast water the same way that everybody else did. So I added an amendment, and this body passed it, that said that if the Federal Government is going to promulgate rules on private shipping companies, they have to live by those same rules themselves. It's high time that the Federal Government begins to treat the government the same way they treat the private sector. I think if we start doing that type of thing, some of these problems will begin to go away.

Yes. There's a companion bill that is going through the Senate right now. It's the identical piece of legislation. It was crafted by Senator Ron Johnson, a colleague of mine from the great State of Wisconsin. We thought it would be good for us to do a project together. We talk quite often, and the idea of attaching the moratorium to unemployment was Senator Johnson's idea. I thought it was a terrific idea. And he now has a companion piece of legislation. He told me that there are more than 20 cosponsors in the U.S. Senate.

And this bill now has over 70 cosponsors here in the House of Representatives, and it continues to move forward. I'm very optimistic that we're going to be able to pass this bill through this Chamber and send it on over to the United States Senate where I hope reason will rule the day, that they will see this doesn't remove a single safety, it doesn't restrict any safety or put something out of the way that's currently in place. It just says let's give the American entrepreneur, the American job creator, some breathing space. Let's give them some room to just have some certainty for the time being, until unemployment starts to get going and the engine of our economy starts moving again.

And I hope that, and I challenge the United States Senate, after we send this piece of legislation over to them, that with most haste that they go ahead and pass it. And if they can't pass it, let's for sure let the U.S. Senate have a chance and Members of that Chamber to vote on it. They kind of have a method over there where they can protect Members from having to make tough decisions. They just table a piece of legislation and don't even vote on it. And I would challenge the Senate majority leader that when we send H.R. 2989 over there, that they would actually bring it to a vote, and let's have our U.S. Senate stand up and say whether they agree with this or not and have them go officially on the record about whether they believe that regulations are a problem in this economy or not.

Thank you very much. It is an honor to come down to the floor of the House and work with you, Representative Goodlatte, on this very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the balanced budget amendment. I came down to the floor of the House this afternoon with some prepared comments, spent some time putting it together and wanted to make sure that it was right, had help from my staff, but I'm going to go a little bit off script today.

As I've listened to my colleagues speak on this very important issue, they've covered much of what we want to say with the historical context, with what Thomas Jefferson, our Founder said, what Abraham Lincoln talked about--about government being by the people.

Instead, I think I'm going to talk about my experience here in Congress. As my friend just mentioned, I'm a new Member. As a matter of fact, right around this day today I've been here 10 months. I've never served in Congress before, never served in an elected capacity before. I ran a small roofing company in Kaukauna, Wisconsin.

I have to tell you that I'm struck that we're at this place in history. When I look at our national debt, and you look at it on a chart and on a curve from 1787 to 2011, from about 1787 to 1940, 1945, that line is almost indecipherable from zero. Then as you go on and you get to the late 2000s, that line begins to turn up. And now in the last 3 years, that line is nearly vertical as our national debt continues to explode. And that debt has to be paid.

I've told high school students and college students back in Wisconsin where I'm from that there's a reckoning coming for them. There will be a date and time certain that this bill will have to be paid.

And yet, as I've worked here I've just discovered that, for whatever reason, whether it's partisan bickering or pure ideological differences, that we cannot, it seems, find agreement on controlling our national debt and our deficits, annual deficits.

Just a few years ago the deficit was only $160 billion. As we heard from my colleague from Alabama, the last 3 years it's been over $1 trillion each and every year. Something clearly has changed, and we would like to say that it's changed in our economy. I would propose to you, sir, that maybe it has changed in our government.

At some point, I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, my friends that are Republicans and Democrats alike, it is time to put the sword down. We cannot, in fact, Mr. Speaker, we must not allow this type of spending to continue so that our children, my grandchildren, your children and grandchildren, will have to pay this bill, a bill that they did not make and a bill that they should not owe.

So I stand before you today challenging my colleagues to consider a better path forward, one that we use in our families, one that we use in our businesses, one that 49 States use in their State governments, and that is a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.

Just the other day I was standing right over where my colleague was and is standing right now, and I had a copy of the Internal Revenue Code. It's nearly 10,000 pages of fine print. An amendment to the Constitution will be just a few words, and it's a simple thing.

But most importantly, the amendment to the Constitution that would call for a balanced budget allows the American people, not just through their Representatives here in Congress, which we clearly have seen is not going to solve the problem, but allows the American people to finally have a say through the ratification process.

I had a telephone town hall recently, Mr. Speaker, with 15,000 Americans on the line. I did a poll and I asked them, how many of you would support a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution requiring the government to live within its means? Over 80 percent of those respondents said that they would support this.

I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that millions of families and businesses every day live under the constraint of a balanced budget. As a father, as a former small business owner, and now as a Member of Congress, I have a different perspective on this whole thing, and the perspective is that we must, must move forward with this.

As a father, I tried to teach my children the value of hard work, the importance of saving for the future and not

spending more than they earn. As a business owner, I operated my company that same way. And now, as a Member of Congress, I recognize that these ideas that many of us, I would dare say the majority of Americans, hold true, is just as good for their government. And so if a balanced budget in your family, in your business, in your church and in your community and your State makes sense, it clearly makes sense here.

The reckless spending will never stop, I believe, without it. There will neither be the political will nor the courage to do so. Since Washington has proven itself incapable of doing this job, it's time that we let the people, the citizens of America have a voice so that they can force their government to act responsibly.

I call on my colleagues to pass a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution through this Chamber, the United States Senate, and then send it back to the people, where they will finally have their voice heard.

Mr. Speaker, I come tonight to talk a little bit about our Nation's fiscal problems and work that the supercommittee is going to be doing, and I want to challenge them to think big, go big and try to solve our problems.

Over the next decade, the Federal Government is projected to spend more than $43 trillion. If the supercommittee only cuts $1.2 trillion, as required by the Budget Control Act, we reduce Federal spending by only 2.7 percent. If the supercommittee would go big and agree to cut $4 trillion over 10 years, we are still only cutting the Federal budget by 9.1 percent.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better, and we must do better. We cannot continue to spend our Nation's future away. My children, my grandchildren deserve so much better and so much more.

I'm proud tonight to stand here with one of my colleagues, the gentleman from Oregon, to have a discussion tonight about this very issue. Republicans and Democrats alike, we believe that we must do more, be more and be better for the next generation of Americans.

With that, I would like to yield some time to my colleague from Oregon.

I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate the slides and the discussion. Our country is facing a demographics problem. Right now our birth rate is getting close to replacement levels, and the circumstance that my colleague just showed with Medicare and Social Security spending outstripping our ability to pay is in part because of this: we have a declining population and will have.

I have a grandson who is 8 years old today; and when he reaches age 65, nearly 47 percent of the U.S. population will be age 65 or older. And so this problem if we don't address it soon will simply get worse. And so the sooner we get at it, the better.

We need to take a look at all areas of spending, and we also need to take a look at revenue. My colleague just mentioned the need for tax reform, and I couldn't agree more. Our tax system is notoriously complex, forcing families and employers to spend over 6 billion hours and over $160 billion a year trying to negotiate our Tax Code. Comparatively, the U.S. spends $50 billion to $60 billion per year on pharmaceutical R&D which has the potential to save lives.

I'd like to show the American people this is what our Tax Code looks like. It is over 9,000 pages long of fine print, and no one can really understand it. I want to compare it to something else because I think this is salient. This is the United States Constitution. When our Founders founded our country, they were able to print this on about 30 pages right here. And yet today, our Tax Code is almost 10,000 pages. And inside this document are myriad ways that businesses and individuals can find loopholes, places to hide, and places to basically kind of dictate how they can apply their taxes and how taxes are applied to them. We need to simplify the Tax Code for sure.

I would challenge the committee as they look at ways to consider removing loopholes, removing tax deductions, and simplifying this Tax Code so that we can have a Tax Code that is fairer, simpler, and easier for the American people, the idea that we are spending billions of hours to do tax returns.

Take, for instance, my own small business. During my career, I had C corporations and S corporations and LLC corporations, but I chose to operate those corporations as pass-throughs. We would pass the profits of those corporations through to me as the shareholder and through to our employees, and we would pay those taxes at a personal level. And so it's easy to say, well, let's just change the Tax Code for businesses. But if we don't change the Tax Code for every American to make it fairer, simpler and easier to comply with, we really don't get at the problem.

I also want to talk a little bit about identifying the problem correctly, because I think sometimes here in Washington, D.C. we might connect the dots, but we don't often connect the right dots. Let me show you a slide that talks about consumer spending. I think the idea is if we discuss consumer spending, most Americans would say that consumer spending goes down during recessions and therefore we should come up with some type of tax reform, give a $200 tax credit or 2 percent tax credit so we can boost consumer spending to get our economy going again.

But if we look at it historically, each of the dark lines here represents recessions that our country has faced. In the very last recession, we had a very modest drop in consumer spending, but if we feel that we have identified the problem in consumer spending, this chart shows that consumer spending is not the problem. It's not the problem. Now, did it drop a little bit? Sure. It dropped back a year and a half or 2 years' time, but it didn't drop much. So if we just try to fix that--in fact, consumer spending today is up higher than it was during the recession. So if we continually tell ourselves that consumer spending is the problem and we try to fix it, we are not really identifying what the real problem is.

We need to remember what put us into this mess, and it was really a housing crisis. And, in fact, housing has not come back at all. Anything that we look at as far as trying to fix our economy, spurring job growth, I believe we need to take a look at our Tax Code. We need to take a look at the regulatory environment. We need to take a look at energy policy. We need to take a look at home construction.

Those types of things will help spur economic growth. Those are the types of things that we need to focus on that will actually begin to change the dynamics of the U.S. economy again.

I'll turn it back to my colleague.

Let's talk a little bit about that investment. I think the idea here is we often think that the investment has to come from Washington, DC. But the key to reducing unemployment is restoring private investment, as this chart shows. Every single time that private investment goes down, unemployment rises. Private investment goes down, unemployment rises. And there is a key linchpin to our economy, and it's related to private investment. Companies like mine and like my colleague from Oregon, his company.

If we don't modify the tax code, if we don't fix the regulatory environment where there's so much uncertainty, if we don't address these things, then businesses are afraid and fearful to invest. And right now that's exactly what we're seeing in the U.S. economy. There's more money sitting on the sidelines than ever. We hear about it every single day. And that fear factor is keeping our economy from moving forward. And without private investment, it's difficult to drive unemployment levels lower. And we need to drive unemployment levels lower as quickly and as in fast order as we possibly can to put Americans back to work.

I agree also with your comments about the spending habits and how we have to address the key drivers of our debt, which include both the mandatory spending in entitlements like Medicare and Social Security as well as the large discretionary spending in defense. It isn't an either/or. It must be a both/and. Unfortunately, for some reason it's difficult for us to get there because every single Member represents a different district. The makeup of their districts are different. I come from a district that's very agricultural. So farm subsidies and discussions about agriculture, whether it's meat production, whether it's dairy and cheese production, or whether it's corn production, play into our Nation's deficit and debt.

And we know that the pie has to get smaller. And at some point we have to be honest with the American people,

Mr. Speaker, that we must begin to reduce the size. And that means Federal largesse has to go down, and we must encourage private investment to spur economic growth and get this country moving again. But there are things that are also obstructing it, and that is the idea that sometimes we end up demonizing really great ideas, really good ideas, or even we demonize ideas that aren't so good. And I'll tell you, the way we speak to one another not just in this Chamber but in the media, how we talk to each other in our campaign commercials and what have you, I think destroys confidence. I think it hurts the system. I think it damages debate. I think it keeps good men and women from possibly running for an office like the one that I hold here. And we have to somehow, some way, find a way to begin to speak to each other like adults. The things that we teach our children when they go to kindergarten, we could learn here.

We have to learn to be able to listen with open ears and see each other in a different light, and begin to actually have solid debate about ideas without criticizing the person, without demonizing the individual, and without demonizing the idea. Let's instead open our debate, open our ears, open our eyes, and find solutions so that our children and grandchildren can have a brighter and more prosperous tomorrow.

It's part of the reason that my friend and colleague from Oregon and I came to the Chamber tonight, so that we could have the conversation and demonstrate to the American people that it is possible to treat each other with respect even when we have some disagreement. And I think we're trying to demonstrate that tonight.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

We have just a few minutes left. I want you to know that my colleague Mr. Schrader and I, together with Representative Rooney, sent a letter to the supercommittee, and I'd like to just read it to the American people:

``We write to you as a bipartisan group of Representatives from across the political spectrum in the belief that the success of your committee is vital to our country's future. We know that many in Washington and around the country do not believe we in Congress and those within your committee can successfully meet this challenge. We believe that we can and we must. To succeed, all options for mandatory discretionary spending and revenues must be on the table.

``In addition, we know from other bipartisan frameworks that have targeted some $4 trillion in deficit reduction is necessary to stabilize our debt as a share of the economy and to assure America's fiscal well-being.

``Our country needs our honest, bipartisan judgment and our political courage. Your committee has been given a unique opportunity and authority to act. We are prepared to support you in this effort.''

My colleague and I have backed and encouraged the supercommittee to go big, to look at $4 trillion of deficit reduction, 9.1 percent. We know we can do that. It does not necessarily have to be draconian, and I know that we can get there.

And for the last minute or so, my colleague from Oregon, any last comments?

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 14 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, October 26, 2011, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.