Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I've come down here to talk about the budget. I am a freshman on the Budget Committee. The President's budget arrived on Monday of this week. Here in the Budget Committee, we had the acting OMB Director with us yesterday, we have the Treasury Secretary with us today, and we're exploring this budget.

Now, I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, I may be a hard core conservative Republican from the Deep South, but I am grateful to this President for releasing a budget. A budget is a moral document, Mr. Speaker. It is a moral document that talks about what your priorities are for us, as a Nation.

Our rule book for the country is the Constitution of the United States. That's the rule book by which everything we do in this Nation must comply. The rule book for our finances is the budget that we pass each year. As we all know, as it has been said dozens of times before, the Senate has not passed a budget in over 1,000 days. The majority leader has said he was not going to pass a budget again this year. The Democratic Budget Committee chairman said, But I promised to pass a budget this year. The majority leader said, Well, you can pass a budget, but I'm not going to have it considered on the House floor. That's wrong. What the President did in releasing a budget this week, that's right.

I will tell you, there are a couple of things that need to be in a budget, Mr. Speaker. The budget needs to talk about spending restraint. I don't think there's a family in this country that believes the Federal Government is spending too little. Spending restraint must be a component of every budget. The President laid out his ideas this week.

Repairing the safety net, Mr. Speaker, making sure that the safety net that families depend on when hard times come, making sure that that safety net is resilient, that it is, in fact, a spring and not a cushion, that it is a pathway out instead of a lifestyle choice, those things are important. The budget should contain those.

Entitlement reform, Mr. Speaker, and I want to say earned entitlements, because the men and women of this country have been paying 15.3 percent of their income if they're in my generation, a little less in earlier generations, but they have been paying out of their paychecks to gain access to Social Security and Medicare. But those two programs, as we all know, are underfunded, are headed towards financial crisis, and a budget should talk about what your solutions are to restore faith in those programs for all Americans.

And tax reform, Mr. Speaker, tax reform, there's not a person in this country, Mr. Speaker, that likes the Tax

Code the way it is. There's not a Congressman in this room who, if they sat down with a blank sheet of paper today, would craft this United States Tax Code to govern our Nation. It's in need of reform, and we can do that.

But, Mr. Speaker, of safety restraint, of repairing the safety net, of entitlement reform, and of tax reform, the President's budget was devoid of any--of any. Nothing to save Medicare for future generations. Nothing to protect Social Security for these generations and further. Nothing to change those safety net programs, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that they are that hand up instead of that handout. Nothing to build upon our work ethic that we have in this country by reforming the Tax Code and bringing businesses back to American shores.

I encourage folks to go and look at that budget. They can see it at www.omb.gov. That's the Office of Management and Budget. It's the White House Web site where they can view that budget. I encourage them to tune in to the Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker. We are, again, having hearings on that budget all week and will continue into the future.

And then I encourage folks to look at the process that happens here in this body, Mr. Speaker, where absolutely any Member of Congress can introduce absolutely any budget that expresses their priorities, an open process where absolutely all budget ideas are considered. It is a hallmark of this institution, Mr. Speaker. I welcomed it last year and was proud of the result of this debate. It was once the Paul Ryan budget, then the House Budget Committee budget, then the House budget for all of the land. I look forward to that process continuing again this year.

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the time, and I appreciate being able to follow my colleagues from the Progressive Caucus.

There is not a lot that the Progressive Caucus works for in terms of their techniques that I agree with, but there is so much that the caucus works for in terms of its overall goals for America that I agree with. And I think that that is a story that does not get told as often as it should here in this House. We can very often have common goals but have very different ways that we seek to achieve those goals, Madam Speaker.

I think the way that we achieve those goals is important. It's important. As my colleague said when he was speaking on behalf of the Progressive Caucus, America voted in 2008. America voted in 2010. And in 2008, they elected a President. In 2010, they elected a new Congress. And powers divided America. Powers divided America. We have Democrats controlling the White House. We have Democrats controlling the Senate. We have Republicans controlling the U.S. House of Representatives. And we have the American people who should be controlling all three of those things.

As we were coming into this new year, Madam Speaker, I was at home with my family back in Georgia, and I heard the news that the President of the United States had decided to appoint members to boards, to positions, to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to the National Labor Relations Board, to appoint positions that require Senate confirmation, to name people to those positions without getting that Senate confirmation, saying that if I can't do it with the Senate, I'll just skip the Senate.

And I don't mind telling you, Madam Speaker, that really cast a damper on my Christmas season. We were coming into this new year--a new year where, as my friends from the Progressive Caucus have just laid out, we have challenge after challenge after challenge after challenge that we, as Americans, must face together, that we must come together in order to solve.

And we're coming into this new year, an opportunity to make that happen. And I had high hopes. I had high hopes that despite this being an election year--and I think that brings out a lot of what's worst about Washington, DC. Despite this being an election year, despite there being divided government in Washington, I thought, We are going to have an opportunity because the challenges are so great to come together on behalf of all of our constituencies to move this Nation forward.

And I wondered because, even though you are as new, as I am, Madam Speaker, we've seen in years past that the closer you get to election, the crazier things get in Congress. The closer you get to an election, sadly, the more folks stop worrying about doing the right thing and start worrying about getting reelected and doing whatever it takes to do that. And as a freshman, Madam Speaker, I know you likely agree with me.

I happen to think doing the right thing is the best thing for getting reelected. I think if more folks spent more time worrying about doing the right thing instead of getting reelected, their reelection campaigns would take care of themselves. But I had high hopes coming into this year that this would not be a wasted reelection year for the American people but that we would be able to work on serious issues together.

The rule book I use, Madam Speaker, I have up here on the board. This happens to be article II, section 2, clause 3 of the United States Constitution. But the Constitution is the rule book I use. I carry mine with me. I don't want it to be far away because I believe that if we have the same rule book to operate from, Madam Speaker, then it gives us that context for trying to achieve the goals the American people sent us here to do.

Here we have article II, section 2, clause 3 of the United States Constitution: ``The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.'' This is the recess appoint authority, Madam Speaker. You've heard it said the President has the power to make recess appointments. The President shall have the power to fill all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate. Undisputed. Undisputed, Madam Speaker: article II, section 2, clause 3.

Article II, section 2, clause 2: The President shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties. And he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided.

The President shall have the power to make appointments if the Senate is in recess. But if the Senate is not, the President only has the power--the President shall, the Constitution says, nominate by and with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. That's the way our system works, Madam Speaker. That's the rule book that was left for us by our Founding Fathers. That's the rule book that has guided this country for 225 years. The President has the power to appoint nonelected leaders, unelected leaders to lead this Nation. But he can do so only with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Now, back in the day, Madam Speaker--I know you are from the northern part of the east coast. I'm from the southern part of the east coast.

It used to take us a long time to get to Washington, DC. I'm 640 miles away from the Capital down in Georgia. If I had to get on my horse and ride to the United States Capital, it would take quite a few days to do it. And understanding that the business of the American people had to continue, our Founding Fathers looked ahead and said if the Senate cannot be reconvened, if the Senate is too far away to consult, and your first duty is to consult, but if you cannot, we want the country to go on.

Well, that's been the way it's been in this country, Madam Speaker, as you know, for hundreds upon hundreds of years. Until now. Until now, when for the very first time, when for the very first time this President of the United States said, I can't get my nominees through the Democratic Senate, so I'm going to go around the Senate. And he made appointments without the advice and consent of the Senate.

I have with me today, Madam Speaker, a page from the Congressional Record, a speech that was given on the Senate floor, and this is what it says: Mr. President, the Senate will be coming in for pro forma sessions during the Thanksgiving holiday to prevent recess appointments.

My hope is that this will prompt the President to see that it is in our mutual interests to get nominations back on track. With an election year looming, significant progress can still be made. But that progress can't be made if the President seeks controversial recess appointments and fails to make others.

With the Thanksgiving break looming, the administration informed me that they would make several recess appointments. I indicated I would be willing to confirm various appointments if the administration would agree to move others, but they would not make that commitment. And as a result, I am keeping the Senate in pro forma session to prevent recess appointments until we get this process back on track.

Do you hear those words from the United States Senate, Madam Speaker? Do you hear those words? This was the majority leader in the United States Senate speaking out, telling the President you cannot, you cannot, you cannot make appointments without the advice and consent of the Senate. You're trying to go around us; we will not allow it. We're afraid you're going to do it when we go home for Thanksgiving. So instead of going on recess, instead of recessing the Senate, we're going to stay in pro forma session not just through Thanksgiving, but through the Christmas holidays to make certain that the President seeks our advice and consent.

Sounds like a speech a Republican would have given, Madam Speaker, to make sure the President of the United States followed the Constitution, but it's not. It's not. This is actually a page from the Congressional Record November 16, 2007, Madam Speaker.

These are the words that then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke to President Bush, telling President Bush the law of the land is you can't do it without us unless we're in recess. We're not going to go on recess. We're staying here in pro forma session. And, in fact, the majority leader and still now majority leader, Harry Reid in the United States Senate, kept the Senate in session, pro forma session every day until the end of President Bush's term and no recess appointments were ever made. Why, Madam Speaker? Because the Senate never went on recess.

Harry Reid said: Mr. President, the Senate will be coming in for pro forma session during the Thanksgiving holiday to prevent recess appointments. That's how he opened his speech that day. He closed his speech that day by saying: As a result, I'm keeping the Senate in pro forma session to prevent recess appointments until we get this process back on track.

Harry Reid knew, Madam Speaker, that the President could not, could not under the laws that govern our plan, under the rule book that is the United States Constitution, that he could not make appointments if Harry Reid kept the Senate in pro forma session; 2007, then-Majority Leader Harry Reid talking to then-President George Bush.

Fast forward, Madam Speaker, to the holiday season 2011-2012, same majority leader sitting in the United States Senate, Harry Reid, same pro forma session continually through Thanksgiving and Christmas, the same pro forma session that Harry Reid said clearly would prevent constitutionally the President from making any appointments.

And what did this President do? He made four. For the first time in American history, he made four. And he said, you know what, it's been so hard to work with the Senate. This whole going around the Senate and skipping them all together is working so well, I may do it again. If I can't work with you, you, the delegates of the American people, you, the elected representatives to our Republic, if I can't work with you, I'm going to go around you. And it worked out so well this time, I might do it again.

Madam Speaker, while I disagree with my colleagues on the methods that we use, I share a common set of goals with them of what we want for America. When we lose that common fiber, when we lose what I would call that American Dream, that almost tangible spirit that unites us more than it divides us, that sense of who we are as a Nation that you can almost reach out and touch, that makes it clear that we will continue, no matter what our differences, toward a common end. I would tell you the Constitution of the United States, Madam Speaker, contains much of that spirit. The Constitution is clear.

And this President, for the first time, decided it just didn't matter. He had ends that he wanted to achieve, and he said the means, as unconstitutional as they may be, justify those ends.

Same circumstance, same Senate majority leader, same season on the calendar, same pending election year. In 2007, Harry Reid took to the floor of the United States Senate, spoke out on behalf of the American people and said, The Constitution matters, don't you dare.

The silence from the Senate this year is deafening. Deafening.

We only survive as a Republic, Madam Speaker, if the rules apply to everyone consistently. This is not a matter of party; this is a matter of country.

Harry Reid was right when he called out a Republican President and said, don't you dare. It's unconstitutional. And that Republican President, President George Bush, didn't because he knew also that the Constitution forbade it.

Where is the indignation today from the Senate, Madam Speaker, when that same thing is going on, but the only thing that is different is the President is of a different party? If we are ready to trade away those fundamental truths that unite us as a Nation, Madam Speaker, in the name of party, we have nothing. We have nothing.

This is not a Republican crisis. This is not a Democratic crisis. This is a constitutional crisis and one that every single American has to be on watch for.

Madam Speaker, I'm not proud of everything that happened when Republicans ran the House, Republicans ran the Senate, and Republicans ran the House. I'm certainly not proud of everything that happened when Democrats ran the House, Democrats ran the Senate, and Democrats ran the White House. The temptation to go along with party leaders is strong. But the requirement of the oath that we swear the day we come to this institution, Madam Speaker, is not to follow party leaders. It is to follow the United States Constitution and to defend it against enemies foreign and domestic. We cannot trade away these principles that have guided our Republic and have protected our freedom in the name of party.

When the President was elected, Madam Speaker, I think he believed that. I remember the spirit of the country in those days right after the President was elected. It was magical. I actually happened to be in town, Madam Speaker, when the inauguration was going on there in January of 2009. President Obama being sworn in as President of the United States, and there were men and women weeping in the streets-- weeping in the streets because they had joy in their heart that their voice had been heard, their President had been elected and that better days were on the horizon for America. Men and women weeping in the streets.

President Obama was not my choice for President, but I love--I love-- that while he and President Bush agreed on virtually nothing, President Bush took the keys to the White House and the suitcase full of nuclear launch codes, and he handed them to President Obama. Not a drop of blood was shed, and not a bullet was fired. The leadership of the most powerful nation on the planet, the most deadly military the Earth has ever known, the beacon of freedom the likes of which this planet has never seen, the keys to that kingdom were handed from one leader to the next, leaders who disagreed on almost everything, handed from one to the next with no blood and no gunshots for one reason and one reason only: because the American people demanded it, because the election required it, because the freedoms that were laid out in the United States Constitution that said the only power in Washington is the power that we, the voters, give to it, lend to it, lease to it for a small period of time. That is the only power in

this town. And when, We the People speak, Washington must listen. All under the rules, the rules of the United States Constitution.

President Obama knew that when he was elected. Here's what he said-- this is from his election night victory speech in 2008 when President Obama said this: Resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for far too long. He was right when he said it. Resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for far too long. That was his victory night speech, Madam Speaker.

Before this Christmas season, when he decided he can't work with the Senate, he's going to go around the Senate; when he decided if he couldn't pass it with the people's representatives, he'd just skip the people's representatives, he said, I'm going to choose a new path.

But in December of last year, Madam Speaker, after 3 years as our President, when asked about the partisan tone that the rhetoric was taking, he said this: It was going to take more than a year to solve it. It was going to take more than 2 years. It was going to take more than one term, probably takes more than one President.

On victory night, Madam Speaker, he said deliverance is coming to America from the temptation of partisanship, pettiness, and immaturity. In December of 2011, he said that it was just going to be too hard, couldn't do it in a year, couldn't do it in 2 years, couldn't do it in a whole term, probably can't even do it in one presidency.

Madam Speaker, his sights are set too low. He can, if he has the courage to do it. August of 2008, right before the election, Madam Speaker, President Obama says this as he announces his vice presidential candidate: After decades of steady work across the aisle, I know that he'll--talking about Vice President Biden--be able to help me turn the page on the ugly partisanship in Washington so we can bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda that works for the American people.

Madam Speaker, he knows, he knows in his heart what the right thing to do is. He knows. He wants to move past, turn the page, he says, on the ugly partisanship in Washington so that we can bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda that works for the American people. That was right before the election, Madam Speaker.

This year, he's decided for the first time in American history, if he can't get along with Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, he'll just go around them. It doesn't matter that the constitutional rule book says no. He has somewhere he wants to go. He wants people in power that he can appoint, and the fact that the Senate won't sign off on those folks, the fact that the voice of the American people as represented in those 100 men and women in the Senate won't sign off on those folks doesn't matter to him. He has an agenda, and he wants to go after it. What happened, Madam Speaker, to trying to turn the page?

November 2010, President Obama recognizes failure. When asked about that bitter partisanship, he said this: I neglected some things that matter to a lot of people, and rightly so that they matter, maintaining a bipartisan tone in Washington. He knew, November 2010, he knew he'd promised it, he knew that we, the American people, were hoping that he would deliver it, and we were praying that he would have the strength and conviction to deliver it. November of 2010, he said, I neglected it. But in November, 2010, he said, I'm going to redouble my efforts to make it happen. I know in my heart it should happen, he said. I'm going to redouble my efforts.

That was November, 2010, Madam Speaker, and here we are having the President go around the Constitution for the first time ever in American history because the Senate does not approve of his nominees. He cannot get Senate approval. Rather than nominating people with whom he could get Senate approval, he said, I want what I want. The will of the people as expressed by the Senate does not matter. If I can't work with them, I'm going to go around them, and it works so well, I'm likely to do it again.

Madam Speaker, I don't want this to sound like a partisan discussion, this that is happening with the Constitution today, this constitutional crisis that we're in with these non-recess ``recess'' appointments. It is wrong whether a Republican tries to do it or a Democrat tries to do it, and we know that to be true because we remember it from 2007. It wasn't but one President ago that we last confronted this circumstance. And what we concluded was, it's unconstitutional, you can't do it, and we're going to keep the Senate in pro forma session. And that prevented President Bush from making any more appointments for the remainder of his presidency.

This is what President Obama said back when he was Senator Obama-- Senator Obama: These are challenges we all want to meet, and problems we all want to solve, even if we don't agree on how to do it. But he says this, Madam Speaker: But if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and millions of Americans who asked them to be their voice, I fear that the already partisan atmosphere of Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That doesn't serve anyone's best interest, he said, and it certainly isn't what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind.

Madam Speaker, when President Obama was Senator Obama, and he sat in the Senate and the responsibility of representing the men and women of Illinois sat on his shoulders, he knew what the truth was.

If the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, I fear the already partisan atmosphere will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything.

He was right, Madam Speaker. He was right before the election, when he said he was going to fight partisanship. He was right after the election, when he said he wanted to bring openness back to Washington. He was right when he was a United States Senator and he said the people's voice needed to be heard. He was wrong when he ignored the United States Constitution less than 45 days ago and said, I can't work with the Senate. The people's Representatives have it all wrong. And if I can't work with them, I'm going to go around them. You can't make that choice, Madam Speaker. The rule book is right here. It's the United States Constitution.

Again, Senator Barack Obama: We need to rise above an ends-justify- the-means mentality because we are here to answer to the people--all of the people, not just the ones wearing our party label. This was April 13, 2005.

As a United States Senator, President Obama knew. He knew, when he had the burden of responsibility--the pleasure of responsibility--of representing the men and women of Illinois, he knew ends-justify-the- means mentality. We must rise above it, he said. We must answer to the American people, not just the ones wearing our party label.

He was right, Madam Speaker. He was right then. He was right before the election. He was right after the election. He is wrong today. What has happened? What has happened in 3 years of his Presidency that he knew where we could go as a Nation, he knew where we should go as a Nation. He knew that the rule book that has been guiding us for over 200 years would get us through to better days tomorrow. He knew it, and he's forgotten it. And we're on the brink of a constitutional crisis.

Madam Speaker, I have here a quote from Senator Chuck Schumer: You don't change the rules in the middle of the game just because you can't get your way. Our Constitution, our system of laws, is too hallowed, is too important to do that. Democratic Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer.

Madam Speaker, I've said it as long as I've been here--and you and I have been here just over 1 year--truth does not have a Republican or Democratic label after it. Truth is truth, right is right, and wrong is wrong. The President knows what's wrong. He knew it as a Senator. He knows it as a President. His colleagues in the Senate know what's wrong. You don't change the rules in the middle of the game just because you can't get your way. Our

Constitution, our system of laws, is too hallowed, is too important to do that.

Chuck Schumer was right, Madam Speaker. There's no process in this Constitution for reining in that Executive that just throws the Constitution aside--short of impeachment. It's the only one. We can't sue him. We can't go down there. We can have a picket, but that doesn't make any difference.

He knew it. He knew it was wrong. He knew it as a candidate. He knew it once he was elected. He knew it when he was a Senator. And he did it anyway, because the ends justified his means.

Madam Speaker, all we are as a Nation comes from the very few words that make up this United States Constitution--Constitution on your bedside, Bible on your bedside, those important works of American history by your bedside, Madam Speaker. We have a national identity, and that national identity is defined by having one set of rules that apply to everybody equally.

Madam Speaker, I'm grateful to you for making this time available to me today. I encourage every American to look at these facts and judge for themselves what the next step is on our constitutional journey.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 540 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'm pleased to be down here with you today, Madam Speaker, because what we have an opportunity to do with this rule is bring another in a series of 10 fundamental reforms to the congressional budgeting process.

Today, House Resolution 540 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3521, the Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act. And yet again today, with this rule we have made in order every single amendment by either Republicans or Democrats that was germane to the underlying legislation to give us an opportunity to make this bill better.

Now, to be fair, Madam Speaker, H.R. 3521 is another example of bipartisanship in this House. It was introduced and sponsored by both the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, and the Democratic ranking member, Mr. Van Hollen, another opportunity of things that we can do here in this new Congress to bring common sense to our budgeting process.

It's a bipartisan attempt, Madam Speaker, to provide both Congress and the President with all of the tools necessary to get our fiscal challenges under control. It exemplifies what can happen here in this body when we're willing to listen to folks back home and come together to try to make a difference here in Congress.

In the 111th Congress, Madam Speaker, nondefense discretionary spending was increased by almost 25 percent. This Congress, this body, working with the Senate, increased nondefense discretionary spending by almost 25 percent. Now, if your constituents are like mine, Madam Speaker, had they had that budget around their family dinner table, they could have found some items that they could have done without. In exchange for not putting their children and their grandchildren further and further and further in the hole, further and further and further under the mountain of debt that this country has run up, they could have found some things to cut.

Now, Congress in the past has tried to pass a line-item veto, line- item vetoes that I would have opposed had I been in Congress, Madam Speaker, because they transferred our authority, our authority here in the U.S. House of Representatives, to the executive branch. I'm opposed to that.

What we have today is not that process of days of old, not that process that has been tossed out by the Supreme Court as a violation of our House prerogatives; but what we have today is an expedited rescissions process that allows the President of the United States to go through those budget bills, those appropriation bills, those funding bills, to say, When I see this, it doesn't pass the smell test, let me give the Congress one more shot at it; send it back to Capitol Hill, where we accept it or reject it in its entirety.

I confess, Madam Speaker, I'm not thrilled about involving this President in budgeting decisions any more than is absolutely necessary. But given the nature of our challenges, it's not about this President or the previous President or the next President. It's about the American people. It's about what are we going to do to fulfill our responsibilities to keep America strong. This is one of those bills, Madam Speaker, that will provide another arrow in the quiver of fiscal responsibility to this Nation, and I believe it's one whose time has come.

Yesterday, we saw another bill in this budget reform process. Last week, we saw two other bills in this budget reform process. Each are coming to the floor, Madam Speaker, in as open and honest a process as we can bring the American people into this budget process, to make Congress' budget process as open and honest as it can be. As a proud member of the Rules Committee, Madam Speaker, and of the Budget Committee, I am here today in strong support of this rule and in strong support of the underlying resolution.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman for his kind words about the underlying bill.

I say with the utmost sincerity that here in my freshman term in Congress, one of the Members I have enjoyed working with the most is Mr. Polis. You can always count on him in the Rules Committee to say something unexpected. You can't pigeonhole him as to where he's going to be on things because he's thoughtful about all of the issues. And I would hope that he would find that to be one of the highest compliments we can pay to a Member, to find a thoughtful Member here in this body, and it's certainly been my pleasure to work with him.

I agree with him that we can't pretend the deficit away. We can't use wacky numbers, I think was his word, to wish the deficit away, though we do have a difference of opinion about where that pretending comes from and where the wacky numbers come from.

As a member of the Budget Committee, I will tell you that the steps we're taking this year are changing a historical process of pretending the deficit away, bringing in real accounting, changing a historical process of generating wacky numbers and bringing in new, honest accounting.

But I also want to say this, Madam Speaker. As folks come to the floor to talk about whether or not we're actually saving any money today, whether we're cutting the budget today, whether we're creating jobs today, this is a Budget Committee bill.

As a member of the Budget Committee, I wish it were in my authority to cut spending and create jobs, because, by golly, I've got to tell you, I could do it, bring bills to the floor on a regular basis to promote those ideas. But it's not within the Budget Committee's authority.

What is in the Budget Committee's authority to do is craft the most honest numbers possible to share with the American people to describe what it is that we're doing with their tax dollars day in and day out. That's exactly what this legislation is designed to do. That's exactly what the other nine pieces of budget reform legislation the Budget Committee is moving, what they are designed to do.

It is really with great pride, again, as a new member to the Budget Committee, to have my colleague from Colorado say such nice things about this bipartisan work, about the hope that this presents for us moving forward, and I, too, hope we'll be able to build on that progress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I appreciate the gentlelady's work. I know that her effort on the STOCK Act comes from the heart. I disagree with a lot of the underlying crafting of that bill, but I know that the effort is to solve a very real problem and to solve it in a very genuine way, and I am grateful to her for that.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida, Sheriff Nugent, one of my freshman colleagues, who also comes to this issue with a pure heart and who has an alternative proposal here in the House to prevent insider trading, of which I am a strong supporter. He is also my colleague and seatmate in the Rules Committee.

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

I thank my friend for his kind comments. I know that Mr. Walz and Ms. Slaughter have been working for years and years on this proposal. And again, I have some issues with this proposal. I do believe that there are some better options out there. But I must speak up on behalf of the leadership in this House.

For Congress after Congress after Congress, Ms. Slaughter labored to bring this bill to the floor, labored to bring this bill to the floor to no avail, to no avail, through 4 years of democratically controlled Congresses--folks who have the deepest respect and admiration for the gentlelady and her legislation--failed to bring this legislation to the floor. And the rule we have here today does. It does. It's not the only way to bring this legislation to the floor. It's not even a requirement that the legislation come to the floor in this way. But what this rule does is it provides the first opportunity that this Congress has had to vote on the STOCK Act. Madam Speaker, that's not a topic for the gnashing of teeth. That's a topic for the clapping of hands.

If you believe in this bill, if you believe, as Mr. Walz said, that this may not be the end-all/be-all, but it's a step in that direction, if we can move a little today and a little tomorrow and a little beyond that to ultimately get to where we need to be, this is a step in the right direction.

As a member of the Budget Committee, Madam Speaker, it just happens to be my privilege that that opportunity was attached to the bottom of a budget rule because the truth is, the reason we are here today is not to talk about the STOCK Act and not to talk about ethics reform but to talk about budget process reform, budget process reform that was reported out of the Budget Committee in a bipartisan way, budget process reform that was sponsored by both the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee and the Democratic ranking member of the Budget Committee--budget process reform that makes sure that every little piece of the United States budget, every topic in an appropriations bill, doesn't just get examined in committee, doesn't just get examined on the House floor, doesn't just get examined at the White House, but gets examined one more time for those things that just don't pass the smell test, by coming back to this body for an up-or-down vote on that rescission.

I would inquire of my friend from Colorado if he has any speakers remaining?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would inquire of my friend if he has any further requests for time.

I'm prepared to close as well.

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

It really is a source of pride for me as a Budget Committee member to be a part of this. This is an effort, much like the STOCK Act, that did not begin in this Congress. The Expedited Line-Item Veto is an effort that has been going on for almost two decades here in this body. And previous attempts, Madam Speaker, I would argue, were in fact an unconstitutional delegation of our responsibility here in the House to legislate delegating that responsibility to the President.

This underlying bill, however, looks less like a line-item veto and more like an expedited rescission, rescission authority that the President already has today, but ensures that when that rescission is presented, it actually gets a vote here on the House floor.

If these were wonderful economic times, Madam Speaker, I don't know if I would be as enthusiastic about this legislation, but these are dire economic times. Our budget challenges here have grown exponentially in my life time. And I think we must pull out every single stop that we can to make the situation better. Whether a little or whether a lot, every single opportunity we must seize. And this is one of those. I so appreciate, again, the work of Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen in bringing this forward.

But I would be remiss, Madam Speaker, if given all of the talk about the STOCK Act today, I didn't speak up just a little on behalf of my colleagues. I have served now 13 months as a Member of Congress. I see good and decent, hardworking men and women trying to do the very best that they can for their Nation. I see men and women from different parts of the country whose constituencies have different hopes and dreams, and those Members coming here to advocate for those hopes and dreams as best as they can. And I see a population back home that has lost all faith in those good men and women here in this body. And I wonder what we do here in this body to perpetuate that stereotype.

You know, the STOCK Act, Madam Speaker, has been characterized colloquially as the prevent-insider-trading-by-Members-of-Congress as if, as if Members of Congress are allowed to participate in insider trading today. And they are not. Insider trading was against the law yesterday, it was against the law a week ago, it was against the law a year ago, and it will still be against the law tomorrow. Do not let your constituents, Madam Speaker, believe for a minute that you have a right to insider trade when they don't. The laws of the land apply to us as well, and we owe it to this institution and we owe it to our constituents back home to tell them they are not being represented by a bunch of thieves and scoundrels, but they are being represented by their neighbors. Can we do even more? Must we do even more? We must.

Thirty-eight pages in the STOCK Act of new criminal regulations, new sanctions. If you got bribed last week, you're going to go to prison for a number of years. If you get bribed next week, you're going to go to prison for more years. Folks, don't get bribed. It was wrong yesterday; it is wrong tomorrow. It's not more wrong because we're deciding this here today.

We have a responsibility to do the job we have been entrusted to do, and we must punish the bad actors in this body, but we cannot let our constituents back home believe that this body cannot be saved. We cannot let our constituents back home believe that this body is being operated by folks who breach the public trust. We do America a disservice, Madam Speaker, when we allow that contention to go unchallenged.

Are there bad apples here in this Congress? I don't know if they are here today. I know they have been here in years past. And we've sent those folks to prison. There are bad apples in my church; we've sent those folks to prison, too.

This body is only as good as the American voter back home. And I tell you, Madam Speaker, if your district is like my district, the American voter back home is spectacular. The American voter back home is a man or woman of integrity. The American voter back home is a person with hopes and dreams for a better America tomorrow than we have today. We can deliver that on their behalf. We are the voice of those hopes and dreams in this body.

The kind of bipartisan work that we've done on the Expedited Line- Item Veto and Rescissions Act, I say that is exemplary. My colleague who chuckles, Madam Speaker, has been here longer than I. He's been here longer than I. I don't believe he's beyond saving, though. I think we can convince him that it's not a laughable matter to work together, that it's actually something that folks do. And I'm optimistic to be the carrier of that message today and tomorrow.

With that, let me again urge strong support for the rule. The rule both allows the Expedited Line-Item Veto bill to come to the floor, as well as provides an opportunity for the very first time a vote on the STOCK Act here in this body. I rise in strong support of that rule and in strong support of the underlying provision.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, it's the Tax Code that brings me down to the House floor today. You know, if you care about special interest tax breaks in this town, there is only one bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that eliminates every single special interest tax break in the United States Code--every break, every exception, every exemption, every favor--and that's H.R. 25, the FAIR Tax, Mr. Speaker.

You know about the FAIR Tax. It's the most widely cosponsored, fundamental tax reform proposal in the entire U.S. House of Representatives. It's the most widely cosponsored, fundamental tax reform proposal in the entire United States Senate. And it is the only bill in Congress that solves every single special interest break. The only one. And it brings American manufacturing jobs back to America; puts the American manufacturing community on a level playing field with our foreign competitors, the only bill in Congress that gets that done.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to see more about it, you know you can see it at www.thomas.gov. You can see it at www.fairtax.org. It's H.R. 25, and it will save this American economy.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 539 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

House Resolution 539 provides a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 3581, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act. This is another bill in a series of 10 bills that the Budget Committee is sending forward, Mr. Speaker, to try to align the kind of accounting and budgeting that we do in Washington with the kind of accounting and budgeting that happens in the real world. We know transparency and sound accounting matter. We know that it matters on Wall Street; we know that it matters on Main Street; and it matters right here between Independence and Constitution Avenues, Mr. Speaker.

This bill has three primary provisions:

Number one, it provides transparency by bringing off-budget items on- budget. Now, for folks who don't follow this as closely as you and I do, Mr. Speaker, you know that when things are off-budget, their degree of scrutiny is changed. When things are off-budget, the impact they have on the American taxpayer is not always reflected. When we take those things from off-budget and bring them on-budget, we begin to show the American taxpayer the real cost of their risk and responsibility.

Number two, it reforms the accounting method that we use to calculate how at risk American taxpayers are under Federal credit programs, again, to bring us closer to private sector models. Mr. Speaker, as you well know, when a dollar goes out the door from this United States Capitol, when a dollar goes out the door from the United States Treasury, if it is a loan program, there is no guarantee that dollar comes back. Are most folks faithful payers? Yes, they are. But does every dollar come back? No, it doesn't. Do we need to look further than Fannie and Freddie to see that model? For the first time, we'll begin to account for that risk so that the American taxpayer understands when the their American government guarantees a loan what potential impact that has on their pocketbook at home.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it requires all Federal agencies to post their budget justifications online in a timely manner. Now, you saw last week, Mr. Speaker, we were able to pass the Baseline Reform Act, which said no longer will we just assume every agency is

going to spend more. For the first time, we say that every agency needs to justify any increases that they receive in their budget. What this provision does is go one step further to say, when you are producing that budget, post your justifications online. Let the American people in. Mr. Speaker, if we have nothing to hide in this institution, then continuing to publish more and more information so that the American people can come into this discussion process is only going to lead us in the right direction.

Taken together, these three reforms bring the kind of attention that we need to a budget process that has been long broken. We cannot make America's future brighter and more secure if we continue to escalate the debt that we pass on to our children and their grandchildren. Clearly, this body has struggled in years past to contain that debt on both sides of the aisle. Clearly, folks occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue have struggled to contain that debt on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, the folks who see these issues with clarity live back home in my Seventh District of Georgia. They understand what it means to do budgeting around the family dinner table. I know my colleague from Massachusetts has those same folks living in his district facing those same challenges in his district; and if we can bring those people into the discussion, Mr. Speaker, if we can just be honest with our constituents back home about the magnitude of the problem, we will have their support and their involvement to turn this page for America's financial future.

Mr. Speaker, we can't stick our heads in the sand. Next week, we're expecting the budget from the White House to arrive here on Capitol Hill. We were expecting it this week, and they've delayed it to next week. I'm excited about it. I say to my colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Speaker, I believe we're going to have a serious budget discussion with the White House for the first time in the 3 years of this administration. We're going to have a serious budget dropped on our doorstep, and then the Budget Committee is going to be involved in a serious discussion about how to bring the White House's priorities and the House's priorities in line with the American people's priorities. That process does not happen in a vacuum. That process happens in the sunshine, the bright daylight that is this U.S. House Chamber, Mr. Speaker. And with this reform combined with the other nine reforms coming out of the Budget Committee, we are taking steps forward to change forever the way this town does its budgeting business.

I'm very proud to sit on both the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee, to have had a hand both in the underlying legislation and this resolution today. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution, Mr. Speaker, so that we can bring up the underlying bill.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee filed House Report 112-388, a report to accompany House Resolution 539, a resolution providing for consideration of H.R 3581, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act of 2011. The report inadvertently excluded an explanation of the waiver of all points of order contained in the resolution against the amendments printed in the report. The Committee on Rules is not aware of any points of order against any of the amendments printed in the Rules Committee report. The waiver of all points of order against the amendments printed in the report is prophylactic in nature.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to my colleague from Massachusetts, I always look for those areas of agreement because I know that we have some. I had a tough time finding those areas of agreement in that particular presentation, but when you got to your discussion about the theater that takes place on this House floor, I began to feel that personal bond, Mr. Speaker, because this feels like theater to me.

This is a rule that my friend is urging a ``no'' vote on that does one thing and one thing only: it brings to the floor a budget-changing provision that will shine more of a spotlight on what it is this Congress does when it comes to spending the American people's money. It does one thing and one thing only, and that is to give the American taxpayer more insight into what it is that my colleagues and I are doing with the money that we have taken from them.

Now, you might say, Mr. Speaker, well, what if I oppose that sunshine? What if I don't want daylight in the process? What if I have some things up here that I don't want folks to know I'm doing with their money? Fair enough. You can vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. But this rule, Mr. Speaker, this rule, which governs the debate on the House floor, has made in order every single Democratic amendment that was germane to the underlying legislation. Hear that. Hear that.

For folks who don't like the way the bill was crafted--of course we had a full hearing and markup in the Budget Committee--but for folks who don't like the way that bill came out, sometimes Congresses in the past would just shove a bill to the floor and say take it or leave it. But this bill, Mr. Speaker, is coming to the floor with a rule that said, tell me, colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, tell me how it is that we can make this bill better, and every single idea and suggestion that was germane to the underlying bill this rule makes in order.

So I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why vote ``no'' on this rule? If you don't like the underlying legislation, vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation. But this rule is a rule that this entire House can be proud of, and I'm proud to be able to carry it for the Rules Committee today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say I agree with the gentleman. I agree with the gentleman that we must move jobs legislation out of this U.S. House of Representatives, on to the United States Senate and on to the White House.

This is a budget reform bill that, as the gentleman accurately stated, is a serious bill to address a serious problem. We didn't do this in January of last year, our very first term in office. Then we were working on repealing the President's health care bill, which remains a national priority.

We didn't do this last April when we were focused on presenting the first serious budget that dealt seriously with the underlying debt drivers, those entitlement programs, for the first time since 1965. We didn't deal with these issues while we were trying to continue to fund this government through a regular appropriations process, a process that hadn't taken place in over three years.

We have brought this bill to the floor today. What were we doing in the intervening time, Mr. Speaker? We were working on jobs. We were working on jobs, because I agree with the gentleman, that is something we must focus on.

Reducing regulatory burdens sits with the Senate. Energy Tax Prevention Act sits with the Senate. Consumer Financial Protection and Soundness Improvement Act sits with the Senate. Small Company Capital Formation Act sits with the Senate. I could go on and on and on consuming all of our, time because the gentleman is right. Jobs are the priority. And this House and this leadership and this Congress has made it a priority. But to what end, Mr. Speaker? To what end?

Will we stop focusing on this national priority? Absolutely not. Will we continue bringing bill after bill after bill to this floor that speaks to the needs of American families? You'd better believe it.

But will we abdicate our responsibility? Mr. Speaker, I've got cards aplenty in my pocket. One of them's the United States Constitution. Do you know where the responsibility to budget comes from, Mr. Speaker?

This wasn't a power grab, like so many things that go on in this House where we're removing power from the American people. This is a constitutionally delineated responsibility of this House. And I will not apologize for being down here focusing on those things that the Constitution requires us to focus on.

Now, that said, it's a fair question to say, but Rob, this is a small bill. This is a small bill. You know what? A lot of folks might take that as an insult, Mr. Speaker. I'm flattered by it because, as I have watched this process, we have seen too many giant resolutions, 1,000-, 2,000-, 3,000-, 4,000-page resolutions come to this floor.

Is that practice gone forever? I suspect we'll see another monstrosity come our way. I hope not, but I suspect we will. But in the interim, we can do better.

On the Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker, we actually had that discussion. This is 10 separate pieces of legislation. My colleague from New Jersey earlier was saying we want up-or-down votes on this floor. We want yes-or-no votes on this floor. I share his passion, and that's what we've done.

Instead of bringing a giant, omnibus budget reform bill that had lots of different things tied into it, Mr. Speaker, we've decided to bring one idea at a time, just one, one idea at a time, and allow this House, the people's House, to have that yes-or-no vote on whether or not this is an idea that has merit.

I appreciate my colleague's statement that this is a serious bill to confront a serious issue. And I will tell you, and it has developed more meaning to me, Mr. Speaker, since I have been a Member in this House for the last 12 months--it was Edmund Burke, he was a colleague of ours on the other side of the pond in the House of Commons, and a huge supporter of the American Revolution. And he said this: No one made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little. No one made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little.

I confess, Mr. Speaker, I was a little naive when I showed up here as a freshman last January. I thought I was going to be able to fix it. I thought my colleagues and I, you and I, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and I, working together, I thought we were going to be able to fix it. It's taken a little longer than I thought. Those big bites at the apple have not been as successful as I hoped.

Have we passed them here? Yes. Has the Senate moved on them and sent them to the President? No.

So we changed gears, bringing the little ideas to the floor, those little ideas that, as my colleague from New Jersey mentioned, are serious reform proposals.

I'll say it again, Mr. Speaker. I'm proud of these underlying proposals, and I'm proud of this rule that makes them in order. To be clear, it's a little unheard of in this House, and it's happened on both sides of the aisle. Republicans and Democrats alike have used this floor for their own devices.

This rule makes in order every single idea and suggestion that's germane to the underlying bill that was brought by either Republicans or Democrats. What's better than that? What's fairer than that? What is more American than that?

I understand, I know the Rules Committee has some tough decisions to make up there, and occasionally a closed rule comes to this floor. I'm generally grimacing as much as anybody when that happens. I believe in the openness of this process.

But to say, send me all of your ideas and suggestions, Mr. Speaker, send them all to the Rules Committee, and for the Rules Committee to say, anything that's germane, we've made in order today, Mr. Speaker-- this is not a resolution to vote ``no'' on. This is the rule, not just a rule, this is the rule to come to the House floor and cast a proud ``yes'' vote for today.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

We have no speakers remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to end where I began, and that is in agreement with my colleague. He says we should be the wind at the back of small business. Nothing could be truer. Nothing could be more true.

I don't believe that presiding over the largest regulatory expansion in the history of America is fulfilling the promise of being the wind at the back. That is wind in the face of American small businesses.

I don't believe that presiding over the largest tax increase in American history counts as being the wind at the back of U.S. small business. I think that's a wind in the face of those small businesses.

I do not believe that a new health care mandate is the wind at the back of small businesses. I believe that's a wind in the face of small businesses.

But I take great comfort in knowing that while there may be all of those issues that divide us, there are principles that unite us. We should, in fact, be the wind at the back of small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, this rule that makes in order every single idea to improve the underlying legislation, this budget reform rule is honest with the American people for the first time in my lifetime.

You know, we hear so much talk about the payroll tax, Mr. Speaker. I know you're familiar with the way that accounting works. When folks pay--and for those of us in Congress, for everybody back home, it's 15.3 percent of your paycheck. 15.3 percent out of every paycheck- receiving American's pocket goes to the payroll tax, which goes to fund Social Security and Medicare.

Under the clever accounting rules that the Congress and the President have so eloquently crafted, when I pay my 15.3 percent out of my paycheck every month, when every American worker, Mr. Speaker, pays their 15.3 percent, with the expectation that Medicare will be there for them when they retire, with the expectation that Social Security will be there for them when they retire, when we all contribute, the clever accounting rules here on Capitol Hill call that a credit. That's a credit to the United States Government's Treasury. It does not account for it as a debit because now folks have promised to have Social Security and Medicare there for me when I turn 67. It counts as a credit, Mr. Speaker.

When we hire a new Federal employee, every new Federal employee we hire, Mr. Speaker, when they pay out of their monthly check to the Federal Employees Retirement System, that pension that's available to every Federal Government employee, that payment that they make into the pension program is counted as a credit. It's as if the more Federal employees we hire, the more money we'll make for America. No, because with every year of payment into that system, they get something very large out.

This is not news to any business owner in America, Mr. Speaker. This is not news to any business owner in America. They have to do this accounting every day. You want to talk about the crooks on Wall Street; if Wall Street accounted the way the Federal Government does its accounting, they would in fact be crooks and they would in fact all be in jail. It's unconscionable.

The wool that we pull--and we're all complicit in it, have been for years. The wool that we pull over the eyes of the American taxpayer-- and kudos to this Budget Committee and, candidly, to this budget chairman. Chairman Paul Ryan and the chairman of the Rules Committee, Chairman David Dreier, have been working on fundamental budget reform for a decade. And

why it is that neither party has had the courage to bring this forward until now I do not know, but I stand here with pride to be associated with it today.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to create jobs, call your Senator. Call your Senator from your home State, Mr. Speaker, and share with them the importance of moving the pro jobs agenda that is sitting on their doorstep. I understand, Mr. Speaker, and I wouldn't hold it against you if you can't remember all of the jobs bills we've passed, there have been so many, but you can see them. It's on the Web, jobs.gop.gov. You can see it there, every single one, and you can see their status. Now, in fairness to the Senate, of the more than 30 bills we've passed, they've done a handful, and I mean literally a handful, but dozens more sit there waiting.

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, if the pitch from my colleague that we are abdicating our responsibility to focus on jobs took any root with you at all, let me say emphatically: Not true, not true. Our focus has always been on jobs. Our focus will continue to be on jobs. Our focus has always been the economy. Our focus will continue to be the economy.

But there is a trust deficit in this town. Everyone hears it when they head home. Everybody hears it from their constituencies: I don't believe you when you say it out of Washington, D.C.

I get it. I come up here. I read these budgets, Mr. Speaker. Some of them are hard to understand. We've got a whole team of staff here to help us sort through those numbers. I rely on that staff. I'll go and talk to them, and we'll go through it all line by line. It's hard to understand, and it doesn't need to be. It doesn't need to be D.C. doublespeak. It can be Georgia common sense that we bring to the budgeting process, and that is what the underlying resolution does today.

In 2001, when President Bush took office, the CBO projected a surplus of $889 billion by 2011. That turned into a $1.3 trillion deficit under two Presidents--from $889 billion in surplus to $1.3 trillion in deficits. I'll tell you that every single spending bill that left this body over those years--and I was not in this body, serving, but I saw it day in and day out--was done with the very best of intentions. Yet where does that leave our children and our grandchildren? It leaves them $15 trillion in debt.

You talk about being the wind at the backs of small businesses, Mr. Speaker. I tried to get my mind around what $15 trillion--on its way to $16 trillion--in debt means. Do you know, if you're a small business owner in America and if you'd started a business on the day that Jesus Christ was born and if you'd been so bad at it that you'd lost $1 million a day, every day, 7 days a week, Mr. Speaker, from the day Jesus was born until today, you would have to continue to lose $1 million a day every day, 7 days a week, for another 700 years to lose your first $1 trillion?

As stewards of the American people's money, we've lost $15 trillion, much of that just in the last 4 years. Anything that we can do--no matter how big or small--that incorporates the American people into this budget discussion, that gives them the best information that they can have, that provides to us the best information that we can have and that does away with the funny math that has almost become a punch line across this country is a step in the right direction. There is a trust deficit in this country, and the underlying legislation today takes a very strong step towards correcting it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say again how much I appreciate Chairman Paul Ryan and his work in leading the Budget Committee as well as how much I appreciate Chairman David Dreier and his work in leading the Rules Committee. These two gentlemen have been champions of honesty in the budget process. What we have today, both in the rule and in the underlying bill, is the realization of their tireless efforts.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule. Vote ``yes'' on this rule that allows every single idea to improve the underlying legislation, and that's germane, to come to this House floor, and then vote your consciences. Vote your consciences on those amendments, and vote your consciences on the underlying bill. I wager, if this body votes its conscience on this underlying bill, it's going to pass this body and head to the United States Senate.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, this is another one of those commonsense reforms that I'm so proud that this Budget Committee has brought to the floor, time and time again, and will continue throughout the spring.

When I get back home, Mr. Speaker, folks say, Rob, why haven't you gotten this done already? And my friend from Massachusetts has just laid out exactly the reason why. These are politics of division, not of unity. These are politics of fear, not of hope.

And I tell my friend, as he knows very well, this bill does not cut one penny from any of the priorities that he mentioned. My friend knows it to be true. Mr. Speaker, you know it to be true, and I say it to the American people today, what this bill does is to shine sunshine on what has been a budget process cloaked in darkness for far too long. And both parties have been complicit in that, Mr. Speaker, and both parties are going to unite today to change that history.

Mr. Speaker, do folks back home want to see over 50 different duplicative job training programs plussed up year after year after year, without any regard to their efficacy? No, they don't.

Do folks back home want to see education programs that have failed our children time and time again plussed up, while those education programs that are successful go needy? No, they don't.

Mr. Speaker, do folks want to see those income security programs that are providing insecurity to folks back home plussed up at the expense of those programs that can be a hand up out of poverty? I tell you they do not.

This bill does one thing and one thing only: This bill provides honesty in our budget process. And if this motion to recommit passes, we will return to the days where confusion, rather than clarity, is the touchstone of this budget process.

Chairman Ryan has given us an opportunity, with this legislation, to bring the American people into this debate, to make the budgeting here in this body look like the budgeting around the dinner table back home.

Are expenses going up in this country? They are, Mr. Speaker. Are times tough in this country? Yes, they are. When we spend $10 today and $12 tomorrow, the American people know that we're spending more and not less.

We can continue to put lipstick on this budget pig, as this motion to recommit would have us do, Mr. Speaker, but I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit and unite to throw open the doors of this institution and bring in budget sunshine once again.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 534 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to be down here with you today, and for the purpose of debate only I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 534, this rule before us today, brings the first of two Budget Committee reform bills to the floor. As the Speaker is very familiar, the Budget Committee has been working very hard, not just this year but last year as well, to put together an agenda to make the budget more accessible to the American people, to make budgeting in Washington, DC, look more like budgeting back home around the kitchen table. We have the first of those two reform bills coming to the floor today with the passage of this rule.

This rule is a structured rule, Mr. Speaker, that brings H.R. 3578, the Baseline Reform Act, and H.R. 3582, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, to the floor.

We all know it's been over a thousand days since the Senate has produced a budget. But here in the House, not only did we produce a budget last year on time, we will produce a budget this year on time, and we will produce another budget, as we did last year, that the American people can be proud of. Knowing that it's a given the American people are going to be proud of that work product, Mr. Speaker, because you and I will ensure it, the question is, will folks be able to understand it. I confess, as a freshman member on the Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker, it's not always easy to do.

The President is going to submit his budget to us in a couple of weeks. I think it was going to be next week. I think he's put it off for another week. I'm looking forward to seeing it when it finally arrives. But my recollection and expectation is going to be it's going to be more than 12 inches tall. Not because the President's doing anything wrong, but because that's the level of detail and sophistication it takes to produce a budget for the United States of America.

So what can we do to make this budget easier to understand? What can we do to make this budget more like the budgeting that goes on around the kitchen table?

The Baseline Reform Act, the first bill that this rule would bring to the floor, does this, Mr. Speaker. It eliminates the assumption that CBO makes today that every Congress is going to spend more next year than the previous Congress. Now, there are, as a function of law, Mr. Speaker, some areas of the budget that do in fact go up.

We know, for example, that 10,000 new Americans every day apply for Social Security and Medicare. 10,000 new baby boomers every day apply for Social Security and Medicare. We calculate that in the law. It exists in statute today to say let's go ahead and raise that spending level based on those new folks accessing the system.

But there's over a trillion dollars in spending, Mr. Speaker, for which there is no law that says it's going to go up next year and the year after that and the year after that. And yet, the Congressional Budget Office today, when they chart out the budget for the United States of America, assumes that that increase is going to take place.

Well, I'm tremendously proud, Mr. Speaker, that at least in my short time here I've seen just the opposite. Every single bill that this body has brought to the floor and sent to the President has reduced spending. Spending was $1.91 trillion in 2010. We reduced it to $1.50 trillion in 2011. We reduced it again to $1.43 trillion for 2012. That's the trend that my constituents want back home, Mr. Speaker, and I think the trend that America deserves.

But more importantly, we've all been involved in those conversations back home where folks say, when is a cut not really a cut? When is an increase not really an increase? Only here in Washington, Mr. Speaker, can we spend $10 last year and $12 next year and call that a budget cut. Only here. The Baseline Reform Act eliminates that.

The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, the second bill that this rule would bring to the floor, adds a new bit of information to the Congressional Budget Office baseline. It's the same information that President Obama asked for in his stimulus bill, to say, when we spend this $800 billion, what impact is that going to have. We know it's going to be $800 billion out the door. We know we're never going to get that money back. We know that's going to be money that we have to borrow from foreign lands. But what do we get for that $800 billion?

We asked the Congressional Budget Office to score it that way and they did.

What the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act says is let's add that feature for every future bill on the tax side of the ledger.

What happens, Mr. Speaker, when we cut taxes? We know that means less revenue comes in from that one tax, but what does it mean for the economy as a whole? We see it over and over again when we have taxes at their highest. Sometimes our tax receipts are at their lowest. When we have tax rates at their lowest, sometimes our tax receipts are at their highest. The Congressional Budget Office can give us that information, and this bill makes it possible for them to do that.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm tremendously proud and tremendously enthusiastic about not only the rule but the two underlying bills, and I look forward to that discussion not just on the rule with my friend, Mr. Hastings, but with the Budget Committee later on this afternoon.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just really take a moment to think about the doublespeak here in Washington, D.C. That's been the biggest adjustment since having the great privilege of being a Member in this U.S. House of Representatives. What my friend from Florida I know very genuinely calls sneaky, I call common sense.

You know, today in the budget, Mr. Speaker, today in the budget, the CBO doesn't have to follow the law for about a quarter of all Federal Government spending. When they are scoring Medicare and Medicaid, they follow the law to say what's Medicare and Medicaid going to do over the next 10 years. When they're scoring discretionary spending, however, they just guess. They just guess. That's what the process is today: Just guess at what future Congresses are going to be. What are those future Congresses going to do?

Now, I tell you that's an exercise in folly, and you couldn't possibly get it right. That's what the CBO Director told us yesterday, that it's a challenge to put these numbers together. And the more they have to guess, the more inaccurate their result becomes.

So what are these two bills?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank my friend for asking.

Reclaiming my time, what those 40 years are are 40 years of congressionally mandated action.

But that's what's so different here, Mr. Speaker. There are things that Congress speaks to and things about which Congress is silent. And for reasons unbeknownst to me or the families back home in my district, what this Congress has said, this body that's been instilled with the power of all of our voters back home, we've said we advocate it, CBO just guess.

You know, when you and I were working together last summer on the Budget Control Act, we went exactly the opposite route. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the Budget Control Act, we said don't guess about what's going to happen next year. We're putting a number in statute for spending. Don't guess about what's going to happen 2 years down the road for that. We're putting a number in statute. And don't guess about another year down the road for that, because we are putting a number in statute.

Look at that, Mr. Speaker. What we've chosen to do, instead of just guessing about the country's future, is to do what the American people sent us here to do, and that's legislate on the country's future. Only here can you spend $10 this year, $12 next year and call that a cut. I don't get it. I don't get it, and folks back home don't get it.

Far from being gimmickry, this is unifying the Federal budget process with what that budget process is for millions of families back home around the dinner table. And to be clear about the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, Mr. Speaker, because I want to make sure that my friend from Florida and I are working on the same information, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act does not change the CBO baseline process at all, not at all. The same score that CBO would have done for legislation yesterday, they're going to do that same score for legislation tomorrow if the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act becomes law. What will be different is--and I love this about the direction of this Congress, Mr. Speaker. The difference will be the American people will have a new piece of information to add to the old baseline, a new piece of information.

During the discussion yesterday with the Congressional Budget Office, we got the CBO baseline, but we also got additional information--what would happen if you extended tax cuts, what would happen if you did alternative things called the alternative baseline. The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act says let's build on that. Because, in these times, we can't afford to have any stone unturned for economic growth for this country; and we certainly can't afford to continue, as this town has done far too long if we're candid with ourselves, far too long, keeping the American people in the dark about Federal budgeting issues.

These two bills, again, these are just the first of 10 bills that will be coming to this floor, Mr. Speaker. But these two bills shine a spotlight on the Federal budget process in ways that we can all be proud, and I can discuss that even further later on.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I always enjoy listening to my friend from New Jersey because inevitably I agree with about the first six things he says. All of the facts on which he bases his conclusions, I agree on. And I just reach a completely different set of conclusions.

My friend said that one of the challenges we have in America is that folks think that they're working as hard as they can but they're going backwards instead of forwards. I get that in my district, too. I think the gentleman is absolutely right. Hope is so powerful in this country, when we lose that hope, we really get ourselves in a world of hurt. I think the gentleman is absolutely right.

The gentleman says we can't get the economy back on track unless we get our small businesses moving again. The gentleman is absolutely right. I know it to be true. I see it in my Chambers of Commerce, Mr. Speaker.

But what then? Agreeing that the American people are working as hard as they can, and they feel like they're going backwards. Agreeing that the small business community is working as hard as it can, but it can't find enough consumers. What's the answer?

My friend from New Jersey laid out, as my President did, four giant spending initiatives with borrowed money that he believes if only the Federal Government would get involved in, we could regenerate those two needy areas. And my constituents tell me exactly the opposite, Mr. Speaker.

My constituents say: Rob, if only the Federal Government were not involved in my life, if only the Federal Government were not borrowing all of this money, if only the Federal Government would leave us alone and let us succeed. The government is not the solution, they tell me; the government is the problem.

These two bills today, sadly, I again agree with my friend, do nothing to stop the government from being a problem. And in fairness, the Budget Committee is not in that business. The Budget Committee is in the planning of the financial future business. We need the authorizing committees to actually shrink the size and scope of government.

But what these two bills do, and it troubles me, candidly, it troubles me that it's even an area of debate. What these two bills do is one thing and one thing only, and that's provide additional arrows in the quiver of information that we provide to the American people about the American fiscal situation.

And on days like today, Mr. Speaker, with challenges like we have today, the American people deserve the truth. It's not always easy to say it, but we owe it to them to say it, and these two bills move us in that direction.

I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, I absolutely believe that our small businesses are overtaxed today. As the gentleman knows, I've introduced the most cosponsored piece of fundamental tax reform legislation in this House, another version of which has been introduced in the Senate, and has more cosponsors than any other fundamental reform bill in the Senate. And what does that bill do--called the FAIR Tax, H.R. 25, Mr. Speaker, in the House--it abolishes small business taxes entirely. It recognizes the economic truth that businesses don't pay taxes, consumers pay taxes.

I absolutely agree, I don't want to just do a cut, I would say to my friend. I want to abolish those taxes altogether.

And what Congressman Price's Pro-Growth Budgeting Act would do is share with the American people, because we know that's going to lose money in year one because we're cutting taxes. The only way the government gets money is from taxes. You reduce taxes, that's a loss in year one. What that bill would do, Mr. Speaker, is provide the secondary impact, the tertiary impact, share with the American people.

Well, what happens in year two? It's like going to college, Mr. Speaker. When you go to college, you lose money. It's a drain on your bank account. And if you equate the drain on your bank account of going to college the same as the drain on your bank account of going to McDonald's, you're going to make some bad decisions. You've got to know the impact of those down the road.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, and seeing the ranking member of the Budget Committee sitting there to my friend's right, I look forward-- and speaking candidly to the gentleman, if we bring a budget to this floor that doesn't allow us a vote on cutting exactly the kind of taxes you're talking about, not only will I be disappointed, I'll be voting ``no.'' We're absolutely going to bring a budget to the floor that is going to cut those taxes, that is going to lower the burden on the American taxpayer so that we can get this economy going again.

Again, these are issues that we agree on across the aisle, Mr. Speaker. It's important that we look at the same facts. When we look at the same facts, even as we are today, we can sometimes come to different conclusions. What these two bills do today is just make sure that we're looking at the same set of facts--not just us, but all of the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS from Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of having our next speaker be the ranking member of the Budget Committee to discuss these budgetary matters that have been discussed by my friend on the other side of the aisle.

But, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the House votes on H.R. 3558, Mr. Van Hollen's proposal to make sure that Members of Congress do not receive a cost-of-living adjustment to our pay in 2013.

At this time, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), and more time, if needed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to again find areas of agreement with my colleagues.

I, too, don't know what will happen with the very fine piece of legislation we sent to the Senate yesterday. If experience is any indicator, it will sit there and do nothing, as have all the other fine pieces of job-creation legislation that we've sent to the Senate. I take no pleasure in that, but I share the gentleman's frustration with fearing that fate.

I also share the gentleman's belief that we need to show the American people sitting around the dinner table that we get it. But when Congress sits around the committee table to budget, we say, okay, if rent is $1,000 this year, let's just go ahead and plan to pay $1,100 next year and then $1,200 the year after that and $1,300 the year after that. Let's just plan to do it. Let's just guess the money is going to be there.

But that's not what the American families get to do. American families have to say, if rent is $1,000 this year and rent goes to $1,100 next year, I've got to find something to cut. I'm not getting a pay raise. I don't see that increase coming through. The economy is not getting better for me. I've got to make those tough choices.

Mr. Speaker, if we're going to be honest with folks--and we have to be honest with folks--we've got to tell them there's no spigot of money running on Capitol Hill. If there were, it would be theirs. But there is no spigot of money on Capitol Hill.

And it makes me feel so good to be a freshman Member in this body-- more importantly, while it might have been true for the last 50 years that Congress just assumed every year it would spend more than it did the last, not this Congress, not my colleagues and I working together, Mr. Speaker. What we've said is we know there are not unlimited funds. We know the American people don't have more to contribute. We know that the time for tough choices was before, but it was put off, it was delayed and it was ignored, and the time for tough choices then falls to us. And we've been making them. It's not been easy. It's not areas that we always find agreement on, but we battle through it. When we get to the end of the day, we spent less in 2011 than we did in 2010 in our appropriations bills. We spent less in 2012 than we did in 2011, and I hope that's something that the American people will be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I would say to my friend, I don't have any other speakers. I am prepared to close if my friend is.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say I'm a few years younger than my friend from Florida. I didn't get the benefit of the ``Let's Pretend'' radio program that he had in his day, but I feel like I've had a little dose of ``Let's Pretend'' here on the floor today.

I feel a kinship with my friend and what that must have been like to hear that because what we have heard here on the floor is, let's pretend that there's not a serious crisis that we have to get our arms around. Let's pretend that we do have the money to spend more and more and more each and every year. Let's pretend that if we give the American taxpayer more information with which to make informed decisions, that will somehow do us harm.

Mr. Speaker, these bills are about common sense. These bills are about ending the Washington double-speak that has been a frustration to folks back home for far, far too long.

I'm joined here on the floor by Sheriff Rich Nugent from Florida, one of my freshman colleagues here in this body, Mr. Speaker. And as a sheriff, he told us in the Rules Committee yesterday he had some pretty serious responsibilities. There are no easy parts of being sheriff; it is all got-to-happen kind of business. But when he made his budget year after year after year, even though lives were literally hanging in the balance, he didn't get to assume he could spend more next year than he did the year before. He had to justify each and every dollar.

And that's important because the budget process is convoluted. We're doing our best to make it simpler, but folks might not understand exactly what's at the heart of these issues. And when it comes to this Baseline Reform Act, Mr. Speaker, what it's saying is, if the law of the land has a program, let's say we're buying flags to fly over the United States Capitol, if that program is slated to last for 10 years, the CBO will fund it for 10 years, they will estimate it for 10 years. If it's estimated to last for 5 years, CBO will estimate it for 5 years. And if it's supposed to last for 1 year, they'll do it for 1 year. What they won't do is say that just because the entire Congress is spending $50 million, that next year the Congress will be able to spend $60 million because of inflation. What it says is: don't guess.

If the Congress wants to speak to how much money should be spent, the Congress should speak. And in fact we do, day in and day out, mandatory spending, appropriation spending. But the CBO should not be asked to guess. If you want to know what the challenge is, Mr. Speaker, we heard it in the Budget Committee yesterday when the CBO Director came to testify. We talk so much about the Bush-Obama tax cuts expiring. If we kept them all, if we kept all of the tax cuts--in fact, if we went back to the tax cuts that expired in 2011 and we brought those back, too, reduced the American taxpayers' burden to the tune of every single tax cut that's on the books, America's tax burden would still be higher over the next decade than it has been historically over the last 50 years, if we kept them all.

What if you let them go away, Mr. Speaker? If you let all those tax cuts go away, America's tax burden would rise to the highest level in 50 years, the single highest level in 50 years. How much debt would we pay back if we raise the American tax burden that high, Mr. Speaker? Not one penny. Not one penny. How much of our deficit would we get rid of? Would we be able to finally have at least 1 year of a balanced budget? No. We can raise the American tax burden, Mr. Speaker, to the highest level in the last 50 years, and we still wouldn't balance this budget.

Mr. Speaker, the challenge is not revenue. The challenge is spending. And these two bills make sure that both on the revenue side and the spending side the American taxpayer has access to absolutely every bit of information they need to make good decisions.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I again ask my colleagues for their strong support of this rule and their strong support for the two underlying pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question.

Mr. Chairman, I very much thank my friend from Georgia for yielding. I just want to tell him how proud I am of him for bringing this legislation forward. I know he doesn't need my accolades; but this is the kind of commonsense material that I ran on and that, as a freshman in this body, makes me proud to be able to vote on.

I brought a copy of the legislation with me, Mr. Chairman. I think if you ask folks across the country, they sometimes wonder whether or not we read this legislation.

If folks go to www.thomas.gov, they can actually read the legislation themselves, Mr. Chairman. These things that we're arguing about, they wonder what the truth is. It's only five pages long in its substance.

Let me tell you what it says, Mr. Chairman, if you haven't seen it: The analysis prepared shall describe the potential economic impact of the applicable major bill of resolution on major economic variables, including real GDP, business investment, capital stock, employment, and labor supply.

The analysis shall also talk about revenue increases or decreases that result. The analysis should also specify which models were used, what your sources of data were, and shall provide an explanation as necessary to make the models comprehensible to the public.

Mr. Chairman, this bill provides one more tool that the American people and this Congress can use to evaluate the very important legislation that is considered here on this floor.

I hope you will ask your constituents, Mr. Chairman, why is it that folks would oppose giving the American people these answers. You heard me read the bill. All this bill does is provide that information.

I will say to the sponsor of this legislation that information has been missing for far, far too long. I plan to lend my strong support to this legislation. I thank the gentleman for the time and for his courage in bringing this bill forward.

Will the gentleman yield?

I'd be happy to be educated by the gentleman if he would yield.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the chairman for yielding to me.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) who has been battling in the trenches over this idea for a number of years and whom I'm just as pleased as can be that his idea has come to fruition today.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to a real leader for fiscal responsibility on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to my colleague who just spoke, I've introduced a bill in this House that not only repeals the Bush tax cuts, the Obama tax cuts, and every tax break for every multinational corporation and every special interest favor and every deduction and exemption and favor in the entire United States Tax Code, but it does so in a way that would actually bring in more revenues for those priorities that you mentioned. That's H.R. 25, the Fair Tax, and I would welcome the gentlelady's support.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to one of the finest young leaders on the Budget Committee, my freshman colleague from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, just for the sake of clarity for the American people, I'd like to yield 2 minutes again to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Speaker, at this time it pleases me to be able to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), one of my freshman colleagues, a leader on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it gives me great pride to yield 5 minutes to my chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I am prepared to close.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to begin by thanking the folks on the Budget Committee who made it possible to bring this bill to the floor tonight: Nicole Foltz, Jon Burks, Paul Restuccia, Jon Romito, and on my staff, Nick Myers.

This is a team effort, and it was led by the gentleman from Texas, Louie Gohmert, who has been working on this issue year after year after year, but he could not find a Budget Committee chairman who was willing to prioritize process--and process matters. I've learned in my 1 year here as a Congressman, Mr. Speaker, that we spend a lot of time arguing about process. If we could find that common ground on process, we could get on to the substance. This is one of those issues.

I'd like to associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Maryland. He says the question is: How do we put together an accurate picture of the budget process for the American people? That is exactly the right question to ask. When I ask that question of my constituents back home, they say, Rob, cut out those phony numbers of automatic increases every year.

We absolutely agree on the question, Mr. Speaker. It's how you answer the question that divides us.

As the minority whip said earlier, this isn't a bill that deals with our priorities for spending. Our appropriators are going to do that. This isn't a bill that cuts one penny. This is a bill that changes the way we measure the pennies that get cut.

I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, I start getting nervous when I hear the Washington political class talk about changing the way we measure, because I just assume they're going to come up with some new phony way to make it happen. Yet in this case--and perhaps this case alone--what we're saying is, for far too long, we've had those conversations during town hall meetings when we spent $1 million last year and when we'll spend $1.1 million next year, and they call it a cut--``they'' being the Washington measures.

That's nonsense, nonsense.

Is there a cost of living issue? Absolutely. Do we have to spend more on health care next year than we do this year? Absolutely. Do we have an unlimited spigot of cash that we can turn on to meet those needs? The answer is no. The answer is no.

This isn't a little issue, Mr. Speaker. $1.4 trillion over the 10- year window is what this automatic phony budgetary gimmick increases the budget to be. We're cutting that out. We're cutting that out.

We're saying, Congress, if you care about veterans as our veterans' committee chairman does and as our appropriating chairman does, stand up and put your money where your mouth is--and I guarantee you we're going to do it. If you care about seniors, stand up and put your money where your mouth is--and I guarantee you we're going to do it. But, Mr. Speaker, if we gave folks $500 last year to go out and buy their new iPhones, that iPhone has gone down. If we gave folks $100 at the beginning of the Obama administration to buy gas, clearly, that $100 is not enough to do it anymore because gas prices have doubled.

We already have a phony budget mechanism to project and bias towards increased spending. This is a bill--a simple bill--to which folks back home ask time and time again: Why hasn't it happened before? I don't have the answer, but it's not about blaming folks in the past for not getting it done, Mr. Speaker. It's about coming together, as we are tonight, to get it done.

This is a bill that has the support of the National Taxpayers Union. This is a bill that has the support of Citizens Against Government Waste. This is a bill that has the support of FreedomWorks. And this is a bill that has the support of the American people.

I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it, and let's move this bill on to the Senate.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have got energy on my mind tonight too. It's a wonder, or I should say it's not a wonder, that everybody who comes to the floor of the House has this common theme, Mr. Speaker, that we have an economy that's in trouble, we have a regulatory network that is going out of control. And we have energy needs in this country that feed, that feed the economic heart of this country, and we're struggling to find that food.

Mr. Speaker, I have here, you can't see it, but it's an editorial from The Washington Post. It's January 19 of this year. Now, you know, Mr. Speaker, and as folks do who have a chance to read The Washington Post, it is one of the most liberal newspapers in this entire Nation. Now there are a few, San Francisco Chronicle or others, that might able to compete, but one of the most liberal newspapers in this country.

And they put an editorial in their newspaper speaking on behalf of the newspaper editorial board on January 19, the day after President Obama announced his decision to block the Keystone pipeline, and this is what it said. It's entitled, ``A Kink in the Pipeline,'' and the headline reads--you won't be able to see this on the screen, Mr. Speaker--but it says, Approving the Keystone XL project should have been an easy call for the administration. Approving the Keystone XL project should have been an easy call for the administration.

This is from one of the most liberal newspapers in the country, Mr. Speaker, saying why, Mr. President, why did you choose to stand in the way, and they've got some ideas. The Washington Post has some ideas about that. The editorial begins like this: On Tuesday, President Obama's jobs council reminded the Nation that it is hooked on fossil fuels and will be for a long time. The council said this--it's going to require the United States to optimize all of its natural resources and for states to construct pathways, pipelines, transmission, and distribution to deliver electricity and fuel.

But that's what it's going to take, Mr. Speaker, to get the economy back on track. It's going to require that the United States optimize all of its natural resources.

It added that the regulatory and permitting obstacles that threaten the development of some energy projects negatively impact jobs and weaken our energy infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, you wonder why it is that I have to read this. You would say, Rob, that's common sense. Don't folks know that in the great State of Georgia?

I would tell you, Mr. Speaker, they do know that in the great State of Georgia. Where they don't know it is here in Washington, D.C., in this regulatory environment where if folks see a problem, they throw more rulemaking at it. The President's jobs council sees a problem. It's a problem--there's not enough energy infrastructure. Is the United States not maximizing its energy production?

Here's what the jobs council says, Mr. Speaker. It added, the regulatory permitting obstacles that could threaten the development of some energy projects, negatively impact jobs, and weaken our energy infrastructure need to be addressed immediately. And this is what The Washington Post says. Mr. Obama's jobs council could have started out by calling, well, the Obama administration to help in this effort.

On Wednesday the State Department announced that it had recommended rejecting the application of the TransCanada Corporation to build the pipeline, rejecting it. The President's jobs council, Mr. Speaker, says we need to maximize every energy opportunity that we have. If we are to see our economy succeed, we must access every bit of energy that we can domestically. We must find transportation mechanisms for it, pipelines, transmission facilities. And the White House says no, no.

The editorial goes on. Environmentalists have fought the Keystone pipeline furiously, and in November, the State Department tried to put off the politically dangerous issue until after next year's election.

Mr. Speaker, you came here for the same reason that I came here, and that is to take on the politically dangerous issues. We didn't run for Congress so that we could dodge the tough questions. We came to Congress so we could speak out on the tough questions. We came to Congress because we represent folks back home who view these issues with the common sense that America always does.

If you have an energy crisis, what do you need? You need more energy. Do you need energy efficiency? Of course. Do you need energy conservation? Of course.

But we have resources, Mr. Speaker, in this country. We have been so blessed. God has blessed this Nation with energy resources, and we have to harvest them.

The State Department wants to put the decision off because it's politically dangerous. When do they want to put it off to, Mr. Speaker? Until after the next election. So it's unconscionable. The Washington Post makes that point and goes on.

Listen to the cynicism that's here, Mr. Speaker. This is what it's come to in Washington, D.C. The Washington Post says this: We almost hope this was a political call because on the substance there should be no question. The Washington Post says, we hope it was the President just playing politics, Mr. Speaker. We hope it was the President just playing to the radical, leftist wing of its party. We hope that it was because if he's looking at the substance, if he's looking at the same facts that we are, it should have been no question, an easy call.

Hear this, Mr. Speaker. Without the pipeline, Canada will still export its oil. And with the long-term transglobal market, it's far too valuable to keep in the ground. But it would go to China, Mr. Speaker.

You're from a part of the world like I am, Mr. Speaker, where we care about the environment. We're hunters, we're fishermen, we're farmers. No one plays outside more than you and I do, Mr. Speaker. No one works outside more than you and I do.

We care about our communities, and you tell me which community is going to treat the world's environment the best, Mr. Speaker. Is it going to be your community back home? Is it going to be my community back home? Or is it going to be the industrial machine that is mainland China? Mr. Speaker, we can either bring this oil from Canada to America and use it responsibly, or we can ship that oil from Canada to China, where it would surely go, so says the Washington Post.

We go on: Environmentalists and Nebraska politicians say the route the TransCanada pipeline proposed might threaten the State's ecologically sensitive areas. And in consultation with Nebraskan officials, they decide to proceed, even though the government announces last year, concluded that the original path would have had limited adverse environmental impact. Hear that. Here it is, a private pipeline going to go through America, Mr. Speaker, going to try to feed America's energy needs so we don't have to import oil from folks who hate us overseas. Folks said we have some concerns about the original pipeline path. The Federal Government does a study, they say we don't see any problem. We see very limited environmental impact, but if it's a concern to you, we'll move it. Willing to move it.

Environmentalists go on to argue that some of the fuel in U.S. refineries that produce China's bitumin might be exported elsewhere.

Don't bring the oil to America, Mr. Speaker. Why? Because it might get refined in American refineries by American companies, using American workers, and we might sell that to another nation at a profit. For whom? For Americans.

Don't do it. Don't do it, Mr. Speaker. In this tough economy, don't you bring those products back to America. Don't you bring them to American factories. Don't you put American workers back to work. Why? Because we might export it to a foreign land to make a profit.

Mr. Speaker, that's what we need to be doing, and The Washington Post knows it to be true.

Here's how The Washington Post concludes, Mr. Speaker: There are far fairer, far more rational ways to discourage oil use in America, the first of which is establishing higher gasoline taxes. Environmentalists should fight for policies that might actually do substantial good instead of tilting against Keystone XL, and President Obama should have the courage to say so.

Those are not my words, Mr. Speaker. That comes from The Washington Post editorial board. President Obama should have the courage to say so. He should have the courage to stand up to the radical left. He should have the courage to stand up for American job creators. He should have the courage to stand up for American, North American, energy independence.

The headline, Washington Post, Mr. Speaker: Approving the Keystone XL project should have been an easy call for the administration. The Washington Post, Mr. Speaker. We hope it was a political call because on the substance, there should have been no question. And if you believe it happened for environmental reasons, Mr. Speaker, instead of political reasons, there are far fairer, far more rational ways to discourage oil use. President Obama should have had the courage to say so.

We're not done with this issue in the House, Mr. Speaker. You know, we're going to continue to bring this issue back because we know where the American people stand on it. They stand for energy independence. They stand for American jobs. They stand for American manufacturing, and we can achieve those goals with that all-of-the-above energy policy that harnesses all of the God-given bounty that America has and puts it to work for the American worker.

Mr. Speaker, let me go on to the President's State of the Union address. He rejected the Keystone pipeline a week before the State of the Union. Here's what he said in the State of the Union: It's time to double down on a clean energy industry that never has been more promising.

Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to do something today about rising energy costs. We have an opportunity to do something today with the Keystone pipeline. We can put 20,000 workers to work today. We can bring $70 million worth of oil into this country a day. We can do that with Keystone pipeline. The President says no, I'm canceling Keystone pipeline. I'm going to double down on clean energy because it's never been more promising.

Mr. Speaker, I believe in clean energy. I believe in clean energy. What I believe in even more, though, is energy independence, and we can't get to energy independence with the clean energy resources that we have today. We have to use the resources that we have here in this country. And once we achieve energy independence, Mr. Speaker, the entire conversation in America will change. The entire conversation will change from how much to from where, and we can do the doubling down on green energy. But the President wants to double down on green energy today. Why? Because it's been his calculation in his 3 years in office, Mr. Speaker, that the environment has never been more promising.

Let's see.

The President's promising environment, Mr. Speaker: Solyndra, bankrupt. Loans guaranteed by the taxpayer, $535 million; a half- billion dollars, Mr. Speaker, sent out the door

through crony capitalism and this administration. Down the drain, Solyndra, bankrupt.

What about Ener1? Guaranteed loans by the taxpayer, $118 million. How'd that project work out? Bankrupt. That's okay, Mr. Speaker. Maybe there are some successes.

What about Beacon Power? No, $43 million from taxpayers, Mr. Speaker. How'd that project work out? Bankrupt.

President Obama says the environment has never been more promising. If he's looking at the same financials you and I are looking at, Mr. Speaker, he sees bankrupt project after bankrupt project after bankrupt project. And we're doing this why? We're sending out government dollars, why? These taxpayer dollars, why, Mr. Speaker? A half-billion to Solyndra; $100 million to Ener1; $43 million to Beacon Power. We're sending those out why? Because we have energy needs in this country that cannot be satisfied because the President has stopped the Keystone XL pipeline, which was going to be built with what? Half a billion dollars in government loans? No, with private sector initiatives, private sector initiatives, to bring fuel that we know that we can use today to refineries where we know we can process it, whether we use it here or whether we export it abroad.

The President thinks there has never been a better time than now, Mr. Speaker, to double down on the green energy projects funded by the taxpayer.

We see here, Mr. Speaker, those have all been busts. And it's not that we can't do green energy, Mr. Speaker, it's that we have to let the marketplace choose those things. Crony capitalism doesn't work. Government picking winners and losers doesn't work. You know who picks winners and losers? The American consumer. You know who picks winners and losers well? The American marketplace, not the American government. We've got to take that power out of Washington, D.C., and return it to industry, and we will succeed.

The President knows this in his heart. Listen to what he says, Mr. Speaker: ``We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years, and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade.''

Do you know when he said that, Mr. Speaker? That was in his State of the Union speech. That was right here. Right here from where we are tonight, Mr. Speaker. He spoke these words just a week ago. He knows we have a supply of natural gas that can fuel this country for 100 years, that will support 600,000 new American jobs.

Well, golly, I bet we're going to go right after that today. We're going to start right now. Why, Mr. Speaker, because it's 84 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered natural gas. Who has that? Is it Saudi Arabia? No, it's America. Is it Iran or Iraq? No, it's America. Is it Venezuela and Hugo Chavez? No, it's America. We have 84 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered natural gas, 3.4 billion barrels of undiscovered natural gas liquids. These are the fuels, Mr. Speaker, that will fuel the American economy for the next decade.

The President knows it. The President says we can fuel 100 years of America; 600,000 jobs in America. We know where it is. Let's talk about how we're going to get it, Mr. Speaker.

The good news about America, and I say this, Mr. Speaker, as I know you say to all of your constituents who are struggling: The good news about America is there is nothing wrong with America that we didn't do to ourselves. There's nothing. There is no worker who produces more than the American worker. There is no system of government that's more responsive to the people than ours. There is no engine of economic growth more powerful than the American entrepreneurial system. The President, though, knows that we have these resources. The question is, is he going to let Americans get them?

Here's where they are, off the coast: The Outer Continental Shelf: 2.28 trillion cubic feet in Washington and Oregon; 3.5 trillion cubic feet in northern California; 2.49 in central California; 7.76 in southern California.

It continues here along the east coast. In my home State of Georgia, Mr. Speaker, 2.4 trillion off the coast. Here in the Mid-Atlantic, right off the coast of Washington, D.C., 19.36 trillion cubic feet.

In the Gulf of Mexico, 16 trillion cubic feet.

We know, Mr. Speaker, this is the assessment of undiscovered but technically recoverable oil and gas resources on the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf. This comes from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. We know where these resources are.

And they're not just there, Mr. Speaker. They are where Americans often turn for energy resources, in Alaska. In Alaska, 76 trillion cubic feet. Over in the Beaufort Sea, 27 trillion cubic feet. All around the coast of Alaska, Mr. Speaker, you see opportunity after opportunity after opportunity. Again, not to send money to folks who hate us, not to send American dollars to overseas enemies because of the hook that they have in us because of our oil needs.

Mr. Speaker, we have the ability to meet these needs with American production harvested by whom? American workers. Done through what? American companies. Whose dollars go where? To the American way of life. We can do those things. It's a national security issue, and it's an economic issue. The question is, Why aren't we, Mr. Speaker? And that is a political issue. You saw it in The Washington Post. The Washington Post said we hope the decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline was just a political issue because of the facts, there's no reason not to move forward. It must just be a political issue. Well, we saw that the President, in the State of the Union speech, said, I want to go after it all. I know that we've got 100 years of energy in natural gas. We can fuel 600,000 American jobs.

Well, what do the politicians say? Let's look just here in Alaska. Lisa Murkowski said, Americans can benefit from the tremendous resources in Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf. She votes ``yes.'' Congressman Don Young here in the House said that the OCS would provide 1.2 million new jobs. Why are we continuing to send our hard-earned money overseas? Don Young votes ``yes.'' The other Senator from Alaska says, My message to the President is that as America's energy storehouse, our State of Alaska can and should responsibly supply a significant portion of our country's energy needs. That's three for three, Mr. Speaker. Every Federal elected official from the State of Alaska says we've got energy here, and we want to harvest energy here to help fuel America, to help fuel America. We're in. We're in.

Mr. Speaker, do you know who's not in? President Barack Obama. He said all the right things in the State of the Union speech, Mr. Speaker. As the words were coming out of his mouth, I thought, I'm with you, I'm with you, time after time thinking that's the right thing to do. Now, sadly, I thought the same thing a year ago when so many of those same things were said. I said, I'm with you, it's the right thing to do.

We talked about abolishing corporate tax rates in this country so that we'll be able to bring more American companies here so we can create more jobs. I said, I'm with you. I voted for a budget here in the House last year that would do just that. I introduced a bill here in the House, a Fair Tax, that would do just that; and I got no support at all, Mr. Speaker, from the White House--not on our budget, not on the Fair Tax, not on any corporate tax reform bill whatsoever.

We had that Joint Select Committee at the end of the year, Mr. Speaker. They could have done anything--anything--to reform our economy, to get our fiscal house in order and to put American job creation back on track. They could have done anything. It was guaranteed to come to the floor of the House for a vote, and they produced nothing at all. And the President supported that effort not at all.

Here we are on the Outer Continental Shelf, 1.76 billion acres, Mr. Speaker, 1.76 billion acres--38 million open for exploration, 97 percent off limits. Do I need to go back, Mr. Speaker, to what the President said? We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years. My administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe,

he says, this will support more than 600,000 American jobs by the end of the decade--97 percent off limits.

Now, good news, Mr. Speaker. The Department of the Interior controls so many of these resources. They put out a 5-year plan. They talk about when it is we're going to be able to open up these areas. I'll just take you back to Alaska, Mr. Speaker, Alaska where so much of America's energy production comes from. Right here in the Beaufort Sea, 27.64 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Department of the Interior under the Obama administration, Mr. Speaker, said we're going to let you start leasing up there in 2015--2015.

I looked at my watch before I came down here, Mr. Speaker. It's 2012 and just barely into that--2012. You heard in the State of the Union speech: we have a supply of natural gas that can last America 100 years, and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy because it can provide 600,000 American jobs. We know where the energy is, Mr. Speaker. The President's agency in charge says, just wait another 3 years, we'll let you in. Right here in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, the President said he would do everything-- everything--in his power. I'm asking you, Mr. Speaker, has he done anything? Has he done anything?

There is nothing wrong with America that we didn't do to ourselves. God blessed us with these resources. It's man's law that won't let us get them out of the ground. Our friends in Canada, Mr. Speaker, want to open up a pipeline to bring hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into America every day, the market price of which is $70 million a day. Mr. Speaker, we're using the oil anyway in our cars, our factories, plastics--all of our products. We're already using the oil. The question is where do we get it? And today we send that same $70 million to Iraq, to Venezuela, and to Oman.

Mr. Speaker, we could have energy independence in this Nation if we applied ourselves to it, and it would change our foreign policy forever. If not in this Nation, Mr. Speaker, we could have energy independence on this continent. Our friends in Mexico, our friends in Canada, and we could collectively have energy independence. Why don't we? Why don't we, Mr. Speaker? And the answer is, as The Washington Post said, because in terms of leadership in this Nation, we lack the courage.

I just want to make that clear, Mr. Speaker. Let's go back to an issue that's going to come up over and over and over again until the President gets it right. It's the Keystone pipeline. When I say we lack the courage, Mr. Speaker, you and I both voted to move this Keystone project along. The AFL-CIO has endorsed moving this project along. It's not a Republican-Democratic issue, Mr. Speaker. It is an American jobs versus radical leftist agenda issue. The Washington Post, the most liberal newspaper in the area, one of the most liberal in the country, Mr. Speaker, said on its face there is no question that approving the Keystone XL project should have been an easy call for the administration. The courage that we're asking for from the President, Mr. Speaker, is to stand up to the most radical, most leftist, and most anti-jobs segment of his party. That's the ask.

When The Washington Post here says President Obama should have had the courage to say so, they weren't saying, shake up the apple cart, Mr. Speaker. They weren't saying, take some dangerous untrodden path through the woods. They were saying, approve the project that on its face there could be no question about. Approve the project that our friends in Canada have already endorsed; approve the project that brings North American oil to America instead of shipping it to China; approve the project that saves $70 million a day keeping it in North America instead of shipping it to the Middle East; approve the project that will improve 20,000 jobs today and more going forward; approve the project, as the President said, through our natural gas resources and through our oil resources that could support 600,000 new jobs by the end of the decade.

Who is the beneficiary, Mr. Speaker? You have the same town hall meetings I do. Who is the beneficiary of lower fuel prices?

Is it ExxonMobil? No. Is it the big plastics plant? Well, I'm sure they'll do better, but that's not who it is. The big beneficiary, Mr. Speaker, of lower oil prices are American families. The big beneficiary, when American energy prices drop, are American workers. The big beneficiary, when we make these easy decisions to look to America's energy resources first, the beneficiary is the American economy. Should have been an easy call, Mr. Speaker. Should have been an easy call. I know you believe that. I believe that. The Washington Post believes that.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how we'll find that true voice in the President's State of the Union speech. You know, there's so much double-speak in this town. It's sometimes tough to know what folks are actually saying. Rather than guess at what folks are actually saying, I blew it up in big words and put it right here because I wanted to be able to see it; I wanted to be able to remember it. Here's what the President says: ``We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years. And my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy because experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade.''

Mr. Speaker, it's up to you and me. We have to hold the President accountable for these words. You cannot say these words when you're speaking to the American people in the State of the Union. You cannot say these words when you speak to the House and Senate here in joint session in the State of the Union. You cannot say these words while canceling the largest opportunity we have for energy independence in this country. You cannot say these words when you're actually focusing your energy, your efforts, taxpayer money on these projects that we've proven time and time again don't work. You cannot say these words, Mr. Speaker, when you know we have 1.76 billion acres that we could explore, but only 38 million are open for exploration, meaning 97 percent are off limits.

Mr. Speaker, this debate does not end tonight. This debate begins tonight. You, me, and the American people, we can make a difference; and we owe it to the American people to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 32 minutes

p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 1, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the time. I appreciate your giving me a moment to set up my charts, because I've got some pretty ones down here, and I'm sorry you can't see them, Mr. Speaker.

I've got here the White House. The White House isn't the President's house. It's our house. Every time I drive by, Mr. Speaker, every time I go past, I think, you know what? I own that. I may live in a little old apartment of my own, but when I drive by the White House, I think, I own a piece of that. That house belongs to me. I do hope every American believes that same thing. It is our house. So, if you have not gone to your Member of Congress to try to get a tour of the White House, I encourage you to do it. I encourage you to do it because it belongs to you, and Presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, open up those doors so that we can see our White House in America, Mr. Speaker. It's a symbol of freedom around the world.

I printed this one up in full color. I spent a little extra. I'm pretty thrifty in my budget. If you know anything about me, not only do we cut our budget here in the United States House of Representatives, but I cut mine another 10 percent. Beyond that, we're going to give back about $300,000 to the American taxpayer, but we spent the extra money to put down the blue sky of optimism because this is the President's election night victory speech in 2008. Do you remember it? Do you remember it, Mr. Speaker?--because I remember it. I remember the promise of a better day, and here it is as he's talking about bipartisanship, because it gets a lot of lip service in this body, Mr. Speaker, but it takes hard work. It takes hard work. Here we go. He is talking about bipartisanship and about partisanship in particular. He says:

I will resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for far too long.

He hadn't been sworn in yet. The inauguration hadn't happened yet. His victory speech 2008:

I will resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for far too long.

That inspires me, Mr. Speaker. Would that it be true.

Let's move past full color to the stark black and white, which is the world we're living in today. Here is the President from last month, giving up on that commitment of bipartisanship. When questioned about the partisan angle that he took throughout the Social Security debate, throughout the doc fix debate, throughout the unemployment debate, he concluded:

It was gonna take more than a year. It was gonna take more than 2 years. It was gonna take more than one term. Probably takes more than one President.

Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I know we've only been in this institution just over 1 year now. It does not take time. It takes courage to make things happen in this body. It does not take hours. It takes ``I do's.'' It takes somebody standing up and saying, ``I will be responsible for that,'' which the President did. He said:

I will be responsible for ushering a new era into Washington, D.C.

As a freshman legislator, I took him at his word. Four years later, here we are. Can't do it in a year. Can't do it in 2 years. He couldn't do it in 3 years, and now he says it probably takes more than one President. It might take a different President, but he says it's going to take more than one.

Let me take you back to sunshine and apple pie, Mr. Speaker, because that's what we're about here in America. We thrive on challenges. We thrive on opportunities to do better. We want one generation to do better than the previous generation, and we want the next generation to do better than our generation. Here is what President Obama says in August 2008 in talking about his Vice Presidential pick:

After decades of steady work across the aisle, I know he'll--in talking about Senator Biden, now Vice President Biden--be able to help me turn the page on the ugly partisanship in Washington so we can bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda that works for the American people.

Who doesn't believe in that, Mr. Speaker? Who doesn't believe in that? Who doesn't believe it's not necessarily compromise and that it can be consensus? Who doesn't believe on coming together to pass an agenda that works for the American people?

You do, Mr. Speaker. I do.

I'll take you back to the stark black and white of where we've come, of President Obama in November 2010, a year ago. When talking about why it is his administration has taken on such a partisan tone, he says this:

I neglected some of the things that matter a lot to people, and rightly so that they matter: maintaining a bipartisan tone in Washington. I'm going to redouble my efforts to go back to some of those first principles.

Mr. Speaker, you and I came here for the same reason. We came here to get stuff done for our constituents back home. We came here to uphold the Constitution and the freedoms that it preserves for our constituents back home. We've been stuck in an environment in Washington, D.C., where the Senate refuses to act on any of the legislation that we put forward and where it refuses to act on any of its own legislation. Then we have a President who says this about his leadership in this town:

I neglected some of the things that matter a lot to people, and rightly so that they matter: maintaining a bipartisan tone in Washington. I'm going to redouble my efforts to go back to some of those first principles.

Mr. Speaker, that's the funny thing about principles. You're not supposed to have to go back to them. You're supposed to stick with them day in, day out, in good times, in bad times. It's easy to have principles in the good times. Whoo, it's easy. It's when times get tough that principles really matter. This was a year ago, Mr. Speaker.

The President is going to redouble his efforts to go back to some of those first principles of his, which is ending the partisan tone in Washington, D.C., in November 2010.

Now, folks know what happened in November of 2011. We began the discussion of what to do to solve health care issues for our seniors because Medicare reimbursement rates were on their way down, and seniors might not have had access to care, and we wanted to protect our seniors to make sure that that access to care existed. We had unemployment benefits that were getting ready to expire, and we had folks who were depending on those benefits and who were trying to sort out how it was that we would continue those and reform that program so it wouldn't just provide a check but provide a way back to employment.

We had Social Security, the payroll tax break that the President instituted in December of 2011, which was right after he made this comment that reduces the Social Security contributions of every working American by a third but does nothing to change the benefits that those working Americans get back when they retire, thus accelerating the bankruptcy of the Social Security Trust Fund, not to mention breaking that link that has been omnipresent in this country. With Social Security, it is not an entitlement in the welfare sense of the word. It is an entitlement in that you paid into it, and so you have earned it. You deserve it. We're changing that linkage for the very first time.

Following that debate, I wake up in the morning down in the Seventh District of Georgia, in the northern suburbs there of Atlanta. I was in Gwinnett County. I wake up to find out the President has made recess appointments. Ah, I've got to tell you I went through the roof, but you might not have gone through the roof, Mr. Speaker. I don't know where everybody was, all 300 million Americans, where they were when they woke up to that news that morning or where they were with regard to their Constitution. I carry mine. I know you carry yours, Mr. Speaker, and I would encourage anybody who doesn't have one to contact another Member of Congress. We can absolutely get you the United States Constitution, the rule book by which everything we do here should be judged--should be judged. It's why recess appointments matter, Mr. Speaker.

What I have here is article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution. It's clause 3. I'll back up just a little bit and make it clear for folks who haven't studied their Constitution recently that article I delegates the legislative powers to the United States Congress.

Article I, the very first order of business of our Founding Fathers in framing our Republic was to protect the people's powers here in the people's House and in the United States Senate, article I.

Article II vests power in the Executive. Article II, section 2, clause 3: ``The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.''

It seems pretty straightforward, but it is not. That is what it so wonderful about our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to say enough without saying too much.

Shortly after the ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton was writing on this topic. When he read this very same clause, he read this: ``The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.'' What Alexander Hamilton saw is that the only vacancies that can be filled are those vacancies that occur during a recess of the Senate; not vacancies that are getting filled then, but vacancies that actually occurred then.

This is important language. It is important language because I live 640 miles away from the United States Capitol. I happen to travel with my friends at Delta, and they get me here in an hour and a half; but if I had to get on my horse and ride, it would take a little while.

There is good reason there was recess appointments going on in the founding of this Republic, Mr. Speaker. I hope we can get back to having more recesses here. Why in the world we have let this Congress evolve into a full-time job that takes place year round, I do not know. The general assembly in Georgia meets for 40 days out of the year. I tell folks back home I will have achieved success when it is we in Washington, D.C., who only meet for 40 days out of a year because we have sent that power that has been gradually stolen from the people, stolen from the community, stolen from the States, and return that power to those communities.

But it was a real issue in the early days of our Republic that if there was a recess, we wanted to give the President the power to continue the Republic even when you couldn't get a hold of the United States Senate for confirmation. Well, in the age of iPads and BlackBerrys and fax machines, it is not that hard to get in touch with folks. It is easy to reconvene the Senate. But still on the books today, ``The President shall have the power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.''

You may be asking, Rob, why do you even care about this? You are in the House. This doesn't concern you. Let me tell you, this concerns me and it concerns every American because it concerns the rule book by which our Republic is governed. If we decide that the rule book doesn't matter, it will be something small today and it is going to be something medium-sized tomorrow, and it is going to be something huge a year from now, and the freedoms that our Constitution has so ably protected for over 200 years will soon be gone.

This isn't a partisan fight. This is an American fight. I will tell you that when we had a Republican President in the White House and Republican Members controlling this U.S. House and Republican Members controlling the U.S. Senate, power left this House and went down to the executive branch. Republicans allowed legislative power to leave this House and get transferred to the executive branch.

We have got to be on duty all the time. It is not Republican/ Democrat; it is Executive/U.S. House. Why? Because when our framers were framing the Constitution, they knew tyranny of the Executive was what was to be feared. King of England. Tyranny of the Executive was what was to be feared, and so they invested most of the power in the Congress, in the House, in the Senate. This is where our framers trusted that power to reside, but they gave the President the power to make appointments in recess of the Senate.

Why is this important at all? Article II, section 2, clause 2, which is known as the advice and consent clause: The President ``shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for.

Hear this: The President absolutely, positively has the power to appoint whomever he wants, by and with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. If the Senate is not in session, clause 3 takes over during those times. The President shall have the power to fill those vacancies, and it shall not extend past that one session.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what happened over Christmas, as the rights and privileges of the American people were stolen out from under us here in the United States House and Senate and transferred to the executive branch, is that the President said--and you will remember the quote. He said: If I can't do it with Congress, I will go around Congress.

Do you remember that?

If I can't pass my agenda with Congress, I will go around Congress.

Tyranny of the Executive, the most fundamental fear our framers had. The most fundamental fear was that an Executive would decide that he or she could do whatever they wanted without the consent of the government.

We have to stand up as Republicans and Democrats and say there is a right way and a wrong way to run this town, that there is a rule book by which this town is governed, that there is 200

years of precedent that tells us how appointments must occur, how that advice must occur when those appointments can be made.

If you followed any of this--and we'll talk about this more in the weeks to come because it goes to the bedrock of our Republic. Again, if you let your reverence for the Constitution slide when it is convenient for you, you're going to find it pulled out from under you when you need it most.

Mr. Speaker, I know that when you swore your oath to the people of this country, you swore your oath not to protect the Constitution from Democratic Presidents, not to protect the Constitution from Republican Presidents, but to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Your oath, whether there is a Republican in the White House or a Democrat in the White House, is to make sure that the people's power remains here with the people. We legislate and the President executes.

This isn't a mystery. This isn't something I came up with in the Seventh District of Georgia. This is something President Bush and Senator Harry Reid struggled with during the Bush administration. This is something all Congresses and Presidents struggle with. The struggle is not new. The complete abdication of constitutional responsibility, that is new. The deciding that if you can't do it with the Constitution, you will go around the Constitution, that is new.

Let me tell you what Harry Reid said, Mr. Speaker. I hold in my hand here a copy of that page from the Congressional Record.

As you can see, we record absolutely every word that goes on here. We don't want folks to be misquoted. We don't want the debate to go on and folks not to be able to remember what was said. We want to hold folks accountable to the people back home.

Let me tell you what Harry Reid said as it was recorded right here by the reporters, published in the Congressional Record.

He said on November 16, 2007: Mr. President, the Senate will be coming in for pro forma sessions during the Thanksgiving holiday to prevent recess appointments.

Now, I understand there's a lot of legalese that goes on here in Washington, D.C. We have the Constitution right here. Article II, section 2, clause 2; Article II, section 2, clause 3, this is the important part. This is the important part. With the advice and consent of the Senate, the President shall appoint, and the President has the power to appoint without the Senate during recess.

But now we are in what's called pro forma sessions because the Constitution also says that no body of Congress, neither the House nor the Senate, can adjourn for more than 3 days without the consent of the other body. We've seen that in some State legislatures across the country, haven't we, where folks just take their toys and go home, Mr. Speaker. They decide they don't like the way things are going, so they just leave.

The Founding Fathers 200 years ago sensed that challenge and wrote it into the fabric of our founding document that no body of Congress, neither the House nor the Senate, shall adjourn for more than 3 days without the consent of the other. And what that leaves you then with is these bodies in what they call pro forma session. We're in. We're open. Every 72 hours, the Speaker comes up here to the microphone and gavels us in. The House is open for business. When business is done, they gavel us out. Is it a full day? No, it's not. Are we in session? Yes, we are. And this is a process that has gone on for decades, in fact, dozens of decades. And in November of 2007 when Senator Harry Reid was trying to prevent President George Bush from making recess appointments, he said this: We're not going to go into recess. Hah. Hah. I've got responsibilities to the people back home, Harry Reid said, to advise and consent on all of your appointments. I think you're going to try to pull one past us when we're gone for Thanksgiving. In fact, I think you're going to try to pull one past us while we're gone for Christmas. So what am I going to do, the Senate will be coming in for pro forma sessions during the holiday to prevent recess appointments.

Mr. Speaker, this was 2007, when it was well known that the law of the land is that while the Senate is in for pro forma sessions, no President--not President Bush and not President Obama--can make appointments without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. November of 2007; well known. Harry Reid, presiding over the U.S. Senate, issuing those words: We will remain in pro forma session to prevent recess appointments.

And this President, whose Justice Department put together literally dozens of pages to defend this departure from constitutional tradition, to defend this rejection of 200 years of congressional precedent, to defend this going around Congress, said no, we think you can do it. The majority leader of the United States Senate knew you couldn't do it. The Framers of the Constitution knew you couldn't do it. And this President, as if it was nothing, that's what troubles me the most, Mr. Speaker, as if it was nothing, pulled together a press conference and said, I'm doing it any way--Richard Cordray, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This is a confirmation that didn't occur during a recess, didn't occur during a recess. The President made his nomination while the Senate was absolutely in session. The Senate voted, Mr. Speaker, and did not confirm. Could not get the 60 votes necessary to move forward on the confirmation, took the vote, couldn't move forward. The vote occurred. It occurred in the negative.

And while the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate remained in pro forma sessions, working out those issues I talked about earlier, the doc fix for our friends on Medicare to make sure that the resources were still available for unemployment, to make sure the program was reformed and funded for Social Security taxes, to make sure that the trust fund was funded and that workers were satisfied, while all of those things were happening in this body during session, the President decided, no, in fact, we were not in session, and he would make appointments. And he started with one that had already been rejected by the United States Senate. Then went on to name three more members to the National Labor Relations Board. That was a smaller press conference for that one, Mr. Speaker, because that one was much more controversial. No press conference at all, in fact, just a press release. And then the President said: Look out, I may do more. I may do more. You know what, I kind of like this thing where I get to do whatever I want to do. I kind of like this thing where it doesn't matter what the Senate says, it doesn't matter what the Representatives of the States say, it doesn't matter what the representatives of the people say; I've got an agenda, and Congress is standing in my way. And if you'll not work with me, Congress, I will go around you.

Article II delegates authority to the Executive. Article I delegates authority to this House. Article I delegates authority to the people's House. You cannot go around the people in America. I can't do it. The President can't do it. The military can't do it. That's not what we do. Are there countries around the globe that do that? Yes, there are. Our forefathers fled those countries to come here where the only power vested in government is that which we the people give it. Hear that, Mr. Speaker. You know it to be true. The only power held in this city in the capital of the free world, the center of free speech and freedom of religion, the beacon of hope and prosperity all across the world, every bit of power that is here is here because the American people elected to share it.

There's no inherent authority in being the President of the United States; it comes from the people. There's absolutely no authority in being a Congressman of the United States; it comes from the people.

The President has the power to execute the laws passed by this body. But he does not have the power to make new laws on his own. We've heard that from executive branch agencies across the board. The President has the power to choose who he would like to be in those positions of power in those agencies, and he can make those selections with the advice and consent of the United States Senate.

This isn't about me, Mr. Speaker. It's not even about this body. When the

President tramples on the Constitution like this, he's trampling on the Senate's powers. But when he tramples on the Constitution, he tramples on my freedom, and he tramples on your freedom. And he tramples on all of our freedoms, and we cannot let it stand.

What are we going to do? Well, candidly, what makes this so troubling is the Constitution didn't actually imagine that we would ever elect an Executive that would simply go his own way. There is no slap on the wrist. We can't send the U.S. House Sergeant of Arms down there to prosecute this kind of offense. What happens is it plays itself out in the courts, and we're going to see it. Everyone who's regulated by this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, they're going to sue. Folks who are regulated by the NLRB, they're going to sue. It's going to go across the street to the United States Supreme Court to try to decide about this division of powers. And if it gets there, folks are going to decide in favor of the very plainly written words of the United States Constitution.

But, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't have to be like this. The President said I'm going to change the tone in Washington. The President said we can work together to implement an agenda for the American people. Mr. Speaker, you stand here ready to work. I stand here ready to work. And the President said: I can't work with you, I'm going around you.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know who the President thinks we are, but I'm a mouthpiece for a million Americans back home in the Seventh District of Georgia. I come here with their hopes and dreams. You're the voice of a million constituents in your home State, Mr. Speaker, and you come here to do their bidding. The President isn't fighting with this House, the President is fighting with the American people. And I say to you, Mr. President, if you get on the wrong side--Mr. Speaker, I encourage you to share with the President--if he gets on the wrong side of the American people, he's on the wrong side.

We can work together, and we do work together.

And I encourage folks to watch 2012. I had great hopes, Mr. Speaker, for what would happen in 2012. And the President's very first act was not to work with Congress, but to go around Congress. The license plate of the vehicle that ran over the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, it reads Illinois. And we have to stand up and reverse.

I thank the Speaker for the time.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 41 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, January 19, 2012, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to address the House this afternoon, but it has been a painful thing for me to listen to this debate today. I'm a freshman in this body, and my understanding was when I showed up here that we would work here and that the Senate would work there, and we wouldn't always come up with the same answers, and that we would also get to together and sort it out.

To have that process derided today as being a bastardization of politics, instead of what exactly the Founding Fathers want us to do, has me confused.

The gentlelady who spoke right before me, and I'm sorry she left the floor right after she derided Republicans for having left the floor, she's now gone, talked about Republicans wanting to see folks on unemployment have those benefits run out.

Mr. Speaker, it was before you and I got here, but four times in 2010 under Democrat control, unemployment benefits ran out. Now, you always did the right thing. You always sorted it out. But those kinds of things happen. We're going to conference today. We have 10 days to get this right.

We got the Defense authorization bill right in 7 days. And the Senate crafted their so-called compromise in 3 days. Surely, we can do better for the American people; and, Mr. Speaker, that's not a partisan divide. That's America at its best. I welcome my colleagues to join us in that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time this afternoon. It's been a big day, freshmen in this body coming up on the end of our very first year. In fact, all of us here, here with my colleague from Wisconsin, all of us here, freshmen, finishing up our first year, and it's a big day.

And I've got to tell you, I feel good about the quality of the work product that's going on today. I feel good about the fact that there are serious issues before this body, and we have said, let's slow down and make sure we get it right because families have their futures on the line.

I'd like to ask my friend from Wisconsin how he's seen this day go.

I thank my friend.

I hope folks were paying close attention. What you have are two members of the freshman class on the floor right now, Mr. Speaker, and what you heard from my freshman colleague was, when can we come together? What you heard from my freshman colleague was, ``I don't want to do it if it's about party. I don't want to do it if it's about Chamber pride. I want to do it because it's the right thing for the American people.'' Is that what you're reading, Mr. Speaker, in the newspaper, about what this freshman class is doing? Is that what you're reading in the newspaper about what this Congress is doing? Because having sat here now for one year, I can tell you that's what is going on here today.

Republicans are in the majority, Mr. Speaker. With the power of your gavel, you could demand that the House bill be the only bill that anybody considers, that it's our way or the highway. Who cares what the Senate has to say. We're in the majority. We're doing it our way. You could do that, Mr. Speaker.

But that's not the advice and counsel that my colleague from Wisconsin gives. The advice and counsel that my colleague from Wisconsin gives is, we've done the very best we can in this Chamber. Work product that we're proud of. And now it's time, since the Senate has passed a very different work product, candidly a work product that I am not proud of, a very different work product, that we now come together, the House product and the Senate product, and try to agree on a final product that can pass both Houses.

This is a process as old as this institution. Thomas Jefferson, when writing the rules for this institution, Mr. Speaker, wrote of the conference committee process and how that is the tool for resolving differences between the bodies.

Now, why are there differences today, Mr. Speaker? Well, there are differences today because these are important issues that we're talking about. This isn't some renaming of a post office. I'm not trying to denigrate the importance of a good name on a post office. But I put that lower on the priority list.

This is about Medicare beneficiaries being able to find doctors. This is about whether or not unemployment checks continue to go out the door. This is about payroll tax cuts for every single working American family. This is about jobs. Not just folks who don't have them, but folks who are looking for them and how we can help them to find them in the future.

Boiler MACT that my friend from Wisconsin mentioned is a job-growing proposal. The XL pipeline. A job-growing proposal. That's what we had in the House-passed legislation, Mr. Speaker. You know, we had not just unemployment benefits, not just payroll tax breaks, but also real proposals and reforms to grow this economy once again. Those are absent from the Senate proposal.

Now, I'm not attributing any bad motives to our friends in the Senate for producing a proposal that didn't have any job-creating structure to it. But I simply point out that is the proposal they produced, and now we need to come together and talk about it, and candidly, I think we're going to win that one. I think if our friends in the Senate weren't so hurried to get out of town, Mr. Speaker, that they would have produced a more thoughtful piece of legislation that would have included the job-growing provisions that we include.

We now have the opportunity to come together and do that.

Let me just talk about why it is the Senate proposal is so concerning to me and my constituents, Mr. Speaker.

This is what ABC News said. ``Holiday passed by Senate, pushed by President, cannot be implemented properly, experts say.''

I don't think that surprises any of the job creators in this country, Mr. Speaker. If you're one of those folks who has to fill out government paperwork quarter after quarter after quarter, then yeah, you're probably thinking don't change the rules on me 10 days before the start of the new quarter. And if you do, don't change them back in the middle of the next quarter. Cannot be implemented, experts say.

But the question is, Mr. Speaker, why would we even try to produce a short-term solution when we have it within the ability of this Chamber and the one next door and down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to produce a long-term solution that serves the hardworking taxpayers in this country. We can do better, and we owe it to the American people to do better.

From the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council: The confusion that the 2-month extension would impose on employers or their payroll providers will inevitably divert resources away from productive activities. Indeed, the uncertainty regarding what happens next following the 2-month expiration date will serve as additional fuel to currently low business confidence levels.

This is what the business community, the employer community, the job- creator community, is saying about the so-called Senate solution. And in fairness, even the Senate, Mr. Speaker, is not standing by their solution. They're saying let's just do it for 2 months and then we'll come up with something better. As my colleague from Wisconsin said, The time to come up with something better is now.

From the National Roofing Contractors Association, talking about the Senate proposal: This would impose an undue burden on employers in the form of logistical difficulties and costs.

I appreciate my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle and their commitment to helping the unemployed through a check from the government. Unemployment insurance is a longtime facet of the American economy, something that folks pay into at least for those first 26 weeks that businesses pay into. But in the name of providing checks from the government, what we're saying is you're going to get fewer checks from employers. Logistical difficulties and costs in creating new jobs, which I continue to say, Mr. Speaker, is the focus of this Congress, has been, and has made me proud.

From the Associated Builders and Contractors: This sort of temporary fix underscores Congress' uneven ad hoc approach toward the economy. Who disagrees with that, Mr. Speaker? How many times have you had a constituent back home, how many times have you heard from one of our freshmen colleagues who said the reason I ran for Congress is because the guys in Congress are doing more harm than good.

I'll say it again. Associated Builders and Contractors of the Senate solution: This sort of temporary fix underscores Congress' uneven ad hoc approach toward the economy and causes more harm than good for America's job creators.

Mr. Speaker, have you heard my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle asking why it was so important for us to go to conference with the Senate to try to improve that Senate proposal? Have you heard speaker after speaker on the Democratic side of the aisle come to the floor and say, ``Why won't you just pass it? Why won't you just do what the Senate in its wisdom has suggested?''

Let me repeat the answer for you, Mr. Speaker. Referring to the Senate solution: This sort of temporary fix underscores Congress' uneven, ad hoc approach towards the economy and causes more harm than good for America's job creators.

I've got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, there were times during the debate today, I thought my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle were trying to shame me into voting a different direction. Shame on me for believing what I believe.

Mr. Speaker, I say shame on me for not standing up for my constituents if I didn't stand up today. Shame on me for not standing up against a proposal that causes more harm than good for American job creators. This isn't a game. This isn't some sort of political academic exercise. This is about families. This is about our economy. This is about the future of our Republic. And the decisions we make here have consequences.

Rush through it, Mr. Speaker? Put it off for 2 months because we'll come up with something better later, when that short-term fix causes more harm than good for America's job creators.

Mr. Speaker, it's not just the business community that has these concerns, and it ought to tell you something about the debate that's going on here today.

From the President of the United States, Mr. Speaker: It would be inexcusable for Congress not to further extend this middle class tax cut for the rest of the year. The President knows. He has been pushing it all year. It was his idea last December. The President knows that a 1-year extension provides more certainty, more dependability. And he's asked Congress to do that.

Now, what does that tell you, Mr. Speaker? All of this talk down here today about partisan divides and games. What does it tell you when a hardcore conservative from Georgia is holding up a quote from a hardcore Democrat from Chicago about what we ought to do to move this country forward? What does it tell you, Mr. Speaker, when on both ends of the spectrum, we're feeling the same thing--that it would be inexcusable for Congress not to further extend this middle class tax cut?

Folks say, Oh, you can't. There's not enough time.

Folks, there are 10 days. We just finished the National Defense Authorization Act, Mr. Speaker--the biggest defense bill that this Congress will produce.

And guess what we did?

We did the same thing Thomas Jefferson suggested, the same thing that has been going on in this Congress for 200 years. We had disagreements with the Senate. We passed a House bill; they passed a Senate bill; and we went to conference. Then in 7 days, Mr. Speaker, they reconciled the largest defense bill we'll move in this Congress. They brought together the two

differences. They brought something to the House floor and the Senate floor for consideration, and we got it done.

It is inexcusable not to extend this.

From House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:

House Democrats will return to Washington to take up this legislation without delay, and we will keep up the fight to extend these provisions for a full year.

Now, in fairness to the minority leader, she is not talking about pushing the yearlong provision that this House passed. What she's talking about is producing the short-term solution and then calling everybody back to then come back and get it right later. Yet at the end of the day, we all agree that a year is the right length of time and that 60 days is not the right length of time. Everybody agrees it's a bad length of time. They're just doing it instead of zero. They're saying 60 is better than zero.

Folks, why do we have to have zero? Why can't we have 360? We can. We don't have to have 60 as the Senate proposed. We can have 360 as the House proposed, and that's why we moved today to go to conference.

From House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer:

I'm disappointed that Senate Republicans would not agree to a longer term extension of critical policies.

He's talking about this so-called ``bipartisan agreement'' from the Senate.

I'm disappointed that Senate Republicans would not agree to a longer term extension of critical policies.

I'm going to team up with the minority whip. Again, one end of the spectrum--my end of the spectrum--two opposite ends of the spectrum. I agree with Steny Hoyer in that I am disappointed that we did not see a longer term extension of critical policies come out of the Senate.

But it's not too late. Oh, Mr. Speaker, that's what folks have been saying all day--oh, it's too late. It's too late. It is not too late. These policies do not expire until January 1, and the only thing standing between us and a conference committee to work out these differences is the will to make it happen.

Do you know how painful it has been all day, Mr. Speaker, to have folks stand up speaker, after speaker, after speaker, talking about how it can't be done? You didn't run for Congress, Mr. Speaker, because it couldn't be done. I didn't run for Congress because it couldn't be done. I ran for Congress because they weren't getting it done, and it's time to get it done the right way.

But, Mr. Speaker, we've been here 1 year. We have 10 days to get it right for the American people. We can and we should. Now, what are we talking about?

You can't see this chart, Mr. Speaker, and it might not even show up in the cameras back in folks' offices, but I want to go through it because it talks about why this is so important. Again, this isn't an academic exercise. This is a country we're talking about.

Folks have been saying all day long, Oh, why don't you just pass the Senate bill? Why don't you just move that 60-day extension? Why don't we just come back and do it later?

Mr. Speaker, I hope you haven't had to put anything on your credit card during this Christmas season, but I've got a lot of friends and family who have. Money is tight. Here in the Christmas season, if you opened up your credit card account on the day that Jesus Christ was born and if you put $500 on that credit card and if you put $500 on it again the next day and the next day and the next day and the next day, 7 days a week, Mr. Speaker, from the day that Jesus Christ was born until today, you would have to continue to put $500 a day on that credit card every day, 7 days a week, for another 700 years to put on your credit card the kind of debt that the Senate bill puts on America's children's credit card next year alone.

Hear that.

Just do it. Just do it. We'll come back later and fix it. Just do it, they say.

This isn't something small we're talking about, Mr. Speaker; $30 billion on the credit card of America's children is what this bill did. Now, it raised taxes even more than that. It put the burden on the home mortgage industry; it put it on the construction industry, an industry that we desperately need to reinvigorate this country. It took it out of Fannie and Freddie, a group that we absolutely need to continue to build, but we need to put that money in the trust fund to make sure that they can pay their bills when it happens.

But it's not a small decision. That's also not the only difference, Mr. Speaker. Let me just make a comparison for you.

``Protecting seniors' access to their doctors.''

That's talking about this giant Medicare cut that is looming out there on January 1, and everyone is looking for a solution to it. It's a cut, Mr. Speaker, that was passed in 1997. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have had the good sense to fix it for 15 years, but at least we're trying this year in the House-passed bill to fix it for 2 years, a 2-year fix to provide certainty to America's seniors.

In the House bill, in protecting seniors' access to their doctors, it's a 24-month solution. In the Senate bill, it's 2 months.

Don't worry, seniors. That's my mom and my dad. They just went on Medicare. Don't worry. Just let us go home and take some vacation time. Let's come back and listen to the state of the Union. Then miraculously all of our problems will be solved, and we'll be able to agree on something.

Mr. Speaker, we have the ability to agree on something today, and it's important that we do. It's 2 months in the Senate bill. It's 24 months in the House bill. It's the right thing to do.

``Federal unemployment benefits extension.''

There is a lot of controversy about Federal unemployment benefits. The first 26 weeks are actually paid for through unemployment taxes. The rest of this extension generally now is coming out of Federal general revenues, general taxpayer dollars. So there is a real oversight responsibility in determining how we deal with that.

In the House bill, we say, Let's deal with it. Let's create more jobs. Let's make some reforms to help people get off unemployment and find working paychecks that they can receive. It's a 13-month extension. From our friends in the Senate, it's 2 months, Mr. Speaker.

We heard speaker, after speaker, after speaker, after speaker come to the well of the House on the Democratic side of the aisle, wanting to know why Republicans aren't working hard for America's unemployed. They asked that question, Mr. Speaker, while bringing a 2-month extension. Republicans brought 13. By Republicans, I mean it was a bipartisan House-passed bill, Mr. Speaker, going through regular order.

``Number of long-term unemployed allowed to start collecting Federal benefits after February.''

It's the long-term unemployed, the folks who have been looking, but who can't find work. We heard today about how unemployment numbers are dropping. We know that they're dropping because people are just quitting, and they're no longer looking. The Obama economy has so discouraged the American workforce that they just quit looking. Yet there are still some long-term unemployed folks out there. Not some-- lots.

How many of them get helped under the House bill? Four million. How many get helped under the Senate bill? Zero.

Is it worth fighting about, Mr. Speaker? Is it worth standing up and being counted when the solution that this House has proposed under regular order speaks to the needs of 4 million long-term unemployed Americans and when the Senate bill speaks to zero?

``Payroll tax cut extension.''

This is an extra 2 percent. Ordinarily, folks are paying about 6 percent in payroll taxes out of their paychecks. This is cutting that down to about four. It's a 2 percent reduction in the Social Security contributions of every American worker. Every American worker takes home 2 percent more in his paycheck.

The House-passed solution is a 12-month extension of that 2 percent. The Senate-passed solution is 2 months.

How many speakers have we heard today who have talked to us about how families are hurting? Member, after Member, after Member, after Member has come to the floor with stories of those they know from their constituencies who are hurting in this Obama economy.

A 2-month extension was the best the Senate could do, and 12 months is what we got out of the House. We can do better and we will do better, Mr. Speaker, in conference.

What's that payroll tax cut worth, Mr. Speaker, for a worker earning about $50,000 a year? In the House-passed bill, it is worth $1,000. That is real money in the pockets of a $50,000-a-year worker. What does the Senate-passed bill do to help American families? $167.

Take us back, Mr. Speaker, to when I told you if you put $500 on the credit card of your child and you started that credit card account on the day Jesus Christ was born, and you ran up that card $500 a day every day from the day Jesus was born through today, and you would have to continue to do it 7 days a week for another 700 years to run up a $30 billion credit card bill. That's what the Senate does to America in the name of a 2-month extension to put $167 in someone's pocket.

Is $167 important to the American family? Sure, it is, Mr. Speaker. Every dollar counts. Every nickel counts in today's economy. But don't tell me that you are empathetic with the plight of middle class hardworking Americans and tell me your solution is to find $167 for them that you are borrowing from their children. Mr. Speaker, $1,000 is the first step in the right direction that the House-passed solution contains. It's worth fighting for.

Reforming unemployment to focus on reemployment. Mr. Speaker, do you have any constituents that say to you that what they would rather have is an unemployment check instead of a paycheck? Because I don't. I don't. Folks in the Seventh Congressional District of Georgia want paychecks. Now, some of them have to accept unemployment checks while they're out there looking to feed their family, but they want a paycheck.

So in the spirit of solving the real problems--not just putting a Band-Aid on it, but solving the real problems, the House-passed bill focuses on reemployment. What does the Senate bill do? Nothing.

Regulatory reforms to protect American jobs. Mr. Speaker, you heard my colleague from Wisconsin who said, Businesses are closing, laying people off because of Boiler MACT, this EPA regulation. You have heard it from our friends from Arkansas, Mr. Speaker, who say that the folks in the pipe manufacturing business there in Arkansas are laying off jobs because of the delay in approving the XL pipeline. This is not about unemployment checks alone. It is about unemployment checks for those who can't find jobs, and jobs for those folks who are looking.

What happens in the House-passed bill? Regulatory reforms to protect American jobs, yes. What happens in the Senate bill? Nothing. Tell me, Mr. Speaker, are these things worth fighting for? Are these things worth spending a few extra days between now and the end of the year to get right? President Obama says ``yes.'' A conservative House freshman from Georgia says ``yes.'' From extreme to extreme, folks are saying ``yes.'' Mark my words, Mr. Speaker, Harry Reid is going to say ``yes'' too and bring the Senate back to get the American people's business done.

A pay freeze for Members of Congress and Federal workers. Mr. Speaker, I don't mind telling you that I think I work pretty hard. I try to give folks an honest day's work for an honest day's dollar. But do you think I can go home to a town hall meeting and look somebody in the eye and tell you that I'm doing such a good job, I deserve a raise? I'm just telling you how the Senate is going to run up your credit card bill by $30 billion on your children. I'm telling you how the House can't find enough votes to persuade the Senate to come to the table.

Am I doing my best? You'd better believe it. Am I going to quit trying? No, I'm not. Am I going to accept a pay raise while American families are hurting? No, I am not. In the House-passed bill, a pay freeze for Members of Congress and Federal workers, yes. In the Senate- passed bill, no. I'll leave you with that bit of irony, Mr. Speaker. We're here begging our colleagues in the Senate to come back and work. The House freezes salaries for Members of Congress. The Senate said, We'll sort that out when we come back from vacation in February.

I thank the Speaker for the time.