Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, you probably get the same questions I get when I go back home. Those questions are from folks who came, they sat here in the gallery and they looked down on the House floor, and they thought: Golly, where is everybody? Where's everybody? I thought it was going to be full of 435 Members of Congress. But, of course, as you know, Mr. Speaker, in today's modern technology world, everybody's back in their office watching things on television. But I confess that sometimes during this morning-hour, I turn the volume down a little bit. I turn it down a little bit because sometimes we get into those divisive issues down here on the House floor. It gets my blood pressure up so much I think my head is going to explode first thing in the morning. I sometimes turn the volume down.

But today I wanted to come down here and find those things that bring us together as opposed to divide us, because I really do believe that as we face the kind of economic challenges that we're facing in America today, there is more that unites this body than divides it. There's more that we can do together than we must fight about in order to move the American Dream forward.

I have in my pocket a card. It's titled, ``The House Republican Jobs Plan,'' but I'd tell you it's an American jobs plan. I look down the items that we have brought forward in this Republican House, America's House, the things that they've been able to pass in the United States Senate, those things that have gone to the President's desk, and we are making progress, Mr. Speaker, on those things that unite us.

Of course, we started the year off repealing the 1099 provision from the President's health care bill, that onerous provision that required new paperwork mandates on all of our small businesses, completely unworkable. We came together, the House and Senate, and the President repealed that.

Last week, we came and we passed three new free trade agreements-- three new free trade agreements--for this Nation. Mr. Speaker, as you know, with every nation that America has a free trade agreement, we have a manufacturing surplus. Hear that, Mr. Speaker. With every nation with which we have a free trade agreement, we have a manufacturing trade surplus. We ship more American-made goods to those countries than we import. We have a trade deficit as a Nation, but a manufactured goods surplus with the nations with which we signed free trade agreements. Free trade agreements, good for America, good for jobs, good for trade, and we were able to move those across the President's desk with his signature last week--2 weeks ago now.

And this week, we're going to bring two more bills to the floor, things that bring us together. You heard my colleague from Illinois talk about, earlier this morning, the 3 percent withholding, a bill that we passed to say we think there are lots of tax cheats going on out there among folks who contract with the government, so we're going to just withhold those taxes up front and make you get them back later on. Well, it turns out 3 percent withholding, our small businesses owners didn't even have a 3 percent margin.

If we had held all that money, they couldn't even pay the bills. They'd actually have to operate at a loss for the year and ask the government in April for their refund.

The President's onboard with that repeal. I believe the House is going to be onboard with that repeal. The Senate is going to be onboard with that repeal. We're going to move that across the floor this week as well.

Things that are bringing us together, Mr. Speaker, are common ground that we can cover to make it easier to create jobs in this country. Because I agree with my colleague, Mr. Rangel, the American Dream is that you can come here and do better tomorrow than you did today, that you can provide your kids with more opportunity than what you had. That is the American Dream.

I don't worry that folks want to come to America. I worry about the one day that that dream has disappeared and folks don't want to come to America anymore. They'd rather take their big brain and their hard work ethic to China or to India or Brazil or Argentina. We must preserve America as the magnet of success, the magnet that attracts those that want to improve their lives and believe those opportunities exist here.

Mr. Speaker, there's a commonality in all of those bills that we've passed and sent to the President's desk this year, and it's that these were things the government did to try to encourage compliance, to try to regulate, to try to require that small businesses operate differently, and what we found out is they didn't work. The 1099 provision, free trade, those tariffs and duties that

prevented that free trade, this 3 percent holding provision, what is the common ground, Mr. Speaker? Congress is doing too much in regulating. America is doing too much in regulating this country.

I ran on that premise, Mr. Speaker. The challenge is we are not doing too little. The problem is that we are doing too much and burdening those small businesses.

The former soviet bloc countries, Mr. Speaker, have learned from that example. They have flat tax rates, no exemptions, no exceptions, and their tax collections went up.

Mr. Speaker, folks can't pay taxes if they don't have a job. You can't pay income taxes if you don't have a job. And you can't have a job if you don't have opportunity in your society.

The Fair Tax, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 25, goes right to the heart of these jobs issues. Repealing those burdensome taxes, repealing those regulations, and making sure everybody gets a fair shake, because that is what America is all about.

Madam Speaker, as you know, when folks turn on C-SPAN, it's not hard to find those things that divide us here on the House floor. We can talk to anybody that we see walking around the Capitol today, and they could talk about those issues that divide us as a Nation. But I'm a firm believer that there is actually more that unites us as a Nation than divides us. And I know one of the things that unites this House in this time in our Nation's history, more than in others, is that desire to create jobs for American families.

We all have those families in our districts that are struggling with foreclosure right now, Madam Speaker. We all have those families in our districts that are struggling with layoffs. And we have those families in our districts that are the small business owners that actually drive this economy.

That's another area of agreement we have, Madam Speaker. Folks know it's not the big businesses in America that hire; it's the little businesses in America. It's those entrepreneurs out there. It's those folks who think that they have an idea. It's that husband and wife team who goes out and says, I can do it better, and they hang out their own shingle.

But anybody who's talked to those small business men and women these days, Madam Speaker, knows that folks have a tough time getting access to credit. It seems now in America the only people who can borrow money are folks who don't need any money at all. And that's a challenge. That's a challenge because what makes this economy grow are those folks who say: I can use that money better. I can do something more efficiently. I can add productivity if only you'll take a chance on me.

But the regulators, Madam Speaker, that's what I hear from my bankers: My regulators won't let me lend anymore. That's what I hear from my bankers: The regulators came in, Rob, and told me I can't give any more money out to small businesses.

So where are we? Where are we? What's going to hire our young people, Madam Speaker? What's going to fuel the economy? What's going to pay the Social Security taxes that need to be paid if we can't create those jobs?

Well, I want to talk about something else that unites us as a House, and that's H.R. 1418. It's the Small Business Lending Enhancement Act, Madam Speaker, and it's sponsored by 33 Republicans and 51 Democrats. You don't hear that very often when you watch C-SPAN, Madam Speaker. I know that to be true. But about half Republicans and about half Democrats come together on what is called the Small Business Lending Enhancement Act that says to our credit unions, those small institutions in each of our communities, be a part of job creation.

I ran for Congress, Madam Speaker, on the platform that it's not that the government does too little; it's that the government does too much. There's nothing wrong with the foundation of America. It's the way we've hamstrung America with additional rules and regulations. Our credit unions are in that spot.

For folks who don't know, credit unions today are only allowed to lend about 12\1/4\ percent of their assets to small businesses, to businesses at all, in fact, and they want to do more. Folks can't find the money at banks. They come to their credit unions. They say, Can you help? And Congress has said, No. Congress has said, No.

It's not what we need to do. It's what we need to undo. H.R. 1418 undoes that 12\1/4\ percent cap, Madam Speaker, and raises it to 27\1/ 2\. Hear that. Every credit union in America would be able to participate in funding small businesses, in providing the capital that small businesses need to succeed. You can't succeed without capital. Capital's not available in America today. We need to find ways to do that.

Something else you don't hear a lot, Madam Speaker, is where the House and the Senate are coming together on things. These days, more than most, it seems hard to find those things that the House and Senate agree on. But to be clear, this bill has been introduced in the Senate, too. It's S. 509 on the Senate side, and it has 20 cosponsors in the Senate, so that's about one-fifth of the Senate is already on board. Eighty-four Members of the House, that's about 20 percent of the House also on board.

This is something we can do, Madam Speaker. It's something we can do today. It doesn't cost the taxpayer a nickel--doesn't cost the taxpayer a nickel--and frees up capital for our small business men and women.

I want folks, Madam Speaker, to look out over the horizon, as you and I do, and say: What's going to change joblessness in this country? What's going to change it?

We have the lowest level of entrepreneurship in this country that we have seen in 30 years--30 years--and it's entrepreneurs that drive this train. It's not the big guys; it's the little guys.

This bill, Madam Speaker, frees up our money that we have put into our credit unions by removing restrictions that we, as a Congress, have placed on our credit unions to allow them to be a part of job growth.

We don't need another stimulus bill. We don't need to spend more taxpayer money. And by ``taxpayer money,'' I mean, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said earlier, money we're borrowing from China to spend on stimulus programs. We can do it simply by undoing those rules and regulations that we've passed already in this House, Madam Speaker.

H.R. 1418, it doesn't do it overnight; it does it gradually. It requires that the regulators be involved. It says only if you have experience in member lending, only if you're well capitalized, and only if you have a history of doing it well.

Let's pass H.R. 1418, Madam Speaker, and let's move it to the Senate.

I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will challenge the American people to watch this debate that happens over the next hour, because I am down here as a freshman to tell you this is exactly what is supposed to be happening in the U.S. House of Representatives. This is what is supposed to be happening in the people's House.

I hold in my hand a committee report, the committee report from H.R. 2250. It was introduced by a freshman, a freshman from the southwestern corner of Virginia who introduced it, Mr. Speaker, because he's worried about jobs in his district.

You are not going to find--and I challenge you to find, a single Member who'd come to the floor to say my freshman colleague introduced this bill because he has any motivation other than the best interests of the men and women and families that live in his district.

Now, understand that: He introduced this bill that we are going to discuss, if this rule passes, because he is concerned about the men, women, children, the families in his district. That's why this legislation was introduced.

He introduced this legislation over the summer, June 21. On September 8 the subcommittee that deals with this legislation had a hearing. On September 8 they had a hearing, and on September 13, a week later, reported out this bill through the regular subcommittee process. We go on, Mr. Speaker, September 20, the full committee had hearings, markups on this bill, met in open markup session, and on September 21, reported out this bill, printed this committee report online for all of America to read.

And today, if the rule proposed by my friend from Florida passes, we are going to allow any Member of this House, any Member, Republican and Democrat alike, to offer any changes that they propose, any changes. All they have to do, we gave notice of that a week ago today, all they have to do is preprint their amendment in the Congressional Record, submit it by the close of business tonight so that all Members will have a chance to read it and consider it thoughtfully. Mr. Speaker, that is how this House is supposed to run: regular order, regular process, hearings, markups, and allowing any Member to have their say.

Now, nevertheless, this rule is being challenged and urged for its defeat because folks don't like the underlying idea. That's a real frustration for me, Mr. Speaker, because I grew up in a Nation where we disagree about things from time to time and that's okay.

And what we do is we disagree about them, and then we bring them to the House floor for a vote so that America gets to decide. I am the voice for 921,000 people in Georgia, and I can only speak for them when I have a vote on the House floor. This rule provides that any amendment offered by any Member of this body gets to have the voice of my 921,000 constituents heard. This is the way it's supposed to be run.

I came, Mr. Speaker, from a press conference earlier with about half the freshman class urging the Senate to take up legislation, job- creating legislation that is just sitting there in the Senate and the Senate won't take it up. Why? Because perhaps folks don't like the ideas in their entirety. Mr. Speaker, I recommend they amend them, that they adopt our process of amending bills in a way that the people's voice gets to be heard.

We don't have to agree on everything, but we have to talk about it. We have to move that legislation forward, and we have to get the American people's work done. It's not optional, Mr. Speaker. If you didn't want to get the American people's work done you shouldn't have signed up for the job. And come next November you have a chance to go back home. But if you want to get the people's work done, this is the right process to do it.

Mr. Speaker, all jobs are not created equal. I challenge anyone to come to the floor of the House and tell me that jobs are not going to be destroyed, manufacturing jobs, good-paying manufacturing jobs, destroyed by the implementation of this rule.

Now we are going to create some other jobs. All the moving companies who move folks out of their house in my district when their homes get foreclosed on because they lost their jobs, those jobs are going to be created. We are going to create some jobs with these rules, but not the kinds of jobs that I know we want, we collectively want.

This bill has a lot of common ground in it, Mr. Speaker, and we have an opportunity in this process to find that common ground. You know, folks tell this as the tale of Republicans out to get the EPA. Nobody loves clean air more than I do. Nobody loves clean water more than I do, and I would argue no one participates in the outdoors more than I do.

But the EPA asked, Mr. Speaker, that they have more time to finalize this. They said, We don't have time to get it right. Can we have more time? And you know what? The Court got involved and said, no, you cannot; no more time for you. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because the Congress said no.

Today the Congress has an opportunity to say yes, Mr. Speaker. I rise in full support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Of course, the Rules Committee sent out a Dear Colleague a week ago alerting them that they had until tonight. And I say to my friend, I think you're absolutely right about the need for even more openness in this House. Of course, we only had one open rule in the last Congress.

As a part of this freshman class, we're making progress. I look forward to working with you to make even more progress. And I hope, since we can agree this one is done right, that we can come together, vote in favor of this, and then look forward to our next challenge.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I thank my chairman for yielding and I appreciate the time because, as we talk about the President's jobs bill, I was here, too, when the President came to present his ideas, and it kind of excited me. Because, as I looked at where the President began on some of these jobs issues and I looked at what has been proposed in this House already on these jobs issues, I realized exactly how much progress we were able to make.

I think about the President's proposal to eliminate oil company subsidies, a proposal that I support. In fact, I have a bill that not just eliminates oil company subsidies, but all industrial subsidies so that we can let the free market drive that train and create those jobs anew.

I think about the President's proposal to curtail the payroll tax and I think, we already have a proposal that not only curtails the payroll tax to the small degree the President recommends, but actually, since it's the largest tax that 80 percent of American taxpayers pay, eliminate it entirely.

I'm limited to only 2 minutes. If my friend from New York would like to yield me time, I would be happy to yield that back.

But I just want to say, as my friend from the Ways and Means Committee knows, not only do we have that proposal introduced here-- it's H.R. 25, the Fair Tax. We've had hearings on it in the Ways and Means Committee. So I say to my friend from New Jersey, we are moving forward on those agendas.

But let me just talk about why we're here tonight.

If I could get some time from my friend from New York, I would love to yield to agree with you. I wanted to tell you how much I believe we're headed on the same track.

But let me talk about this continuing resolution because that's really why we're here, despite the fact that folks bring up where we are in the President's jobs bill. This is about getting disaster relief to families that need it. And we could have gotten it done yesterday-- and should have gotten it done yesterday. And even though I'm new at this process, I actually thought we had an agreement to get it done yesterday. I thought we had an agreement because it was the right thing to do to get it done yesterday. Now, only folks who are more privy than I know why that agreement came unglued and why it was we didn't get it done, but we're back here tonight and we have that opportunity. Please, please, let's get it done for those folks who need it. The time for games has long since passed.

I actually don't like those kind of long, complicated bills, I would say to my friend. But should we vote on his ideas, one idea at a time--I say that regularly. Had we voted on the President's health care bill one idea at a time, America would have loved 80 percent of it.

That's a let's vote on it one idea at a time, not just his ideas, but all of our ideas.

The tax proposal I'm familiar with is his $1.5 trillion tax increase. Is there a different----

If he wants to reduce the highest corporate tax rate in the world, I am a huge supporter of that.

I will vote for any reduction in corporate rates that the President proposes.

I absolutely do, and with State and local funds we're doing that today. I hope we'll continue to do that.

I do not believe the Federal Government should be involved in education.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 405 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 405 provides for a closed rule for the consideration of H.R. 2608. It's a temporary continuing resolution that will fund the operations of the

United States Government through November 18 of this year. It is important to note that the funding levels in this CR are the very same fiscally responsible levels that this Congress and President Barack Obama approved in the Budget Control Act just 1 month ago. This is not a departure from our path of restoring fiscal sanity, Mr. Speaker. We are committed to continuing on that path. But, unfortunately, the actions of the other body leave us no choice but to consider this continuing resolution today.

I take no pride, Mr. Speaker, in sharing with you--actually, that's not true. That's not true at all. I take great pride in sharing with you what the House has done over the last 6 months, 7 months, 8 months; but I take no pride at all in pointing out what has not happened on the other end of this Capitol to do the work that needs to be done.

Constitutionally, we are required to fund the operations of the government. June 2 of this year, the House passed the Homeland Security appropriations bill. To date, the Senate has not.

On June 14 of this year, the House passed the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill. This is the one bill that our friends in the Senate have passed as well.

June 16, the House passed the Agriculture appropriations bill. To date, the Senate has taken no action at all.

July 15, the House passed the Energy and Water appropriations bill. To date, the Senate has not.

July 22, the House passed the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. To date, the Senate has not.

Mr. Speaker, I did not run for Congress last November, I did not show up here as a freshman to continue business as usual, passing continuing resolution after continuing resolution after continuing resolution. And I know my friends on both sides of the aisle believe that's a process which has long since exceeded its usefulness.

I am so proud that we as a body have begun to pass those appropriations bills one by one by one. And what have we gotten because of that? We've gotten oversight. We've had the opportunity to discuss line by line by line what are our priorities as the House. Now, those priorities differ from time to time between my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle and my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, but we have an opportunity at least to discuss those priorities.

When the other body fails to pass the appropriations bills, what choices do we have left? What choices are available to me as a new freshman Member of the House? I could choose to abrogate responsibility. I could choose to say no. No, we're just going to wait, and if the Senate fails to act, then so be it. Let the government shut down and let the chips fall where they may. That's not the kind of operation I want to run. That's not why I came to the United States Congress. I came to the United States Congress because this is the people's House. This is where thoughtful discussion of the people's priorities takes place.

What brings me to the floor today is to consider this continuing resolution that for just 1\1/2\ short months, through November 18, will extend the operations of the government so we can continue that thoughtful discussion that I know so many of the Members here came for.

With that, I urge my colleagues to thoughtfully consider this rule today, thoughtfully consider the underlying bill; and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to a gentleman who has presided over the most open Rules Committee in recent memory, not just a chairman, but my chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 5 minutes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

You may have some information that we did not have in the Rules Committee. My understanding is that this program, which has billions that were appropriated in 2008 and have not yet been spent, not only can----

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to speak to what's inexcusable here. And I hate that that's where we have to end up.

The truth of the matter is what we have down here today is the re- litigation of something that we already litigated in July and August, and that is that this bill today funds just until November 18 at the level that we, as a body, agreed to. You may not like it, I may not like it, but we agreed to it: a level that's 1043, $1.043 trillion. That's a big number. That is a big number.

This resolution today, this continuing resolution to get us through November 18, does not re-litigate that decision. We spent a lot of time on that in July and August, and again, we come from different places on whether or not that's the right number. I probably say it's too high, you may say it's

too low, but this is simply a resolution that implements the will of this House.

I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time from my friend, you're absolutely right that this bill does not define where those $1.043 trillion go, and I take issue with that too.

I go back to what you called rhetoric, the 10 minutes that we spent at the beginning where we went through line by line to talk about, golly, the work I'm so proud of that you and I have done together, the individual appropriations bills that you and I have worked through together, doing what was supposed to be done in this House. That was the time to do these things, one by one, and, golly, we did. We did.

I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, as I'm not the chairman of the committee, I will quote the chairman of the committee, who tells us that not only can we use this offset here today, but there remains not millions, but billions of dollars in the account to be used for this purpose; dollars that were appropriated, Mr. Speaker, in 2008, 3 years ago. They remain unspent, but we leave them there just in case. Just in case.

And what I would say to my friend is, if we can just get around to doing this process right again, and I have great hope that we can, if we can get back to doing the process right, we'll have this discussion not on a $1.043 trillion continuing resolution, and not even on a half- trillion dollar continuing resolution, but on the Energy and Water appropriations bill. We'll be able to get back to it, and I have that great wish for this House, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, to correct what may be a misunderstanding about the swiftness with which this Congress is reacting to those tragedies, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who has moved immediately on these issues, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

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

To get back on the topic of this continuing resolution today, that is, this number that we agreed on just a month ago, $1.043 trillion, to fund the operations of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I go back and I look at emergency requests that this body has made. Now, I'm a freshman. I was just elected in November, began my service in January. But over the last 10 years, there have been 30 emergency and supplemental bills passed.

Now, what I would say to my friends who have been here longer than I have is perhaps if you have to do it three times a year, it's really not a surprise. Perhaps we ought to be able to budget for it.

And to his great credit, and to the committee's great credit, and candidly I would say to the House's great credit, we are trying for the first time in a long time to say you know what, we can't prevent tragedy. Tragedy is going to happen. But we can plan ahead for tragedy so that the American people have the security of knowing the money's going to be there when they need it.

And when I look, Mr. Speaker, at the way we're pouring money out of this body, I worry will the money be there when the American people need it. This budget makes sure that it does.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Reclaiming my time.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Because I hope where my friend was going to go was an acknowledgment that this process has provided twice the amount of disaster funding that the President requested, twice that amount in FY11, plus it forward-funds FY12.

Mr. Speaker, again, I am proud that we are trying to grapple with these issues. There is not a person on the floor of this House that is saying ``no'' to Americans in distress. What folks are saying is ``yes'' to making sure that when those distresses come again, we budgeted for it.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that we have the distinguished Appropriations chairman here on the floor, who has said, not only have we doubled the President's request here, but there is a commitment to making the dollars available to everyone who is in need in these disasters. That's the kind of commitment this Nation has always made to its citizens. That's the kind of commitment that this bill continues to make to America's citizens.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that we have been able to have a conversation with one another and yield that time throughout the day.

In order to continue that, I yield 1 minute to the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

I say to my friend to from New York, I have no more speakers and am prepared to close.

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

I think one thing that unites us as Republicans and Democrats, and actually unites us as Americans, is when we face adversity, we say: Can we do better? Can we do better? You know, it's one thing to muddle through, but it's something else to learn from that experience and come back the next time and do better.

Now, I'm proud to be here as part of a freshman class, Mr. Speaker; 89 new Republican freshmen, 10 new Democratic freshmen. Ninety-nine Members of this House are brand new this year; 99 Members of this House. And so we look back. We look back on profligate spending where even though American families are asked to prioritize their spending each and every day, for some reason the Congress didn't. Even though small businesses are asked to prioritize their spending every day, for some reason Congress didn't.

What this new Congress has done, Mr. Speaker, this 112th Congress has done, is to say: Can we do better? And the answer is yes. Why are the American people so cynical about Congress, Mr. Speaker? Why are our approval ratings in the tank? It was less than 2 months ago, less than 2 months ago we agreed that for next year we should spend $1.43 trillion. And we're already talking about that we've got that number wrong and we want to spend more. Folks, we have to make those priority decisions. Thirty times, Mr. Speaker, thirty times in the last 10 years we came up with emergency spending. Thirty times, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just ask you, the Defense Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental in 2004, is anybody surprised that it took more money in those places than we had budgeted? Anybody think that's a surprise? I'm not surprised by that, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't here, but I'm not surprised. What I wish we could have done was budgeted better for that. Did we know in 2004 that it was going to take more money? Of course we did. But what did we do? We gamed that system.

What is this Appropriations Committee doing? What is this Appropriations Committee doing? They're saying that they know tragedy is going to befall Americans. They don't know what; they don't know when; but they know that it's going to happen. And so they're going to budget for it. Why? Because we tell Americans day after day after day that programs that they count on might not be there tomorrow. Why? Because we're broke. We tell Americans every day something that they might want to do, something they thought might be available, it might not be available. Why? Because we're broke.

But I agree with my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, when folks are facing disaster, they don't want to have to ask that question. When folks are facing personal tragedy, they don't want to have to ask that question: Will there be money there? Will there be help there?

No, in our communities, we know the help is going to be there. We know our neighbors are going to be there for us, and we know our families will be there for us. And for the first time in a long time, Mr. Speaker, we now know that the American Congress is going to be there, too, because we are changing business as usual.

We asked the question: Can we do better? And the Speaker and the committee chairmen said, Yes. Yes, we can. I encourage support for the rule, and I encourage a vote on the underlying resolution.

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

I appreciate my friend from Alabama for yielding.

Candidly, I can't say it much better than my freshman colleague from Tennessee just did. We are a Nation of immigrants, and we are a Nation of laws. And my question is, When did it become so clear to everyone else that those things were in conflict with one another? Because when I look at it, it's not in conflict at all; in fact, it's in concert, in concert with one another.

It was hard to listen to the story that my friend from Alabama was telling because it's not a story that you only hear once. It's a story that you hear heartbroken families tell over and over and over again. It's a family in Alabama, it's a family in Georgia, it's a mom in South Carolina, and it's a grandmother from Indiana, and on and on and on.

What I want to know is, Who is it who's coming to defend that story tonight? Because I hear it in town hall meetings all the time, and I know my friend from Alabama hears the same thing: Rob, I want you to go up there and I want you to fight for what's right, and I don't want you to compromise. Well, I don't want to compromise on principle. There is absolutely no principle I have that I'm interested in compromising on. But what I tell folks back home is there's common ground. There's common ground where no matter where you sit on the political spectrum you can see your way clear to this path forward.

What I want to know from my colleagues--and I wish there were more of them in the Chamber tonight--and, again, I'm grateful to my friend from Alabama for putting this hour together--but where are the folks who oppose enforcing the laws? Where are the folks who believe that legal immigration is what we don't want and illegal immigration is what we do want?

Where are the folks who believe that when criminals commit crimes, they're not supposed to be prosecuted? Where are those folks defending that? Because what I see in my part of the world--and I'm there in the northeastern suburbs of Atlanta--what I see in my part of the world are people who are proud of our history as an immigrant Nation and proud of our future as an immigrant Nation.

I tell folks all the time I don't worry that people want to come to America. I worry about the one day people don't want to come to America. What happens when they want to take their big brain and their hard work ethic and their entrepreneurial ideas and take it to China or take it to India or take it to Brazil? I worry about that.

We have so many challenges, as my friend from Alabama knows, in terms of restructuring our legal immigration process. I am heartbroken that we spend even a moment arguing amongst ourselves about the necessity of shutting down illegal immigration now--not tomorrow, not a week from tomorrow, not after the next election cycle, today.

Of the few things that the United States Constitution empowers the Federal Government to do, requires that the Federal Government do, enforcing our border security is one; and we don't do that well. We have so many conversations down here, as the Speaker knows, about all the things the Federal Government should stick its nose into, as if we're going to do those well. What about the one the Constitution requires us to do, which is secure our borders?

For me, the untalked-about victim in the illegal immigration debate is the legal immigrant. Have you ever been to a naturalization ceremony? Do you have any friends who have been naturalized, who have earned the right to be a United States citizen? Wow. Wow. It's tears, but it's tears of joy. I wish we were teaching the same thing to our young people in schools that we're teaching to our immigrants in their citizenship classes, who are developing this deep and abiding respect for the rule of law and the American way of life.

And the victim, when we turn a blind eye to illegal immigration, is the legal immigrant who does it all right because they're the victim of the animus that comes out of this debate. They're a victim of the sadness. In fact, I will tell you, the angriest people--again, I come from the Deep South. A lot of folks have a lot of stereotypes about how it is in the Deep South. But I will tell you, the angriest people in my part of the world about illegal immigration are not the ninth generation white guy; it's the legal immigrants.

Somebody stopped me the other day and they said, Rob, if you ever pass an amnesty bill--which we never will do, just to be clear, never, ever going to happen, not while I'm here in Congress--give me my money back. You can't give me my life back; you can't give me back all the years and years and years I worked and I waited on the list and I waited patiently in my home country until my number came up, you can't give me that back, but I want my money back because it wasn't cheap. It's not. Being a United States citizen is advanced citizenship. It requires great commitments, as it is a great opportunity; and we treat it in this country as if it's a nothing.

As my friend from Alabama knows, there's another bill, introduced by my friend from Iowa (Mr. King), called the Birthright Citizenship Act-- and I'm a cosponsor of that act--that goes back to the 14th Amendment. It goes back to that time in this country when we were struggling with our national identity and says those born in the United States, under the jurisdiction thereof, shall be United States citizens.

As you tell the story, I say to my friend from Alabama, of someone who has been convicted of crime after crime after crime, of someone who has warrants out for their arrest across the United States, of someone who hasn't yet found a single American law that they have chosen to obey, I tell you that person is not under the jurisdiction of the United States, and births that are associated with that person do not give rise to citizenship in the United States.

But the courts have said Congress just won't decide on this; Congress won't take a stand on this. Well, Steve King of Iowa said, yes, we will. And I was proud to join him on that to define what is the greatest gift we have in this country, and that's the gift of American citizenship. I was born with it, and I'm grateful for it every day of the week, but we treat it like it's nothing. And I will say to folks who think that it's nothing, go to one of these naturalization ceremonies. Talk to your friends and neighbors who have worked for it and earned it, and they will tell you that it's something.

And in the army that we're developing across America to come and stand strong on the issue of illegal immigration, the army that's forming across America to say we are proud that we're a Nation of immigrants, but we're even more proud that we're a Nation of laws, that army is composed of legal immigrants of every stripe from coast to coast, from north to south. It makes me so proud because I think that's what America is all about.

I want to go back and say to the gentleman from Alabama, thank you for introducing the American Jobs Act. For folks who look those things up on TV, it's H.R. 2670, I believe; is that correct?

Again, where are those folks? We're not talking about compromising our principles; we're talking about pursuing those things that are common ground. In this era of 10 percent unemployment, who are those folks who think that hardworking, taxpaying American citizens don't deserve that job first if they're willing to work for it? Who is that?

I'm sure that there has been an editorial or two in your local newspapers--if your newspapers are anything like mine--that have not reacted all that kindly to your decision to stand up and do what is right. But doing what's right is not always easy, and it's rarely appreciated in its time. It's often appreciated as history writes it. But who is it who believes that folks who have paid their taxes for a decade, who have been laid off in the middle part of their life, who can't afford to send their kids to college, who can't afford to buy medicine for their wife? Who are those people who believe that those folks don't deserve first crack at that job? First crack.

We have a legal immigration process in place in this country that will allow you to come here the right way, get a green card the right way, and apply for jobs just like everybody else. Folks do it. Do it, and I welcome you.

But in this era of unemployment, who are those folks who defend this practice of illegal labor? I will tell you, it's not just the folks who go to work. It's the folks who employ those folks who go to work. This is not about illegal immigrants alone. This is about those businesses that hire those illegal immigrants.

A crime is a crime here in this country. They're not all the heartbreaking crimes that my friend from Alabama has described, but they are crimes that have consequences. These are not victimless crimes. Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime.

The victim could be that American who can't find a job to support his kids and his family. The victim could be that school district that can't afford to sort out how those classes are going to go, that can't afford all the teachers, but has an increasing workload because of the children associated with illegal immigration today.

The victim could be that health care system that can't treat folks as they'd like to treat them, doesn't have enough money to deal with the community as it is, and the burden keeps growing and growing and growing. It is not a victimless crime.

In terms of finding common ground, I looked at my friend Rob Bishop's bill. Rob Bishop is from Utah, and he's introduced H.R. 1505, the National Security and Federal Lands Act.

Now, the preposterous things that we discuss here in Washington, this is one. Look it up for yourself. H.R. 1505, what it does is it changes the law, changes the law so that Border Patrol agents can access areas of the border. Hear that. There is a bill in this Congress to change the law so that Border Patrol agents can get access to the border. 4.3 million acres of border designated wilderness along our southern border, and in those areas the Border Patrol can't use motorized vehicles, can't construct roads, can't even install security and communication apparatus. Hear that. Hear that.

The law of the land in America today is that the Border Patrol agents cannot patrol the borders. H.R. 1505 will change that, and I hope we'll pass that here.

I want to say finally to my friend from Alabama, you and I are both new here. I've only been here 9 months, and I'm learning something every day here. I was more than a little bit surprised when the administration came out and said, no, it's really not whether or not you're illegal; it's whether or not you're illegal and when we make our decisions about whether or not to deport you.

But what I learned in that conversation is that we have a backlog of deportations in this country. When we talk about funding priorities in this country, for the last 9 months I've been focusing on funding the Border Patrol. I thought what we needed were more boots on the ground, and I still believe we do. But what I have learned from the administration is we also need more bottoms in the seats in immigration courtrooms across this country. We may need more immigration judges. If we don't have enough people to process all the deportations that are in line, what we need is not to stop the deportations; what we need is to hire more people to process those deportations.

I tell you, I'm a small government conservative. You're not going to find many government programs that I want to come down here and spend money on. But again, the Constitution has given to you and me the responsibility of enforcing this part of the law, has given us the responsibility of securing our borders; and if what it takes to be successful is spending more money to hire more immigration court judges to fill more buses to comply with more of the law that is, in fact, the law of the land, then I'm prepared to do that.

I appreciate the administration, again, for educating me in that way, because I had no idea that we were so successful at identifying folks and we

just weren't successful at finishing that deportation process.

So I say to my friend from Alabama, again, I so much appreciate his leadership on this issue. I am a proud supporter of the Jobs for Americans Act. I look forward to bipartisan support on that act because, again, we're not talking about asking anyone to compromise their principles. We're asking people to celebrate that we are an immigrant nation and that we are a nation of laws. And I tell you, I don't want to live in a nation that is willing to give up on either one of those, and we don't have to.

I thank my friend.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I was excited to come down here today, because when I ran for Congress, there was just a short list of things that I wanted to do when I got here. I'm one of the new guys, one of this crowd of 96 new freshmen.

Two things among those: Number one, folks back home said we're spending too much. $1.091 trillion is how much we spent in discretionary spending in 2010. This bill that the Rules Committee brings to the floor today brings it down to $1.043 trillion, a $50 billion cut from 2 years ago, not decreasing the rate of growth but actually changing the trajectory of spending in this country. That's what folks back home said they wanted me to do.

Number two, I hold in my hand the United States Constitution. I turn to the back; conveniently enough in my edition, there's a little blank space after Amendment 27. There is space for Amendment 28, and for the first time in 15 years, this bill guarantees us a vote on a balanced budget amendment. If you don't trust your Members of Congress, trust your United States Constitution, and trust that this bill gives the American people a vote that they have not had in far too long.

Mr. Speaker, I'm grateful. I hustled over here this morning because I heard there was a question about what kind of options have we provided for the United States Senate and what can we do to get America out of this crisis, and I know the answer.

We've got lots of choices on their desk, Mr. Speaker, and if you talk to them, I hope you'll recommend these. Just look on the desk in front of them; they've got three good choices. You want a long-term solution to this challenge? Ten years. Look at the House

budget plan we sent to the Senate in April--10 years we can solve this crisis, 10 years out into the future, cut $6 trillion out of the budget, put America on a track towards fiscal responsibility.

Is 10 years too long? Mr. Speaker, last week we passed Cut, Cap, and Balance, an 18-month solution to this problem, 18-month solution, cuts spending, caps spending, balances the budget.

Is 2 years too long? Look at what we sent over last night, Mr. Speaker, 6 months. Six months. It also cuts; it also caps; it also balances. A 6-month extension on the debt ceiling.

Mr. Speaker, when you talk to the Senate, please tell them: 6 months, 2 years, 10 years. The House has acted on all of those. They sit in the Senate awaiting on action.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 16 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Sunday, July 31, 2011, at 1 p.m.

I very much thank my friend from Texas for yielding.

It's true. I'm one of the new guys there on the Rules Committee, one of the new guys here in this Congress; and because I haven't been watching this process go on quite this closely before, I'm prepared to answer the questions today of ``Why are we here?'' and ``Why are we here doing this?''

Now, for folks who don't watch the process, who haven't watched it like I have, this rule that we're working on today is to say that you can bring up a bill in the Rules Committee and then bring that bill to the floor on the very same day. That's unusual because regular order in this body says, if you bring something up, let's let it sit overnight so that everybody has a chance to look at it, and we'll bring it up the next day. I'm a big proponent of regular order. I believe we get the best work product out of this body when we work through regular order, and we've done that time and time and time again in this Congress, and we'll do it time and time again in the future.

But today we're faced with a predicament where August 2 is looming on the horizon.

Now, it's Friday. For folks who don't know, we're not going home tonight after work. Don't worry, Madam Speaker. As you know, this House is going to be in full swing tonight, tomorrow morning, tomorrow night, on Sunday, on Monday to get America through this challenge; but my White House, my President, tells me that August 2 is the day by which we must pass a bill, and here we are at the last hour to make that happen.

Now, why are we at the last hour? That was a question my friend from Colorado asked, and I have the answer: because we didn't actually start this process today. We didn't start it last night in the Rules Committee. We started this process back in February with H.R. 1, a bill to fund the government all the way through October 1 of this year.

It was an open rule. For the first time in the history of this House of Representatives, it was an open rule on a continuing resolution. It took us 5 days, going day and night--24 hours a day at the end--to get that bill discussed fully, because we all had input on that process; we all had things that we wanted to add. This House passed that bill. It went across to our friends in the Senate, and they did nothing.

We had another shot at this in April when we worked through the budget process. That budget process, as you know, Madam Speaker, is supposed to take us through 10 years--10 years. We asked every Member of this House of Representatives to bring their ideas to the floor. The Rules Committee, in its wisdom, made every single budget that any Member of this House offered available as a bill on the floor to consider, and we debated them all. There were some that raised taxes by $10 trillion. There were others that cut spending by $10 trillion and all in between. We debated them all, and the House decided on one: the House budget in April of this year. We sent it to the Senate, and they did nothing. In fairness, they did defeat that bill we sent to them. They defeated ours. We only got 40 votes on ours, which was better than when they worked on the President's budget over there--he got zero votes on his. So they're good at defeating things, but they didn't pass anything at all.

That's the partnership we have to have. I say to my friend from Colorado that I'm so proud of our partnership in the Rules Committee and, really, of our partnership beyond the Rules Committee, too, on some of the issues that we work on here. If we could develop the kind of partnership with our friends in the Senate that we've been able to develop between ourselves here on the House side, it would be a completely different situation here in Washington, D.C.

But even as part of that raucous freshman class that folks read about in the newspaper, I don't have the ability to control what goes on in the United States Senate. All I have the ability to do is to come down here and participate in our process, which in February produced H.R. 1, which could have averted this crisis today; in April produced the House budget, which could have averted this crisis today; and last week produced Cut, Cap, and Balance--which was sent to the Senate and they did nothing--which could have averted this crisis yet again.

In light of all of those failures of action in the Senate, we are forced to come here today. We don't have overnight to lay a bill over. We don't have 72 hours to lay a bill over. We only have 72 hours until my President tells me D-day arrives for our financial markets. So we're here supporting this rule for same-day consideration so that we can do whatever it takes to get the job done.

I very much thank the gentleman from Texas.

We're going to do whatever it takes to get the job done, but there is a teaching moment in this process, Madam Speaker. Maybe it's obvious to some of the senior Members. Again, I'm one of the new guys--only 7 months on the job here in Congress--but what I've noticed this week is this:

Last night, we tried to bring up a bill. Now, it was a bill that our Speaker and the majority leader of the Senate negotiated over last weekend. We thought bringing that bill to the floor would be that compromise, and I promise you it was a compromise because it was not what I wanted to bring to the floor of this House. We thought that compromise would be the solution to get America out of this situation.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

I thank my friend.

There is a lot of conversation in this town, but I maintain that this was the topic of discussion and agreement between the Speaker and the majority leader last week. Absolutely, the majority leader has walked away from that agreement since then, and I don't dispute that; but here's the thing:

We had this agreement on the floor of the House last night, and we couldn't find one Democrat vote in favor of it. Fair enough. Folks ought to vote their

consciences; they ought to do what they need to do. We couldn't find one Democrat vote in favor of it, and we've come back with a new bill today that moves us to the right. Now, as someone who comes from one of the most conservative districts in the country, I think that's fantastic. More moving to the right. Let's keep on moving. There's a lot more space over there. Let's move some more over to the right.

But I say to my friends on the left as we try to get through a crisis, a national crisis, that we only needed a few votes from you last night, and then this would have been a bipartisan bill. Instead, we're back down here today.

I very much thank the chairman for yielding.

That's right, 7 months--7 months.

I'm one of the new guys on Capitol Hill, and I ran for Congress to do exactly what we're doing down here today.

There are going to be a lot of folks down here with accusations and recriminations. I just want you to know I'm going to be the guy down here with a smile on my face because today is why I came to Congress.

Seventy-three times, I'm told by folks who have been here longer than I, this Congress has taken a withdrawal out of America's ATM.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Seventy-four times. I appreciate the chairman for correcting me. Seventy-four times that America's ATM card has been stuck in, no funds to withdraw, and yet cash has been dispensed. And not once, I'm told by my friend from New York, not once have we ever tied any spending decisions to increasing America's credit line. That's outrageous. That's outrageous.

But today we do. Today we do. Today we say the buck stops with the 112th Congress. The buck stops with us.

I would be happy to yield to the chairman.

I thank the chairman.

That almost takes the smile off my face. Can you believe that? Seventy-five times this Congress, the people's House, the most responsive body we have in Federal Government, has reached in with that ATM card and taken that money out, with absolutely no funds on deposit. Again, the buck stops today.

Now, in fairness, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not do everything I wanted it to do. I wanted more. And each and every time we've had an opportunity--we had an opportunity in H.R. 1, that continuing resolution we passed. A great process, a great debate, great conclusion. This does not go as far as the House budget--the budget that we passed that day.

Mr. Speaker, you remember we considered absolutely every budget that any Member of Congress brought to the floor of this House. We decided on one. This doesn't do as much as that did. But you know what this does do? This says we're not going to increase the credit line by a penny unless we're cutting a penny too, because the problem in this town, I have learned, Mr. Speaker, in 7 months, is not that we don't spend enough. It's not. And that's a legitimate disagreement I have found that we have. But it is not that we don't spend enough. The problem is that we spend too much.

Mr. Speaker, do I wish that we were doing more in this bill today? Yes, I do. But I smile with pride because we could have been yet another Congress, Congress No. 76, where we just kick the can down the road and accept no responsibility at all. We don't do that, Mr. Speaker. The buck stops here. I'm in strong support of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come to the floor today. I'm still a little bit winded. I was over in the Ways and Means Committee room where we were talking about exactly these issues. I'm embarrassed that my fitness is in such a state that running up the stairs winds me.

But that's what happens when you don't focus on something, when you don't put in the time it takes to stay fit; things degrade. And that's exactly what's happened with our economy, Mr. Speaker. It's absolutely true that folks are out of work, and it's absolutely true that the best form of unemployment relief is a paycheck. It's not an unemployment check. It's a paycheck.

But why are these jobs going overseas? And this is the real debate that happens up here absolutely every day because people just believe different things about how it is that we put Americans back to work. Every single person who comes to this House floor wants Americans to go back to work, wants America's economy to be the pride of the world once again.

But I will tell you the reason we lose jobs overseas is not because we're taxing businesses too little; it's because we're taxing businesses too much. We have the single highest corporate tax rate in the world in America. Why does Sony want to locate their next plant here? Why does Rico want to locate their next plant here? Why does Whirlpool want to keep their plants here? We punish business in this country through our Tax Code like no other country in the world.

Now, is there a regulatory component to that too that we need to solve to make America attractive for business? There absolutely is. Is there a health care component of that if those costs rise? Absolutely there is. Is there a payroll tax cost in that we need to address, the largest tax 80 percent of Americans pay? Absolutely there is.

There is only one proposal in the House that does it, and the Ways and Means Committee right now across the street right here behind you, Mr. Speaker, in the Ways and Means Committee room, is holding a hearing on H.R. 25, the FairTax.

The FairTax eliminates these income taxes and moves America to a consumption tax model. America is the only country in the OECD nations, those economically developed nations, that does not have a consumption tax. The FairTax shifts us in that direction.

And what it does for the first time, the only bill in Congress that does it, it eliminates every single bit of corporate welfare in the United States Tax Code. Oil companies, gone. Solar companies, gone. Foreign companies, gone. Every single tax break in the Code is abolished, Mr. Speaker, because we know the free market works best when the market is free. And we know that businesses don't pay taxes. Consumers pay taxes.

There is not a penny that we charge Walmart that they don't roll right into their costs and pass it along to us. You see it. You see it absolutely every day. If we raise gas taxes, gas prices are going to go up. If we lower gas taxes, gas prices go down. The market sorts those things out.

Have you ever been to a Coke machine, Mr. Speaker? I'm from Atlanta; so I'll talk to you about Coke machines. But usually they're going to sit beside a Pepsi machine. Have you ever seen that Coke costs $1 and the Pepsi right beside it cost $2? No. Do you ever see the Coke sell for $1.50 and the Pepsi beside it try to sell for $5? No. And that's not just because Coke's a wonderful product. It's because the consumer rules in America and price matters. You can't charge whatever you want; you can only charge what the consumer will pay. And when taxes go up, consumers have to pay more.

The FairTax, Mr. Speaker, will bring those jobs back to America like no other proposal in this Congress. It eliminates those corporate income taxes, and it eliminates payroll taxes. Have you thought about your payroll tax recently? It is 15.3 percent of every paycheck that you get.

Now, the wealthy don't pay payroll taxes because they're making their money in interest or dividends or capital gains, these things that payroll taxes don't come out of. Those of us who work for paychecks, we pay payroll taxes. And at 15.3 percent, the payroll tax is the largest tax that 80 percent of Americans pay.

The largest tax that 80 percent of American families pay, and we don't spend any time on the floor discussing that. We argue about income tax all the time. Half of America doesn't even pay income taxes anymore. Payroll taxes are the taxes that American people pay, 15.5 percent; and it comes out of your paycheck before you even get to see your paycheck.

Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who helped during World War II establish the withholding system--the government needed money in a hurry. It was wartime. That's when we began sucking money out of your paycheck before you ever see your paycheck. Milton Friedman said the worst decision of his life was not working to do away with the withholding system once World War II ended because you need to know how much money you are paying. You need what it costs you to run this United States Government.

We talk about trillions. Have you thought about $1 trillion, Mr. Speaker? One trillion dollars, the cost of the President's health care plan, for example. If you started a business on the day Jesus Christ was born and you were so bad at your small business, Mr. Speaker, that you lost $1 million a day, every day, 7 days a week from the day Jesus was born through today, you would have to continue losing money for another 700 years to lose your first trillion dollars. We throw that number around like it is nothing. It is something. We need jobs back in this country. The FairTax will do it.

I encourage folks to pay attention to what's happening in the Ways and Means Committee today on H.R. 25.

I'm conflicted as I come to the floor today, Mr. Speaker. I'd actually planned to talk about tax reforms this morning. The Ways and Means Committee for the first time in 10 years is holding a hearing on the Fair Tax next Tuesday, July 26. The Fair Tax is a proposal that abolishes the income tax system in this country that punishes people based on what they earn and creates a consumption tax that rewards people based on how much they save. And as we talk about poverty here this morning, as we talk about how to get folks back on their feet, the problem in this country, Mr. Speaker, is not that we don't bring in enough revenue. It's that we spend too much money. There is a bias in our culture now towards consumption as opposed to thrift.

Now, when did that happen? I wish I were a better student of history. I know that Ben Franklin shared with us that ``a penny saved is a penny earned.'' I know that our colleagues in the past said if we talk about a million here and a million there, pretty soon we're talking about real money.

My grandfather was a United Methodist minister in the South Georgia Conference. He was a Navy chaplain during World War II, and went down and worked the South Georgia circuit after the war. They'd get together and get all the little nubs of the candles

that they would have during the year and melt them all together to put together those Christmas candles. I don't know if you all grew up with one of those Christmas candles in your home, but they couldn't afford to go out and buy a candle. They had to put together all the nubs and put in the wick themselves.

My dad tells the story of a lot of cold winters and a lot of very hot summers. He tells the story of every time the Klan would threaten to come and burn a cross on the lawn, my grandfather would sit out there on the front porch in his rocking chair with a shotgun. If you can picture that: a United Methodist minister, a man of peace, sitting out there on the porch with his shotgun, but that's the way things were in that part of the world and in those days.

And then he went on to become the superintendent of the United Methodist children's home in the South Georgia Conference. He died about a decade ago without two nickels to rub together, but it was the largest funeral I had ever seen in my life, because he touched people, he nurtured people, he reached out to those who didn't have anyone else to advocate on their behalf. His entire career he spent building people up. His entire career he spent reaching out to those who had no one and being their ``someone.''

As this discussion goes on here this morning, I promise you there is not a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., there is not an agency funded by Federal dollars, that loves people like my grandfather loved people. There's not one. There is not one bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., and there is not one agency under Federal control that loves children the way my grandfather loved children.

Folks, we have a choice each and every day that's going on in this debate that we're having over deficits, debts and defaults. Freedom and security. My big fear is not that there's going to be a default on United States debt. My big fear is that there's going to be a default on the promise of America. My big fear is that the government is doing so much, that we as people may think that we get to do so little, that government's not taking care of anyone. The government is taking from people who would have taken care of someone and is stealing that responsibility for nurturing our neighbors.

It is not the government's job to feed the hungry in my community. It's my job. It's not the government's job to reach out to the least of these. It's my job. As we're talking about children here on the House floor today, as we're talking about the most vulnerable of these, I think back to Steny Hoyer's words in 1995, that when it comes to balanced budgets, when it comes to running up deficits, the person who gets hurt the worst when reckless government spending goes unchecked are the least of these, are the children. I agree with him a hundred percent.

What are we teaching our children today? What are we teaching our children about our responsibility as individuals to take care of one another? Where is the proposal? I've been in Congress 7 months now. There has not been a single proposal to encourage individuals to take care of one another. Time and time again what there are, are proposals to take away the responsibility from individuals of taking care of one another and to transfer that responsibility to government.

Now, I say that with passion. I know, Mr. Speaker, as you know, that everyone who brings those proposals to the floor brings it with a full heart. I do not question the motivations or the intentions of anyone who is reaching out to the least of these. I only question the results.

Mr. Speaker, the longest and most expensive war in this country's history is not the war in Afghanistan. It is the war on poverty, and the government's results are poor. We need to put it back in the hands of individuals.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 355 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I would like to 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.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 355 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011. The rule provides for 4 hours of general debate on the underlying bill and grants the minority party a motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, we are at a seminal moment in our Nation's history. When I turn on the television, when I read the newspapers, I get a lot of advice. Folks say act: act to raise the debt ceiling, act to cut spending, act to balance the budget.

Mr. Speaker, today we are here to do all of those things--cut, cap, balance, and with it increase the debt ceiling in order to allow this country to continue its good line of credit.

But, Mr. Speaker, that line of credit is not something we can take for granted. Too often, I hear folks come to the floor and say, Just raise the debt ceiling. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we've had that vote. We brought a clean debt limit vote to the floor. I would say for the sake of all the young people we're blessed to have here in the gallery with us today, Mr. Speaker, we voted ``no.'' We defeated that clean debt ceiling to say, no, we cannot simply extend America's line of credit. We must take action to bend that curve of debt. Now that was this House acting, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, America's credit rating agencies joined in that debate. I read to you from Moody's last week:

``While the debt ceiling has been raised numerous times in the past and the issue has sometimes been contentious, bond interest and principal payments have always been paid on time. If the debt limit is raised again and default is avoided, a AAA rating would likely be confirmed.''

That's what we hear all too often, Mr. Speaker. What we don't hear is this second sentence:

``However, the outlook assigned at that time would very likely be changed to negative unless a substantial and credible agreement is achieved on a budget that includes long-term deficit reduction. To retain a stable outlook, such an agreement should include a deficit trajectory that leads to stabilization and then decline in the ratio of the Federal Government debt to GDP.''

Mr. Speaker, that may be a lot of bond analyst speak, but what that means in simple terms is, if we do nothing as a Nation, our credit rating will be downgraded, and if we simply raise the debt limit and do nothing to get a handle on our debt, our credit rating will also be downgraded. That's Moody's, Mr. Speaker.

S&P writes the same thing last week:

``We view an inability to timely agree and credibly implement medium- term fiscal consolidation policy as inconsistent with a AAA solvent rating, given the expected government debt trajectory noted above.''

Mr. Speaker, that's what we're talking about today. Just cutting doesn't get it done. We've got some debt limit issues that we've got to deal with. Just capping doesn't get it done. We've still got some debt limit issues that we've got to deal with. Just balancing doesn't get it done. We've still got debt limit issues that we have to deal with. But, Mr. Speaker, just raising the debt limit doesn't get it done either.

It requires cutting, it requires capping, it requires balancing, and it requires raising the debt limit.

We have brought that resolution to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, while so many other folks in this town are content to talk, to pontificate, to share their wisdom with absolutely any television camera who will listen, this House moves forward legislation that describes line by line by line, in painful detail, what we will do to restore America's fiscal house.

I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I'm proud to be a member of the Rules Committee that has reported this rule to the floor today. I rise in strong support of this rule, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm confused about whether time is running out or about whether we're moving too quickly here today, but to clarify that, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a gentleman who held a very persuasive Special Order on this topic last night, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the gentlelady that there is only one bill in this Congress that abolishes every single corporate loophole in the entire United States Tax Code. That's H.R. 25, the Fair Tax. I would welcome the gentlelady on that bill because I too share a desire to see those loopholes eliminated.

I now yield 2 minutes to a cosponsor of the Fair Tax, the gentleman who has cosponsored bipartisan tort reform legislation here in the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

At this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another cosponsor of the Fair Tax, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

(Mr. CULBERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it gives me great pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that that competing vision of trillions more in stimulus and more in government jobs and more in government spending is one idea of how to revive this economy. It's just not one that I share.

I yield at this time 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks), who also I do not believe shares that opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a colleague who is a great leader on this issue, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a mentor of mine, the gentleman from the great State of Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The answer is there's absolutely nothing different from this amendment than any other amendment to the Constitution that relies on the judiciary to interpret it.

That is not correct. The responsibility lies here, as my colleague knows. But as is true with every word in the Constitution, it relies on the judiciary to interpret it.

Will the gentleman yield?

I have the sponsor of the legislation right here to answer that very question.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I don't, though I do have the bill's sponsor here to answer any questions you all might have.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it was 224 years ago that the Constitutional Convention was wrapping up that summer in 1787. Ben Franklin walked out of the front door and a woman asked him, ``What did you create?'' And he famously responded, ``A republic, if you can keep it.'' That's what the debate is about here today, Mr. Speaker--our Republic, and can we keep it?

Mr. Speaker, the last time we debated a balanced budget amendment was back in 1995, 16 years ago. At that time, now-Minority Leader Steny Hoyer said this: ``This country confronts a critical threat caused by the continuation of large annual deficits. I am absolutely convinced that the long-term consequences of refusing to come to grips with the necessity to balance our budget will be catastrophic. And those who will pay the highest price for our fiscal responsibility, should we fail, will be those least able to protect themselves and the children of today and the generations of tomorrow.''

Mr. Speaker, this debate is about those who are least able to protect themselves, and this is about the vision that we have chosen for ourselves as Americans.

Mr. Speaker, 223 years ago, in a letter written in November, Thomas Jefferson said this: I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution. I mean an additional article taking from government the power of borrowing.

Our Founding Fathers, 223 years ago--folks talk about a bill being rushed to the floor. This is a debate that has been going on since the founding of our Nation, since the founding of our Nation. We had this discussion in 1995. We had this discussion in 1994. Every Congress for the 10 years between 1985 and 1995, we discussed a balanced budget amendment. Apparently, there was no need to discuss it any longer, and look where we are.

I was down in Chinatown the other day, Mr. Speaker, where, conveniently enough, our United States debt auctions were held, right downtown in Chinatown. We sold $36 billion of debt in Chinatown the day I was down there at 0.0005 percent interest. But hear this--I will close as I opened, Mr. Speaker--from our friends at S&P: ``We view an inability to timely agree and credibly implement medium-term fiscal consolidation policy as inconsistent with a AAA sovereign rating.''

Mr. Speaker, this isn't about raising the debt limit; this is about preserving the Republic. Go ahead and raise the debt limit; Moody's says that's not enough. Go ahead and raise the debt limit; S&P says that's not going to get you anywhere. Inconsistent with a AAA rating is the borrowing and spending that this Congress has brought to the House.

Now, we talked about rushing a bill to the House floor, Mr. Speaker. I'll say this, and some of my Democratic colleagues have said it, and I associate myself with their comments: This reflects the priorities of this House. What we're working on today is exactly what we were working on when we worked on H.R. 1 in February, one of the most open and brilliant moments in this House's history in terms of debate. Well, the priorities we are setting today are the same priorities we were setting when we had that very open budget debate earlier this year in April where we brought every budget to the House and said: What can we agree on as a House? And you know what we agreed, Mr. Speaker? We agreed on the priorities that are set forth in Cut, Cap, and Balance.

Now, there has been a lot of talk about who is willing to compromise. Mr. Speaker, I can't find a single colleague on this side of the aisle who is enthusiastic about raising the debt limit, not one. But folks are willing to do it if we can preserve the Republic for our children and grandchildren, which we can do with cut, cap, and balance.

Mr. Speaker, there's all of this talk in Washington about default on the national debt. That is a serious conversation, a serious conversation.

I want to talk about defaulting on the promises of our Founders. I want to talk about defaulting on our Republic. One wish Thomas Jefferson had, one wish: If it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution, it would be an additional article taking from government the power of borrowing.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that there's a lot of reluctance to do that. There are lots of great things that folks have, priorities that they would like to spend on. This isn't about those spending priorities. We'll still have that conversation. H.R. 1 was about those priorities. Our budget discussion was about our priorities. Today, it is about the future of our Republic. You need read no further, Mr. Speaker, than the credit rating agencies telling us that August 2 is not the date we have to fear. Today is the day that we have to fear because, if we fail to pass this bill, our Republic stands in peril.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for this rule. I am grateful to the Budget Committee for bringing forward this resolution, and I ask for a unanimous vote of support as this resolution comes to the floor.

The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 355 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

(1) Strike ``the previous question'' and all that follows

and insert the following:

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) four hours of debate equally

divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority

member of the Committee on the Budget; (2) the amendment

printed in section 2, if offered by the Minority Leader or

her designee, which shall be in order without intervention of

any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be

separately debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and

controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one

motion to recommit with or without instructions.

(2) At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of

this resolution is as follows:

At the end of the bill, insert the following:

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

Mr. Speaker, I came to the House floor today to talk about the big deal. Every time I open up a newspaper, Mr. Speaker, this week it's been talking about the big deal, the big deal that's going on at the White House.

I want to set the record straight here today. The big deal happened right here on the floor of this House, when the only budget that's passed in all of Washington, D.C., all year long, cutting $6 trillion in spending, was passed by this body, Mr. Speaker. That's the big deal--$6 trillion agreed upon by this United States House of Representatives. Now, I know down at the White House they are talking about the big deal is 3 trillion in spending cuts, 6 trillion, Mr. Speaker. The big deal started right here now.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I am a big fan of the open process that we have had in this House where every single Member of the United States House of Representatives come here and have their voices heard, offer their ideas, offer their opinions, and that happened in our voting process, Mr. Speaker.

I have a vote tally here from that week of voting on the budget. The Congressional Black Caucus budget came to the floor of this House, was debated, considered. It received 103 affirmative votes, 103. The Republican Study Committee budget came, debated in this House, 119 affirmative budgets. The Progressive Caucus budget came, 77 affirmative votes. Congressman Van Hollen brought a Democratic alternative, 166 affirmative votes.

The only budget to get 218 votes, Mr. Speaker, was the House Budget Committee budget with 235 ``yes'' votes, 235. Now, that's a budget that was laid out line item by line item by line item, so absolutely everyone in America could see what it was that we were doing to achieve these savings to change the direction of our borrowing and our spending.

Now, no one even introduced the President's budget in this body, Mr. Speaker. No one offered it. Now the Senate brought the President's budget to a vote, and it was defeated 0-97. The United States Senate, Mr. Speaker, defeated the President's budget 0-97.

Now, they brought the House-passed budget up over there. They couldn't pass that either. It received 40 affirmative votes, but they still couldn't pass the budget. As my colleague said earlier, it's been over 800 days since the Senate has passed a budget.

Now, I know the President has come back out and he has talked about some alternatives, some things he would do differently from the budget that he offered in February, differently from that budget that got zero votes in the Senate. And in a Budget Committee hearing the other day, we asked the Congressional Budget Office Director what's the score on the President's new plan. And the office told us, Mr. Speaker, that they can't score a speech. I think that's true.

There is a lot of talk in this town, but there is a not a lot of line item by line item by line item putting your name, your money, and your vote by where your priorities are. But this House did it, Mr. Speaker. We are the only body in town to do it. It's the only budget in town to pass and it's the big deal, $6 trillion over 10 years to help try to get this country back on track.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, it did it by not cutting one penny from the benefits that seniors are receiving today, not one, so that seniors, even those over 55, Mr. Speaker, would continue to receive the same Medicare program that seniors are receiving today; so those over 55 would receive the same Social Security benefits as those folks who are receiving those benefits today. I cannot believe, when I open up the front page of the newspaper, I hear folks talking about Social Security benefits might not go out the door, veterans benefits might not go out the door.

Mr. Speaker, we have a plan that this body passed that gets those checks out the door. It is responsible in that it cut $6 trillion in spending. It is responsible in that it bends the budget curve going forward over the next 10 years and it gets those checks out the door.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what's going to happen over the next 3 weeks. I don't know where this town is going to go. This town is a tough town to predict. But I know that this House has put its mark in the sand. This House has brought every single Budget Committee alternative that was offered to this floor. We voted on each and every one, and the only one to pass this House was the big deal, $6 trillion, and it gets our seniors and our troops paid on August 3.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to rally around that and let's give the American people what they deserve, and that's some certainty in the budget process.