Floor Statements

To be clear, we owe over $15 trillion in national debt. This year we're going to borrow $1.3 trillion and a couple of years before that. Every year we've borrowed $1 trillion.

And I hear my friends across the aisle talk about a balanced approach. I believe the American people want a balanced budget. I think we need to be clear on what the Democrat proposals are. If you look at what my friends across the aisle have proposed in regard to a budget, it never balances. There are deficits and debt as far as the eye can see.

The President's budget, there are debts and deficits as far as the eye can see. It never balances.

Then we look at the Democrat-controlled Senate. For 3 years they haven't passed a budget.

And so I think the American people want honesty. They want to make sure that the Democrats are honest with regard to how much debt we're going to pass off to our next generation.

They want us to be honest with regard to how much debt the Democrats want the Chinese to buy from America. I think they want us to be honest in regard to tax rates that, as of April 1, America is going to have the highest tax rate in the industrialized world. My Democrat friends across the aisle, they want to raise taxes even further. So when a business is looking at where it's going to invest, is it going to be in America or somewhere else? Or if you're looking at investing in America or somewhere else, they look at tax rates.

When we talk about shipping jobs overseas, it's these tax policies from my friends across the aisle that ship my jobs in Wisconsin overseas.

They talk about fairness and wanting to balance the budget on a fair playing field. Let's take a look at this chart. Today, the two top tax rates are 33 and 35 percent. If you want to get the deficit down to 3 percent of the economy, you have to raise those top tax rates to 72 and 77 percent. If you want to get it down to 2 percent of debt to the size of our economy, you have to raise the top tax rate to 86 and 91 percent.

The bottom line is, if you wanted to pay off the debt with the current spending agenda of the Democrats, you could never do it by taxing. You could take all of the wealth, all of the income of those top tax earners, and you would never balance the budget.

Americans want you to be honest in regard to the fallacy that you can tax your way out of these debts and deficits.

I think America wants you to be honest in regard to your plan for Medicare, the plan that says you want to take a half a trillion dollars out of Medicare and use it for some other group. Taking seniors' money that they have invested in that plan for a lifetime, take a half a trillion out and use it for another group of people; that's unconscionable.

But moreover, you want to set up a board of 15 unelected bureaucrats who are going to ration our seniors' care, a board that's going to systematically reduce reimbursements to doctors, hospitals, and clinics, and, in essence, will impact the access and quality of care, not of some future generations of seniors, but of today's seniors.

So when we talk about taking care of our seniors, let's have a plan that truly takes care of our seniors, which is the House plan.

I hear about a guaranteed benefit that the Democrats talk about for our seniors. There is no guaranteed benefit for our seniors. They're rationing it down to nothing.

I think it's important we talk about a bold plan, bold leadership that's going to resolve the problems that we face in this country; a plan that is going to put us on a path of sustainability, that will balance our budget, that will pay off our debt; a plan that implements pro-growth policies so our economy can expand.

A plan that will put us on a pro-growth path, but also a plan that will preserve and protect Medicare and save it for future generations.

I would ask my friends across the aisle to stop pandering but to join us in bold leadership, and I would submit that their children and grandchildren, some not yet born, would applaud their bold leadership to save our country from this massive debt that will be their future if we don't act.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 126, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career and accomplishments of Mr. Doug Sutherland, an alumnus of the University of Wisconsin--Superior.

Doug is one of the most accomplished athletes in the history of the school and was recently named to the Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (WIAC) All-Time Team in football. He has also been chosen recently as a member of the inaugural class of the WIAC Hall of Fame.

In 1970, Doug was chosen in the 14th round of the NFL Draft by the New Orleans Saints. He went on to have a 13-year career with the Saints, the Minnesota Vikings and the Seattle Seahawks. He appeared in three Super Bowls with the Vikings and, in 2010, was named one of the 50 greatest Vikings.

In addition to distinguishing himself on the football field, Doug was a six-time conference champion in track and field throwing events and participated in three National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics meets.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to help recognize Doug's incredible athletic record and ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating him on his accomplishments.

I appreciate the gentleman from Arkansas yielding.

I want to take a couple of steps back in this conversation and first talk about the national debt.

Many Americans are well aware that today we owe well over $15 trillion in national debt. This year alone we're going to borrow $1.3 trillion on top of a trillion dollars last year and the year before that. There are trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

Last year, the House Republicans put forward a budget that showed a path to balance telling the American people how we balanced the American budget at some point in the future.

Now, last year and this year, the President put out a budget, neither of which were ever balanced, never telling the American people what his plan is to bring American spending to balance with its revenues.

So we look a couple years back when the President and this House passed the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, which the CBO now states that over 10 years, the rosiest of projections say it's going to cost the country nearly $2 trillion more. Even when they put out that budget or that proposal for health care reform, they're still not willing to put out a budget that says how we're going to pay for it. That concerns me.

I'm a father of six. We're spending today and passing the bill off to the next generation. It's unconscionable.

Let's actually talk about what the President and this House have passed in ObamaCare: $2 trillion over 10 years in additional spending. It's a bill that is going to empower bureaucrats in this town to make health care decisions for Americans in every part of the country instead of your family, your health care provider, or you making that decision.

Listen, I'm from Wisconsin, and I know the values that we have in central Wisconsin. They're probably a little bit different in Arkansas or Kansas or Kentucky, Minnesota, or Michigan. I think we should allow people to make their health care decisions instead of bureaucrats in Washington.

But what concerns me the most is how ObamaCare impacts Medicare.

Now, listen. ObamaCare takes a half a trillion dollars out of Medicare and uses it to fund ObamaCare. Now, we all know in America that we have some financial pressures on Medicare. We know that we have to come together as a country, as a community, both parties, to figure out how we're going to pay for Medicare, keep the promise to our seniors.

At a time when we're still having that debate, to think that this House would pass a bill and take a half a trillion dollars out of Medicare and use it for ObamaCare, I think that's wrong. Let's first figure out how we keep the promise to our seniors before you make a promise to anyone else with their money. That is unconscionable.

What concerns me the most is what the gentleman from Arkansas mentioned, which is the Independent Payment Advisory Board. It's the IPAB, and we haven't heard a lot about it, but I think you'll hear a lot more as the months go on. This is a board of 15 unelected bureaucrats. What they're going to do is look at reimbursement rates with Medicare, and they are going to be able to systematically reduce reimbursements to doctors, hospitals, and clinics for the care for our seniors.

Let's make no mistake. This is reimbursements for our current seniors, not for some future generation. The argument by the President goes like this: Mr. and Mrs. Senior, don't you worry about your quality of care or your access to care. We're just going to pay your doctor, your hospital, and your clinic less for your care. If you believe that, I've got oceanfront land for you in Arizona.

Of course it's going to affect our seniors' access and quality of care. When you pay less for it, you're going to get less of it. Our seniors, they worked a lifetime. They bargained. They retired based on this promise for Medicare. This proposal doesn't meet that obligation. It takes a half a trillion dollars from Medicare, but then is going to ration the care of our current seniors--seniors who can't go back into the workforce and get another job. They retired based on the promise from the Federal Government, and ObamaCare reduces that bargain that's been made with our seniors.

Sure.

I appreciate the gentleman for telling that compelling story. All of us have stories like that from people in our districts, from our own family members, our friends, our constituents; and this is a very important issue. That's why I think we have to have this conversation about what the Independent Payment Advisory Board will do.

I used to be a former prosecutor, and we're used to a system where if you don't like the decision of a court, oftentimes you're able to appeal that decision. This board is unappealable. The decisions that they make, the 15 members when they make a decision, that is going to be the law, that is going to be the rule, and you can't appeal it, and you can't have it overturned.

I just want to close my comments up on the Independent Payment Advisory Board. We on the Republican House side don't believe that we should go forward with a plan that is going to systematically reduce reimbursements for seniors, that's going to affect the quality and access to care for our seniors. Let's give them what they bargained for. We in the House on the Republican side, we said put back the half a trillion dollars, put that back into Medicare, do away with the IPAB board. If you're going to make changes to Medicare, make it for a future generation, a generation that isn't near their retirement, a generation that will have enough time to plan for the changes in Medicare; but don't pull the rug out from our seniors who have been given a promise and now aren't going to get it because their Medicare is going to be rationed.

We think it's fair to do it for a future generation. But let's make no mistake, when we hear that one party has transformed Medicare or changed Medicare as we know it, there is one party who has done that and that is the Democratic Party in ObamaCare. They have changed the way that Medicare is going to work. They're going to ration it. We believe we should save it, protect it, preserve it. I know my freshmen colleagues in this House are going to fight tooth and nail to make sure that every one of our seniors get exactly what they bargained for in Medicare. If there are changes, it's going to be for a generation that can plan for the change in Medicare in due time and in due course.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate and honor the life and service of Lieutenant Jamison Kampmeyer, from

Colby, Wisconsin, who lost his life on Sunday, March 4, 2012 due to injuries sustained while fighting a fire at the Abbotsford Movie Theater.

Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant Kampmeyer had qualities that many of us strive for all of our lives. He was a dedicated husband, father of three sons, public servant and friend to many. Since 2002, Jamison served his community with honor as a volunteer firefighter and EMT for the City of Colby, eventually rising to the rank of Lieutenant. Jamison began his career with the Marathon County Sheriff's Department in 2004. Throughout his career as a Deputy Sheriff, he served in numerous capacities including Field Training Officer and SWAT team member. It is because of his extreme dedication to duty that he was posthumously promoted to Detective on March 5th, a position which he was due to assume next month.

The selfless sacrifice and exemplary service of Lieutenant Jamison Kampmeyer will not soon be forgotten. Through his actions, he has made his family, community, state and nation eternally proud. It is my humbling honor to pay tribute to him and I urge my colleagues to join me today in honoring the life of Lieutenant Jamison Kampmeyer for the sacrifice he made for his community and fellow firefighters.

I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin yielding.

I think it is important that we are clear about what this bill truly does. This bill exclusively deems the St. Croix River consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. That's all it does is deem it consistent. There is no appropriations aspect; there's no budgetary authority. All we're doing is deeming this bridge consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

You know, today is a pretty special day. It's a special day because it's leap day. It's February 29. It comes around only once every 4 years. And I have only been in this House for a year and a couple of months; but I have to tell you what, bipartisanship doesn't come around that often. But it is here tonight on the House floor. Bipartisanship, this is what I mean by that: you have two Governors, a Republican and a Democrat, who support this bill. You have Senators from Wisconsin and Minnesota, all four of them, Republicans and Democrats, supporting this bill. You have progressives and conservatives in this Chamber who have all come out in support of this bill. You have Vikings and Packers supporting this bill. This is a remarkable day.

Listen, we go so far, you have the AFL CIO and local chambers together supporting this bill. This is remarkable. We haven't seen this kind of bipartisanship in the 15 months that I've been here. This is a great bill. This gets the job done because people are doing what their constituents asked them to do, which is work together. It makes sense.

This is working across party lines for a very important reason. It's because we all in this region understand the

importance of bridges and what happens when something goes wrong. We all remember I 35 between Minneapolis and St. Paul that had a sufficiency rating of 50, 50 out of 100. And a few years ago, we remember that bridge collapsed. We remember seeing the devastation of that bridge when it collapsed. But a rating of 50 out of 100.

The bridge we are talking about today, the one that is used across the St. Croix River, has a rating of 32 out of 100. It is less safe than I 35 was when it collapsed. And again, it was built in 1931. It is 81, 82 years old.

Listen, the people in this region they need the bridge. They want the bridge. Everybody is working together. I want to make sure we're clear about the people who use this. I know the gentlelady from Minnesota says it's only serving a small community in Holton, Wisconsin, a community of 386 people. You've got to explain to me, then, how 18,000 people go across that bridge every day.

You are dealing with the largest-growing county in Wisconsin, and the 13th largest metropolitan area in this country. That's what this bridge connects. People use it. This is a bedroom county. They work in St. Croix County over in Minneapolis-St. Paul. They use that bridge to get back and forth to work; 18,000 people a day use this bridge. This is no small feat.

We're talking about the funding component saying that it's $700 million. I think we have to be clear on what that $700 million is. It's really only $292 million when you look at the actual cost of construction of the bridge, $292 million. If you want to look at the extra cost that gets you upwards of $600 million, that cost comes from all of the mitigation, the environmental mitigation work that's been requested over the decades of negotiation trying to get this bridge done. It's not the bridge cost. It's the bipartisan effort trying to get people to agree to make this project go forward that increases the cost so dramatically to $600-plus million.

So I think it's important. You look at this, this is a shovel-ready project. Shovel ready. We hear it is going to create 6,000 new jobs over the course of 3 years. And it is far from rushed. We have talked about this, again, for decades. And I think when people would say it is a bad bill or a controversial bill, it's important to note Republican and Democrat Senators, Governors, Congressmen, communities have rallied around this project.

Let's get it done. Let's finally build the St. Croix River bridge.

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

I think we are all aware that this issue came out when Peter Schweizer wrote a book called ``Throw Them All Out.'' After that, ``60 Minutes'' did a special story about how Members of Congress were benefiting by using insider information or information that the rest of the public wasn't privy to. In the succeeding several months, I think that story has created a deficit of trust between Members of Congress and the American constituents.

I introduced a version that would deal with this issue, I think, very simply. I thought what we should do is mandate that Members put their assets into a blind trust so there will be a bright line between information that they have as Members and their trading portfolios, and if they were to choose not to do that, they would have to aggressively disclose every trade within 3 days.

Now, my bill is not on the floor today, but the version that we have here today, I think, is much improved from the original version that came out. We have an improved reporting requirement that goes, not from 3 days, but from 90 days to 30 days, which is much improved from the original legislation. We've included the executive branch, which I think is imperative; and we have language that uses the blind trust as a potential opt-out if you're not actually managing your funds.

As we gather around and debate and vote on this bill, I think it is important to know that this is the first step, a step in the right direction. Then as we come together and reevaluate what we've done here, I think there will be many more steps to take to ensure that Members of Congress don't profit from the information they come across as Members of this institution.

I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

I think it is important that we review the history of Federal employee pay freezes. In the last Congress, this came up under a Democrat-controlled House, a Democrat-controlled Senate, and a Democrat President. They voted for a 2-year payroll freeze for Federal employees. They rightly excluded our military, and I think everyone in this House agrees that our military should get a pay increase. But who they wrongly failed to include in the pay freeze were Members of Congress. They didn't include Members of Congress, but every other Federal worker they did include.

So now, today, I've brought a bill to the floor to extend the pay freeze for one more year. My bill is the exact same bill as the Democrats' bill from 2 years ago. The only difference is that I've carved in Members of Congress. Every Member in this House will have his pay frozen just like every other Federal worker's. That is the right thing to do. That's what should have been done 2 years ago but was not done.

I was here to listen to the gentleman from Maryland, the former majority leader, who is outraged that he doesn't have an opportunity to singly vote for a pay freeze for Members of Congress. Yet, as the majority leader, he had the opportunity to include Members of Congress in his bill. Republicans didn't have a say. It was a Democrat House, a Democrat Senate, a Democrat President, and Members of Congress were not included. Now to come here today and to be outraged and say that the Republicans are disingenuous because we have carved in Members of Congress doesn't hold water.

I think it is important to also look at the facts behind Federal employees as they are compared to the private sector. The Congressional Budget Office came out and said that Federal employees make 16 percent more on average than those in the private sector. At this point, what my friends across the aisle have come to the House floor to say is, in a very difficult economy, we want the private sector, which is really the American taxpayer--the ones who have been forced to make concessions with regard to pay, the ones who have been asked to work less hours to keep their jobs--my friends across the aisle

come to the House floor and say, what we want these American taxpayers to do is to not get a pay raise themselves, but to pay for a pay increase for Federal workers who already make 16 percent more than they do.

That doesn't make sense. I hear a lot of conversation from my friends across the aisle about fairness and parity. Well, I think you should start to use the term ``fairness'' today. There should be parity between the private sector and the public sector.

I come from central and northern Wisconsin, and we have a large manufacturing sector in the community in my district. Time and time again, there are rules, there are regulations, there is red tape, and there are taxes that attack our way of life that come from this town of Washington, that attack the way of life in Wisconsin. We bring it up. We talk about it. We complain about it. And guess what? My friends across the aisle turn a deaf ear to our complaints. But today we're going to do a 1-year extension of a Federal employee pay freeze, and they are outraged by that. They are listening, they are advocating, they are arguing for more Federal pay.

Come on. Use fairness today. Use the argument of parity today. This was your bill. This is a 1-year extension.

The final point: The President's debt commission, Simpson-Bowles, said we should have a 3-year freeze on Federal pay. That's what my bill does. I don't want the argument to be that my friends across the aisle don't really care about the Federal employee pay freeze and that they only care about their own pay freeze, because that is the only difference. The only difference in my bill is that I've included Members of Congress.

This makes sense. Let's come together. The American people are sick of the partisan bickering. They would expect that there are issues on the left and that there are issues on the right that this House could and should fight about, but I think they're sick of commonsense issues that come down in the middle that we should agree on. Let's get together. Let's pass this bill. Let's freeze Federal employees' salaries for one more year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate and honor the life and service of Staff Sergeant Joseph Altmann from Marshfield, Wisconsin. Staff Sergeant Altmann lost his life on Christmas Day while serving our country in the Kunar province of Afghanistan. He suffered injuries when insurgents attacked his unit with small-arms fire. Staff Sergeant Altmann was serving with the Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.

Mr. Speaker, Staff Sergeant Altmann embodied the best qualities of a true American hero. He was a dedicated soldier and a brave man who fought for a cause greater than himself--a feat to which not many may attest. He served his country not only in Afghanistan, but re-enlisted in order to do so after completing two previous tours in Iraq. He died protecting the freedoms we all too often take for granted.

Staff Sergeant Altmann's heroic sacrifice and exemplary service will not soon be forgotten. He has made his wife, his family, his home State of Wisconsin and his country eternally proud. It is my humbling honor to pay due tribute to him and I urge my colleagues to join me today in honoring the life of Staff Sergeant Joseph Altmann for the sacrifice he made for this country and for our freedom.

I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia yielding. I think it's important to note as we have listened to a debate that went on all day today that there really is no difference within this House whether we should

extend the payroll tax holiday or not. Both Republicans and Democrats alike have come together and said we want to have that tax break for middle class Americans extended.

But if you were listening to the debate, you might be confused by that because we so often heard on the other side of the aisle that they don't believe that the Republican side wants to extend it. And so I want to take a moment and just talk about what I think is happening here with regard to this debate in the House.

I mean, let's not make a mistake. We have introduced legislation that is going to extend the payroll tax holiday for 1 year. And what that means is, $1,000 in a tax reduction for middle class Americans throughout the country and in my district, central and northern Wisconsin, $1,000 for them as well.

Across the aisle, a proposal has been made that started its process in the Senate, where we would do a 2-month extension, a 60-day extension, which means the proposal is they would offer middle class Americans $170 in tax reduction. So we've proposed $1,000 of tax reduction, and the Democrats have proposed $170 in tax reduction.

And I think as the American people look at this debate, they'd say, well, my goodness, I want to go for the $1,000 deduction, not the $170. And so as we dive in a little more, we hear a lot about partisanship and a lot of differences between the two Chambers.

And a lot of folks are saying, we can't get this done. Let's adjourn for Christmas, and let's come back at the end of January and through February and see if we can resolve this very important issue. And I would say when we get back next year, there will be 5, maybe 6 weeks to work on this. But this won't be the only issue on the table. We're dealing with budgets and jobs bills. The docket, the calendar, is full of issues that we have to address in this House.

But for the next 10 days we have nothing on the agenda. The calendar is clear. Let's get the House and the Senate to come together and address this one very important issue, to extend the payroll tax holiday and let's do it for a year.

We have disagreements. But for 10 days we can talk about those disagreements and find solutions that don't work for parties, that don't work for Chambers, but solutions that work for the American people.

If the Democrats in the Senate are steadfast in their request that it only be 60 days, I'll go for 60 days, but I just can't imagine that the American people believe that we're going to get a better resolution in 60 days than we can in the next 10 days.

As I look across my district, everyone in my district, they worked today. They work tomorrow. They work the next day. They don't take the week off before Christmas and after Christmas. They work that whole week between Christmas and New Year's. They don't take that off. Why should this House? Why should the Senate?

Let's come back and get this work done for the American people. They deserve it. And it has a real impact. People are concerned about how they're going to put food on the table for their kids, how they're going to pay the mortgage. And $1,000 in the year makes a big difference for a lot of people in my district. And to think that the offer is we're going to give you 2 months at $170, that doesn't cut the mustard for them. They want long-term certainty at least for a year. Give them that break for a year.

I have another concern. We proposed the Keystone pipeline. I know the President has talked about job creation. We've talked about job creation. We've disagreed on how we do it. The President and others will say the government needs to spend money to create jobs and economic growth.

We say, well, listen, it comes from the private sector. Here we have a great example with the Keystone pipeline where it's private sector money that's going to create 20,000 new jobs, direct new jobs in America if that pipeline goes forward. There's going to be 100,000 indirect jobs, real, good-paying jobs for hardworking Americans. And the President is saying he doesn't want to do it.

I say, listen, Mr. President. We can't wait. The American people cannot wait. Let's come together and say, you know what, 20,000 people, 100,000 hardworking Americans can get a good paying job if you'll sign on to this legislation.

Not only that, we're going to take our energy from Canada, people who actually like us instead of countries in the Middle East. Let's get our energy, let's get our oil from our friendly neighbor to the north instead of those who are not so friendly in other parts of the world.

Another key component of this extension is Boiler MACT. This is an EPA regulation that came out that is going to increase the boiler standards that are used in American manufacturing, costing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars for our manufacturers to increase their boiler standards.

In my district, just 2 weeks ago, we had one of our energy companies indicate that they're going to lay off 74 people; and they made it very clear. In their press release they said one of the issues that's causing us to lay off these 74 people is Boiler MACT, the EPA.

Let's take that away. Let's make sure that our energy and our manufacturers have the ability to compete, not State to State, but in a new global environment, China, India, Mexico, Vietnam. We have to be able to compete with those countries.

And if we implement this Boiler MACT regulation, we're going to shut down American manufacturing. In my district it's paper. This regulation will cause Wisconsin paper to be crushed because right now they're under immense competition from foreign competitors; but not only that, they are in a very tough industry as people move to computers and iPads, and there's less paper being used.

So I believe that these parties, I believe that these Chambers have to come together in the next 10 days, and we have to find a solution that's going to work for the American people, that is going to extend this payroll tax holiday, that's going to give them certainty, so as they start the next year and as they start it with hope and a thought of opportunity, they know what they're going to get in regard to the payroll tax holiday that's going to come from this House.

I would encourage all of my colleagues to come together during this season where we're all supposed to get along, we're all supposed to think about the meaning of Christmas, reach a hand out across the aisle to our friends who don't always agree with us, but who can come together on this issue and say, America, we're going to stand together as the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate and pass a bill that's going to give you certainty for 1 year, giving you a tax break to the tune of $1,000.

With that, I appreciate my good friend offering me the time.

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

I am sick of the demagoguery. I think it is important that we truly talk about the facts. This is not a debate about whether we're going to extend the payroll tax holiday or not. This is a debate about what kind of extension we're going to get. Is it going to be 1 year or is it going to be 60 days?

To be clear, we are advocating for a 1-year extension, which is a $1,000 tax break for every American in this country. My friends across the aisle are advocating for a $170 payroll tax cut. $1,000 versus $170.

We're talking about Christmas gifts. A $170 payroll tax gift is not a Christmas gift to the American people, but $1,000 would be. The only gift I hear being offered here is the gift to the Senate colleagues who want to go home for Christmas.

Let's stay here and do the work of the American people, make sure we extend the payroll tax holiday, and make sure we give certainty to every American throughout the country.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 930, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

As I sit on the House floor here, I listen to the debate, and I hear a lot of conversations that are off-topic. We are talking, on the other side of the aisle, about payroll taxes and unemployment extensions. This is really a conversation about regulations that affect American businesses' ability to compete, expand, grow, and create jobs. This REINS Act is about holding Members of Congress, elected men and women, accountable to the people who sent them here to do their work, not to empower bureaucrats in Washington to pass rules that kill jobs all across this country.

Just yesterday there was a press release in my district where one of our coal power plants has given notice that they are going to lay off 74 people because of regulations coming from this town. And you talk a lot about the 99 percent. These are part of the 99 percent, people that are now not going to have a job because of regulations and rules that are shutting down our power sources in Wisconsin.

So you can advocate for unemployment--and I'm happy that you are doing it--because your rules and regulations and the policies that you advocate for are causing 74 people in my district to now go on unemployment. That's unacceptable. Let's advocate for pro-growth policies that are going to help American businesses, entrepreneurs, and manufacturers compete in the global competition. If we continue down this path, we are going to see more businesses go overseas, taking with them the jobs of the people who work in our districts.

So with that, I think we should all have a real conversation about the REINS Act and not about payroll tax and an unemployment extension.

This was not the version that I supported. I wanted a version that had spending caps linked to GDP. But as this week we passed the $15 trillion debt mark, I thought it was important that this House come together and figure out a way to control the spending. If you look at our recent history, this House conference on the GOP side passed a budget this year that brought our country to balance. And all the Democrats across the aisle--not all--most of them voted no. They were offered a counterproposal that could bring our budget to balance.

The Democrats in the Senate haven't proposed a budget in 900 days. We need to be serious about this debt. And, today, as we are $15 trillion in debt and we have historic interest rate lows, let's look out 10 years, when the debt is $25 trillion and we go from historic low interest rates to historic norms. If we can't balance the budget today, is it going to be easier 10 years from now when it's $25 trillion and we have more people on Social Security and Medicare?

My friends across the aisle like to pull up Social Security, Medicare, and the needy. And do you know what? I care about those constituents in my district as well. But we have to be honest about what we're doing. We are borrowing this money from China. We have given them an economic nuclear bomb. We are bankrupting this country and jeopardizing the freedom of our next generation.

Let's make sure we pass this balanced budget amendment, and let's rely on the American people to fund the obligations that this House makes. With that, I encourage all of my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to former State Senator Walter John Chilsen on his many years of service to the citizens of the State of Wisconsin.

Walter John is a World War II veteran, serving as a B-24 navigator in the Pacific. He graduated from Lawrence University in Appleton, Wisconsin, in 1949, and began his career in radio and television broadcasting at WLIN radio in Merrill, Wisconsin.

In 1954 he moved to WSAU radio in Wausau and was the first News Director and Anchor for WSAU-TV when it signed-on the air in October of 1954. Often referred to as ``the Walter Cronkite of the North,'' Walter John was inducted into the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association Hall of Fame in 2005. Walter John was elected to the Wisconsin State Senate in 1966 and served until his retirement in 1990.

During his time in the Wisconsin State Legislature, he established a reputation for his commonsense approach to public policy and for always acting in the best interest of his constituents. He was recognized as a leader by his colleagues, serving as Majority Caucus Secretary, Assistant Minority Leader and, ultimately, Minority Leader. Walter John has remained politically active since his retirement from the Legislature, serving on the Town of Weston Board of Supervisors. In many ways, Walter John has been and continues to be the political conscience of the Wausau area.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the many contributions former State Senator Walter John Chilsen has made on behalf of his fellow citizens, and I ask my colleagues to join me in offering him our best wishes.