Floor Statements

About 9 percent.

I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado yielding, and I commend my colleagues for your hard work and the focus that you have all had on jobs and job creation and legislation that's actually going to help move our economy forward.

I think we're in a unique time in American history. If you look at where we're at and the level of competition that we are under from countries like China, India, Mexico, Vietnam, Brazil, this is a whole new environment that we haven't seen before. It's not 1950, it's not 1980, it's not even the 1990s. This is a different form of competition.

If we're going to be successful in this new environment, we have to do it right because if we get it wrong, you see massive unemployment.

And as we came into this recession, I think the American people said to the President, We are willing to go along with you, Mr. President, if you tell us that we could spend a trillion dollars and from that you can take the pain away, you can create jobs with that kind of spending. If you tell us that we can pass a health care bill and that's going to create jobs, we can pass more regulation and that's going to create jobs, okay, Mr. President. We'll go along with you because the pain is too great.

When one of my family members is out of work and I see the pain and suffering in their family, it's worth it, Mr. President. I will go with you.

Now, this is a path that we haven't traditionally gone down because we're an economy, we're a society of free markets and free enterprise where we look to the individual who invests, works hard, innovates, and creates wealth, creates opportunity, creates jobs in their community.

But we're willing to go for a while and say, Let's try it out, Mr. President.

A couple years down the road, we now look back and say where are we. Are we better off today than we were 2\1/2\, 3 years ago? And I think if you ask the American people, they will give you a resounding, No, we're not.

So what we're doing here today is saying let's go back to our great history. Let's go back to our roots of free markets. Let's try to streamline the regulatory process that this government has given the private sector. Let's make sure we free the American people, we free the entrepreneurial spirit. And if we do that and we engage in this new competitive environment against China, India, Mexico, I don't care who it is, if you set America free, we will compete, we will win, we will thrive, we will grow, and we will prosper.

That's why we in this House have passed bills with bipartisan support that advocate for free markets. And listen, some people come at us and say, You don't want regulation. That's not true. We want smart regulation. They'll say, listen, the Tax Code needs to be reformed. And we'll say, yes, absolutely it needs to be reformed. We want to make sure that there aren't loopholes that don't make big corporations and big industry and the wealthy not pay their fair share.

We were the first ones in Washington to say let's root out the loopholes. That was in our budget that we said let's root it out. And it was only after we did it did we see the President come out and say he wanted to follow. And I will tell him that I'm a willing partner to join him in tax reform.

I think as we look at what's happened here, as one of the Members here said, we sent over 22 bills to the Senate. And with that, the Senate hasn't taken up any of them. And as the gentleman from Illinois noted, at least the Senate should take them up and give them a vote. And if they want to vote them down, that's okay. But at least take them up and give them a vote.

They took the President's bill up, gave it a vote and on a bipartisan effort it failed.

So my point to my colleagues and to the American people is that if we are going to move our economy forward, we have to tap in to the principles and the ideals that made this country great. That is what this freshman class is talking about tonight. That's what we've been talking about for the last 10 months.

I look forward to the work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. As you might notice, I'm on the left side here. I'm on the Democrat side of the aisle. I'm willing to work with my friends on both sides. But let's get it done. Let's not do it for parties. Let's do it for the American people, putting them back to work.

With that, I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding.

I commend the gentlemen from Arkansas and from New York for the work you've been doing in your own districts, reaching out to job creators, listening to them about what they need to make sure they can expand their businesses and grow their businesses. I've been doing the same. Over the last couple of weeks I've done a number of different events.

I did a jobs fair in central Wisconsin; that's where my district is, central Wisconsin up to northwestern Wisconsin. We had 100 employers, and we had 1,200 job seekers come through that jobs fair. And if you looked out at the 100 folks who were there looking to hire, you didn't see too many people from the government looking to hire because the real job growth in America is in the private sector. And if you looked out over that arena of employers, they're not big businesses, they're small businesses. They have anywhere from 10 employees, some of them were as big as 100, 120 employees, but all characterized and categorized as small businesses.

I thought it was important to note that there are people hiring; but if you look at the quality and the quantity of people who need work in central Wisconsin, there is a disparity between the number of jobs that are available and the number of people who want to support their families with hard work and hard labor and a good paycheck. And so the work is not done. We have to continue pressing on to make sure that we have the environment for job growth.

As the President says, We cannot wait, and I don't know what he's referring to when he says ``we cannot wait.'' My reference to we cannot wait is we cannot wait, as the Speaker said, for the Senate to start passing our bills that are going to put Americans back to work.

I did a forest policy conference. In my area, we have a large forest product industry. And the Chief of the Forest Service was kind enough to come to my district, a well-spoken, very knowledgeable individual who's spent a lot of time in the Forest Service. Rangers were there, and it was a great conversation with a lot of our loggers.

But in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, we have 1.5 million acres, great resource in central and northern Wisconsin.

Let me tell you a story of one of the forest products individuals that came to that conference. He's an individual that owns Action Floors. They're from Mercer, Wisconsin. Now, Mercer is not, by far, the biggest community in Wisconsin. It's a small town that relies on the forest products industry and premier gym floors they make at Action Floors in Mercer, Wisconsin.

But do you think they get the wood from the 1.5 million acres in the Nicolet and Chequamegon Forest? No. Over 50 percent of the wood they use to make those floors is imported from Canada because they can't access timber in central Wisconsin. That's a shame.

Now, listen. I live in Wisconsin because I believe that we should have clean water and a clean environment. I live there because I like the outdoors. I like to use it. I want my kids to experience it. But managing forests is critical to preserving it. It's the first green industry. It's renewable. It grows back if it's managed well.

And here we have folks in central Wisconsin that can't access it. Those are real jobs. Those are real families that are impacted by the decisions that are made here in Washington, D.C. But timber being imported from Canada? Give me a break.

We had a field hearing just yesterday, Financial Services, the subcommittee was Financial Institutions. And we had some small small banks and some medium small banks, and we had small credit unions, medium-sized credit unions all in there talking about the rules and regulations that are coming from Dodd-Frank.

And if you think that these credit unions and these small banks are big Wall Street banks, I would encourage you to come to central Wisconsin. They're the furthest from a big Wall Street bank. These are people who have grown up in these communities that are helping get capital out of the bank into the hands of job creators and to homeowners, people who want to buy a car. And they are burdened by regulations and mandates and rules. They can't comply with them.

At some point, banking needs to be regulated--we all would agree with that--but let's have smart regulation. Let's make sure the capital can get out the door to those small businesses that want to expand or grow.

There's some interesting information that I think just came out from the NFIB; and if you look at the end of the last recession, 2001, to the beginning of this new recession in 2007, businesses that have fewer than 500 employees, they have created 7 million new jobs during that time frame. And 60 percent of those businesses, they'd only been in existence for 5 years. So these are new start-ups, small, that are the engine of job growth in America. Now, on the other hand, we had employers or businesses that had 500 employees or more. Those businesses had cut 1 million jobs. And the point here is job growth is coming from small businesses.

But today, we are at a 16-year low for start-ups. Businesses aren't growing. Businesses aren't beginning in this new environment. And I think it goes to what you gentlemen were just talking about. I think there's three things. One, it's access to capital. They don't have the ability to go to the bank and get a loan. There are a lot of factors that used to be considered when making a loan in small-town America: character and cash flow and a number of considerations. What's happening today with our banks is they're just looking at the file; so when the regulators come, their file looks clean, and they can't take all the factors they used to take into consideration.

I think it's important to note that the banks and the credit unions in my district, they weren't part of the financial crisis. They had nothing to do with it. They were implementing sound banking principles in their communities that were launching small businesses that were the engine of growth in our communities. But today, they can't do that, and so we don't see that job growth take place.

They also talk about regulations, which I think you two did a wonderful job. Just to name a few, remember the 1099 bill? In ObamaCare, in PPACA, there's a 1099 piece of legislation where, if you had a transaction that was over $600, you had to send the other individual or business a 1099. The workload, the paperwork that that puts onto a small business is unconscionable. They can't focus on doing the work of their business. They're focused on doing the work of the IRS. What we're saying here is we need reasonable, commonsense regulations that are going to help our small businesses expand and grow.

And another thing they talk about is uncertainty, and this all feeds into each other. But in here is taxes. It's health care. It's regulations.

Before I yield back, I'm going to tell you one story, and this is a story from central Wisconsin. It's an individual that I went to see. He's a small manufacturer. He has about 100, 110 people who work for him. As I was sitting in his office, he was saying, Listen, I've got a great idea. I'm going to grow my business. It's going to cost me $1 million to make this investment. I've been in business for a long time, and I know this idea that I have is going to work. If I make this $1 million dollar investment, I'm going to create 10 to 15 new jobs in my community. But guess what? I'm 62 years old. I look at all the uncertainty. I look at ObamaCare. I look at taxes. I look at new regulations, look at new banking regulations. He said, With all of that uncertainty in the marketplace, I'm not going to make that investment. I'm 62.

Who got hurt?

This guy has enough money. He's made enough money in the course of running his business. It doesn't hurt him because he didn't make that investment, but it hurts 15 families in that community that don't have a good-paying job. Fifteen families don't have work because he didn't take that risk, make that investment.

We have to make sure that people are encouraged to take risk, to invest and expand and grow and compete. And if they do that, we're going to see great growth in this country.

But I believe we're at a crossroads. If we don't go down the path of free markets and free enterprise, American capitalism, a system that has worked since our founding, that has created incomparable wealth in this country, I think we're going to go down a different path, and that path does not lead to prosperity. It doesn't lead to opportunity. It doesn't lead to job growth. It leads to something far less than that.

I think, in this country, we want to fight to make sure we stay on a path of prosperity and opportunity so we can pass that off to the next generation. That's worth the fight. I'm willing to fight for those principles.

In this House, we argue, and I think the American people would say probably too much. But I know there's friends on the other side of the aisle that would agree with this, that agree that we have to come together to find solutions that are going to help the private, small sector grow and put our hardworking people back to work.

So I appreciate the hour that the gentleman from Arkansas has reserved, and I appreciate the conversation and the focus that my colleagues here in the freshman class have put on job growth, not only for their own districts but for the country as a whole. And with this effort and with some cooperation, hopefully, from the White House, we're going to be able to turn this economy around, which is not us. It's actually policy that we turn over to the private sector for that job growth.

I thank my friend for yielding.

As we look at what's happened recently, as the President has come out

with his jobs bill proposal--and, frankly, many who analyze it would say this is stimulus number two. It's just another government spending program hoping the government borrowing and spending will lead to economic growth and wealth and jobs. And if you look at it, I think the President is saying, I want to do something. And I say, I don't want to do necessarily ``something.'' I want to do the right thing so we can create economic growth and prosperity and wealth and jobs.

This is my concern of what's happening right now: I think the President came into office talking about hope and change and job growth and job creation, and he implemented stimulus number one. And from that, it didn't work because it's never worked. Government borrowing, government massive spending doesn't create jobs. But that was his sell to the American people.

Now as we roll into the second phase, I think this is the campaign phase, the political phase. So instead of focusing on policies that bring the bottom up, that help give hardworking folks a good-paying job or a good-paying opportunity, he is now focusing on class warfare. I think that's the wrong way to go. Our policies that we are implementing, that we passed and have sent to the Senate are policies that will create jobs.

I appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding.

I come from central and northern Wisconsin where we have a large forest products industry. We make a lot of paper in Wisconsin. And if you look at these rules, they are going to have a significant impact on Wisconsin paper, real jobs that support our families. Domtar Industries, 1,400 jobs; Flambeau River Paper, 300 jobs; New Page, 3,200 jobs; Wausau Paper, 1,600 jobs.

So we look at these regulations that are going to increase the standard on our boilers. And if you increase those standards, causing our companies to spend millions of more dollars to meet those standards, what's going to happen? You are going to ship Wisconsin paper to China and Brazil. And what happens there? They don't have the same standards that we have. And, in the end, what's going to happen is we're going to outsource Wisconsin jobs and our paper is going to be made with reduced standards.

I think in the end, those who care about our environment, who care about standards to make sure we have clean water and clean air, if you look over to China, they don't have those same standards. But, in the end, we breathe the same air and drink the same water.

So let's make sure we have efficient standards that can keep American industry and Wisconsin paper in business and doesn't shift these jobs overseas.

I appreciate the gentleman from Arkansas for yielding.

Just quickly, we have heard a lot about the President's jobs bill, and I think everyone in this House agrees that this country needs more economic growth and it needs more jobs. I'm from Wisconsin, and a lot of folks in Wisconsin and across the country want to see the folks in Washington and in Madison start to get along, try to find points of agreement instead of points of disagreement.

So the President came up with this jobs bill. I said, you know, Mr. President, I can agree with you that we need tax reform. I can agree with you that we need regulatory reform. And I can also agree that we should probably extend the payroll tax holiday.

But the President has gone a step further, and he wants to have a second stimulus. He wants to spend nearly half a trillion dollars because he believes more government spending will lead to economic growth, prosperity, wealth, and sustainable jobs. And we tried that to the tune of a trillion dollars. That doesn't work. But when the President talks about tax reform right after he gives that speech, a week later he comes out and says, my idea of tax reform is to raise taxes.

This doesn't make sense. Do you think that you help the job seeker by raising taxes on the job creator? He talks about reforming regulation. But all we see is more and more regulations coming from the agencies and the White House. And what that does is it makes America less competitive. It's pretty easy to see that we are a global economy; and in this country, we pay our employees more. I think we can do that because American workers are harder working, they're more productive, and they're smarter. But on top of that, our businesses have far more mandates, far more regulations, far more red tape; and now they're going to pay far more taxes.

With that kind of environment, how do we expect our businesses, our manufacturers to compete on this global scale? Sometimes people in Washington sit back and they scratch their head and they say, why are businesses leaving? Well, Washington has made it uncompetitive for American industry and American small manufacturers to compete, succeed, win, and put our hardworking families back to work.

I come from northern Wisconsin. You may not know this, but I grew up doing lumberjack sports. That's chop, saw, logroll, and tree climbing, skills of the old-time lumberjack. That's how our whole region was built. Paper is still a

huge industry where I come from, and the EPA was coming out with a Boiler MACT regulation. If that were to have gone through, that would have killed Wisconsin paper, it would have rippled throughout our whole economy, and it would have killed thousands of jobs in our community.

Just the threat of Boiler MACT has sent ripples through the economy. If you look at our loggers--this isn't small business, this is big business. They have big loans and big pieces of equipment, and they can't access the national forest. There are policies coming from this town that make it so much harder for our small businesses to succeed, compete, grow, and hire our hardworking people.

We have to switch around. I'm not a farmer. I said I was a lumberjack, but I do have a garden. And I think the economy is much like a garden. When you garden, you have to have good seed and good soil. Right? And you have to have sun and water. If you put that all together, it's amazing, your plants will grow. Once in a while, you can throw a little Miracle-Gro on them, and they grow a little more. The economy is no different. You can't have no sun and bad soil and just pour Miracle-Gro and expect the plant to grow. It doesn't work that way. We need to set the environment for expansion and growth and American competitiveness. That's not happening right now. We need to change these policies.

So look at what we've done in the House. In this House, those are the bills we've passed. We've passed bill after bill after bill that makes the environment more competitive for American industry, which means we would have more jobs in America, and they die in the Senate. And I think it's almost fruit loop legislation in the Senate, which is no legislation.

Until we start to turn this process around, start to focus on points of agreement that will turn the economy around and put our people back to work, I think you're going to see a continued discontent of people in this country with this town.

So with that, Mr. Griffin, I'm proud to be here with this freshman class doing the hard work in a bipartisan way, trying to change the environment to put our families back to work.

Thank you.

I think we all come to this House in an effort to grow the economy and make sure we create policies that are going to help create jobs. We don't care if it's a Republican or a Democrat idea. We just want ideas that are going to work. So the partisanship goes away. It's ideas that put our families back to work.

I want to talk about taxes though, quickly, because I think there has been an engagement in class warfare. And I know the President, he talks about taxing millionaires and billionaires, corporate jet owners, and big oil companies. I don't have those people, really, in my district. I come from small-town America. And he talks about taxing those people. But what he leaves out is, he's here to tax the small businessman, the small manufacturer, the people who are making $200,000 to $250,000 a year. Those are the businessmen and -women in my community that own the small manufacturing shops that employ 10 people to 100 people. Those are the people that are looking for access to capital to grow their businesses that are going to put our hardworking families back to work. And those are the people that are going to pay the brunt of these tax increases that the President is talking about. So, you know what? The billionaires, I don't care. But I do care about the job creators in my community, in the district that I represent that are going to be hit by his proposed tax increases.

We all come to this House floor and we talk about debt reduction and job growth. There is a simple point I want to make here. If you look back at 1955, the top tax rate was around 90 percent. In the Reagan years, it was around 25 percent. From 90 to 25 percent, a great span of tax rates. What's unique is that no matter what the tax rate is, the Federal Government continuously brings in about 19 to 20 percent of revenue, as it relates to the size of the economy or GDP. Tax rate increases don't actually bring in more revenue. But if you want to look at what brings in more revenue to the Federal coffers it's economic growth. When GDP grows, so too does revenue to the Federal coffers, and that's because more people are going to work, which means more people are paying taxes. So if we want to reduce our debt and put our people back to work, let's focus on policies that grow our economy. When we grow our economy, more money comes into the Federal coffers, and more people are working, supporting their families, and paying taxes. Those are the policies that we're advocating for here in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Chicago Iron & Supplies, Inc., from my hometown of Ashland, Wisconsin, for being named the 2011 Business of the Year by the Ashland Area Development Corporation.

From what began as a small five-person fur, animal and metals business in the late 19th Century, Chicago Iron & Supplies has transformed into the successful metal company it is today. The Orensten family purchased Chicago Iron in 1957, and their hard work and entrepreneurial spirit is a living example of the American Dream.

Small businesses, like Chicago Iron, are the drivers of our economy and their success is fuel to the economic engine of local communities. For over 50 years, Chicago Iron has been an exemplary small business whose success extends throughout Ashland, creating jobs and work for other local businesses.

Over the last half century, the Orensten family has not only invested in their business, but they have also invested greatly in the community of Ashland. It is my hope that the Orensten family and Chicago Iron & Supplies find continued success for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I have had a chance to watch this floor debate over the last week or so, and to say the least, I think we can say tempers have flared and there's been a lot of rhetoric on both sides. And as we come together today with a proposal that has been negotiated with both sides--with Speaker Boehner, the President, and Harry Reid--it's a deal that not everyone is pleased with. It's a deal that doesn't have in everything that I want, and I'm sure that it doesn't have everything in the deal that my friends across the aisle would want. And that's why I think so many of us are hearing from our constituents, a lot on the far right and a lot on the far left, saying, We don't like it.

But the bottom line is I think this is one of the greatest moments of the House where two sides come together and figure out how they are going to find a solution that doesn't work for their parties; it's a solution that works for the American people.

And at this point in our history we owe $14.5 trillion.

It's about time this Congress comes together and figures out a way to live within our means. This bill is going to start that process, though it doesn't go far enough.

Madam Speaker, the American people are sick of these kinds of conversations.

My friends across the aisle voted to rob $500 billion out of Medicare for ObamaCare. They instituted the IPAB Board that's going to ration care for our seniors.

We brought a proposal to this House that was going to root out all loopholes in nooks and crannies where businesses hide their money, and they all voted ``no.''

The American people are looking for real solutions. And you know what? This Harry Reid bill is full of budget gimmicks that don't get the job done.

I want to take a moment and thank Chairman Bachus and Chairwoman Capito for their hard work on this legislation and for their drive to make sure that this bill came to the floor today.

All of us in this House agree that we want consumer protections, where any one of our friends or family members, our neighbors and our constituents, when they deal with a financial institution, they are dealt with in a fair way and in a transparent way. Our reform here to the CFPB does exactly that; it advances that very same cause.

I want to talk about a couple of the components of this bill. One is we are moving this from a director to a bipartisan commission. I think it's important to note that my friends on the other side of the aisle, when they first crafted this bill, the ranking member, they included a bipartisan commission. And the President, when he talked about this bill, he was in favor of a bipartisan commission. And now all of a sudden today, as we have brought this back up, they are now opposed to a bipartisan commission.

I think it's important that we note that today you may have a Democrat President and you might like the recommendation for the Director of the CFPB, but if I'm going to project in the future, I am one to guess that I bet at one point in our future there will be a Republican President, and you may not like his appointee.

Let's come together. Let's not regret this moment. Let's come together and make sure we have a bipartisan commission that is going to work on behalf of consumers, because this isn't a Republican or Democrat issue, it is truly an American issue that should be dealt with on a commission level.

One other key component of our legislation is the review standard of rules that come from the CFPB. The way it is set up right now, the only way a rule can be overturned is if we are going to have Armageddon in the financial industry. And so the only one that can have a rule overturned is a big bank on Wall Street, one who is too big to fail.

The way it is currently written, you have given a voice to those people who helped cause this financial crisis. You know what? I'm not from Wall Street, I am from small town, rural Wisconsin. We don't have big Wall Street banks, we have small community banks and we have credit unions. The way the current bill is written--not mine, the one that's in existence today, the current law--it doesn't give a voice to the people in my community if a rule that comes out from the CFPB is going to affect them negatively.

And you know what? On Main Street, the very people who had nothing to do with the financial crisis, who haven't been given a voice--but will if my bill passes--those are the people who deal with our small business owners, with our family members, people who are looking at expanding their business, growing their business, creating jobs in our community. They rely on community banks and credit unions for loans, and they don't have a voice. I don't understand that. And then the same people that we look to when we want a mortgage for our home or we want a car loan, it's these people we look to, and they have been left voiceless in the current law. But my bill gives a voice to Main Street America. I have to say, the point I don't think can be made

clearer with those who support my bill. I don't have big Wall Street support for my bill, but I'll tell you what support I do have. I have the Community Bankers of Wisconsin, I have the Wisconsin Bankers Association, I have the Independent Community Bankers of America, American Bankers Association, I have the Consumer Bankers Association. All those who are about small community banks that deal with customers support this reform.

We go a step further. We have the Wisconsin Credit Union League, the Credit Union National Association, and the National Association of Credit Unions, all people who didn't have any role in this financial crisis, all people in our communities who are looking out for consumers because if they don't, they don't survive in small town America, and they all support this reform legislation.

I would encourage all of my colleagues to jump onboard and support commonsense reform that is going to strengthen consumer protection and provide great oversight for a very powerful agency, and it's going to hold it accountable.

I think it is important to note the reason that oversight of the CFPB wasn't included in the original legislation, that being that the CFPB doesn't have to consider safety and soundness when they're making rules. Safety and soundness is the gold standard when we look at our banking industry and how it effectively works within our society. Because that was not included--we just looked at consumer protection--I think the rationale was that, well, we should have an outside group review each rule that comes out to make sure it will not undermine our financial sector.

I have to tell you I am quite amazed, though. My friends across the aisle drafted a bill that includes a review process, a review process that only gives a voice to big banks on Wall Street, that only gives a voice to those banks that are too big to fail. So I come out with a commonsense reform. I say, Listen. Let's just not give a voice to your friends on Wall Street. Let's give a voice to the small community banks in rural Wisconsin, to small credit unions in rural Wisconsin. Let's give them a voice, too. Then when we do that, when we make that proposal, Mr. Chairman, it seems like they want to take their ball and go home. They say, Well, if you want to give a voice to small community banks, then no one should have a voice to express their concern for a rule that could be harmful.

I mean, when you look at small community banks that are already overregulated, small community banks and credit unions which had nothing to do with the financial crisis but are going to be stuck dealing with over 2,000 pages of rules from Dodd-Frank, let's give them a voice to come here and say, This is how these rules will impact and affect us.

So I would say to my friends across the aisle, don't take your ball and go home. Let's actually work together and find a way in which we can give a voice to those banks and those credit unions that don't currently have one.

I think one of the reasons we modified the rule is that right now, with the two-thirds majority, you basically need seven out of 10 votes to overturn what would be a harmful rule. In the way the law is currently written, one of the voting members is the director of the CFPB, making the standard that much more difficult.

If we're talking about harmful rules to our community banks and our credit unions, let's make sure we have a simple majority that can step in and overturn those rules. Why do we want to set a standard so high that it can't be overturned? It's nearly impossible to overturn it.

And I would commend my friends on the other side of the aisle to make sure there was a review process in the CFPB. But no law is ever perfect, and with that, I think we should come forward today and say how can we better perfect this rule to work for our consumers? And having a simple majority to overturn a rule that could be harmful coming from the CFPB does exactly that.

Mr. Chairman, this is remarkable.

My friends across the aisle actually include and voted for a review process of the CFPB, and now they come in today and say, Listen, we want to do away with that review process. I mean, how last year did we come into this House and say we're going to vote for a review process of harmful rules coming from the CFPB because it doesn't include the standard of consideration for safety and soundness, but today with my bill, they come in and say, We don't want any review process. That to me, Mr. Chairman, does not make sense.

I don't think it works for the American people, and it doesn't work for small community banks and credit unions who support a review process. Not only that, but they support a voice in that review process. And that's what my bill does.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this motion on the floor today is just a political stunt that is going to undo the goodwill of my bill. Let's be clear, after nearly 20 hours of hearings and debates in our subcommittee and in our committee, this issue specifically has not been raised by my friends across the aisle. And then today, we spent nearly 3 hours on the floor and not once was this specific issue raised. This is no more than political theater.

But I have good news for my friends across the aisle, because in our committee we dealt with a similar issue, one where I made a motion to designate one of five commissioners to specifically deal with the protection of our seniors. The bad news is that every Democrat voted against that amendment.

Let's be clear. Everybody in this House wants to make sure their friends, their family members, their neighbors and constituents, when they deal with banks, their transactions are fair and transparent. We want to make sure of that. But I want to specifically talk about one very important issue that is raised in my bill that fixes the underlying law, because when you look at the CFPB as currently written, there is the ability to have rules reviewed, but the only way a rule can get reviewed is if you are a big bank on Wall Street. If you are one of those banks that participated in the financial crisis, if you are a big bank that is too big to fail, the way the underlying law has been written, Mr. Speaker, you have a voice with the way the current law is written with the CFPB.

What my bill does is it actually gives a voice to small community banks and credit unions who deal with families all across America.

Mr. Speaker, my bill doesn't just give a voice to Wall Street banks, the big banks. What my bill does is it gives a voice to small community banks, gives a voice to credit unions. So if a rule comes out that affects negatively the small community banks and the credit unions, they have a voice to ask that it be overturned. And it's those very small banks and credit unions that our families across this country look to when they want to get a loan for a car or mortgage for their home. Not only

that, it's those small banks and credit unions that give capital to small businesses that expand and grow and create jobs for our hardworking families right here in America.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is commonsense reform. This is reform that is going to do justice to the CFPB. I would ask that you join with me and Main Street America and vote against this motion to recommit and vote for the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we've had a great debate here on Cut, Cap, and Balance. All the points have been made. But as I sit here and listen to this debate, Mr. Speaker, I can't help but notice the hypocrisy.

We're dealing with the other side, who is the advocate of three wars. They have a $1 trillion stimulus bill, a $1 trillion-plus ObamaCare, and they don't want to come to the table and have a conversation about how we're going to reduce spending in the U.S. Government. And then we hear all this conversation about tax loopholes. Well, welcome to the party.

Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago, we had a bill on the floor where we did away with all these loopholes and reformed our tax codes and they did nothing to support that reform, and now they demagogue our plan again.

We hear about sending jobs overseas. Well, jobs are going overseas because we're taxing our businesses too much. When you tax them too much, they go other places. And when they go other places--like China, India, Mexico, and Vietnam--they take our jobs with them.

I've heard a lot about Medicare. The only party in this House who has cut Medicare is the Democrat Party--$500 billion out of Medicare in an IPAB bill that is going to ration care for our seniors.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I appreciate the gentleman from Arkansas yielding.

I think you make very powerful arguments as to why our friends on the other side of the aisle were unwilling to get rid of these horrible tax loopholes, because when the two of us got to this House in January, they were here. They were here in a Democrat-controlled House, Senate, and with a Democratic President; and they did nothing to do away with these loopholes. When we got to this House, we said, No more crony capitalism, no more corporate welfare. Let's do away with all of these loopholes, all of these nooks and crannies where some big business will hide their money and not pay their fair share. And we'll restructure our Tax Code to make us more competitive in this global marketplace.

And when we did that, the Democrats said, no, they didn't want to participate in reforming the Tax Code. But then they have no problem standing here today and making arguments that we're the ones that want to keep these loopholes in place. Absolutely false.

I've had a chance to sit in and listen to the debate that's going on in this House. I continually hear my friends across the aisle talk about jobs that are getting shipped overseas. And I've got to tell you, that is a great concern for me. They missed the disconnect, however, between jobs leaving America and the regulation and tax rates that we have in America.

You know, this isn't 1960. It's not 1980. It's not 1990. We are in a new global marketplace. In days gone by, America was the only place really to do business. But now our capital, it can go anywhere in the world. It can go to Thailand, India, Vietnam, Canada, Mexico. It can go anywhere. And when you start raising taxes on our job creators, and then you sit and scratch your head and wonder why they're leaving, it's pretty obvious.

We see it on a smaller level in our States. When we see more regulation, more taxes in our States, like California, all of a sudden businesses pack up, and they go to another State that has better rules, regulations, and taxes. That happens on a broader scale right here in America. You raise the cost of doing business; you kill jobs in America. And you know what, in the end, does it hurt these businesses? No. The people that it hurts are our constituents, our families, our people in our districts that are yearning for opportunities, yearning for a job. It's those people that this hurts.

I would agree with the gentleman. And I think it's interesting, as a guy who's come here from central and northern Wisconsin, Wisconsin's Seventh Congressional District, I see that this is a House that will continually talk about political spin and political positioning instead of actual policies that are going to work for American families and American businesses.

I think it's interesting the President likes to talk about corporate jet loopholes. For me, I think it's important that we're clear. The tax increases that the President and my friends across the aisle in the Democrat Party are talking about, these are tax increases on the small job creators in my district, the ones, the same ones that we are asking to expand and grow and create jobs and put our hardworking families of Wisconsin back to work. It's

those people that they're asking to raise taxes on, and I think that's absolutely wrong.

I always hear my friends across the aisle talk about the nineties and how great things were in the nineties. They were great. And they talk about the tax rates of the nineties.

I think it's important to note that even Bill Clinton has said, listen, this isn't 1990 anymore. He has looked at our proposal and basically said, listen, let's make our top rates more competitive in this global marketplace. If we make it more competitive, in the end we are going to be more competitive.

And I just think it's so important that we take a hard look at the regulations and the taxes that come from this town because, in the end, if we engage, if we have policies that allow our people to do what they do best, which is innovate and grow and expand and reap the benefits of their hard work, I think we're going to see America great again and create jobs. But if we stifle that, I think we're going to have a new America that I think none of us would recognize.

Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

When I talk to my job creators back in Wisconsin, never do they say, We're leaving because of the quality of workers we have in this area. Actually, they say we have the hardest working, most productive, smartest workers right here in Wisconsin, right here in America. We don't leave because of the work force. We leave because of the regulations that come from this town, the taxes that come from this town. And I think it's important, again, that we continue to look at that, because, in the end, this doesn't hurt businesses. It hurts families.

We want to make sure we keep our families strong in America with plenty of opportunity. It makes me think to the conversation that happened earlier about Medicare, and we've heard a lot today, with our friends across the aisle demagoguing this Medicare issue, that the Republican Party wants to take away Medicare from our seniors. That's absolutely incorrect. We want to save Medicare. We want to make sure that we preserve it, that we make sure that our seniors, that they get everything that they bargained for, and that we make sure we have a Medicare plan that's in place for future generations. And when I hear my friends across the aisle talk about Medicare, I scratch my head because they're the only ones who ever cut it. In PPACA, the health care reform bill, ObamaCare, they take $500 billion out of Medicare.

As I talk to seniors around my district, one of the things that makes them so angry is that their Social Security trust fund has been raided for decades, and now the President and the Democrats have raided the Medicare fund as well. I find that to be absolutely unacceptable.

Then you add on top of that the IPAB board, the Independent Payment Advisory Board. This is a board that is going to look at Medicare reimbursement rates, and what they're going to do is lower reimbursements on certain procedures. And Medicare reimbursements are already so low, you reduce them even further, you are going to start to see doctors and hospitals stop providing those services to our seniors. And so, in the end, this IPAB board is going to impact access to care for our current seniors. That is absolutely unacceptable.

We have to keep the promise to our current seniors but also make sure we reform it for future generations so it's saved.

I mean, the President has come out and said we need to reform it. Well, okay, Mr. President, let's reform it, but let's make sure we do it in a way that preserves the benefits for our current retirees and those who are about to retire, and make sure those who might have a different program have enough time to plan their retirement around the new changes. That's exactly what we do.

But they demagogue this issue and our party for trying to fix this great program. I struggle with that. I think it's misrepresenting to the American people about where we stand.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I agree with most everything that you have said here, and very well said.

The one point I disagree with is the President has no other plan, no doubt. With the PPACA bill, the health care reform bill, he does deal with Medicare, make no mistake. That is the Independent Payment Advisory Board, the IPAB board, that is going to systematically reduce reimbursements for seniors.

I think the gentleman said it very well when the President acknowledged that these programs can't sustain themselves on their current course, and so he has addressed it, and my friends across the aisle voted for it. And basically, this is a form of reducing reimbursement, which is a form of reducing access to care for current seniors to reduce the outlays of Medicare. It's a disingenuous, I think, way of basically coming around the corner and saying, You know what? We're going to ration care for our seniors. And I find that to be absolutely unacceptable.

That's right. And there is but only one plan that saves Medicare, and that is ours. And I should have explained that better. I would agree with you.

But just to reiterate, it's not just us and the President saying that Medicare is going broke. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan group, has said that in 9 years the Medicare trust fund is going bankrupt. The Medicare trustees have come out and said the Medicare trust fund will be broke in 10 years.

So make no mistake, we have to fix it. We have to address Medicare. Let's not sit in this House and demagogue this issue. Let's not throw stones at those who want to fix it. Actually engage in the debate or at least take responsibility for cutting $500 billion, taking money out of a program that people paid into, and using it for a whole different set of people who didn't pay into that program. We're robbing this fund, robbing Peter to pay Paul. Let's save Medicare. And you don't save it by robbing it. Let's not rob Medicare.

You know, I think we got in this situation as Americans because all the time our politicians, they come back to their States and their districts and they make promises to their people. They tell them, Listen, I'm going to give you the Sun and the Moon and the stars. Don't worry, we can pay for it, not a big deal. I'm going to keep this promise to you.

And that's how they get elected year after year by making promises. Well, the time has come to say these promises can't be kept. And you know what? I think this freshman class of Republicans have come in and said, We're not going to lie to you anymore. We're going to tell you the truth. The truth is we can't continue on this course. We're going to level with you and say we have to reform it to save it. We can't continue to borrow $1.5 trillion a year and not have substantial economic consequences for the next generation. We have to fix it. You might not want to hear it, but it's the truth. We're going to give you the truth. We're not going to lie to you anymore.

And I think once we all know where we are at as a country, we can then come together and go as a country, How do we fix the problems that face us as a country? But when we have one party that doesn't want to acknowledge the problems that we face and they want to mislead the American people about those problems, it's hard to have an honest conversation.

Well, I didn't come here to misrepresent to the American people. I've come here to be honest and to level with the American people and say, This is where we're at. Let's find solutions that work for the American people.

There is a chart here that I know so many people have seen, Mr. Speaker; but if you look at it, this is a chart that shows gross domestic product in our years out and our debt to GDP, our debt to the size of our economy. In World War II, our debt was about 100 percent of the size of our economy in a year, but we were at war. It was World War II. That went down. But if you look out, look to our future.

This is a sea of red. This is a sea of debt that we are going to leave to the next generation. Our economy will collapse well before we get to the crest of that wave. But that is our future, make no mistake, unless we change course.

I think it is important to note where does this debt come from. Who is financing this debt, because in World War II, American citizens bought war bonds and paid for this debt. Not today, because in 1970, 5 percent of the debt was held by foreign entities. In 1990, 19 percent of our debt was held by foreign entities. And today, 47 percent of our debt is held by foreign entities. And guess what country owns the largest share of that foreign debt? That's right, China. China owns about 30 percent of that foreign debt. We are mortgaging our children's future. We are giving the Chinese Government an economic nuclear bomb because we can't get our fiscal house in order in this House.

It is time that we come together and fix the problems that face this country. Let's not kick the can down the road. Let's not let this be the future that our children inherit. But to prevent it, we have to act. And we are here to act.

Well said to the gentleman from Arkansas.

You know, jobs have been a key component of the debates here in this House because there is a 9.2 percent unemployment rate, and the effective rate is far higher--those who have stopped looking for work or those who are underemployed. People are suffering in our States and districts. We have seen what proposals have come out from the other side of the aisle. Let's take a walk down memory lane.

They told us that ObamaCare was going to create jobs. Well, all it did was give us a health care reform bill that is not going to get the job done, and it is going to cost us an extra trillion dollars over the next 10 years. They gave us a trillion-dollar stimulus bill, and we weren't supposed to see unemployment over 8 percent if that passed. We just found out for every job created or saved, it cost the taxpayer over $250,000 per job. That is not a job-creating bill.

And now what has happened is they have come into this House and they want to tell the American people that we can create jobs in America if we raise taxes on the job creators. You ask any economist, or you just use common sense, to raise taxes on job creators, to take money away from them, and to think they are going to create jobs when they have less money doesn't make any economic sense.

You raise taxes on your job creators, you have less jobs. And if you have less jobs, then you have less people paying taxes. And if you have less people paying taxes, you have less money coming into the Federal coffers. Let's put America back to work. When America works, they get off the unemployment track and start getting paychecks. I want to see Americans and Wisconsinites getting paychecks.

But a lot of the circles around this debt that we face in this country, and I know in my own district, there are people who need help from the government. I want to make sure we have a safety net in place to help those people. I see them all the time, and they need help from the government. I want to make sure that we're there to provide that assistance that they need. Or for those who fall on hard times, I want to make sure that we have a safety net in place to help them.

But let me tell you what, if we continue to borrow and spend this way, there isn't going to be money for those who need the most help. Look to Greece. If you want to see America's future, if we stay on this current course, look to Greece. Look at the protests. When you make promises to people that you can't keep, what happens? They take to the streets and they riot. Let's not lie to the American people. Let's tell them the truth. Let's not Greece be America's future. Let's make sure we have a great and prosperous country, the same that our Forefathers passed to us.

But to have that, we have to fight for it because the status quo is this: massive debt. And with that massive debt, you have Greece-like riots in the streets. That is unacceptable. Let's face this challenge head on and make sure that we leave an America that is prosperous, bright, and full of hope for the next generation.

One point, we don't want to do a cabernet dance here. There is no doubt that the proposal that came out the House and passed, it is now going to go to the President. Most Americans know when you buy a house or a car, you make an offer. When you make an offer, the seller makes a counteroffer. We'll wait for the President's counterproposal, if he is going to lead, the leader of the free world. Let's see him put his ideas on paper. Let him show the American people what his ideas are, just as we have shown the American people what our ideas are. I encourage him to do that.

I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for hosting tonight's conversation.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I agree with most everything you said tonight, but I have to disagree with you on one point. With regard to Medicare, the President does have a plan. I talk to seniors all over my district. One of the things that makes our seniors so angry is that over the course of their lifetime, the money that they have put in their Social Security accounts, it's been robbed. It's been taken out and spent for other things.

So what the President does in ObamaCare is he takes half a trillion dollars out of Medicare and uses it to spend for ObamaCare. Everyone agrees that we have to fix Medicare. The President agrees there's a problem, Bill Clinton agrees there's a problem, Republicans agree there's a problem. How do we fix it? Well, what the President does is says, I'm going to institute the IPAD board, the Independent Payment Advisory Board. This is a board that's going to look at prices that we pay our health care providers, and it's going to reduce those reimbursements--reimbursements that are already incredibly low.

What does that mean? It's going to affect the access to care for our current seniors. That is absolutely unacceptable. We have a plan in place that's going to save Medicare, it's going to protect Medicare, and we're going to continue this great program for future generations. Let's not be mistaken. The President has a plan that is going to kill Medicare and provide a lack of service to our seniors.

I do want to move from that to jobs, though, because that is what is on everyone's mind. As I travel central and northern Wisconsin, people are concerned about jobs. There's a lack of opportunity. There's a lack of prosperity. And so I want to review what the Democrats did, which is they talked to folks who will come up with abstract theories. They went and talked to university professors, and they came up with an $800 billion-plus stimulus bill. Remember, that was their jobs plan: $800 billion of government spending. They said government spending will lead to economic growth, prosperity, wealth, and sustainable jobs.

We know that government spending doesn't lead to sustainable jobs. It has never worked. It doesn't work. And that's why when they promised that we would have unemployment of only 8 percent and we would create millions of jobs, the alternative happened. We've lost millions of jobs, and we've had unemployment reach almost 10 percent.

What we've done is not talk to the professors who sit in the classroom. I've gone out and talked to job creators, people who are actually putting people in my community back to work. And what do they say? Why aren't they creating jobs? They continually talk about uncertainty in the marketplace. What does that mean? When they talk about uncertainty, they talk about a $14.3 trillion debt, the fact that we're going to borrow $12.5 trillion this year alone. We're going to borrow a trillion dollars every year for the next 10 years. As the gentleman from Illinois said, we are cascading towards a cliff and there's a road sign that says: Danger: Pump the breaks. You're about to go over. That's what we're going to do.

Our job creators are saying, Listen, with this massive debt, it creates uncertainty. It creates uncertainty because we don't know what interest rates are going to be in the very near future. We're concerned about inflation because government is printing money to purchase our debt. They're concerned about punishing tax increases. They're concerned about health care costs with ObamaCare. As the gentlelady from Alabama said, they're concerned about regulation.

In my district, we have a great forest product industry. We make paper in my district. Boiler MACT is going to kill jobs in central Wisconsin and send them to China where they have no regulation.

All these things have come together to create uncertainty, which means our job creators aren't reinvesting; they're not expanding; they're not growing; they're not innovating. Do you know what? It doesn't hurt the job creator. It hurts the families in our communities because they have a lack of opportunity for jobs.

I want to just point to a chart that we have here.

When we have recessions, there is what's called ``symmetry.'' If you have a U-shaped decline in this recession, you'll have a U-shaped recovery. If you have a V-shaped decline, you'll have a V-shaped recovery. That's our history, and you'll see that in this chart. What has happened differently in this recession, the great recession, is we've had a V-shaped decline; the recovery has ticked up a little bit, and then it has flat-lined. Why has it flat-lined?--because of the uncertainty that has been created coming from Washington: from our Democrat colleagues on the other side of the aisle and this administration. It's causing a lack of willingness for our job creators to reinvest.

I want to bring up one last point.

I continually hear how our friends want to increase taxes on our job creators. I think anyone who looks at that says we will not create jobs by taxing the job creator. I think it's a good example. If those who say we should raise taxes are concerned about jobs going overseas, it's a pretty simple example that I use:

You have Wal-Mart and Target and Kmart--all the big-box retailers. They compete against one another, right? They're competing. Yet Kmart is not doing so well. They're laying people off. They're closing stores, right?

My friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, they would come in and they would advise Kmart. They'd say, Listen. You have to bring in more revenue. You have to keep

these people employed. You have to keep these stores open. You need more revenue. To bring in more revenue, all you have to do is raise your prices. If you raise your prices, you'll bring in more revenue.

We all know that's not what will happen. If you raise your prices at Kmart, you will drive more shoppers to Wal-Mart and Target. If you raise the cost of doing business in America, you are going to send more of our jobs to China, India, Mexico, Vietnam; but you're going to outsource these jobs because you're raising the cost of doing business in America.

Let's make sure we make America a competitive place where our job creators can do what they do best, which is to create jobs and to put our hardworking families back to work.

I agree. Americans are sick of being lied to. We're going to level with the American people.

We just had a joint economic hearing a couple of days ago, and we learned that it is 18 percent more expensive to manufacture in America as opposed to other countries, and that's outside of wages. That's our Tax Code and our

regulations. It's more expensive to manufacture in America. Those are the policies right here in Washington that are making it more expensive. That's absolutely wrong.

I've got to tell you I had a chance to listen to our colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle go on about tax breaks for big oil companies. I don't know if anyone heard their great conversation about tax breaks for big oil companies.

But I just got here in January. I'm a freshman. I'm new to this, but I don't recall our passing any bills that had tax breaks for oil companies. And they had control of this House for 4 years. Where were their bills to deal with tax breaks for big oil companies? I never saw them.

I hear this commentary that tries to get people ginned up, and it takes our eye off the ball, which is true job creation and making us more competitive in a global economy.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

And if you look at tapping into these oil reserves, what does that do to endanger the security of this country? As the gentlelady knows, in the South, whether it's tornadoes or whether it's floods or whether it's hurricanes, things happen in the gulf where we would have to tap into the reserve because our energy supply could be at risk. And here for political purposes to try to drive prices down over the summer driving season, the President has tapped into that reserve. I think that's absolutely unacceptable for political purposes, especially, as we know, that real risks come up that can cause us a need for that energy supply.

I'm grateful for the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

You know, we were on a trip together, a bipartisan trip to Afghanistan, and as we were able to tour the country and meet with our military leaders, our CIA and our State Department, it was for me an interesting trip in that you see that support of our young men and women who are overseas fighting for their country does not have political boundaries. Our group on this trip came together and unanimously were supportive of the men and women who we have sent to defend this

country, and I think it was quite remarkable to see this team come together.

Before I talk further, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

I'm grateful to the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding.

I do want to briefly talk about one of our Wisconsin heroes who last week was fighting for his country in the Wardak Province. It's Matthew Hermanson, who is pictured here in the lower left corner of our diagram. He is from Appleton, Wisconsin, and he is survived by his wife and his parents.

He was, again, last week fighting for his country. He was part of the 2nd Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, and the division's 4th Brigade is stationed in Fort Polk.

In Wisconsin, we have like many States suffered losses recently, and our hearts go out to the family, the parents of Matt and to his wife, who at a time when many Americans are celebrating what has happened in Pakistan with Osama bin Laden, this family and other families are grieving the loss of their loved one. And here is a great Wisconsin hero, a great American hero who was fighting for his country who gave us the ultimate sacrifice in his pursuit for freedom. And I am grateful for all that he has given his State and his country, and we are proud of him.

I appreciate the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding. And I would echo the sentiment as stated by the gentleman from Connecticut. I think he's right. You look at the families and how they suffer when they lose one of their sons or daughters or fathers or mothers. It truly is felt. I think it was well said.

Just quickly, as we were on this trip, we had a chance not just to go to Afghanistan, but this bipartisan delegation had a chance to go see many of our great allies in the conflict in Afghanistan. We stopped over in Georgia and Azerbaijan and the Czech Republic. What I thought was so unique as I went to those countries was their unabashed support for American principles, not just American principles, human principles of freedom and liberty and prosperity.

And when we look around the world and people talk about America, oftentimes they pay us great lip service. They tell us they're our friend and they're supportive of what we're doing in the world. But oftentimes their actions don't meet their words. But you look at these three countries that we visited. They just don't express by word their support for what we do here in America, but they show their support. And they've shown that support most definitely by way of sending their troops to Afghanistan to fight for the freedom of those Afghanis who want to see some form of democracy in their country.

Again, while we were in Afghanistan, we participated in a memorial ceremony for the nine Americans who were shot at the airport and were killed. I want to remember tonight Major Philip Ambard, one of those who lost his life last week in that attack. He was born in Caracas, Venezuela, on the 4th of April, 1967. He lived in Venezuela until he was 12 years old, at which time he moved to America, and he was then living in Edmonds, Washington.

Now, he started his military career in 1985. He enlisted in the United States Air Force. With a stellar enlisted career, he rose to the rank of master sergeant. From there he attended night school, all the while raising a young family, and he obtained his bachelor's degree.

He was then selected to go to Officer Training School in 2000. He was given his most recent assignment as a foreign language professor at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. He taught both Spanish and French.

As we've discussed here, the loss of one of our military men or women is felt throughout the family. Major Ambard was survived not only by his wife, Linda, but by his five children--Alexander, Timothy, Joshua, Patrick, and his daughter, Emily; by his mother and father; and by his sister, Diana.

I know, as they go into this week and into the coming months and years, they will mourn the loss of their father, their son, their brother, their husband. I just want Major Ambard's family to know that we are grateful for his service, that we are grateful for the sacrifice he made for his country, and that we are grateful to them for the sacrifice they are making, for they don't have their loved one at home with them tonight, sharing a meal, and they're not going to have Christmases and birthday parties together. That, most definitely, is a sacrifice they will feel for a lifetime. I am grateful for what he has done in paying the ultimate sacrifice for his country.

Madam Chairwoman, as a freshman in this House, it has been unique to sit and see one of the age-old tactics that takes place, scaring seniors, not to move the ball down the

field, but for political points. The gentleman was just referencing Medicare and telling the American people that it's not broken, that it's going to continue to work.

These are CBO charts. If you take a look at them, it's broken. We can't afford it.

We have to reform this program to save it, and to deny that is trying to scare seniors for your own political gain, and I think that's shameless.

No, I won't.

I think we have to be honest with the American people, come out and say you know what, this is a program that if we can reform it, we can save it for our retirees. But not only that, those who are about to retire, 55 and older, we can save the program for them as well. And we can modify the program for those of us in later generations.

But let's not try to scare our seniors tonight and tell them that this plan is going to take away their care, because it's not. This plan, and its proposal, is that those who are 55 and older are going to continue to get the same plan that exists today.

The reforms are for future generations, and with those reforms we are guaranteeing that current retirees get the benefits that we promised them. If you say you care about our seniors, you would join with us, and we would all work to resolve this issue and make sure our grandmas and our grandpas continue to get the benefits that our country has promised them.

Madam Chairwoman, in reference to one of the charts we just saw from the gentleman from California, I found it interesting that he laid out many different debts and deficits from prior Presidents, but the one he failed to present to this House was the one from President Obama. On the day that the President took office, we were projected, over the course of 10 years, to borrow $1.8 trillion, from the CBO, and today we are projected to borrow $9.4 trillion. We have inherited now a fiscal mess.

Let's review where we're at. This country owes $14 trillion. This year we are going to borrow $1.6 trillion. Last year we borrowed over $1 trillion. The year before that we borrowed over $1 trillion. Let's look out 10 years. For the next 10 years, on average, we're going to borrow $1 trillion every single year. This is unsustainable. We cannot continue on this course.

Listen, I wasn't a big fan of President Bush's spending, but his biggest year of deficit spending was $460 billion. That pales in comparison to the $1.6 trillion we're going to borrow today. I mean, I know we've all seen these charts so often, but this is our debt chart from the CBO. We have a sea of red, a sea of debt that we are going to leave off to the next generation. This is unconscionable.

What does this mean for future generations? This means higher interest rates. This means massive tax increases. This means a lower standard of living for our next generation. And I guess I will present to this House, if you were to ask your grandma and grandpa what they thought about leaving this off to our next generation, they would be outraged. They would be furious that this is their legacy, that this is what their grandchildren are going to inherit. We need to fix the problem.

Let's talk about the budget proposal that has been made.

Congressman Paul Ryan and the Budget Committee, they propose reducing spending by $6.2 trillion over the course of 10 years. Yes, they also talk about tax reform, a fair, flatter Tax Code. And you know what? We have to realize this isn't 1980. We are in a global marketplace. We compete against China and India, Mexico, Vietnam.

And you know what? This isn't just against Kansas and Kentucky. We have to engage. We have to have an environment where our businesses can compete, succeed, and win. And when they do, who benefits? The people that benefit are our families because they have jobs, they have opportunity. But if we build walls around this country with more mandates and more regulation and more taxes, we are going to see more businesses go overseas and fewer jobs for our families. And as we've been talking about tonight, we will have less revenue in the Federal Reserve.

I've heard a lot this evening, Madam Chairwoman, about Medicare and a lot of demagoguery across the aisle about what it's going to do. Let's be clear with the American people. Let's be honest with the American people that if we don't reform Medicare, the CBO says it's going broke in 9 years. We have to fix it. We have to fix it to make sure we can preserve it for our current seniors. So let's not sit here and scare people and tell our seniors we're taking away their Medicare. We are not. We are working on solutions that are going to preserve it.

And so when we talk about reform, to be clear, we're not talking about reform for our current seniors or even those who are about to retire. The reforms we are talking about are for my generation. And what's beautiful about this is if we reform Social Security, we get to guarantee the benefits for our current seniors, but then you allow me to plan for the benefits I'm going to have when I retire. And if we do it, we can succeed in this reform.

We've heard a lot about taxes as well. And so we all know here that the top tax rate, 35 percent, and a family who makes $350,000 a year falls into that tax category. And so I would, Madam Chairwoman, suggest to my friends on the left, why don't we do this. Let's bump that tax rate up--not to 35 percent, maybe 50 percent. No, let's go 100 percent. Let's take every dollar of a family that makes $350,000 a year or more, let's take every single dollar from them. And if we do that, we still can't balance the budget. So let's go to the next level. Let's go to the next highest rung of income earners, those who make $200,000 or more as a family. A mom makes $100,000; a dad makes $100,000. We would all agree they're wealthy. Let's take 100 percent of every dollar they make as well.

And if you do that, you still can't balance the budget.

You cannot tax your way out of this problem. We have to reduce our spending. If we reduce our spending and we reform our Tax Code, we can bring prosperity back to this country. But to sit here in this House and tell the American people that we can tax our way out, the bottom line is you can tax every penny of every profit of the wealthiest Americans and you can't balance the budget.

Madam Chairwoman, I think we have to take a serious look at Congressman Ryan's budget. I'm willing to consider other commonsense solutions that are going to get this country back on track, but ones where we are going to demagogue plans and say we just have to raise taxes and not reform are not real solutions. That is going to give us more of the same.

First of all, I think many of us here in this House want to see the government to continue to be funded. But let's review what has happened here.

Last year, the Democrats failed to pass a budget. They failed to propose a budget. So this Congress, we're here doing the work of last year's House and Senate.

We proposed a bill to fund the government, and in that bill, we cut $61 billion. That is under the backstop of the fact that we're going to borrow $1.6 trillion this year alone. Our national debt is $14 trillion. The Democrats in the Senate say they don't like our proposal.

That's okay. If you don't like it, pass your own proposal. Give us a counterproposal, and we will consider it. But the bottom line is the Senate has failed to act. They haven't sent us a counterproposal.

So what we've done is we've passed two extensions to fund the government, and again yesterday we passed a third. The Senate isn't going to take it up.

Again, if you don't like our proposal, give us your own. We can't negotiate with ourselves. We're willing to sit down and talk, but we can't continue to put out our proposals and our ideas and have you fail to give us a response.

I thank the chairman for yielding time to me to address the issue today with regard to unspent, unobligated stimulus money.

Two years ago, this Congress voted to spend nearly a trillion dollars of stimulus money. They said that we could borrow and spend our way to prosperity. Well, 2 years later we are well aware that borrowing and spending doesn't lead to economic prosperity, growth and sustainable jobs. We know it comes from the private sector--people who invest in their businesses and ideas. And from there, they expand and grow. That's how we create jobs in this great country.

Now we are stuck with a $14 trillion debt. This year, we're going to borrow $1.5 trillion. More borrowing, more spending, is going to lead to job-crushing taxes and passing this debt on to our next generation. It's unacceptable.

I am encouraged that we are working on sending all unobligated stimulus money back to the Fed so we can pay down our debt.