Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for yielding and appreciate this time.

If I heard it once when I was back in my district, I heard it dozens of times, and that was the frustration of my constituents concerning our inability to get our business done, to get it done on time without the panic and anxiety associated with threatened shutdowns of government.

This vote today is an opportunity for us to do just that--fund government consistently with the amounts agreed to in the Budget Control Act, giving the necessary time to complete 2012 appropriations and save America from the threat of another government shutdown.

Now, as was articulated by the distinguished chairman a moment ago, I'm a freshman, and I realize I'm still learning the ropes of this Chamber and how things get done, but let's just go back in context.

This funds government at levels consistent with the Budget Control Act passed in this very room a few weeks ago. It addresses disaster funding and does so in a very responsible way. It is not unprecedented nor is it unique to find offsets. And this offset is exactly what this House passed in the Homeland Security appropriations bill.

So what has changed? I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that the political strategies have changed, and the emotions and the hardships of the people affected by these disasters are really nothing more than a political prop in this entire discussion designed to make us look hard-hearted or insensitive. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Just a moment ago, the distinguished Democratic whip from Maryland talked about the water heater going out in the middle of the night. You just simply go charge one. What happens when you go to charge it and your credit is denied? You've maxed out on your credit card. As my friend Mike Simpson said a moment ago, we're broke. We're a trillion and a half dollars in deficit.

Our plan, this CR, provides the necessary funding, does it responsibly and consistently with already agreed-upon numbers. I urge its passage.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman not only for yielding some time but also for his glowing remarks about a great community and one of the 10 most livable cities in all of America that I had the privilege of presiding over for about 12 years as mayor, a city that continues to enjoy tremendous economic development and influence in the State of Arkansas.

And let me just say this, using that as a context for my remarks, that I think the model that the community that I had the privilege of presiding over for 12 years is the model that Washington needs. It's a model that balances its budget.

When I inherited that city in 1999 as its mayor, it did not have a balanced budget. The government was in the way. The discriminate developer did not want to develop in that community because there were too many regulations, too many reasons why they could go elsewhere and have better margins. Well, we changed all that, and now the city is flourishing in a remarkable sort of way.

And I want to steal something from a colleague of mine from Mississippi that was said yesterday out on the Triangle in a media event. He said: All across America we're sitting down with legal pads, and we're drawing that line down the middle and we're discussing the amount of income that we have. This is what's happening to families around the country, what kind of income we have and what kind of expenses we have.

Where the expenses exceed the income, we are having to make some very difficult choices as to what do we do without. Well, quite frankly, I think that that's exactly what's happening in this Congress right now. We have to take the legal pad out. We have to decide those things that we can do that we need and those things that we can do without based on the amount of income that we have coming in.

The sad thing is in order to be able to create that kind of fiscal discipline, it's going to take something like a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in order to guarantee an enforcement mechanism that this Congress or future Congresses cannot undo. So it's that context that I bring to the table today.

It is that basis on which I think this Congress should rally behind the plan that we have offered today that is going to cap spending, that is going to cut spending, and is going to require a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution so that future Congresses can't put us in a similar situation that we are in today.

So I would urge a ``yes'' vote. I support it wholeheartedly, and I would ask the American people to join us by promoting fiscal sanity by approving this piece of legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding some time.

On my way over to the Capitol this afternoon, I was accompanied by some young people from back in my district, Payson and McKenna from Mena, Arkansas, and Adam and Grace Anne from Fayetteville, Arkansas; and we were having a conversation about the debate that's going on right now in Washington, the debate about the debt ceiling. I explained to these young people that the current debt of the United States of America, their share of that current debt, is well into the mid-$40,000 range, $46,000-or-so of debt.

It is for this very reason that we are proposing what we are proposing, because the only way to keep this debt on these innocent young people from soaring to greater and greater levels, to an area that they can no longer afford, is to restrain, constrain government; and the only sure way to do that, the only guaranteed enforcement mechanism that I know that can accomplish that very thing is a balanced budget amendment.

So on behalf of these young people and on behalf of young people across America, let's quit piling more and more debt on our children and grandchildren. Let's pass the rule. Let's pass this bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I've had the privilege of serving Arkansas' Third District now for a little more than 6 months in this Congress. And I can still hear the voices of those people who sent me here. Their voices said, Steve, you've got to go to Washington and you've got to cut spending. You've got to empower the private sector. You've got to reduce the size of government. You've got to get to Washington and help put us back to work. Those same conversations at home at the kitchen table, people discussing their personal budgets, saying to me that, I have to live within my means, why doesn't Washington?

Mr. Speaker, to each of these comments I say, we have an answer. It's a trifecta, if you will. It's called Cut, Cap, and Balance.

Mr. Speaker, I realize I've only been here a short time, but I know full well how Washington works. And I know that this concept is foreign to the many people who have been here down through the years. But if you look around and take an objective view, you will know that the only way to bring legitimate control to the irresponsible fiscal behavior of Washington, D.C., the only way to restore the integrity of this Chamber, to restore the confidence in the people we serve, is to make it constitutional, a balanced budget amendment.

No gimmicks, Mr. Speaker. No hollow promises. Simple language that rank-and-file Americans can wrap their heads around: a constitutional requirement for this country to balance its books.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairwoman, I think we are going to have to extend the space shuttle for an extra day to retrieve the thought process, it got so far out there in orbit. Let me just be very clear, to kind of bring this back to the subject matter at hand.

We're talking about taking funds that have been designated for a project in the future, near term or long term, but in the future, to satisfy an emerging issue that is in the present. Future versus present.

In my district of Arkansas, the cresting of the Illinois River has ripped apart roads, washed out bridges. Floods have taken the lives of constituents of mine, young people who will grow up without a mother or father. We have people living in tents. We have an urgent issue that is facing us today. The flooding has done damage across our entire State, leaving hundreds of Arkansans without homes, and crop losses estimated at over $500 million. It has even been asserted by the other side that it is ``just farmland.'' Just farmland.

Well, let me say to the people who make that argument, don't make that argument with your mouth full.

It has also caused about $100 million in damage to dams, parks, roads, and waterways under the control of the Army Corps of Engineers, and if left unrepaired, will only result in additional devastation in the next season.

But it isn't just about what happened in Arkansas; the entire Mississippi River and its tributary system has been imperiled by these tragedies. They are the lifeblood of our Nation's commerce, and bordering farmlands are rich with fertile soil able to provide food for so many of the American people. Allowing these lands to be so vulnerable to future flooding will only imperil our Nation's food supply.

Offset or not to offset; it is an emerging issue. And on offsets, as you have already heard from my colleague from Louisiana, my colleague from Missouri, that supplemental appropriations, if fully offset over the last three decades, would have reduced by at least $1.3 trillion the debt and reduced the public interest payments on this debt of $57 billion a year. Now, my friends, $57 billion in interest payments would build a lot of high-speed rail.

I congratulate the chairman for his work on this Energy and Water bill. I support it. It is prudent. It is wise. It is necessary. And I commend it to the leadership and to this entire House to pass it and restore the fiscal integrity of our country and give relief to the people who need it so desperately.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Daisy Outdoor Products, a Rogers, Arkansas, company celebrating its 125th anniversary.

Daisy moved to Rogers from Plymouth, Michigan, in 1958. Since that move, Daisy's impact on the northwest Arkansas economy has been substantial--not only in providing jobs, but the incredible recognition this famous brand brings to our region.

As the world's oldest and largest BB gun manufacturer, Daisy has a storied history. Its contributions to the shooting sports, the United States military, and the character of young men and women nationwide is noteworthy. And who can forget Ralphie in the famous movie ``A Christmas Story'' and his coveted Red Ryder, the most famous BB gun ever produced?

Mr. Speaker, 125 years in business is a significant milestone by any measurement. It is a tribute to the vision, commitment, and hard work of the company leadership and the employees of Daisy.

Congratulations, Daisy. I'm proud of you, and our Nation is proud of you.

I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate the leadership of our subcommittee chair, whom I will recognize and yield some time to in just a moment.

Obviously, we are spending more than we make. I don't know how many times we have to articulate the financial condition of our country: that we are borrowing over 40 cents on the dollar for everything we spend. The country is in a financial crisis, and you've got Members on this side of the aisle who are doing everything they can to bring fiscal sanity back to the table and to put America on a different path.

I am amused at how many times we continue to be portrayed as being insensitive to women, infants and children, to older folks, and how so many half-truths are being spoken about the things that this conference is trying to do in order to right America's financial ship.

Suffice it to say that we have much work to do, and it is our intent to do it in a way that is rational and feasible and brings this country back to fiscal order and can take away that cloud of uncertainty that continues to hover over the job creators in this country, the threat of higher taxes, the tremendous deficit and debt, the overregulation that is keeping those entrepreneurs parked on the sideline for fear of higher costs to job expansion and higher energy prices. On and on and on, the challenges facing this country are many and we have much work to do.

At this time, I would like to yield to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia.

I encourage my colleagues to support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Arkansas. I appreciate his leadership and his friendship and his service to our great State, the great State of Arkansas.

I am thrilled that we're having the conversation that we're having here, late in the day, regarding these types of issues that in my strongest opinion are impacting our ability to create jobs; and that's the prize that we all keep our eye on here in these Chambers is what can we do to strengthen our capacity to put people back to work, because I think at the end of the day that's exactly what people elected us to do last November is to come up here and change this climate, change this culture and put the entrepreneur back in charge, because that's where job creation comes from.

A couple of points before I go to some notes that I brought specifically for this afternoon's presentation, and that is that this cloud of uncertainty that continues to hover over the economy of the United States of America is influenced by a number of things, but let me just take two or three of them.

The threat of higher taxes, and not just the threat of higher taxes but the relationship of the threat of higher taxes to the issues of the deficit and the debt. I made these comments not too long ago on this very floor, that in private business, in business in general, your debt is usually tied to your assets, the assets of the company. Most businesspeople get that. But in government, your debt is tied to your capacity to increase taxes. So this debt and deficit issue that we continue to struggle with as a country and the prospect of that debt continuing to rise--and not too long from now we're going to have a vote on increasing the statutory limit on debt--influences, I think contributes to, this cloud of uncertainty that leads a prospective entrepreneur, a prospective job creator, to not do what that person would like to do, even with trillions of dollars sitting on the balance sheets of corporate America, the hesitancy to create these jobs influenced by the threat of higher taxes.

And then I think also, fundamental to this cloud of uncertainty, as I call it, continuous overregulation by this government, that the prospective job creator cannot compute the input costs associated with more government regulation. Notice I haven't even mentioned the impact of the health care law, ObamaCare, as we call it. It's hard to compute the input costs of this health care law. And then more recently, the threat of higher energy prices and a flawed, if not almost nonexistent, energy policy of this administration.

Just think about it. You're a prospective job creator, you've got an idea, you're a creative person, you want to live the American Dream, but standing in your way between your dream and your capacity to do something creatively and resourcefully, to put people to work, to contribute to society, are things like higher taxes, more government regulation and red tape, the impact of when I hire these people, the impact of ObamaCare, and then on top of all of that, the price at the pump and higher energy prices. I just don't see why the other side cannot understand why we're not creating jobs, why we continue to hover at the 9 percent level on unemployment.

Just a couple of weeks ago, we passed on this floor a budget for 2012, and in that budget immediately, before the ink was dry, we were being criticized because of what we were trying to do and what I believe is the reasonable approach to solving our Nation's fiscal problems, and that is finally delving into something that nobody ever wanted to touch, and that's the entitlement programs, the mandatory spending side of the house, where most of the money is.

I just want to make a couple of these comments as it concerns Medicare, because I heard back from my constituents. A tele-town hall meeting the other night, the first phone call I got from Bella Vista, Arkansas, was a gentleman worried because he had heard that we were attempting to take his Medicare away. In 1965 when that program was created, baby boomers were teenagers, and now 10,000 baby boomers a day enter qualification for Medicare. When Medicare was created in 1965, the life expectancy of a human being was around 70, a little younger. Today it's close to 80 years of age. Medicare spending is growing at an unsustainable rate of 7.2 percent every year. Seniors are already facing access issues.

Think about this. Under the current system, one in three primary doctors are limiting Medicare patients. One in eight are forced to deny Medicare patients altogether. If the Medicare program is allowed to continue without any change at all, the Congressional Budget Office projects it goes bankrupt in 9 years. Basically, if we allow Medicare to maintain the status quo, Medicare collapses.

So we're leading. Our conference is leading. We're taking mandatory spending and entitlement programs and we're deciding that we're going to throw our cards down on the table. We're going to do something about it.

The plan that we voted to approve just a couple of weeks ago preserves, protects Medicare for those 55 and over, not just those drawing Medicare but those nearing retirement, people that have planned their lives around that program. We don't change that for those people. That needs to be said. It needs to be repeated over and over again. But again we get demagogued about it because, at the surface level, it sounds like we're trying to just take it away. Let me repeat again. Those 55 and older, not affected by the proposed reforms that we support.

Starting in 2022, new Medicare beneficiaries would be enrolled in the same kind of health care program that I have, that my colleague from Arkansas has, and my other colleagues who have spoken here tonight. Future Medicare recipients would be able to choose from a list of guaranteed coverage options and they'd be given the ability to choose a plan that works best for them. It's not a voucher system. It's premium support. No money changes hands between the government and the individual. It's modeled after what Members of Congress and Federal employees already have.

The reforms are designed to decrease the fraud within the system and requires congressional oversight by requiring transparent pricing and minimum benefit and quality standards and instituting more competitive forces. My friends, that's what the free enterprise system is about, and I believe if it has worked for 235 years of this great country, it should be also the way forward.

Let me finish by saying this. Like my colleague from Arkansas, he and I came in as freshmen together on January 5 in these hallowed Chambers. We didn't come here to do nothing. We didn't come here to kick the old can down the road, to ignore the facts. We came here to act with dispatch and

make a difference for our country. That's why I'm pleased to join my colleagues here of our great freshman class in providing this information to the American public. It's not only what we were elected to do; it is our moral duty to do it and to do it as soon as we can and to do it with the sense of purpose that I think defines the 112th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my voice to those calling for agreement on funding the government for the remainder of this year and avoiding the consequences of a government shutdown. I don't want the government to shut down. Our conference does not want the government to shut down. No one I've talked with wants the government to shut down. And talk of such a shutdown is weighing heavily on consumer confidence in an already fragile economy, not to mention its confidence in this body. We can do better. We should do better. We must do better.

Yesterday on this floor we took yet another action that keeps our government afloat and guarantees that, in the event of a shutdown, troops and their families get paid. That's the least we can do.

And Mr. Speaker, yesterday I sat in a hearing with the CEO of Amtrak. During the hearing it was suggested by a colleague that the carrier examine the feasibility of shutting down routes that are loosing, hemorrhaging money. The answer he received was that because of legal agreements mandating payments on labor and benefits and other guarantees, it would still cost them billions.

I find it incredible that we have these federally subsidized guarantees in place, but we can't guarantee the same for those men and women downrange willing to take a bullet for their country. Shame on us.

Jobs continue to be our highest priority, and it should surprise no one that fundamental to this objective is dealing with a balance sheet full of red ink. It's fundamental to business, it's fundamental to households, and it's fundamental to government. No reputable organization behaves financially the way this government behaves.

The message from the electorate is simple: Live within your means.

The reason we're facing a potential government shutdown is simple: No budget for 2011. And Democrats don't see our spending issues with the same degree of urgency as we do.

I said it just a few days ago on this same floor, and it's worth repeating. We have kicked this can down the road so long, so often and so far, that America and this Congress has a chronic case of turf toe.

Message to America: If you want to remove uncertainty and create jobs, fix the balance sheet. Cut spending. It's as simple as that.

This Republican-led House has done its job. We've attempted time and time again to fund government in a responsible way, prevent a government shutdown, and restore fiscal integrity. I join my colleagues in urging the Senate to act and to act now so that we can turn our attention to the far more important and substantive work that lies ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a milestone in the

life of a lady professional golfer, Stacy Lewis, of The Woodlands, Texas, and of late, the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville.

Ms. Lewis won her first LPGA golf tournament yesterday in California--the Kraft Nabisco Championship, a major event on the LPGA tour.

Mr. Speaker, my purpose today is not necessarily to bring attention to a sporting achievement, but rather to acknowledge the hardship in this young lady's life that makes this accomplishment incredible.

Stacy suffered from scoliosis as a child and spent her teen years in a back brace. Only because of her drive and determination did she reach the pinnacle of women's professional sports. To add to that, she dominated the field the very week her grandfather passed away.

I am proud of Stacy Lewis. I admire her grit. Literally and figuratively, she has a spine of steel. I join her parents, Dale and Carol Lewis, and the Razorback Nation in saluting her for what we all hope is the first of many championship trophies.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and as a fellow freshman and colleague of his in this remarkable new class, I value his friendship and his sense of purpose.

Madam Speaker, that is precisely why I rise today in support of my bill to prevent a government shutdown. I have a unique background, having helped a family start a broadcasting company that now spans in excess of 30 years, served my country in uniform for more than 30 years, spent a little time in the financial services sector, and finally, for the last 12 years, having served as mayor of one of Arkansas's most dynamic cities and one of America's most livable cities, Rogers, Arkansas, and clearly, one of our Nation's most dynamic and fastest growing regions.

Madam Speaker, it was there I had the privilege of working side by side with executives from some of our leading corporations: Walmart, Tyson Foods, J.B. Hunt Trucking, all startup companies once upon a time and now leaders in their trade and with a global reach. These industry giants did not get where they are by ignoring their challenges. They confronted them. It's part of their genius.

It is in this context that I share with my colleagues my greatest frustration: having been elected by the citizens of Arkansas's Third District to come to Washington, D.C., and help deliver our

country to a better future, only to find myself and my colleagues mired in the muck of Beltway politics.

We have a crisis on our hands: unsustainable deficits as far as the eye can see, a national debt nearing statutory limitation, and overreaching government bureaucracy intruding into the lives and businesses of every sector of society, people struggling to find work so they can pursue the American Dream. And, Madam Speaker, they've elected this Congress to face our Nation's toughest issues head-on, and that's what House Republicans have been doing.

We were 3 months into this fiscal year when we took our oaths of office, and, without a budget, we went straight to work on the most pressing issue upon arrival: funding government for the rest of this year. And it is sad that, as I make these remarks, all we have been able to show for our work now into the month of April are temporary measures that continue to distract us away from the real work ahead: the 2012 budget.

Madam Speaker, this has to stop. The political gamesmanship going on in the upper Chamber might make for good headlines in the capital press, but it is hurting our Nation. That's why I've offered this bill to self-impose a deadline on Congress, and I'm asking my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1255 to start the clock on the Senate to pass something we can agree to in funding government for the remainder of this year by April 6, or assuming a government shutdown, expect to have our pay withheld until we can reach agreement.

Every time we fail to address these issues, Madam Speaker, we add to the uncertainty now plaguing America, we contribute to the decline of our economy, we add to the burden of future generations, and we dash the hopes and dreams of millions of people who count on us every day.

Madam Speaker, the time is now to act.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Yes, there has been a lot of conversation in Washington about the prospect of a government shutdown. And while I realize there are some in this Congress who might prefer that option, I am not one of them; and let me just add, our leader is not one of them. Frankly, we think it's irresponsible. Our constituents did not send us to Washington to shut down the government. They sent us here to make it more accountable to the people, and that is precisely what House Republicans have been doing.

Examine the facts. When the curtain came up on this Congress, we were already 3 months into this fiscal year with no budget and on a temporary spending plan that went through early March. This House went to work crafting legislation that would fund the government for the rest of this fiscal year while delivering on our pledge to cut spending. The response from the Senate? Not so fast.

So we kept government operational with a 2-week continuing resolution in hopes that the Senate would realize the sense of urgency that accompanies our fiscal situation. And in that 2-week span of time, the response? Not interested.

Again, this House went to work crafting another temporary measure that funds government through next week. My friends, patience is wearing thin, not just my patience and the patience of my colleagues, but the patience of Americans. In our collective opinion, time's up.

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that we have some bigger fish to fry. Pressures on the statutory limit on debt and, more importantly, the 2012 budget loom very large right now for this country. Instead of focusing on these issues critical to our struggling economy, here we are, mired in partisan gamesmanship over funding the government for the remainder of this year. Did we come here to fish or did we come here to cut bait? This bill simply puts the clock in action on this process.

I am hopeful my colleagues will agree that the time is now to move beyond 2011 so that we can turn our attention to the bigger challenges of transforming this institution and restoring fiscal sanity. That is what the people sent us here to do; and every day we fail to do this work, the people lose.

We have been called extreme. H.R. 1, which passed in the early morning hours on this floor on February 19, cuts on an annualized basis $100 billion in Federal spending. That's one-sixteenth of the deficit. Is that extreme? I don't think so.

Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that people across America trying to find jobs, trying to pay their mortgages, and trying to have the funds to put their kids through college are victimized by this flawed political process. Instead of removing the uncertainty for small business and job creators by cutting spending and shrinking the size and reach of government, we are playing games with the future of our Nation.

If this is our best, our best falls short of the expectation of those we represent. We can do better. We should do better. And if all we can show for our work is a shutdown of the government, we will have failed our constituency and should not be paid.

The gamesmanship going on right now is gambling with America's future, and it's hard to make progress when

you are playing on House money. H.R. 1255 forces Members to have skin in the game. And if passed by both Chambers and signed by the President, we will have the proper motivation to set aside the rhetoric and actually accomplish something that is good for America: a climate for job creation, not a government shutdown.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill so we can do the people's work.

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his leadership on the Appropriations Committee and for yielding me some time here this morning.

Mr. Speaker, yes, it's true. I came here on January 5. Just a few weeks ago, I put my hand up and took the oath of office. As I did, I was reminded of the fact that, at that precise time in my life, I was taking the oath of office already 3 months into the fiscal year. Now, you show me what business or what governmental jurisdiction anywhere in America is effectively and efficiently managed when you're operating without a budget already 3 months into the budget year.

I was a mayor of a very dynamic city in northwest Arkansas. We never did that. We couldn't survive by passing our budget sometime during the course of the ongoing year. So our conference, in particular, is leading by example. We are providing a leadership example for the spending cuts that so many people around America have said over and over again we have to achieve.

Look, America gets it. We are at a $1.5 trillion deficit in this FY, and we are $14-plus trillion in debt. We have to do something about spending. It's all about the end game, which is where this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle can come to an agreement because we know that the end game is about the creation of jobs. The ideological difference about how we get there, I think, is what divides us; but I am a firm believer and will tell you--as will any businessman, any mayor, any county judge, any government official--that your balance sheet drives a lot of things.

I think fundamental to that balance sheet is how much you're in debt, because how much you are in debt in business is tied to your assets. In government, it's tied to your capacity to tax; and right now, one of the fundamental problems about growing jobs in this economy is the uncertainty that hangs over the job creators in America.

Let me just finish by saying that I urge support of H.J. Res. 48.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, hundreds of times since I took the oath of office just a few weeks ago, I've heard references to ``kicking the can down the road.''

This kicking of the can, the ``can'' being the deficit and the debt, has come to the end of that road. In fact, we have used this term so many times, America has a chronic case of turf toe.

Washington is in a state of denial. We continue to give away taxpayer dollars--correction, borrowed dollars--to people who can't afford to pay it back. Our friends from the other side want you to believe that we don't have a heart, that we're insensitive to the plight of those who are struggling because they've lost jobs and can't afford their mortgages.

Well, let me tell you what Americans understand. Americans understand that we cannot continue to live in this irresponsible way--giving away borrowed money, program after program, knowing that it's going down a rat hole. Just another kick at the proverbial can. If you can't cut an expensive, irresponsible program like this one, then what can you cut?

Look, we're all about job creation. Job creation is the preferred way to deliver us from this financial plight that we happen to be in. But the problem with job creation right now is that there is a dark, dark cloud hanging over America as we know it with a huge deficit, a record deficit, and a mounting debt, a debt so large that very soon in this very Chamber we'll be taking up the issue of a debt ceiling increase.

That dark cloud includes higher taxes, that dark cloud includes burdensome regulation, and that dark cloud certainly includes deficits and debt.

This program must be eliminated. The savings must go to deficit reduction.

We have come to the end of the road. We can no longer kick this can any further. My colleagues and I are demonstrating leadership in this arena, something this Congress has lacked for several years.

I encourage support of H.R. 836.