Rob Woodall

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, and I thank the ranking member for his question. And that's a good way to conclude, Madam Chair. The reason is because the language of the bill speaks for itself. The language of the bill speaks for itself. When this bill passes the House today, Madam Chair, we will have the U.S. House of Representatives on record about solutions to the malpractice challenges that face this Nation. But there is no need to be on the record today, Madam Chair, about all of the different ways that we got here. Because I might disagree with my friend from Georgia about how we got here. I would certainly disagree with my friend from Michigan about how we got here. But what is important is that we begin to take those steps forward. And with the removal of these findings, we are going to be able to let that language stand on its face for this House to have the free and open debate that I'm looking forward to today. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield to the ranking member.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chairman, my amendment is a very straightforward amendment. But before I actually talk about the text of it, I want to speak about the real accomplishment of my friend from Georgia, who is the sponsor of the underlying legislation, H.R. 5. The Washington Times did an article on this Congress and called it one of the most ineffective Congresses in history because they looked at how many laws we passed. But then they went on, and they looked at how many days of debate we'd had, how many votes we'd had, how many issues that were important to the American people have we been able to expose in this Congress that we have not been able to expose in Congress before Congress before Congress before Congress in the past, and, Madam Chair, that's what we have today. This bill, introduced by my good friend from Georgia, gives the American people an opportunity to discuss something that is on every single family's mind in this country when it comes to health care, and that is controlling the cost of medical malpractice litigation. Now, in this body, I'm sure we could disagree about the myriad ways there are to control it, but we can agree, I suspect--man and woman, Democrat and Republican--that it has to be controlled. And I thank my colleague from Georgia for having the courage and the stick-to-itness to bring this bill to the floor after so many years of silence on this issue. Madam Chair, my amendment simply strikes the findings section of the bill. As you know, findings are nonbinding parts of the legislation that speak to the intent of Congress. And this issue is, again, such a passionate one, not just for the 435 Members of this House, but for the 300 million Americans across this country. I choose to let the legislation speak for itself. This legislation has been carved out with states' rights provisions in it, to make sure the States have the flexibility that they need. It has been carved out with input from physicians, from attorneys, from families, from providers all across the board. So my amendment, Madam Chair, would not change the substance of the bill but would simply eliminate the findings section to allow the substance of the bill to speak for itself. And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that, as a freshman in this body, I've had to learn a few things over the last 15 months here serving in this body, and what I have learned is that I haven't been able to get every bill that I want out of this House the exact way I want it when it leaves here. It has been much to my chagrin. I thought I was going to be able to come here and make every bill perfect before it leaves here. But not only can I not make it perfect before it goes, but then I have to deal with that United States Senate, and that has proved to be the most complicated part of this process. There are absolutely, as the gentleman has listed, folks who have concerns about the underlying nature of this bill. But if not for this Gingrey bill, we wouldn't be able to have this conversation at all. If not for the courage of folks to step out on the ledge and begin this conversation, we wouldn't be able to have it at all. If we are to advance the cause of litigation reform in this country, if we are to control the inaccessibility of health care that comes from rising costs, then we have to be willing to come to the floor of this House and have the kinds of debates that my friend from Georgia has made possible today. That's true. I may disagree with some of the ways that we've gotten here--and by striking the findings, we make no conclusions today about why we're here--but we make the certain conclusion today that if we don't begin this process, we will never bring it to conclusion. If we don't have this discussion today, Madam Chair, we will never solve these issues.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate that. I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee for yielding. I wanted to come down here and talk about the rule. My colleague from Florida has just made a very impassioned case for why he is likely going to be voting ``no'' on the underlying legislation. If I understood his comments correctly, I'm guessing that it's going to be a ``no'' vote after we have finished 6 hours of debate on this bill--6 hours of debate--which is the kind of debate that a bill of this nature demands. And I'm very proud that the Rules Committee set aside that kind of time. I was fortunate enough to have one of my amendments made in order by the Rules Committee, as was my friend from Florida, but a lot of Members were not. I wanted to come down here, Madam Speaker, to speak to the authorizers, the chairmen out there who are sending this legislation to the floor. Because what we have in this House is called the CutGo rule, which says if you bring a bill to the floor that's actually going to do some reducing of the Federal deficit, if you're going to be bold enough in this House to send a bill to the floor that's going to reduce the burden that we're placing on our children and grandchildren everyday, then nothing that happens on the floor of the House as we try to amend that bill will be allowed to reduce that savings. So when a bill comes to the floor, as this bill has, H.R. 5, that has a very high CutGo number in it, we're in a box. It cannot be amended with different ideas because those ideas are either not germane-- germaneness means that it has to be relevant to the underlying legislation--or they can't cut any additional funds. So what we had to do in the Rules Committee yesterday was reject amendment after amendment after amendment that our colleagues offered that we would ordinarily have made in order here on the House floor in what has been the single most open Congress that I have seen in my lifetime. I'm a freshman on the floor of this House, but I've been watching this institution. This is the single most open Congress I've seen in my lifetime, but we were not able to make more amendments in order because they were not germane or they violated CutGo. To the Rules Committee's credit, we did not waive CutGo. We complied with the rules of this House. But I just say to my friends who are on those authorizing committees, if you want to take advantage of the Rules Committee in this Congress that is providing more opportunity for more debate and more amendment and more discussion than we have seen in decades, you need to be cognizant when you send those bills to the Rules Committee that we are not inclined to waive CutGo--and rightfully so--and we are not inclined to waive the germaneness rules--and rightfully so. What that means today is we're going to have the narrow discussion, that my friend from Florida has laid out, on the merits of this bill for over 6 hours today. I want to thank my friend on the Rules Committee for his leadership in bringing such an open rule to the floor, in bringing such an expansive rule to the floor and in genuinely providing the kind of opportunity for debate, even though I disagree with my friend from Florida on his underlying assertions, providing the opportunity for debate the likes of which America has not seen in decades.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I appreciate the majority leader giving me the time to come down here today, because I've got IPAB on my mind, Mr. Speaker. I say that like everybody knows what that is because we talk about it here in this Chamber all day long. IPAB, a word that was not even in the lexicon of America until the President passed his health care bill. What is IPAB? I happened to bring down with me today, Mr. Speaker, the front page of the President's health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as he describes it. This was the 900-page law that was passed that completely restructured a sixth of the American economy. The question then is, when we're talking about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and we're talking about how we change the individual health care decisions that every American gets to make, what do we get for it? What's the value added there? Because I think, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, when folks are talking about what motivates them, it really is affordable care. That's why we named the bill this way, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We want patients to be protected, to be able to make their own health care choices. We want care to be made available to folks at prices that American families can afford. There are 900 pages in that health care bill, Mr. Speaker. Now, IPAB, how would we describe it? We would call IPAB the hammer in the health care bill, because there are lots of ways to save money, Mr. Speaker. You can save money by introducing competition into a system. I'm from Atlanta, Mr. Speaker. I've got a soft spot in my heart for the Coca-Cola Company. But how many Coca-Cola machines do you pass on the street where the Coke is selling for $3 a can while the Pepsi right beside it is selling for $1.50? How many? Have you ever seen that happen? The answer is ``no'' because competition completely moves those machines out of the marketplace. If the Pepsi is a dollar, the Coke's going to be a dollar, too. If the Pepsi is $2, the Coke is going to be $2. Competition controls those prices. What controls prices in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? Because we've heard time and time again, Mr. Speaker, on the floor of this House that the Patient Protection Act restricts my choices as a consumer. We've heard time and time again on the floor of this House, Mr. Speaker, that the Patient Protection Act restricts doctors and the services that they provide. We've heard time and time again, Mr. Speaker, that the Patient Protection Act restricts the choices that insurance companies can provide. So, if it's all of these restrictions on competition, how in the world does the Patient Protection Act save the money that needs to be saved to make health care affordable? The answer is this: It's in section 3403. Again, I don't encourage folks at home to read this bill, Mr. Speaker, unless they've got time on their hands. There's lots of good summaries out there. It's over 900 pages long, and it's signed into law. I don't think folks are going to be able to read this back in their offices, Mr. Speaker. This is about 46 pages that I've put up here just on one in case we needed to reference it, but 46 pages of law defining this brand-new thing that we've never had before in America, the Independent Payment Advisory Board. If you read these 40 pages, Mr. Speaker, what you're going to find is that the Congress that passed the President's health care bill--and it was not this Congress, Mr. Speaker. You were not here in that Congress. I was not here in that Congress. It did not pass the Congress under normal rules and procedures. It passed in a manipulated reconciliation process designed intentionally to thwart the will of the House and of the Senate. But in that bill, they said Congress can't control these costs; and, candidly, I'm glad. I don't want Congress controlling my health care costs. So what did they do? They went to an independent commission. The President is going to appoint this commission, Mr. Speaker. The President will appoint members to sit on this independent Medicare advisory board, and what they will do is decide where Medicare should save money. Now, my mom and dad just went on Medicare, Mr. Speaker. I sit down with them. I look at their statement of charges that they get back when they go to the doctor's office. It's not always easy to understand, but we go through it together. It occurs to me that if Medicare is going to save money, there is only one way Medicare can do that. If we don't allow competition in the system, if we don't allow patient choice in the system, if we don't allow provider choice in the system, there is only one way that Medicare can save a dime; that is by restricting services. Now, that comes in lots of different ways, and I want to make sure I'm absolutely candid, Mr. Speaker, and accurate, because this is the panel. Do you remember the death panel discussions? Do you remember that becoming a part of the lexicon in America, the death panels that Congress was going to create? This is that. I mean, this is where that idea came from, because what we have here is a board that makes decisions, recommendations about how to change Medicare spending. Well, if we're not going to provide competition, if we're not going to allow doctors more decisions, if we're not going to allow other providers more decisions, then the only way to change the financing structure of Medicare is to restrict either the services that Medicare provides or the amount of money that is being paid to providers. Now, I want to give my friends who passed this bill the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Speaker. I don't believe there is a single Member of this body who would stand here in the well and say that their decision about how to save the Medicare program is to restrict the services that Medicare beneficiaries can access, not one. I don't think one Member, Republican or Democrat, will come to the well of this House and say that their proposal for saving Medicare is to find seniors in need of health care and tell them ``no.'' Not one. But, Mr. Speaker, what's the effect, then, of the Independent Payment Advisory Board? Let's look at what folks have said. This is George Miller, one of my colleagues here on the floor of the House, a Democrat from California. We're taking up, tomorrow, a bill that will repeal this Independent Payment Advisory Board, this Medicare board. We're going to repeal it tomorrow, I believe, here on the floor of the House. When talking about that, my colleague from California said this: IPAB is a critical measure for lowering health care costs. He's absolutely right. I'm not picking on him at all. I'm endorsing what he has to say. That's what these 40 pages of law, Mr. Speaker, do. They are all designed to cut costs. But we've talked about it. If we're not going to introduce competition, if we're not going to introduce choices, if we're not going to introduce options, how are we going to cut costs? We all agree, Republicans and Democrats alike, that the IPAB board is a critical measure for lowering health care costs. Peter Orszag, the OMB Director, the first one that President Obama used, said this about health care costs in Medicare: The core problem is that health care costs are concentrated among expensive treatments for chronic diseases and for end- of-life care. Mr. Speaker, let me reflect on that a minute. I've just shown you the 40 pages of law in the President's health care bill that are the cost- saving mechanism that the President has proposed and that has been passed into law. The OMB Director, the Office of Management and Budget Director, for the Obama administration said this: The core problem is that health care costs are concentrated among expensive treatments for chronic diseases and for end- of-life care. Mr. Speaker, what choices, then, does that give us? If we agree that IPAB is a critical measure for lowering health care costs and if we agree that health care costs are primarily concentrated with expensive treatments for chronic diseases and end-of-life care, how exactly is this unelected board going to lower those costs? It's an honest question. If that's what has to happen for Medicare to be saved, exactly how is this board going to do that? Every American on Medicare and every American approaching Medicare needs to have that on their mind. What is it that IPAB, this unelected board, is going to do to save costs? We all--Republicans and Democrats alike--agree that the only purpose of IPAB is to control costs. We agree--Republicans and Democrats alike--that the money in Medicare is concentrated among expensive treatments for chronic diseases and end-of-life care. So if IPAB is going to control costs and the costs are here, what choice do we have but to deny individuals expensive treatments for chronic diseases and end-of-life care? What else is there? To me, that's common sense, that this is where the President's proposal is going. I do not endorse this proposal. I was not here in this Congress, Mr. Speaker, when this proposal passed. Had I been here, I would have voted an enthusiastic ``no.'' Nevertheless, it is the law of the land as we sit here today, and our seniors are at risk. How many times have we heard supporters of the President's health care bill say, No, IPAB is not a Medicare rationing board. In fact, if you want to dig deep into these 40 pages, you'll find that said over and over again. Folks continually say, this is not a Medicare rationing board. But we know where the costs are, and the question is how do we control them. What my friends who support the President's health care bill say is, no, we're not going to deny care to Medicare beneficiaries; we're just going to clamp down on payments to doctors. That's what they say: We're just going to change the payment schedules for doctors. I've got news for you, Mr. Speaker. That's been the Medicare plan for decade, upon decade, upon decade, upon decade; and this is what you get. This is from a CNNMoney article from January 6 of this year titled ``Doctors Going Broke.'' It recounts the many changes that have happened in the Medicare system as we continue to do nothing about choices, nothing about options, nothing about getting the consumer involved in health care decisions, but continuing to use the same old broken tools to solve the Medicare issue. It says this: In 2005, Medicare revised the reimbursement guidelines for cancer drugs, which effectively made reimbursements for many expensive cancer drugs fall to less than the actual cost of the drugs. You can tell me you don't want a Medicare rationing board, Mr. Speaker. I don't want a Medicare rationing board either. But if what we're going to have is a board that is going to cut the costs of Medicare and they're going to do that by cutting reimbursements to providers and what we already see is that we're cutting reimbursements to providers to the point that those reimbursements fall below the cost of the service, what do you think is going to happen to Medicare beneficiaries when they go to seek services? I'll tell you. The President's health care bill, Mr. Speaker, primarily solved the challenge of the uninsured by dumping them onto State Medicaid policies. I don't think that is a particularly creative solution, but it is certainly an option. My uncle is a primary care doc down in central Georgia. There used to be a bunch of docs who would see Medicare patients in that part of the world. Today he's the only one who will see Medicaid. He is the only one. In five counties, Mr. Speaker, he is the only doc that will see Medicaid patients. Don't tell me that our goal here in Congress is to help patients find care if we're going to lower reimbursement rates to a place where no doctor will accept them. I don't care that you have an insurance policy if you can't find a doctor who will take it. It does not matter that the government says you're guaranteed health care if you can't find a doctor who will provide it. Mr. Speaker, that's not news to anyone who has had a job in the private sector; that's not news to anyone who has had to write paychecks from their business; and it's not news to anyone who has been a consumer. I'm a coupon clipper, Mr. Speaker. I cut them out of the Sunday paper. I go into the store, I've got a big old coupon, I think I'm going to get a good deal, and the store doesn't carry the product. What is that coupon worth to me if I can't find the product, Mr. Speaker? Not a thing. That's what we're doing when we clamp down on costs. Don't you dare believe that we can continue to cut docs year after year after year after year and that your family and my family, who are on Medicare, are going to be able to find care. They cannot. From that same article, Mr. Speaker, ``Doctors Going Broke.'' Again, January 6, 2012, from CNN Money Magazine. Dr. William Pentz said: Recent steep 35 percent to 40 percent cuts in Medicare reimbursements for key cardiovascular services, such as stress tests and echocardiograms, have taken a substantial toll on revenue. He also says: These cuts have destabilized private cardiology practices. A third of our patients are on Medicare. So these Medicare cuts are by far the biggest factor. Then, Mr. Speaker, he says private insurers follow Medicare rates. Those reimbursements are going down as well. You know, he is right about that. When the Federal Government pays two-thirds of all the health care costs in this country, Mr. Speaker, and the Federal Government decides it can get away with paying less, guess what? Everybody else wants to get away with paying less too. That is a good capitalist system. I don't fault folks for that. What I fault folks for is standing on the floor of this House and promising the American people a program that they pay into all of their life so it will be available for them in their time of need and then cutting rates to a place where you cannot find a doctor who will serve you. Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of saying that we're going to care about people in their time of need and putting the people out of business who provide for them in that time of need is deafening. I go again to that same article of January 6, 2012, ``Doctors Going Broke.'' The same doctor, William Pentz, a cardiologist there in Philadelphia: If this continues, I might seriously consider leaving medicine. I can't keep working this way. He goes on to talk about how the law of the land is going to provide even further cuts. He said: If that continues, it will put us under. My dad is going in for heart surgery in about 30 days, Mr. Speaker. We shopped long and hard to find a doctor that we would trust to do that surgery, just as every American family does. Who are folks going to trust, Mr. Speaker? Who are folks going to find if we put the people who provide the care out of business? IPAB, Mr. Speaker, these 40 pages from the President's health care bill, the only 40 pages that are designed to reduce costs, do not reduce costs through competition, do not reduce costs by providing consumer choices, do not reduce costs by getting consumers involved in their own health care. They reduce costs by either rationing services or by cutting reimbursements to a place where the marketplace rations those services on its own. Don't believe for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that cutting reimbursements to doctors doesn't equal cutting services. That's really the hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, for lack of a better word, that I hear on the floor of this House: Oh, we're going to go out there and we're going to save all this money. How are you going to do it? We're going to go out there and cut those reimbursements to docs. All right. It sounds like you're liable to end up rationing services. Oh, no. IPAB, that's not going to ration any services. No, no, no. They don't have the authority to cut out services. That's not what they do. Well, what are they going to do? Well, they're going to cut the reimbursement rates. Well, what's going to happen? Well, docs will just keep providing those services. We saw it here. Money magazine tells you, when you are only reimbursing folks at the cost of the service or less, they're going to quit providing. According to factcheck.org--those folks who go around and look at all the claims politicians make and try to figure out which ones are real and which ones are full of hot air--this is what they said: ``31 percent of primary physicians restricted Medicare patients in their practices.'' You know what that means. That means that 31 percent of all the doctors in the land who provide primary care services, those most-needed services, said they do not take every Medicare patient that comes knocking on their door. They can't. They restrict how many Medicare patients they'll take into their practice. We've already seen that we're putting docs out of business. We're forcing docs into retirement. Who is going to provide the care, Mr. Speaker? Who is going to provide the care if we force the people who do it today out of business tomorrow? Back to factcheck.org: ``62 percent of family practitioners would stop accepting Medicare patients if reimbursement rate cuts follow current law.'' Hear that, Mr. Speaker. Hear that. Let me say it again: If reimbursement rates follow the current law. I'm not talking about if some new draconian procedure gets put in place. I'm not talking about if some crazy future Congress comes in here and tries to further socialize health care. No, no. If the current law of the land, as passed before you and I came to Congress, Mr. Speaker, if the current law of the land continues, 62 percent of family practitioners would stop accepting Medicare patients. What is IPAB going to do? It's going to control costs. How's it going to do it? It's going to do it by cutting reimbursements to providers. What happens when you cut reimbursements to providers? Sixty-two percent of all of America's family practitioners will stop accepting Medicare patients. Mr. Speaker, what we do here has consequences. This isn't some think tank downtown that has the freedom to just pontificate, to make recommendations, to wonder how things could have been. This is a body where every single thing that we do has the potential to affect-- positively or negatively--the lives of every single citizen of the land. There are no free lunches in America, Mr. Speaker. There is no something for nothing. You can control costs through competition. You can control costs through getting consumers involved in their own health care. You can control costs by providing folks with more choices. You cannot control costs responsibly by putting providers out of business and rationing care through the long lines that are then going to result. We are going to deal with this bill tomorrow, in fact, and I would be happy to yield to my friend from the Rules Committee to help make that happen.

Mr. WOODALL

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

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I was very lucky when my friend from Florida came to file that rule because that's another example that what we're doing down here isn't just howling at the Moon. It isn't just blowing hot air. What I'm talking about here on the floor right now is repealing this Independent Payment Advisory Board to stop this cycle of destruction that has already been put into place. And no sooner do we come down here to do it than my colleague from the Rules Committee comes down to file this rule, Mr. Speaker, so that we can do this bill not 2 years from today, not after the next election, not 6 months from now, kicking the can down the road, but so that we can bring this bill to the floor tomorrow to address the concerns that we're talking about today. That's why you and I came to Congress, Mr. Speaker. That's why this whole freshman class came to Congress. You know, I've only been here now about, what, 14, 15 months, Mr. Speaker. And what I have found is that each and every day, my colleagues in this freshman class do not evaluate their success by how many favorable newspaper articles are written about them. They don't evaluate their success by how many times they've seen their face on TV. And they certainly don't evaluate their success based on what the mass media writes about them in this town. They evaluate their success based on whether or not the promises they made to folks before they got elected are the priorities that they've set for themselves now that they have been elected. And each and every day, I see people making that a reality. Republicans and Democrats alike, Mr. Speaker, in this freshman class came to this Congress for a different purpose, with a different mission, with a different vision. And I see them implementing it every day. It makes me proud. Speaking of being proud, Mr. Speaker, you know, folks back home say, Rob, how come we don't see you on FOX News preaching the good conservative news? I tell them, Mr. Speaker, that anybody who is watching FOX News already knows the good conservative news. They don't need to hear it from me. The folks who need to hear from me are the folks who are watching MSNBC. That is who needs to hear my message. And I happened to bring some MSNBC knowledge down here with me today. This is a headline recently from the Web page, Mr. Speaker. This is what it said: ``In risky election year move, Republicans offer Medicare alternatives.'' Ooh. It kind of sounds ominous, doesn't it, Mr. Speaker? Ominous. ``In risky election year move, Republicans offer Medicare alternatives.'' Why? Why? For the reason I just talked about, Mr. Speaker, where we have this freshman class, where we have these senior Members of Congress who didn't come here to pontificate, who didn't come here to grandstand, who came here to make a difference. I don't care that it's an election year. In fact, if anything, Mr. Speaker, in an election year, we ought to do more of the right things. We ought to spend even more time each and every day getting it right. ``Risky election year move'' is what folks say. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I would be disappointed if we did anything else. Medicare is in crisis. This IPAB board is further destabilizing the Medicare program. You are doggone right it may be a risky move, but we did it anyway because it's the right thing to do. I sit on the Budget Committee. That is actually what they are talking about. This is a March 15 article. And they're talking about the plan that we in the Budget Committee are going to hold a markup on tomorrow, which does what? All of these things I've been talking about, Mr. Speaker: bringing choices to consumers, bringing competition to the Medicare system, investing consumers in Medicare outcomes. It does all of those things, Mr. Speaker, that we believe can control costs using the power of the marketplace, using the power of the American people, using the power of the American family, and not just by rationing care, as this IPAB board does. This is the headline. I'm going to read it again, Mr. Speaker, just because I like it so much: ``In risky election year move, Republicans offer Medicare alternatives.'' They go on to say this: ``Running a political risk during an election year, Republicans continue to offer proposals to cut future Medicare outlays.'' Medicare outlays, that's this dramatic rise we see in Medicare spending, Mr. Speaker. It's not a rise associated with quality of care. It's not a rise that's associated with whether or not people get the services they need. It's a rise that's associated with an out-of-control Federal health care program that has absolutely no consumer involvement at all, absolutely no competition at all, absolutely no free market involvement at all. And it's going broke. We have a proposal to fix it. What is our proposal? Well, I didn't just bring our proposal, Mr. Speaker. But I brought our proposal, and I want to compare it to the President's approach. There are two things we need to talk about when we talk about changes to Medicare, Mr. Speaker, and you know this better than most. There are changes to the Medicare program that save it for future generations, and then there are changes to the Medicare program that destabilize today's seniors. A big difference in those two things. I'm in my forties, Mr. Speaker. My Uncle Sam has to come to me today and say, Rob, I know you've been paying your Medicare taxes in every single paycheck since you were 16 and I know we promised you that Medicare was going to be there for you like it was there for your grandparents and your parents; but Rob, we've got bad news. It turns out we overpromised and we're underdelivering and we've got to renegotiate our Medicare contract with you. We do. That is the bad, bad news for your generation, Mr. Speaker, for my generation, and for everybody younger. The government--surprise, surprise--has overpromised and underdelivered. And the time to tell me that is now, not when I'm 65 and I can't make any more choices about my life, but today while I can still make accommodations. So I've divided this chart, Mr. Speaker, up into two categories--what are our proposals for current seniors and what are our proposals for future seniors--and I've done the same thing for the President's plan, because it is important that we do keep our promises here. It's no senior's fault in this country that they're dependent on Medicare. They paid into it their entire life for the part A through the Medicare taxes. They were promised it would be there for them in their time of need. They didn't ask for it. They didn't solicit it. The money was taken from them and now they deserve those benefits. So here's what we do. The program that's coming out of the House Budget Committee, the program similar to what was passed on the floor of the House last year and it's coming before the House next week, Mr. Speaker, has absolutely no changes--no changes, Mr. Speaker--for today's seniors. If you're on Medicare today, no changes, no disruptions in our plan, Mr. Speaker. That service, it's already begun for you and it is going to continue uninterrupted for as long as you need to utilize the program. But the program is going bankrupt, Mr. Speaker, and so we're making some changes that will preserve and protect it for this current generation of seniors. If we do nothing, bankruptcy looms on the horizon. And if current seniors want it, we'll allow them to get what I'll call personalized Medicare like what Members of Congress have. Mr. Speaker, folks often think--in fact, my mom sends me that email about once a week that says, Rob, I can't believe you're getting all that free health care in Congress. You know that's nonsense, Mr. Speaker. We have exactly the same health care plan in Congress that every Federal employee across the country has. And that plan is this: You open up a book that has about 30 plans to choose from and you choose the one that works best for you. Imagine that. Imagine that our seniors today have had a lifetime of health care choices, and the day they turn 65, Mr. Speaker, they surrender their freedom as an American and they are forced into a health care system that they cannot opt out of--cannot opt out of. Oh, you're in it. You can opt out of Medicare part D, you can opt out of Medicare part B, but you cannot opt out of Medicare part A. You are in it. And if you want a doctor that won't take you--he'll take other Medicare patients but he won't take you--the Federal law of the land prohibits you, Mr. Speaker, from paying cash out of your pocket to see your doctor. That's the law of the land where? Russia? China? It's the law of the land in America. You turn 65, you enter the Big Government health care program, suddenly your freedoms begin to be eroded. We say no. We say let's make Medicare have the choices that we as Members of Congress have, and let's make those available to current seniors. So to recap, Mr. Speaker, no changes or disruptions in our plan. We preserve and protect the program for current seniors for the 30-year life of the program and we personalize Medicare to make it more like what we have in Congress so that we can give those folks choices. What does the President do for current seniors? He empowers 15 unelected bureaucrats to cut Medicare in ways that will most certainly deny seniors care. Do I need to go back to the 40 pages, Mr. Speaker, of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, section 3403, the advisory board, IPAB? This is what it does. It's the 15 unelected bureaucrats that have the power to cut Medicare in ways that, as we have discussed, will most certainly deny care. If your plan is to cut reimbursements to doctors, fair enough. I think it's shortsighted; I think it's destructive. But if that is your plan, embrace that plan, I say to folks who support the President's health care bill. Embrace it and defend it. But be honest with the American people who most certainly know that if you cut those reimbursement rates to a level that doctors cannot see patients, they will not see patients. And here's one that doesn't get talked about much, Mr. Speaker. The President's plan raids the Medicare program and removes $682 billion. This is a program that's already going bankrupt. This is a program that already needs substantial reform to protect it and preserve it for another generation. The President's health care bill, which isn't something that might happen, it's something that's already the law of the land, takes $682 billion that was intended for Medicare beneficiaries and cuts it out-- ``saves it'' is the term of art they use around here, Mr. Speaker, as you well know--cuts it and saves it. What do they save it for? So they can bring it over here and spend it on the President's new health care plan for the rest of America; the nonseniors. The program is already in trouble. Current law under the President's health care plan removes $682 billion designated for Medicare beneficiaries, takes it out, moves it to the rest of the population, again, exacerbating the challenge. Future seniors, what are we going to do? Well, our plan, Mr. Speaker, coming out of the Budget Committee, coming here to the floor as passed by the House last year, is personalized Medicare not just for current seniors but for future seniors, Mr. Speaker. For folks like you and me and our generation, when we get to Medicare age, we would have choices. All Americans would have choices to choose the plan that works best for them. Do you need a plan that covers prescription drugs? Choose that. Do you need a plan that is flexible so you can summer in Florida and winter in New Jersey? Though I suspect, Mr. Speaker, they'd probably be summering in New Jersey and wintering in Florida; but if they travel like that, maybe they need that plan. Maybe they still have young kids in the house and so need a plan that speaks to youngsters as well. Folks could choose the plan, Mr. Speaker. Personalized health care, just like what we have here in Congress. Our plan, Mr. Speaker, means that wealthy families will get less and sick and low-income families will get more. Mr. Speaker, we talk about shared sacrifice around here all the time, and I am not in favor of raising taxes on the American people. The American people can't afford it. The economy can't survive it. But what we can do is start giving away less from Washington, D.C. And so what we say for future seniors--folks in my generation, your generation, Mr. Speaker--is that your support from the Medicare program is going to be less than low-income families. If you've done well in your life and you can afford to help with the cost of your Medicare, we're going to ask you to do that. We're going to means-test these things. We're still going to be there for you; the Medicare program is still going to be there for you. The promises we made to you are still going to be kept. But in the renegotiation, we're going to confess what America already knows, which is that this program is going bankrupt and cannot be sustained, and that in order to sustain it, we're going to ask folks who can't afford it to pay more and recognize that folks who can't afford it will pay less. That's our program for the future to save and strengthen Medicare. What does the President propose? And this is so important, Mr. Speaker. Can I go back to what my good friends at MSNBC said? This is how they described this plan that I'm just describing to you: In a risky election year move, Republicans offer Medicare alternatives. The President, for future seniors, offers no serious plan to save Medicare. If I had the President's budget down here with me, Mr. Speaker, it would be about 12 inches tall. And it's a serious budget. I don't fault him for submitting the budget. I'm glad he did. It lays out his priorities and his strategy for saving America. But there's not one Medicare reform proposal in those 12 inches of budget. Not one. Not one. Why? Because traditional politicians, Mr. Speaker, think it's risky in an election year to propose things that shake up the status quo. Mr. Speaker, it ought to be risky in an election year to maintain the status quo when you know a program depended on by millions upon millions upon millions of seniors is going bankrupt today. Not tomorrow, not 10 years from now. It's happening today. It's under way today. The time to stop it and save it is today. And I don't care if folks think it's scary to propose it; that's what we came here to do. What happened, Mr. Speaker? What happened to folks that caused them to believe the reason they came to Congress is to get reelected? What happened? You didn't come here to get reelected. I didn't come here to get reelected. We came here to make a difference for families back home, we came here to draw a line in the sand for saving America, and we came here to get the American Dream of a successful economy and freedom back on track. It ought to be risky to sit here and do nothing, Mr. Speaker. That ought to be the risky thing. What has happened to this country that the risky thing for those who call themselves public servants is to do something instead of nothing? Because that's what the President proposes in his 10-year budget plan: nothing, nothing that does one thing, that takes one baby step forward toward saving Medicare. In the Budget Committee, we are proposing serious alternatives. Are they going to be frightening to folks in my generation? I don't think so, Mr. Speaker. You and I have a long time until retirement. Despite all our gray hair, we've got a couple of decades left before we get there; and we've got time to prepare, and we will, and America will. But it is our responsibility to offer those alternatives. The President offers nothing, and Medicare goes bankrupt. This chart says it all, Mr. Speaker. There is a path to prosperity for America that we are proposing here in this House, and there is the President's approach, and they could not be more different. Our approach tells the American people the truth. There are a lot of political pundits out there that believe telling people the truth is a risky thing to do in an election year. Mr. Speaker, I tell you it's our solemn obligation. I tell you the oath we took requires us to tell folks the truth. I tell you the responsibility that our voters back home have entrusted us with requires us to be bold. And if the consequence for trying to save the Medicare program--not just for this generation of seniors, but for a generation to come--if the consequence of that is that I frighten voters back home and I get defeated, so be it. So be it. No one sent us here to get reelected year after year. They sent us here to do the work that they asked us to do. They sent us here to follow through on the promises that we made during the last campaign. They sent us here to offer serious solutions to what we all know, Democrats and Republicans alike, are serious problems threatening the future of our Republic. And none is more serious when it comes to a social safety net here in this country than the giant fiscal crisis looming in Medicare. I'll leave you with this, Mr. Speaker. We have the law of the land that's already on the books. It's in the President's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, that bill that raids Medicare in order to fund his other social priorities, that bill that hastens the demise of Medicare rather than preventing it. And in that they find 15 unelected bureaucrats that they say will not ration services; they'll just cut reimbursements for docs. And we have testimony after testimony after testimony after testimony that says, go ahead, if you think you need to cut docs, cut docs; but just know those docs will not be there for you when you need them to be because they can't--because they can't. Do you really believe it, Mr. Speaker? Does anybody in America really believe it? Find your primary care doctor that lives down the street from you. You know him or her. They're in your Sunday school class and they coach your kids' soccer team. You know who they are. Do you really believe that they're the ones that are driving the Medicare program into bankruptcy? Do you really believe it? Or does the Washington establishment just use our docs, the healers in our community, those folks who are there for us when we need them the most? Does the Washington establishment just use those folks as the scapegoats for what is a much more serious, much more systemic underlying problem with the way that we finance federally funded health care systems in this country? Competition has served this country well, Mr. Speaker. Individual responsibility has served this country well. Entrepreneurship and innovation have served this country well. And we have a choice now to embrace those functions that are so indicative of who we are as Americans and where we've come from, and use those tools to set Medicare on a new and sustainable course; or we can go back to business as usual, more pages of Federal regulation, more blaming other people for the problems we've created, more unelected boards of bureaucrats who make health care decisions for us instead of letting us make those decisions within our family. The choice for me is clear. Mr. Speaker, you know these aren't things that we're just down here to talk about. You know these aren't just ideas that are being brainstormed. We have a real opportunity to make this change not 2 years from now, not after the next election, not 6 months from now, but tomorrow. Tomorrow we'll bring a rule to the floor of this House to allow for a consideration of a measure that will repeal IPAB once and for all. IPAB, this word that was not in our lexicon 2 years ago but now threatens to control the health care decisions of every senior in America. With a successful vote tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we can make that a thing of the past. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the time and your staying with me late on a Thursday afternoon to do this. Is it Thursday afternoon, Madam Speaker, or Friday afternoon? It's Thursday afternoon. I'm losing track of my days because I'm on the Budget Committee, Madam Speaker, I'm on the Budget Committee, and this is budget season, and we are going nonstop meeting after meeting after meeting after meeting to try to find that budget that not only guarantees that our safety net programs like Medicare and Social Security will be there for generations to come, but that also guarantees that America will be here for generations to come. Because if you've looked at the deficits that we're running, if you've looked at the economic circumstances that we're in, if you've looked at the $15 trillion--now $16 trillion--that we've passed on to our children and our grandchildren, you know that our economic future is at risk. We talk so much, Madam Speaker, about the things that divide us in Washington. I sometimes think that's unfortunate. There's really a lot that unites us. And I brought with me today some quotes from President Obama in the State of the Union speeches that he's given right here between where you and I stand today, Madam Speaker, when he has come to the Joint Session of Congress to deliver. This is what he said in 2010. The President said: We should start where most new jobs do, in small businesses, companies that begin when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream or a worker decides it's time that she became her own boss. Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and they are ready to grow. Wow. Who is that talking, Madam Speaker? Is that a Republican? Is that a Democrat? That's an American. That's an American talking about the American Dream of being your own boss and growing a business, employing your neighbors and growing the American economy. The President understood that when he gave his State of the Union speech in 2010. In 2011, Madam Speaker, the President returned right here to this very same room, and he said this: At stake right now is not who wins the next election. At stake is whether new jobs and industries take root in this country or somewhere else. He was exactly right. He's exactly right about the grit that it takes for entrepreneurs to grow jobs in this country, and he is right that the question is not who wins the next election; the question is how do we ensure that new jobs and new industries take place in America instead of somewhere else around the globe. Again, in 2011, Madam Speaker, the President said this in the State of the Union speech: We measure progress by the success of our people, by the jobs they can find and the quality of life those jobs offer; by the prospects of a small business owner who dreams of turning a good idea into a thriving enterprise, and by the opportunities for a better life that we pass on to our children. Madam Speaker, we see so much in the newspaper about what divides us in this country. These are words that unite us, words that Republicans, Democrats--Americans from north and south, east and west--can all get behind. They don't stop in 2011. Here he is in 2012, just 2 months ago, Madam Speaker, right here in this Chamber: To reduce barriers to growth and investment, I've ordered a review of government regulations. When we find rules that are unnecessary, that put an unnecessary burden on business, we will fix them. He said that two months ago, right here in this Chamber. Madam Speaker, you know, as I know, that business in this country is under assault. And when business in this country is under assault, American families in this country are under assault, entrepreneurship in this country is under assault, the very basis of the American Dream, of being able to put in a hard day's work for a hard day's wage, to be able to change your station in life by the power of your ideas and the sweat of your brow, is at risk. And why? I have here, Madam Speaker, a chart that shows the regulatory burden in this Nation. What it actually charts is those regulations that come out of Washington, D.C., where implementation costs alone are $100 million a year--the implementation costs alone. Not what it burdens businesses with in terms of lost revenues, not the number of jobs that it kills, not how many jobs it pushes overseas to China, to India and elsewhere instead of keeping those jobs in America, but just what it costs out of someone's wallet to actually implement that regulation, and this is what we see. In 1995, of course, there was a Republican Congress with Newt Gingrich leading as Speaker and a Democratic President with Bill Clinton. You see this kind of level line at about 80 regulations a year--80 regulations a year. It goes along and along, through the Clinton administration, through the Bush administration. And then we get to 2006, when America decided they could tell no difference between Republicans and Democrats, and they threw the Republicans out of control of the Congress--as well they should have, as well they should have--but what happened--elections have consequences--when they threw Republicans out of the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives, the number of regulations began to skyrocket. Even with President Bush in the White House, this Congress is where that legislation begins, the number of regulations on small business begins to skyrocket. Then we get to 2008, when President Obama is sworn in to the White House, when Democrats rule both the House and the Senate, and you see regulations and the burden they cause rise right to the top. Madam Speaker, the decisions we make in this Chamber have consequences. It's not nothing to tell a small business that there's a new rule or regulation that that small business has to comply with because it takes money and it takes time to comply with those regulations. They need to be important, and we need to take a look at it. The President says all the right things. I just couldn't agree with him more. To reduce barriers to growth and investment, I've ordered a review of government regulations. When we find rules that are an unnecessary burden on business, we will fix them. The speech says all the right things, Madam Speaker. But the evidence suggests that we are on a regulatory spending spree the likes of which this country has never seen. And if you think for a minute we cannot destroy the entrepreneurial spirit in this country, you're mistaken. Do you know that entrepreneurial activity, Madam Speaker, is at a historic low in America today? I'm not talking about the number of businesses that succeed. I'm talking about the number of Americans who dare to try. Economic good times come, and economic bad times come. The economy will always ebb and flow. But when Americans are afraid to try, when the regulatory burden is such that Americans do not dare to try, we are threatening the future of this Nation and the economic success of our children and our grandchildren. They published an editorial in The Wall Street Journal, Madam Speaker. It was written by one of the four founders of Home Depot. Now, Madam Speaker, as you know, I'm a freshman Congressman from the great State of Georgia, birthplace of Home Depot. I hope folks have an opportunity to go and shop there. I hope you've had an opportunity to take your kids over and do some of the morning craft projects that they do there at the Home Depot and wear the orange apron. But this is what that founder said: If we got together today--the four of them who got together to found Home Depot--if we got together today with our same idea, our same intellect, our same capital, if we gathered together today, we could not make Home Depot succeed. Why? Because the regulatory burden in America is too great to allow for business growth. Madam Speaker, these challenges that we face are not global challenges about which we have no control. They are domestic challenges about which we have complete control. We choose, Madam Speaker, which regulations we pass and which ones we say no to. I'm proud to say, Madam Speaker, since this new Congress was sworn in, we have not implemented one more regulation on this line. We are trying to turn back. We had the JOBS Act this week to turn back the clock on that regulatory burden to allow folks with energy and creativity to begin to grow jobs again, but it's a team sport. Let me take you back to the rhetoric, Madam Speaker. You know, rhetoric has a pejorative term to it. I shouldn't say rhetoric, Madam Speaker. Let me take you back to the State of the Union speech that the President gave right here in this Chamber. Again, I listened to those State of the Union speeches. And I confess, I may be a rock-solid conservative Republican from the Deep South, but those speeches move me from time to time. They move me because I agree with the words that the President says. I just disagree with the actions that he does. Here we go, 2009. State of the Union speech again, Madam Speaker, right here in this Chamber. The President said this: Given these realities, everyone in this Chamber, Democrats and Republicans, will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars, and that includes me. He says leadership begins with him, and he's absolutely right. You know, Madam Speaker, we don't have control over the whole government in this Chamber, but we do have control over the budget of this Chamber. The budget that you've allocated to my office, to the Seventh District of Georgia, is lower this year than the budget that the Seventh District of Georgia had in 2008. These things about which we have control, Madam Speaker--we know leadership begins at home, and we are starting with the tough budget cuts right here in the House Chamber. The President said the same thing in 2009. He said there has to be some sacrifice of worthy priorities for which there are no dollars. And when we have a $16 trillion deficit, Madam Speaker, we know that there are no dollars. This is 2010--same President, same State of the Union speech right here in this Chamber, and the President says this: Families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The Federal Government should do the same. He's absolutely right. He is absolutely right, Madam Speaker. Families across this country are absolutely making changes, absolutely doing what it takes to balance their budgets. The Federal Government can and must do the same. He said it in 2009. He said it in 2010. Madam Speaker, here we are in 2011, same State of the Union speech, he says this: Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same. Madam Speaker, again, he's absolutely right. He was right when he said it in 2009, he was right when he said it in 2010, he was right when he said it in 2011. But, Madam Speaker, he hasn't done anything about it. That's the challenge. It's an election year, and folks like to say all the right things, Madam Speaker. But I didn't come to this Chamber as a freshman to say the right things. I came to this Chamber to do the right things. What I have here is a chart of the President's budget that he submitted this year. Now, let me first say, Madam Speaker, that as you know, the United States Senate has ignored the laws of the United States of America and has not submitted a budget to this Congress in 1,044 days, and they have said they're not going to do it again this year. Harry Reid said it would be foolish, foolish to do a budget. It just so happens the law requires them to do a budget, but foolish he said. The President, to his credit, did put forward a budget. I say ``to his credit'' because it's hard. A budget is a moral document. I didn't bring a copy of the President's budget with me today, Madam Speaker, but it's about 12 inches tall. You have to go line by line by line and talk about what's important to you. Is there enough money to go around for everything? No, there's not. So, what's important to you? Where are you going to put your dollars? The President, to his credit, went through that very hard process and sent a budget to Capitol Hill. What I have here is a visual representation of the budget that he sent, Madam Speaker. As you can see, I have a white dotted line here that represents current law. This white dotted line that runs right through here is the current law. If we do nothing, Madam Speaker, if we do absolutely nothing, this is the trajectory on which American debt will grow--if we do nothing. The President submitted his budget in February. I've represented the President's budget by this large red line, by this large red triangle. The red line is what the President proposes that the deficit be. I mean, we can go back to his 2011 State of the Union address where he said, ``Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. The government must do the same.'' We can go back to 2010 when he said the same thing. We can go back to 2009 when he said the same thing. But in 2012, when he submits his budget, he actually runs the deficit up in 2012, up in 2013, up in 2014, up in 2015--and '16 and '17 and '18 and '19 and '20 and '21. What I've done, Madam Speaker, is I've blown up a little circle way out there at 2022, this little green space right here. Way out there in 2022 the President's budget begins to reduce the deficit that this country faces from what it is under current law today. Madam Speaker, that's my frustration. How often is it in this body that we hear folks say all the right things: ``Families sacrifice to live within their means,'' said the President. ``They deserve a government that does the same.'' 2011. 2010: ``Families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The Federal Government must do the same.'' 2009: ``Given these realities, Democrats and Republicans will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars, and that includes me.'' But, Madam Speaker, the evidence reveals exactly the opposite. What folks may not know--and I encourage you to go and read the President's budget. Again, he did the right thing by submitting it, and I admire him for doing that. It's located at www.omb--Office of Management and Budget--omb.gov. It's got charts and graphs and all the numbers. But what happens in that budget, Madam Speaker, is taxes go up by $2 trillion; $2 trillion taxes go up on the American people. Now listen, we're in deficit times, we have revenue issues here. We need to have that debate about taxation. But my question to the White House is: How can you raise taxes by $2 trillion on the American people and not reduce America's deficit by one penny for 9 years? The answer is that you raise those taxes by $2 trillion, and then you go and you spend it on other priorities. The President knows and has said in State of the Union Address after State of the Union Address after State of the Union Address that we have to curb the appetite for spending in Washington. And yet here in the fourth budget, the last budget of his first term--and, candidly, the most serious budget of his administration--he still has not found those items that he is willing to be honest with the American people about and say, we can't afford this, this puts our children and our grandchildren--and, in fact, our entire Republic--at risk. Now, there's a lot of blame that goes on in this town, Madam Speaker. I don't take any pride in pointing out the challenges of other people's ideas, but I do take pride in pointing out the merit of our own ideas. What I have here, Madam Speaker, is another graphical representation of the tough choices that we in this House, Madam Speaker, with your support and my support and the support of Members on both sides of the aisles, the tough choices that we agreed to make on behalf of America. What I have here is a chart that shows America's debt as a percentage of GDP, as a percentage of the entire economy. Down here in black, Madam Speaker, is the historic debt. You see down here in the World War II era, the 1940s and coming down in the 1950s, this is the historic debt of America. During the global conflict that was World War II, we ran America's debt up to 100 percent of the size of the entire economy. Why? Because we were fighting a madman overseas and everything depended on us winning. And so we borrowed to the hilt, Madam Speaker, 100 percent of GDP, to invest in the war effort that saved freedom around the globe. Well, then we began to pay those debts down, Madam Speaker. Come forward to 2000, 2010. This red line is the current path of America. This red line--if, as the President dodged the tough decisions this year, if the Congress dodges those tough decisions, this red line represents where America is headed. Here we have at 100, Madam Speaker, that level of debt during the largest conflict this world has ever seen, at which the freedom of the planet hung in the balance. We are headed to that level and higher, Madam Speaker, 100 percent higher, 200 percent higher, 300 percent higher, 400 percent higher, with absolutely no conflict of that size on the horizon. We're just spending it here. Not to fight a national emergency, not to rise to meet an international challenge, but just spending it here. The green line here, Madam Speaker represents the plan that you and I and this House have passed. You know, it's the only budget that's passed anywhere in the city of Washington, D.C., in the last 3 years? Only one budget has passed anywhere in the city of Washington, D.C., in 3 years, and it was this one, the one that we did right here, Madam Speaker, that changes the trajectory of America's economic path; that takes us from a path to ruin back to a path of possibility and opportunity, ultimately paying down our Federal debt. Well, how did we do that? We did that by making tough decisions. We did that by going into the budget and asking the question, how can we do better? You know, Madam Speaker, in the great State of Georgia, if you talk to our Department of Transportation, they will tell you that we can build a Georgia road, same mile of pavement, same safety specifications, same everything, we can build a mile of Georgia highway for about 60 percent of the exact same mile of Federal highway? Why? Because of the regulatory burden that begins in Washington, D.C., and flows downward. Because every agency that touches every dollar this town sends back to the people that it took those dollars from skims just a little bit off the top for administrative costs, just a little bit off the top. We have to find ways to do better, and we have to find ways, Madam Speaker, to behave differently. This is one example. How many town hall meetings, have you had, Madam Speaker, where folks have come up to you and said, dag gummit, Madam Speaker, I've paid into Medicare all my life. I need those benefits to be there for me when I retire. I hear that all the time. Shoot, I've been paying into Medicare all my life. I need those benefits to be there too. I absolutely agree and understand why it is when folks have invested through their taxes, through their paychecks, in a promise that the government committed that would be there for them in their time of need, why it is that Americans believe the government should come through on that. But there are things about Medicare we don't like to talk about, Madam Speaker. I have here a chart of Medicare revenue, where it is the dollars come in to pay for Medicare. Because if you haven't looked at the numbers recently, Madam Speaker, you know we're spending about 40 percent of every penny in the Federal Government, about 40 percent of every penny in Federal spending goes to Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare and Medicaid, just two programs, consume 40 percent of every dollar that we spend. In 1964 there was no Medicare and Medicaid; didn't spend a penny in those directions. Now we spend 40 cents out of every dollar, and that number's growing. Well, what you learn when you get to Congress, Madam Speaker, and you start going through all these committee hearings, is there's a lot that they didn't tell you back home. Medicare part A, that's the hospital program. That's the part for our parents and our grandparents when you go into the hospital. In fact, when we designed the Medicare program in 1965, as Americans, we said folks should not lose everything they have when they have a catastrophic illness and get hospitalized. We should have a support system to protect them in their time of need. And we did. We created Medicare part A. And that's what every working American, whether they started working at 15 or 16 or 17 or 18, they see that FICA line on their check, Madam Speaker, those dollars are coming out of every American's check, no matter how much they earn, all the way to the top of the income spectrum. Every paycheck has about 3\1/2\ percent taken out to fund Medicare. Now, what happens? That amount that's taken out of all the American paychecks is represented in this light blue line here. It covers about 84 percent of Medicare part A costs, Medicare part A, this hospital insurance that we're providing. Every penny that we've taken from every American covers about 84 cents of the cost of the program. But you know, after we created Medicare part A, Madam Speaker, we created Medicare part B. Medicare part B is funded with zero dollars out of your and my paycheck, zero dollars out of any paycheck of anyone in America. Not one penny in Medicare taxes is taken out to fund Medicare part B. Now, we charge Medicare part B premiums, Madam Speaker. Part B is what pays for your doctor visits and supplies, things like that. We ask Medicare beneficiaries to write the government a check to cover 25 percent of those part B costs. But the other 75 percent--74 here because there's a little interest that gets picked up in there--74 percent of all of those costs are picked up by the American taxpayer, just out of general revenues. You wonder where the money goes. Understand, we have told America that you pay into Medicare, and so you shall receive from Medicare. You've paid in all your life so it will be there in your time of need, and so we will ensure that it is there in your time of need. But that's just Medicare part A, about $200 billion. Medicare part B is exactly the same size, at $200 billion, and we never paid a penny for it, but the government is pushing all those dollars out the door. Move on to Medicare part D, Madam Speaker. Medicare part D, that largest expansion of entitlement programs in the history of the country since 1967, implemented by a Republican Congress and a Republican President. Yes, we charge Americans. We ask Americans to pay some beneficiary premiums to get Medicare part D. About 11 percent of all Medicare part D revenue comes from beneficiaries' premiums. Eighty-three percent is picked up by the American taxpayer at large. No one ever paid a penny out of their pocket to deposit in a trust fund for that benefit. It's just a benefit that sprang up out of thin air, Madam Speaker, and 83 percent of it is subsidized by American taxpayers across this country. Now, I bring up these numbers for two reasons, Madam Speaker. Number one, because folks just don't know. Folks just don't know. You're at home, and you're talking about Medicare. You're looking at your paycheck. You see that you're paying Medicare taxes. You think those taxes are going into the trust fund to fund the Medicare program. Well, they are. They're just going into the trust fund to fund the Medicare part A program. Medicare part B and Medicare part D have absolutely no trust funds at all. They never have. They get funded out of general revenues. We have made promises to people about benefits that they will receive for which they never paid a penny. Madam Speaker, we have $16 trillion in debt that we're passing on to our children and our grandchildren. The days of being able to promise people something for nothing are long gone. We have to be able to have candid conversations with today's seniors, with tomorrow's seniors--I'm in my forties--with my generation, Madam Speaker, and we have to renegotiate the Medicare contract with folks my age and younger. We have to do it. America cannot, Madam Speaker, sustain this path of debt. You know, I feel a little disingenuous putting this chart up here, Madam Speaker. This is the one of the current path of debt. The truth is, that if you're running the computer models, they really break down somewhere right about here. They really say that the laws of economics, what we know about the world banking system, what we know about commerce in this country, what they really say is right about here America's going to cease to exist anyway; that the numbers just don't work; that the economy just won't function; that America, as we know it, will be over here. It's not going to get as bad as I've presented, Madam Speaker, because the Republic, as we know it, will have gone away. You know, we talk so much about the debt limit on this floor, Madam Speaker, the debt limit, as if it's something that Congress passes. Every American knows a debt limit is not a law on a piece of paper. A debt limit is when you can't find anyone to lend you money anymore. The debt limit comes when the Chinese say, No, America, you're a bad credit risk, we're not going to give you anymore. When the Germans say, No, America, you're a bad credit risk, we're not going to give you anymore. On the Budget Committee we had that hearing, Madam Speaker, and we brought in economists from the left and economists from the right, and we asked them all, folks, tell us how much longer do we have? When does the real debt limit get here, when the American economy can no longer find anyone willing to lend to them? And this is what they said. Madam Speaker, the liberal economist that came to talk to us said we think you have 5 years, 5 years before that day comes. The conservative economists said we think you have 2 years before that day comes. So we have a window, Madam Speaker, between 2 and 5 years, when the entire economy is going to begin to come unraveled, when American jobs and businesses are going to be at risk, when our entire experiment as a Republic will be challenged. The President in his budget this year introduced a $2 trillion tax increase and found a way to save us just a little bit of money 9 years from now. Madam Speaker, we don't have 9 years. Every day that passes makes the problem harder to solve. Every day that passes removes arrows from our quiver of solutions. Every day that passes threatens the survival of our Republic, and that is why we presented the path to prosperity, Madam Speaker, as a solution. Madam Speaker, I thank you for providing me the time today to talk a little bit about this budget. I hope folks will go to the Web and learn for themselves the truth of the challenges facing this country. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate you being here with me on a Friday afternoon and for you providing the time. I tell you, I couldn't have asked for anything better than to have the President's economic message read right before I came down here to the floor, because I have exactly that same thing on my mind. It is shocking to me--and you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that it was less than a month ago that the entire U.S. House of Representatives was sitting here in this Chamber, that the entire United States Senate was sitting here in this Chamber, the Supreme Court and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and that the President was standing right here, not 5 feet from where I'm standing today--not 5 feet in front of you, Mr. Speaker-- giving his State of the Union speech. What struck me about that speech is that I could have given almost word for word the exact same one. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the rhetoric in this country, the rhetoric's the same. Very little divides Republicans and Democrats. The President said in the economic address that the clerk just read, ``We need to make choices.'' We need to make choices about who we are and what we're going to do. I happen to have behind me, Mr. Speaker, the President's budget. I left the plastic on this one. I have another one that I've poured through. And in fact, for folks who are back in their offices, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend instead of cutting through the plastic to go ahead and go to www.omb.gov. That's the President's Office of Management and Budget. The entire Federal budget that he has proposed is there on the Web site for all Americans to see. It's not a small project to put together, the United States budget, and I applaud the President for taking that step. Of course the United States Senate, Mr. Speaker, 200 yards from where we stand right now, hasn't produced a budget in over 1,000 days. And in fact, the majority leader over there, Harry Reid, said just last week that he's not going to do it again this year. We have time, Mr. Speaker. We have a common set of numbers on which we could base it, and he said, I'm not going to do it. It's not necessary. A reporter said, But it's the law. He said, It's not important; I'm not going to do it. A reporter said, But your Democratic Budget Committee chairman said he's going to mark up a budget in the Budget Committee. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, Well, they can do what they want in the Budget Committee, but I'm not bringing a budget to the Senate floor. Mr. Speaker, I have got in my breast pocket here the rule book by which this United States of America is supposed to run, the United States Constitution, this document by which all of our decisions are judged. One of the only things this document asks us to do here in the U.S. House of Representatives is to pass a budget each and every year. The Budget Act of 1974 asked that same thing of the House and of the Senate. Propose that budget. And the President has done that. To his credit, he's proposed a budget. But he said in his message that was read moments ago, ``We have to make choices.'' And what you will find, Mr. Speaker, if you go through this budget, as I know families are across this country--folks are curious about what the President is proposing--you will find a budget devoid of tough choices. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages in my hand, Mr. Speaker, devoid of tough choices. The President said in his economic address that you read moments ago, that the clerk read moments ago, Mr. Speaker, this is a make-or-break moment for the middle class. Nonsense. Nonsense. This is a make-or- break moment for America. This is a make-or-break moment for this experiment that we call our Republic. This is a make-or-break moment for all of the values that we share as an independent people. This is not a make-or-break moment for the middle class; this is a make-or-break moment for every single person who calls America home. And if we are going to preserve our Republic, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to protect the opportunity society for which America has become known, we have to make tough choices. Mr. Speaker, have you thought about it? Because it's plagued me since I was sworn in last January. I have only been here as a Member of Congress a little over a year. What about the old mantra, ``Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses longing to be free.'' What about that, Mr. Speaker? ``Your tired, your poor, your huddled masses longing to be free.'' Why aren't the doors of America flung open to every freedom-loving person on this planet? And I know the answer. Because in the days of America when that was the mantra of the land, this was an opportunity society. You came and you succeeded by the power of your ideas and the sweat of your brow. Some folks succeeded, and some folks failed. Failure is a part of all of our lives. If you are not experiencing failure, you are not trying hard enough. If you are pushing yourself to your extremes, you are going to find you will come up short sometimes. You are going to learn from that, and you are going to do better next time. But, Mr. Speaker, while a safety net is important to America, a safety sponge that sucks you down into it and prevents you from ever escaping and being free is not the principle on which this country was founded. And day after day after day, we let our country go further in that direction. Let's talk about the economic record that was just discussed in the President's economic address, Mr. Speaker. This is what the President said almost 2 years ago today. In February of 2010 he said this: Jobs will be our number one focus in 2010, and we're going to start where new jobs do, with small businesses. He's absolutely right. More than half of all the jobs that get created in this country get created by small businesses. That's where the entrepreneurship is. That's where the hiring excitement is. That's where the new ideas come from. We love our Home Depots. We love our Deltas. We love our UPS's and our Wal- Marts. But that's not where the job growth comes from. The President is absolutely right. Job growth comes from our small businesses. And 2 years ago almost today, Mr. Speaker, the President knew it. The President knew that if we were going to get this economy back on track, we have to start with the folks who hire. We have to start with the folks who are able to put Americans back to work, our small businesses. Mr. Speaker, this is a chart that actually came from the General Services Administration, one of the agencies that the President oversees. But it was published in The Wall Street Journal. It was titled ``Rising Regulation.'' Let me show you what we see here. You can't see it, Mr. Speaker, but this chart goes from 1995 to 2011. And what it shows is the number of published final rules that cost American businesses more than $100 million a year. That's what it takes in this country, Mr. Speaker. Before we consider a rule, a really powerful rule, before we consider a rule really detrimental to this country, it has to cost $100 million. I would tell you if it costs $1 million, it's important. I would tell you if it costs $10 million, it's important. But our measuring stick says $100 million. This is what we see: on average, about 80 such rules a year. Now I'm a small government conservative from the great State of Georgia, Mr. Speaker. I will tell you, 80 major rules like that a year are sapping freedom from individuals, sapping freedom from communities, sapping freedom from States, and that's too many. But that's kind of what we have as an average over the past 15 years. But look what happens, Mr. Speaker. The day that Nancy Pelosi gets sworn in as the Speaker of the House, the day President Obama gets sworn in as President of the United States, the number of major rules costing the American economy more than $100 million a year skyrockets, skyrockets. And by ``skyrockets,'' Mr. Speaker, I mean doubles from the level that President Clinton was imposing. Understand that. This isn't a Republican/Democrat issue. This is an individual philosophy issue. The individual that's in the White House matters. The individual that's in the Speaker's chair matters. Those individual philosophies translate into policies. We had a Republican Congress, a Democratic President, and we continued at about a historical average in terms of proposing new rules and regulations. But when we elected Nancy Pelosi to the Speaker's House, when we elected President Obama to the White House, we see the number of major regulations skyrocket. And who do you think pays for that, Mr. Speaker? We do, as the American consumer. Everybody in America pays for that when they go to buy goods at the shop. Or they may pay for that when their job leaves America and travels overseas. They may pay for that when the product they used to be able to buy is no longer manufactured because a new rule or regulation has put that product out of business. My mom said that about 100 watt light bulbs the other day. She had been hoarding them. We are one of those hoarders, I confess. We need those 100 watt light bulbs. We went to the store and couldn't find them. They were put out of business by a regulatory burden. The President knows he needs to start with small businesses to create jobs. That's what he says. But what he does is preside over the most onerous regulatory burden increase that our Nation has seen in decades. This chart is particularly troubling to me, Mr. Speaker. It's a measurement of the ease of starting a business. The United States used to be fourth. Today we're 13th. OECD countries, folks looking around the world, Where can entrepreneurs succeed? Where can new ideas succeed? Where can economies grow, be changed, be vibrant? The U.S. has fallen from 4 to 13. Let me tell you who's in front of us on the world stage now, Mr. Speaker: Macedonia, Georgia--the country, not my home State--Rwanda, Belarus, Saudi Arabia, Armenia. These are the countries, based on a static list of economic models of rules and regulations and opportunities for economic success, places where it's easier to succeed in today than in America. That's outrageous, Mr. Speaker. The President knows that if we are going to create jobs in this country, we have got to start where most jobs do, with small businesses. That's what he says. But what he does is preside over a decline of opportunity in this country that puts us now below Macedonia, Saudi Arabia, Rwanda, and Belarus on the world economic stage. Mr. Speaker, from the Department of Labor we see entrepreneurship in America has reached a 17-year low. Entrepreneurship in America is at a 17-year low. Business startups are at the lowest level since data was first collected in 1994; business startups at the lowest level since the data began to be collected at the Department of Labor in 1994. Mr. Speaker, this isn't a chart about business success. We all know that starting a business is hard. If you've been out there and you've tried to do it, you've probably had more failures than successes. It's hard to grow a business. This isn't about businesses succeeding. This is about Americans who are willing to try. The number of Americans willing to try has fallen to a 17-year low. And I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is this a measurement that Americans have changed or is this a measurement that the business climate in America has changed? We are the same proud, independent, hardworking, family-loving people that we have always been when these numbers were started in 1994. We are those same people as a country, Mr. Speaker. But the environment in which we live, the economic marketplace in which we operate, that's changed. That's changed, Mr. Speaker. Since 1994, you see the regulatory burden on small businesses. As we now move to a 17-year low in economic activity, Mr. Speaker, you see our regulatory burdens are at a historic high. That's not a coincidence. That's causative. Mr. Speaker, faced with these challenges, the President has presented his budget. And I'll say it again. I said it when I opened, but I want to say it again. I appreciate the President taking on that leadership role. It's a role that the law requires that he take it on, and so he takes it on. That would distinguish him from the United States Senate, where the law also requires that they take it on but they ignore that responsibility year after year after year after year. And the reason they do, Mr. Speaker--and I don't mind sharing this with folks. Folks know it. Folks back in their offices watching, they know why. Because a budget is a moral document. You can't publish hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages without telling the American people how you feel about the challenges facing our Nation. As I said in the beginning, this document tells me the President feels powerless to confront any of the problems facing our Nation because not a single tough decision is made in this entire budget. But at least he put that out there for the American people to see; not so with our colleagues on the Senate side. This is what happened in the President's budget, Mr. Speaker. He claims $4 trillion worth of deficit reduction. And again, I want to give him credit for that. There used to be a time when folks would send budgets to Capitol Hill and brag about how much more money they are spending each year. When the President wants to sell this budget to Capitol Hill, he's bragging about how much less he's spending than previous budgets. He says he's reduced the Federal budget by $4 trillion over the 10-year window. Kudos. Kudos. Except that's not exactly how the numbers shake out. Mr. Speaker, of the $4 trillion that he claims credit for, $2 trillion has already been passed into law. You'll remember this new freshman class that you and I are a part of, Mr. Speaker, we came in here and we passed the 2011 appropriations bills. We passed the 2012 appropriations bills. We passed the Budget Control Act. We implemented $2 trillion worth of changes to the Federal budget, $2 trillion over a 10-year window, moving us back towards black and away from red. The President claims credit for those $2 trillion that are already signed into law, that are already being implemented, that are already the practice under which the Federal Government operates. He claims credit for those in this new budget. I understand why he wants to, Mr. Speaker, but I don't think that's being honest with the American people. I think we owe the American people more transparency than that. So let me say to you, about $2.03 trillion of the $4 trillion he claims: already the law of the land. Down here, Mr. Speaker, we see another $850 billion in savings that he claims. I am labeling this the war gimmick. And I know ``gimmick'' is a value-laden word. I might have been in a bad mood when I labeled it that way, but I think it's accurate. So $850 billion, Mr. Speaker, the President says he's saving the American people. Why? Because wars that were never going to happen, dollars that had never been requested, troops that had never been deployed are, in fact, not going to be deployed. Hear that. This is $850 billion over the 10-year window, war savings, he claims. Money that was never asked for, never appropriated, never going to be appropriated, and would have had to have been borrowed had we needed it. It's not saved money, Mr. Speaker. It's fictional money that was never out there, and the President claims credit for it. Why? Because he needs it to get to his $4 trillion figure. Down here we have debt service gimmicks, Mr. Speaker; money that we would have borrowed but we're not going to borrow because of changes made in the budget. Again, just to be clear, so far we've looked at $2 trillion already enacted, $850 billion never requested. We're now claiming debt service savings, savings the President is saying the American people are not going to have to pay on debt service on all of these pots of money that we were never going to have to pay debt service to begin with, Mr. Speaker, because they were never the law of the land. These dollars were never going out the door. We saved these $2 trillion in enacted legislation. We never passed legislation to spend this $850 billion out the door, yet we have another $300 billion in debt savings. Again, is it good news for the American people that we're not going to have to pay that extra $300 billion in interest? It's good news. Don't let me be the one to tell you it's not good news. It's just good news; it's just good news because of what this House has already done, because of laws we have already passed, because of decisions we have already made. Not one penny of that comes from any new decision made in these hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of pages, Mr. Speaker. Not one penny. This chart, Mr. Speaker, lays it out. I had to blow up the tip there. You might be able to see just a little bit of green here. This dotted white line, Mr. Speaker, is the debt of America. The debt, the borrowing that we have all done from our children and grandchildren. You and I were not here in this House when that happened, Mr. Speaker, but we are responsible for it, just like every other American family is responsible for it. We have to pay it back, just like every other American family has to pay it back. Sixteen trillion dollars today, headed over the 10-year budget window that the President has proposed towards $26 trillion. Now, Mr. Speaker, what I have here is a dotted white line that shows what current law is, current law. I have a red bar, a red graph that shows you what the President is proposing. This is what you'll see. The President is proposing that our debt increase in 2013, increase in 2014, increase in 2015 and '16 and '17 and '18 and '19 and '20 and '21. And then, Mr. Speaker, you're not going to be able to see it, but way out here--and I've blown it up just so folks can see it back in their offices--you'll see a little bit of green because those tough decisions, those tough decisions made in these hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of pages about how to solve the American debt burden happen--just this much, but happen--in the year 2021. 2021, Mr. Speaker, is when this budget, for the first time, begins to save the American people some bit of debt burden over current law. We can do better, Mr. Speaker. The President said this is a make-or- break moment for the middle class. This is a make-or-break moment for America. We can do better, and we must. Mr. Speaker, when I talk about why it is this budget doesn't make any tough choices, you can see it here on this chart. This was actually a chart coming from the Wall Street Journal just a few days ago. It talks about where the money comes from that pays the American bills, the burden here, the moneys that we owe. It talks about where those dollars go. On this side where the dollars come from, you'll see, Mr. Speaker, about half of it comes from individual income taxes, and about a trillion dollars in annual receipts come from Social Security, Medicare, and retirement receipts. We see a little bit down here for corporate income tax, for excise income taxes, and from duties. This is where the money comes from. But look at where the money goes. And this is important, Mr. Speaker, because when we talk about making tough decisions, when we talk about confronting the mountain of debt that's building, when we talk about doing things that will make certain that the lives that our children will lead will be more prosperous than the lives that we have led, we have to go after those issues that matter. These orange colors here, Mr. Speaker, is what we call discretionary spending. That's spending that we've taken a trillion dollars out of thus far going forward. It's defense spending in this pie piece, nondefense discretionary spending, and then that takes us to this giant red area, Mr. Speaker. This giant red area has three things in it. The big pie piece is Medicare and Medicaid. That's where the money goes. Money in this country that the Federal Government spends goes to pay health care costs--Medicare and Medicaid, $1.5 trillion this year. Social Security, folks have been paying into Social Security all their life, they dad gum have a right to get that money back. The bill we passed today begins to redefine that commitment for the first time, and I'm concerned about that, but $820 trillion going to Social Security. And then $250 billion--$250 billion--Mr. Speaker, goes to pay interest on the debt. Now, just to put that in perspective, let's go back, Mr. Speaker. We've got defense spending, we've got Medicaid and Medicare spending, we've got Social Security spending, we've got interest on the debt, and in this pie piece, we have everything else-- everything: Our courts, our highways, our environment, our homeland security, our immigration and our parks--everything else. We spend half as much, Mr. Speaker, half of that amount that goes to everything else, we spend on interest payments alone. Half of the amount that this country spends on everything except Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the national debt, national defense-- everything else we spend half that amount on interest payments alone this year, when interest rates are at their lowest level in a century. Mr. Speaker, what do you think is going to happen when interest rates are no longer at their lowest level in a century? This bar is going to eclipse everything. So what can we do? I'll tell you what we can do. The money is in Medicare and Medicaid. The money is in Social Security. Mr. Speaker, I'm in my 40s, we must-- we must--come to people in my age bracket and say, no more. You will not get what your parents got. You've got to say that to me. You will not receive what your parents received. You've got to say that to me. Will there be a safety net? There will. Can we provide certainty to folks that it will be there? We can. But if you talk to anybody in their 40s, Mr. Speaker, they'll tell you that they expect those programs to be long bankrupt anyway. Why? Because they are. So these are the tough decisions that we have to make: What are we going to tell the next generation? How are we going to protect these benefits from the current generation? And, Mr. Speaker, this budget does none of that. Not a word, not an idea, not a proposal. There is nothing in the President's 2013 budget that even hints at the direction he would propose that America go to confront these financial challenges. Do you think we can dodge these challenges, Mr. Speaker? Do you think we can just put these things out of our head and pretend they don't exist? This is what we're looking at, Mr. Speaker. I wish you could see this. What we have here is the debt in this country as a percentage of GDP, as a percentage of our total economy. We look at places like Greece where the debt has grown so large. This was the debt as the percentage of our economy in World War II--in World War II, Mr. Speaker, when things had gotten so tough and we were having to ration rubber, ration steel, ration sugar and ration salt, when the country had come together to fight a common foe around the globe, this was our debt as a percentage of our economy. Here we are today, Mr. Speaker. We're not rationing rubber. We're not rationing sugar. We're not taking those common steps of sacrifice because we think our economy is about to go over the cliff. But it is. And this red line, Mr. Speaker; if we continue with this blue budget that the President has sent to us that makes no tough choices about our future, this red line is the debt that's coming. This is what the law of the land spends on behalf of your family, and mine, and every other American family, Mr. Speaker--and spends our Nation into oblivion. The truth is it's never going to get as bad as this chart. The Congressional Budget Office which does the projections, their computer actually breaks down about halfway through that red line and says that there's just no way the economy can continue to function under these circumstances. America will no longer exist. So the good news is, Mr. Speaker, it's not really going to get to the end of that line. But that's the challenge that confronts us, and that's the challenge that this budget avoids. But that's not why you and I ran for Congress, Mr. Speaker. We ran for Congress to make a difference. To a man and a woman in this freshman class, Republicans and Democrats alike, Mr. Speaker, I have not met one that came here because they thought it was a nifty looking business card. I haven't met one that came here because they couldn't do anything else and they thought, why not I run for Congress? To a man and a woman, every Republican and Democrat I've met in this freshman class came to this body because they want to save America from certain demise--certain demise. It's not possible demise. It's not maybe kind of demise. It is certain demise. And so what we did as a body, Mr. Speaker, when the Senate wouldn't act, when the President couldn't act, what we did as a body is pass the prosperity budget, which is this green line which changes the course of America. Mr. Speaker, there are two ways to change the course of America. You can change the America that we have always had into something different. That's where current law is taking us. Or you can reclaim the America that we have always dreamed of, that our parents, our grandparents, and our great-grandparents passed down to us, sacrificed for. We can reclaim that America by making tough decisions. Mr. Speaker, we have to make those tough decisions. And with the American people behind us, we will succeed. I thank you for the time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL

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

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I've come down here to talk about the budget. I am a freshman on the Budget Committee. The President's budget arrived on Monday of this week. Here in the Budget Committee, we had the acting OMB Director with us yesterday, we have the Treasury Secretary with us today, and we're exploring this budget. Now, I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, I may be a hard core conservative Republican from the Deep South, but I am grateful to this President for releasing a budget. A budget is a moral document, Mr. Speaker. It is a moral document that talks about what your priorities are for us, as a Nation. Our rule book for the country is the Constitution of the United States. That's the rule book by which everything we do in this Nation must comply. The rule book for our finances is the budget that we pass each year. As we all know, as it has been said dozens of times before, the Senate has not passed a budget in over 1,000 days. The majority leader has said he was not going to pass a budget again this year. The Democratic Budget Committee chairman said, But I promised to pass a budget this year. The majority leader said, Well, you can pass a budget, but I'm not going to have it considered on the House floor. That's wrong. What the President did in releasing a budget this week, that's right. I will tell you, there are a couple of things that need to be in a budget, Mr. Speaker. The budget needs to talk about spending restraint. I don't think there's a family in this country that believes the Federal Government is spending too little. Spending restraint must be a component of every budget. The President laid out his ideas this week. Repairing the safety net, Mr. Speaker, making sure that the safety net that families depend on when hard times come, making sure that that safety net is resilient, that it is, in fact, a spring and not a cushion, that it is a pathway out instead of a lifestyle choice, those things are important. The budget should contain those. Entitlement reform, Mr. Speaker, and I want to say earned entitlements, because the men and women of this country have been paying 15.3 percent of their income if they're in my generation, a little less in earlier generations, but they have been paying out of their paychecks to gain access to Social Security and Medicare. But those two programs, as we all know, are underfunded, are headed towards financial crisis, and a budget should talk about what your solutions are to restore faith in those programs for all Americans. And tax reform, Mr. Speaker, tax reform, there's not a person in this country, Mr. Speaker, that likes the Tax Code the way it is. There's not a Congressman in this room who, if they sat down with a blank sheet of paper today, would craft this United States Tax Code to govern our Nation. It's in need of reform, and we can do that. But, Mr. Speaker, of safety restraint, of repairing the safety net, of entitlement reform, and of tax reform, the President's budget was devoid of any--of any. Nothing to save Medicare for future generations. Nothing to protect Social Security for these generations and further. Nothing to change those safety net programs, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that they are that hand up instead of that handout. Nothing to build upon our work ethic that we have in this country by reforming the Tax Code and bringing businesses back to American shores. I encourage folks to go and look at that budget. They can see it at www.omb.gov. That's the Office of Management and Budget. It's the White House Web site where they can view that budget. I encourage them to tune in to the Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker. We are, again, having hearings on that budget all week and will continue into the future. And then I encourage folks to look at the process that happens here in this body, Mr. Speaker, where absolutely any Member of Congress can introduce absolutely any budget that expresses their priorities, an open process where absolutely all budget ideas are considered. It is a hallmark of this institution, Mr. Speaker. I welcomed it last year and was proud of the result of this debate. It was once the Paul Ryan budget, then the House Budget Committee budget, then the House budget for all of the land. I look forward to that process continuing again this year.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the time, and I appreciate being able to follow my colleagues from the Progressive Caucus. There is not a lot that the Progressive Caucus works for in terms of their techniques that I agree with, but there is so much that the caucus works for in terms of its overall goals for America that I agree with. And I think that that is a story that does not get told as often as it should here in this House. We can very often have common goals but have very different ways that we seek to achieve those goals, Madam Speaker. I think the way that we achieve those goals is important. It's important. As my colleague said when he was speaking on behalf of the Progressive Caucus, America voted in 2008. America voted in 2010. And in 2008, they elected a President. In 2010, they elected a new Congress. And powers divided America. Powers divided America. We have Democrats controlling the White House. We have Democrats controlling the Senate. We have Republicans controlling the U.S. House of Representatives. And we have the American people who should be controlling all three of those things. As we were coming into this new year, Madam Speaker, I was at home with my family back in Georgia, and I heard the news that the President of the United States had decided to appoint members to boards, to positions, to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to the National Labor Relations Board, to appoint positions that require Senate confirmation, to name people to those positions without getting that Senate confirmation, saying that if I can't do it with the Senate, I'll just skip the Senate. And I don't mind telling you, Madam Speaker, that really cast a damper on my Christmas season. We were coming into this new year--a new year where, as my friends from the Progressive Caucus have just laid out, we have challenge after challenge after challenge after challenge that we, as Americans, must face together, that we must come together in order to solve. And we're coming into this new year, an opportunity to make that happen. And I had high hopes. I had high hopes that despite this being an election year--and I think that brings out a lot of what's worst about Washington, DC. Despite this being an election year, despite there being divided government in Washington, I thought, We are going to have an opportunity because the challenges are so great to come together on behalf of all of our constituencies to move this Nation forward. And I wondered because, even though you are as new, as I am, Madam Speaker, we've seen in years past that the closer you get to election, the crazier things get in Congress. The closer you get to an election, sadly, the more folks stop worrying about doing the right thing and start worrying about getting reelected and doing whatever it takes to do that. And as a freshman, Madam Speaker, I know you likely agree with me. I happen to think doing the right thing is the best thing for getting reelected. I think if more folks spent more time worrying about doing the right thing instead of getting reelected, their reelection campaigns would take care of themselves. But I had high hopes coming into this year that this would not be a wasted reelection year for the American people but that we would be able to work on serious issues together. The rule book I use, Madam Speaker, I have up here on the board. This happens to be article II, section 2, clause 3 of the United States Constitution. But the Constitution is the rule book I use. I carry mine with me. I don't want it to be far away because I believe that if we have the same rule book to operate from, Madam Speaker, then it gives us that context for trying to achieve the goals the American people sent us here to do. Here we have article II, section 2, clause 3 of the United States Constitution: ``The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.'' This is the recess appoint authority, Madam Speaker. You've heard it said the President has the power to make recess appointments. The President shall have the power to fill all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate. Undisputed. Undisputed, Madam Speaker: article II, section 2, clause 3. Article II, section 2, clause 2: The President shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties. And he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided. The President shall have the power to make appointments if the Senate is in recess. But if the Senate is not, the President only has the power--the President shall, the Constitution says, nominate by and with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. That's the way our system works, Madam Speaker. That's the rule book that was left for us by our Founding Fathers. That's the rule book that has guided this country for 225 years. The President has the power to appoint nonelected leaders, unelected leaders to lead this Nation. But he can do so only with the advice and consent of the Senate. Now, back in the day, Madam Speaker--I know you are from the northern part of the east coast. I'm from the southern part of the east coast. It used to take us a long time to get to Washington, DC. I'm 640 miles away from the Capital down in Georgia. If I had to get on my horse and ride to the United States Capital, it would take quite a few days to do it. And understanding that the business of the American people had to continue, our Founding Fathers looked ahead and said if the Senate cannot be reconvened, if the Senate is too far away to consult, and your first duty is to consult, but if you cannot, we want the country to go on. Well, that's been the way it's been in this country, Madam Speaker, as you know, for hundreds upon hundreds of years. Until now. Until now, when for the very first time, when for the very first time this President of the United States said, I can't get my nominees through the Democratic Senate, so I'm going to go around the Senate. And he made appointments without the advice and consent of the Senate. I have with me today, Madam Speaker, a page from the Congressional Record, a speech that was given on the Senate floor, and this is what it says: Mr. President, the Senate will be coming in for pro forma sessions during the Thanksgiving holiday to prevent recess appointments. My hope is that this will prompt the President to see that it is in our mutual interests to get nominations back on track. With an election year looming, significant progress can still be made. But that progress can't be made if the President seeks controversial recess appointments and fails to make others. With the Thanksgiving break looming, the administration informed me that they would make several recess appointments. I indicated I would be willing to confirm various appointments if the administration would agree to move others, but they would not make that commitment. And as a result, I am keeping the Senate in pro forma session to prevent recess appointments until we get this process back on track. Do you hear those words from the United States Senate, Madam Speaker? Do you hear those words? This was the majority leader in the United States Senate speaking out, telling the President you cannot, you cannot, you cannot make appointments without the advice and consent of the Senate. You're trying to go around us; we will not allow it. We're afraid you're going to do it when we go home for Thanksgiving. So instead of going on recess, instead of recessing the Senate, we're going to stay in pro forma session not just through Thanksgiving, but through the Christmas holidays to make certain that the President seeks our advice and consent. Sounds like a speech a Republican would have given, Madam Speaker, to make sure the President of the United States followed the Constitution, but it's not. It's not. This is actually a page from the Congressional Record November 16, 2007, Madam Speaker. These are the words that then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke to President Bush, telling President Bush the law of the land is you can't do it without us unless we're in recess. We're not going to go on recess. We're staying here in pro forma session. And, in fact, the majority leader and still now majority leader, Harry Reid in the United States Senate, kept the Senate in session, pro forma session every day until the end of President Bush's term and no recess appointments were ever made. Why, Madam Speaker? Because the Senate never went on recess. Harry Reid said: Mr. President, the Senate will be coming in for pro forma session during the Thanksgiving holiday to prevent recess appointments. That's how he opened his speech that day. He closed his speech that day by saying: As a result, I'm keeping the Senate in pro forma session to prevent recess appointments until we get this process back on track. Harry Reid knew, Madam Speaker, that the President could not, could not under the laws that govern our plan, under the rule book that is the United States Constitution, that he could not make appointments if Harry Reid kept the Senate in pro forma session; 2007, then-Majority Leader Harry Reid talking to then-President George Bush. Fast forward, Madam Speaker, to the holiday season 2011-2012, same majority leader sitting in the United States Senate, Harry Reid, same pro forma session continually through Thanksgiving and Christmas, the same pro forma session that Harry Reid said clearly would prevent constitutionally the President from making any appointments. And what did this President do? He made four. For the first time in American history, he made four. And he said, you know what, it's been so hard to work with the Senate. This whole going around the Senate and skipping them all together is working so well, I may do it again. If I can't work with you, you, the delegates of the American people, you, the elected representatives to our Republic, if I can't work with you, I'm going to go around you. And it worked out so well this time, I might do it again. Madam Speaker, while I disagree with my colleagues on the methods that we use, I share a common set of goals with them of what we want for America. When we lose that common fiber, when we lose what I would call that American Dream, that almost tangible spirit that unites us more than it divides us, that sense of who we are as a Nation that you can almost reach out and touch, that makes it clear that we will continue, no matter what our differences, toward a common end. I would tell you the Constitution of the United States, Madam Speaker, contains much of that spirit. The Constitution is clear. And this President, for the first time, decided it just didn't matter. He had ends that he wanted to achieve, and he said the means, as unconstitutional as they may be, justify those ends. Same circumstance, same Senate majority leader, same season on the calendar, same pending election year. In 2007, Harry Reid took to the floor of the United States Senate, spoke out on behalf of the American people and said, The Constitution matters, don't you dare. The silence from the Senate this year is deafening. Deafening. We only survive as a Republic, Madam Speaker, if the rules apply to everyone consistently. This is not a matter of party; this is a matter of country. Harry Reid was right when he called out a Republican President and said, don't you dare. It's unconstitutional. And that Republican President, President George Bush, didn't because he knew also that the Constitution forbade it. Where is the indignation today from the Senate, Madam Speaker, when that same thing is going on, but the only thing that is different is the President is of a different party? If we are ready to trade away those fundamental truths that unite us as a Nation, Madam Speaker, in the name of party, we have nothing. We have nothing. This is not a Republican crisis. This is not a Democratic crisis. This is a constitutional crisis and one that every single American has to be on watch for. Madam Speaker, I'm not proud of everything that happened when Republicans ran the House, Republicans ran the Senate, and Republicans ran the House. I'm certainly not proud of everything that happened when Democrats ran the House, Democrats ran the Senate, and Democrats ran the White House. The temptation to go along with party leaders is strong. But the requirement of the oath that we swear the day we come to this institution, Madam Speaker, is not to follow party leaders. It is to follow the United States Constitution and to defend it against enemies foreign and domestic. We cannot trade away these principles that have guided our Republic and have protected our freedom in the name of party. When the President was elected, Madam Speaker, I think he believed that. I remember the spirit of the country in those days right after the President was elected. It was magical. I actually happened to be in town, Madam Speaker, when the inauguration was going on there in January of 2009. President Obama being sworn in as President of the United States, and there were men and women weeping in the streets-- weeping in the streets because they had joy in their heart that their voice had been heard, their President had been elected and that better days were on the horizon for America. Men and women weeping in the streets. President Obama was not my choice for President, but I love--I love-- that while he and President Bush agreed on virtually nothing, President Bush took the keys to the White House and the suitcase full of nuclear launch codes, and he handed them to President Obama. Not a drop of blood was shed, and not a bullet was fired. The leadership of the most powerful nation on the planet, the most deadly military the Earth has ever known, the beacon of freedom the likes of which this planet has never seen, the keys to that kingdom were handed from one leader to the next, leaders who disagreed on almost everything, handed from one to the next with no blood and no gunshots for one reason and one reason only: because the American people demanded it, because the election required it, because the freedoms that were laid out in the United States Constitution that said the only power in Washington is the power that we, the voters, give to it, lend to it, lease to it for a small period of time. That is the only power in this town. And when, We the People speak, Washington must listen. All under the rules, the rules of the United States Constitution. President Obama knew that when he was elected. Here's what he said-- this is from his election night victory speech in 2008 when President Obama said this: Resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for far too long. He was right when he said it. Resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for far too long. That was his victory night speech, Madam Speaker. Before this Christmas season, when he decided he can't work with the Senate, he's going to go around the Senate; when he decided if he couldn't pass it with the people's representatives, he'd just skip the people's representatives, he said, I'm going to choose a new path. But in December of last year, Madam Speaker, after 3 years as our President, when asked about the partisan tone that the rhetoric was taking, he said this: It was going to take more than a year to solve it. It was going to take more than 2 years. It was going to take more than one term, probably takes more than one President. On victory night, Madam Speaker, he said deliverance is coming to America from the temptation of partisanship, pettiness, and immaturity. In December of 2011, he said that it was just going to be too hard, couldn't do it in a year, couldn't do it in 2 years, couldn't do it in a whole term, probably can't even do it in one presidency. Madam Speaker, his sights are set too low. He can, if he has the courage to do it. August of 2008, right before the election, Madam Speaker, President Obama says this as he announces his vice presidential candidate: After decades of steady work across the aisle, I know that he'll--talking about Vice President Biden--be able to help me turn the page on the ugly partisanship in Washington so we can bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda that works for the American people. Madam Speaker, he knows, he knows in his heart what the right thing to do is. He knows. He wants to move past, turn the page, he says, on the ugly partisanship in Washington so that we can bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda that works for the American people. That was right before the election, Madam Speaker. This year, he's decided for the first time in American history, if he can't get along with Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, he'll just go around them. It doesn't matter that the constitutional rule book says no. He has somewhere he wants to go. He wants people in power that he can appoint, and the fact that the Senate won't sign off on those folks, the fact that the voice of the American people as represented in those 100 men and women in the Senate won't sign off on those folks doesn't matter to him. He has an agenda, and he wants to go after it. What happened, Madam Speaker, to trying to turn the page? November 2010, President Obama recognizes failure. When asked about that bitter partisanship, he said this: I neglected some things that matter to a lot of people, and rightly so that they matter, maintaining a bipartisan tone in Washington. He knew, November 2010, he knew he'd promised it, he knew that we, the American people, were hoping that he would deliver it, and we were praying that he would have the strength and conviction to deliver it. November of 2010, he said, I neglected it. But in November, 2010, he said, I'm going to redouble my efforts to make it happen. I know in my heart it should happen, he said. I'm going to redouble my efforts. That was November, 2010, Madam Speaker, and here we are having the President go around the Constitution for the first time ever in American history because the Senate does not approve of his nominees. He cannot get Senate approval. Rather than nominating people with whom he could get Senate approval, he said, I want what I want. The will of the people as expressed by the Senate does not matter. If I can't work with them, I'm going to go around them, and it works so well, I'm likely to do it again. Madam Speaker, I don't want this to sound like a partisan discussion, this that is happening with the Constitution today, this constitutional crisis that we're in with these non-recess ``recess'' appointments. It is wrong whether a Republican tries to do it or a Democrat tries to do it, and we know that to be true because we remember it from 2007. It wasn't but one President ago that we last confronted this circumstance. And what we concluded was, it's unconstitutional, you can't do it, and we're going to keep the Senate in pro forma session. And that prevented President Bush from making any more appointments for the remainder of his presidency. This is what President Obama said back when he was Senator Obama-- Senator Obama: These are challenges we all want to meet, and problems we all want to solve, even if we don't agree on how to do it. But he says this, Madam Speaker: But if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and millions of Americans who asked them to be their voice, I fear that the already partisan atmosphere of Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That doesn't serve anyone's best interest, he said, and it certainly isn't what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind. Madam Speaker, when President Obama was Senator Obama, and he sat in the Senate and the responsibility of representing the men and women of Illinois sat on his shoulders, he knew what the truth was. If the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, I fear the already partisan atmosphere will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. He was right, Madam Speaker. He was right before the election, when he said he was going to fight partisanship. He was right after the election, when he said he wanted to bring openness back to Washington. He was right when he was a United States Senator and he said the people's voice needed to be heard. He was wrong when he ignored the United States Constitution less than 45 days ago and said, I can't work with the Senate. The people's Representatives have it all wrong. And if I can't work with them, I'm going to go around them. You can't make that choice, Madam Speaker. The rule book is right here. It's the United States Constitution. Again, Senator Barack Obama: We need to rise above an ends-justify- the-means mentality because we are here to answer to the people--all of the people, not just the ones wearing our party label. This was April 13, 2005. As a United States Senator, President Obama knew. He knew, when he had the burden of responsibility--the pleasure of responsibility--of representing the men and women of Illinois, he knew ends-justify-the- means mentality. We must rise above it, he said. We must answer to the American people, not just the ones wearing our party label. He was right, Madam Speaker. He was right then. He was right before the election. He was right after the election. He is wrong today. What has happened? What has happened in 3 years of his Presidency that he knew where we could go as a Nation, he knew where we should go as a Nation. He knew that the rule book that has been guiding us for over 200 years would get us through to better days tomorrow. He knew it, and he's forgotten it. And we're on the brink of a constitutional crisis. Madam Speaker, I have here a quote from Senator Chuck Schumer: You don't change the rules in the middle of the game just because you can't get your way. Our Constitution, our system of laws, is too hallowed, is too important to do that. Democratic Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer. Madam Speaker, I've said it as long as I've been here--and you and I have been here just over 1 year--truth does not have a Republican or Democratic label after it. Truth is truth, right is right, and wrong is wrong. The President knows what's wrong. He knew it as a Senator. He knows it as a President. His colleagues in the Senate know what's wrong. You don't change the rules in the middle of the game just because you can't get your way. Our Constitution, our system of laws, is too hallowed, is too important to do that. Chuck Schumer was right, Madam Speaker. There's no process in this Constitution for reining in that Executive that just throws the Constitution aside--short of impeachment. It's the only one. We can't sue him. We can't go down there. We can have a picket, but that doesn't make any difference. He knew it. He knew it was wrong. He knew it as a candidate. He knew it once he was elected. He knew it when he was a Senator. And he did it anyway, because the ends justified his means. Madam Speaker, all we are as a Nation comes from the very few words that make up this United States Constitution--Constitution on your bedside, Bible on your bedside, those important works of American history by your bedside, Madam Speaker. We have a national identity, and that national identity is defined by having one set of rules that apply to everybody equally. Madam Speaker, I'm grateful to you for making this time available to me today. I encourage every American to look at these facts and judge for themselves what the next step is on our constitutional journey. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL

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

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It really is a source of pride for me as a Budget Committee member to be a part of this. This is an effort, much like the STOCK Act, that did not begin in this Congress. The Expedited Line-Item Veto is an effort that has been going on for almost two decades here in this body. And previous attempts, Madam Speaker, I would argue, were in fact an unconstitutional delegation of our responsibility here in the House to legislate delegating that responsibility to the President. This underlying bill, however, looks less like a line-item veto and more like an expedited rescission, rescission authority that the President already has today, but ensures that when that rescission is presented, it actually gets a vote here on the House floor. If these were wonderful economic times, Madam Speaker, I don't know if I would be as enthusiastic about this legislation, but these are dire economic times. Our budget challenges here have grown exponentially in my life time. And I think we must pull out every single stop that we can to make the situation better. Whether a little or whether a lot, every single opportunity we must seize. And this is one of those. I so appreciate, again, the work of Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen in bringing this forward. But I would be remiss, Madam Speaker, if given all of the talk about the STOCK Act today, I didn't speak up just a little on behalf of my colleagues. I have served now 13 months as a Member of Congress. I see good and decent, hardworking men and women trying to do the very best that they can for their Nation. I see men and women from different parts of the country whose constituencies have different hopes and dreams, and those Members coming here to advocate for those hopes and dreams as best as they can. And I see a population back home that has lost all faith in those good men and women here in this body. And I wonder what we do here in this body to perpetuate that stereotype. You know, the STOCK Act, Madam Speaker, has been characterized colloquially as the prevent-insider-trading-by-Members-of-Congress as if, as if Members of Congress are allowed to participate in insider trading today. And they are not. Insider trading was against the law yesterday, it was against the law a week ago, it was against the law a year ago, and it will still be against the law tomorrow. Do not let your constituents, Madam Speaker, believe for a minute that you have a right to insider trade when they don't. The laws of the land apply to us as well, and we owe it to this institution and we owe it to our constituents back home to tell them they are not being represented by a bunch of thieves and scoundrels, but they are being represented by their neighbors. Can we do even more? Must we do even more? We must. Thirty-eight pages in the STOCK Act of new criminal regulations, new sanctions. If you got bribed last week, you're going to go to prison for a number of years. If you get bribed next week, you're going to go to prison for more years. Folks, don't get bribed. It was wrong yesterday; it is wrong tomorrow. It's not more wrong because we're deciding this here today. We have a responsibility to do the job we have been entrusted to do, and we must punish the bad actors in this body, but we cannot let our constituents back home believe that this body cannot be saved. We cannot let our constituents back home believe that this body is being operated by folks who breach the public trust. We do America a disservice, Madam Speaker, when we allow that contention to go unchallenged. Are there bad apples here in this Congress? I don't know if they are here today. I know they have been here in years past. And we've sent those folks to prison. There are bad apples in my church; we've sent those folks to prison, too. This body is only as good as the American voter back home. And I tell you, Madam Speaker, if your district is like my district, the American voter back home is spectacular. The American voter back home is a man or woman of integrity. The American voter back home is a person with hopes and dreams for a better America tomorrow than we have today. We can deliver that on their behalf. We are the voice of those hopes and dreams in this body. The kind of bipartisan work that we've done on the Expedited Line- Item Veto and Rescissions Act, I say that is exemplary. My colleague who chuckles, Madam Speaker, has been here longer than I. He's been here longer than I. I don't believe he's beyond saving, though. I think we can convince him that it's not a laughable matter to work together, that it's actually something that folks do. And I'm optimistic to be the carrier of that message today and tomorrow. With that, let me again urge strong support for the rule. The rule both allows the Expedited Line-Item Veto bill to come to the floor, as well as provides an opportunity for the very first time a vote on the STOCK Act here in this body. I rise in strong support of that rule and in strong support of the underlying provision.

Mr. WOODALL. I'm prepared to close as well.

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

Mr. WOODALL. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my friend for his kind comments. I know that Mr. Walz and Ms. Slaughter have been working for years and years on this proposal. And again, I have some issues with this proposal. I do believe that there are some better options out there. But I must speak up on behalf of the leadership in this House. For Congress after Congress after Congress, Ms. Slaughter labored to bring this bill to the floor, labored to bring this bill to the floor to no avail, to no avail, through 4 years of democratically controlled Congresses--folks who have the deepest respect and admiration for the gentlelady and her legislation--failed to bring this legislation to the floor. And the rule we have here today does. It does. It's not the only way to bring this legislation to the floor. It's not even a requirement that the legislation come to the floor in this way. But what this rule does is it provides the first opportunity that this Congress has had to vote on the STOCK Act. Madam Speaker, that's not a topic for the gnashing of teeth. That's a topic for the clapping of hands. If you believe in this bill, if you believe, as Mr. Walz said, that this may not be the end-all/be-all, but it's a step in that direction, if we can move a little today and a little tomorrow and a little beyond that to ultimately get to where we need to be, this is a step in the right direction. As a member of the Budget Committee, Madam Speaker, it just happens to be my privilege that that opportunity was attached to the bottom of a budget rule because the truth is, the reason we are here today is not to talk about the STOCK Act and not to talk about ethics reform but to talk about budget process reform, budget process reform that was reported out of the Budget Committee in a bipartisan way, budget process reform that was sponsored by both the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee and the Democratic ranking member of the Budget Committee--budget process reform that makes sure that every little piece of the United States budget, every topic in an appropriations bill, doesn't just get examined in committee, doesn't just get examined on the House floor, doesn't just get examined at the White House, but gets examined one more time for those things that just don't pass the smell test, by coming back to this body for an up-or-down vote on that rescission. I would inquire of my friend from Colorado if he has any speakers remaining?

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman for his kind words about the underlying bill. I say with the utmost sincerity that here in my freshman term in Congress, one of the Members I have enjoyed working with the most is Mr. Polis. You can always count on him in the Rules Committee to say something unexpected. You can't pigeonhole him as to where he's going to be on things because he's thoughtful about all of the issues. And I would hope that he would find that to be one of the highest compliments we can pay to a Member, to find a thoughtful Member here in this body, and it's certainly been my pleasure to work with him. I agree with him that we can't pretend the deficit away. We can't use wacky numbers, I think was his word, to wish the deficit away, though we do have a difference of opinion about where that pretending comes from and where the wacky numbers come from. As a member of the Budget Committee, I will tell you that the steps we're taking this year are changing a historical process of pretending the deficit away, bringing in real accounting, changing a historical process of generating wacky numbers and bringing in new, honest accounting. But I also want to say this, Madam Speaker. As folks come to the floor to talk about whether or not we're actually saving any money today, whether we're cutting the budget today, whether we're creating jobs today, this is a Budget Committee bill. As a member of the Budget Committee, I wish it were in my authority to cut spending and create jobs, because, by golly, I've got to tell you, I could do it, bring bills to the floor on a regular basis to promote those ideas. But it's not within the Budget Committee's authority. What is in the Budget Committee's authority to do is craft the most honest numbers possible to share with the American people to describe what it is that we're doing with their tax dollars day in and day out. That's exactly what this legislation is designed to do. That's exactly what the other nine pieces of budget reform legislation the Budget Committee is moving, what they are designed to do. It is really with great pride, again, as a new member to the Budget Committee, to have my colleague from Colorado say such nice things about this bipartisan work, about the hope that this presents for us moving forward, and I, too, hope we'll be able to build on that progress. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'm pleased to be down here with you today, Madam Speaker, because what we have an opportunity to do with this rule is bring another in a series of 10 fundamental reforms to the congressional budgeting process. Today, House Resolution 540 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3521, the Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act. And yet again today, with this rule we have made in order every single amendment by either Republicans or Democrats that was germane to the underlying legislation to give us an opportunity to make this bill better. Now, to be fair, Madam Speaker, H.R. 3521 is another example of bipartisanship in this House. It was introduced and sponsored by both the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, and the Democratic ranking member, Mr. Van Hollen, another opportunity of things that we can do here in this new Congress to bring common sense to our budgeting process. It's a bipartisan attempt, Madam Speaker, to provide both Congress and the President with all of the tools necessary to get our fiscal challenges under control. It exemplifies what can happen here in this body when we're willing to listen to folks back home and come together to try to make a difference here in Congress. In the 111th Congress, Madam Speaker, nondefense discretionary spending was increased by almost 25 percent. This Congress, this body, working with the Senate, increased nondefense discretionary spending by almost 25 percent. Now, if your constituents are like mine, Madam Speaker, had they had that budget around their family dinner table, they could have found some items that they could have done without. In exchange for not putting their children and their grandchildren further and further and further in the hole, further and further and further under the mountain of debt that this country has run up, they could have found some things to cut. Now, Congress in the past has tried to pass a line-item veto, line- item vetoes that I would have opposed had I been in Congress, Madam Speaker, because they transferred our authority, our authority here in the U.S. House of Representatives, to the executive branch. I'm opposed to that. What we have today is not that process of days of old, not that process that has been tossed out by the Supreme Court as a violation of our House prerogatives; but what we have today is an expedited rescissions process that allows the President of the United States to go through those budget bills, those appropriation bills, those funding bills, to say, When I see this, it doesn't pass the smell test, let me give the Congress one more shot at it; send it back to Capitol Hill, where we accept it or reject it in its entirety. I confess, Madam Speaker, I'm not thrilled about involving this President in budgeting decisions any more than is absolutely necessary. But given the nature of our challenges, it's not about this President or the previous President or the next President. It's about the American people. It's about what are we going to do to fulfill our responsibilities to keep America strong. This is one of those bills, Madam Speaker, that will provide another arrow in the quiver of fiscal responsibility to this Nation, and I believe it's one whose time has come. Yesterday, we saw another bill in this budget reform process. Last week, we saw two other bills in this budget reform process. Each are coming to the floor, Madam Speaker, in as open and honest a process as we can bring the American people into this budget process, to make Congress' budget process as open and honest as it can be. As a proud member of the Rules Committee, Madam Speaker, and of the Budget Committee, I am here today in strong support of this rule and in strong support of the underlying resolution. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I appreciate the gentlelady's work. I know that her effort on the STOCK Act comes from the heart. I disagree with a lot of the underlying crafting of that bill, but I know that the effort is to solve a very real problem and to solve it in a very genuine way, and I am grateful to her for that. At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida, Sheriff Nugent, one of my freshman colleagues, who also comes to this issue with a pure heart and who has an alternative proposal here in the House to prevent insider trading, of which I am a strong supporter. He is also my colleague and seatmate in the Rules Committee.