House Votes - H.R. 910: Energy Tax Prevention Act

H.Res. 203: Providing for consideration of H.R. 910

On Motion to Adjourn
Failed by 332 votes: 36-367, 29 not voting

Rep. Jackson tries to adjourn House to prompt budget talks
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) on Wednesday made a motion to adjourn the House shortly after noon in order to force the two parties to negotiate a FY 2011 budget agreement.

On Ordering the Previous Question
Passed by 108 votes: 266-158, 8 not voting

On Passage
Passed by 78 votes: 250-172, 10 not voting


H.R. 910: Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011
To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes.

Amendments

H.Amdt. 240 by Rep. Jackson-Lee [D-TX18]
An amendment numbered 1 printed in House Report 112-54 to require an EPA study to determine the long term impact of a complete ban on their authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
Failed by 99 votes: 161-259, 12 not voting

H.Amdt. 241 by Rep. Jackson-Lee [D-TX18]
An amendment numbered 2 printed in House Report 112-54 to insert a new section to provide considerations and procedures in finalizing greenhouse gas regulations.
Failed by 110 votes: 157-266, 9 not voting

H.Amdt. 244 by Rep. Murphy [D-CT5]
An amendment numbered 5 printed in House Report 112-54 to clarify that the Agency can continue to provide technical assistance to states taking action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Failed by 59 votes: 182-240, 10 not voting

H.Amdt. 245 by Rep. Waxman [D-CA30]
An amendment numbered 6 printed in House Report 112-54 to add a new section with respect to Congressional Acceptance of Scientific Findings: Congress accepts the scientific findings of the Environmental Protection Agency that climate changes is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.
Failed by 57 votes: 184-240, 8 not voting

H.Amdt. 247 by Rep. Polis [D-CO2]
An amendment numbered 8 printed in House Report 112-54 to ensure the EPA Administrator can protect the public health in case of public health emergency.
Failed by 90 votes: 168-257, 7 not voting

H.Amdt. 248 by Rep. Markey [D-MA7]
An amendment numbered 9 printed in House Report 112-54 to ensure that any prohibition on or limitation to EPA's Clean Air Act authority contained in the bill would not apply to any action EPA could take to reduce demand for oil.
Failed by 111 votes: 156-266, 10 not voting

H.Amdt. 249 by Rep. Rush [D-IL1]
An amendment numbered 10 printed in House Report 112-54 to prevent the provisions of this act from going into effect until the EPA Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, certifies that the consequences of not regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and its subsequent impact on climate change, including the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters and the ability to likely foster political instability where societal demands exceed the capacity of governments to cope, do not jeopardize American security interests at home or abroad.
Failed by 96 votes: 165-260, 7 not voting

H.Amdt. 250 by Rep. Doyle [D-PA14]
An amendment numbered 11 printed in House Report 112-54 to include a study to determine whether regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act to address climate change, if not repealed or otherwise made unauthorized by section 2 of the bill, would cause greenhouse gas leakage and reduce the international competitiveness of United States producers of energy-intensive products.
Failed by 78 votes: 173-250, 9 not voting

H.Amdt. 251 by Rep. Kind [D-WI3]
An amendment in the nature of a substitute numbered 12 printed in House Report 112-54 to codify the Environmental Protection Agency's Tailoring Rule in order to protect farms, small businesses, and small- and medium-sized stationary sources from greenhouse gas regulation.
Failed by 105 votes: 160-264, 8 not voting

House GOP, Dems spar over EPA's regulatory impact on companies
House Republicans on Wednesday said legislation limiting regulation on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is needed to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing de facto taxes on U.S. companies, while Democrats warned limiting the EPA would set back decades of progress on the environment. The debate took place in the context of the rule for H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which would prevent the EPA from regulating GHG. Republicans see this as a needed step given the EPA's effort to do through regulation what Democrats cannot pass through Congress, such as a cap-and-trade policy.

Three Democrats warn of expanded EPA regulations impact on jobs
While most Democrats on Wednesday opposed the GOP's bill to restrict the Environmental Protection Agency authorities, three Democrats spoke in favor of it on the House floor and said failure to rein in the EPA would hurt job creation in rural areas of the country. The House was debating H.R. 910, which would prohibit the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) was the first Democrat to speak out in favor of the bill, and rejected the idea put forward by other Democrats that the bill should be called the "Dirty Air Act." He said letting one agency decide how to regulate GHG is putting too much authority into a single agency.

House rejects most Dem amendments to bill limiting EPA
The House on Wednesday night rejected all but one Democratic amendment to a bill that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. After the votes, the House moved to special order speeches, leaving a vote on final passage of the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910) until later in the week.

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions
Failed by 77 votes: 175-251, 6 not voting

On Passage
Passed by 83 votes: 255-172, 5 not voting


House votes to prohibit EPA's greenhouse gas regulations
By a 255-172 vote, the House approved a measure Thursday that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The bill, the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910), was supported by 19 Democrats. For Republicans, the bill is a way to protest the 2007 Supreme Court decision allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide and other non-toxic emissions. The GOP has said this allows the EPA to impose policy decisions through regulation that the Obama administration cannot pass legislatively.

House votes to kill EPA climate regulations
House lawmakers sent a loud message to the White House on Thursday: They want to obliterate the Obama administration’s climate rules.

House votes to block EPA from regulating carbon
By a 255 to 172 margin, the House of Representatives approved a measure blocking the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon. The bill attracted the support of 19 Democrats. On Wednesday, a similar attempt on the Senate side failed on a 50 to 50 vote.

House Votes - H.R. 1363: Department of Defense and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act

H.Res. 206: Providing for consideration of H.R. 1363

On Ordering the Previous Question
Passed by 53 votes: 238-185, 9 not voting

On Passage
Passed by 39 votes: 228-189, 15 not voting


H.R. 1363: Department of Defense and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011
Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes.

Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair
Passed by 49 votes: 236-187, 9 not voting

On Motion to Recommit with Instructions
Failed by 46 votes: 191-236, 5 not voting

On Passage
Passed by 66 votes: 247-181, 4 not voting


House passes one-week funding bill
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a one-week government funding bill Thursday that cuts spending by $12 billion and funds the Pentagon for the remainder of the current fiscal year. The measure is not expected to clear the Democratic-controlled Senate. President Barack Obama has promised to veto the measure if it reaches him because of the programs it would cut.

House passes one-week budget bill; Obama vows veto
Partisan posturing continues as House GOP passes short-term measure to avert shutdown; Obama wants "clean" version

House passes one-week spending bill
Defying a veto threat from President Obama, the Republican-led House of Representatives passed a one-week measure on Thursday to avert a government shutdown while negotiations continue. The bill would keep the military funded for the rest of the year. The measure passed 247-181.

House Passes Bill Stopping DC Abortion Funding, Democrats Opposed
The House of Representatives today approved a short-term continuing resolution that would fund the federal government for a week and that contains a pro-life rider stopping taxpayer funding of abortions in D.C.

Senate Votes - S. 493: SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011

S. 493: SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011

Previous Senate Votes

Amendments


S.Amdt. 236 by Sen. Baucus [D-MT]
To prohibit the regulation of greenhouse gases from certain sources.
Amendment Rejected 7-93 (3/5 required)

Senate defeats amendment to exempt farmers from climate rules
The Senate defeated an amendment in a 93-7 vote Wednesday that would have exempted farmers and some small businesses from the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse-gas regulations. Prior to the vote, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who sponsored the bill, argued that small companies and farmers ought to be exempt because a small group of large companies emit the majority of carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

S.Amdt. 277 by Sen. Stabenow [D-MI]
To suspend, for 2 years, any Environmental Protection Agency enforcement of greenhouse gas regulations, to exempt American agriculture from greenhouse gas regulations, and to increase the number of companies eligible to participate in the successful Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit Program.
Amendment Rejected 7-93 (3/5 required)

S.Amdt. 215 by Sen. Rockefeller [D-WV]
To suspend, until the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, any Environmental Protection Agency action under the Clean Air Act with respect to carbon dioxide or methane pursuant to certain proceedings, other than with respect to motor vehicle emissions.
Amendment Rejected 12-88 (3/5 required)

Senate rejects two-year moratorium on emissions regulation

S.Amdt. 183 by Sen. McConnell [R-KY]
To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change.
Amendment Rejected 50-50 (3/5 required)

Floor Speech: Cap and Trade

Senate rejects GOP amendment to block EPA climate rules
The Senate split 50-50 on an amendment that would have permanently blocked the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Senate shoots down GOP measure to block EPA from regulating carbon fails
On Wednesday the United States Senate rejected a Republican led effort to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulated carbon, with a 50-50 vote. Sixty votes were needed to secure passage. Four Democrats voted in favor of the measure: Sens. Ben Nelson, Neb., Mark Pryor, Ark., Mary Landrieu, and Joe Manchin, W.Va.. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine was the sole GOP "no" vote.

Today's Senate vote means that Obama owns carbon regulation

Senate rejects block to EPA regs
The vote sends a strong signal that the Senate won't endorse a roll back the agency's authority.

S.Amdt. 286 by Sen. Inouye [D-HI]
To provide for the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to submit recommended rescissions in accordance with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 for Government programs and agencies with duplicative and overlapping missions.
Amendment Rejected 57-43 (3/5 required)

S.Amdt. 273 by Sen. Coburn [R-OK]
To save at least $5 billion by consolidating some duplicative and overlapping government programs.
Amendment Agreed to 64-36 (3/5 required)


Recap: Votes signify big step forward on small business bill
The Senate appears close to moving forward with a bill reauthorizing two programs in the Small Business Administration (SBA) after moving through a number of amendments on Wednesday. Here’s a look at the votes on all of Wednesday’s amendments. All needed 60 votes to clear through Senate rules.

The Goldstone Report Is a Lie

[Page: H2392]  GPO's PDF 
---

(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, about a year ago, the United Nations passed the infamous Goldstone Report. Thankfully, this Congress on the floor of the House had a debate, and we rejected the Goldstone Report.

Well, guess what happened last week? Judge Goldstone said that his report was erroneous. What did the Goldstone Report say? The Goldstone Report said that Israel deliberately targeted civilians in Gaza.

That has now been proven not to be true. Of course, the people in the U.N. who bash Israel all the time will continue to pretend that Judge Goldstone didn't repudiate his own report, but the fact of the matter is he did.

The truth is that it is Hamas, the terrorist group, that took over the Gaza Strip. They target Israeli civilians all the time. Israel tries to protect its own citizens in going and destroying the terrorist nests, but the terrorists of Hamas build their nests and their rockets and their munitions in heavily populated areas. So, if civilians die, it is their fault.

The Goldstone Report is a lie. The United Nations should kill it once and for all, and we should be leading the way.

(House of Representatives - April 6, 2011)

Protecting Compensation for Military Families

[Page: H2336]  GPO's PDF 
---

(Mr. YODER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Mr. YODER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express the great concern that many of us have over the potential impact a government shutdown will have on our men and women serving overseas. Recent Department of Defense memos have stated that in the event of a shutdown, our troops will be required to continue to serve our country, but they and their families will receive no compensation.

Madam Speaker, the House has passed H.R. 1, which would protect these military families from being left in the cold and would keep the government operating while making reductions in spending. As we wait for action on that legislation from the Senate, our troops and their families hang in the balance.

We cannot allow this Washington process to threaten the operational readiness of our military and dishonor the service of our soldiers. Our men and women in uniform are bravely putting themselves in harm's way in service to our country. We cannot let them down. We owe this to our troops.

(House of Representatives - April 6, 2011)

Pay Our Troops; Don't Shut Down Government

[Page: H2335]  GPO's PDF 
---

(Mrs. HARTZLER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of men and women in uniform who won't get paid if Senator Harry Reid continues to refuse to pass the continuing resolution and shuts down the government later this week. They deserve better.

We have warriors fighting on our behalf in two theatres, bravely standing strong for our ideals of freedom and liberty. Meanwhile at home, their families are sacrificing too. Spouses are bravely running the household and being both mom and dad to their children.

While they are fighting for us, the Senate and the President are AWOL, doing nothing to make sure our soldiers are getting paid, even as the President takes us into a third war. In fact, they're actively promoting a shutdown because they believe it will benefit them politically.

I say, shame on them.

The House has proposed a CR which funds the Defense Department for the rest of the year, ensuring our men and women in uniform and their families receive their well-deserved paychecks and our country is defended.

We need to pass this bill and move forward and stop playing politics. Our military deserves nothing less.

(House of Representatives - April 6, 2011)

One-Week Continuing Resolution/2012 Budget

[Page: H2331]  GPO's PDF 
---

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for 5 minutes.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, budgets are not simply about dollars and cents. They are about values and priorities. And the debate over spending has revealed Republican priorities, in my opinion, in the worst possible light.

First, Republicans passed a spending plan for the remainder of the fiscal year that would cripple America's ability to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build its competitors. That spending plan would cut billions in medical and energy research, cut out support for 20,000 research scientists, kick 200,000 children out of Head Start, put college out of reach for millions of middle class students, and end vital infrastructure projects in 40 States, infrastructure projects which provide American jobs.

A consensus of nonpartisan economists has found that the plan will cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. And Mark Zandi, Moody's Analytics chief economist and an adviser to Senator McCain's Presidential campaign, said that it would cost almost 700,000 jobs.

In addition to these skewed priorities, Republicans are insisting that any bill, any bill to keep the government open must also include controversial social policy provisions that have little, if anything, to do with the deficit, even though their own Pledge to America promised to ``end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with 'must-pass' legislation,'' bills that should pass on their merits, not as related to some extraneous issue.

Rather than compromise with President Obama, with the Democrats in the Senate and the House, Republicans are threatening, once again, to shut down government as they did in 1995.

Now they tell us that they will back off on their threat but only if we pass a partisan, 1-week spending bill that triples the ransom to keep the government open. In other words, this bill contains three times the weekly cuts as the last week-to-week bill did. It also takes all cuts from only a small slice of the budget.

Frankly, Madam Speaker, that makes this latest bill a mockery of fiscal responsibility, especially because it leaves entirely untouched for the rest of the year what the Secretary of Defense himself has called the Pentagon's ``culture of endless money.'' This partisan patch contradicts Republicans' own promises to put everything on the table, defense spending included.

Listen to their own words, as reported by the Associated Press on January 23: ``The House's new majority leader, Representative Eric Cantor of

[Page: H2332]  GPO's PDF

Virginia, has said defense programs could join others on the cutting board.'' But, of course, they haven't done that.

New York Times, January 27: ``Representative Chris Gibson, a tea party-endorsed freshman Republican and retired Army colonel, made it clear that no part of the Pentagon's $550 billion budget, some $700 billion including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was immune. `This deficit that we have threatens our very way of life, and everything needs to be on the table.' '' However, they have not done that.

Congressman Mike Pence, on January 7, said: ``If we are going to put our fiscal house in order, we have to be able to look at defense.'' We need a strong defense. I am a supporter of a strong defense. But to take those dollars off the table is irresponsible and inconsistent with the representations that our Republican friends have made.

Those words are sounding very hollow, however, today. Why are Republicans breaking their word, Madam Speaker? Because, in my opinion, they know that the only way to get their conference to support this spending bill is to bribe it with a year of defense spending left untouched and a divisive social policy provision as well, which is what they said they would not do.

What we need to do is sit down and over the next 72 hours, now over the next 48 hours, frankly, come to compromise. That's our job. ``My way or the highway'' is never going to get it done.

Finally, Republicans showed their priorities in their budget for the upcoming fiscal year. We will have a lot to say about that in the days ahead.

Their budget ends Medicare as we know it. Seniors thought that they were going to protect Medicare. Well, their way of protecting it is ending it. It dismantles Medicaid and other vital programs for our seniors. We will talk a lot about that in the coming days.

• [Begin Insert]

And on top of that, it includes yet trillions more in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

We can do better. Rather than using our debt as an excuse to pass a nakedly partisan agenda, we need to take a bipartisan approach that puts everything on the table:

Keeping our entitlement programs solvent; scrutinizing our spending, defense and non-defense, for waste and low priorities; and passing deficit-reducing tax reform.

Those are the hard choices and shared sacrifices that Americans have a right to expect.

• [End Insert]

(House of Representatives - April 6, 2011)

Hoyer says GOP threatening government shutdown by failing to compromise
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Wednesday morning offered no clues that Republicans and Democrats are close to a budget deal, and instead said the Republicans' failure to compromise is raising the risk of a government shutdown. "Rather than compromise with President Obama and the Democrats in the Senate and the House, Republicans are threatening once again to shut down government, as they did in 1995," Hoyer said on the House floor.

U.S. Manufacturing and China's Currency Manipulation

[Page: H2331]  GPO's PDF 
---

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for 5 minutes.

Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my concern about the decline in U.S. manufacturing and China's currency manipulation. It is time our government responded to these issues by developing a national manufacturing strategy and bringing to the floor immediately H.R. 639, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act.

This chart here shows a significant drop in manufacturing employment in the United States. We have lost nearly 6 million manufacturing jobs in the last decade alone. At our current rate, it will take us 24 years to get back the U.S. manufacturing jobs that we have lost between the year 2000 and 2010. Just last month, a report revealed that United States manufacturing is now in second place behind China. Making things here at home is critical for our economic diversity, our national security, and just makes common sense. China's enormous growth in manufacturing has come at America's expense, and it is bad for American businesses and American jobs.

There are many reasons for our manufacturing sector's decline. I want to highlight two that the Obama administration and Congress can act upon today. First, we need to develop, adopt, and adhere to a comprehensive national manufacturing strategy. Second, we need to address China's currency manipulation and stop giving our manufacturing jobs to Beijing.

A national manufacturing strategy makes sense. Many developed economies and many of our competitors, including China, have them. If China is going to implement nationwide policies designed to boost specific sectors, so should we. Our strategy should not involve illegal trade practices like China, but it should involve clear objectives. We should ask ourselves the question, what should the American manufacturing sector look like? I believe a diverse, robust manufacturing sector is key to a strong American economy and critical to our national security.

[Time: 10:20]

The strategy should also evaluate what policy changes are needed to promote more domestic production. We should seek the input from companies that currently choose to make their products in the U.S., and we should also consider ways to incentivize U.S. production through our tax structure.

And, finally, the manufacturing strategy should establish clear metrics of success over the short, medium and long term. Our manufacturing sector has declined over the last several decades, and it won't be rebuilt overnight. But if we are going to reclaim our spot as a leader in manufacturing, we are going to have to have our own roadmap for the United States manufacturing industry.

The second thing we should do to help U.S. manufacturing is address China's currency manipulation. By devaluing the yuan, China makes their exports cheaper and U.S. imports more expensive.

This is unfair, and it creates an unlevel playing field that forces U.S. businesses to close their doors here in the United States. We cannot wait any longer to take action. Diplomacy has not worked, so we must seek legislative action.

Congress must pass the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act immediately, and President Obama must sign it. In addition, the United States should bring a WTO case against China for undervaluing its currency. We have to fight this blatant violation of trade law through every step available to do that.

China's currency manipulations put Americans out of work and force American businesses to close their doors. We must act with urgency to stop that.

I urge my colleagues to support a national manufacturing strategy and urge the House leadership to bring H.R. 639 to the floor for a vote immediately.

(House of Representatives - April 6, 2011)

Support the BATFE Reform Act

[Page: H2330]  GPO's PDF 
---

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) for 5 minutes.

Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to support a legislative effort to modernize the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. I have joined with Congressman Steve King to introduce the BATFE Reform Act, which will safeguard American citizens' Second Amendment rights by bringing commonsense reform to the BATFE so that it can do a better job of punishing lawbreakers and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, without placing undue restrictions on local businesses in this difficult economy.

Our proposed legislation would make sure that federally licensed firearms dealers are not subject to poorly formulated and unnecessary regulations by updating the rules and potential penalties governing individuals and businesses that hold a Federal firearms license so they are clear and fair.

Our goal is to create a fair system under which firearms dealers with minor paperwork errors are no longer threatened with the loss of their livelihoods. Defining a willful violation is an important step in clarifying the way Federal firearms license holders are punished by the BATFE. Currently, the Bureau is limited in most cases to either giving a warning or totally revoking a license, no matter how minor or severe the violation. That's the current law. But I believe that these small business owners and law-abiding citizens should not be so harshly punished for small or even insignificant bookkeeping errors.

Our legislation would create a new system of penalties for Federal firearms license holders who commit minor violations, and prevent the Bureau from revoking Federal firearms licenses for minor technical violations such as improperly using abbreviations or filing records in the wrong order. Revocation of a license could still be an option for the BATFE to punish willful violation of the law, but it would not be the only option.

The BATFE Reform Act would also make commonsense reforms to help small businesses that sell firearms. For example, it would provide a Federal firearms license holder with the time to liquidate their inventory if they are going out of business. It would also allow a grace period for people taking over an existing firearms business in which they can correct preexisting record-keeping violations from the previous owner and make necessary updates to the license application procedures.

Our bill would permanently ban the creation of a centralized electronic index of dealers' records to protect gun owners' privacy and ensure that law-abiding gun owners will not unknowingly end up in a Federal gun registration database. Congress has included this language in its annual appropriations bills banning the creation of an index for more than a decade. This time we want to give it the weight of law so we can give gun owners certainty and make this policy part of the existing law.

The NRA has endorsed this legislation, and I would ask my fellow Representatives to show their support for the Second Amendment and small businesses nationwide by cosponsoring the BATFE Reform Act.

(House of Representatives - April 6, 2011)

Facing Enormous Challenges

[Page: S2153]  GPO's PDF 
---

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, with humility and a deep sense of reverence for this body, I rise today to address my colleagues in the Senate. Serving in this historic Chamber is truly an honor. On this floor, men and women of strong character gather together to continue the unfinished work of building a more perfect union.

It is an even greater privilege to stand here representing the people of New Hampshire. A place of distinct beauty that places a premium on self-governance and informed public discourse, New Hampshire reflects the very best of our Nation.

As America faces enormous challenges, I am reminded of the words of wisdom from one of New Hampshire's revered statesmen, GEN John Stark. After fighting bravely and heroically in the Revolutionary War, General Stark gave New Hampshire its treasured State motto: ``Live Free or Die.'' This famous quote perfectly captures the spirit and character of the people of the Granite State. Fiercely independent and strongly protective of our personal freedoms, we place a high premium on self-reliance, personal initiative, and individual liberty. We believe strongly that government cannot and should not be allowed to get in the way of each of us reaching our full potential. That is what ``live free or die'' means. Yet, as I stand here today and as I have heard from so many of my fellow Granite Staters, we are at a time when our government has grown so large and we have become so indebted that the size of our debt threatens the full potential and future of the greatest people and country on Earth.

ADM Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that America's debt is the greatest national security threat we face. That debt now stands at a historic level of over $14 trillion, about half of which is held by other countries. The single biggest foreign holder of our debt is China, a country which does not share our values. We are borrowing $4 billion a day, or 40 cents of every single dollar, to fund our ever-expanding government.

In the month of February alone, we ran a record monthly deficit of $223 billion. That $223 billion shortfall--accumulated in just 1 month--puts into perspective the current spending debate we are having in Congress.

House Republicans came up with a plan to cut $61 billion for the rest of this fiscal year, which is an important start. But those cuts only cover a little more than a quarter of the deficit we accumulated in just 1 month.

Yet all I hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that $61 billion in cuts is extreme. In my view, the only thing that is extreme is failing to confront the endless flood of red ink that threatens our economic strength and threatens our national security.

The debt we owe is so much more than just numbers. This is about us--who we are as Americans--and what kind of country we want to leave behind for our children. My husband Joe and I are the proud parents of two children--Kate, who is 6 years old, and Jacob, who is 3 years old. I am determined to keep alive the American dream for my children and for all of our children and for future generations in this country. But our addiction to spending in Washington threatens that dream. I, for one, will not sit by while our children become beholden to China.

Hollow words paying lip service to fiscal responsibility have been used by too many in Congress for far too long. New Hampshire families sit around their kitchen tables and find ways to make their family budget work. With limited resources, they make hard choices to distinguish between wants and needs. It is time for our Federal Government to do the same.

That is why the first step we should take is to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Almost every State in the Nation is required to balance its budget, and our Federal Government should be no different. Last week, I was proud to join with all 46 of my Republican colleagues in supporting such an amendment that caps spending, requires the budget to balance, and makes it more difficult to raise taxes. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in passing this important measure and to put this vote to the States for ratification.

I appreciate that amending the Constitution is no light matter, but our Founding Fathers could not have anticipated how unwilling Members of Congress would be to actually pass a balanced budget and to make fiscally responsible decisions. Our Founding Fathers were well aware of the threat posed by debt. It was Thomas Jefferson who wrote:

To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.

In 1997, the Senate came close to getting its arms around the debt when a balanced budget amendment failed to pass this Chamber by just one vote. At that time, our national debt was a little over $5 trillion. It has nearly tripled since then. Imagine how much stronger our Nation would be today had the Senate approved a balanced budget amendment back then and the States adopted it.

A constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget is a key first step, but getting spending under control will take a multipronged approach. That is why we must also move quickly to pass serious statutory limits on spending.

One of my honorable predecessors from New Hampshire, Warren Rudman, helped author the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act to require sequestration of funds if Congress failed to act to cut spending within deficit targets. Unfortunately, Congress circumvented the law's provisions by finding loopholes. While that effort may not have ultimately succeeded, we should take the lessons learned from that experience. We need statutory spending caps with teeth that Congress cannot easily undermine.

While I realize that this week we are working to pass funding for the rest of fiscal year 2011, Congress must do something this year that it failed to do last year: Pass a budget. Back home in New Hampshire, people--especially small business owners--are astounded to learn that our Federal Government is operating right now outside the confines of a strict budget. Frankly, it is shameful the last Congress did not approve a budget for fiscal year 2011. Their failure to act is why we are in the difficult place we find ourselves today. Here we are, trying to fund government through a series of patchwork, short-term funding bills.

We need a fiscally responsible budget that cuts Federal spending and puts us on a path to eliminating our debt altogether. State governments operate within a budget, families operate within a budget, small businesses operate within a budget, and the Senate should not be working on any other legislation until we resolve funding for the rest of this fiscal year and pass a responsible budget for 2012.

We have to begin by reviewing every program in our government and eliminating the waste, fraud, and duplication we all know is there. We know there is so much more we can do to streamline our Federal Government. A GAO report released in March identified hundreds of redundant programs costing us billions of dollars.

Finally, it is clear we cannot address our country's fiscal crisis while continuing to focus on only 12 percent of

[Page: S2154]  GPO's PDF

spending. That is certainly an important start--and there is plenty to cut--but in order to truly get our fiscal house in order, we must look at the entire budget. We must repair our entitlement programs--Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

Entitlement reform should be an issue that brings us all together--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--to ensure we keep our promises to those who are relying on those programs, while making sure future generations don't pay for our failure to address the fiscal reality of these programs right now. This is certainly an issue that requires Presidential leadership, and I join others in my party in inviting the President to work across party lines to address this urgent priority. The American people deserve a substantive, responsible debate on how we can preserve these programs in a fiscally sustainable way. We simply cannot continue to put off making the difficult decisions today and passing them on to the next generation.

With our trillion dollar-plus deficits and rapidly accelerating debt, we are again closing in on our debt ceiling. Having to repeatedly increase the debt limit represents a broad failure of leadership by politicians from both parties. As a new Member of the Senate, I refuse to perpetuate that cycle. We cannot let this moment pass us by, and I cannot in good conscience raise our debt ceiling without Congress passing real and meaningful reforms to reduce spending. That plan should include a balanced budget amendment, statutory spending caps, spending cuts, and entitlement reform.

We can no longer afford the status quo or business as usual in Washington. The days of spending as though there is no tomorrow to bring home the bacon must end. The fiscal crisis that threatens our Union threatens all of us. We will have to make sacrifices. There will be times when we have to put aside our parochial interests and appreciate that the only way we will be able to cut spending is for all of us to take shared responsibility and to make shared sacrifices for the great country we love.

Make no mistake, out-of-control spending jeopardizes our Nation's economic strength and costs us jobs. One thing is for sure: We cannot spend our way to prosperity. We need look no further than the stimulus package to prove that stubborn fact.

The reality is that government doesn't create jobs. Small businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs. What we can do in the Senate is to help create the right tax and regulatory conditions to allow our businesses to thrive and grow.

Despite the circumstances we face, we are blessed to live in the greatest country in the world. There has never been a challenge we have not faced and met and overcome and been better for.

When I think of what it will take to address the challenges before us, I am reminded of my 95-year-old grandfather, John Sullivan, who is a World War II veteran and what his generation went through and what he did. My grandfather landed on the beaches of Normandy, and he is part of what is known as the ``greatest generation'' of our country.

Every generation is called upon anew to preserve our country. In my view, this generation's greatest challenge is having the courage and the will to take on and fix our fiscal crisis and get our fiscal house in order once and for all. This is our time to show we have the fortitude and the courage to do what is right to preserve the greatest Nation on Earth.

I know we can do this, and it is truly humbling to have the opportunity to serve in this body at a time when I know leadership and courage will make all the difference. On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I stand ready to fight for our great country and to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address our fiscal crisis. I remain confident that America's best days still lie ahead of us.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I yield the floor.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I wish to congratulate our new colleague on her initial speech related to the twin problems we have in this country of spending and debt, as well as to say to her that it is pretty clear to all of us that she is a worthy successor to our good friend Judd Gregg whose seat she now occupies and who was also a leader in this body--some would argue the leader in this body--on the questions of our Nation's fiscal crisis and how to get it in order. So on behalf of all of our colleagues, I congratulate Senator Ayotte.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I also wish to congratulate my colleague from New Hampshire. It is an extraordinary privilege to serve in this Chamber and it is a long tradition of the Chamber to utilize one's first speech or maiden speech as an opportunity to address something that is close to one's heart. I extend a warm welcome to her and to her voice, her intellect, and her passion on issues that we must, on both sides of the aisle, work to resolve in order to build a better America and put America back on track.

I thank the Chair.

(Senate - April 6, 2011)

Ayotte: ‘Live free or die’ means no big government
Freshman Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) delivered a resounding endorsement of small government principles during her maiden speech Wednesday on the Senate floor, citing the New Hampshire motto "live free or die." “We believe strongly that government should not and cannot get in the way of each of us reaching our full potential,” said Ayotte. “That’s what 'live free or die' means.”

Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act

[Page: S2152]  GPO's PDF 
---

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I wish to speak about the urgent fiscal crisis that is facing our Nation. We know the Congress right now is in negotiation for a resolution that will take us until the end of the fiscal year, and it is in an atmosphere in which so many people are worried about our overwhelming debt and the deficit that would be in the budget that was submitted by the President. We now are trying to cut that budget responsibly.

The United States is averaging $4 billion a day in debt. A $1.6 trillion deficit is projected by the end of this year. That is just the deficit. That is adding to the debt. Federal spending in 2010 was 23.8 percent of gross domestic product. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, predicts it will be 24.7 percent of GDP in 2011.

As a nation, we must remain competitive by reducing Federal spending and spurring economic growth in the private sector. It is jobs in the private sector that will take our economy out of the doldrums where it is now.

For the sake of the American people, I hope we can come together to stop the reckless Federal spending. Continuing the spending, the borrowing, and the taxing in Washington will halt job creation and triple the debt by the end of this decade. That is what is predicted.

We must make bold cuts where we can by carefully also prioritizing investment in areas of strategic national importance. What we need now is for the President, the Senate majority leader, and the House Speaker to sit in a room and not come out until a deal is made that has the votes to pass.

I do not want a government shutdown. The consequence of a government shutdown will be enormous, and so many people who are talking about that as an option, as if it is not a big deal, just do not realize how many lives it will touch and how hard it is going to make life for so many people--people who have depended on benefits, such as veterans.

We do not know what will happen in a government shutdown. We do not know what will happen to our military because that is not clear. That is what I want to talk about today.

A government shutdown will put people in peril in many areas, but now we have a situation in which our military, our Active-Duty military--almost 90,000 are in Afghanistan, 47,000 in Iraq--is put in a position today of now also wondering if their spouses at home with children are going to get their paychecks. If we have a government shutdown that will affect their ability to pay their mortgages.

Madam President, let me ask, are there time limits in place?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is an order to recognize Senator Ayotte for her first speech at 10:40 a.m.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President.

Let me just say that I have introduced legislation. I have cosponsors--CASEY, INHOFE, SNOWE, MURKOWSKI, COLLINS, AYOTTE, and HOEVEN. It is the Ensuring Pay for our Military Act of

[Page: S2153]  GPO's PDF

2011. It is very simple. It just ensures that in the event of a Federal Government shutdown--which I do not want to happen and do not support--our military will be paid. It also will allow anyone who is serving our military--civilian defense employees or contractors who do the food services--to also be able to go to work and not have to worry about what is going to be happening back home, especially for those who are serving in harsh conditions overseas.

I so hope we will be able to pass this bill. I do not want 1 more minute of stress on our military. The bill is very simple, and it is very short and very clear: Our military personnel and their support will not be affected by a government shutdown.

I hope I can have more colleagues signing up. We have introduced this bill, S. 724, and I hope we can get a vote on this bill in very short order so this is off the table.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

(Senate - April 6, 2011)

A Second Opinion

[Page: S2151]  GPO's PDF 
---

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today as a doctor who has practiced medicine in Wyoming for about 25 years. During that time I was medical director of something called Wyoming Health Fairs where we provide employees low-cost blood screening for early detection and early treatment of medical problems. We know one of the things that was attempted to be solved with the discussion on health care was to have people involved in their own health care decisions and early detection, as well as prevention of disease.

I attended a health fair last weekend in Worland, Washakie County, WY, where I had a chance to meet with a number of folks, including people from small businesses. First, I wish to congratulate this body, and specifically Senator Johanns from Nebraska, for the repeal of the 1099 form regulations which significantly burden small businesses all around the country.

I also come to the floor as someone who has practiced medicine and has been watching the health care law closely. It is one that I believe is bad for patients, bad for providers and nurses and doctors who take care of the patients, and bad for the American taxpayers because I think this is going to add significantly to our growing debt problem. These are things that need to be addressed.

One part of the health care law, the 2,700-page law that was passed, dealt with something called accountable care organizations. Those are intended to help people coordinate care and have that coordinated care increase people's health by early detection of problems and to help minimize problems but also attempt to save money.

The six pages of the health care law that dealt with accountable care organizations has resulted in the release of regulations on March 31, 429 pages of regulations which have a significant impact on restructuring the way medicine is practiced.

As I look at this in terms of our growing debt, my concern is that the administration is bragging that the regulations save Medicare money, about $960 million total, best care scenario, over a 3-year period. So savings of less than $1 billion, a restructuring of the way medicine is being practiced, a savings of less than $1 billion, at a time when Medicare will be spending over those 3 years over $1.5 trillion, a savings of less than $1 billion on an expenditure of over $1.5 trillion.

The other aspect that was so interesting in watching this administration is they have come out with a statement about regulations.

The small businesspeople I talked to in Worland last weekend at the health fair told me that increased government regulations add to the cost of doing business and make it harder for them to hire more people. Specifically, it is related to increased costs.

It was interesting to see the administration saying that an increase in labor demand due to regulations may have a stimulative effect that results in a net increase in overall employment. The administration apparently believes if we increase the rules and regulations on businesses, it will make it better for them, when they will tell us universally that it will make it worse.

Additionally, last Friday night the Department of Health and Human Services released their new next round of ObamaCare waivers. We have talked about those in the past on this floor as part of a doctor's second opinion.

If this health care law is so good, why do millions and millions of Americans say: We can't live under this, and the

[Page: S2152]  GPO's PDF

administration agrees and grants them waivers?

So this past weekend, Secretary Sebelius added another 128 waivers covering another 300,000 Americans to say: No, for the next year, you get a 1-year waiver, you do not have to live under the mandates of ObamaCare.

So now we are at a point where the total number of waivers granted has been over 1,000, covering 2,930,000 people. So, wow, what is the breakdown of those people? Who are they? How can they get those waivers?

Well, it is interesting. In this country, where union workers are just a small percentage of the total workforce, 49 percent--almost half--of all of the waivers have been granted to people who get their insurance through the unions.

I just looked at this list that came out, and it is interesting because one of the waivers that had been granted for 13,000 employees, enrollees, is for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. So let's see what we can find out about them. If we go to their Web site and go to the area that deals with health care, what it says is this:

Thanks to your hard work--

This is to people in the union--

Thanks to your hard work over the last year, Congress passed a health care reform bill that was signed into law by President Obama. This landmark reform is a hard-fought victory for [the United Food and Commercial Workers Union]. .....

Well, wait a second, these are the same people who went in and asked for and got a waiver from the Secretary of Health and Human Services--a waiver so they do not have to live under it.

Now, it is interesting, if you go to this Web site, you can click to other things, and what you can find is that you can actually watch a video on the Web site of the people who just got a waiver--a video of the members of this union ``rally and talk about health care reform.'' Oh, the health care they are rallying for, but they do not want it to apply to them. The Secretary of Health and Human Services says: That is fine, you can have a waiver. Oh, you can actually ``see the pictures of [union] members taking action on health care reform.'' But it is not the action of applying for the waiver--a waiver they have just been granted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Now it says:

Call your members of Congress to thank them for passing real reform.

Oh, you are supposed to thank the Members of this body for passing something, but then they applied for a waiver that has been granted for over 13,000 members who get insurance through this program?

They say you can also check an area to read the background information on this union's ``advocacy of health care reform''--advocacy for a program they wanted to force down the throats of the American people but yet do not want to live under themselves.

This health care law is bad for this country, it is bad for our patients, it is bad for our health care providers, and it is bad for taxpayers. The union members who absolutely lobbied for it are now saying--now that they have read the bill, now that they know what is in the law, they are saying they do not want it to apply to them, so much so that one of the unions that has gotten a waiver, on their recent Web site, said:

..... we are ..... challenged by how to implement the law under prevailing circumstances.

Well, the prevailing circumstances are the law they wanted passed.

It says:

The Trustees of the Fund have no ability to secure additional contributions needed to cover the increased costs of providing these required--

Required by the people on the other side of the aisle who voted for this--

additional benefits.

It says:

The Trustees are requesting a waiver from HHS to preserve the annual benefit limitation now in place for the part-time plan of benefits to minimize the cost impact of transitioning to the requirements of the reform act. .....

Well, what it basically says is that these folks who want the waiver are saying what I have been saying on this floor since the beginning of the debate: that this is going to be bad for taxpayers, it is going to drive up the cost of care, it is going to drive up the cost of insurance, in spite of the President's promise that if we pass this, families will see premiums drop by $2,100, in spite of the President's promise that if you like your plan, you can keep it. What we are seeing, for the people who proudly lobbied for this, is that they do not want it to apply to them. They realize now it is going to cause their plans to have significant problems.

I believe every American ought to be able to have a waiver, every American ought to not have to live under this health care law. To me, it is unaffordable, it is unmanageable, and I believe it is unconstitutional. That is why I come to the floor, as I have every week, with a doctor's second opinion that we must repeal and replace this health care law.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

(Senate - April 6, 2011)

Colombia Trade Agreement

[Page: S2149]  GPO's PDF 
---

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, there are some signs today the administration is beginning to take seriously a pending trade agreement with Colombia. Republicans have been urging the administration to act on this critical trade deal for months. This agreement would help American businesses compete on a level playing field with businesses overseas. It would help create American jobs. And it would help our relationship with an important ally in Latin America.

Hopefully these reports are true, and the President will send this agreement, along with similar agreements related to Panama and South Korea to Congress soon. This would be some very good news for an economy that needs it.

I yield the floor.

(Senate - April 6, 2011)

The EPA Amendment

[Page: S2149]  GPO's PDF 
---

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, later today, the Senate will vote on an amendment that one leading newspaper described last week as one of the best proposals for growth and job creation to make it onto the Senate docket in years. More specifically, this amendment, which is based on legislation proposed by Senator Inhofe, would prevent unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing a new national energy tax on American job creators.

Everyone knows that this attempt to handcuff American businesses with new costs and regulations is the last thing these job-creators need right now. That is why even Democrats in Congress have sought to secure the same kind of exemptions from the law for favored industries in their own States that we saw others from their party trying to secure for favored constituencies in the health care law.

Democrats from auto States tried to have the auto industry exempted. And Democrats from farming States tried to have farmers exempted.

What these efforts show, is that Democrats themselves recognize the dangers of these EPA regulations. Yet instead of just voting for the one amendment that solves the problem, they are hiding behind sham amendments designed to give them political cover.

Republicans have a better idea--let's try to make sure everybody is exempted. Let's not pick winners and losers. Let's let America's small businesses and entrepreneurs compete and grow on a level playing field without any more burdensome government regulations, costs, or redtape.

The amendment I have offered on behalf of Senator Inhofe would do that.

The amendment would give businesses the certainty that no unelected bureaucrat at the EPA is going to make their efforts to create jobs even more difficult than the administration already has. So once again, I thank Senator Inhofe for his strong leadership on this issue. He has led the way in protecting American jobs from this burdensome proposal with determination and common sense. He deserves the credit.

I also want to thank Chairman Upton and my good friend, Congressman Whitfield, for fighting against this effort by the EPA and moving legislation to prevent it in the House.

(Senate - April 6, 2011)

The Continuing Resolution

[Page: S2148]  GPO's PDF 
---

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, across the country this morning, Americans are wondering what is going on in Washington this week. They want to know why it is taking so long to fund the government. Americans want to know how we got to this point, and they deserve an answer, so here goes.

Each year, the majority party in Congress is responsible for coming up with a budget plan that explains how they are going to pay for all the things that government does. It is not just a good idea--it is the law. Congress has been required to do it since 1974.

Last year, Democrat leaders in Congress decided they didn't want to do it. They didn't want to have to publicly defend their bloated spending and the debt it is creating. So Republicans have had to come up with temporary spending bills to keep the government running in the absence of any alternatives--and leadership--from Democrats.

Republicans even passed a bill in the House that would keep the government funded through the rest of the current fiscal year, and which takes an important first step toward a smaller, more efficient government that helps improve the conditions for private sector job growth.

This House bill would save us billions of dollars on our way to a conversation about trillions. And Congressman Ryan has done a service this week by setting the terms of that larger debate--by outlining a plan that puts us back on a path to stability and prosperity.

Unfortunately, Democrats have made a calculated decision that they didn't want to have either debate--so they have taken a pass on both.

Frankly, it is hard not to be struck by the contrasting approaches to our Nation's fiscal problems that we have seen in Washington this week. On the one hand, you have a plan by Congressman Ryan that every serious person has described as honest and courageous. On the other hand, you have people like the new chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and the previous Speaker of the House dismissing that plan in the most cartoonish language imaginable.

While thinking people have seen in the Ryan plan an honest attempt to tackle our problems head on, ideologues on the left have seen a target to distort while offering no vision of their own to prevent a fiscal nightmare that we all know is approaching.

And they still haven't come up with an alternative to the various Republican proposals we have seen to keep the government up and running in the current fiscal year. They have just sat on the sidelines taking potshots at everything Republicans have proposed while rooting for a shutdown.

That is why the Republicans in the House have now proposed another bill this week that will fund the military for the rest of the year, keep the government operating, and which gets us a

[Page: S2149]  GPO's PDF

little closer to a level of spending that even the senior Senator from New York has called ``reasonable.''

The fact that Democrats are now rejecting this offer, which even members of their own leadership have described as ``reasonable'' is all the evidence you need that Democrats are more concerned about the politics of this debate than keeping the government running.

Let's be clear about something this morning: throughout this entire debate, Republicans have not only said that we would prefer a bipartisan agreement that funds the government and protects defense spending at a time when we have American troops fighting in two wars. There is a Republican plan on the table right now that would do just that.

Democrats can accept that proposal, or they can reject it. But they can't blame anyone but themselves if a shutdown does occur. Because they have done nothing to prevent it.

With the clock ticking, I would once again encourage our Democratic friends to get on board with this proposal, and to support the kind of spending cuts that the American people have asked for--and that their own leadership has already endorsed.

(Senate - April 6, 2011)

Senate Vote - S. 493: SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011

S. 493: SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011

Motion to Table Paul Motion to Commit S. 493, to Committee on Foreign Relations, with Instructions
Motion to Table Agreed to by 80 votes: 90-10


Senate declines to take up 2007 Obama statement on congressional authorization for attack
The Senate declined on Tuesday to take up a resolution that would have affirmed a 2007 statement by then-Sen. Barack Obama that a president must gain Congress’s permission before authorizing a military attack. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who introduced the measure as an amendment to the Small Business Administration (SBA) authorization bill, wanted his colleagues to go on the record in support of, or opposition to, Obama’s remarks.

Come Together for the Next Generation

[Page: H2315]  GPO's PDF 
---

(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, America is at a huge crossroads right now. We're in a situation that whenever we spend $1, 40 cents of it is borrowed. Our national debt is about 95 percent of our GDP. We are losing our edge as a global leader. It hurts our job creation, it smothers the private sector, and it denies you and me of some of our basic freedoms; because the bigger the government gets, the smaller your personal freedom gets.

That's why the budget that has been introduced today is so worthy of a strong debate by both of us--both parties, that is. This is about the next generation, not about the next election. I urge my Democrat friends and my Republican friends to come together and do the best thing for the United States of America, not just for partisan politics of the day.

We are Americans. We can do better. We can get this job done, and we must get this job done.

(House of Representatives - April 5, 2011)

Drilling for Brazil But Not for Us

[Page: H2315]  GPO's PDF 
---

(Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the President says that he wants to cut the country's oil imports by one-third over the next 10 years. Well, that's fantastic and well-timed for the announcement of his reelection campaign yesterday. But let's face reality. Gasoline is up to $4 a gallon. Americans don't want to hear about what's going to happen 10 years from now.

The President's answer to the energy crisis and $4 gasoline is to give money to Brazil while at the same time stonewalling drilling in our gulf. Why are we doing that?

Instead of propping up energy companies in Brazil and letting them drill off their coast, let's keep jobs and money in America and drill off of our coasts and on our land. Let's develop our own domestic energy instead of developing Brazil's.

Are you in for that, Mr. President?

And that's just the way it is.

(House of Representatives - April 5, 2011)

We Can't Spend Money We Don't Have

[Page: H2315]  GPO's PDF 
---

(Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, despite the heated rhetoric over the fiscal year 2011 budget and the failure to responsibly address our Nation's $14 trillion debt, there is one simple truth that we should all take away from this current budget standoff: Washington can no longer fail to deal with America's looming debt crisis as Americans continue to tighten their belts and make ends meet.

Constitutionally, all spending bills must originate in the House. In February, the House performed its duty and passed a long-term spending bill that represents tough but necessary choices we must take. Even if we all agree a program is efficient and needed, we can't spend money we don't have. At a time when the Federal Government is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar, we must be responsible stewards of the taxpayers' dollars in a manner that ensures the long-term promises and commitments the government has made to the American people are met and fulfilled.

It's time the Senate leadership do what's right. We still have a government to run and cannot adequately deal with a 2012 budget if last year's business is left hanging in the wind.

(House of Representatives - April 5, 2011)

Our Fiscal Problems

[Page: H2315]  GPO's PDF 
---

(Mr. LANKFORD asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the debt we are dealing with as a Nation. It is time to stop ignoring the debt problem that we have in America.

The budget we released this morning is focused on solving our fiscal problems, not scoring political points. Key elements: fiscal responsibility; understanding this is not our money; it's owned by the American people; finding common ground with the President's debt commission and bipartisan CBO proposals. We have some areas where we've agreed, and those areas are included.

Shocking as it may seem, conservatives have also included some practical solutions to solve our long-term systemic issues with entitlements and welfare. Our focus was to protect programs that are working, encourage work for every person who's able to work, and set a course for future economic stability.

It's also focused on cutting spending. Raising taxes on Americans to fund more government would be like a family running up a huge credit card bill and then going to their boss at work to tell them they need a raise to pay off their credit card. Their boss would most likely respond, You don't need a raise. You'll just spend more. You need to get your family on a budget and you need to cut your spending to what's absolutely necessary. That's what we must do.

Some in Congress have already called this proposal extreme. Well, I'd have to tell you, I agree. I think this budget is extreme--extremely responsible, extremely forward-thinking, and extremely overdue.

(House of Representatives - April 5, 2011)

Moment of Silence in Remembrance of Members of Armed Forces and Their Families

[Page: H2312]  GPO's PDF 
---

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask all present to rise for the purpose of a moment of silence.

The Chair asks that the House now observe a moment of silence in remembrance of our brave men and women in uniform who have given their lives in the service of our Nation in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and their families, and all who serve in our Armed Forces and their families.

(House of Representatives - April 5, 2011)

The Fair Tax

[Page: H2303]  GPO's PDF 
---

(Mr. WOODALL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as tax day is fast approaching. We've heard a lot about the budget that's being introduced today. I'm a proud supporter of this budget because in this country we don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. But what we do have is a problem with the way that we contribute revenue to this country.

There is a better way, and it is called the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax will take the burden off American taxpayers paying on what they earn and change it to a burden on what they spend. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and when we tax income and productivity, we destroy that income and productivity.

Do you want to talk about jobs in this country? Do you want to talk about a magnet for jobs in this country? The Fair Tax is the only bill in Congress that abolishes every single corporate tax break, tax loophole and tax preference. It abolishes the corporate income tax rate and tells international businesses they can locate here with the most powerful, hardest working workers on this planet.

Folks, H.R. 25, the Fair Tax, is a better way. As you fill out your tax forms this year, think about how we could do it differently next time around.

(House of Representatives - April 5, 2011)

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac CEOs Get Huge Salaries

[Page: H2303]  GPO's PDF 
---

(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with some serious concerns with the continued egregious spending by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac approving large executive salary compensations at the expense of our taxpayers. For example, the chief executive officer of Fannie Mae received $9.3 million in compensation and salary for 2009 and 2010, while the chief executive of Freddie Mac received $7.8 million for 2009 and 2010 together.

But it was a failure of these same types of company executives in the past that forced government intervention in the first place by then overstating past earnings and generating millions in improper bonuses. Now taxpayers, who have already spent $153 billion to bail them out, which doesn't include legal fees that taxpayers have to pay to keep them afloat, may require more bailout money to counter the companies' mounting mortgage losses.

Mr. Speaker, allowing this gross mismanagement of public funds to pay for extravagant salaries is unconscionable.

(House of Representatives - April 5, 2011)

Get to Work and Pass a Bill

[Page: H2302]  GPO's PDF 
---

(Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it's been 45 days since House Republicans passed a bill to cut $100 billion in Federal spending, spending that quite honestly the prior Congress didn't have to spend and should have never appropriated.

I want to remind you that we are here today because Senator Reid, the Democrats in the House, and the President when they were in charge last year chose not to pass a budget. It was irresponsible of them then and it is irresponsible of them now to continue to do nothing.

House Republicans spent 72 hours debating spending bills. We held 107 votes on spending amendments. Senate Democrats, 4 hours, four votes--4 hours and four votes in 45 days, Mr. Speaker.

I want you to think about that. It's unacceptable.

Senator Reid needs to get to work and pass a bill. The American people need it. American livelihoods are depending on it. Senator Reid just needs to wake up in the morning, put on his big-boy britches, come to the Capitol, pass the bill, and help us reduce this big hairy deficit.

(House of Representatives - April 5, 2011)

Death By Regulation

[Page: H2302]  GPO's PDF 
---

(Mr. FARENTHOLD asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FARENTHOLD. To balance our budget, we have got to do more than just cut spending. We've got to cut excessive government regulation that keeps businesses from growing, expanding and hiring more people. We have got to get rid of the culture of ``no'' that infects our regulatory agencies like a cancer.

A small business from south Texas that knows firsthand the detrimental impact of shortsighted and excessive regulation is Zarsky Lumber Company with its 135 employees. They survived the Great Depression and this economic down turn, and they now face another big threat--the EPA and its job-killing rules.

Another large business is considering locating a new plant in China instead of south Texas to avoid oppressive regulations. Our government has become too big and Federal regulations too onerous.

In a recent meeting with a Federal agency, I asked how long their permitting process took. They told me between 3 and 7 years. How do regulators sleep at night knowing that every day they delay is a day someone doesn't get a job they need to support their families?

Our job is to help create jobs. And we create jobs by getting the government out of the way. Cutting redtape is just as important as cutting spending to get our financial house in order.

(House of Representatives - April 5, 2011)