```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 124 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6051-H6054]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        A CHOICE OF TWO FUTURES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Ellmers). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time. You know, you and 
I, Madam Speaker, are freshmen in this House. And I've a learned a few 
things about coming down to the floor from watching my colleagues, 
about how to make a good impression. You know, everybody's back in 
their offices watching the proceedings on TV, or folks back in the 
district watching it on TV. And I see our colleagues come, and they'll 
take the podium down to the very lowest level so that when they walk up 
to the podium they'll be able to drag it all the way up to the top and 
look big and strong and powerful.
  You know, in the 18 months that you and I have served here, Madam 
Speaker, we've gotten a lot of advice about how to look good. We've 
gotten a lot of advice about how to tell the good story, how to spin 
the good tale.
  And as I listened to my friend from Virginia make his presentation 
earlier, I thought, you know what? He and I are looking at exactly the 
same set of facts and we are drawing exactly the opposite set of 
conclusions. And that makes it so hard to legislate here, Madam 
Speaker, because you and I, as part of this freshman class, we don't 
care two hoots about what looks good. What we care about is what is 
good.
  We don't care about trying to make people believe it's the truth, we 
care about actually finding the truth, and that's been the challenge up 
here in the 18 months that you and I have had a voting card.
  I have beside me, Madam Speaker, a chart that has been down on this 
floor a number of times. It's called A Choice of Two Futures, and 
you've seen it, Madam Speaker. It's the one that shows the red line of 
current spending promises. It's the one that goes all the way back to 
1940, Madam Speaker. It shows debt as a percent of GDP.
  It shows back at the end of World War II when we were fighting the 
Nazis, we were fighting the Japanese, we were fighting to defend 
freedom and democracy around the global. In the name of ending that 
world war, we borrowed 100 percent of our economy. Our national debt 
grew to 100 percent the size of our economy. And that was an investment 
well made, Madam Speaker, having defended the liberty of citizens 
around the world.
  But we're right back in that same place today, Madam Speaker. This 
chart goes from 1940 all the way out to 2080. It's 140 years of past 
policy and projected policy. And what it shows is that today, America 
is on the verge of carrying that same debt burden.
  We're not in the middle of a world war to defend freedom and liberty. 
We're not in the middle of fighting the Nazis and trying to prevent a 
hostile takeover of the world. But we've borrowed 100 percent the size 
of our economy.
  But that's not even the most damning part of this chart, Madam 
Speaker. What we see is, represented by this red line, if we do 
nothing, Madam Speaker, if our freshman class had never come to this 
town, if we closed the Congress, if we closed the White House, if we 
never passed a new law and never made a new promise, this red line 
represents the promises already made. And what we see is debt rising to 
200 percent, 300 percent, 400 percent, 500 percent the size of our 
economy, levels that economists tell us will never be sustainable. And 
that's if we don't make one new promise on the floor of this House.
  My colleague from Virginia spoke passionately about the need for 
child care in this country; spoke eloquently about families at home 
struggling to balance the demands of work and the demands of child 
care. You see it in your district, Madam Speaker, I see it in my 
district. He's absolutely right about the struggles that every single 
American family faces and, from his words, believes in his heart that 
the right way to address those challenges in my small town of Peachtree 
Corners, Georgia, is with a Federal program, a program that comes right 
down the street here, maybe from the Department of Health and Human 
Services, maybe from the Department of Education, but that somehow we 
can create a program here in Washington, D.C., that will be the 
absolute best and most efficient way to deal with my family's 
challenges and my neighbors' challenges back in Peachtree Corners, 
Georgia.

  Madam Speaker, what I've learned, I serve on the Budget Committee and 
the Rules Committee and, listening to my colleagues talk, I somehow 
thought that perhaps there were some dollars here in Washington, D.C., 
that came from somewhere other than my constituents' pockets. But I've 
learned that's not the case, that every single dollar that this 
institution spends, every single commitment that the administration 
makes, every single project that the Senate wants to fund, every single 
dollar comes out of the pockets of my constituents back home, and your 
constituents back home, Madam Speaker.
  So when we talk about--I think the phrase my friend from Virginia 
used was the anti-government forces on Capitol Hill. I don't know who 
those forces are. I feel like he was talking about me and this freshman 
class. I don't know of any anti-government forces.
  What I know about are folks who talk about what's the right level of 
government to get the American taxpayer the absolute best value for 
their tax dollar. And who are those folks who honestly believe that the 
best value for their tax dollar, back in Peachtree Corners, Georgia, is 
to take that dollar out of the back pocket of a hardworking taxpayer in 
Peachtree Corners, move it through the Gwinnett County government, move 
it through the State of Georgia government, bring it up here to the 
Federal Government, then send it back down to Federal agency that's 
going to send it back down to a State agency that's going to send it 
back over to a county government in order to provide child care.
  Who believes that's the absolute best and most efficient way to spend 
an American tax dollar?
  And that's the battle that we have here in this House. It's not about 
government and anti-government. It's about good government and bad 
government.
  You know, we're here in the Federal Government, Madam Speaker, the 
Federal Government, and there are responsibilities that we have, making 
war, one of our responsibilities, defending our border, one of our 
responsibilities, maintaining the postal roads, one of our 
responsibilities.

                              {time}  1410

  But there are so many other levels of government--State government, 
county government, local government--that can fulfill some of these 
needs that my colleagues seem to believe only the Federal Government is 
right to fulfill.
  I want to go back to this chart, Madam Speaker. This is the chart of 
promises already made.
  So often I pick up the newspaper, and it sounds like everybody is 
just complaining up here in Washington, D.C.--that it's all about 
pointing fingers and that it's not about solving problems. What I am so 
proud of in the 18 months you and I have been here under the leadership 
of some senior members, like the gentleman from Indiana, is that we 
have not only identified the problem, which is a crushing debt burden 
that threatens the economic security, not just of our children and of 
our grandchildren, but of our very Republic, but that we've promulgated 
a solution. It's represented here on the chart by this green line 
that's labeled ``the path to prosperity.''
  I'm just so proud I serve on the Budget Committee. My chairman is 
Paul

[[Page H6052]]

Ryan. This House came together--and you don't hear that a lot on the 
front pages of newspapers. This House came together in a bipartisan way 
to pass a budget not just once--we passed it for the first time in 
2011--but again in this year, 2012, and we've been waiting on the 
Senate to act. It's our constitutional obligation to pass that budget 
each and every year. The President has offered one each and every year, 
the House has passed one each and every year, but the Senate has failed 
to act.
  We laid out line item by line item as to how we would prevent this 
most certain destruction of economic liberty and security in our land. 
It's represented by this green line. It stretches out from 2012 all the 
way out to 2051. You don't run up trillion-dollar debts like we're 
running up and solve it overnight. You just can't. You can't run up 100 
percent of your GDP in debt and solve it overnight. We don't have that 
kind of money. We can't levy that kind of tax burden on the American 
people, but we can solve it over time. We can keep it from getting 
worse today, and we can make it better tomorrow. That's what our plan 
is. I think that's so important, Madam Speaker.
  Again, when I listen to it and when I read about it in the newspaper, 
it's finger-pointing. It's who's to blame and whose fault is it and why 
didn't they do better. I don't care whose fault it was. I don't care 
who got us here. My knowledge of history tells me there is a lot of 
blame to go around. I care about who is going to get us out of here, 
about who is going to solve these problems, about who is going to move 
us from the precipice of economic disaster back to the robust American 
economy for which we are known around the globe. This House has passed 
that plan, Madam Speaker, not once but twice.
  What I show here is the budget that the President has introduced. I 
want to give this President his due. I come down here--and we saw it 
with the rule that I managed yesterday, and we see it in some of the 
presentations on the other side of the aisle. You come down here, and 
it's as if the other side is just evil and that's why nothing works. 
That's just not true at all. There are honest, hardworking men and 
women on both sides of this aisle who represent constituents back home 
who just have very different understandings of who we are as a people, 
some of whom have different hopes and dreams about where we will go as 
a people, some of whom have different needs that they're asking the 
government to meet.
  This President got more done in the first 2 years of his term than 
most Presidents get done in eight. He was incredibly effective. Now, I 
would argue that he was incredibly effective in doing things that are 
destroying the very fabric of freedom in this country, but he was 
incredibly effective. Of course, he won with a majority of the vote 
here in this Nation, Madam Speaker, and he is campaigning to win again 
this fall--a smart guy, an effective guy, with a completely different 
understanding of who we are as a people and where we should go as a 
Nation than the one that I have, but he is a talented politician 
nonetheless.
  He has honored his legal requirement to submit a budget to this 
Congress each and every year that he has been in office, and that's 
important because that distinguishes him from the United States Senate, 
which also has a legal obligation to submit a budget and has refused to 
do so for the last 3 years. You wonder why it is we can't come together 
on funding priorities, Madam Speaker. For 3 years, the Senate has said, 
We're not going to tell you what we're interested in doing. We're not 
going to provide you with any ideas, and because we won't move it, the 
House product can't move, and the President doesn't have anything to 
work with. So you see the kind of economic turmoil that we're in today, 
but the President, to his credit, has submitted a budget each and every 
year with his priorities.
  This is the budget that he submitted for 2012. This was just last 
February. The law required it and he complied with it, but he's running 
for reelection. He has got his fingers on the pulse of the American 
people for what they need and what they desire and what they want from 
the United States Government--again, all attuned towards the election 
in November--but the budget that he submitted raises taxes, as the 
gentleman from Virginia advocated, by $2 trillion on the American 
people.
  Now, if you want to know how much a trillion is, Madam Speaker, I 
speak to a lot of school groups back home, and we try to break those 
zeros into things that matter. If you began on the day that Jesus 
Christ was born and if you wasted $1 million a day, 7 days a week from 
the day Jesus Christ was born through today, you would have to throw 
away $1 million a day every day, 7 days a week for another 734 years to 
throw away your first $1 trillion--your first. The President proposes 
to raise taxes on the American people by $2 trillion.
  Folks say, Rob, we have debts. We have bills to pay. We may have to 
raise taxes to do it, they say. He raises taxes by $2 trillion, but 
raises spending by even more. That's what we're talking about here, 
Madam Speaker.

  Here is the chart of the promises we've already made, the 
unsustainable path of spending that we have already committed to as a 
Nation. It is spending that has to be reduced. It is spending that has 
to be cut. They are priorities that have to be reset and reorganized. 
The President in his budget this year said, not only are we going to 
spend all of that, but we're going to spend $2 trillion more such that 
we're going to tax the American people an additional $2 trillion, but 
we're going to raise the debt faster than if we hadn't passed a budget 
at all.
  There are 2 trillion new dollars coming into the Treasury but so much 
more new spending going out the door that the debt actually rises 
faster under the President's plan for 2013 and '14 and '15 and '16. It 
rises faster under the President's plan in 2017 and '18 and '19 and 
'20. You have to go all the way out to 2021. I blew it up here on the 
chart because I know folks won't be able to see it back in their 
offices. Here is 2021, which is represented by this sliver of green way 
out there at the end of this chart. It says, if we agree to the 
President's budget and if we raise taxes by $2 trillion on the American 
people--with all of this new spending that he would like to do as well 
way out in 2021--we'll borrow just a little bit less money than if we'd 
done nothing at all.
  I say that, Madam Speaker, because folks aren't here bickering over 
nothing. Folks are up here advocating at the top of their lungs for 
their vision of America. It's the greatest experiment in the history of 
the world, where people would govern themselves, a Republic as never 
before seen in world history. We started that Republic here. We are 
maintaining that Republic here. I would tell you we are dutybound to 
pass that Republic on, not just to our children and to our 
grandchildren, but for generations to come; but we have come to a nexus 
in our history where we disagree on who we are as a people.
  The President--incredibly effective, incredibly talented in running 
for reelection, in trying to enunciate those hopes and dreams that the 
American people will respond to and endorse and reelect him based on--
believes and advocates, even with this crushing burden of debt which 
every single economist agrees is unsustainable going into the future, 
that over the next 10 years we do not one thing about it. In fact, we 
raise taxes by $2 trillion. We exacerbate it and we make it worse.
  That's not who this House is, Madam Speaker. That's not why you and I 
ran for Congress. That's not why folks left their families. That's not 
why folks got off the sidelines and said, I've got to stay at home and 
complain about it or I can run for Congress and do something about it. 
We elected 99 new Members in this House last fall--99 new Members, 
Republicans and Democrats, coming from all walks of life--to say that 
we can do better, that we can be a part of the solution. We don't have 
to point the finger of blame. We can actually put forward solutions--
and we have. Again, you don't read that in the newspaper, Madam 
Speaker. It's no wonder folks are so disgusted with what happens in 
this town because, when you read about what's happening in this town, 
it's pretty disgusting.

                              {time}  1420

  I want to talk about some of the good news. I have four bars here, 
Madam Speaker. Fiscal year 2010, Federal Government discretionary 
spending, fiscal year 2011, fiscal year 2012, and fiscal year 2013. 
This fiscal year 2010, Madam

[[Page H6053]]

Speaker, that was money that was spent before you and I came to 
Congress. That was money that was spent while my Republican colleagues 
were in the minority, while we had Democrats running the White House 
and the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate. There was one-party control. We 
had one-party Republican control from 2000 to 2006. We had one-party 
Democratic control from 2008 to 2010. Spending levels, discretionary 
spending--folks say, ``Rob, doesn't all spending begin in the House?'' 
No, it does not. For the most part, two-thirds of the budget is 
comprised of mandatory spending, spending that does not come through 
the House each and every year, but discretionary spending comes through 
the House. This $1.27 trillion comes through the House for us to make a 
decision on each and every year.
  Mr. Speaker, you know the story, the decisions we've been making. 
When you and I arrived, we joined our senior Republican colleagues 
here, we created a new Republican majority here in this House. For FY 
2011, the first year in which you and I served, we reduced spending. 
I'm not talking about Washington, D.C., funny math. I'm not talking 
about where you raise spending by $10 and call it a cut. I'm talking 
about actual U.S. dollars going out the door in discretionary spending.
  When we came into this Congress and we took on FY 2011 
appropriations, we reduced it from $1.27 trillion to $1.21 trillion, 
$64 billion less--not inflation adjusted, actual dollars--$64 billion 
less in 2011 than in 2012. You say, ``Rob, that's not enough.'' You're 
absolutely right, it's not enough. We only have a small amount of 
control over the budget here. We're going to do what we can, when we 
can. We went on to 2012, reduced it again down to $1.18 trillion. 
That's another $31 billion reduction, and $31 billion is not enough. 
No, of course it's not enough. Is the history in the country that we 
raise it and raise it and raise it? Yes, it is. Have we changed that 
history for the first time since World War II, Madam Speaker? You 
better believe it.
  It has not happened in this land since the end of World War II that a 
Congress year after year after year, and now after year, reduces the 
discretionary spending going out the door because it wasn't just that 
we spent less in 2011 than we spent in 2010, we spent less in 2012 than 
we spent in 2011, and with the bill that we passed on the floor of this 
House yesterday, we are now on track to spend less in 2013 than we 
spent in 2012.
  Just to be clear, Madam Speaker, we talked so much about what goes on 
here on the House floor. When I show you the path of fiscal despair 
that is ahead of us with this redline, the current path if we do 
nothing, and I show you the green line, the solution that we proposed 
in this House, it's important to note that the green line is just what 
we've proposed. We've passed it in a bipartisan way. We've passed it 
twice in a bipartisan way, but the Senate has never taken it up. The 
President has promised he would never implement it. It is something 
that we see as a vision of prosperity for this country, but we cannot 
get agreement from the Senate or the White House to implement.
  That idea is distinguished from what we've done with discretionary 
spending, where these bills have passed the House, have passed 
sometimes a kicking and screaming Senate, and have been signed into law 
by the President of the United States. This is not an aspirational goal 
that I have here, Madam Speaker. This is the law of the land.
  Madam Speaker, all the easy choices are gone. They were gone before 
you and I got here. They may well have been gone before my colleague 
from Indiana got here. The easy choices have all been made already. The 
only thing that is left are the hard choices.
  Madam Speaker, you know as well as I do when we talk about cutting 
spending, when we talk about reducing the size and scope of the Federal 
Government, every dollar we spend comes from back home. Every dollar we 
spend comes out of the wallets of our constituents back home. We get to 
choose where we want to spend that money. As a voter back home, I can 
choose to send it to my city government, I can send it to my county 
government, I can send it to my State government, I can send it to my 
Federal Government. But who back home around the water cooler or the 
coffee pot says, Golly, what we need in this country is efficiency and 
thrift? We want it done really well and really fast, and we want it 
done for the lowest possible price. Let's see. Let's send it to 
Washington, D.C., let them do it, and I bet they'll get it right. Who 
says that? Nobody says that. Here we are trying to nationalize the 
entire health care system in this country in the name of efficiency and 
lower costs. No, we're not going to get it right. I say let's keep it 
in the hands of the private sector. Some folks may say give it to our 
city government, some folks may say give it to our county government. 
Nobody says let's send it to Washington, D.C.
  So when we're making these reductions, when we're trying to be 
thrifty with the dollars that we have seized from American taxpayers 
out of their paychecks each and every month, there's not one anti-
government advocate in this town, but there are good government 
advocates in this town. Whether you sit on the Republican side of the 
aisle or the Democratic side of the aisle, one thing on which we can 
all agree is that the Federal Government has let us down.
  The gentleman from Virginia made a passionate case for why it is we 
need to fund green energy. I happen to have the largest manufacturer of 
high-efficiency solar panels in America in my district, and I believe 
in green energy. What I don't believe in is crony capitalism. That's 
what we saw in Solyndra, crony capitalism where the political 
contributors get the taxpayer dollars, where hundreds of millions of 
dollars can be wasted with no accountability whatsoever. That's not 
good for anyone. That's not good for the left, that's not good for the 
right, and that is not good for a single American taxpayer. We're 
talking about good government here.

  Madam Speaker, I daresay as I look at this chart to my left of 
decreasing Federal spending, actual dollars going down, not just for 1 
year, not just for 2 years, but now for 3 years in a row, that that 
would not have happened but for the American people speaking out in the 
2010 election and sending 99 new Members to this Congress. We had lots 
of Members here who believe in thrift, who believe in efficiency, who 
believe in making sure the taxpayer gets their maximum value out of 
every tax dollar, but there were not enough. There were not enough. I 
can't tell you how many times from back home I watched the gentleman 
from Indiana alone as he advocated for good government, alone on the 
floor of the House trying to make a difference. The American people 
sent 99 new faces here, new minds, new ideas, and it's made this 
difference.
  Madam Speaker, I don't have any idea how the next election is going 
to turn out, but I'm absolutely certain with every fiber of my being 
that we're going to have the largest voter turnout in American history 
come November 6. I know this: If there's one thing I trust in this 
country beyond the United States Constitution and the King James Bible, 
it's the American people. When more Americans turn out in November than 
ever before to make a decision about who we are as a Nation, where 
we're going as a Nation, and who shall lead this Nation, we're going to 
get it right. I don't have any idea which direction that's going to go, 
but I trust the American people.
  Madam Speaker, Newt Gingrich said it best when he was down in Georgia 
speaking during the presidential campaign. He said:

       This year, we do not need a presidential candidate we can 
     believe in. We need candidates who believe in us.

  It's one of the distinguishing features on the floor of this House, 
Madam Speaker. Do you believe in the American people? Do you trust the 
American people? Do you know in your heart that the American people 
left to their own devices will get it right every time? Or do you 
believe they just can't handle it, and it's up to Washington, D.C., to 
solve those issues for them?
  We're going to find out on November 6 where the hearts and minds of 
the American people are, Madam Speaker. But you see on these charts 
behind us the kind of success that we can have as a Nation, as a people 
in turning the good ship America when the American

[[Page H6054]]

people turn out to the polls and send back to Washington those folks 
who care more about the future of this country than they care about 
themselves.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________
```