Providing for Consideration of H.R. Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act of and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Scientific Research in the National Interest Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for referring to me as young and exciting. I am going to phone my wife to let her know that is the case.

Mr. Speaker, I come before you today because I am in strong support of H.R. 3442. I think that sometimes we make this a Democratic versus Republican issue. Responsibility is not a political issue. It is a moral issue.

Irresponsibility is the problem that we have. I wish we could go away from making political talking points into making solid policy positions that say: okay, fine, if we are going to increase our debt ceiling, tell me why you are going to get there.

I come from the private sector. There are many times in my life I have had to go to lenders and tell them I need to borrow money. The first thing they would say is: give me your financials; let me look at the way you are running your company; let me see about what you are doing; then we will make a decision.

Then they would come back to me and say: you know what, I am looking at what you are asking for, and you definitely need an injection of capital; but my question is what is your turnaround plan so you are not back here in 6 months or 12 months asking for more money on a failed model.

The people's House, the Congress, is made up of both Republicans and Democrats. More importantly, it is made up of Americans. We are looking at a year when the tax revenues are the highest they have ever been-- $3.25 trillion--yet, we continue to spend $3.7 trillion to $3.8 trillion.

Now people look at that and their eyes kind of roll back in their head. They say: I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

So you reduce it down to this, which I think is the most effective way of explaining it. Hardworking American couples sit down at the kitchen table. It is kitchen table economics. It is not all this other stuff. It is not all these hieroglyphics.

The husband and the wife talk and say: you know what, Honey, we had a great year; I was able to bring home $32,500; what I want you to do is to go out and spend $37,500 or $38,000.

They would look at each other and say: wait a minute, you told me you had a great year--and you did--but you want me to spend even more money than you brought in.

We constantly tell the American people: you are going to have to tighten your belts; you are going to have to live within your means. And then, because we don't have to, we go out and borrow and raise the debt ceiling.

Think about that couple that is increasing their debt load year after year after year--deficit spending--and we are crowing about the fact that you know what, we have cut our deficit spending by half a trillion dollars this year. Aren't we doing well?

My question is: so where does that deficit spending go? It goes onto your long-term debt. You are digging the hole so deep that you will never be able to climb out of it, but you are feeling good about it because you were able to satisfy whatever your needs were at that moment.

That is not only irresponsible, it is unconscionable. More than that, it is immoral for people to sit in this House as representatives of the American people who have been given the authority to tax, but they have also been given the responsibility to spend that hardworking American taxpayer's dollar.

More importantly, once you have authority and once you have responsibility, you have got to be accountable not just to that person in the mirror, but, in my case, the 705,687 people that I represent in western Pennsylvania.

Now, they are not all Republicans. They are not all Democrats. They are not all Libertarians. They are not all Independents. But they are all hardworking American taxpayers.

Why do we have to reduce this down to a political-talking-points issue instead of talking about what is fundamentally sound economically?

You cannot spend your way out of debt. You cannot continue to borrow irresponsibly and say: well, we have the power to do it. So when we ask the Secretary of the Treasury who else would you go to, that is who is responsible for it.

I don't care who is sitting in there. I don't care who is in the White House. I care about sound, fundamental fiscal policy that protects this country going forward, not only those that are with us right now, but those that came before us and those that are going to come after us.

We are putting ourselves in a position that is totally going to be unrecoverable. Why would we knowingly sit here and think if I can pin the blame on somebody else from the political opposite of me, I will somehow win an election?

Is it really that important to win an election and lose the country? Is it really that important to have a political talking point that makes you feel good about what you said so you can go back home to somebody and say: you saw what I did on the floor; right?

I would hope that the constituents would say: yes, I did. You just put me deeper in debt. You made it impossible for me to plan for my future. You made it impossible for us to remain one of the strongest countries in the world because debt will eliminate you. I don't care if it is a person. I don't care if it is a business. I don't care if it is a State or a country.

We are quickly approaching the point of no return. To sit here and try to make it a political battle instead of survival for the United States of America is totally irresponsible. More importantly, it is immoral.

This is not a political battle. This is a fight for the future of our country. This is a fight for sustainability in the greatest country the world has ever known.

I do not think that any of us should ever turn our back on our responsibility because it just wasn't politically right.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source