Jan. 24, just before President Obama's State of the Union Address:

"We welcome the President to the House Chamber tonight, where he will address the American people to assess the state of the Union. This presents another opportunity for the president to chart a new course. I hope the president takes this opportunity to stop offering empty rhetoric and broken promises, to stop pushing policies that have proven to make matters worse and to stop dividing Americans for political gain. I hope the president takes this opportunity to start working with us to get America back on track.


"Yet the administration has, time and again, turned hope into disappointment. The president and his party's leaders continue to duck from the most pressing fiscal and economic challenges facing our nation. Exhibit A of this failure is the fact that today marks 1,000 days without Senate Democrats passing a budget.

"Having failed to put forward a credible plan in 1,000 days, the president's party is committing America to a future of debt, doubt and decline. Instead of dealing honestly with our biggest fiscal challenges and providing certainty to job creators, Senate Democrats have refused to meet their legal and moral obligations to propose and pass a budget."

Feb. 2, in debate on the Baseline Reform Act:

"What this bill does is it removes the pro-spending bias that currently exists in the baseline we use as a starting point in federal budgeting.

"The baseline we currently use assumes automatic increases in spending in the discretionary budget. So, for instance, instead of basing next year's discretionary budget on what we spent this year, we don't do it that way. The way it works is we automatically assume spending increases. We automatically assume that government agencies can't live with what they had last year, can't be more efficient, can't be more productive, and we assume inflation in it already."

March 28, in debate on the House budget resolution for 2013:

"This week, we're prepared to be right here on the floor to take it one step further. We're bringing a 2013 budget, which we call the Path to Prosperity, which does this: It cuts $5.3 trillion in spending from the president's budget. It clears the roadblock of the partisan healthcare law that is now being debated in the Supreme Court because we believe that this partisan healthcare law is a roadblock to bipartisan reform. It puts our budget on the path to balance and a path to completely pay off our debt.

"By contrast, look at what other leaders are doing today. The president sent us a budget last month, the fourth budget in a row which proposes to do nothing to pay off the debt, let alone ever get the budget in balance. The president gave us a budget with the fourth trillion-dollar deficit in a row, ignoring the drivers of our debt, doing what his budget says, 'advancing the deterioration of our fiscal situation.' "

May 10, in debate on the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act:

"Why are we doing this? What's going on?

"When the president was requesting an increase in the debt limit last year, he wanted a blank check. Just increase the debt limit. Borrowing unchecked. Then when that wasn't going to happen, he asked for a big tax increase. That didn't occur.

"What occurred out of that was the Budget Control Act. You've got to cut at least a dollar's worth of spending for every dollar of debt-limit increase that occurs."

May 17, in debate on the National Defense Authorization Act:

"Mr. Chairman, we passed a budget. We showed what we would do to deal with all of these fiscal problems and fiscal priorities. We showed defense spending decreases off the defense request from last year. We showed a responsible way to get savings from the Pentagon budget.

"To my friends on the other side of the aisle, to their credit, they brought a budget to the floor that turned off the sequester and showed alternative savings as well. The Senate, nothing, no budget for three years. The president, he tells us he doesn't want the sequester to kick in, that it's a bad thing to happen, but he's not doing anything to show how he will prevent the sequester from happening."

July 10, in debate on legislation to repeal the 2010 healthcare law:

"This bill barely passed into law. It was the biggest social legislation to pass into law in over 40 years. Seven votes in the House, no votes to spare in the Senate, Christmas Eve, backroom deal, and it was based on three promises by the president of the United States. One, if you like the health insurance you have, you can keep it. That's a broken promise. Two, this will bring down our healthcare premiums. That's a broken promise. Three, there's no tax on people making less than $200,000 in this bill. That's a broken promise. Well, the president said, to get it passed, there was no tax. Then, he sent his lawyer to the Supreme Court to argue that it was a tax so he can keep it on the books.

"If any of these three broken promises were known to the public and to Congress at the time they were passing this law, the law would have never passed in the first place. We now have this information. Let's revisit this."

July 18, in debate to pass the Sequestration Transparency Act, which was signed into law last week:

"[T]he supercommittee failed, and the sequester is about to kick in. So again we took action in the House, and we passed the reconciliation package that replaces the sequester, which resulted in a net $242.8 billion in additional deficit reduction. We put specifics on the table, passed them through the House again. The crickets are chirping in the other body in the Senate. No leadership from the president, no leadership from the Senate, no leadership.

"What this is is simple. Since there is an absence of leadership on these critical fiscal issues from the president of the United States, from the Senate of the United States, at the very least show us how this is going to work. If you're not willing to replace the sequester, tell us how it's going to be implemented."

Aug. 2, in debate on the Republican bill setting out a tax reform plan for 2013:

"At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, I think there's a difference in philosophy here. One side likes to think of the idea of everybody sending their money to Washington, then we go into a backroom and we slice up the money and then we send it out to favored groups, favored constituents and people that we want to be as winners versus those who might be losers.

"We've got to get out of the game of Washington picking winners and losers in the tax code. Because what we do is we stifle that entrepreneur who has an idea, who might not have connections, but can actually have an idea and make a business grow. We want to remove those barriers to opportunity. We want to remove those barriers to upward mobility. We want a system of entrepreneurs where we have true entrepreneurial capitalism, not this crony capitalism."