Floor Statements

I thank the chairman for yielding.

America is talking so much now, and there's such a need right now for jobs. There is such a need. Over 9 percent of this country is begging every day for the opportunity to go out and work and earn a living. We have a middle class that is feeling the squeeze because we see disappearing manufacturing. And that's something I'm very concerned about.

In my district in Illinois, we have a very heavy manufacturing base, and when you look at that heavy manufacturing base and the fact that they produce a lot of goods that need to be exported, you have to find a consumer base in order to sell it, and 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside of our country. It would only make sense to create an environment where we can take our goods and in a fair way export them to other countries. Panama, an ally of the United States, currently has a situation where they can charge tariffs on our imports and we don't charge tariffs on imports from them.

This agreement would bring that to a level playing field and allow the people in my district, who literally sweat every day wondering if they're going to have a paycheck tomorrow, the opportunity to enhance their exports, to enhance those American goods that are made in America, but it's great for somebody in the other country to read the product that they buy that also says ``Made in America,'' too.

We have a heavy agricultural district in my area, too. When I look at the farmers and their opportunity to sell overseas their goods and products that we create every day, that's very important. As you know, in business, the ability to be successful means you have to be on the cutting edge and constantly finding markets and places to sell your goods. This does that for us.

I think it's sad that it's taken us this many years to get to this point, and I think we've lost a lot of opportunity costs in the process, but I'm pleased that today we are finally taking up these three agreements. I'm pleased that we're taking up this trade agreement with Panama and that we have an opportunity to really strengthen a bond with a strong ally of the United States, strengthen our exports, and I'm excited that the tens of thousands of people that rely on trade in my district will have an opportunity to sell more goods.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was proud to work with my colleagues on the committee in developing the Cement Regulatory Relief Act.

Let's just take a quick gander at what's happened here. Last September, the EPA released new regulations--that's kind of a theme we've been hearing a lot lately--new regulations on the American cement industry. These new requirements will cost $3.4 billion, it will close 18 of America's 100 cement plants, and leave 20,000 more Americans without jobs. In my district alone,

the 11th Congressional District in Illinois, 155 companies use that cement daily.

This is the same story, but just a little bit of a different subject: the same story of over-regulation, more government, more rules, more paperwork, more disclaimers, more everything that people are sick of in Washington, D.C. This is just more of it. This is typical of over- regulation. Somebody comes up with an idea and says, what's the sane thing to do here, or what can we do that will way overstep the role of the Federal Government? Well, that's exactly what came down within the rules.

All we want to do is give a little more time for the cement industry, instead of saying, well, this is catching us flatfooted again, 18 of our plants are going to close, we're looking at this and saying, how can we keep these open and create jobs? There's been a lot of talk in this body, as there should be, about creating jobs, about the economy. Look, I'm 100 percent in. We want to create jobs, and so some of the things we see are, well, we need to spend additional Federal Government money, the size of what we'll call stimulus 2.

I tell you what we need to do. The very first step to creating jobs in this country is to stop killing them. That would be a great move in the right direction. If we stop killing jobs, then we can regroup and say, now how can jobs be created in the private sector? Yet we continue on and on with more and more regulation. We now hear the industry saying, look, this is going to cost 20,000 jobs. It's your prerogative out of Washington, but this is going to cost us 20,000 jobs. This is typical Federal Government over-regulation.

We have a responsibility here to do the right thing. We have a responsibility to do the economically and environmentally sound thing. When this rule goes into effect, the same amount of cement is going to be needed, so it's not like we're closing 18 of 100 plants and we're going to use 18 of 100 plants' less worth of cement.

We're still going to need to use that cement. Right? In fact, in the stimulus 2, they talk about the fact of spending more on cement. Well, then, okay. So what happens is these plants close, and we have to buy that cement from China. This is a great bill, and not the one where we're talking about saving jobs here, but if these rules go into effect, that will be great for creating jobs in China, and China has zero environmental constraints like we have here in the United States.

So what's the environmentally right thing to do? Keep these jobs in the United States, where there are good environmental regulations in place, take a look at what we need to do, but not send them over to a country that all they care about is pumping out cement, and they care nothing about the environment. That's the responsible thing to do. This bill simply gives regulators the time to develop practical rules for cement manufacturing facilities, and it's going to protect jobs in the manufacturing industry, the construction industry, and all those areas, these jobs which are otherwise going to be sent overseas.

Look, enough is enough. I mean, really, enough is enough. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please just support this. This doesn't have to be a partisan thing. This is just for America. How are we going to create and save American jobs so that the families who every day wake up and say, I wonder if I can pay my bills next week, I wonder if I can make my house payment, I wonder if I can make my car payment, I wonder if I can send my kids to college.

Some of those people that have those pains and wonder that every day work in the cement industry; and if these rules come into effect, that horror that they are predicting may happen, that they'll lose their job, will happen for 20,000 members and 20,000 citizens of the United States. I call for an end to the madness. Let's be sane about this. Let's finally, once and for all, save American jobs and then create them and do what we have to do to get this economy back to work.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be pretty brief in saying this.

It seems like we've often taken this idea of jobs and everything else, and, again, in Washington D.C., we have two epic competing viewpoints right now: One says that we need jobs; the other says we need jobs. One says we need jobs through more government spending, more government interaction, more stimulus. In fact, I had a colleague once tell me that the problem with the stimulus is it wasn't large enough. Well, I guess stimulus 2 that's being proposed is actually half as large.

There's different competing things on how to create jobs, but the one thing we can all agree on is the Environmental Protection Agency needs to protect the environment and it needs to do so at prevention of killing and stopping job creation or putting people out of work.

Again, when we talk about this whole issue, I think the thing that needs to be very obvious here is we need cement, obviously, to build infrastructure. The industry is saying, You're going to cost us 18 out of 100 plants and you're going to cost 20,000 jobs. Now, we can take issue with that. I just heard my colleague say that we have to take the cement industry at their word. I agree. This is what's being said: 20,000 jobs.

So the question is, now, do we just go ahead and say, Well, let's not give any additional time to figure out how to comply with these regulations so those jobs aren't lost; let's just take the arbitrary number and move forward? All we're trying to do is buy a little more time to allow the industry to protect those 20,000 people.

Imagine right now--and it's not just a number. Imagine there are 20,000 people out there in the United States right now that are going about their business. It's 4 o'clock on the east coast, so some are maybe getting off of work, or maybe they're going to a second shift, and they have no idea that this faceless 20,000 number is actually them. They are that 20,000 number right now. They don't realize it. They've got the little ``20,000'' above their head. They say, I hope my job's safe; but no, it's them. Because if these rules are allowed to go into effect haphazardly like this, they will be out of work.

Again, we have two competing philosophies here, and we can talk about those philosophies, but ultimately the first thing we have to do is quit killing jobs. It's the Environmental Protection Agency. It's not the Employment Prevention Agency or anything along that line.

We've got a lot of work to do. This is a great bill, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in honor of Captain Thomas Heitmann, a marine from Mendota, Illinois, who faithfully served our country. He was killed on September 19, 2011, at the age of 27, in a helicopter crash at Camp Pendleton, California.

Captain Heitmann was one of six children. His parents sent their son to Holy Cross School, and he graduated in 2002 from St. Bede Academy in Peru. He is remembered throughout the community as a truly outstanding person. He was known by his family, friends, former coaches, and teammates as ``the all-American boy,'' ``the star athlete,'' ``a kind, supportive and good friend,'' and a ``gentleman to all.''

Captain Heitmann was brought up with a strong set of core values. He worked hard and understood the importance of his family and his friends, and he truly cherished the time that he spent with them. Captain Heitmann's passion was to fly. One of his former coaches said: ``It was a dream come true for him to fly for the Marines and be a pilot.'' I understand that dream.

Captain Heitmann is a true patriot and displayed the love for his country that separates the people of our great Nation from any other in the world. Our men and women in the military, like Captain Heitmann, work tirelessly to protect our country. Their sacrifice is the reason for our liberty. While he will be sorely missed, it's because of his commitment and that of people like him that we can stand before you in a Chamber like this today.

God bless Captain Heitmann's service, and God bless his family.

Thank you.

This kind of reminds me of the story of the rogue cowboy. When you think of the rogue cowboy, you think of somebody, you know, sitting under the sun just taking it all in, doesn't really want to work with anybody.

That reminds me of the Senate, taking it easy. They haven't taken a lot of votes this year; more interested in, I guess, getting paid and letting the bills stack up, and they don't need to work with anybody.

But you know what we can do in that process? Let's blame one small lever of government. Let's blame the House Republicans. Let's blame them for the 9.1 percent unemployment. Let's do that. You know, that's what we can do. We don't actually have to govern.

I mean, when you look at it, they've had control of the House of Representatives and the Senate since 2006 and the Presidency since 2008, with the exception of a very brief period of time over the last year where Republicans have been blessed and fortunate enough to be in the majority in the House of Representatives. But yet this unemployment, according to them, is our fault.

We need jobs in this country. In my district, the 11th Congressional District in Illinois, you have cities like Joliet, like Ottawa, like Bloomington. A lot of places have seen their manufacturing base disappear. They've seen it over the last 20 or 30 years. And what's been our reaction? Well, typically the knee-jerk reaction in Washington, DC, is that we have to have some kind of a program. We have to pass more spending.

Well, if there's no jobs, I mean, obviously the problem, if there's no jobs, it's got to be because Washington, DC, hasn't done enough. And so we get in this perpetual cycle of let's spend more and spend more.

I remember a couple of years ago, almost a trillion dollar stimulus was passed out of this House of Representatives, and I think by everybody's measure would agree that it was ineffective. I have not seen many people with a straight face argue that the stimulus was effective. Even the Commander in Chief, the President himself said, well, you know, it wasn't quite as shovel ready as we expected.

That's a great point. What's amazing to me is you put out those very staggering numbers, and every American should just be horrified at those numbers, but I've actually heard Members of the other side of the aisle actually say the stimulus wasn't big enough. I think most people listening today have heard that: The stimulus just wasn't big enough. Okay, well, I disagree, but fine.

Theoretically, let's say it wasn't big enough. So what do we need, another $2 trillion, $3 trillion stimulus, a gajillion dollar stimulus, because then everybody can go back to work? But the President puts a $450 billion stimulus.

The only argument I have heard that has any credence--and it doesn't--is that it wasn't big enough. That's why it didn't create jobs. So stimulus 2, which is smaller, has got to do what the large stimulus 1 never did. The insanity of the things I hear is staggering.

We've got to get people back to work. That's what it really comes down to. I think everybody agrees about that.

So we can work and say for 20 years we've been spending and spending and spending--$14 trillion obviously wasn't enough to get us out of this deficit--or we can do what the House Republicans have been promising the American people and following through on, which is to say let the American consumer and businessman breathe the clean air, the fresh air of freedom, the fresh air of capitalism, understanding that if somebody has a fear of hypodermic needles, you don't solve that fear by stabbing them with a bunch of hypodermic needles. So if we have a debt problem in this country, you don't solve it by spending more and more. You initially figure out a better way to deliver those solutions.

Look, Federal Government isn't the answer. Everybody you are going to hear from tonight is going to tell you the Federal Government isn't the answer. In many cases, it's the problem. But the answer, the thing that has made our country great, the thing that has made us powerful is the people that live here, not the government that represents it. It's the people.

So I think, as this discussion goes on tonight, I look forward to listening and being part of it. But, again, to talk about a jobs bill-- by the way, I don't want to say the words ``jobs bill'' again because, if it was a real jobs bill, I think that would be an appropriate title, but it's just stimulus 2.

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

I want to thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) for coauthoring this amendment with me to H.R. 2401, the TRAIN Act. It's an important bipartisan amendment that hits directly on what Americans, particularly my constituents in Illinois, are facing every day, the high cost of gasoline.

Later this year, it's expected that the EPA will promulgate rules on gasoline refiners mandating that they offer sulfur levels and vapor pressure by 70 percent. This would be even further below the already low levels mandated in 2004.

In 2004, the EPA's tier 2 rules lowered sulfur and gasoline by 90 percent. The impacts of these new rules could force refineries in the U.S. to slash their gasoline production by up to 14 percent, leaving the United States even more dependent on foreign sources of oil.

Our amendment would require the EPA just to study the economic costs of these new fuel requirements. Before delivering what could be a devastating blow to the customer and to our economy, the EPA should first provide data to show lowering the sulfur content will actually achieve cost-effective, real emissions reductions in air quality and health and welfare benefits.

Americans are fed up with the volatility in the gasoline markets. While we may not be able to control the price of oil on the global market, we can control the cost of regulations on our fuel. Every dollar that's taken out of the taxpayer pocket due to new regulation is a dollar that's not going to refuel the American economy.

We need commonsense regulations, and we need to know the impacts of regulations on families and businesses before they go into effect.

This amendment is a commonsense approach to ensure Americans are getting the cause-worthy benefits that we need out of regulations. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

At this time it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), coauthor of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

I yield the balance of my time to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 699, 700, and 701, I was unable to cast my vote due to a delayed arrival to Washington, DC, caused by a mechanical problem with the aircraft.

Had I been present, I would have voted in favor.

I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for generously yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I'm also from Illinois. And I can tell you, in Illinois there is a very tough economic environment right now. We've got a tough budget. There is a lot of talk about the budget right now. We've got huge unemployment. We've got people who desperately want to go to work. And when I do town hall meetings, when I'm in the 11th Congressional District in towns like Joliet, or when I'm in Ottawa, or Princeton, or some of those towns, I get this from a lot of people: Why can't we just become energy independent? Why can't we just become energy secure? And I think that's a great question.

When people look at Washington, D.C., and they say, Washington, D.C., is broken, I think one example of that is the fact that we can't get our act together and do what we need to do to increase oil that we're not pulling in from the Middle East. I mean, it's just very basic. How can we do anything in this Congress if we can't even agree that our partners to the north can bring their oil here for our consumption so that we can come off of that oil we're buying from the Middle East that, in some way, is always going to fund the people that we are fighting overseas and the terrorists that we're fighting?

But when we talk about the Keystone pipeline, let me ask you, what does the pipeline mean for the United States and for Illinois? For starters, it means creating more than 100,000 American jobs. We've been seeing the jobs reports lately. They're not good. How would you like to add 100,000 American jobs? That's what we're offering. It means 1.3 million barrels of oil from our friends to the north, which means we need less oil from the Middle East, from Venezuela, and less oil from other countries that we can no longer rely on and are not friendly to the interests of the United States. What's bad about that? It means $5.2 billion in new property tax revenue for bankrupt States, like my own, like Illinois.

The North American-Made Energy Security Act expedites a final decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would allow millions of barrels of Canadian oil supplies to flow into U.S. markets and requires the President to issue a final Presidential permit decision by November 1, 2001. This bill does not require the President to accept the benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline. It merely requires him to make a long overdue decision on this pipeline.

The State Department has, at their discretion, the authority to decide if the U.S. benefits from this. The fact is that someone will benefit from the oil out of Canada. If it's not the United States, it will be China. Unless we take immediate action to expand the Keystone pipeline, it will be American businesses, American consumers, and those who are unemployed that are desperately seeking a job in this terrible economy who will suffer the consequences from our inaction.

According to a Department of Energy report, the pipeline extension will ``essentially eliminate'' our oil imports from the Middle East. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the final passage.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 601 and 602. Due to previously scheduled district events, I was unable to return to Washington, DC. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor.

Mr. Chair, there is no bigger supporter in this body of the Air Force than me. For nearly ten years, I have been privileged to serve my country in the Air Force and Air National Guard as a pilot. During that time I often thought, ``If I am willing to fight for my country on the outside, I must be willing to defend and preserve our country for future generations on the inside.'' Today I rise in support of my amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, H.R. 2219. My amendment would save the U.S. taxpayers nearly $100 million by not allowing the Air Force to redevelop the current flight suit.

Since coming to this House, my colleagues and I have been working diligently to determine essential versus non-essential government spending projects. One area I wanted to examine more closely was a $100 million project to develop a new flight suit for the Air Force, called the ``Integrated Aircrew Ensemble.'' This flight suit is not being developed in response to specific needs of the Air Force's next- generation fighter, the F-35 Lightning II. Rather, it is designed to integrate the already existing protections which are included in our current flight suit.

In February, at the Air Force's 2012 budget hearing, Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz was asked--at my request--whether the Air Force was developing a new flight suit. General Schwartz stated, ``We are not in the business of redesigning our flight suit under the current circumstances.'' Since his testimony, General Schwartz said this quote is ``accurate but incomplete,'' and does not represent his position on the flight suit contract.

Our office met with management from TIAX LLC, the company awarded the contract. After reviewing the information from TIAX and speaking with many of my fellow pilots who fly different aircrafts, I remain confident that the current flight suit provides more than adequate protection.

Over the past 10 years, the Air National Guard has not had a single G-LOC (induced loss of consciousness due to excessive G-force) Class A mishap, while the Air Force has had 5 G-LOC Class A mishaps. Of those 5 Air Force Class A mishaps, 3 occurred in an F-16 aircraft, while the other two occurred in a T-6 and T-37, respectively. The Air Force was unable to provide details surrounding the T-6 and T-37 Class A mishaps; however, they were able to provide the details surrounding each of the F-16 Class A mishaps. In each of those cases, the pilot flying the F-16 was performing Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM) under the supervision of an instructor pilot. It is important to note that all of these accidents took place in a training environment and by young pilots still honing their skills. In none of the executive summary reports surrounding those accidents was the flight suit noted as a contributing factor toward causing G-LOC.

For these reasons, it is my strong belief that updating and integrating the flight suit will not be the panacea that proponents of the program claim in terms of protecting against these types of G-LOC Class A mishaps. Protecting against G-LOC has much more to do with the innate physical abilities of our pilots and the training they receive than any flight suit they will wear.

These findings led me to offer an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to postpone the flight suit development and save taxpayers nearly $100 million. This amendment was adopted into the NDAA, which passed the House by a vote of 322-96.

Many of my colleagues in the House support this amendment, including Congressman Sam Johnson (R-Texas), a twenty-nine-year Air Force veteran, former POW in Vietnam, former Director of the Fighter Weapons School and pilot with the Thunderbirds. He said, ``With men and women in harm's way in three different wars, the Air Force shouldn't even think about using scarce dollars for new flight suits.''

My other colleague, Congressman Pete Olson (R-Texas) said, ``As a former Navy Aviator, I know firsthand that our current flight suits provide all of the protection and comfort our aviators need. Our nation is facing record debt and deficits and as such, we must apply careful scrutiny over every new project we are looking to fund. If I thought for one second that our pilots were in danger, I would be the first to support a new flight suit, but the reality is that this is a $100M solution looking for a problem.''

Senator Kirk (R-IL) also stated, ``While nothing takes precedence over protecting and arming our troops in the field, we still have a responsibility to protect taxpayers from excessive spending. Given our current fiscal situation, we must make tough decisions to ensure that tax dollars are spent efficiently--even at the Pentagon. Cutting a $100 million program the Air Force says it does not need is exactly the kind of spending restraint the American people want to see from Congress.''

Make no mistake, I am committed to ensuring our military is the strongest and best equipped in the world. However, we must make tough decisions with regard to military needs and military wants. I was sent to Washington to make difficult decisions, even those that require the military to prioritize its spending.

Madam Speaker, last Friday something actually very great happened. Wisconsin became the 49th State in the Union to approve concealed carry. Well, that means that leaves my home State, Illinois, as the only State to oppose that constitutional right to concealed carry.

The action taken by Governor Scott Walker was a major step for Wisconsin, but the State of Illinois now remains the only State in the Nation to prohibit concealed carry and deny law-abiding citizens' rights to protect themselves or their family.

The Constitution of the United States and 44 States, common law, and laws of all 50 States recognize the right to use arms in self-defense. In 1895, the Supreme Court case, Beard v. U.S., the Court approved the common law rule that a person ``may repel force by force'' in self- defense and concluded that, when attacked, a person is ``entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon.''

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that ``the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,'' and that the amendment protects ``the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.''

Right-to-carry laws have proven to be effective. Since 1991 through 2009, 23 States have adopted the right to carry, and violent crime rates have declined 43 percent. This all comes on the heels of a five- fold increase in the number of shall-issue conceal carry States from 1986 to 2006. Along with this, since the 1980s when the conceal carry issue started, the number of conceal carry permit holders is estimated to have risen from 1 million to 6 million people. Of major note, murder has declined 49 percent. Also, the city with the highest gun homicide rate in the Nation, Washington, D.C., happens to also have the strictest gun control.

The lowest rate of gun homicide in the Nation is in Utah, which has some of the most liberal policies when it comes to conceal carry issues. According to the FBI, total violent crime and murder dropped more than 6 percent during the first half of 2011. Anti-gun advocates are in disbelief over this

number as not only is the Nation going through an economic downturn, but they've been seeing that the amount of Federal background checks done in order to purchase firearms broke record levels with more than 14 million occurring last year alone. That's a 55 percent increase in firearms purchases in just 4 years, but it has not even led remotely close to the doom and gloom havoc being peddled by anti-gun advocates.

Criminologist Gary Kleck analyzed National Crime Victimization Surveys and concluded that robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all. Unfortunately, in my home State of Illinois, Governor Quinn took it upon himself in May to determine what's best for Illinois. Rather than listening to the voice of the Illinois constituency, Quinn made desperate 11th-hour phone calls to sway Illinois Democrats to his side and block vital legislation to allow concealed carry in Illinois. He knows better than 49 other States, and he knows better than top law enforcement organizations like the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, the Illinois Sheriffs Association, the Chicago Police Lieutenants Association, and the Chicago Police Sergeants Association.

Quinn doesn't get it, but 49 other States do and so do I, which is why I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, which was introduced by my colleague, Representative Cliff Stearns of Florida. This bill allows any person with a State-issued concealed carry to carry in any other State. Therefore, for the 49 States that issue concealed carry permits, their State laws would apply.

In Illinois, I refuse to deny visitors the right to carry weapons when they are authorized to do so. We must follow the example set by every other State in this Nation and allow law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms. We must restore, defend and preserve this constitutional right at all government levels.

Mr. Speaker, let's think about something very quickly. What is the most basic job that we can do--in the House of Representatives or in the Senate of the United States--in government?

One of the most basic jobs we do is to pass a budget; to figure out where we are going to spend money and how we are going to spend money. Yet it has been 799 days today since the other Chamber has passed a budget out of the Senate. Since that day, we have added $3.2 trillion in debt to our country and we have spent $7.3 trillion.

Now we are finding ourselves bumping up against this debt ceiling, against the statutory limit of where we can spend and borrow money. We are on this record clip, this record pace to blow through this debt ceiling, and we are here.

In 2006, now-President Obama stood in front of the Senate and said that raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Well, sounds like we are in that position today. Five years later, we are once again talking about an over $2 trillion increase in our Nation's ability to borrow money, which we are tacking on to the responsibility of our kids and our grandkids. Once again, we're back.

We have an extreme failure of leadership in this country that is of epic proportions. We know, we look at our budget, we see over a trillion-and-a-half dollars this year that we are spending that we haven't taken in, and yet we are continuing to haggle about whether we need to just raise taxes or have spending cuts.

We have a spending problem in this country; we don't have a revenue problem in this country. We have a problem with how much money we are spending.

I am a new Member of Congress. I came here and was sworn in in January, and within a couple of days the President of the United States asked us to increase the debt limit without any corresponding cuts or anything along those lines. I actually thought it was a joke. I mean, really, we are going to add another $2 trillion onto our debt and not even take seriously the fact that we are just piling on more and more interest.

I mean, we're spending more in interest right now than we do in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Think about that; two wars, and we are spending more in interest. And it is only going to increase every year.

I can tell you, the youth of America, the current generation that is in charge in America is all sitting around saying at some point the insanity has to end. You know, I travel around the 11th Congressional District in Illinois, which includes Joliet, places like Ottawa and Morris, Bloomington, Princeton, Peru. And you know what I hear from people? I don't hear them say, Congressman Kinzinger, boy, we sure have a revenue problem in this country; don't we? I hear them say, Congressman, we are spending too much money. We have a spending problem.

The President is asking us to increase the debt limit. We have to be willing to have at least as much as we are going to increase the debt limit or more in spending cuts for us to even consider it at this point. It has got to be done. And how best are we going to get out of debt? Yes, we have to have these spending cuts. And, yes, we have to get serious about our budget. But we have to get America back to work.

I think it was put well yesterday. Mr. President, where are the jobs? Where are the jobs? Mr. Speaker, I'm asking: Where are the jobs?

It is time that we get America back to work. We turn people then from tax recipients to taxpayers. And as much as I like to say ``where are the jobs?,'' let me ask another question: Where is the leadership?

We've got to make tough decisions. It's time that we stand up and say I'm tired of kicking the can down the road. I wasn't sent to Washington, D.C., to kick the can down the road. I was sent here to be a leader and to make tough decisions. And I can tell you, House Republicans are ready to be leaders and make tough decisions, but we have to have willing partners on the other side.

I know 2012 is just around the corner. I get it. I understand that. But 2011 is still now. America can't afford to forget that 2011 still exists and to just focus on the next election. We have to focus long term on the next generation. Let's get our budgets in gear. Let's have a real serious discussion. And for goodness sake, let's put politics aside and make sure that we are still the strongest country in the world.

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

Mr. Chairman, there is no bigger supporter, I don't think, in this body of the Air Force than me. I am an Air National Guard pilot. I have been an Air National Guard pilot for awhile now, and continue to be even during my service in Congress. But part of what we have to do in this body is we have to find areas of essential versus nonessential spending.

One of those areas I believe that is nonessential is $100 million that will be spent, if this amendment is not adopted, to develop a new flight suit, in essence. I think at a time when we are looking at supporting defense as best we can and finding out areas where we can prioritize and make that essential, I think it is important to stop the design of this flight suit and allow that money to be spent in other areas.

We have met with the folks that are developing this, that are looking at the idea of this new flight suit, and I am still convinced that the right thing to do at this time is to halt the development and manufacture of this.

So I would just stand and urge adoption of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois

Amendment No. 110: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I stand today in support of this resolution.

The world is watching our actions today. The world is asking: What are we going to do? We talk all the time about allowing Europe to take the lead in certain areas, about allowing NATO to take the lead in foreign policy, and they have done that. Now will we today pull the rug out from under them simply because we have a dispute between the legislative and the executive branches?

I think the President should have come to this Chamber, too, but he didn't. Yet the wrong thing to do is to pull funding, and the right thing to do is to give him the authorization to go into Libya. A slaughter almost occurred, and we were able to stop it by our presence there. The vote we take in the House today will have implications far beyond our shores and far into the future. Finally, I am reminded of a quote by George Washington, in which he states, ``Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth.''

I support this resolution and would urge all my colleagues to do the same. In doing so, we will be supporting the planting of freedom and liberty in the Middle East.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

America is a beacon of light around the world. At a time when many were cowering in their house wondering if this genocide that Qadhafi was bringing to their doorstep would come tomorrow or the next day, American fighters came in and pressed Qadhafi's forces back and pushed him back into Tripoli.

America has stood for the side of freedom in this Arab Spring. America has stood for people that don't have a voice for themselves. Don't let a dispute between the legislative branch and the executive branch result in us pulling the rug out from standing up for freedom. America has a responsibility to finish this through, to stand with our allies.

To leave now means Qadhafi wins, period. I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.