Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we have a national debt of more than $14.2 trillion, and our unfunded obligations dwarf even that number. Each American taxpayer's share of our national debt is $128,000 and rising.

Our Nation is broke. The Federal Government has maxed out its credit card. This House is listening to the American people, and we've put forth multiple plans to try to get our fiscal house in order, but Harry Reid and President Obama are still not listening.

The clock is ticking; and because of their inaction, we are hours away from a potential government shutdown. Now, they'll deny that this fiscal crisis has been caused by their failed policies, but Americans are too smart to fall for that.

Americans want the tools to grow the economy instead of growing government. So when making spending decisions, we should ask two simple questions in this House: How much does it cost? And who's going to pay for it? If we can't afford it and the American taxpayers are going to foot the bill, gentlemen, ladies, let's vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, the work ethic of the people of my district gives me great optimism despite the daily reminders that our Nation teeters on the edge of bankruptcy.

Individual Americans are rich in spirit, tradition, and innovation; but as a country, we're broke, all because the Federal Government has maxed out its credit card. This House is listening to the American people, and we have passed legislation representing significant spending cuts of historic proportions.

But Harry Reid and the President are not listening. Instead, they are threatening to shut down the government. Now they'll try to shift the blame and deny that America's economic problems are the result of their failed policies.

I believe America is ready for some tough spending decisions. We must give Americans the tools to grow the economy instead of growing government. I hope my fellow colleagues will join me in asking two questions when any spending bill comes before this House: How much is it going to cost? And who is going to pay for it? And if we can't afford it, and if the American taxpayer is going to foot the bill, we should be voting a resounding ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 186, I recall voting on the entire series in this voting session. I was standing with Rep. Renacci (OH-16), and we both voted the entire series. We both used the same voting machine, and he was also flagged as a missed vote.

I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, in my nearly 27 years in the United States Air Force, I learned that one of the most critical elements necessary to overcome a determined enemy is the element of surprise. Based on my experience and the proven battle-tested history of the many successful conflicts that our Nation has endured over the years, I must stand in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 28.

Surprise is a tactical element best determined by field commanders based on battlefield conditions. As such, decisions on troop movements should be made by commanders in the field, not politicians in Washington. Should this bill pass, we give up the element of surprise, we break the trust and relationship we have built with the Afghan people and our allies, and the sacrifice of our young men and women in uniform would be meaningless if we simply walk away.

General Petraeus said, ``The Taliban and al Qaeda obviously would trumpet this as a victory, as a success. Needless to say, it would completely undermine everything that our troopers have fought so much for and sacrificed so much for.''

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, you have heard it said many times: Energy is jobs. Energy is jobs.

We have a wealth of resources in our Nation: oil, natural gas, and coal. Yet we see gas prices rising to unbelievable rates here in America, approaching, in many places, in excess of $4 a gallon. And what are we doing about it? Not very much. We've got a permitting process that is failing America. And we have an opportunity today to show America just how bad that problem is.

Later today, I'm going to be introducing a bill called the ROAD to Jobs Act. It stands for regulatory openness, accountability, and disclosure. And we are going to show the American people, through a report that is going to be required from the Council on Environmental Quality, just how flawed that permitting process is, requiring them to show the permits that are in cycle and what the economic implications are of not authorizing permits to go after America's resources.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government Accountability Office released a report detailing billions of dollars of waste in the Federal Government. Redundant and ineffective programs infect the government like a plague. For too long, Congress has punted on its responsibility to rein in wasteful spending. And when I read this report, I had the same feeling as my constituents did. I hated it.

According to the report, there are 15 agencies implementing Federal laws on food safety. There are 80 different programs and numerous agencies that work on economic development, 24 Federal agencies for information technology, and 82 programs dealing with teacher quality across multiple agencies. What is this costing us? Billions. Who's paying for it? You guessed it, the American taxpayer.

The American taxpayers' dollars are being wasted by keeping these redundant programs on the books. We should immediately begin looking at ways to eliminate redundancy, stop wasting billions of tax dollars, and allow hardworking Americans to keep more of what they earn.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would stop the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation and Enforcement from going forward with a proposed revision to the stream buffer rule that could, according to the Obama administration's own analysis, eliminate up to 29,000 coal industry and industry-related jobs, cut coal mining production by 50 percent, and increase the cost of electricity for families and businesses.

In December 2008, OSM issued a clarification of the stream buffer zone rules after a 5-year process that included 40,000 public comments, two proposed rules, and 5,000 pages of environmental analysis from five different agencies.

The final rule clarified and codified coal surface mining practices that had been in effect for over 30 years, but an entry in the Federal Registry from June 2009 shows that early in the first days of the Obama administration, the decision was made to reopen the carefully crafted and properly vetted stream buffer zone rule. The proposed sweeping regulatory action would radically alter the definition of a stream as well as how the agency measures material damage outside of the permit area. To date, the agency has provided no studies, no data or support to justify these radical changes.

Given the complete lack of justification, analysis, or rationale for these proposed changes, it can be said that this is a political decision and not one based on science or fact, and this flies in the face of the administration's pledge to base rulemaking decisions on science and not on political factors.

Furthermore, several States have expressed serious concerns about the need and justification for the proposal. Mr. Chairman, the unemployment rate in my home State of Ohio is 9.6 percent. In parts of eastern and southeastern Ohio that I represent, we have double-digit unemployment. The average unemployment in the 12 counties I represent is 10.9 percent. There are entire communities that depend largely on the coal industry, both for direct and indirect jobs, and these jobs would be threatened by this proposed rules change.

To be clear, my amendment does not stop the issuance of permits nor does it prevent OSM, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the EPA from their regulatory responsibilities. My amendment would simply prohibit any funding to be spent on developing, carrying out, or implementing this ill-conceived proposed job-killing rule.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support my amendment to stop the Obama administration from going forward with a regulation that will result in thousands of hardworking Americans losing their jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to take this opportunity to remind, the rule was reclarified in a 5-year process that ended back in 2008, and now the current administration wants to reopen that rule and redo it completely in just a matter of months, with no science, no data to support it and no justification. And I would remind my colleague that the only reason, the number one reason for passing this amendment is for the up to 29,000 jobs that it is potentially going to save.

Offered By: Mr. Johnson of Ohio

Amendment No. 498: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Johnson of Ohio

Amendment No. 219: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Johnson of Ohio

Amendment No. 220: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 72. For too long, the EPA, the Department of the Interior, and other permitting agencies have held vitally important energy projects hostage to their unreasonable job-killing demands.

In eastern and southeastern Ohio, our unemployment rates are among the highest in the State, and we are falling behind the rest of the Nation. But we are blessed with an abundance of natural resources that we could tap into to create thousands of high-paying jobs and economic opportunity, if the government would simply get out of the way.

Over the last week, I met with my constituents at three town hall meetings, and there was one message that came through loud and clear: Get the government out of the way so we can get back on the right economic track.

Right now, there is a company that wants to invest $6 billion in eastern Ohio for a clean energy project that would turn coal to liquid while capturing 85 percent of all carbon dioxide produced. This project would create at least 2,500 direct jobs that would help revitalize the local economy. But at each and every turn, Federal regulators have moved the goalposts, making it more and more difficult for this project to get off the ground.

Mr. Speaker, eastern and southeastern Ohio cannot afford to lose the jobs this project would create. We can't afford for the company to call it quits due to what can only be described as Federal harassment.

It is time that the Federal Government gets out of the way so we can unleash our natural resources, both onshore and offshore, to create high-paying jobs and put us on the road to energy independence. We have got to get serious, Mr. Speaker, about our energy future.

I encourage my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Well, Mr. Speaker, and to my distinguished colleague from Missouri, thank you so very much for the opportunity to be here. You're exactly right, and you've pointed it out so well. We have a disease here in Washington, and that disease is called ``overspending.'' And it is, by and large, what has brought us economically to where we are today. And the debt that we see is the symptom of that disease.

It's amazing to me how many in D.C., how many in the administration and in the previous Congress, really believe that we can borrow, tax, and spend our way back to prosperity. As a businessman, as a graduate from a business school--I have a minor in business administration--I don't think that there is a business theory in place that says that you can prosper that way.

That's right. You know, that kind of thinking has never been good for families. It has never been good for businesses, and it certainly is not good for America. We see where that has left us. Your charts point out that we are on the path to a train wreck here. Yet we see policies

consistently coming out of the administration and out of the previous Congress that continue to punish the job creators.

Take Ohio for example. Since the giant stimulus bill was passed in the previous session of Congress, only three States have lost more jobs than the State I come from, from the great State of Ohio. Unemployment in the district that I represent is another symptom of that disease. We cannot continue down this track of spending and borrowing and punishing job creators and expect America to pull through this economic crisis that we find ourselves in.

Thanks.

You hit the nail on the head. We are punishing the job creators. I mentioned in Ohio, only three States have lost more jobs since that stimulus bill went into effect. Now, I don't know the exact number today, but in November, around election time, Ohio had lost over 400,000 jobs.

Absolutely. Absolutely.

And here is what puzzles me: I don't understand why more don't realize that when you let families and businesses keep more of their hard-earned money, that builds economic confidence. That builds buying power. They invest. They spend more. That's what gets an economy going. They begin to become innovative.

Let me give you an example. Ohio borders on a State that has no sales tax on clothing. One of the first things I saw when I started looking at how I could help the State of Ohio was: How can we keep that sales tax revenue in the State of Ohio? So we started doing the research. We found out that 17 States have sales tax holiday programs.

So I built a grassroots effort to put a sales tax holiday program in place in Ohio. Without going into excruciating detail, having a sales tax holiday around back-to-school time and a sales tax holiday around Christmastime promised to bring upwards of $250 million in additional sales tax revenue into the State coffer, keep retail jobs, and let Ohio families keep more of their money. It was amazing what that program would do. Yet we could not get those on the other side of the aisle in Ohio to understand that and to buy into that concept. It is a simple economic concept.

Absolutely.

No, I was not. I built a grassroots effort to try to address that problem. We were successful in getting a bill introduced into the Ohio State Legislature to put those sales tax programs in place, but it never made it through the system.

Well, you've made so many points there.

I'm a businessman. After my military career, I founded two small businesses. Before I came to Congress, I was the chief information officer for a business, a global manufacturing company; and I sat at the table with our executive leadership team, and we talked about how do we increase the value to our shareholders; how do we make our company more profitable; how do we put ourselves in a position to be able to invest and grow.

There are two sides to that formula.

On one side, you've got spending. On the other side, you've got revenue. There is a balancing act. Controlling spending, we've talked about. We've got to stop the out-of-control spending here in Washington, and we're going to address that in this Congress.

But how do we increase the revenue? That is what you've been talking about here for the last few minutes. And you're exactly right, it does not come through tax increases; it comes through letting Americans and businesses keep more of their money because that builds economic buying power, that builds confidence. They invest; they spend.

Now when we did our research on the sales tax holiday back in 2009, what we learned is there were 17 States that had already implemented a sales tax holiday which validated the concept that you just referred to. Take one State, for example, implemented their sales tax holiday in the very first year. In the month that they implemented that sales tax holiday they saw an overall--now there were adversaries that said you can't take that sales tax revenue out of the coffer at a time when we are struggling to meet the State budget. Fortunately, sound minds prevailed and they were able to get the bill through. And in the month that they passed that bill and they had that sales tax holiday, their overall sales tax revenues did not decline; they went up nearly 5 percent.

That's right.

Well, what it was, it eliminated sales tax on certain items like back-to-school items, things that people had to have to get their kids back in school, to put them in college and those kinds of things--clothing, school supplies, computers. For example, many States included computers in those sales tax holidays.

Over the next year, they saw another nearly 5 percent increase in the overall sales tax revenues. By the third year, they saw a nearly 8 percent increase in sales tax revenues. And over a 3-year period, they were looking at close to 20 percent overall sales tax revenue increases over that 3-year period.

Because what happened was when people got a tax break on things that they had to have, they would channel those savings into buying things that they wanted to have and that they had been saving up for with their families. And other States started coming across the border to take advantage of that holiday. It's a simple concept that we need others to understand: when you let families and businesses keep more of their money and you put the decision about how they spend that money in their hands, America prospers.

Well, you hit the nail on the head again. National defense is our number one priority; it has to be. In fact, the oath of office that you and I took on January 5, virtually the same oath of office that the President takes, it says that we swore or affirmed to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. That requirement to provide for the national defense is the number one most important thing that we in the Congress, in the administration are required to do, keep America safe, keep America free, protect Americans and American interests around the world.

There is no question that we must invest in those programs that are going to support our troops in the field. And I agree with you that we must look at the proper balance between defense spending and other spending to make sure that we achieve what we have been charged by the American people to do.

Well, I often ask my constituents, what is our number one job? What is the President's number one job? Is it to keep us safe, or is it to keep us free? And of course you get a number of different hands being raised. In my opinion, based on the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the President's--and therefore the Congress'--number one responsibility is to keep us free, because if we are not free, we will never be truly safe.

And safety is obviously pretty close on the same level. And they play into one another. But our national defense, flowing down from our national security strategy, our national strategy, that's paramount.

I wanted to comment on what you said and what the gentleman here said about what makes America great.

When people stop to consider that this little sapling of a Nation in terms of age, 230-plus years old, virtually--and we're a baby compared to many of the other nations in the world--yet every modern convenience, virtually every modern convenience known to mankind was birthed right here in this country. And why was that? It was because of that system of free enterprise based on individual freedom. The ability to pursue our dreams, the ability to innovate that created this free enterprise system that we've come to know.

It did not come about in the Halls of Congress. It was not discovered in the deliberation rooms of courtrooms.

It was discovered around the campfires and around the dining room tables, the kitchen tables, the fields, the factories. As America came along, we learned when individuals are allowed to pursue their dreams in an environment of freedom without an oppressive Federal Government taxing them into oblivion, everybody wins. America wins, our allies win, everybody wins.

I will just sum up with this, because I think you have hit the nail on the head. We can cure this disease. It's called stopping the out-of-control spending. And at every opportunity, we should seek ways to allow American families and American businesses to keep more of their hard-earned money. That's going to result in economic confidence. That's going to result in investment. That's going to result in increased consumer confidence, and it's going to increase and create jobs, and we know that.

I urge my colleagues--I thank you for this time, and I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting the legislation and those policies that are going to accomplish those goals: cutting the spending, letting Americans keep more of their hard-earned money, and ultimately creating jobs and putting America back to work. And I want to thank you for the opportunity today.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today we're debating the repeal of economically damaging legislation that punishes job creators and does nothing to control rising health care costs. We can't afford the $1.2 trillion price tag on the government takeover of health care while our national debt stands at $14 trillion.

Today, we can right a serious wrong and still achieve the goals we share, like ensuring access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans; real health care reforms that control costs; and ensuring that Americans with preexisting conditions get the care they need at a price they can afford.

In my district in eastern and southeastern Ohio, more than 26,000 senior citizens currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage are at risk of losing this program because of the $200 billion in cuts to Medicare required by this job-destroying health care law.

Later today we will vote to repeal the government takeover giving us the opportunity to start over and enact real patient-focused health care reforms.

Mr. Speaker, while this is my first opportunity to address the House, it won't be my last. The people of eastern and southeastern Ohio sent me here to be their voice, and I intend to be that voice. On their behalf, I will speak out--loud and clear--on the issues that matter to the working people of my district.

People sent me here for one primary reason: They think Congress has lost its way. And my constituents gave me a map they want us to use to get back on the right path. It's a simple map, drawn in bold, unmistakable strokes. Americans want us to be true to our founding principles, and the roads are open for all. But there are no shortcuts for special interests.

But, most of all, this roadmap was made in America and paid for upfront. That's how our spending must be. We owe it to taxpayers to disclose what our votes will cost and be clear about how they're paid for.

And, finally, Mr. Speaker, the map my citizens gave me leads in one very clear direction--toward economic recovery for every American. That's the way I'm headed. And I will cast my votes here with that in mind.

Section 3: ``He shall from time to time give the Congress information of the state of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them.''