Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ted Williams, the last baseball player to hit .400 or better for a season, a feat he accomplished 70 years ago this very month, September 1941, which has never been equaled. Ted wasn't just a remarkable baseball player; he was a remarkable American who also served his country as a Marine Corps pilot in World War II and the Korean War.

Ted Williams once said: ``A man has to have goals--for a day, for a lifetime--and that was mine, to have people say, `There goes Ted Williams, the greatest hitter who ever lived.' ''

Not only did he have a goal, but he also harnessed the determination and hard work necessary to succeed. Today I honor a man who was a friend, a constituent and a great American on the anniversary of his greatest achievement. He will always be remembered as baseball's greatest hitter.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ocala's own Army National Guard Captain Thomas Harper of the 20th Special Forces Group (Airborne).

Captain Harper and the 2nd Battalion, 20th Special Forces unit successfully provided security assistance for the French Foreign Legion in the Uzbeen Valley -of Afghanistan.

He was among those soldiers separated from their unit by a mortar blast causing shrapnel to injure four of the five American soldiers and exposed to enemy fire.

Despite their injuries, Captain Harper and his comrades moved the severely injured to safety and repelled the attack for more than an hour until air support and medic helicopters arrived.

Captain Harper was among five National Guards and one active duty Special Forces soldiers honored with the French Croix de la Valeur Militaire (French Cross of Military Valor), an honor rarely bestowed on any soldier, especially those who are not French.

I join his family, Dr. Wayne Harper, Debbie Harper and sisters Chrissy and Lauren in sharing great pride in the accomplishments of this great American. For their bravery, I rise today Mr. Speaker to honor Captain Thomas Harper and his comrades for their service, and for the unwavering dedication shown to their country.

Mr. Speaker, my flight was delayed on July 25, 2011 and I was unable to cast my vote on rollcall vote Nos. 630 and 631. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both.

It's been said before that the United States Government owes close to $14.3 trillion. An estimate by the CBO reveals that by the year 2021, the government will spend 100 percent of every dollar in revenue on entitlements. Simply raising the debt limit to $16.3 trillion without comparable spending reduction is irresponsible at best and catastrophic for our Nation at worse.

Forcing our Nation's spiraling and out-of-control debt onto the backs of our country's children and grandchildren is irresponsible. Comparable spending reductions would be in the amount of at least $2 trillion. But as that does not even cover the interest on the debt, a $4 trillion spending reduction would be appropriate; and that's what we should be working on.

Today we must ask ourselves, Is this blessed country of ours disciplined enough to solve the debt problem through austerity and productivity? I think we can. I believe we can. But only if we break from the tradition of spending and raising our debt limit. Instead, we must pass H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 561 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, today the United States Government owes close to $14.3 trillion. It's estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that by the year 2021, the government will spend 100 percent of every dollar raised in revenue on entitlements. And yet we are being asked to raise the debt limit to $16.3 trillion. That's a $2 trillion increase, or 14 percent increase. In 2010, our national GDP was $14.6 trillion. Raising the debt to $16.3 trillion means our debt ceiling will surpass our country's GDP.

And yet for the 81st time since 1940, we are being asked again to raise the debt ceiling. In 2002, our debt stood at $6.2 trillion. Now, not even 10 years later, we are asked to raise it to $16.2 trillion. That's a 250 percent increase, or an average of 16.7 percent increase per year. Obviously, continuing on this path next year, it is likely we will be asked in this Chamber to raise the debt ceiling to $19 trillion. That's staggering.

In keeping with this 70-year tradition, we are certain to force our Nation's spiraling and out-of-control debt onto the backs of our country's children and grandchildren. Raising the debt ceiling today without reform will merely lead to a new call, a new call to raise the debt again tomorrow.

Is the United States disciplined enough to solve this debt problem through austerity and productivity? I think it is. Yet I believe we can, but only if we break this tradition of continued spending.

Now recently a constituent of mine wrote a simple letter to the editor of my hometown paper and this what is he said: ``If you and your wife haven't made a budget for the last 2 years, and now you have maxed-out the $14,300 credit limit on your Visa card, do you: A, expect Visa to raise your limit to $16,700; B, print counterfeit money to cover your debts; C, borrow more money; or, D, sell the Cadillac.''

Responsible Americans would sell the Cadillac. It's time for the Federal Government to do the same thing: reduce spending or sell unneeded assets.

We must begin to closely scrutinize our bills and eliminate wasteful and fraudulent programs, sunset some of them. As we negotiate the upcoming vote on the debt ceiling, we should ensure that any cut in spending exceeds any increase in the debt limit. Selling the Cadillac is meaningless when you continue to max out on your credit card. The point here is to make a difference in our debt, not to merely provide a vehicle to continue Washington's spending addiction.

Moreover, any future spending must be restricted. We cannot sell the Cadillac this year only to buy a Mercedes Benz next year. Again, we must begin to live within our means.

I know that leadership is working tirelessly to ensure that a compromise can be reached and the Republicans' demands can be met, and it appears we are making progress.

But, the President has in one breath asked both parties to leave their rhetoric at the door, but then in the same next breath he accused Republicans of refusing to cut tax loopholes for the rich in order to curb the debt problem. But that alone won't do it. Beyond being contradictory and self-serving, these accusations demonstrate that Democrats continue to misunderstand the real problem. CBO has nailed it. They recently revealed that it is runaway spending, not a lack of revenue, that is driving our debt today. According to CBO's long-term budget forecast, even with a tax increase that raises revenues from its historic 18 percent of GDP to 23 percent of GDP, the national debt will continue to grow unless we have the spending reductions.

Everyone here in Congress understands how important this vote is, but surely after the CBO analysis, we must confront the fact that spending is growing relentlessly and needs to be placed under control. Therefore, to move the debt ceiling up another $2 trillion, we need to see corresponding spending reductions regardless--regardless--without tax increases. Now is the time to do it. It can be done. And it must be done today.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. Basically, I am taking 16 million, not billion, $16 million from a part of the Department of Defense budget, which is called defense-wide appropriations, where there's almost 20 billion. So I'm asking to take roughly .0008, or .08 percent, from this defense-wide appropriations which is used for other than military departments. So it is not even applicable to the Army, Navy, and Air Force, not the military departments, but it is used by the Secretary of Defense for the maintenance, lease, and operation of facilities and equipment. And what I'm doing is taking this $16 million and I'm transferring it to the Peer-Reviewed Prostate Cancer Research Program.

Funding levels, my colleagues, for this program, has gone down dramatically since 2001. Right now, it's funded at $64 million. It was funded in 2001 at 100. It has continually come down and down and down. So I'm not asking to take it up to the 2001 level; I'm just asking to take it up to perhaps what it was in 2005.

I think, without going into all of the details, this is a very wise move because funding levels for this program have continually decreased, yet prostate cancer is the second-leading cause of male cancer-related death in the United States, with an estimated 27,360 casualties just last year. There are no noticeable symptoms in early stages. The use of widespread testing, however, has led to 9 out of 10 cases of early detection. That is why this very paltry amount of $16 million in funding would be better spent for prostate cancer research for our military than abroad.

According to the Prostate Cancer Research Program, the PCRP, active duty males are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer than their civilian counterparts. Research funded by the PCRP advances treatment and procedures for warfighters exposed to chemical weapons, soldiers exposed to chemical agents such as Agent Orange, and those exposed to depleted uranium. Congress has consistently supported funding levels of over $80 million annually for this important cause, yet it is only funded at $64 million.

The PCRP funds innovative high-risk, high-reward research projects supporting basic and clinical research in both the individual and multidisciplinary collaborative group setting. Funding for the PCRP enables research to advance faster and to be better prepared to apply for future funding from the National Institute of Health or to advance clinical trials. Unlike any

other Federal cancer research programs, any other, the PCRP award review panels are made up of the country's top researchers and prostate cancer survivors, together making sure that innovative ideas rapidly benefit all men and families burdened by this disease.

In 2010, the PCRP, along with the Clinical Consortium, helped shepherd two new drugs through clinical trials. Both drugs are designed to prolong a man's life with prostate cancer. These drugs moved through the clinical trials process and have made their way to the bedside of men dying from prostate cancer to extend their lives. This public- private partnership is an incredible way to maximize productivity of government funded and privately funded medical research.

So I ask my colleagues to support my simple amendment to transfer $16 million from defense-wide appropriation, which is other than military which they use presently for maintenance, lease, operational facilities and equipment, and it represents a 0.08 percent reduction of this other military-wide funding.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I include the letter to me regarding the Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Research Program from the Prostate Cancer Foundation for the Record.

Prostate Cancer Foundation,

Santa Monica, CA, July 6, 2011.

Hon. Cliff Stearns,

House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Stearns: Founded in 1993, the Prostate

Cancer Foundation (PCF) has raised more than $450 million to

fund more than 1,500 prostate cancer research programs at

nearly 200 research centers in 12 countries. Our research

enterprise aims to improve prostate cancer prevention,

diagnosis, and treatment for the more than 16 million men and

their families battling prostate cancer worldwide. PCF also

serves as a primary source for new standard-of-care and

research information.

Prostate cancer poses a substantial public health burden in

America. A total of 240,890 new cases of prostate cancer and

33,720 deaths from the disease are anticipated in the United

States in 2011, making it the most frequent nondermatologic

cancer among U.S. males. A man's lifetime risk of prostate

cancer is one in six. Prostate cancer is the second leading

cause of cancer death in men, exceeded only by lung cancer.

At this time, the Prostate Cancer Foundation would like to

express our strong support for increasing the $64 million

provided for the Department of Defense's Prostate Cancer

Research Program (DoD PCRP) by the fiscal year 2012 Defense

Appropriations Act, H.R. 2219 by an additional $16 million.

Without this addition, the 20% decrease from the fiscal year

2011 $80 million appropriation would effectively return the

DoD PCRP funding level to what it was ten years ago. This

decrease will mean that we lose hundreds of thousands of

American lives to lethal prostate cancer in the next few

years.

In a unique public-private partnership with the Prostate

Cancer Foundation, the Department of Defense Prostate Cancer

Research Program co-sponsors the Prostate Cancer Clinical

Trials Network (PCCTC), which is the world's most

comprehensive ``first in man'' phase I/II clinical trials

group for prostate cancer composed of 13 Centers of

Excellence in genitourinary oncology. The Consortium has

helped to bring to market 2 new medicines for men with

advanced prostate cancer that were approved by the FDA in

2010-11: namely, XGEVATM (denosumab)--Amgen Inc.

and ZYTIGATM (abiraterone acetate)--Johnson &

Johnson. More than 2,700 patients have had access to 83

clinical trials since 2005 through the Department of

Defense's sponsorship of this Consortium.

Since 1997, when the DoD PCRP was initiated, about $1.1

billion has been appropriated by Congress and used to fund

more than 2,000 prostate cancer research studies across the

U.S. Since 2006, this program has been funded at $80 million

per year. The Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Research

Program is America's leading undiluted support to find and

fund the best prostate cancer research. The research funded

by DoD PCRP has led to many dramatic improvements in our

Nation's prostate health, from decreases in deaths due to

prostate cancer to increased life expectancy for men facing

terminal diagnoses.

Today, continued life-saving progress for prostate cancer

patients is threatened because of the possibility of

decreased funding through the Department of Defense Prostate

Cancer Research Program. The funding for the Department of

Defense Prostate Cancer Research Program is not duplicative

with funding at the National Cancer Institute. While PCF

understands and appreciates the budgetary constraints

currently facing our Nation, PCF also believes that advances

in prostate cancer research must remain a very high national

priority.

Critical funding is needed in order to maintain clinical

and translational research that will lead to the development

of new cancer therapies and technologies that will help

prostate cancer patients. On behalf the Prostate Cancer

Foundation, our Board of Directors, and the two million men

and their families battling prostate cancer in America, I

urge you to restore funding for the Department of Defense

Prostate Cancer Research Program at $80 million per year in

fiscal year 2012.

Thank you for your careful consideration of this important

request.

Sincerely,

Jonathan W. Simons, MD,

President and Chief Executive Officer.

David H. Koch,

Chair.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman from Washington.

Oftentimes, I give him an amendment which he has very little time to look at. Again this happened, but I am very pleased he is supporting my amendment.

With that, obviously I will not call for a vote. I appreciate the appropriators supporting my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me just briefly say, this is a very simple amendment. It takes the Center for Tobacco Products back to the 2009 level. Now all of you should realize, this agency never existed in 2006. There have been prodigious increases in this center. We are taking the funding for this Center for Tobacco Products back to the 2009 level.

Now under the President's plan, the budget for the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products has simply exploded. The administration's budget justification to Congress states, ``FDA is experiencing an unprecedented and dramatic surge in staffing and facility needs that will cause FDA facility requirements to exceed the scope of the 2009 master plan.''

I understand that. The FDA is expanding, does good work. I'm not criticizing it.

But one area of the FDA's budget that is growing way too fast under this administration's budget is the brand-new Center for Tobacco Products. Again, this agency, this center did not exist in 2006.

In the FY 2012 Agriculture appropriations legislation reported by the committee, it continues the trend of major discretionary spending reduction sought by the Republican majority. This same fiscal restraint should be applied to the Center for Tobacco Products. We're talking about appropriation levels going back to 2006, 2009, 2010. So all I'm asking is let's move this back to 2009.

An FY 2012 budget that was requested by the FDA's Tobacco Act was $454 million, an increase of $238 million from fiscal year 2010 enacted levels of $235 million. So think of that: in 1 year it practically doubled, 110 percent increase.

Now, this is when we have a deficit, $1.5 trillion every year, and we have a debt that's approaching $15 trillion.

If we look at FY 2009, an $85 million funding, from the fiscal year 2009 there's been a 500 percent increase in this new Center for Tobacco Products.

Tobacco regulation, obviously, is a new program at the FDA. They have been just champing at the bit over there for the last 25 years to be involved with the regulation of cigarettes and everything like that. They want to regulate tobacco, and I think, frankly, you know, the House voted for it. I accept that.

But we don't need to increase from 2009 up to what we're looking at, these large increases. We've got to return some of these increases to the debt and to the deficit. So a 500 percent increase in a budget is way too large. I suggest that funding should continue at the 2009 levels.

We are rolling back funding for many other programs, and it's proper to ensure that FDA also bears some of the burden during some of these most austere budgetary times.

Now, all of us know that smoking is bad. And the question is, what is the FDA doing through this Center for Tobacco Products? It's not clear to me, but do they have to increase over the years almost 500 percent?

Reducing their funding to fiscal year 2009 levels will be a restraint and will give the authorizing committee a chance to review the FDA regulations and review how the FDA plans to implement the law. I simply want to ensure that the FDA does not overreach with their authority, and ensure that it is using the best approach to ensure that tobacco harm is reduced. We all want to see it reduced.

But the question, we all have to take a sacrifice--doesn't the Center for Tobacco Products also have to contribute? There's no reason for it to have over these years a 500 percent increase.

And so, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a modest attempt to try and save money. It's quite a substantial amount of money for a good cause, which is reducing our deficit, our debt. In the long term, let the FDA and this new Center for Tobacco Products move forward, but not at these chomping, prodigious, gargantuan increases because they felt that it's catch-up time. I mean, every agency down here can come and say it's catch-up time. But obviously, under this economy and under this huge deficit, we cannot continue to look at agencies like this over this period of time getting a 500 percent increase in funding.

So I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, in March of 2006, then-Senator Obama was on the Senate floor and this is what he said: ``The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that `the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.''

But now, Mr. Speaker, a few short years later, President Obama now takes the opposite approach, calling for an increase in the debt limit and threatening doom otherwise. President Obama has failed to send to Congress a budget that would realistically solve our Nation's financial problems. He calls for plans that spend too much and borrow too much and tax too much. When Congress reasonably rejected his plan and proposed a budget with responsible cuts, he turned to political rhetoric rather than meaningful discussions. So, at a time when our Nation must address a fiscal crisis, our President has offered no real solution and has politicized the issue. What we have today more than ever before is a sign of leadership failure, back to his original speech when he was a Senator. America deserves better.

So today, with the debt ceiling already $5.3 trillion higher, higher, than the level President Obama objected to raising 5 years ago, he now asks us to raise it again for the 81st time since 1940. We all know this famous quote that defines insanity as doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. If we actually want to solve today's problems, we must depart from the insane 70-year tradition of just continuing to spend. If we do not delve into the real spending problems today, we will have this same debate a year later, 3, 5, 10 years later from now, and will again be urged to raise the debt limit or face a financial catastrophe.

The United States Government already owes more than $14 trillion. Less talked about is the Federal Government faces another $114 trillion in unfunded liabilities for Social Security and for Medicare. An estimate by the Congressional Budget Office reveals that by the year 2025, the government will spend 100 percent of every dollar in revenue on entitlements. And Federal debt aside, State and local governments face a combined $3 trillion coupled with their own unfunded liabilities in the form of pensions.

Forcing the government to live within its means is the only solution. Just as a family household does it when it reaches its spending limits, we must begin to closely scrutinize our bills and decide where there is unnecessary waste. When families seek to decrease their utility bills, they remember to turn off lights when they leave a room. We must begin doing this as well. Wasteful, fraudulent programs must be turned off and long-term programs such as Medicare and Social Security must be addressed seriously today. Debt must be paid down instead of piled on.

Although the President, the Senate leader, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury believe the worst thing that could happen to all of us is that we default on August 2, I believe that the worst thing that could happen for Congress to do is to fail to couple the increased debt limit with meaningful spending cuts. Once again, the private sector has affirmed this. On June 11, 2011, 150 economists called for immediate spending cuts to help support job growth in a letter to Speaker John Boehner, which I would like to have placed in the Record.

A Debt Limit Increase Without Significant Spending Cuts and Budget

Reforms Will Destroy American Jobs

An increase in the national debt limit that is not

accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms

to address our government's spending addiction will harm

private-sector job creation in America. It is critical that

any debt limit legislation enacted by Congress include

spending cuts and reforms that are greater than the

accompanying increase in debt authority being granted to the

president. We will not succeed in balancing the federal

budget and overcoming the challenges of our debt until we

succeed in committing ourselves to government policies that

allow our economy to grow. An increase in the national debt

limit that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts

and budget reforms would harm private-sector job growth and

represent a tremendous setback in the effort to deal with our

national debt.

Ryan C. Amacher, University of Texas at Arlington; Michael

Applegate, Oklahoma State University; King Banaian, St. Cloud

State University; Stacie Beck, University of Delaware; John

Bethune, Barton College; Scott Bradford, Brigham Young

University; Phillip J. Bryson, University of Wisconsin-

Madison; Oral Capps, Jr., Texas A&M University; James E.

Carter, Emerson Electric Co.; Robert E. Chatfield, University

of Nevada, Las Vegas; Kenneth W. Clarkson, University of

Miami; John P. Cochran, Metropolitan State College of Denver;

Charles W. Baird, California State University, East Bay;

Bruce Bender, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; Donald R.

Booth, Chapman University; Michael Boskin, Stanford

University; David A. Brat, Randolph-Macon College; David P.

Brown, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Todd G. Buchholz, Two

Oceans Management; Samantha Carrington, California State

University.

Don Chance, Louisiana State University; Candice Clark,

Economic Consultant; R. Morris Coats, Nicholls State

University; John F. Cogan, Hoover Institution; Robert

Collinge, University of Texas at San Antonio; Kathleen B.

Cooper, Southern Methodist University; Nicole Crain,

Lafayette University; Robert Crouch, University of

California, Santa Barbara; Coldwell Daniel III, The

University of Memphis; J. Ronnie Davis, University of New

Orleans; Ted Day, University of Texas at Dallas; Arthur T.

Denzau, Claremont Graduate University; Nasser Duella,

California State University, Fullerton; Joseph W. Duncan,

Private Consultant on Information Policy; Frank Egan, Trinity

College; Dorla A. Evans, University of Alabama--Huntsville;

Frank Falero, California State University; Layton W. Franko,

Queens College; Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Hudson Institute; Dave

Garthoff, The University of Akron--Akron, Ohio.

Gerald Gay, Georgia State University; Cathleen J. Coolidge,

California State University, Chico; Mike Cosgrove, University

of Dallas; Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr., Competitive Enterprise

Institute; Robert Dammon, Carnegie Mellon University; Antony

Davies, Duquesne University; Stephen J. Dempsey, University

of Vermont; Phoebus J. Dhrymes, Columbia University; Floyd H.

Duncan, Virginia Military Institute; John Eckalbar,

California State University; John B. Egger, Towson

University; Dino Falaschetti, Florida State Law; Michelle

Michot Foss, University of Texas; Michele Fratianni, Indiana

University; Delworth B. Gardner, Brigham Young University;

James R. Garven, Baylor University; Robert Genetski,

classicalprinciples.com; Micha Gisser, University of New

Mexico; Joseph A. Giacalone, St. John's University, NY; David

Gillette, Truman State University.

Marvin Goodfriend, Carnegie Mellon University; Richard L.

Gordon, The Pennsylvania State University; Richard J. Grant,

Lipscomb University; Earl L. Grinols, Baylor University; Eric

A. Hanushek, Hoover Institution; Joseph H. Haslag, University

of Missouri; Joel Hay, University of Southern California;

David R. Henderson, Hoover Institution; Douglas Holtz-Eakin,

American Action Forum; Chris Inama, Golden State University;

Stephen Jackstadt, University of Alaska, Anchorage; Gerald R.

Jensen, Northern Illinois University; Jerry L. Jordan,

Pacific Academy for Advanced Studies; Alexander Katkov,

Johnson & Wales University; Richard LaNear, Missouri Southern

State University; Lawrence Goodman, Center for Financial

Stability, Inc.; Ed Graham, University of North Carolina at

Wilmington; Paul Gregory, University of Houston; Dennis

Halcoussis, California State University, Northridge; Stephen

Happel, Arizona State University.

Kevin Hassett, American Enterprise Institute; Bob Heidt,

Indiana University--Bloomington; John P. Hoehn, Michigan

State University; C. Thomas Howard, University of Denver; F.

Owen Irvine, Michigan State University; Joseph M. Jadlow,

Oklahoma State University; Ryan S. Johnson, BYU-Idaho; June

O'Neill, Baruch College, CUNY; Marek Kolar, Trine University;

Corinne Krupp, Duke University; Norman Lefton, Southern

Illinois University, Edwardsville; Larry Lindsey, The Lindsey

Group; Jane Lillydahl, University of Colorado at Boulder; R.

Ashley Lyman, University of Idaho; David Malpass, Encima

Global; Henry Manne, George Mason University; Timothy

Mathews, Kennesaw State University; Roger Meiners,

University of Texas-Arlington; James C. Miller III, Hoover

Institution; Ed Miseta, Penn State Erie, The Behrend

College.

Andrew P. Morriss, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa; John

E. Murray, University of Toledo; George R. Neumann,

University of Iowa; Seth W. Norton, Wheaton College; James B.

O'Neill, University of Delaware; Svetozar Pejovich, Texas A&M

University; Ivan Pongracic, Jr., Hillsdale College; John A.

Powers, University of Cincinnati; Richard W. Rahn, Cato

Institute; Glenn MacDonald, Washington University in St.

Louis; Yuri N. Maltsev, Carthage College; Michael L. Marlow,

California Polytechnic State University; Martin C. McGuire,

University of California-Irvine; Allan Meltzer, Carnegie

Mellon University; Thomas P. Miller, American Enterprise

Institute; James Moncur, University of Hawaii at Manoa;

Robert Mundell, Nobel Laureate in Economics, 1999; Richard F.

Muth, Emory University; Robert D. Niehaus, Robert D. Niehaus,

Inc.; Lee E. Ohanian, University of California, Los Angeles;

Stephen T. Parente, University of Minnesota; G. Michael

Phillips, California State University, Northridge.

William Poole, University of Delaware; Ronald L. Promboin,

University of Maryland University College; James B. Ramsey,

New York University; Thomas A. Rhee, California State

University, Long Beach; R. David Ranson, H. C. Wainwright &

Co. Economics Inc.; Christine P. Ries, Georgia Institute of

Technology; Thomas Carl Rustici, George Mason University;

Thomas R. Saving, Texas A&M University; Judy Shelton, Atlas

Economic Research Foundation; George P. Shultz, Hoover

Institution; James F. Smith, EconForecaster, LLC; Houston H.

Stokes, University of Illinois at Chicago; Avanidhar

Subrahmanyam (Subra), University of California, Los Angeles;

Robert Tamura, Clemson University; Clifford F. Thies,

Shenandoah University; Leo Troy, Rutgers University-Newark;

George Viksnins, Georgetown University; James P. Weston, Rice

University; Michael E. Williams, University of Denver;

Michael Wohlgenant; North Carolina State University.

Gene C. Wunder, Washburn University; Paul H. Rubin, Emory

University; Gary J. Santoni, Ball State University; Robert

Haney Scott, California State University, Chico; William F.

Shughart II, The University of Mississippi; Timothy F.

Slaper, Indiana University; Vernon Smith, Chapman University

School of Law; Lawrence Southwick, University at Buffalo;

Brian Strow, Western Kentucky University; Richard J. Sweeney,

Georgetown University; John B. Taylor, Hoover Institution;

Stephen A. Tolbert, Jr., Montgomery County Community College

(PA); David G. Tuerk, Suffolk University; Richard Vedder,

Ohio University; Sherri L. Wall, University of Alaska

Fairbanks; J. Gregg Whittaker, William and Jewell College; D.

Mark Wilson, Applied Economic Strategies; Gary Wolfram,

Hillsdale College; Benjamin Zycher, Pacific Research

Institute; Joseph Zoric, Franciscan University of

Steubenville.

The letter specifically says: ``An increase in the national debt limit that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms to address our government's spending addiction will harm private-sector job creation in America. It is critical that any debt limit legislation enacted by Congress include spending cuts and reforms that are greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority being granted to the President.''

If there has ever been a failure of leadership, it is today. We're broke, and the solution lies in reform rather than rhetoric, spending cuts rather than spending increases. Leadership has called for compromise in the next couple of weeks. A compromise does not involve a vote on raising the debt ceiling without these spending cuts. We demonstrated that on May 31 when, 97-318, the House rejected this measure. No Republican supported the vote then, and no Republican should support such a vote in August. Only after we curb the trillions of dollars of debt that we continue to pile up can we consider raising the debt limit.

Lost in the hyperbolic statements and calls of doom-- ``if Congress does not raise the current debt ceiling''--is the real problem that our Nation faces: the out-of-control spending that has become epidemic here in Congress. No doubt a technical default in August surely would be problematic. But much worse would be the results if Republicans caved to Democrats and no significant spending reforms are implemented.

Today, my colleagues, 68 cents of every dollar is spent on entitlement programs. By the year 2025, the government will spend 100 percent of every dollar of revenues on entitlements.

The United States is over $14 trillion in debt, and without spending cuts in the deficit, our national debt will continue to grow. We must begin to rein in spending and bring about the fiscal changes to protect our children from this growing burden of debt.

Mr. Speaker, importantly, markets understand the difference between a technical default in which investors may have to wait a short period of time for an interest payment and an actual default in which a country is unable to repay its debt. If Congress does not act appropriately now, very soon the country will not face merely a technical default, but instead a real default. Then the calls of doom will be appropriate.

Investors have every incentive to want Congress to balance its budget and get its house in order finally. If this means investors will have to wait a few days for an interest payment to be repaid, then so be it. Because fixing the real problem now guarantees to investors that this government can make its payments 10 years from now, a realization that will comfort investors much more than preventing a mild delay-- particularly if that mild delay means future delays, future debt limit debates, and future possible defaults.

The best solution, of course, is no default at all, not technical and not actual. Congress must quickly come together and make some tough decisions that will forever affect the future of our country. But we will not be coerced into a position that fuels the spending addiction that has landed us in this situation where we stand today. We will

not succumb to a vote to increase the debt limit if we are not compensated with significant spending cuts.

As our Speaker John Boehner has said, ``It's true that allowing America to default would be irresponsible, but it would be more irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without simultaneously taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process'' itself. And it can be done.

We can look back to understand what will happen next. Several years back, Russia had a real default, yet within 2 or 3 years they reached all-time low interest rates. Earlier this year, the House passed a budget resolution for fiscal year 2012 which set non-security discretionary spending to below 2008 funding levels. It calls upon repealing the costly and burdensome health care law and envisions reforming some entitlement programs to contain costs and pay down the national debt.

My colleagues across the aisle have criticized portions of this legislation. But the question is asked, where is their alternative? There can be no debate if the other side cannot produce a logical document that seriously sets out to solve our Nation's crisis, the real crisis. Just like the solution to a drug addiction is not to increase one's intake, the solution to our Nation's spending addiction is not to increase one's capacity to continue to accumulate debt.

The time is now for real reform. Only after we have curbed the trillions of dollars of debt that we continue to pile up can we then consider raising the debt limit.

Offered By: Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 38: Page 2, line 10, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $6,335,000)''.

Page 92, line 7, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $6,335,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 38: Page 2, line 10, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $6,335,000)''.

Page 92, line 7, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $6,335,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, last year I introduced the ``Access to Appropriate Immunizations for Veterans Act of 2011.'' I'm proud to reintroduce this bill in the 112th Congress which I believe would help advance the goal we all share of promoting lifelong health for the men and women who fought for our freedom.

While the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, health care system is doing an admirable job of caring for those who bore the burden of combat, continual reform is needed to ensure the care veterans receive represents the most up-to-date practices and procedures.

According to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, each year approximately 70,000 adult Americans die from vaccine- preventable diseases. Influenza alone is responsible for over one million ambulatory care visits, 200,000 hospitalizations and 30,000 deaths.

Many of our veterans who are in the ``high-risk'' category of contracting vaccine-preventable diseases--including those with HIV, Hepatitis C, and substance use disorder--are enrolled in the VA health care system and could particularly benefit from receiving vaccinations.

Commendably, the VA has protocols in place that recommend vaccines as protection against deadly viruses. However, VA only has established performance measures for two vaccines, making it unclear if protocols are being routinely enforced for all CDC recommended vaccines.

The tremendous value performance measures have regarding the increased utilization and effectiveness of vaccination distribution is evidenced by VA's own application of performance measures for the influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations. When these performance measures were initially applied, VA saw vaccination rates rise respectively from 27 percent and 26 percent to 77 percent and 80 percent. It also resulted in a 50 percent decline in pneumonia hospitalization rates.

The legislation I am introducing today would expand VA performance measures to cover all vaccinations recommended by the VA and CDC and ensure that veterans receive appropriate immunizations at the time suggested by the CDC. It would also require VA to report to Congress on their progress in supporting vaccinations in the veteran population.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring the Access to Appropriate Immunizations for Veterans Act of 2011. This legislation would ensure that our veterans are receiving timely and suitable access to vaccines and prevent those under the care of the VA from being unnecessarily exposed to vaccine preventable diseases.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1081.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon tomorrow, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at noon on Tuesday, May 10, 2011, for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.