Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I yield to my friend in the well, the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for the time.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we got the President's budget and it was basically more of the same: higher taxes, more spending, more deficits. In fact, it will give us the third year of trillion-dollar deficits. And it made no mention of entitlement reform. In fact, the President ignored the recommendations of his very own hand-picked deficit reduction commission. It was very disappointing. But at the same time I want to work with the President. Where he wants to save money and reduce spending, I think it's important for Republicans to reach out and say yes.

Now it sounds to me like the Democrats want to remove themselves from that process, which is interesting because what we are debating in this $100 billion spending reduction bill is an open rule process where Democrats can put amendments on the board. And if they do agree with us, as I'm sure they do, that for every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed, that our national debt is 96 percent of our GDP right now, and that spending each year is 25 percent of the GDP, a historical high,

then I know they would want to act with us rather than against us and try to address this situation.

So I say to my Democrat friends, if you feel this is too much, then offer your own spending cuts. This is what can change in Washington this year. Rather than having the same old hollow, rhetorical debate, which incidentally doesn't really pull the rug out from the Republican Party; it pulls the rug out from Congress. It damages our own credibility that we can't come together as representatives of a nation and try to move the country forward together.

Sure we can skirmish over things. For example, we've got $8\1/2\ billion in earmarks eliminated in this mark. Now maybe they want to restore the earmarks. That's fine. We have a reduction of 149 different spending programs. Maybe they want to restore those. Maybe they want to double that amount.

Maybe the Democrats want to insist that the stimulus money stay in there. We go after the remaining portion, $2 billion. Maybe they think that's a bad thing and maybe we should get more out of it. But rather than just having the same old drama over and over again, hiding behind children and seniors and Pell Grants and everything else, why not come to the table and say, ``Here are our cuts''?

Mr. Speaker, this is 2.6 percent. That is to say that if I owed you a dollar and paid you back 97 cents, sure, you might still want that 3 cents from me, but, you know, you're pretty doggone close. This is a 2 percent reduction in a $3.7 trillion budget.

Now, if the Democrats don't like it, don't call it slashing and burning and all these other descriptions that are lively and make for good rhetoric and good drama. But if anything is irresponsible, it's irresponsible to call a cut of 2.6 percent reckless.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

This amendment is contrary to the interests of taxpayers and our military. It is not a cost-saving amendment. It is an anti-competition amendment. Therefore, it will cost us more money in the long run.

It is recognized that the Department of Defense suffers from a lack of competition and acquisition process. Sole-source contracts already account for $140 billion, or 38 percent, of the $366 billion that DOD spent on contracts in fiscal year 2010.

We know from experience that competing the engine on the F-35 is likely to both save money and improve the performance on both engines. It's not me saying that; the GAO and DOD's own internal studies have said it.

DOD says it will cost $2.9 billion to develop an alternative engine, although GAO says it may be much less. The F-35 will cost about $100 billion. GAO's analysis suggests a savings of about 20 percent in procurement, with an additional savings over the life cycle of the programs. The alternative engine would more than pay for itself in future savings, even putting aside the potential benefits in performance.

The power of our tactical Air Force is utterly dependent on the success of the F-35 program. The total cost is approaching $400 billion. The air frame and the engine portions of the program have been riddled with cost growth throughout the development effort.

Are we to say that it is unreasonable to spend $450 million to ensure that our fighter pilots have the best aircraft and the best engine possible? I'm convinced that competition will make both engine variants of the F-35 better.

And why do we think DOD can stand on a principle that has been proven over and over again in the marketplace? Competition leads to lower cost and better performance. Our fighters deserve this.

The DOD's position against this engine has been shown to be faulty on analysis and driven only by short-term budget considerations. The independent QDR review panel last year stated: ``History has shown that the only reliable source of price reduction throughout the life of a program is competition between dual sources.''

This amendment ignores that history. It will not save money and risks the combat effectiveness of our Air Force. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 172, line 21 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, although I know the two authors of this amendment are very sincere about it, and I think that they are underscoring something that we want to encourage people to be organic farmers.

But if you consider that organic farming is a $25 to $27 billion industry--in fact, my friend Mr. DeFazio just used the number $27 billion--it is a successful ongoing and growing industry already, and I do not believe that we need to continue the transition subsidy program to get more farmers in it. American farmers know where the profit is. They follow the commodity. The commodity follows the profit. They get into an area where it is going to be most profitable already.

But I'm also concerned that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has already been cut $38 million, and this is a service that enforces animal welfare, pest, and diseases. It is very important to all farmers. It is cut at this point 4.3 percent, and I hate to see an additional $5 million taken out of it.

So while I have sympathy for what the gentlemen are trying to do--and I know that they are great advocates for organic farmers--I oppose the amendment at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes a transfer of funds between the subcommittees.

Here's what's going on: You are mixing your operating and your capital funds on this particular account, and this committee does not have jurisdiction over those accounts. And I want to point out that the subcommittee has worked very hard to balance all these very difficult cuts. We're trying to work within our 302(b) allocations. We're in a situation right now, for every dollar that we spend as a U.S. Government, 40 cents is borrowed.

I am speaking to the point of order, and I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to say that I do understand we are here largely because there was not a budget this year and we were unable to move bills under regular order. And because of that, here we have something that was published, as I understand it, last night at midnight, and the list, itself, came out at 9 a.m. And, as a member of the committee, I am not sure what all these things are doing.

I see that we are increasing the Ag marketing healthy food initiative. Excuse me. It's not an increase. It's a brand new program.

I am the ranking member of the Ag Committee. I don't know exactly what that is. I think that might be something that has been voted on, but we have not had it through the committee. Now, I understand a lot of these other things are old items that have gone through the committee, but that one is one that has not.

The broadband, there is a $30 million increase in broadband loans. I am very confused about that because the stimulus bill increased broadband loans $7 billion. And then there is an FDA increase of $470 million. The FDA has gotten a lot of money over the past years, including some in the stimulus. So I am not sure why they are getting an increase when so many others are getting a cut.

I noticed on another page that there is a rescission for the Navy of $168 million and for the Air Force $136 million. I also serve on the Defense Committee. There has been no debate on that.

Now, on the next page, we increase funding for the IRS, including $125 million for IRS enforcement. I guess that's because people who won't get health insurance now, the IRS is going to get a lot more agents and they will have more money to spend on prosecuting people who don't buy health care.

Then over here on another page, we are cutting the Customs and Border Patrol by $225 million. We have got a problem, as we all would agree, on immigration, but we are cutting the Customs and Border Patrol for the infrastructure fence. I look further, the CDC is getting a cut of $57 million.

I thank the gentleman.

And then over here on another page, we are cutting grants for academic competitiveness. I think if there is one thing we all agree on right now is we need our students to be as competitive as possible, but we are cutting academic competitiveness $36 million. But we are increasing Congress's budget. House of Representatives, $2 million increase; Capitol Police, $8.8 million; the Congressional Budget Office, $1.7 million; the GAO, $1.5 million. So Congress is getting an increase while we are cutting academics.

And then on another page, a whole myriad of things we are cutting out of the military that runs into the millions of dollars. And I noticed here in a very small account that we are actually cutting OPIC, which is the overseas insurance account that underwrites loans for emerging markets. And it's one of the few Federal agencies that actually makes money. Now, maybe that's why we are cutting them. It would appear to me that that kind of behavior should be well rewarded, but under the CR, they are going to be getting a cut.

I respectfully think that we should put this thing back 2 or 3 months and have regular order.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I agree, we have a genuine problem with kids today who were brought here by their parents as young children illegally. In fact, in my area, some of these kids were 3 and 4 years old and they are far more Americans and Georgians culturally than they are whatever native country their parents came from. So there is problem here. But I have got to say, this is not the solution. This is politics. In fact, under the name of this phony, compassionate bill, what we are doing is a disservice to these children.

This is a lame duck session. The Democrats have been in charge of the House and the Senate and the White House now for nearly 2 years. Their brand of politics was squarely denounced and rejected 5 weeks ago, and this is one of those things. This is a Harry Reid deal. He promised to do it, so now he's doing it.

If you really were concerned and there was real compassion, you know you would not be doing it this hour sandwiched in between a major spending bill--when there was no budget, by the way--and a major tax extension in which the Democrats, themselves, have a lot of split decisions about.

But let's say look at this from a practical standpoint. How do you prove who was here when they were 16 up to 30? How do you prove that? Well, the bill actually says you only have to prove it to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Well, that's a reassuring thought. The Secretary, appointed by President Obama would certainly never make a political decision. No, justice is blind. Just go down the street to the DOJ and see their cases.

Let's be serious about this. You are talking about children, and yet the Secretary of Homeland Security is going to decide if you were here before you were 16, and then what's going to happen to parents of other kids? Why would they not start bringing their children in and saying, Oh, yeah, we have been here.

Who keeps up with the records of illegal aliens? No one does by design. We all know that.

This is a serious problem. I started out my statement saying I agree there is a problem. This is politics, though. This is not a solution.

Two million people will probably become citizens under this. I don't think this is the right way to handle it.

I would like to work with you guys on this. I would like to work with the Republican Members. We all want to because we know there is a situation out there. But this is politics in the 11th hour in a lame duck Congress, and it should be rejected by that alone.

Mr. Speaker, most Americans are looking at the events in Ireland, Spain and Greece with interest and horror when we look at how they are grappling with the problem of their national debts. Yet, at the same time, the United States of America has a debt which is 96 percent of GDP. Our spending level is about 24 percent of GDP.

Now, most States around the country have balanced budget amendments which keep them from going in the red. What a different picture it would be if our national government had a balanced budget amendment. There is another thing we could do, though, and that would be to modernize the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, which calls for deficit reduction targets.

I think, however, it would be better to have a spending cap tied into GDP at approximately 18 percent, which would, year after year, give Congress a target. If we were to fail to meet that target, then it would have an automatic trigger of across-the-board cuts so that we could get to the right level of spending. We do not want to have the same problems as Greece, Ireland and Spain.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 40th anniversary of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). Located in Glynco, Georgia, FLETC is responsible for equipping officers from over 80 different Federal Agencies with the professional training and tactical expertise needed to successfully deal with diverse situations in variety of scenarios.

Prior to the formation of FLETC, Federal agencies trained their law enforcement personnel at different sites throughout the country. Recognizing that there was a need for standardized professional instruction, Congress established CFLETC, the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center,

within the Department of the Treasury. After operating for five years in temporary facilities outside Washington, DC, CFLETC was renamed and moved to its permanent facilities at the former site of Naval Air Station Glynco near Brunswick, Georgia. FLETC also operates two more residential training sites in Artesia, New Mexico, and Charleston, South Carolina as well as a re-qualification center in Cheltenham, Maryland. In 2003, FLETC was moved into the newly created Department of Homeland Security, cementing its role as an essential part of the team of brave men and women who keep us safe both at home and abroad.

In addition to instructing federal officers, FLETC partners with local and state law enforcement agencies to enable advanced training for non-federal personnel that otherwise is unavailable. Furthermore, FLETC plays a central role in the effort to professionalize law enforcement departments across the globe, operating and supporting International Law Enforcement Academies in Botswana, El Salvador, Peru, Hungary, and Thailand.

Over the past 40 years, FLETC has improved both the efficiency and quality of training provided to America's Federal law enforcement officers. I congratulate FLETC on its 40 years of service to our Federal law enforcement agencies, and I am certain that FLETC personnel will continue their commitment to our country for many years to come.

First of all, I wanted to associate myself with the previous speaker, my friend from Pennsylvania. I, too, support a consumption tax, a fair tax, tax simplification in whatever form. And I hope we can come together and work on tax reform and tax simplification in the year ahead.

Now today, though, we're doing a show in politics. We're voting on a bill which the Speaker knows there aren't the votes to pass. She furthermore knows that if it did pass, the Senate is not going to pass it. Today is all about political show. It's about more class warfare. It's interesting that the Speaker would choose this route because on November 2 I believe that brand of politics was squarely rejected by the voters all across America.

We also know that the economic policies of the Speaker and the President have failed. When the stimulus bill was passed, unemployment was about 7.6 percent. We were told this would keep it from going to 8 percent. But here we are now with unemployment at nearly 10 percent--15 million people out of work--and we're hearing again from the Democrats that this is what we need to do to turn the economy around.

I believe the American people spoke on that squarely. And I think the statistics show, with a 10 percent unemployment rate, it's not going to work.

About 75 percent of small businesses--and I think there's something like 27 million in the country--75 percent of them file their taxes as individuals; 750,000 of them actually would

come under this category of getting a tax increase. And these are people who are the first to turn around and hire folks when the economy improves. These are Sheetrock contractors. These are restaurant owners. These are other tradesmen who have two, three, four, five, fifteen employees, and they're going to be the first ones to turn around and hire folks. So right now, we do not want to hit them with a high tax increase.

We need to reject this and continue to work with the White House and come up with a compromise.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. James Kluttz, the former President of the Board of Directors of the Tybee Island Historical Society. During his twenty years of leadership, the Tybee Island Historical Society's membership grew from two hundred to over one thousand, and the Society raised funds to restore the entire seven building Tybee Island Light Station and surrounding plots of land essential to preserving historic views from the Station. Due to Mr. Kluttz's efforts, the Station received local, state, and national awards as well as international publicity. The increased spotlight and the strengthening of the Tybee Island Light Station's historical preservation bona fides resulted in the transfer of the Station from the Federal Government to the Tybee Island Historical Society--one of the first to occur under the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act of 2000.

Moreover, due to Mr. Kluttz's twenty-year dedication, the Tybee Island Lighthouse was included in the Southeast Lighthouse Stamp series and the Station was been nominated for National Landmark Status. Visitation to the Station and Museum has gone from several thousand annual visitors to over 170,000, greatly benefitting the local economy.

Mr. Kluttz's work did not end with the Lighthouse. Under his direction, the Historical Society helped acquire and restore buildings and historic field guns at Fort Screven, as well as a ``raised cottage'' that reflects Tybee Island's unique social, cultural, and architectural heritage.

Mr. James Kluttz is a model citizen, having served on countless boards and committed hundreds of personal hours towards the preservation of the atmosphere of Tybee Island, and I believe that no one could have done a better job. The citizens of Tybee Island owe him much thanks and gratitude, and on this day we wish him the best in all his future activities and endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroism and courage of Private First Class Charles R. Johnson, better known as Charlie to his friends. Private Johnson fought and died to save his buddies on a hot day in a far away land, in a war largely forgotten by the American public. However, for those who fought in Korea against a dedicated enemy in some of the most forsaken terrain on this earth, scarcely a day goes by without remembering the sacrifices made there. And for those that were at Outpost Harry in June of 1953, they will never forget Charlie Johnson.

Charlie was a Browning Automatic Rifleman with Company B of the 15th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division. Early in June of 1953, Baker Company, as Company B was known, was ordered to defend Outpost Harry with other units from the 15th Infantry. This outpost in the Chorwon valley was of strategic importance. The high ground that Outpost Harry occupied could be used by communist forces to directly engage United Nations forces' defensive positions. If Outpost Harry fell, the U.S. 8th Army would have to fall back 6 miles to a new, defendable position. It was feared that public support would erode and the United States might agree to a cease-fire under unfavorable conditions if the communists could inflict heavy casualties and force a retreat of the 8th Army. As peace negotiations were ongoing, the loss of Outpost Harry was simply not an option.

The battle for Outpost Harry was fierce. Almost 90,000 communist artillery rounds landed on Outpost Harry during the battle. The U.S. and Greek soldiers were outnumbered 30-1. Some of the fighting was hand-to-hand. The fighting went on for 8 days.

It is in this context that Charlie's brave actions took place. He selflessly put himself in the line of fire to protect his fellow soldiers, all of whom were injured during the attack. After treating the wounds of his fellow soldiers, he led them to safety and then returned to defend the position and enable the rescue of his fellow soldiers. This sort of bravery went unrecognized for over 50 years. Thanks to the leadership of the current 3rd Infantry Division, Major General Cuculo and Brigadier General Phillips, this brave act has not gone unrewarded. For his actions on the 11th and 12th of June, 1953, Charlie Johnson was finally awarded the Silver Star, our nation's third highest medal for valor in combat. I believe Charlie's Silver Star write up says it best:

``During the night and early morning of 11 and 12 June 1953 against overwhelming odds during an attack on his element's position, Private First Class Johnson acted with complete disregard for his personal safety to ensure the safety of his fellow Soldiers. Ignoring his own injuries, he treated several wounded comrades, dragging one Soldier through the Trenches while under direct artillery, mortar and small arms fire to a secure bunker, stopping only to clear the path of enemy soldiers in close combat operations. Ignoring the proximity of the opposing force, he left the bunker to assess the situation and secure weapons and ammunition. When he returned, he organized a defense and departed his fighting position in order to place himself between his comrades and the enemy, thereby creating the conditions for their successful rescue.''

In an age of persistent conflict, it is useful to reflect on those who have gone before us and have shown character, integrity, sacrifice and bravery in their actions. Today's soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division, and indeed all of our men and women in uniform, will look to Private First Class Johnson's actions as an example to live up to. There was an easy way out that night; Charlie could have chosen to retreat. But he chose to fight, and because of his actions others lived. That is the textbook definition of the ultimate sacrifice.

Charlie's Silver Star was presented to his family this last weekend in Poughkeepsie, New York. His good friend Donald Dingee, one of the men he saved that night, was in attendance. It is unfortunate that Charlie's Silver Star had to wait so long, but I am happy that the final chapter has finally been written. Our nation continues to enjoy liberty and freedom unlike any other, and it is due in no small part to heroes like Private First Class Charles R. Johnson. Thank you Charlie.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of an outstanding individual, William H. Mobley IV, who passed away on May 23, 2010.

For 35 years, Mr. Mobley worked as a Principal Evaluations Officer and curator at the Library of Congress. While his position was a source of enjoyment and intellectual fulfillment to him personally, it also served as an outlet for him to provide a love of history and books to others.

Throughout his time with the Library of Congress, Mr. Mobley encouraged the donation of thousands of books to local communities and libraries, and he had a special interest in providing resources to his home city of Valdosta, Georgia. Appointed by Valdosta State University to select and send books through the Library of Congress, Mr. Mobley spent years of his life shipping reading materials to Georgia, evidence of his willingness to make enormous personal sacrifices for the benefit of others. Valdosta State University recently found that the total cost of the books donated by Mr. Mobley to the VSU library added up to more than $750,000 over the years. To show their immense appreciation, VSU established The Bill Mobley Memorial Library Fund in Valdosta, Georgia.

On a personal level, Mr. Mobley was constantly seeking ways to make knowledge more accessible. He promoted a love of reading among his friends and family, concentrating on

historical accounts and always finding a way to keep the content interesting. Among those who knew him best, Mr. Mobley's kindness and patience were two qualities that stood out most, and he used these strengths to educate children and introduce them to the value of knowledge--including his own 33 nieces and nephews.

I commend William H. Mobley for his commitment to knowledge through education, his constant support of those around him, and his invaluable service to the people of Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Jeffrey Warren Mascunana, a hero and dedicated servant to his Lord and our nation. Jeff was born at the Tuttle Army Health Clinic on Hunter Army Airfield, Savannah, Georgia on December 8, 1969, to Chief Warrant Officer George Mascunana and his wife Rose. Jeff descended from Cuban immigrants and his great-grandfather help found one of the oldest Spanish-English newspapers in the United States, ``La Gaceta,'' in Tampa, Florida. His father, George, served two tours of duty in Korea.

Jeff attended St. James Catholic School, then Benedictine Military School in Savannah. His family actively served as members of St. Francis Cabrini Catholic Church. At Benedictine, Jeff participated in many sports, including football, basketball and track & field where he excelled in many events. Jeff was not a starter on the football team, but was often heard to say ``At least I'm on the field and not in the stands,'' indicative of his desire to not be an observer in life. All of his friends and classmates remember his wide smile and devious sense of humor.

At Benedictine Jeff also served four years in the school's Reserve Officer Training Corps program, attaining the rank of Cadet Captain. He graduated in 1988.

Upon graduation, Jeff harbored a desire to serve his country in the United States Navy. Through perseverance, he obtained entrance to the Boost program, and an appointment to the United States Naval Academy, class of 1993.

At Annapolis, in the 23rd Company, Jeff found his home. He trained to be a Surface Warfare Officer, working towards his degree in Political Science. He competed on the rowing team, as well as track & field. His classmates remember him as the friend who would help them all through the tough times inherent in such a rigorous setting. On weekends, he seemed to be on yard restriction as often as not. Undaunted, Jeff would organize groups to visit those midshipmen and active duty personnel whose duties required that they remain on post, offering light-hearted moments and friendship to his fellow classmates. He also worked with a local church, helping to organize a support group for women victimized by abuse. Indicative of Jeff's love for Annapolis, he wanted to carry a piece of it with him at all times. When the time came to design his USNA class ring, Jeff broke with the tradition of choosing a precious stone for the design. Instead, he found a loose piece of marble in the dormitory, Bancroft Hall, and had part of that stone fitted to his ring. The remaining piece of marble hangs around his mother's neck in a beautiful pendant. Jeff's ring now occupies a place of honor in the Ring Bank in the United States Naval Academy Museum, the repository for the class ring of each class' first deceased member.

In the early morning hours of May 26, 1993, just a few hours prior to graduation, Midshipman Jeff Mascunana lost his life while trying to summon help for Ms. Julie Ann Mace. Ms. Mace, his date for the evening's graduation ball, was injured and tragically died as the result of an automobile crash. Jeff died a hero, unselfishly trying to help another.

At Jeff's Naval Academy graduation later that day, his chair sat empty, his class one sailor short. His family, proudly assembled to see Jeff's greatest achievement, instead joined his class to mourn the loss of their son, grandson, brother and friend. His friends and

family buried Jeff in his Navy dress whites a few days later in Savannah.

While Jeff completed his academic requirements to obtain his degree from the Naval Academy, unfortunately he never received his commission as an ensign even though he was mere hours away from realizing that lifelong goal. While a posthumous commission would be fitting, the Navy could find no provision for doing so.

Later this fall, Jeff Mascunana's classmates from the Benedictine Military School class of 1988 shall gather to dedicate a memorial in his honor. Further, a scholarship fund will be established in his name. The scholarship shall be awarded to a young Benedictine Cadet, enabling him to attend the Benedictine Military School that helped make Jeff Mascunana the hero that he was.

Jeff learned the values that made him such a great man from his parents and from his education. I would like to recognize Benedictine Military School, an institution that has molded leaders since its founding in 1902 in Savannah, Georgia. For over 100 years, the priests, faculty and military personnel have educated young men in the Judeo- Christian tradition of academic excellence, good moral living, respect for authority, and love of country. On these principles, Benedictine builds men of virtue and integrity, ready to serve their faith, their community, and their country.

Madam Speaker, who knew? Who knew that the States were running out of money? Who knew

when we were bailing out General Motors, the big banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Apparently, the Speaker of the House had no idea there were some problems in the hinterlands. So here we are back in Washington, millions of dollars spent to bring everybody back.

This is governing by reaction, pandering to the political base. Blue State, big-city politics at its worst, taking care of the excesses of governing bodies who are unable or unwilling to make the tough decisions that smaller States, small businesses, and American families have to make every day.

And we hear over and over again this is paid for. I got news for you. If you have a huge debt on your American Express card and you transfer it to your Visa card, you haven't paid for anything. Forty-one cents on the dollar that we spend is borrowed money. The food stamps program, which the Democrats are cutting, the renewable energy program, which the Democrats are cutting, and you could even argue the job-killing tax increase that they are about to pass, that's all on borrowed money. Forty-one cents on the dollar is borrowed in our country today under the Democrat leadership.

Now, we could be up here looking at Medicare and Social Security. The trustees report just came back and said that they are both going broke. And I would think that's what would be worth coming back to Washington for anytime. We should fight to fix Social Security and Medicare. But instead, it's another bailout and another promise of governmental utopia. If we just bail out this one last group, jobs will return, the deficit will be balanced, and there will be peace from sea to shining sea. It's just not going to work.

This is a bailout Congress. It's government by bailout, it's government by borrowed money, and our children's children will be paying for this.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to commend Bill Davis from Tifton, Georgia.

For 20 years, Bill Davis owned a Sonny's barbeque franchise in Tifton, Georgia. After his 22-year license for the franchise expired in 2007, Mr. Davis met with corporate officials to discuss a new condition of their agreement. The company asked Davis to initiate the selling of beer, wine, and liquor drinks in the restaurant in order to fully comply with corporate standards. Davis refused, claiming that his restaurant was family-oriented and suggesting that the initiation of alcoholic sales could detract from the family environment. It was the first of a philosophical divergence. More would come.

On October 18, 2008, an individual from the corporate office visited the establishment. There, he found the employees wearing white T-shirts with an American flag logo and the words ``I Pledge . . . I Pray'' written on them. He also noticed a Jesus souvenir sitting behind the counter. The patrons and staff of the restaurant were accustomed to the display, claiming that it allowed them to exhibit their patriotism and religious affiliation. The corporate employee, however, was less than pleased, perceiving the actions as a breach of the conditions and the typical practice of the franchise owners. An extension on license agreement was signed, and both parties agreed to extend through November 30, 2009.

This past October, Davis received a letter stating that his franchise agreement would end on December 31.

Rather than altering the atmosphere of his establishment to conform to the politically correct request of the corporation, Davis decided to ``stand up for God'' and continue the demonstration of his beliefs, despite the attempts of the company to silence them, so he parted ways with Sonny's. True to his word, he stuck with his convictions, and the display of American patriotism and religious faith are still a part of the restaurant's atmosphere today.

While the basic restaurant has changed, Mr. Davis is no longer a franchise owner, but a sole proprietor. The restaurant is now called ``The Smokehouse Restaurant.'' Davis affirms that, aside from the name change, everything at the establishment will remain in place. I commend Bill Davis for ``standing up for God,'' and I also support Sonny's right to set the rules for their franchise. They have a contractual right to set the rules, but sometimes, as businesses grow and become prosperous, they have to play it safe, conforming to political correctness and avoiding anything that could potentially raise an eyebrow. Thus, the straightjacket of public opinion and the murky center of legal conformity play an increasing role in decision-making. Some corporations, such as Graco, Domino's, and Chick-fil-A, have stood tall and should be commended.

The decision to run family friendly and patriotic operations is what makes America thrive. It seems as if Davis' decision to stick to these values will likely pay off, as many local patrons have insisted that they will continue to dine at the restaurant on a regular basis.

Madam Speaker, celebrating the 69th anniversary of the first combat action of the American Volunteer Group, AVG, and to recognize the contribution of the AVG and the 23rd Fighter Group ``Flying Tigers'' to America's victory in World War II.

Whereas the American Volunteer Group was formed by Lieutenant General Claire Chennault for the defense of China;

Whereas the American Volunteer Group was affectionately known as the Flying Tigers;

Whereas the American Volunteer Group Flying Tigers saw their first combat over Yunnan Province in China on December 20th, 1941 shooting down nine enemy bombers;

Whereas the American Volunteer Group Flying Tigers faced a numerically superior enemy force, long logistics supply lines and poor infrastructure and despite those challenges ultimately destroyed 299 enemy aircraft and 153 probably destroyed, losing only 12 aircraft in combat;

Whereas the American Volunteer Group Flying Tigers were disbanded and the 23rd Fighter Group Flying Tigers were activated in their stead on July 4th, 1942;

Whereas the 23rd Fighter Group while facing similar challenges in the Chinese theater, nonetheless destroyed 621 enemy aircraft finishing as the third highest scoring Army Air Force's Fighter Group of World War