Floor Statements

I rise today to support our planning for a safe and responsible withdrawal from Afghanistan in the very, very near term. No one has forgotten why we went into Afghanistan: to rout out and bring justice to those who attacked us on September 11, 2001. With extraordinary bravery, our troops have accomplished the mission they were set out to do over 10 years ago. Osama bin Laden has been brought to justice and al Qaeda has been largely crushed. Our troops have done their job. Many of them--over 2,000 of them, in fact--have given their lives not only to defend our freedoms but those of Afghans as well.

After 10 years of war and reconstruction, it's time for Afghans to stand up for Afghanistan, and it's time for us to do our job and bring our troops home. We can continue to defend ourselves from terrorists without tens of thousands of troops fighting a ground war in Afghanistan. The $88 billion we're talking about putting into Afghanistan in this Defense appropriations bill this week could build our own infrastructure and create jobs and economic opportunity right here at home. It is ludicrous to be spending such large sums rebuilding other countries when our own economic problems are so large and persistent. Our greatest leaders say our greatest threat is not a military one, but an economic one.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to discuss an important and timely issue negatively affecting the welfare of the horses of this great country. It's called ``soring.'' Soring is the act of deliberately causing pain to exaggerate the leg motion of high-gaited horses, such as Tennessee Walking Horses.

This inhumane practice, despite being illegal for almost 40 years, is still used far too often by many owners and trainers to win in the show ring. Today, I hope I can persuade you, my fellow Members of Congress, to take interest in this issue, to oppose this cruel and illegal practice, and to increase the support for the USDA's Horse Protection Program.

Horses are sored in several different ways:

Caustic materials, such as kerosene or mustard oil, are applied to the lower leg. This makes the horse's leg sensitive so that, when certain cruel devices like chains are placed against it, it causes severe pain, causing the horse to lift its leg high in an exaggerated gait. There are other common approaches also, like trimming the hoof excessively, exposing sensitive tissues, inserting devices between the shoe pads and the sole of the horse and, frankly, improper shoeing techniques. No matter the technique, its purpose is to cause the horse pain so that it lifts its leg higher and faster.

While rest and training may allow some horses to eventually recover from that harm, others suffer irreversible hoof damage and are actually crippled for life. The harm caused by soring is not just physical. The mental damage done to the horse can make its rehabilitation difficult, if not impossible.

Soring is so egregious that it has actually been illegal in this country for over 40 years. The Horse Protection Act was passed in 1970. So why, 40 years later, are we still having the same conversation?

The problem lies within the culture of some of those in the walking horse industry, in which unethical trainers and unethical owners not only continue this practice but use tricks to deceive detection. Substantial financial gains come from winning horse shows, and this makes soring appealing to many unscrupulous owners and trainers. Soring is a shortcut that overshadows the balance and collection seen in the beautiful natural movement of horses that perform racking gaits. These gaits can actually be achieved without soring, rather by investing the proper time, training, and conditioning on the horse.

The Horse Protection Program at the USDA serves as regulatory enforcement for the Horse Protection Act. Unfortunately, due to budget constraints, USDA inspectors only attend a small fraction of the shows. In 2011, USDA documented 587 violations of the act while attending only 62 of the 600 to 700 shows held that year. Fiscal year 2012 was the first time in the history of the Horse Protection Program that it actually received more than $500,000 in

funding. In February of this year, Barney Davis, a Tennessee trainer, was convicted of soring, fined $4,000, and was sentenced to a year in prison. In March, nationally known trainer Jackie L. McConnell and three of his associates were charged with 52 counts of violating the Horse Protection Act. These recent charges, including the first two convictions in two decades under the U.S. Horse Protection Act, have brought increased attention to this horrible abuse.

These indictments and prosecutions are long overdue, and I applaud the U.S. Attorneys and USDA civil servants who have courageously worked to end soring. Yet adequate funding of the Horse Protection Program is critical for the enforcement of this act and for the prevention of this abusive practice. It is imperative that USDA's Horse Protection Program be adequately funded, ensuring the end of this cruel practice. Financial backing must be supported, not hampered, by this Congress.

The American Veterinary Medical Association has condemned soring for over 40 years. I join my fellow veterinarians across America in calling for a stop to this heinous abuse of America's horses. We in Congress need to stand up as well and speak out against this egregious form of animal cruelty. It is time for soring to end.

Barely 10 months ago, we passed a bipartisan Budget Control Act to forestall a sovereign debt crisis. On Tuesday, our total national debt increased to over $15.7 trillion. Clearly, the problem we passed the BCA to address is getting worse, not better.

As our own military leaders have acknowledged again and again, our debt and deficits are the largest national security threat that our Nation actually faces. Backpedaling on the Budget Control Act, as suggested here, is irresponsible.

We need to be building on the fiscal foundations in order to provide for our children's futures and for the future of the military. We spend a lot of hours here talking about how much we can't afford to cut back military spending and not nearly enough time talking about how to prepare for the military of the future.

In my opinion, the smart military budget of the future emphasizes our National Guard. It has proven more than a ready reserve in the sands of Iraq and in the mountains of Afghanistan. The National Guard is an affordable strategic asset of a unique capability. The rising cost to our military is probably personnel. The National Guard will help reduce that cost 4 1.

Mr. Chairman, I really commend Mr. Cooper and Mr. LaTourette for bringing this bipartisan proposal forward. It's really time, America, to focus on things we agree on, not things that we disagree on. America wants to see us as uniters, not dividers, in this business down here.

This is the only bipartisan proposal that's going to be offered. It is going to be the framework for whatever deal we come to at the end of this year when we're staring the Bush tax cuts going off and when we're staring extreme defense cuts in the face. This is the proposal, in some form, that will be adopted.

This proposal recognizes there's a balance. It's not perfect. There are some groups that are very peeved at the altar, quite frankly. But this is the only proposal that's bipartisan. It actually addresses the two big drivers. Our revenues are at an all-time low, the lowest since World War II. You're not going to have a vibrant economy without revenue to support our schools, our infrastructure, our transportation, and our economic development.

Yes, the entitlements are a problem. The gentleman from Wisconsin, while he's not in favor of some of the aspects of the health care bill, adapts all of the savings that we did in the last Congress because they're good, efficient ways to improve the life and solvency of Medicare. Medicare is not a problem because President Bush was evil or President Obama was evil. It's a problem that we've got more people and the baby boomers are retiring, so there are less workers to support them at the end of the day, and great health care that's being driven. So we need to get our act together and support this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as a cosponsor for H.R. 1161.

Well, folks, your Congress is at it again. Republicans have been talking about debt and deficit for the last year, and here we're going to add nearly $200 billion in new spending to the deficit. Well, we're going to use a bunch of pay-fors that we're setting aside for the original deficit.

This is the most disingenuous group of folks that I've seen in a long time; and to be honest, a little bit on our side of the aisle. We've been railing about doing anything that would remotely affect Social Security, yet we're willing to pass another payroll tax cut that adds to the difficulty of funding our system.

Oh, no. We're going to issue some IOUs. I don't think there is a single American out there that believes that another IOU is a good thing for Social Security. We have got to stop borrowing against our Social Security.

Not only that, the payroll tax, you get only 60 cents back for every dollar you invest. I don't think that's a very good investment. President Bush tried that in 2008, and there was no change in consumption.

What we should be doing is focusing on unemployment, where you get $1.60 back in economic activity for every dollar you put in, just like the President asked for. And we should have a more robust doc fix that makes sure seniors and doctors get paid what they need to keep Medicare solvent.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment is pretty straightforward. The goal here is to actually codify some of what has been done here just by Executive order to make sure Congress' intent is actually done regardless of what the executive branch is considering.

It basically codifies the cost-benefit analysis in statute that we would like to have. As we all know, a lot of times some of our agencies get a little overzealous, and some of the cost-benefit analyses that they do or don't do do not actually reflect a lot of the real-world criteria by which American men and women in businesses actually operate. So our goal here is to actually follow through on what is already existing law but to just codify it so it's not a huge change.

There is a little bit more to it. Right now a lot of the independent Federal agencies are not subject to this Executive order. Of course, this amendment would actually codify that they should be. There is no reason any Federal agency should be exempt from giving Americans the idea of what it's going to cost and what sort of benefit we're going to get out of this at the end of the day.

Last but not least, I think one of the big pieces that is very, very important to know as a veterinarian, a man of science a little bit, are the assumptions by which these cost-benefit analyses are done. That oftentimes influences the outcome. It's important for the agencies, the businesses and, again, others in this country to look at what assumptions are being made when these cost-benefit analyses are being done. Sometimes they deserve to be challenged, and sometimes questions need to be raised. So I think it's extremely important that any cost- benefit analysis assumptions should be made public and transparent.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you very much. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here on the floor doing a colloquy with a Republican colleague of mine. That's not common these days. Perhaps in the not- too-distant past it was more common, but I think it shows that there's an opportunity for actually good big-picture agreements on what we need to do in general, although we may disagree on some of the particulars.

I'd like to point out some of the real problems that my colleague from Wisconsin alluded to. First and foremost, I have got a chart here that talks about the amount of money we're actually borrowing to make our payments in this country. He's right, we're spending way too much. We're spending almost $3.6 trillion. Our revenue's only about $2.2 trillion. We're borrowing almost 40 percent of what we spend.

You can't do that in your household, folks. You can't do that in your small business, and we shouldn't be doing that and can't do that as the greatest Nation on Earth and keep our fiscal balance sheets in play. Right now our debt is almost up to $15 trillion, and our deficit has been stuck at $1.3 trillion for the last 3 years.

The projections are even worse. I would like to show a chart that shows the long-term projections, given the current rate of spending at our level of revenues, which are quite low at this point in time.

It's a little bit busy, but there's a grayer portion down below you can see that talks about the actual current law budget. That's the stuff that my friend in Wisconsin and I have to budget to that the Congressional Budget Office puts out.

But the real budget is what the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget talks about. That's the real long-term debt that we're dealing with. That assumes, unlike the current law budget, that we're not going to eliminate all the tax breaks to middle class Americans, different corporations. It assumes that we're not going to have docs have to pony up a 30 percent cut in their wages to make ends meet, and it also assumes that we're going to do something to keep the alternative minimum tax from affecting middle class Americans.

I would also like to point out that this is not a good picture. You look at what's happened historically, we're in a really bad situation at this point in time and there are some pretty big historical drivers to this.

I'd like to switch to a different chart. This chart shows historically where our revenues and our spending have been. The top line here is our spending; this lacquer line down below is our revenues. They have been a little out of whack forever.

Only during the years when we had a Democrat President and a Republican Congress were they back in good shape. That was just 15 years ago.

But you can see that we historically have had our revenues probably in the 18 to 18.5 percent range and our expenditures in the 20 percent range, not great, but we're worse now. We're at 25 percent and spending and only 14 or 15 percent in revenues, to emphasize the point my colleague from Wisconsin made. So we've got to really work at getting this stuff back under control, or we're not going to be where we need to be.

I'd point out real quick that to that point, we're actually giving away almost a trillion dollars in tax breaks. And I think my colleague has some good points he's going to make in a moment on that. And we've got to get this Tax Code under control.

As a small businessman, you can't possibly do your own tax; you can't even come close. When I started my veterinary business way back when-- I'm not going to say how old I was, my friend--but I could actually do my own taxes. That's impossible these days. That's impossible, and it shouldn't be that Byzantine.

The other piece of the problem here is the entitlement system. People don't want to admit this, particularly people on my side of the aisle, but we're going broke here in the Medicare system. The bottom blue is Social Security. Medicaid and other health expenditures is the green. And Medicare is up at the top there.

And here's our revenue line. We're busting through with Medicare. That's not because of malfeasance. Yeah, there's some waste, fraud and abuse that we have got to get under control, and I'm sure we can get it under control.

But there are some simple economics here. In 1960, there were five workers for every one beneficiary.

Right now there are only three workers for every beneficiary; and in 2035, there will be two workers for every beneficiary--less money in to take care of more folks. Back in 1975, we had about 25 million beneficiaries, I believe. Now it is almost 89 million beneficiaries. And the cost per Medicare recipient has gone through the roof. We are living longer, hopefully living healthier lives. In 1975, we spent about $2,000 per Medicare enrollee. That's hard to believe in this day and age. Now it's $18,000.

So more people, more expensive care, which is good quality care, and frankly fewer workers to provide for the benefits adds up to this huge growth in spending that will be facing us over the next few years unless we get our act together at this point in time.

I thank you. Yes, we need to get this economy going again. The bottom line, while everyone is looking for a magic wand from Washington, DC, private enterprise is the real engine of economic growth. My colleague has talked about that and has a chart that will demonstrate that.

The point being here that it's going to take a huge lift and a huge push by this committee to go way beyond what anyone has ever considered in the past. I mean, I would like to remind America we already passed this Budget Control Act in August that set some targets for our domestic and defense discretionary spending, but that's only a third of our budget. Two-thirds of our budget is the mandatory payments, some of the entitlement programs that I pointed out a minute ago, as well as ag payments and other income stream payments for special groups. We've got to get our mandatory payments under control to make sure that we get on a trajectory that's going to make a difference.

A lot of people say let's just cut defense or get rid of the Department of Education. I'm not sure that I agree with all of those ideas out there. Certainly we could reduce in both of those Departments; that's a good idea. But what I have to point out is our current deficit is $1.3 trillion. That's more than the combined budget of the defense and domestic discretionary programs. So you have to get at the long-term programs and the revenue issues that my colleague and I are talking about to actually put this country on a different trajectory.

How do you get that business to start investing? How do you get private enterprise to be part of the engine of economic growth? Well, we may agree or disagree on the floor here. There are a lot of different ways; you've seen that in Congress this past year. But I would point out to my colleagues that at the end of the day, it was Republicans and Democrats that passed the CR, the continuing resolution, for 2011. It was Democrats and Republicans that voted to put the Budget Control Act in place, and it was Democrats and Republicans that voted to make sure that the 2012 budget came out the way it was.

So while I think the rest of the world thanks the media and looks at us as huge failures, and certainly we could do better, at the end of the day when the chips are down, maybe at the last minute, we seem to be delivering. And it's up to the supercommittee to do the same.

Right now they're charged with only coming up with another--``only,'' I say, relative terms--as a small business man, I can't believe I'm saying this, Reid, but only $1.2 trillion or $1.5 trillion. That's a hunk of money. But to solve this problem, according to the credit agencies, top economists in this country, think tanks and working groups from Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin-Domenici, Congressman Ryan's work, they've all indicated we have to do much more than that to change the trajectory of our country's financial future; and that's getting close to a $4 trillion change overall.

We made a down payment. The committee is charged for doing only 1.2 or 1.5, but that's not enough. They have to double up their charge to get to at least $4 trillion or more in savings and revenues to close that gap.

Right now we can argue--we probably have different opinions about where we want to be as far as how much debt we should hold, what's the right amount of deficit on an annual basis, but a lot of folks think if we get our debt down to 60 percent of GDP in the near term, going more later on without harming the recovery is the main question there, and also get our deficits down to 3 percent of GDP on an annual basis, that we will be in a much better spot, a spot where we will not get our credit downgraded by Moody's and Standard & Poor's and all these guys.

So we have a lot of work to do, I think. And this committee is going to have to really go way beyond the natural divisions. This is not a simple exercise. Everybody's cut is someone else's sacred program. If I had a big defense base in my district, I would probably look at the Department of Defense a little bit differently. But I do think there's some opportunities in contracting and weapons procurement. I want to protect the men and women on the ground just like my colleague from Wisconsin does. But this is not enough. We have to look at the bigger cost drivers. And that's in our revenue system that's terribly broken.

I'd point out another idea that's out there that I happen to subscribe to--it seems to get some horsepower in my town halls--is the Bowles-Simpson approach to tax reform. What they do is talk about changing the tax rates and the tax breaks. They get rid of all the tax breaks. That's a scary thought. We'd have a lot of people with lifetime employment trying to get those back, wouldn't we? Get rid of all those tax breaks and reduce everyone's tax rates. We give away so much in revenue that we can reduce the tax rates for every single income bracket and still put money on the table to pay down on our debt and maybe keep a couple of programs alive.

Their proposal reduces on average the low-income tax rates from about 15 to 8 percent; the middle class from about 22 down to about 15 or so percent; and the higher income and corporate income taxes from about 36 to 39 percent down to about 28, somewhere in that range. If we went to a territorial tax system along with the individual changes--because I agree with my colleague you have to do individual and corporate together or it doesn't work for the reasons he talked about with an S corporation. I'm a small businessman, too, and I got taxed on stuff that I was paying principal on, that I was investing in. I didn't see it at my dinner table or in my personal bank account.

So we've got to really fix the system. That's a great way to go. I guess I wouldn't advocate getting rid of all the tax breaks you probably had some defined amount in. But not a trillion dollars. Maybe something that goes away after 10 years. We pick things that actually make America more competitive, put us on an economic trend where we need to grow, and actually can grow, businesses and get businesses to make that investment that they're holding off on at this stage of the game.

Will the gentleman yield?

I totally agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin. Far too often maybe I haven't done my duty and come down to the floor and spoke up with friends and colleagues across the aisle like we're doing here tonight. It gives the American people that watch C-SPAN or CNN or you name the show the idea that everyone is out here just for political gain and scoring their points. I think Wisconsin and Oregon folks can smell what is really honest discussion and what is just the talking points off the latest poll that you or I did last week. I think we've got to get past that.

When I go back home, people are more concerned about, just get along. They're past the point almost, except for the extremes, in criticizing me or the work here. They just want us to start to get along and do what the gentleman from Wisconsin is talking about--and that's work together and recognize that you're not going to get all your way, I'm not going to get all my way. Your ideas are as valid as mine, and me talking to you for another 20 days on the floor isn't going to convince you that your ideas are all worthless. And I've got to get over that. I've got to recognize the fact this is a big country. What's good in Wisconsin may not be perfect for Oregon or Texas or Miami or San Francisco or New York, but it has a valid point.

I think at this point in time it's ``put up or shut up'' time. This country is in a world of hurt not like I have ever seen in my lifetime. I hope never to see this again in my lifetime. I have got two young boys at home; one is out of a job, the other is trying to get a job. Just got out of college. I'm lucky my other kids actually have jobs right now. I thank the lucky stars.

But it's a tough, tough environment out there. We don't want to end up like Greece. I guess that's the poster child for America to look at in a negative way. Greece, right now their debt is 150 percent of GDP. That's 150 percent, folks. That country is imploding as we speak. The European Union is trying to help bail them out. Well, what is going on? Actually, right now, Greece is scaling back its pensions dramatically, increasing property taxes significantly, and cutting income tax exemptions by 40 percent. That should have happened a while ago.

Well, here's what they did a while ago. They already increased tax rates, raised excise taxes, and already had a reduction of 15 percent in public wages. This is going to be our country's future if we don't take the little steps now. They seem harsh, they seem tough. But as my colleague spoke very, very eloquently about, we've got to do some little things now. Everybody's ox has to be gored a little bit to be fair, but not so much that you end up throwing people out on the streets.

We can make our Medicare and Social Security programs stronger. We can have a tax code that's more friendly to small business and makes us more competitive internationally going forward. We just have to have the courage to step up and do that.

I, for one, am going to stand with my colleague from Wisconsin behind this supercommittee if they go big. If they just kick the can down the road by doing the $1.2 trillion minimal, what I need to do to get out of Dodge thing, I'm going to be critical. But if they actually are big and broad-thinking, realize their kids and their grandkids have a stake in this, and that the future of our country--we will end up a second- tier country. And that's not a dramatic statement. It is a fact. If we do not come up with a $4 trillion comprehensive approach overall, including the $900 billion we already put down, we will be downgraded significantly, I think, by every single major rating agency.

China's currency will look a lot more attractive potentially than the U.S. dollar. If it looks like America is headed the way of the European Union, businessmen and -women are not going to be wanting to invest in America. They're going to invest anywhere else--India, China, Brazil, maybe even Russia. That's not a prospect that I want for my kids' future or my country's future.

We have a lot at stake at this point in time. Failure is not an option. Failure is clearly not an option. I think we need to put aside partisanship, look at the big picture, and not poke each other in the eye.

Look at the Senate the other day; right? Do you remember that? Here the Senate, we're coming back from our work period, and the Senate has two interesting votes. On the surface, both pieces have merit. One was--in my opinion anyway--let's do a deal where we help schoolkids have teachers, make sure we have first responders, but the way they pay for that is they poke the other party in the eye by saying, well, we're going to have this millionaires' tax. That is political rhetoric, folks.

The next vote is a 3 percent withholding vote, which is part of the President's program to, frankly, get the onus of this potential tax off of businesses and contractors so they get back to working without having to pay the government money they don't have right now. But that's paid for with a 20 percent cut in domestic discretionary spending--poking the Democrats in the eye.

That's not what this country should be about. That's an example of how to do it wrong, scoring political points.

I'd like to think this next election--and, frankly, the future of this country--relies on people like my friend over here from Wisconsin that's willing to put that partisanship aside, look at the big picture, do what's right for the country, take the hits.

I'm getting hit back home on my discussions, the stuff we're talking about, but I'm explaining to folks--and maybe I'm lucky, coming from Oregon. Folks are actually willing to listen a little bit. But I think most Americans are willing to listen if you have smart people like my colleague from Wisconsin willing to lay it out for you where it just makes sense.

I thank my colleague.

I just want to say it's a pleasure to be on the floor of the House of Representatives in the United States Congress with a friend and a colleague that's willing to put country first. And I think this is hopefully the beginning of a good relationship in this body and brings our country out of its worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National School Lunch Week and National Farm to School Month in support of our National School Lunch Programs and to express my concern regarding some of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's proposed rule changes to the program. As the representative of the fifth district of Oregon, I am committed to improving the contribution of the school meal program to the nutritional needs of school children.

A recent Gallup poll found that 19 percent of American families are food insecure. According to a study by the USDA, nearly 17 million American children struggle with hunger. This same study concluded that 13.7 percent of households in my home state of Oregon suffered from food ``insecurity'' meaning they lacked consistent access to adequate amounts of nutritious food. That is over 500,000 Oregonians. One of our most important programs that is essential in helping hold the line on hunger and food insecurity is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP. As of August 2011, over 780,000 people in Oregon depended on SNAP to help piece together their food budgets.

Over one-half of our students in Oregon, over 280,000, are eligible for free or reduced priced lunch. A decade ago that percentage was only one-third. For these students, the availability of the National School Lunch, School Breakfast, and Afterschool Meal programs shield them from hunger and increase their family's food security. School meals are important to ensure all low-income students receive proper nutrition. Not only do school meals help reduce hunger, but they also increase the health of children and their ability to learn.

With this increased demand for free or reduced priced meals at school, we need to recognize the added burden this puts on already strained budgets. Changes to the school meal plans must consider the constraints faced by school lunch providers. School lunch providers need to offer nutritious affordable options that children will eat and that will encourage continued high rates of participation. For many children, the school meals are their prime source of nutrition for the day. Changes that discourage participation will reduce the overall health and wellness of American children.

While 2010 Dietary Guidelines recommends higher consumption of fruits and vegetables, the proposal would eliminate some of the most popular and economical vegetables available to schools. Contrary to recommendations made in the Guidelines, USDA would limit

servings of vegetables children actually like, including corn, green peas, potatoes and lima beans, to one cup per child per week, without providing any compelling reason for doing so. Vegetables in this subgroup provide excellent nutritional value. This limit would not improve nutrition intake, but would have an adverse affect on the affordability, participation rates and nutrition quality of school meals. In this time of economic uncertainty, we cannot overlook the unintended consequences of these new and conflicting standards.

The 2010 Guidelines list four ``nutrients of concern''--potassium, dietary fiber, calcium, and vitamin D--adding that intake of these nutrients is ``low enough to be of public health concern'' in both children and adults. Potatoes, for example, have more potassium than bananas, a food commonly associated with this nutrient. Lima beans contain 21 percent of the DV of fiber and 12 percent of the DV for potassium. Green peas are rich in iron and vitamins A, B6, and C. By limiting the serving of these vegetables, USDA's proposal runs contrary to the Guidelines.

Furthermore, this rule would have a negative impact on the businesses all across the country, including the many food producers that I represent in the 5th District of Oregon. For example, NORPAC Foods, Inc., headquartered in Stayton, Oregon, is a 240 farmer-member cooperative, farming 45,000 acres and, with its associate farmers and processors, producing over 600,000,000 pounds annually. Providing schools with nutrient rich vegetables, including lima beans and green peas, is an important part of NORPAC's business. At this time of economic downturn, USDA should not impose rules that close markets for American farmers without strong nutritional justification.

In conclusion, as we recognize National School Lunch Week and the positive impact this program has on the children in our nation, I would encourage the USDA to revisit its proposal and write a rule that does not put limitations on school nutritionists' choices in how to best feed hungry children or put further economic pressures on schools or the food companies that supply our schools.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, co-sponsored by the coastal members of the Oregon delegation. This amendment is very simple; it protects 63 miles of fragile Oregon coastline and many of the communities that depend on its health.

This amendment would prevent any permits required under the Clean Air Act for oil or natural gas drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of Oregon. It respects Oregon State's right to decide what is best for its coast without Federal interference.

Our Oregon coastal communities depend on the health and natural vitality of the Pacific Ocean. They already face tremendous pressure both in the fishing arena and in our tourism economy. They cannot afford an environmental catastrophe like Deepwater Horizon.

While Oregon has operated under a congressionally supported moratorium on drilling since 1982, this had expired in 2008. Oregon's citizens and its businesses deserve certainty to be able to invest in our fishing and tourism infrastructure.

We respect other States' rights to do what they need to do and suggest what they want. Oregon is leading the way in renewables. We have a State energy portfolio that highlights hydro, solar, wind, wave, biomass, and waste-to-energy technologies, not oil or coal.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from the north coast of Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the Congressman from southern Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I yield 1 minute to the Congressman from the largest port in our great State, Congressman Earl Blumenauer.

How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chair, Oregonians don't want or need drilling off our coast. This amendment is supported by all three Members of the entire Oregon coastline and our State legislature. We respect, and I hope this body would respect, Oregonians' right to determine their own destiny. We are not talking about Alaska, we are talking about the State of Oregon, and we are only talking about oil and natural gas permits.

House Members representing this coast are very passionate about its health and future vitality. We urge this body to pass this amendment and respect Oregon's destiny.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the House, we have come here today to fulfill our constitutional duty and provide for the common defense of this great country.

As we finish consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012, I believe we have one more duty to fulfill. Mr. Speaker, my final amendment to this bill offers an opportunity for all of us to come together and recognize the supreme sacrifice our fellow citizens populating our armies and Navy make on our behalf.

Regardless of how one feels about the underlying bill or the mission of our troops in Iraq or in Afghanistan, we can all agree, I hope, on the valor, the sacrifice, that we see in our soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors who put themselves in harm's way for our protection. They have been sent overseas to face hostile fire and imminent danger to themselves in service to the Constitution of this great United States. They do an extraordinary job and, I believe, are deserving of our utmost support.

My amendment proposes an additional authorization for an increase in combat pay for troops deployed in the field to be added to the underlying bill. In the coming months, we are going to debate appropriations for FY 2012 and beyond. I hope this body will engage in a successful debate to put the United States on a fiscally responsible path, but budgets should not be balanced on the backs of our troops.

Our fiscal situation is well-known to each and every Member of this body.

We all know the task before us will be very, very difficult. We know that fiscal decisions we make in the coming months will determine our ability to provide for the defense and security of the United States. And without question, the Federal deficit and national debt are national security concerns. This issue before us at this moment does not go against that recognition.

This body has already recognized the need to look at defense and security spending in order to meet fiscal objectives. I believe we can find enough savings within the Department of Defense to make a few necessary reinvestments like this. If we do our job well enough this summer, my amendment will allow us to put a small portion of the savings we find into an increase in the maximum amount of special pay we make available to our troops facing hostile fire or imminent danger in 2012 by a mere $100 a month.

I have the distinct honor of representing thousands of Oregon National Guard troops and veterans who serve bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have left their families and their jobs to face death, injury, and combat. They deserve our support.

Current compensation levels for special combat pay were set back in 2003. This was before ``insurgency'' and ``IEDs'' were commonly understood terms. For 10 years, we have asked men and women of our Armed Forces to face great danger. It's time we provide them with more for the risks they're willing to take on all our behalves.

Voting ``yes'' for this final amendment will not change the fate of the underlying bill or increase Federal spending. It simply offers us all the option of giving ourselves a chance to do the right thing and support our troops.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this final amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 7, 2011, I voted to support final passage of H.R. 1363 in error. I do not support the policies or funding levels contained within this piece of legislation, and request that the record reflect my opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk a little bit about what has been going on recently. We heard a little colloquy just a moment ago with the majority leader and the minority leader talking about what is going on in H.R. 1 and some of the catastrophic cuts that are being proposed by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I spoke earlier during the debate on H.R. 1, and found from communications that the people back in my district in Oregon are taking it seriously. They are worried that we will do the devastating $60 billion worth of cuts within a short, 1-year time frame that has been universally panned, actually, by experts across the country.

My colleagues and I on the Democratic side have offered alternatives that I think are a little more reasonable. We realize, as the gentleman from Maryland talked about, we need to make some reductions, but we should make them in a serious way, something that will accomplish our goals. I think scaring Americans needlessly is inappropriate.

The cuts they are talking about are not going to happen. The Food and Drug Administration, we just passed a food safety bill in the last Congress, and they want to cut $240 million below the 2010 level, much less implement the Food and Drug Safety Administration work that we have asked them to do. USDA would be furloughing inspectors. Our meat safety programs would not be safe. We would not be able to have the processing plants inspected on a regular basis going forward.

The ability for some of our small, rural communities to have safe drinking water hinges on the wastewater and drinking programs that we have, the revolving loan funds that we have here in Congress. Reducing the programs as much as Republicans want would cause serious, serious problems. It would also eliminate 54,000 engineering, construction, and support jobs as a result of this. We need to be adding jobs, not subtracting jobs at this point in time.

We also have State and local grants. We have States back home, and our local communities are starving right now. A lot of the budgets are out of whack. The worst thing we can be doing is cutting our State grant programs which fund the education, public safety, and health care needs of our local communities. We should actually be empowering and helping them through these tough budget times, and only the Federal Government has that ability.

The firefighter grants are being cut. COPS grants are being cut. Our public safety is at serious risk here. I can't believe this is being proposed in any serious manner whatsoever. I have to assume it is all part of the political theater and part of the campaign still. It is time to get off the campaign trail and quit the political circus and get back to actually worrying about serious reductions we have to make to put our country back in balance, and that means going to other programs.

They are also wanting to cut title 1 grants to school districts. This is the one area where the Federal Government actually comes to the aid of the local school districts with special ed and IDEA moneys that they need to actually make sure that they can deliver those high-cost special needs programs to students. We are actually cutting them: $700 million from the two big formula programs we have here. It is a 4 percent cut to title 1 programming when our local districts need it the most.

Head Start, a proven, performance-based program to get our kids off to a great start and a great education so they don't need the remediation that we have to do later on in high school and college. They are cutting Head Start 20 percent, so 200,000 children would be kicked out of the Head Start program. I don't think that's the way you become a world leader. I don't think that is going to help our STEM programs do the research and innovation we need.

Pell Grants. Pell Grants, a commitment we made to American students, I think it is really important. Back home in Oregon, I worked very, very hard on a scholarship program that actually, with our Federal aid, our State aid, scholarship programs, parental involvement, and student working at a minimum wage job during the summer full time and during the school year part-time, the student could actually graduate from college with an undergraduate degree and no more than $13,000 or $14,000 in debt. When we take our share of the bargain away by cutting the Pell Grant program from our promised level of $5,500 down to $4,700, that can make the difference between young men and women actually being able to afford that college education so they can compete with the best and brightest around the world.

Job training. It is unbelievable to me that in H.R. 1, our Republican colleagues are cutting job training employment services; more than $4 billion in cuts to job training programs. This is unconscionable, folks. This is exactly the time when we need to get these dislocated workers back into the workforce. The Trade Adjustment Act cuts are unconscionable. We need to make sure that there is an opportunity for these folks to retrain, get back in the workforce, pay taxes, and help get the economy back on track. Cutting these programs just doesn't make any sense.

They are even cutting Social Security, folks. Pretty amazing. They cut the operational budget from $125 million below the 2010 level, and $1 billion dollars below the President's requested level for 2011. They apparently don't think that we need technology to improve Social Security's ability to work with seniors and make sure that they get the services they need, to cut down on mistakes and to cut down on the fraud and abuse in the benefit programs for our deserving Social Security recipients. They don't care. They really don't care. It is pretty amazing the range and scope of these cuts.

We have listened to Ben Bernanke in the Budget Committee say that the Republican plan would result in hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in this country. Mark Zandi, McCain's economist, he puts a number on it of 700,000 jobs lost. Goldman Sachs, not exactly a paragon of liberal virtue, said it would really hit our GDP, maybe 2 percent.

We need jobs, we need jobs, we need jobs. We have to be smart how we go about this. Right now we need surgical cuts, not the meat ax approach that is being proposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

I offered a proposal during the debate that would have cut our budget by about $22 billion. It is kind of a nice intermediate approach as I see it from where the Senate is and where our colleagues started. It also looks at the defense budget. I am a huge supporter of our warriors overseas and in this country. They do great things, whether it is a local disaster or a serious problem abroad. But we have to look at the contracting and the weapons procurement programs. Secretary Gates has been very, very clear that there is lots of room, lots and lots of room for improvement there.

I think we need to work on a bipartisan approach. Enough of the political theater, frankly, on both sides. It is time to sit down and look at the individual programs and services that are most in need for this country right now. And until we are willing to sit down and do that, we are going to continue to do these 2- or 3-week continuing resolutions that make a mockery out of the greatest country in the world, funding the Federal Government of the United States of America 2 weeks at a time. I think there is nothing that makes us look more foolish in the world's eyes and in our own constituents' eyes and to the folks at home. It is time for us to really move forward.

There has been a lot of bashing of our public sector employees across the Nation. A public sector job is apparently a bad thing. Well, I am here to tell you in my corner of the universe in Oregon, the public sector employer is oftentimes the biggest employer, and sometimes the only employer of any real size in some of these communities. The school districts, the school districts in rural Oregon are oftentimes the big employer. These are good jobs. These are people, teachers who are giving of their time. And, frankly, my wife is a teacher, she is working overtime, after hours, putting their own dollars sometimes into the kitty to make sure our kids get a great education. The demagoguery that goes on of the public sector is, I think, unfortunate and out of place here.

The hospitals in rural parts of our country are oftentimes the biggest employer. Oftentimes they are public hospitals; they are not private operations. Not-for-profit hospitals, there are a bunch of them in Oregon, and they are huge employers. That has got to be recognized. Again, the demagoguery, I just don't think has any place.

Right now, I point to a project that's going on along the central coast of the great State of Oregon, which is moving the NOAA fleet, the Pacific NOAA fleet, down into a small community that has been devastated for years, not just by this recent recession, but by over 20 years of strife. Fishing has been cut back. Fishing grounds have been cut back. Timber has been cut back. You can't cut any trees anymore in our State. They've been hurting for a long time. The recession has added to it. They've tried to go into the tourism business, and that has been hit, obviously, with what has gone on in this recession.

As a result of that, we actually have a very exciting opportunity for the Pacific NOAA fleet to come down and regenerate that economy, providing thousands of new jobs, with hundreds immediately related to the NOAA project, itself. For all the parts, all the remediation, all the opportunities to partner in the community, there should be some great opportunities, I think, for the central Oregon coast. This would all be put in jeopardy because the Commerce budget and the NOAA budget are cut.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Absolutely.

Indeed.

It may even be sooner than that.

I mean, you can't help but note the devastation wrought by the earthquake in New Zealand just very recently and now here in Japan. This is the Pacific Rim, the volatile Pacific Rim. So I think there are a great deal of problems that we've got to be careful of.

The good Congresswoman from Hawaii is feeling the brunt of it right now. I yield to the gentlewoman.

I appreciate the gentlelady's comments. We have some breaking news from southern Oregon.

Well, we're on the phone right now trying to make sure that the folks are safe. I do know that schools have been evacuated, and the lower elevations that are very flood prone, they've taken precautions. Thank goodness, thanks to the comments I've heard from the gentlelady from Hawaii and the Congressman from Washington as well as my colleague from Oregon, we have some of these programs in place that can actually save lives and make sure that the economic infrastructure hopefully in the future is not at risk.

Just this morning I had a visit from Mark Apple with Oregon State University talking about a program that's in danger because of these cuts, because of the cuts to the National Science Foundation programs, along with NIH and anything else that's got research that the Republicans are trying to cut away.

They've got a great project. They've hired 25 people already. They're putting buoys on the floor of the ocean and sensing devices to actually have real-time monitoring of ocean conditions so we can actually anticipate what's going to be happening long before it actually hits our coast. We can also plan--plan our fisheries, plan what we need to do with ocean acidification that's devastating the oysters up and down the Pacific coast and actually in other parts of the world right now.

The leading research is being done in my district on oyster larva and trying to make sure that ocean acidification does not cause a problem. That stuff is in danger right now. I don't think some of my colleagues on the other side of

the aisle understand how important this stuff is. So we're going to have to be watching very, very carefully, I think, going forward and make sure that there are not these bludgeoning deep cuts that are not really smart.

Where is the discussion about the duplicative programs? We just had a great GOP report. I've heard a lot of posturing on the other side. Where is it? It's not included in H.R. 1. I mean, look at this. In Afghanistan and Iraq we've got USAID programs and Department of Defense rebuilding the country. There's not even a centralized data system that tracks U.S. funds used. I mean, that's crazy. Why aren't we looking at that? Why isn't that part of what we're working on?

Our domestic food assistance programs. There are 18 different programs. I want to see something in a budget resolution or a proposal going forward that talks about streamlining some of this stuff, that the data collection, the administration of these programs you can save millions and millions--perhaps billions of dollars. And here is a quote: ``Little is known of the effectiveness of some of these programs because they have not been well studied.''

Job training. I talked about job training. They're taking a meat ax to it. There are 47 programs in job training. Let's get those organized so we can leverage the limited dollars we're going to be able to put forward in these tough economic times.

Same thing for transportation for the disadvantaged, 80 different programs; laudable, but let's get together on this. Again, there doesn't need to be 80 different programs. Where are my colleagues' concrete proposals? They're in charge; they're the majority party. Where are their concrete proposals to improve this, for goodness sakes?

Military health, veteran services. We've got to do right by our men and women who have served this country through times good and times bad. Our responsibilities are distributed so far widely we can't even get critical procurement centralized opportunities that would save billions of dollars, billions and billions of dollars.

We also have a situation where the Department of Defense now, if they conveniently need some money, rather than go through appropriate channels, they have urgent needs processes for developing, modifying and fielding new military capabilities. Well, that's being abused, folks. GAO found eight entities that respond to them, five for counter- IED technologies, and they have no way of tracking the system for this program, no way of tracking metrics for this program. Must be nice to be able to spend the taxpayers' money with no accountability.

I was at a dinner the other night working on some budget issues, and it came out that when the Department of Defense was asked about contracting--how many civilian folks do you have under contract, how many people are you contracting with--their answer was, somewhere between 1 million and 10 million. I mean, that's a big range, folks; that's a big range.

The Department of Defense has no clue as to how and what they're doing. Where is that money being spent? We cannot afford rampant, undisciplined--unauditable has been the term used--spending in the Department of Defense. They're supposed to report their budget annually, come in with a coherent budget. It has been determined that it is unauditable, folks. I mean, we talk about the domestic side--and, yes, there are certain things we can do, as I'm talking about here, to improve the programs, but it's also on the defense side that we've got to get our act together.

Let's talk about economic development. I mean, we want to make sure we're getting the biggest bang for the buck here. We have 80 different economic development programs spread through Commerce, HUD, USDA, Small Business Administration. I mean, it's all good that we're doing that, but let's have some centralized opportunities. Let's leverage the resources.

In my home State of Oregon when I was budget chair, we would see the Federal Government's money come in. It was all different programs tied with all these little strings. It made it very difficult for my local agencies and my local communities to use the money. Very, very inflexible. And that's got to end. We've got to break down these silos, allow people to work across the spectrum so that we can get the biggest bang for the buck.

I would also point out that in our surface transportation programs we work really hard trying to keep America competitive. In H.R. 1, there are huge cuts to the transportation budget. If we're going to be competitive going forward like we were after World War II when Eisenhower, a Republican President, and Congress put together a secure highway fund, realizing that our security depended on having interstate highways that were connected, you could travel at a reasonable rate, we need to be thinking along those same lines now.

If they were worried about the cost of that program and not the security of this country or the economic benefits, it would never have gotten off the ground. I mean, this is a capital program. And, again, my colleagues across the aisle don't seem to understand the difference between an operational budget and a capital budget.

We need to be making infrastructure investments right now.

There is an opportunity for America, probably a narrow window--I'd say the next 10 years--for us to be competitive going forward with the rest of the world. Right now, the developing nations that are pretty developed, like China, India, they're developing 21st century infrastructure. We're still dealing with a 20th century infrastructure, and that's not going to cut it, colleagues. That's just not going to get the job done.

We've got to be thinking about making the strategic investments so our businesses can be competitive worldwide around the globe.

Right now, there's a new enterprise in my home State of Oregon on the coast that's currently under siege through the natural disasters where they're actually trying to export Dungeness crab--the best crab in the world, with no disrespect to my colleagues from Maryland. But the best crab in the world comes from the Pacific coast, the north coast, if you will, Dungeness crab.

They're now able to export live crab to China. But the hurdles to go through to get there are almost insurmountable. That was started back in 2003. They tried to get a program going. And because of the difficulties in transporting and some of the bureaucratic redtape to go through that, it didn't work.

They have now come up with a much more viable program for a whole new industry to really export to China. Instead of China exporting here and hurting our jobs, we're creating jobs in the Pacific Northwest and exporting high-quality products to China. We need more of that sort of innovation going forward. That's the type of investment in infrastructure.

We shouldn't have to ship it to Vancouver, B.C., to get it over there on a direct flight. We should be able to have a direct flight from Portland, Oregon, to make that actually happen.

So I think we're missing the boat here in terms of what we're trying to effect and the issues I think that we're dealing with in this H.R. 1. We're trying to hit only domestic programs, programs that our kids depend on. Penalizing the kids of the future.

Oftentimes, I hear my colleagues across the aisle talking about we've got to worry about our kids and our grandkids. I see the photos brought to the floor. Well, let's worry about our kids and grandkids and support the education programs I talked about earlier. Let's support the early health care prevention programs that were in the health care bill last Congress, make sure our kids don't suffer from the same problems that are debilitating obese Americans right now.

I mean, we know that prevention is important. We must be funding prevention. We need the innovation to come up with the programs to make sure that our chronic diseases are under control. The health care cuts in H.R. 1 are unbelievable. I know it's politically their big mantra to roll back or repeal health care reform, but folks, that is the wrong way to go right now. Our health care system is broken. We desperately need some help.

I welcome my colleague from the north coast of Oregon.

I thank the gentleman from the north coast of my great State of Oregon for his comments. They're right on the money, and I very appreciated his time.

I would now like to yield some time to the gentlelady from Hawaii, our new Member. Welcome.

I appreciate the very kind remarks. Indeed, our hearts go out to the people of Japan, much like they did in New Zealand. Very concerned about the health and welfare. I am sure this country will come to their aid like it does in any disaster, and like a lot of our friends did when we suffered similar consequences, whether it's Katrina or the horrible attacks on 9/11. We have had our brothers and sisters around the world come to our aid, and I appreciate that.

I would ask how much time we have left in the hour, if I may.

To follow on the gentlelady's remarks, I think there are areas where we can get together. The illusion that cutting the domestic budget for this country, the discretionary budget, is going to solve our woes and put us back in financial balance and avoid the Armageddon that's somewhat before us is a horrible illusion. I don't think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really believe that's going to be solving any of our problems. Even the defense reductions that I talked about that are targeted to increase the efficiency of the Department of Defense and make sure our warriors get what they really need, even including the defense budget, it's not going to be getting at the root cause of our debt and deficit problems.

As we all know, those two, domestic and defense discretionary expenses, only account for about 30 percent of the budget for the American people. The bulk of it is tied up in other areas. Our Tax Code is shown to be extremely inadequate. We are collecting revenues now at an all-time low. Yes, some of it's the recession; but it's also because we give away more in tax breaks than we actually spend on domestic and defense programs in this country in the discretionary budget. Yes, $1.2 billion given away in tax expenditures. We spend money on these tax breaks. It's spending money by giving away all these breaks.

We need to broaden our tax base, quite frankly, and reduce the rates. I think if we're going to get real about solving our budget problems, we need to begin to embrace some of the recommendations, if not the package that the fiscal commission the President set up last year, we need to embrace those recommendations in some form. This is the real meat of the issue, colleagues. This is where the rubber meets the road. If we do not actually have the guts, the political courage to step up and deal with some of these problems, we are mortgaging our children and grandchildren's future.

In the last Congress, much was said about the health care reform. No matter how you feel about that bill, and I said this again and again at town halls back home, no matter how you feel about the bill, you should be in favor of the $500 billion in savings in the Medicare budget. These are long overdue. A lot of these things weren't new. They had been proposed one Congress after another, but no political will, no political courage to step up and try and take them on.

I think it's important for Americans to understand and respect their leaders, that the people in this body, in this Chamber, and in our sister Chamber across the Capitol Rotunda, that we're willing to step up and make these tough decisions. I don't think anyone wants to pay hospitals for preventible readmissions. I think everyone wants to make sure that the repayment system for our hospitals and our doctors is as efficient as possible. I think everyone wants to make sure that fraudulent companies are not taking advantage of seniors in the Medicare or Social Security system. I think people ought to see our Medicare and support system, our safety net system, if you will, protected. It's really important that we have that opportunity and that we make these tough decisions.

If we're not going to look at tax reform, we're not going to look at Social Security, we're not going to look at Medicare, Medicaid, other mandatory savings in the budget, we will have missed the boat. I think the people back home get it. I think the only people that don't get it are the people in Congress. It's time that we step up and make some tough decisions and show these people we have some backbone.

There is this little waiting game going on here in Congress right now. I will show a little of my hand if you show a little of your hand. That's fine. I understand everyone wants their ``political cover,'' but it takes leadership, people willing to step up and embrace some of the solutions that are already on the table.

I think there are ways you can do it without causing problems. Indeed, I think you can actually solve problems. You know, I think we need spending caps. We did PAYGO in the last Congress. We only did half of PAYGO. We only dealt with mandatory spending. We need to have the spending caps that were in place when a Democratic President and a Republican Congress instituted PAYGO in the mid-nineties. If we put that in place, then we have real, real control on our domestic and defense spending.

I think if we are going to do reductions, we should prioritize both. Equal cuts in defense and domestic spending, at least for the first few years here. We can at least make sure that there is an opportunity for both sides, if you will. Both sides of the aisle have different priorities, I respect that, but let's treat them equally.

I think that the draconian cuts of $60 billion or $100 billion in the President's recommended budget are too draconian. I am worried smarter people than I, as I alluded to earlier in my remarks, have talked about how devastating that would be. We can get to the same result--rolling back to 2008 levels--if that's where we want to go by approaching it in a thoughtful way. The fiscal commission talks about gradually reducing it so that we are at those levels by 2013, and then allowing inflationary increases only. Again, the spending caps would help us.

In the tax reform arena I don't think there is anybody that doesn't want to have their taxes reduced. I would love to see my tax rates go down. Right now, the effective rate for a lot of folks, when you add in the State and local taxes, is nearly 50 percent in my corner of the world. You know, that's terrible.

If we were able to get rid of the tax breaks, get rid of all of the giveaways that we have out there, we could actually reduce the tax rates almost in half. We could reduce our corporate tax rate down to at least 29 percent. Then we would be a little competitive with the rest of the world. There wouldn't be maybe quite so much overseas offshoring of American jobs. It would be more palatable, more appealing to keep these jobs and these businesses and these plants here in America so we

could have Made in America products going overseas instead of importing everything from China or India.

I think if we were to reform the Tax Code along the lines that I am talking about, and that I see in some of the fiscal commission reports, that we could actually use some of that savings to reduce our deficit, seriously, going forward, reducing the deficit on an ongoing basis. Now I am not proposing necessarily that we reduce or get rid of all tax expenditures over the long haul. We should have an opportunity to add back for set periods of time with specific sunsets targeted tax expenditures that help our economy or help those most in need of our help. I think that's the more thoughtful discussion we need to have going forward that's missing so far.

Social Security. Social Security is going to be gone, cut benefits, 25 percent in about 25 years if we do nothing. So if you don't care about Social Security, don't do anything. Don't do anything. That's what we are doing right now. We are not doing anything.

If you care about Social Security, I mean, I have friends, I have friends that are 30 and 40 years old, and they don't expect Social Security to be there when they get of age. And I don't think people already know Social Security's age for full benefits is 67. It's not 65. That was changed back during the Reagan years.

We could do some pretty smart fixes here. The commission talks about raising the retirement age to 69, over 65 years gradually. I know it's going to feel that, we are not going to affect the seniors right now. The seniors right now, full benefits, fully protected. Even those about to become seniors, full benefits just right now.

But if you raise that age to 69 over 25 years or over 65 years, I think that's a pretty good deal if that helps keep Social Security solvent. The payroll tax originally was set up to be roughly 90 percent of payroll. It's down to about 85 and scheduled to go down to about 82 percent of the payroll out there. That's not the way the system was designed.

The system was designed to work at a higher level. If we just go back to that same payroll level that's subject to the same payroll tax to fund Social Security, it helps keep it in balance. And there is early means testing. I mean, I have to admit as a new Member of Congress, a hardworking, small business guy, I was not focused on Social Security. But in Congress it's a big, big thing, and I am getting close enough to where it becomes a personal issue.

I did not know Social Security is already means tested. The commission suggests a little tweaking of that to make sure the poorest of the poor still get good benefits and get maximum needs taken care of. They add another bracket, if you will, in Social Security.

And with those three simple little things, with some hardship exclusions, obviously, for people in tough, labor-intensive jobs, we can make sure that Social Security is protected for the next 75 years as opposed to going away or seeing a 25 percent reduction in just 25 years.

There are smart things we can do, folks. We already started down the road to being smart in our Medicare program. There is discussion of Medicaid. I don't think voucher programs or privatizing have any place in this discussion. But there are smarter ways that we can come together on, Republicans and Democrats, working together to really get at taking care of our country's deficit needs. We can reduce our debt, the deficit, dramatically in the near term if we just pay attention to what I have talked about here.

Let's get off the H.R. 1 bandwagon, the political theater, the circus that's consuming a lot of taxpayer dollars and really not moving this country forward. Let's begin the dialogue right here, right now about taking care of the big cost drivers, the big spending items that are affecting our future and our children and grandchildren's future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the City of Waldport, Oregon on the occasion of its 100th Anniversary. Nestled along Oregon's beautiful coast line, Waldport has long been known for its pristine beaches, premier fishing, and forest products.

The first settlers traveled to the town by means of the Alsea River in the late 1870's and named it Waldport. The name comes from the German word for forest ``wald'' and ``port'' for the town site's location. The town had long been home to several Native American coastal tribes and would come to lay upon an old Indian burial ground. Its founders, David and Orlena Ruble would map out the city, using only the evening stars as their guide. By 1890 the city would be chartered and would go on to see decades of robust economic growth.

In 1918, Waldport would build its very own railroad which was used by the United States Army to log and transport spruce for its airplanes. After World War I ended, communities throughout the Pacific Northwest would weather a small recession as the demand for such materials declined.

Prior to the last two decades, Waldport's economy was driven by logging, timber products, fishing, and dairy and would be home to sawmills and salmon canneries. Salmon, trout, and surf fishing is at its best in this quaint coastal community.

Today, Waldport is as resilient as ever and maintains is coastal charm. When the tide goes out visitors and residents alike can dig for clams, comb the city's pristine beaches, and rake crabs. Waldport is a quiet city where one can escape the hustle and bustle of daily life and enjoy everything life has to offer.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to represent the City of Waldport, Oregon and its residents. I congratulate the citizens of Waldport on their centennial and I look forward to sharing in the celebration.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, colleagues, I have enjoyed seeing this open process in this body for the first time in a long time, as far as it goes. However, a real open process would allow for real alternatives representing meaningful compromises in scope as well as in the particulars. America needs and deserves a real bipartisan solution that is more than political theater and actually has a chance of being a viable compromise with the Senate and President.

I took two messages from the election last November: America wants jobs, and they want to see their Nation's fiscal health restored. To achieve these dual objectives, we need to have a careful balance between ensuring this fragile recovery and beginning the march to prudent fiscal reform. Expert economists and previous CBO directors agree that $61 billion in reductions to the 2010 budget level, which we are currently debating, representing a 14 percent hit to our domestic spending on education, health care, public safety, and economic development, would be a crushing, crushing burden on job creation and our economic recovery.

Contrary to the lofty rhetoric surrounding the CR's role in correcting our budget deficits and national debt, this deals with less than 15 percent of our budget.

I'm afraid this is merely a political exercise. America is begging for more from its duly elected Representatives. The proposed CR does not even get to the mythical $100 billion in reductions that were talked about during the political campaign. This proposal was not even considered by the Republican leadership as real. They opted for a more reasonable $34 billion reduction target before being hijacked by politics again. Where are the open committee

hearings? Where is the testimony from individuals, businesses or agencies? We are operating with virtually no deliberation at all; and oftentimes, Members have mere minutes to evaluate the amendments.

Members have literally been working day and night for a reasonable compromise. We need a CR that gets us through these tough times and sets the stage for real fiscal reform.

I have such a proposal before you here today. My alternative CR requires a 4.7 percent, across-the-board reduction in domestic spending for the remainder of 2011. The only exception is the Census Bureau. My proposal strikes more appropriate reductions in military spending while at the same time protecting our warriors in the field. As the Secretary of Defense has stated, we need to eliminate costly weapons systems, way over budget, out-of-control civilian contracting and achieve much needed efficiencies in the agency. So rather than a 2 percent increase, we talk about a 1 percent increase.

This proposal, which I hope is taken as a beginning for a bipartisan compromise on the continuing resolution, makes real cuts of about $20 billion in our current level of spending, enough to be meaningful, with 7 months remaining in our calendar year, or our fiscal year, but not enough to undermine the recovery. It's simple, it's serious, and it's real.

I urge its adoption.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order