Floor Statements

I support Representative Broun's motion to instruct. Let me explain why.

For six decades, America has been the greatest Nation in history. We are blessed with a standard of living envied by the world, a military unmatched in history, freedoms that others can only dream of.

Why is America great? Because Americans before us sacrificed so that their children, their grandchildren, their country would enjoy a better future.

Our Founding Fathers exemplified America's spirit when they stated in the Declaration of Independence:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm

reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually

pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred

honor.

In contrast, today's Washington abandons America's foundational principles. Today's Washington supports unsustainable spending binges that abandon our children and grandchildren and America's future.

Perhaps a refresher is needed to emphasize America's financial plight.

Mr. Speaker, let me first direct your attention to this deficit chart. As the chart reflects, America suffers from three consecutive, record-breaking, and unsustainable trillion-dollar deficits, and we are in the midst of a fourth trillion-dollar deficit that is projected for this year.

Think about that for a moment.

In fiscal year 2011, Washington borrowed 36 cents for every dollar it spent. No household or business could survive borrowing 36 cents for it to operate. Similarly, no nation can survive that either. As a result, America blew through the $15 trillion accumulated debt mark in November of last year. This year, America is going to blow through the $16 trillion debt mark.

Mr. Speaker, the next chart reflects spending for FY 2010 and FY 2011. In FY 2010, the cost of America's debt service was $196 billion. In FY 2011, the cost of America's debt service was $221 billion. They're relatively small slices of those pies. However, in just 1 year, the cost to American taxpayers to service America's debt increased by $25 billion.

To put that into perspective, $25 billion is more than NASA's entire budget--and this is at record low interest rates. If America's creditors become as insecure as the creditors of Greece, Spain, Italy, and any number of other nations and if interest rates go up accordingly, America's debt service would jump to the $800 billion-a- year range, making debt service more costly than our entire budget for national defense, our entire budget for Social Security, or our entire budget for Medicare. Consequently, if we had this small slice of the pie increase to $800 billion a year, every other service provided by the Federal Government would have to shrink.

So that we are clear, reckless, out-of-control spending is the cause of America's deficits.

In fiscal year 2007, when Nancy Pelosi became House Speaker and when Harry Reid became the Senate Majority Leader, America spent $2.7 trillion. In FY 2011, America spent $3.6 trillion. In just 4 years, Federal Government spending went up $900 billion--a 33 percent increase. Simply stated, there is no end in sight to Washington's reckless and irresponsible spending.

Mr. Speaker, if Washington does not gain wisdom and backbone, if Washington does not change its reckless spending habit, then there will be an American insolvency and bankruptcy. For emphasis, the question is not ``if.'' The questions are ``when?'' and ``how much damage will be done to our Nation from that insolvency and bankruptcy?'' President Obama's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, gave insight when he stated, ``I think the biggest threat we have to our national security is our debt.''

And he is right. Already, America's out-of-control spending threatens to force the firing of 700,000 national defense personnel starting in a mere 7 months, on January 1 of 2013. Let me emphasize that: threatened with 700,000 lost jobs. No enemy has ever undermined America's national defense so badly.

But it does not end with the decimation of America's national defense, which may leave America at the mercy of our enemies abroad. America's insolvency and bankruptcy risk the elimination of Social Security and Medicare, thereby breaching our obligations

to our elderly and leaving them impoverished and without medical care.

To summarize the danger to America, think back to the Great Depression in the 1930s and imagine how bad it would have been if then the Federal Government had been insolvent. As you do this, remember the result of the Great Depression--an ensuing war that killed tens of millions of men, women, and children worldwide.

All of this brings me to Paul Broun's motion to instruct. The transportation bill is a microcosm of what threatens America. We enjoy, roughly, $37 billion in expected highway revenue, yet some in Washington seek to spend, roughly, $51 billion. That's $14 billion a year that we don't have.

Now, there are solutions to this budget gap that I could support. We could cut $14 billion in foreign aid and spend it on American roads, but my colleagues across the aisle oppose that. We could cut welfare and stop paying $14 billion a year to people to not work and instead pay $14 billion a year to people to work on buildings and bridges, but my colleagues across the aisle oppose that. There are plenty of solutions out there, but simply borrowing another $14 billion a year we don't have is not one of them.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot in good conscience support a transportation bill that spends, roughly, $14 billion we don't have, thereby accelerating America on its path to insolvency and bankruptcy.

In that vein, I thank Congressman Paul Broun for filing his motion to instruct and for displaying the leadership America so sorely needs. Congressman Broun is a man of principle. He has the intellect to understand the economic disaster that awaits America if Washington does not live within its means. More importantly, Mr. Broun has the backbone to do something about it. It is an honor to stand with Congressman Broun and to support his motion to instruct.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun), I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to address a shortcoming in the manner in which ARPA-E, the Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, spends taxpayer dollars.

In August 2011, the Department of Energy Inspector General released an audit report that disputed costs incurred by ARPA-E award recipients. For clarity, an ARPA-E award recipient is a private company or entity that seeks operational cost reimbursement from Federal taxpayers.

The Inspector General disputes that private company expenses for ``meetings with bankers to raise capital'' and ``a fee to appear on a local television program'' are reimbursable costs that Federal taxpayers should pay for. The Inspector General report found that such spending violates Federal acquisition regulation subpart 31.2.

ARPA-E disputed the Inspector General's finding and argued that such costs are allowable under ARPA-E's statutory authority to fund technology transfer and outreach activities.

In February 2011, ARPA-E finalized Technology Transfer and Outreach guidance for awardees that explicitly encourages ARPA-E private company awardees to engage in and seek taxpayer reimbursement for these questionable expenditures.

More specifically, the policy states that acceptable taxpayer reimbursement activities by private companies include:

Marketing and other expenditures related to promoting an

ARPA-E funded technology;

Consulting and other expenditures related to developing

ARPA-E-funded technologies, building business and identifying

potential users, markets and customers, e.g., business plan

development, market research, and

Presentation and other expenditures relating to seeking

additional funding from the private sector and government

agencies.

ARPA-E guidance suggests the inappropriate spending identified by the Inspector General may be significantly widespread. At a January 2012 hearing, the Science, Space and Technology Committee's Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight examined ARPA-E guidance in spending.

One day prior to the hearing, ARPA-E delivered to the committee an updated policy that omits mention of these questionable spending activities. Hence, ARPA-E's revision adds confusion, not clarity, to the pending question. In the absence of more explicit guidance consistent with the Inspector General's spending concerns, there is a significant risk to American taxpayers that ARPA-E private company awardees will incur costs that violate Federal regulations, yet which ARPA-E reimburses out of taxpayer funds.

On February 10, Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight Chairman Paul Broun asked ARPA-E Director Majumdar to clarify in writing whether ARPA-E considers the activities mentioned in the original ARPA-E policy as allowable spending. Responses to these questions were due on February 24, 2012, but the Department of Energy refused to provide a response, a response which is now well over 3 months past the deadline.

This amendment does what ARPA-E should have already done, make it explicitly clear that the spending concerns identified by the Inspector General using taxpayer funds to raise private capital and using tax dollars to market, advertise, and promote private company-funded technologies are not allowable.

ARPA-E tax dollars should not go to private company advertising, marketing and ``meetings with bankers to raise capital.''

Stated differently, in this era of deficits and accumulated debt that threaten America with insolvency and bankruptcy, American tax dollars should not be used to pay for the operational costs of private sector companies, particularly when the Inspector General has already determined they are improper.

I yield to the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I oppose Representative Polis's amendment to cut Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) by $403 Million.

Russia's most senior military leader recently threatened to pre- emptively attack U.S.-led NATO missile defense sites in Europe should America not kowtow to Russian demands.

In light of these threats, and others from North Korea and Iran, a strong missile defense system is vital to the safety and security of America and American troops deployed overseas.

And GMD works. For example, the CE1 interceptor, used by GMD, is three for three in successful testing.

Hence, GMD is critical to America's national security. GMD must be adequately funded.

I urge rejection of the Polis Amendment that puts American cities and American lives at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to General Ann E. Dunwoody, Commanding General, U.S. Army Materiel Command, on the occasion of her retirement following 37 years of exemplary service to the United States Military. Being from Huntsville, Alabama, home to Redstone Arsenal and U.S. Army Material Command and as a Member of the House Committee on Armed Services, I have had the honor of knowing General Dunwoody and witnessing her patriotism and dedication to this great Nation.

General Dunwoody's service is marked by many firsts. She is the 82nd Airborne Division's first female battalion commander, she is Fort Bragg's first female general officer, she is the Combined Arms Support Command's first female commander, she is our Nation's first female four-star general, and she is the U.S. Army Materiel Command's first female commander. These historic achievements forever mark General Dunwoody as a true pioneer.

General Dunwoody's many stellar achievements in uniform, including her deployment to Saudi Arabia with the 82nd Airborne in the Persian Gulf War, are a tribute to her character and ability, but she is admired most for her compassionate leadership and for the steadfast courage she has shown in the defense of our Nation. General Dunwoody is, first and foremost, a proud, fourth-generation U.S. Army Soldier.

As General Dunwoody and her husband, Colonel Craig Brotchie (U.S. Air Force, Retired), begin the next phase of their lives, I want to express, on behalf of the American people, the warmest regards and heartfelt gratitude of the Nation for all that they have done and all that they are.

On behalf of all those touched by her service, we wish General Dunwoody good luck, good ground, and Godspeed. Army Strong!

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the House today, H.R. 3630, the so-called ``payroll tax holiday,'' passed. Later it passed the United States Senate, meaning it passed the United States Congress. But on the House floor today, I joined 91 other Republican budget hawks, each of whom shares my concern for the financial stability of our Nation and a risk of a Federal Government insolvency and bankruptcy. Each of us budget hawks voted ``no.''

In December of 2011, Alabama Senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions and I voted ``no'' on the deceptively named payroll tax bill. I am pleased today that I was part of a united Republican delegation from the State of Alabama to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3630.

Robert Aderholt, Republican from Haleyville, voted ``no.'' Spencer Bachus, Republican from Birmingham, voted ``no.'' Mike Rogers, Republican from Anniston, voted ``no.'' Martha Roby, Republican from Montgomery, voted ``no.'' And Jo Bonner, Republican from Mobile, voted ``no.''

On the Senate side, Alabama Senator Richard Shelby voted ``no,'' and Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions voted ``no.'' Each of these individual Congressmen and Senators voted ``no,'' again because they share a deep- rooted concern for the financial stability of our country and the impact this legislation can have on that.

In sum, I voted against H.R. 3630 for a variety of reasons, but I'm going to mention three. First, H.R. 3630 disproportionately targets and burdens American Federal workers, takes their hard-earned money and diverts it to those who don't work for it. That's not fair, and that's not good policy.

Second, America's seniors have asked me to protect Social Security and Medicare benefits because they paid for and earned them during their working lifetimes. Americans support Social Security because everyone contributes their fair share to their own Social Security retirement benefits. Social Security is not welfare. Social Security is an earned entitlement.

H.R. 3630 undermines Social Security's and Medicare's foundation by threatening 10 percent funding cuts totaling $120 billion per year, which will, if continued beyond this fiscal year, breach America's commitment to our elderly and will force significant Social Security and Medicare benefit cuts. We cannot expect the benefits while cutting the revenue that provides those benefits.

Third, and most importantly, the name ``Middle Class Tax Relief,'' which

is on the title of H.R. 3630, is deceptive and it is false. There is no tax cut. Rather, Mr. Speaker, I want the American people to understand that it is 100 percent a loan. Let me delve into that a little bit deeper. But as I do so, let me mention this: in the private sector, if a commercial institution had done what Congress did today, it would constitute flagrant violations of truth in advertising, truth in lending, and deceptive practice statutes. But as we all know, Washington is all too often immune from such constraints. H.R. 3630 is false advertising and deceptive because it is not a tax cut. H.R. 3630 is a loan that risks America's solvency and which the American people must pay back with interest.

In this regard, the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation reports revealed two troubling aspects of H.R. 3630: first, according to the CBO's and JCT's estimates, enacting H.R. 3630 would change revenues and direct spending to produce increases in the deficit of $101.1 billion in fiscal year 2012--$101.1 billion in fiscal year 2012--and we are already 4 or 5 months through with this fiscal year. So that gives you an idea of what it's like for the remainder.

Further, H.R. 3630 would direct the Office of Management and Budget to exclude the budgetary effects of H.R. 3630 from its scorecard of balances under its Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010. So what is H.R. 3630 doing? Well, it's instructing the Office of Management and Budget to not count the deficit impact of this legislation on its full scorecard of balances.

In sum, the Congressional Budget Office report confirms that every penny of the so-called ``tax cut'' must be paid back with interest. Now, where I come from, if you're given money that you have to pay back with interest, that is called a loan; and that is exactly what the American people will have to do.

My parents taught me about debt. Debt never rests. Debt is working against you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year for however many years it takes you to pay it off in full. Too much debt enslaves you. Your creditors and your debt become your masters, and you become their servant.

This is what debt does to every American family, and it is doing that slowly but surely to America. As you all know, we blew through the $15 trillion mark in November of 2011, and sometime this year we are going to blow by the $16 trillion debt mark. That debt is not free. There is no free lunch.

According to the CBO report, H.R. 3630 racks up debt at the rate of over $12 billion per month in FY 2012. Now, if I had a printed copy of H.R. 3630--but the speed of this place sometimes does not empower you to have that--according to the CBO report, if we were to have printed H.R. 3630 on sheets of gold--which we probably should have done because it costs American taxpayers roughly $500 million per page in additional debt burden and payments--that's the cost of that bill per page.

Why would Washington do this to America? What is Washington's motive for this deception? Why don't we call things what they are? Why don't we call a payroll tax a payroll tax rather than a Social Security and Medicare funding tax, which is what it really is? The answer is simple: poll data, pandering to voters, and the 2012 elections.

Why does Washington use the phrase ``payroll tax'' rather than what so-called ``payroll taxes'' are--Social Security and Medicare funding taxes? Because polls show voters don't understand what the payroll tax is, but by golly they know what Social Security and Medicare funding taxes are. Yet, 100 percent of the so-called ``tax cuts'' in H.R. 3630 are cuts to Social Security and Medicare funding taxes. In other words, Washington politicians use the phrase ``payroll tax'' because they know using the more accurate phrase ``Social Security tax'' would cause American voters to rise up to protect our Social Security and Medicare system.

Worse yet, H.R. 3630 deceives America's working families into believing they are reaping a windfall when in fact they are being saddled with a burden, a burden that will hamstring our children, grandchildren, and America's future with another layer of heavy, taxing, onerous debt. What Washington won't tell the American people is that H.R. 3630 is another debt-busting bill that further empowers China and other American predators to become our master while enslaving America and the American people with generations of oppressive debt burden payments.

Mr. Speaker, America yearns for leadership, leadership that involves adult, mature conversations with American voters about the financial condition we are in and what H.R. 3630 is really about.

There are simply too many in Washington who pander to voters in an election year for political gain. H.R. 3630, Mr. Speaker, I would submit, represents the worst of Washington, not the best, and not what the people deserve.

I cannot speak for other Congressmen, but as for me, today I and 90 other Republican budget hawks stood strong for America's future. We voted to kill H.R. 3630, stop the deception, stop pandering to voters, and save America from another mountain of oppressive debt that threatens us with insolvency and bankruptcy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, during the House Armed Services Committee's review of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, I successfully proposed a two-tier amendment to protect America's missile defense technology.

Tier 1 bars the White House from giving the Russian Federation any American hit-to-kill or other sensitive missile defense technology. Tier 2 bars the White House from giving Russia any American non- sensitive missile defense technology unless the White House first certifies to Congress that America's missile defense will not be undermined and that our technology will not be proliferated.

Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois is blocking the Russian ambassador nomination until the appropriate safeguards exist that protect America's missile defense technology. I applaud Senator Kirk's efforts.

The NDAA is now in conference committee. I urge the conferees to support the HASC amendment and to safeguard missile defense technologies that have cost American taxpayers so much and that have helped protect America so well.

Aslum Hamayun lives in Alabama's Fifth Congressional District. He is a father who loves and cares very much about his son, Hamesh Khan. At Mr. Hamayun's request, let me share with you and the American people the plight of Mr. Hamayun's son, Hamesh Khan.

Mr. Khan is an American citizen who, thanks to the Obama administration and the United States Government, has been wrongfully held for over a year and a half in Pakistan prisons without indictment for a specific crime or trial. This is Hamesh Khan's story.

Mr. Khan has lived in America since he was 10 years old. Mr. Khan earned a bachelor's and two master's degrees from Georgia Southern University. Following graduation, Mr. Khan worked for Citibank in Pakistan. In 2003, the Musharraf government appointed Mr. Khan to head Pakistan's Punjab Bank.

Unfortunately for Mr. Khan, the Musharraf government fell in April 2008. As seems to be so often the case in the world, a new government regime meant that appointees of the past regime risked trouble. In American citizen Hamesh Khan's case, the new Punjab government issued an arrest warrant on suspicion of corruption and corrupt practices. Let me emphasize that point, on suspicion of corruption and corrupt practices.

Fearing politically motivated reprisals, Mr. Khan fled Pakistan for his home, America. Thereafter, Pakistan sought extradition of Mr. Khan pursuant to the arrest warrant for suspicion of corruption and corrupt practices.

Let me be clear on this point. Three parties are involved in this tragedy: a new Pakistani regime; President Obama and the United States Government; and Hamesh Khan, an American citizen.

The United States had to decide whom to support: Pakistan or an American citizen. The Obama administration chose Pakistan over its own American citizen. Mr. Speaker, it would be wonderful to know why the Obama administration made that decision.

In any event, on December 10, 2009, Mr. Khan was arrested by United States marshals in his office in Washington, D.C., and held without bond for 5 months. Remarkably, persons in Mr. Khan's position are barred from fully defending themselves at extradition hearings. For example, Mr. Khan was barred from presenting evidence to impeach the allegations against him. Mr. Khan fought extradition until it became clear that the severe evidentiary limitations made it impossible for him to defend himself.

On May 13, 2010, the United States Government forcefully handed Mr. Khan over to Pakistani authorities at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York. Mr. Khan was bound in handcuffs and leg chains. With the Obama administration's historic act, Hamesh Khan became the first American citizen ever extradited to Pakistan. The one concession the United States State Department received from the new Pakistani regime was a promise that Mr. Khan would be fairly treated under Pakistani law.

While anyone hearing this story can suspect political motivations for the prosecution of Mr. Khan by Pakistani authorities, I am not in a position to make a judgment on that issue. But I am in a position to make a judgment about our United States Government and its responsibility to protect American citizens.

Whether he is innocent or guilty of the charges by Pakistani authorities, Hamesh Khan has not been served justice. Under Pakistani law, after arrest for suspicion, Pakistan's National Accountability Bureau can hold a person for up to 3 months without bail. Within that 3 months, Pakistan's National Accountability Bureau must either indict a held person for specific crimes for trial or order his release; yet it is now

over 18 months since Hamesh Khan became the first American citizen extradited to Pakistan, and for those 18 months, Mr. Khan has been held without bail, without indictment, and without trial. Mr. Khan lives in a 6-foot by 6-foot prison cell in Pakistan.

I pray the American State Department did not anticipate that Mr. Khan would be held indefinitely without indictment or trial when they forcibly bound and shackled an American citizen and gave him to Pakistan.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I enter this statement in the Congressional Record: It is time for America's State Department to use whatever influence is necessary and proper to cause Pakistan to treat Mr. Khan in accordance with Pakistan's own law and with international treaty obligations.

Justice cannot be served an American citizen in any other way.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, America faces a financial threat of historic proportions. It has one basic cause. We suffer from unsustainable budget deficits that threaten America with insolvency and bankruptcy. We have seen what's been going on in Europe with Greece and with Paris from a few years ago, with Rome, with riots in Greece where there's even been fatalities. All of these relate to the financial stewardship of their governments.

I hope that with the remarks I'm about to share that the people of America will have a better understanding of the deficit situation we face, because given that understanding, I have confidence, Mr. Speaker, that the American people will cause Washington to do the right thing.

A little bit of history is in order. I've got a chart here, the United States annual deficits. The last balanced budget we had was $128 billion, fiscal year '01, a Democrat President, Bill Clinton, a Republican House and Republican Senate. Since that time, we've had 9/11 and we've had wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can see how the deficit situation became worse. George Bush as President and Republicans in control of Congress to $158 billion to $377 billion to $413 billion. All of those were bad, no question.

Notably, we have the Bush tax cuts in the summer of 2003; and, paradoxically, from one perspective across the aisle, things should have gotten worse, but they got better because our economy improved and our deficit declined to $318 billion to $248 billion to $161 billion. We were on the right path as of November 2006.

Then we had a different mindset capture the United States House and the United States Senate. We had a different Speaker of the House, a different majority leader in the United States Senate, and a different philosophy of government and a different economic philosophy that unfortunately has failed miserably.

As a consequence, after the November 2006 elections where the Democrats captured the United States Congress, we have a $459 billion deficit followed by a $1.4 trillion deficit. Then we have a change in the White House. For 2 years, two budgets, two sets of expenditures and two sets of revenues were totally controlled by the other party, my colleagues across the aisle. In FY10 and FY11, the fiscal year that we just finished, we had back-to-back $1.3 trillion and $1.3 trillion deficits.

Ladies and gentlemen, these deficits were bad. These are unsustainable trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, and they're a great risk to our Nation. To put it into perspective, that's $2.3 trillion in revenue last year, $3.6 trillion in expenditures, a $1.3 trillion deficit, and a $14.3 trillion accumulated debt. With what happened with the Budget Control Act in August of this year, a bill that I voted against, the debt ceiling was increased by $2.4 trillion such that it will soon hit a $16.2 trillion debt burden in 2013.

Now, I mention trillions, and people's eyes often start to glaze over, Mr. Speaker. Let me put it down in a family sense where hopefully the American

people can better understand it. Think in terms of a family that's uncertain about their income. So they go over their finances, and they discover that over the last 3 years they've averaged $50,000 a year in income--not too bad. And then they look at their expenses, and they've been averaging $80,000 a year in expenses. That's scary to them, and it should be. They've been in the hole 3 straight years for $30,000 a year. Then they pick up their Visa bill, and it's for $320,000.

Now what do you think that family would do? Well, they'd cut their spending and they would try to balance their budget in order to avoid bankruptcy. Those analogies are exactly the same as that of the United States of America--those ratios.

We have to have a balanced budget constitutional amendment, I submit to the American people, Mr. Speaker, because that is the only way Washington will have the backbone to do the right thing, to protect future generations from the risk of insolvency and bankruptcy that we in America face today.

So I wholeheartedly endorse the efforts of Representative Goodlatte and all the other members of the Constitutional Caucus who have been working so hard to come forth with a substantive, effective, and enforceable constitutional amendment that can help save our children and grandchildren from the seriousness of the financial situation that we in America face today.

As for me, Mr. Speaker, I will do my utmost to support a balanced budget constitutional amendment. I will do my utmost to ensure that it is an effective constitutional amendment, that it's not a dog and pony show, that, in fact, it will achieve the desired result.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I have read President Obama's American Jobs Act. It is 155 pages and single spaced. I encourage the American people to read it too.

Unfortunately, President Obama's American Jobs Act does not address the underlying structural issues with the American economy. In fact, in my judgment, it destroys more long-term jobs than it claims to create.

Some history is in order. In November 2006, America's unemployment rate was 4.5 percent. That's right, 4.5 percent--less than half today's rate.

In November 2006, Democrats captured Congress and gave us House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

In November 2008, President Obama was elected. For 2 years, Democrats completely controlled America's economic policy. The result: Between November 2006 and November 2010, 7 million American jobs were lost. America's excellent November 2006 4.5 percent unemployment rate deteriorated to 6.8 percent by November of 2008 and degenerated further to 9.8 percent by November 2010.

For almost 5 years, America's job creators have been hammered by job- killing policies. America's job creators are reeling from ObamaCare costs. America's job creators are shell-shocked by a job-killing National Labor Relations Board that sues to kill South Carolina jobs because South Carolina dares to be a right-to-work State in which workers cannot be forced to join a union.

Obama's job-killing 10 percent tax increase awaits job creators in 2013.

Obama's EPA repeatedly imposes new, costly environmental regulations that risk plant closings and kill jobs.

Obama's three consecutive trillion-dollar deficits threaten America with insolvency and bankruptcy and frighten job creators into inaction. In 5 short years, President Obama and his congressional allies have replaced a pro-free enterprise, job-friendly environment that created 6 million jobs between 2003 and 2006 with class warfare, demonization of job creators, socialist feel-good policies that don't work, and 7 million lost jobs between 2006 and 2010.

Mr. Speaker, Obama's so-called jobs bill creates ``one and done'' short-term jobs that will evaporate the moment Obama has blown through another $450 billion in borrowed money. In exchange for ``one and done'' jobs, Obama kills real jobs.

First, Obama raises taxes on America's domestic oil industry, which increases production costs, drives up domestic oil prices, reduces demand for domestically produced oil, thereby destroying domestic oil industry jobs.

Obama's higher oil taxes force price increases for gasoline, heating oil, and plastics. These higher prices in turn drive up manufacturing costs in America, make America less competitive, and kill jobs across our entire economy.

Second, and incredibly, Obama gives civil rights status to unemployed people, empowering them to file costly EEOC complaints and Federal lawsuits against employers for discrimination

any time an employer does not hire an unemployed person. Millions of frivolous EEOC complaints and lawsuits will drive up the cost of doing business in America which, in turn, kills business and destroys American jobs.

Third, Obama raises taxes on charitable contributions to churches, synagogues, mosques, the Red Cross, United Way, and other charitable institutions. Higher taxes mean fewer charitable contributions, which kills religious and charitable institution jobs. Obama does not have a jobs bill; Obama has a kill-jobs bill that encourages jobs to relocate overseas.

Mr. Speaker, America's economy has serious structural issues that Presidential Band-Aids and makeup won't fix and can't hide. President Obama's kill-jobs bill must be defeated because it is poorly thought out, bad economic policy, and costs American jobs. President Obama's kill-jobs bill is a political document, not an economic document. It gets an ``A'' for class warfare politics and an ``F'' for job creation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of President Obama's kill-jobs bill. It must be killed before even more damage is done to America's economy.

Mr. Speaker, due to a clerical error, I was inadvertently made a cosponsor on the wrong bill. As such, I ask unanimous consent to remove myself as a cosponsor of H.R. 2954.

Madam Speaker, according to a 2009 study by the Pew Hispanic Center, 7.8 million illegal aliens hold jobs in America. Madam Speaker, there is a sure-fire way to create jobs now for American citizens: evict all illegal aliens from America and immediately open up millions of jobs for unemployed Americans.

The eviction of illegal aliens from America has the side benefit of eliminating the abundance of cheap, illegal alien labor which, in turn, forces blue color wages up, thus helping American families afford and pursue the American Dream.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, there are those in Washington who chase a different dream, a class warfare nightmare, that pits unemployed Americans against illegal aliens in a competition for scarce jobs.

The White House and too many Members of Congress seek amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, thereby legitimizing criminal conduct and depriving American citizens of job opportunities.

Madam Speaker, Congress and the White House must create jobs now for American citizens. We can and must fight for American citizens, not turn our heads the other way, which gives illegal aliens preference over American citizens.

But the issue of illegal aliens is greater than just jobs and better incomes for American citizens. Illegal aliens crowd our hospital emergency rooms, delaying treatment for Americans and driving up health care costs because too many illegal aliens don't pay their bills. Too often, illegal aliens get free health care on the backs of our already stressed American taxpayers. Illegal aliens also do not produce enough in tax revenue to pay for our schools; yet illegal alien children overcrowd our schools, thereby reducing the quality of education for American children.

Illegal aliens commit horrendous crimes against American citizens, crimes that strain State and Federal judicial systems, police and sheriff departments, and prisons that are already overcrowded and in a financial crisis.

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in one of her last Supreme Court opinions, wrote in 2005 in Medellin v. Drake, that: ``In 2003, over 56,000 noncitizens were held in State prisons. Noncitizens accounted for over 10 percent of the prison populations in California, New York, and Arizona. As of February 2005, 119 noncitizens from 31 nations were on State death row.''

Madam Speaker, so that I am clear, let me emphasize that death row is not just for any kind of murderer. Death row is for murders where victims are tortured or raped before killed. Death row is for murders where multiple citizens are killed. In sum, death row is reserved for only the most heinous of murderers.

Hundreds if not thousands of Americans are dead today because the United States Government has been derelict in its duty to protect American citizens from illegal aliens.

For example, in my home of Madison County, Alabama, population roughly 300,000 people, we have had more American citizens killed or murdered by illegal aliens than we have had lost in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Madam Speaker, let me share with you a personal story that happens to have happened in Huntsville, Alabama. But, the truth be told, similar events have likely happened throughout America.

On April 17, 2009, a 19-year-old man in my hometown of Huntsville by the name of Tad Mattle was needlessly killed by an illegal alien who has since been convicted of murder and sentenced to 15 years in prison, at a cost to Alabama taxpayers well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So that we are clear about the illegal alien's conduct, he was drunk. He was wanted for crimes in several States. When he murdered Tad Mattle, he was fleeing the scene of yet another crime. What had Tad Mattle done wrong? Absolutely nothing.

Tad Mattle was driving home from a church social with his girlfriend. He was lawfully stopped at an intersection not far from my own home. After everything was said and done, at the end of an illegal alien crime spree, both Tad Mattle and his girlfriend were subject to force trauma and burned beyond recognition. Both died.

Why did this needless crime occur? Why were these two young person's lives snuffed out? Because our American Government has steadfastly failed and refused to protect American citizens from illegal aliens.

Madam Speaker, please let me share with you information about Tad Mattle, told in the words of his grieving father, Dan Mattle:

Tad Mattle was the first child of Dan and Terri Mattle, born on November 8, 1989, in Florissant, Missouri. Tad was very curious and enjoyed figuring out how things worked. Shortly after his parents installed safety locks on all of the cupboards, he figured them out and then taught his little brother how to defeat them.

He loved to play outside in the dirt and loved the water. He enjoyed trying different sports. More than anything, however, he loved building and creating. To the frustration of his parents, he would scatter Legos all over the floor as he created ships, starships, and airplanes. On family vacations, he reveled in the sand as he built sand castles. When he was 8 years old, he helped his father rebuild an engine on the family truck.

At age 9, Tad Mattle and his family moved back to Huntsville, Alabama. Being very social, he quickly made new friends at church and school.

In Cub Scouts, he achieved the Arrow of Light award. In his last year, he won the Pack Pinewood Derby Contest. In middle school, Tad joined the Boy Scouts and joined the school band as a percussionist. Tad thoroughly enjoyed making music, and he kept switching between first and second chair with one of his friends.

During a scout trip in this period, Tad went caving with his father. By the time he was 13, he was a qualified vertical caver. By age 14, he had achieved a prestigious award among the caving community by completing his ``Vertical 8.''

In high school, Tad Mattle became heavily involved in the marching and symphonic bands. In his last 2 years, he served as the percussion section leader.

Tad also pursued an advanced diploma by taking advanced placement science and math classes. In addition

to these activities, he continued serving the community through Boy Scout and church youth group service projects. With his troop, in which he served as a leader, he participated in many different activities.

On a Boy Scout troop hike on the Appalachian Trail, Tad helped maintain morale with his goofy sense of humor. Tad is especially remembered for his Julie Andrews impersonation as he skipped down a meadow on Siler Bald, wearing a 40-pound backpack, while the troop sang ``The Sound of Music.''

Tad was very excited when he became old enough to drive. He wanted his own car, so he took a job to earn money for it. He bought a neglected Toyota Supra that cost only $475. He spent the next few months restoring it to running condition. In his junior year of high school, Tad took an auto body collision repair course and completely restored the body of that car. He was so proud on the day he brought it home from the paint booth. He took meticulous care of that car and never abused it because he did not want to destroy all of his hard work.

During his senior year of high school, Tad achieved the rank of Eagle Scout. For his Eagle leadership service project, he chose to rebuild a boat dock at the Madison County Boat Harbor on the Tennessee River. The original dock was a hazard to users due to warped, splintered, and rotten boards. Tad's leadership resulted in 190 man-hours of volunteer labor that saved the county thousands of dollars.

In 2008, Tad graduated from high school with an advanced diploma. His dream was to work in an auto body collision repair and open his own shop. As he worked the following summer and winter, he realized that an education would be necessary to fulfill his dream. Tad applied to the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and with his excellent top 1 percent ACT score of 32, he was quickly accepted. On April 14, 2009, just 3 days before his murder, Tad received a letter awarding him the UAH Presidential Full Scholarship which covered all tuition for his mechanical engineering degree. Tad was so excited as he read this letter to his parents that night.

Three days later, on April 17, his father's birthday, Tad attended a church social with his family and girlfriend. After the social, he and his girlfriend headed to her cousin's house to watch a movie. While stopped at a traffic light, Tad's car was rammed by a truck driven by a drunk illegal immigrant who was fleeing from the police. Tad and his girlfriend were killed instantly, which was a blessing because the impact ruptured the gas tank of the car Tad had so meticulously restored and burned the two beyond recognition.

There were no skid marks from the drunken driver's vehicle, and accident investigations indicated the truck impacted between 67 and 72 miles per hour, almost double the legal speed limit. The illegal immigrant responsible for this crash had seven different aliases, had four different DUI arrests, and was wanted by at least four other States for misdemeanors and felonies.

According to police records, he was to have been deported in 2001. Let me reread that part for emphasis. The illegal immigrant responsible for this crash had seven different aliases, had four prior DUI arrests, and was wanted by at least four other States for misdemeanors and felonies. According to police records, he was to have been deported in 2001.

Tad left behind a family that still mourns his loss. His brother and sister have dealt with depression, nightmares, and guilt. His mother still deals with days of depression. This loss was completely unnecessary but occurred because of a failure by the Federal Government to perform its duty to protect legal citizens' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As Tad's father, all I ask is that the government perform its Constitutional obligations to its citizens to prevent other families from experiencing this same nightmare.

Madam Speaker, Tad Mattle's tragic story is one of many that I could tell here today, and his story illustrates so clearly why the Federal Government must stop being derelict in its duty to ensure the safety and security of American citizens.

There are many Tad Mattles in America, each and every one of them victims of crimes that could have been prevented. In that vein, I introduced the Jobs for Americans Act. It empowers State and local governments to help the Federal Government by passing laws that identify illegal aliens, deter illegal aliens from entering the United States, apprehend illegal aliens, or encourage or otherwise cause illegal aliens to leave the United States.

States aren't asking for another Federal handout. They're asking for freedom from Federal interference. They're asking for the freedom to protect their citizens' lives and livelihoods. This act ensures that the Federal Government will appreciate, not punish, States that do the hard work of enforcing our laws.

Madam Speaker, when States like Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, and many others act to stop illegal aliens, they should be given letters of appreciation from Washington leaders for doing Washington's job. Instead, they receive lawsuits from the President's Justice Department. That is wrong. And the Justice Department's conduct will only victimize more American citizens.

Madam Speaker, my Jobs for Americans Act prevents these wasteful Justice Department lawsuits against States that are only trying to protect their citizens from illegal aliens and the Federal Government's dereliction of its duties.

Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting American jobs. The Jobs for Americans Act does just what it says. It returns jobs to the American people. Its premise is simple. If the Federal Government won't do its job, it should get out of the way for States and those who will.

At this point, I yield to my good colleague from Alabama.

Madam Speaker, I next recognize the gentlelady from Tennessee, Congresswoman Diane Black.

Madam Speaker, I next recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Congressman Rob Woodall.

Yes.

Madam Speaker, I want to express my thanks for the eloquence of Congressmen Rob Woodall of Georgia, Diane Black of Tennessee, and Robert Aderholt of the State of Alabama.

I pray that the American people and Washington, D.C., will be mindful of the loss of Tad Mattle, the suffering of his family, and the sufferings of hundreds, if not thousands, of other Americans under similar, yet difficult, circumstances, all brought about because our Federal Government is derelict in its duty to protect American citizens from the conduct of illegal aliens.

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning a ``jobs now'' protest and chant reverberated through the Rayburn House Office Building.

Per a 2009 study by the Pew Hispanic Center, 7.8 million illegal aliens hold jobs in America.

Mr. Speaker, there is a surefire way to create jobs now for American citizens: Evict all illegal aliens from America and immediately open up millions of jobs for American citizens. That also forces blue-collar wages up, helping American families afford and pursue the American Dream.

Unfortunately, the White House chases a different dream, a nightmare that pits unemployed Americans against illegal aliens in a competition for scarce jobs. The DREAM Act gives amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, thereby legitimizing illegal conduct and depriving American citizens of job opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, Congress and the White House must create jobs now for American citizens. We must fight for American citizens, not for illegal aliens.

Mr. Speaker, I have voted to raise the debt ceiling where the bill makes America's financial condition better, not worse.

In my judgment, both the Reid and Boehner plans fail to adequately address unsustainable deficits that threaten America with insolvency and bankruptcy. Both plans push the debt ceiling issue to 2012 or 2013, at which time a financially weaker America will confront a worse debt ceiling crisis. Both plans simply are not up to the seriousness of the financial challenges America faces.

Washington must put 2012 election considerations aside and put America's interests first and foremost, now. Congress and the White House can and must do better, now. America deserves better, now. And quite frankly, we have no choice but to do better, now.

Years of spending binges by the Federal Government have come home to roost. America's debt exceeds $14 trillion. America has suffered 3 consecutive years of trillion-dollar deficits and faces trillion-dollar deficits into the foreseeable future. Annual deficits and accumulated debt force America to confront two major financial threats, both with one common cause: unsustainable budget deficits.

In the short term, America faces a debt ceiling crisis. If the debt ceiling is not raised, economic hardship will ensue, unemployment rates will rise, and America's gross domestic product will decline. Over a longer term, however, America faces a larger, more serious debt crisis. If trillion-dollar deficits continue to run rampant, America's insolvency and bankruptcy is certain, which risks America's national defense capabilities, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, NASA, and everything else that the government provides.

The question is not whether Congress will raise the debt ceiling; the question is when and how. I have already voted to raise the debt ceiling $2.4 trillion as part of the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill. We're cutting FY12 expenditures by a modest $111 billion in the context of a $1.5 trillion deficit, capping Federal Government expenditures within historically justifiable 18 to 24 percent ranges, and passing a balanced budget constitutional amendment that protects future generations of Americans from the financial mess we now face.

I am prepared to vote to raise the debt ceiling again, so long as Congress substantively addresses our underlying deficit problem while protecting our fragile economy and jobs market. As best I can with the limited and changing information available, I have examined both the Boehner and Reid plans. While they differ in many respects, they also share common concepts:

Neither plan purports to immediately raise taxes. Neither plan cuts spending in FY 2012 or 2013 by as much as 5 percent of this year's $1.5 trillion deficit. Neither plan eliminates annual trillion-dollar deficits in the foreseeable future. Both plans raise the debt ceiling by at least $1 trillion and as much as $2.7 trillion. Both plans kick the can down the road and force America to revisit the debt ceiling crisis in either 2012 or 2013, at which time America's debt burden will be much higher and America will be that much weaker. Neither plan heeds Standard and Poor's or Moody's credit downgrade warnings. Neither plan cuts America's short- or long-term deficits enough to minimize the risk of downgrade in America's credit rating, a downgrade that will drive up America's debt service cost and cut funding for all other Federal Government programs. To make matters worse, if America's interest rates go up, State and local private interest rates are likely to also go up, thereby hurting Americans at all levels.

There is only one reliable solution that I can discern that protects America from both financial threats: a debt ceiling increase coupled with a balanced budget constitutional amendment that is phased in over a 5-year period of time.

In as much as constitutional amendments often take years to pass, time that America does not have, the first step must be to raise the debt ceiling when Congress passes a substantive balanced budget constitutional amendment. If the Senate and House concur, this can be done in as little as a week.

The second step, equally important, raises the rest of the debt ceiling when the States ratify the proposed balanced budget amendment, thus giving States a needed incentive to ratify the balanced budget amendment in less than 1 year.

This approach solves both financial threats.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I pray that Washington has the strength to do what it must before it is too late. America is on the verge of a downward spiral. We must act now, and we must act in substantive ways.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Obama gave a speech to the Nation about the debt ceiling. He said, I won't bore you with the details of every plan or proposal. Mr. Speaker, I say please bore us with the details.

The House passed the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan that prevents a national bankruptcy by modestly cutting spending, capping the size of government, and advocating a balanced budget amendment to force Congress to act responsibly. In contrast, the President gives fine speeches, yet fails to submit a single written plan to balance the budget that can be evaluated by the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I say bore us with the details. Washington's spending binge has put America $14 trillion in debt.

America's future is at risk. Congress welcomes written detailed solutions to Washington's spending binge from the President.

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate, please bore us with the details. America has a right to hear them. President Obama has a duty to deliver them.