Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, recent studies have shown that there is an epidemic of historical and political ignorance in our country and that an alarming 83 percent of Americans fail a basic test on knowledge of the American Revolution and the principles that have united all Americans. It is for this reason that I rise today to acknowledge the exciting work of the American Film Company, founded in 2008 by entrepreneur Joe Ricketts.

Mr. Ricketts founded the company on the belief that real life is often more compelling than fiction, and so he set out to produce films about the incredible true stories from America's past. Central to the company's filmmaking are prominent historians, assuring that each production remains true and historically accurate.

As a resident of the great State of Illinois, I was pleased that the first film produced by the American Film Company was ``The Conspirator,'' which tells the true story of Mary Surratt, the lone woman accused of participating in the conspiracy to assassinate President Abraham Lincoln. Fittingly, the film premiered last Sunday at Ford's Theater.

I commend the American Film Company for finding an entertaining way to encourage and educate Americans about our country's important history, and I congratulate Mr. Ricketts as well.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I think it's time that we roll up our sleeves and get to work. I am delighted that we are having this debate. We hear a lot about job creators and business owners. Well, I am a small business owner, and I know what this crushing Federal debt does to small businesses all across our Nation and to job creators as well. It reduces certainty and stability, it scares away private sector investment that leads to growth for our economy, and it crushes the hopes of job creation.

Small businesses need to be able to forecast what their expenses will be in

the long term. Small businesses are reluctant to take risks when they don't know what their costs will be in the future. And if you listen to what the President said from his speech just yesterday, he made it clear that his vision of the future includes taking money out of the pockets of small businesses and job creators by increasing taxes on these very small businesses. This is the President's plan for addressing the deficit.

Increasing taxes on small businesses will have a devastating effect on job creation in this country. Two-thirds of all net new jobs in our Nation are created by small business, and 75 percent of those small businesses file their returns as an independent return on their individual tax forms. Rather than introduce the specter of uncertainty and increased taxes on our business community, we must instead make the choice to be relentless in our effort to support small businesses and actually encourage economic growth.

Last week Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, put forward a budget that cuts $6.2 trillion over the decade, preventing the President's proposed tax increases from going into effect and putting the Nation on a fiscally sustainable path to give job creators and entrepreneurs all across the country the confidence to grow their business, to invest, and to create jobs.

Federal deficits, Madam Speaker, have ballooned over the last 3 years, and this budget blueprint for fiscal year 2012 starts to repair the damage and takes the serious steps to put ourselves on a path to paying off the debt and reducing our deficits.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise because I had the opportunity to attend the KGC this last weekend, an event raising resources to battle depression. Depression affects over 20 million adults in our Nation. This is something that we all need to be paying more attention to.

I want to thank Chairman Bennett for his leadership. I also want to thank Kevin Haggard, Andrew Boyle, Phil Furse and Tom Joyce for their generous contributions to the event. I also want to extend my heartfelt thanks to Andrew Boyle for his leadership for next year's event.

Mr. Speaker, the U.N. commissioned its infamous Goldstone Report following the 2008-2009 war between Hamas in Gaza and the State of Israel, a war which grew out of Hamas's ongoing rocket attacks, well over 4,000, intended to terrorize communities in southern Israel. This report alleged the sickening conclusion that Israel deliberately targeted civilians as a matter of policy, an accusation grossly offensive to me as an American, and to the only nation in the Middle East whose freedoms and commitment to humanitarian values we all recognize and admire as mirroring our own.

The Goldstone Report has been held high by those in the international community seeking to delegitimize the State of Israel's very own existence. Now Richard Goldstone has publicly distanced himself from the deeply flawed conclusions of his own report.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask: Where does a nation go to get its reputation back?

I hope and urge that we can begin to talk to the administration to inform the U.N. and the members of the Goldstone Commission to reconsider its own report, to block U.N. actions based on its falsehoods, and to expeditiously introduce a measure properly exonerating Israel from this damaging libel.

Madam Chair, I believe in science. I also know that the Earth has been warming for some time. In fact, the underlying bill, H.R. 910, concludes by acknowledging there is scientific concern over the warming of the climate system and that addressing the climate change is an international issue.

I believe that human activity is also playing a role. The question is how big a role. This amendment would have Congress adopt intentionally vague language on human involvement and the risks associated with climate change without defining the size and scope of human behavior and the risk to the environment.

Madam Chair, I believe that we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil and expand research and development of clean energy sources and ensure that future generations of Americans have a clean and healthy environment. But I do not believe in the notion that the Waxman amendment puts forward that states that Congress shall only accept the scientific findings of the EPA. We should encourage open, transparent scientific studies, not limit our scientific findings to one government agency.

We must work together in a bipartisan manner to promote clean energy and encourage greater energy efficiencies to guarantee that our children and grandchildren have a cleaner environment than we have today.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Wheeling High School students Preston Riley and Rajarshi Roy, who were selected as finalists in Samsung's national Solve for Tomorrow contest. I'm particularly proud of these students for their energy and creativity in using STEM education to tackle real-world challenges. Strong

STEM education is critical to ensuring that all of our young people have the skills and knowledge that they need for success in college and careers.

I would also like to recognize Wheeling High School science teacher Lisa del Muro and principal Lazaro Lopez for their commitment to STEM education, which focuses on the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

I recently visited Wheeling High School to get a firsthand look at their STEM for All program, where students of all backgrounds and academic achievement are challenged in the STEM subjects. This initiative incorporates all disciplines, including the arts, languages and humanities alongside a focus on career certifications, college partnerships and technology to prepare students for post-secondary opportunities.

Congratulations again to the students at Wheeling High School. They demonstrate what can be accomplished when we make STEM education a priority.

Madam Speaker, this past Friday I had the privilege to attend a ceremony before 4,000 Midshipmen at Annapolis honoring four distinguished graduates of the Naval Academy for their lifelong achievements and dedication to the United States Navy, Marine Corps and, indeed, to our Nation.

Dr. Bradford Parkinson, class of 1957, dedicated his life and effort to develop the Global Positioning System.

Lieutenant General Matthew Cooper, class of 1958, served two tours in Vietnam as a Commander in the Marine Corps Ground Reserve in Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and turned around the Toys for Tots Foundation.

Mr. Corbin McNeill, class of 1962, served for over 20 years in the submarine service, and later became the chairman and co-CEO of Exelon Corporation, headquartered in Illinois.

The fourth honoree holds a special place in my heart and in the heart of my family, Rear Admiral Robert Harper Shumaker, class of 1956, my Uncle Bob.

Madam Speaker, upon graduation from the Naval Academy, my uncle attended flight school and began his service in the United States Navy. On February 11, 1965, flying his F-8 Crusader, he was shot down over North Vietnam and was taken prisoner by the North Vietnamese. For over 8 years he was held prisoner, many of those years in the Hanoi Hilton, a name which he actually dubbed that prison camp.

Madam Speaker, my Uncle Bob has always served as an inspiration to me and to countless others. I was honored to see this special award bestowed upon him this past week, and I want to take this time to thank him and his fellow award recipients for their service not only to the Naval Academy and the Marine Corps but to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 193, Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 830 is commonsense legislation that stops inefficient and ineffective government spending. At the outset of this $8 billion program, its failure was inevitable. That inevitable failure is now undeniable. It doesn't work for the homeowner, it doesn't work for the taxpaying American families, and it certainly doesn't work for future generations who are trying to claw their way out of the debt that we are burdening them with each and every day.

So let's go back and let's talk about the homeowners. We've got 12 million mortgages in America that are currently underwater. And yet this program, this program which was actually rolled out in March, it started about 6 months ago, has 245 applications--245. How many have actually made it over the hurdles and have gotten actually some help and refinanced? Forty-four. Forty-four refinances. We've got $8.12 billion that has been obligated. We have $50 million that has been disbursed.

Now, a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, that's $1.1 million per mortgage refinanced thus far. If we look at it even further, were these million-dollar mortgages? Actually, the average mortgage was about $300,000. So we spent, the American taxpayers, in terms of their dollars, we spent $1.1 million in order to refinance a $300,000 loan. The administration said that we're going to have 1.5 million homeowners get into this program, and yet we've taken almost a year and we have 44 that have actually gone through.

If you were to get through this program, if you were one of the lucky ones, one of the 44, clearly, it's not going to help you insofar as you're going to destroy your credit for the next several years. The average credit score of the 44 that are in the program was 711. That credit score is going to go down. Is their monthly payment going to go down? In many instances, no, because they're going to have to come up with closing costs. They're going to have to pay private mortgage insurance if they haven't been paying it already. And so there are other requirements that are simply a burden on the actual homeowners.

It's time that we tell the American public the truth. It's time that we in this body recognize when a government program is not working. We need to get rid of this program--$8.12 billion obligated, $50 million disbursed for 245 applicants and 44 mortgages actually redone.

The program certainly doesn't work for the American taxpayer. We're looking at debts and deficits in Washington. And many of us were sent here to Washington to try to get the out-of-control government spending back in line. And I would say that certainly $1.1 million per mortgage is not a good use of the taxpayer dollars.

When we look at future generations and we look at the amount of money that we're spending right now, $1.48 trillion in deficit spending works out to be over $3 million a minute. The President's budget comes out to talking about 1.6 for the next year. We cannot continue to spend money that we don't have. Our debt is at $14 trillion. When we actually took a look at the Treasury report that came out just a couple of days ago talking about TARP, because this program is basically on TARP funds, they recognize that the mortgage modification programs were never intended to be recovered. This, to me, I think is an enormous problem.

This is a program that doesn't work for the homeowner, it doesn't work for the American public, and it certainly is not going to work for future generations.

Mr. Chairman, running a business, I have to tell you, obligated funds are one thing, disbursed funds are quite another. If I can, from the monthly 105(a) report delivered to the Congress from TARP and from the Department of the Treasury, and I will submit it for the Record, under ``Obligated'' all of the way down here when it is talking about the FHA refinance, it is $8.12 billion. And in an entirely different column under ``Disbursed,'' it is $50 million. From the paper here from the Department of the Treasury, obligated and disbursed are different things. We have $50 million that has been disbursed.

I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding, and I certainly want to take this opportunity to outline what this program has been.

It is undeniable that this program has been what anybody that looks at it can say is a failure. It doesn't work for the homeowners; it doesn't work for hardworking American families that are paying taxes; and it doesn't work for future generations, children and grandchildren that will certainly be burdened with an enormous debt that the government continues to heap on them.

If I can, I will just go back. As a small business owner, I employ just under 100 people--for me, that's 100 families. And I do stay awake at night trying to make sure that these families have the opportunity to put food on the table and provide an education for their children. But one of the things I have learned in business is the fact that you have to recognize when something is not working. This is an instance of something not working in our government.

Let's go back down to just the raw basics. Let's look at the facts of this program. While well-intentioned, the program facts are simply these: We have obligated $8.12 billion out of TARP funds. We have disbursed $50 million. Fifty million dollars has been disbursed, and yet in the downturn we have seen that what should have been--what, $1.5 million is what the administration is saying, the number of homeowners that are coming into this program? We've seen 245 applicants in the last 6 months, 245 applicants. Out of the $50 million disbursed, we have received 44 loan modifications. Just doing the quick, back-of-the- envelope math, $1.1 million per refinanced loan. The average loan is $300,000.

Now, I have to tell you, for the American public, for future generations, that is not a good use of the American taxpayer dollar. We can and must do better. There is no question that there are good and laudable programs out there that we need to be financing. This is not one of them.

Let me just say again that this doesn't work for the homeowners themselves. Why are there so few in a downturn? I would argue because many of the homeowners recognize that this is not a program that they want to be involved with. You can't be engaged in this program if you, first of all, have any equity in your home. You can't be engaged in this program if you're delinquent on any one of your mortgage payments. There are a whole litany of things that prevent you from getting into this program. But if you do get into this program, your credit will be decimated for years to come. The average credit score, according to the experts, is 711. Well, it won't be 711 for long as soon as they take this and get access to this program.

The question is: Will it reduce your monthly payments? Well, after going through this, the homeowners actually have to pay the closing costs, then they have to actually purchase private homeowners' insurance, the mortgage insurance. The chance of them actually reducing their payments is actually not that great. So they're going to go through the hoops and the pains to not reduce their monthly payment. Again, this is not a win for the homeowners.

It's also not a win for the taxpaying American families; $8.12 billion obligated. We have to go in and look at this. When you tuck your children in bed this evening, ask yourself: Is this in the best interests of the future generations? Is this the best use of our taxpayer funds?

We have to be truthful with the American taxpayer. We have to be truthful with the American people. That's what you sent us here to Washington to do is to look you in the eye and be truthful with you. This is a program that doesn't work. That doesn't mean that we don't want to help out homeowners. We do not want to be wasteful with your tax dollars. We have to go back to the drawing board because right now this absolutely is a program that, by all accounts, has failed.

So when you look at your children and grandchildren, know that we can and must do better. I think that we have an obligation to ask ourselves, when we look at the American family: Is this the best use of our resources? Is this the best that we can do? I don't believe that it is.

As a small business owner, we make mistakes. We're going to make mistakes here in this Congress. How will we be judged? I hope we're judged on the fact that we can admit when we've made mistakes and try to then go back to the drawing board.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a strong look at this, to know when something is not working. We have refinanced literally millions of mortgages in other vehicles. Out of the 6 months that this has been alive, 44 mortgages at the tune of about $1.1 million for the disbursed funds into this FHA Refinance Program.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 830 and support this rule.

I want to thank Mr. LaTourette for his work. I also want to thank the chairman in the appropriations process and also the leadership for being able to come out and really have an open discussion about what's going on.

The spirit of the amendment wasn't to necessarily pick winners and losers or to zero out programs; and as much as I do not like the idea of across-the-board cuts, I do think that the American public right now is thinking, ``How can we tighten our belts?''

The American people have tightened their belts. American businesses have tightened their belts. The Federal Government should be no different. Everything has to be on the table. The Department of Defense has to be on the table. We have to rein that in. We have

to rein in every single department, and we know we have to do it without putting people in harm's way.

This technical problem that has just surfaced in the amendment is certainly going to be problematic, but the spirit, the intent, of this amendment was to make sure that we are preserving some of what, I think, many on the other side would consider to be very important programs and what many of the independents in our Nation would consider to be appropriate programs--and important to them.

We want to let the 2012 appropriations process go through the appropriate channels, and we want to make sure we make our cuts at that point in time, so I would just urge my colleagues to keep that in mind as we move forward.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment. As a resident of the Chicagoland area and a lifelong resident of the State of Illinois, this amendment would have devastating implications for the economy. Right now we need jobs. Everybody on both sides of the aisle has been talking about how we need to jump-start the economy and put people back to work.

I have a great amount of respect for the chairman and his work, but I think this is an amendment that is going to have devastating implications for people all across that region. It's going to look to cost approximately $29 billion.

When we look at the amount of commerce that's going to be coming up from the Gulf of Mexico, through the Mississippi River, into the Chicagoland area and, yes, through the Great Lakes

and back and forth, this is something that we must, at this point in time, not rush to judgment.

I recognize that we have been studying this problem for a period of time. I recognize that there are actually even interim studies. In fact, there is an interim study that's even out. Interim study number 3 has been actually out allowing us to move forward and to try to address some of the problems.

I would ask my colleagues that we do not rush to judgment. This is a decision that will have an enormous effect on thousands of jobs and on commerce across the Great Lakes going actually down to the Mississippi River and into the gulf. Today when we're talking about jobs and the economy, we have to look at how many things we can promote.

I spent time in, actually, the locks. I have gone through the locks several times. I use them not only for recreational use, but I have also seen the barges come through. This is a very active lock, and it's one that we need to make sure is alive and well.

I do want to recognize that we have a problem with Asian carp. It's not one that we want to ignore, and certainly please hear that I am not saying that we should ignore it. I think that we need to continue the studies. We need to be looking at alternative ways to try to prevent it from invading the Great Lakes.

No one is going to be a greater proponent of the Great Lakes than I am, but this is an amendment that I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to rise up and stand against.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 81, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Amendment No. 514 Offered by Mr. Price of North Carolina

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to the amendment. The elimination of family planning dollars would deny access to preventative care for millions of women each year.

From the numerous conversations I've had with doctors, including my own sister who is an OB/GYN, I believe in the importance of encouraging access to basic preventative care.

Since 1970, the title X family planning program has been a component of our Nation's health care infrastructure and has been an essential element in providing contraception and education to millions of Americans.

Today, title X family planning services over 5 million low-income individuals each and every year. Through a recent study, we learned that for every dollar invested in family planning approximately $3.74 is saved in Medicaid-related costs.

Title X funding provides critical preventative health care, including annual exams, cancer screenings, HIV testing, and family planning.

While we must always ensure that funds are applied properly, completely prohibiting any funds from going to the main provider of title X family planning services I believe would be shortsighted and would negatively impact the lives of women who depend on these health care services.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I rise in support of the Flake amendment and know that we, at this point in time, the American public has asked us to tighten our belt. We have to do so. And I believe we have to talk and look at every single department, including the Department of Defense. This specific amendments deals with a very small amount in the Department of Defense, one that Secretary Gates has already outlined and determined that they do not need. This will not jeopardize those that are in harm's way. This will not jeopardize military preparedness. This is yet one small step.

We have, I think, over 400 amendments today, and I'm delighted that those on the other side of the aisle are in support of the Flake amendment, and so we certainly look for its passage.

This right now, what we're talking about in terms of reining in spending, is absolutely what the American people demand. Yes, we've had spending on both sides of the aisle. Washington has a spending problem. We need to cut back on spending. We're spending $1.48 trillion in deficit spending, and I think the President's budget actually brings it up to $1.6 trillion. That's over $3 million a minute in deficit spending.

I come from the private sector. I run a small business. I understand what is going on in the private sector, and I can tell you that out-of- control spending in Washington does not send the right signal and in fact does hurt jobs.

We have to get our fiscal house in order. This is what this is going to attempt to do, and we certainly know that out-of-control spending has not been the answer. I urge my colleagues to support the Flake amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment. At a time when we're running at $1.48 trillion deficits, the President's budget actually talks about a $1.6 trillion deficit. We're looking at debts of $14 trillion.

We have to tighten our belt. There is no question about it. The American public's doing it. We've asked the American families and businesses across the land to tighten their belts in order to get by. The Federal Government should be no different.

Now, we are very strong on defense. We want to make sure that those that are in harm's way have everything at their disposal to make sure that they can do the task that we've asked them to do. This, however is the program that the Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense has said we don't need it, we don't want it. We need to make sure that we are cutting back across the board in terms of all different Departments. We need to go into every single one and say, where are the areas that we can cut back? Where is there duplication? Where are there areas that we can find that we don't need to spend today? This is a program that will save the American taxpayer $3 billion.

Now, we admit, competition is good. But why not three engines? Why not four engines? The reason why, as someone said, is we can't afford it. We can't afford two right now. We want to make sure that the engine that's out there, the one that has been awarded by the Department of Defense, has the opportunity to move forward. It is the base for the F- 22. It certainly has proved itself in terms of a base engine. They're making improvements, but this is an engine that they've invested over 20,000 flight hours in. This is something that is going to move forward. The question is, are we going to fund an additional engine?

I think that we need to talk about saving dollars, saving $3 billion when both the Bush administration, the current administration right now, and the Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense--and when was the last time you heard any of the Secretaries advocating that we don't need this money?

This is probably a very historic moment. They are absolutely, 100 percent looking out for the safety of those that wear the uniform.

I am going to urge my colleagues that we have to step forward, we have to cut back on areas, and this is an area that the Secretary of Defense has said we need to cut back on. I am going to urge you to vote ``yes'' in favor of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address this body because in 1965 on this day, my uncle Robert Harper Shumaker was shot down over North Vietnam. He was the second pilot shot down and spent 8 years and 1 day in captivity. Tomorrow we celebrate the release of the POWs in Vietnam, a day that many will remember, one of the bright spots of the Vietnam war, when so many of our servicemen were released. Those 8 years in captivity, while we can never regain those years, we can never thank the heroes for what they have done quite fully. But we can remember and we can thank them for all that they have done. Those that wear the uniform today, we thank you for your service.

I am honored today to be among my new colleagues, the gentleman from Texas, Sam Johnson, who has served in this House ably for a long number of years. He actually served with my uncle and was next door in solitary confinement for over 3 years. So today, while we remember those who were shot down in 1965, my uncle Robert Harper Shumaker, tomorrow we recognize all those who were released.