Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, next to me is a photo of Doolittle Raider Tom Griffin's memorial service I recently attended in Green Township, Ohio. Tom Griffin was an inspiration to everyone who had the honor to know him. I had the great pleasure to meet with and talk to Tom many times over the years. We shared the podium quite often at Memorial Day services, for example, and at veterans' events all over the community.

Tom was a man who literally lived history. In those darkest early days of World War II, when Tom and 79 other Doolittle Raiders took off from the deck of the USS Hornet, they had no idea whether they would survive the day.

The American people back then got a much-needed boost when they learned of the heroics that took place that day over Japan. But Tom cringed at the word ``hero.'' He felt that he was just doing what he'd been trained to do. And Tom Griffin went on to risk his life for his country for years following the Doolittle raid, culminating when he was shot down over Sicily and spent 22 months in a German POW camp.

Tom recently said, ``What a life I've lived.'' May we all strive to live a fraction of the life that Tom Griffin did. May God bless Tom Griffin.

I'd like to add my voice to thanking the leadership, Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and former full chair, Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, for their leadership on this very important issue.

I rise in strong support of this resolution condemning the actions of a pariah state and its dictatorial leader for brazenly violating international sanctions, multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions, and repeatedly threatening the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula.

North Korea's test of a nuclear bomb on February 12, following its test of a ballistic missile in December, was a clear indication that it is continuing its quest for the ability to threaten the United States, South Korea, and other neighbors in the region.

It has become evident that the current international sanctions are not working, but rather, emboldening Pyongyang to expand its arsenal and proliferate nuclear and ballistic technologies to dangerous allies in the Middle East.

This resolution is only the first step in an effort to cripple the North Korean regime's ability to carry on with its illicit nuclear activities. I look forward to working with Chairman Royce and my colleagues on additional legislation that puts in place much tougher and more effective sanctions to sever Kim Jong Un's ability to threaten the international community.

Mr. Speaker, the long-suffering people of North Korea are starving and being deprived of the most basic of human rights while their latest dictator squanders the nation's precious resources and threatens his neighbors and the surrounding region. The civilized world must take notice and take action.

I thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue, and I urge support of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6504) to amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to provide for increased limitations on leverage for multiple licenses under common control, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 6504, the Small Business Investment Company Modernization Act of 2012. This is a bipartisan bill I introduced along with Representative Renee Ellmers and Representative David Cicilline that will increase the leverage limit for a family of SBIC funds from $225 million to $350 million.

I introduced this legislation because the need for increasing small business access to capital is something universally agreed upon, and this legislation does exactly that. Specifically, this bill will increase investments to small businesses by $500 million per year without requiring an appropriation.

In addition to having bipartisan Member support, this bill has the support of the Small Business Investor Alliance, the association that represents SBICs and other small business investors, as well as the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business organization. Additionally, the Obama administration recommended this provision as a part of the President's Startup America initiative.

The Small Business Investment Company program was created in 1958 and provides leverage to highly regulated

private investors. These private investment funds are called small business investment companies, or SBICs for short. SBICs raise private capital from institutions like banks and pension funds, and they also borrow Federal capital to invest in our country's most promising small businesses. As required by law, 100 percent of the money is invested in American companies. Small businesses need capital to grow and create jobs to support our local and regional economies.

SBICs have invested in over 110,000 businesses since the creation of this program. Twenty-three percent of the investments are made in the manufacturing sector of our economy, and 18 percent of the investments are made in the transportation sector.

The manufacturing economy is very important to my State in particular, Ohio, and we need to continue committing to this. In the past 6 years, Ohio's businesses have benefited from an investment of over $307 million from SBICs.

Last year, representatives of one of the SBIC funds in Ohio testified before the House Small Business Committee about the benefits of the SBIC program and in support of the legislation we have in front of us here today. Northcreek Mezzanine, which is located in Cincinnati, Ohio, has successfully invested in five companies since it became an SBIC a little more than 3 years ago. Northcreek understands the importance of supporting successful managers through this program.

It's important for my colleagues to know that this bill does not cost the taxpayers' money, nor does it increase the risk of the program. The SBIC debenture program will remain a zero subsidy program. That means that the SBICs that participate must pay an up-front fee to cover any losses. It's good public policy like this that truly helps business grow and access capital at no cost to taxpayers.

This legislation assists proven fund managers, like Northcreek Mezzanine, as I mentioned before, that have a track record of success by allowing them access to additional funds that they can then use to assist small businesses. We have here a bill that increases the leverage to $350 million for successful investors.

The SBA, the Small Business Administration, will continue to determine whether funds receive additional leverage after meeting certain licensure requirements. Investment decisions will be made by proven private sector fund managers, not the SBA, thus ensuring that the amount of new capital used by this bill will go to qualified small business investors.

H.R. 6045 is the perfect gift this Christmas season as it is the gift that keeps on giving. The increase in the flow of capital to small businesses will have a ripple effect throughout the economy as businesses will expand, create jobs, and invest in research and development. Congress can take an important step in getting the capital to businesses that need it the most.

I would urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 6504 on the floor today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers on our side at this time, and so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentlelady if she has any additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support the Small Business Investment Company Modernization Act of 2012, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the

point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, states across the Nation are reducing their health care costs by doing something that makes a lot of fiscal and common sense: they are making it easier for seniors to receive care where they most want to be--in their homes. Washington should take notice. Instead of making it more difficult for home health care providers to operate, the Federal Government should strive to make these services more accessible to all seniors. After all, home health care is clinically advanced, cost effective, and, most importantly, patient preferred.

Take my home State of Ohio as an example. Under Governor John Kasich's leadership, Ohio has significantly increased seniors' access to home health care--and, according to analysis by Miami University's Scripps Gerontology Center, the State is saving half a billion dollars a year as a result.

I think Governor Kasich put it best when he said, that he could not, ``think of anything more important to a senior than to be able to stay in their home with assistance, rather than being put in a facility that they are not comfortable with.'' The Governor is right.

Mr. Speaker, as is usually the case, States are leading the way with low-cost, high-quality home health care. They are forging ahead with policies that not only save money, but deliver a better quality of life for our seniors. Making at home health care more accessible for seniors is a win-win for my State, and Washington would be wise to follow.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4305) to authorize the Attorney General to provide a grant to assist Federal, State, tribal, and local law enforcement agencies in the rapid recovery of missing individuals, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4305, as amended, currently under consideration.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 4305, a commonsense, bipartisan bill which would increase resources for local law enforcement to aid in the recovery of missing children and elderly adults. I would also like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), for his diligent work on this bill.

Every 40 seconds, a child goes missing. Throughout the United States, an average of 2,000 children under the age of 18 are reported missing every day, and as many as 800,000 each year are reported missing. Although many of our children are at risk, the risk for children living with autism is even greater. About one in four parents of children living with autism spectrum disorders have reported that their children have gone missing long enough to cause significant concern about their safety. In addition, health care reports show three out of five Americans living with Alzheimer's disease will sometimes wander from their locations and may be unable to find their way back home.

The need to locate missing children and seniors in some instances in the first hours of the disappearance is vital. Unfortunately, most law enforcement agencies lack the appropriate resources to knock on every door in the community in every unfortunate crisis.

Further, although the Amber Alert and Silver Alert are sometimes successful alert programs, there remains a crucial lapse of time between the point when a child or elderly adult is first reported missing and when one of these services can be utilized. This important legislation would help solve this problem by employing targeted telephone and cellular alerts within minutes of a missing person report to residents and businesses in the area where the person was last seen. In fact, as many as 1,000 calls can be made in merely 60 seconds, a vital asset in reaching the greatest number of neighbors in the early, critical moments of a search.

Targeted alert programs are typically available to law enforcement nationwide, and they're multilingual. The regional databases used for alerts can take years to build and contain an accumulation of public residential telephone numbers, as well as volunteered cellular phone numbers. These programs are able to utilize computer mapping and enhanced satellite imagery to select the targeted calling area.

To date, as many as 8,500 law enforcement agencies have received training with targeted alert programs. My legislation would support these programs which assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the rapid recovery of missing children and elderly persons while saving tax dollars. The automated alert systems are free for local law enforcement to use, saving thousands of dollars on a traditional search which could require as many as 10 officers on the ground at any one time.

A recent success story in my district highlights the value of a targeted telephone and cellular alert program. On February 1 of this year, a 9-year-old girl was reported missing from her home after she went to walk her dog and did not return. Sergeant Beavers of the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department in Cincinnati contacted A Child is Missing and provided the girl's description to be distributed via a telephone alert. Nearly 1,700 alert calls were made asking that anyone with information contact the police. According to the case follow-up report after the alert was activated, several calls were received immediately, some containing valuable tips. The police used these tips to locate the girl safely approximately one-half mile away from her home in less than an hour after the activation of the alert.

When it comes to protecting the most vulnerable among us, it's important that we first equip our law enforcement at the local level. H.R. 4305 would facilitate the partnership of privately run programs with law enforcement and members of the community to safely recover missing individuals, whether they're minors or whether they be, in the case of Alzheimer's, for example, senior citizens.

I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward, bipartisan legislation.

Once again, I would like to thank Mr. Deutch for his leadership on this issue, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time. We have no additional speakers at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would just like to conclude by saying that this is, I think, a very important program. Every parent I think is always afraid of that potential nightmare that one of their children goes missing. All of us that have senior grandparents, for example, know how prevalent Alzheimer's can be in the senior community. This is a program that can help those at a very early age and those later in their lives. I think it's a great program. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

I thank the gentlelady for yielding and I thank her for her very strong support and leadership on this particular issue and on so many issues in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this well-crafted legislation which significantly ratchets up pressure on the regime in Tehran, as well as all those who support or enable its dangerous quest for a nuclear weapons capability. As we stand here today, Iran's centrifuges continue to spin and the regime inches closer to that very end. If allowed to cross that threshold, untold consequences would surely follow.

Iran, which former President George W. Bush aptly called the ``world's primary state sponsor of terror,'' would no doubt feel emboldened in its meddling in the internal affairs of our gulf allies and in threats to U.S. global and regional interests. Questions of rationality aside, the regime would also have the ability to follow through on its repeated threats to eradicate the State of Israel. Iran cannot be allowed to acquire this capability, and I believe that this legislation may very well significantly enhance pressure on the regime.

The nuclear program is, however, a symptom of the disease rather than the disease itself. A nuclear program is not in and of itself what makes this particular regime so nefarious. Rather, it is the perverse nature of the regime that makes the nuclear program so dangerous. And there can be no doubt that the regime in Tehran is a blight upon the Iranian people and on the region, and, in fact, on the whole world. To speak of the nuclear program independently of the regime which pursues it is in effect putting the cart before the horse.

But this legislation does not fall into that trap. In addition to targeting the nuclear program, H.R. 1905 puts significant pressure on the regime for its horrific human rights abuses and supports the oppressed Iranian people in their fight for freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this critical legislation, and I want to once again thank the distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Ileana Ros- Lehtinen from Florida, for her leadership on this issue. She has been pushing and pushing and pushing against this corrupt Iranian regime for such a long time, and to do right by our ally Israel, and ultimately to do what is in the best interest of the people of the United States as well. It is in nobody's interest to have a nuclear Iran, and so I want to thank her for her leadership.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership in this area.

Mr. Speaker, last week I became a grandfather for the first time. Seeing that defenseless little child for the first time reminded me just how precious life is and why we're morally obligated to protect it. H.R. 3803 would do just that, putting an end to a cruel practice taking place here in our Nation's capital.

The infamous 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade relied upon medical knowledge that is now obsolete. Recent medical research and testing shows that an unborn child may have the capacity to experience pain starting as early as 20 weeks in the womb.

In fact, in the 2004 case of Carhart v. Ashcroft, Dr. Sunny Anand was asked whether a fetus would feel pain in a common abortion procedure, dilation and extraction, also known as ``dismemberment abortion.'' He testified: ``If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus, and I believe that it will be severe and excruciating pain.'' We must stop that, and that's what this legislation would do.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I really do appreciate the great leadership Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen has shown on this issue and on so many issues around the world. I appreciate as well the great leadership of Mr. Berman, the ranking member. Together, in a bipartisan manner, both have really done a great job for our country, and we appreciate that.

Despite the tremendous progress that has been made toward ensuring Israel's continued security, critical challenges still remain. Now, perhaps more than at any time since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel faces real and direct threats to its very homeland. Although the so- called Arab Spring has raised hopes that with time and hard work democracy may take hold in Arab lands, it has also ushered in what will, no doubt, be a period of profound and prolonged instability.

And while we most certainly should be working with Arab countries in this time of transition, we must not forget Israel, the Middle East's only established democracy and our friend and ally, which faces unprecedented threats to its security. Some of these are threats that Israel has not had to deal with in a very long time.

To the west, Israel faces new and untested Egyptian leadership, which has sent some troubling messages about its intentions for Egyptian- Israeli bilateral relations. To the north, fighting in Syria is continuing to intensify, and all signs suggest that the country may collapse into full-scale civil war. Other threats are sadly perennial. To Israel's north and west, terrorists remain poised to attack and otherwise disrupt normal life for millions of Israeli citizens. To the east, the Iranian threat looms large on the horizon, and they threaten Israel and the entire region with the prospect of a nuclear weapon's capable radical regime right next door.

There is no question that the illicit Iranian nuclear program must remain at the very top of our priority list. It's certainly at the top of Israel's priority list. The nuclear program is, however, a symptom of the disease rather than the disease itself. The nuclear program is a paramount challenge to U.S. core national security interests, as well as those of our allies, and it must be addressed. As long as this regime is in power and the region continues to experience the kind of instability we're now witnessing, we must commit ourselves fully to doing everything we can to help aid Israel in securing itself.

I urge the adoption of this very important resolution.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court's unfortunate decision to uphold ObamaCare doesn't mean it's the right thing for this country. It's not. It was bad public policy when it was forced upon the American people 2 years ago, and it's bad public policy today.

Last Friday, the Department of Labor announced that millions are still out of work across this country and that businesses are still struggling to keep their doors open. It is unfortunate that this President doesn't seem to recognize that this law is hurting American workers and those looking for work. Businesses will be hit with more than $500 billion in new taxes--and the Supreme Court has said what it is, a tax--a maze of burdensome red tape, and mandates that could cause the loss of 1.6 million additional jobs. We can't afford that.

And for what?--a law that puts government ahead of people, a law that consolidates power into the hands of a group of 15 unelected bureaucrats, a law that has already increased health care costs and will limit Americans' access to quality, affordable health care.

There is a better way forward.

This misguided law must be replaced with patient-centered reforms that allow families to make their own health care choices and to visit the doctors they want to visit. Health care decisions should be made at home, around kitchen tables all across the country, not in the back rooms on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Speaker, we do not need health care reform like this, but we do need health care reform. This law is not the answer. It's a Big Government power grab. That's what it really is. What history has shown time and again is that Big Government makes things more expensive, more bureaucratic, and less effective. It is time to repeal this law and to get our economy moving again and to get Americans back to work.

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

Mr. Chairman, this Nation cannot continue spending money it doesn't have. It is imperative that Congress end the borrow-and- spend mentality that created our staggering national debt and that we put our Nation on a sustainable path to a balanced budget. Now, more than ever, we need to be pragmatic in our approach to transportation, ensuring that every dollar spent represents a long-term investment that will improve the flow of commerce and create American jobs.

My amendment this evening is about priorities. The city of Cincinnati has been in the planning process of constructing a streetcar for years now. The primary funding for this project came in the form of an urban circulator grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation in the amount of $25 million. Earlier this year, city of Cincinnati officials came to my office looking for even more funds for the Cincinnati streetcar project. The total cost is expected to be well over $120 million for a 4-mile loop connecting only two Cincinnati neighborhoods with little-to-no positive impact on traffic congestion, freight, or our aging infrastructure. Far from a necessity, the Cincinnati streetcar is a luxury project that our Nation and our region simply cannot afford.

Imprudent and irresponsible spending of taxpayer dollars on discretionary projects like this must stop. For too long, taxpayers have been footing the bill for frivolous projects that reap little to no benefit. Much like the ``bridge to nowhere,'' this ``streetcar to nowhere'' is yet another instance of wasteful government spending.

My amendment simply says, no more--no more funding for this streetcar in my own district. Unlike the Cincinnati streetcar, however, there are a number of other infrastructure projects that are of high priority and far more worthy of Federal infrastructure investment. In particular, there are two ready-to-begin projects that would have a direct impact on Cincinnati's economy and create permanent jobs, and those are replacing the Brent Spence Bridge and completing the I-71 Martin Luther King interchange.

The Brent Spence Bridge carries two major interstate highways that connect Ohio and Kentucky and serves as a major thoroughfare not just for Cincinnatians, but for the entire Midwest region, and in fact the Nation at large. Furthermore, this bridge rests on one of the busiest freight routes in North America and is estimated to carry 4 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product annually.

The Federal Highway Administration has declared the Brent Spence Bridge functionally obsolete, indicating that the current state of the bridge does not meet today's standards. Currently, this bridge carries 170,000 vehicles on average per day, which is more than double the 80,000 it was designed to carry. Replacing the bridge would save an estimated $748 million in congestion costs annually, savings that would grow in real dollars to $1.3 billion annually by 2030.

The other worthy project I mentioned, the Martin Luther King interchange plan, has long been on the minds of businesses and citizens in our region, so much so that stakeholders have their own money in this plan. Unlike the streetcar to nowhere, the completion of this much-needed project would have a direct impact on one of Cincinnati's most important economic hubs. The Martin Luther King interchange would free up traffic congestion around the University of Cincinnati, Children's Hospital, and the uptown region of Cincinnati.

This proposed interchange would directly impact 60,000 people who work in the area and allow far greater highway access, generating an additional 2,000-plus permanent jobs.

We need to focus our limited resources on projects that are practical, impactful, and that will deliver results. Those of us in Congress must make responsible choices and invest in projects on their merits and nothing else. We owe it to the American people to invest only in those projects that will produce real results, keep us competitive, and, most importantly, create American jobs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for yielding. I also want to thank her for organizing this Special Order this evening on such an important issue.

None of us knows for sure what the United States Supreme Court is going to do in the next few days, the next week, maybe 10 days. None of us even knows for sure when it's going to happen, but I think we all anticipate that it will be soon. I think none of us would disagree with the fact that whatever they do, it's going to have significant and real implications to an awful lot of people all across this country.

I think it's important to remember how we got into this position-- this mess, quite frankly--that we're in right now relative to health care and what happened. The Democrats were in complete control. President Obama had been elected, and they controlled the House and the Senate. And rather than act in a bipartisan manner on something as important as this, which is what they should have done--they should have gotten input from both sides and done what was in the best interest of the people when you are dealing with something as important as health care--they basically rammed through a bill. Unfortunately, few had even read the bill, as we heard over and over again. And in fact, Speaker Pelosi, who was Speaker at the time, even made a statement that it was important that they pass the bill so they could find out what was in it. What an incredible statement to make.

And unfortunately, deals were made to get people to vote for this legislation. The ones that came out that seemed to be the most egregious were maybe on the other side of the Capitol building, in the other body, some of the things that we heard about there. But this is really not the way that legislation is supposed to happen, especially something as important to people's lives as their health care is.

And I think they thought that--in fact, statements were made that-- the people would like it; they'd fall in love with it once it was passed. Well, that clearly hasn't happened. There was a poll out, a New York Times and CBS News poll that just came out recently that indicates that two-thirds of the American people hope--they'd like to see the Supreme Court either strike down this health care legislation, or ObamaCare or whatever terminology one prefers to use, but they'd like to see it struck down either altogether or at least in part.

Unfortunately, when they focused so much attention on this health care bill, or ObamaCare, they should have been focused on an even bigger issue, and that is how the economy is so weak and so many people are unemployed. They were back at that time, and they still are now. Instead of devoting attention where it should have been, on the economy and on getting Americans back to work, they passed this so-called economic stimulus package, spent over $800 billion. And it did grow one thing, and that's government. But unfortunately, it did not grow jobs in the private sector.

After passing that monstrosity, they moved to health care and then passed this piece of legislation. It took them basically a year to get it passed. And what has happened is it didn't, as you indicated--and I think you did an excellent job in pointing out what was said and what actually happened. They said it's not going to raise taxes. Well, it's raised 20 different taxes. They said it was going to drive down health care costs. It's increasing health care costs. They said it was going to create jobs. It's reduced jobs. In fact, it's been a wet blanket over the whole economy.

I've talked to a lot of small business people in my district back in Cincinnati and in the greater Cincinnati area, and I have heard over and over again that small businesses are afraid to hire people. They're afraid of the new regulations, the new taxes. So people aren't getting hired and the jobs aren't being created. And this isn't the only reason, but this is one of the biggest reasons that you hear our small business folks say why they are not hiring folks.

In the small business community, about 70 percent of the jobs created in our economy over the last few decades have been in the small business sector, and those are the folks that are going to be particularly hard-hit by this ObamaCare if the Supreme Court upholds it.

Now, of course, as our colleague from Alabama mentioned previously, in the House, we passed legislation earlier in this Congress to repeal this bill. But the other body wouldn't take it up. And even if they had, I think most of us speculate that the President would have vetoed it, and we wouldn't have had two-thirds to override the repeal. So we hope the Supreme Court acts. But even if they don't, we hope that this body and the body on the other side of the building will act to repeal it.

Now, relative to one particular thing, the employer mandate, it's been estimated that that has resulted in the loss--or will result in the loss of 1.6 million jobs if that ultimately is imposed on businesses, that they have to move to this ObamaCare. And I think we all know that a lot of businesses are just going to drop coverage altogether. People that have insurance now will not have insurance if or when this goes through.

We also know there is going to be more red tape. There are going to be more regulations. There are going to be higher taxes. And it's been estimated the higher taxes alone are going to be over $500 billion-- $569 billion, to be exact.

And what is all of this for? It's a law that puts government ahead of people. It's a law that consolidates power into the hands of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats that are going to decide how much of our seniors' Medicare is going to be cut. And that estimate is about $500 billion of cuts also in Medicare. So it's just an awful piece of legislation which we certainly hope the Supreme Court strikes down in the very near future.

There were alternatives to ObamaCare, things that Republicans have been pushing for a long time. For example, allowing insurance companies to sell insurance across State lines. That means more competition. That drives the cost down so people have more access to health care coverage. Also, association health plans. That means that small businesses can join together in order to negotiate with the insurance companies. They have more power to get lower rates for their workers and their employees. Medical malpractice reform. We have far too many doctors ordering tests, very expensive tests just to prevent themselves from getting sued. At least half of these lawsuits are probably frivolous. We need medical malpractice reform. And then, finally, health savings accounts, which more and more people are finding more and more attractive, saving them money and giving them more control over their health care dollars.

Those are a few of the commonsense reforms that have been proposed over

the years but, unfortunately, have been blocked. And they put all of their money and all of their eggs in the basket of this ObamaCare, and I really think the thing is likely to be struck down in the very near future.

The decisions ought to be made by the people back home around their kitchen tables--people--mothers and husbands and fathers talking about what is the most important thing to their family with health care. That's where the decisions ought to be made, not in backroom deals up here on Capitol Hill.

So yes, we need health care reform. We didn't need this big government cop out, really; this monstrosity, this takeover. I know that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle cringe when we say takeover of health care, but that, in essence, is what it is-- not a complete takeover, but a heck of a big takeover by Big Government. And that's the last thing we need.

So this is bad public policy. It's bad for the American people. It needs to go.

I just want to thank you again for organizing this Special Order this evening and look forward to doing future ones talking with the American people.

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

Mr. Chairman, I introduced this amendment because it is high time that we take our debt and our deficit seriously. We no longer can afford to go on with politics as usual and continue to subsidize wasteful spending programs and policies that redistribute wealth and that really have zero economic impact.

These supposed economic development programs that are referred to in my amendment are anything but that. Instead, they're really wasteful programs that the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, has found to be duplicative. In other words, there are other bills and there are other programs that do exactly the same things. These are wasted tax dollars that do the same things over and over again. Really, they have no track record of success.

In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office and White House Office of Management and Budget found that the Denali Commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, and the Delta Regional Authority had 29 duplicative programs--not one, not 10, not a dozen--29 that do essentially the same thing. Furthermore, Citizens Against Government Waste has found that the Denali Commission duplicates several programs in the Labor Department.

Last year, the GAO released a report detailing Federal programs that overlap and provide similar services as a supplement to its report, the title of which is ``Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue.'' In this report, the GAO revealed the names of 80 Federal economic development programs administered by four different agencies.

Surely, my colleagues in the House do not favor paying twice for the same program. Yet, Mr. Chairman, the decision to continue the funding for these regional commissions will do exactly that unless we eliminate them, which is what I am suggesting that we do by this amendment.

The taxpayers are fed up with the frivolous spending of our Federal Government. It's time that we identify wasteful programs--that's what we are doing here--and cut them. Numerous agencies and organizations have plainly stated and repeatedly recommended the dismantling of these types of programs. Congress ought to listen and heed these requests, and that's what I'm suggesting that we do in this particular legislation.

I am suggesting in here programs that affect my own area. I'm not just saying let's go into other areas around the country. The Appalachian area is an area of the country that I represent, the same general area. I'm saying let's not just do it in Alaska or out West or somewhere else. We ought to do it right at home and in my district as well. So that's what I'm suggesting is that we eliminate these programs. As I indicated, it's supported by Citizens Against Government Waste, and there are a number of other budget-cutting types of organizations that are in favor of this, so I would recommend my colleagues support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have left of my 5 minutes?

I think I reserved.

I do.

I will be brief.

Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for our distinguished chairman. He speaks with great wisdom on many, many occasions, and I'm sure he did on this occasion as well. However, I would just reiterate a couple of things.

Number one, we did adopt a ban on earmarks, which I think was the right thing to do. It was really a proclamation to the American people that we are serious about stopping wasteful spending. However, in essence, when we have these types of things, they are really giant earmarks to certain areas of the country.

They do go through scrutiny, so it is unlike an earmark in some areas. But nonetheless, these are benefiting certain parts of the country at the expense of other parts of the country, similarly to what an earmark does. I just think they are really bad policy, and as I indicated, duplicative in many instances. So we have different programs doing exactly the same thing, and we're really wasting dollars.

Prudence says that we must reduce spending and must pay down our debt. We have to do it. If we're going to do it, this is the type of thing we really have to cut, and this would go towards deficit reduction. We have got a $13 trillion deficit. We need to start working on it. I just think this is one way to attempt to do that.

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I would note that it's the responsibility for providing aid in supporting local and regional development type things. It's the States and local governments--not the Federal Government--that ought to be funding these types of things. They are closer to the people, and they are closer to monitoring the situation. It ought not to be the Federal Government doing these types of things.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of national security. This amendment would force the United States to be 100 percent reliant on the Russian and European suppliers of enriched uranium, a compound critical to America's energy and national security needs. That's just unacceptable. I don't have anything against the Russians or Europeans, our friends, but it would be a strategic malfeasance to rely on them.

Do not pass this amendment.

I thank the chair for yielding time to me. She is doing an exemplary job as chairman of the very important Foreign Affairs Committee, and we thank her for that.

I rise in strong support of this resolution. As we approach the 64th anniversary of Israel's declaration of independence, we must confront the unfortunate reality that all is not well in the Middle East. Just over a year and a half ago, a street vendor set off a wave of popular revolution which continues to shake the region's core foundations. And although I hope that the so-called Arab Spring will usher democracy and human rights into a region where both have been exceptions rather than the rule, and a year and a half in, the picture is starting to look-- let's face it--bleak.

Times like this make us especially aware of who our friends are, and I am proud to support this and any resolution which strengthens the United States-Israel relationship.

For 64 years, the bonds of friendship between our two countries, reinforced by both shared interests and shared values, have remained strong and continue to grow stronger. Today, Israel faces unprecedented threats to its security, some of which, like the Iranian nuclear program, have loomed on the horizon for some time; and some, like the current regional instability that we've seen, are relatively new. At this time of heightened danger and profound change, it is incumbent on us to do everything in our power to help to secure Israel. It's our strongest ally in the region, has been for many years, and will continue to be in the future.

The administration is fond of trumpeting its undying support for Israel, as Vice President Biden did just yesterday, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the administration is truly serious about Israel's security, it can start by stating loudly and clearly that it will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapons capability-- not just the weapon, but the capability to produce one. That would be far more meaningful than another of the dozens of generic statements we frequently read about in the newspapers.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that, and I really appreciate Chairman Graves making it possible for so many of us who care about small business in this country this evening to take a little time to talk about how important it is and what we ought to be doing to support our small business folks all over the country. After all, 70 percent of the jobs that are created historically in the

American economy aren't the big guys. They're not the huge corporations, although we want them to do well and hire a lot of people. But even though a lot of people think it's the huge corporations that are doing all the hiring, it's really small business folks. It's mom-and-pops places. It's people that have fewer than 500 employees. Oftentimes, fewer than 50. Sometimes it's 5, or even 1. These are the folks that historically have created 70 percent of the jobs.

And, unfortunately, I would argue that this administration and the policies that have been implemented by many of the folks on the other side of the aisle, unfortunately, have made it very challenging to these small businesses to be successful and to hire additional employees. And there's a whole range of issues that we're going to talk about this evening. We have limited time, so I'm going to turn it over to a couple of my colleagues.

I would like to first recognize the gentleman from Arizona, David Schweikert, who's been a leader in trying to come up with policies that will be supportive for small businesses in this country.

I thank the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman mentioned the Buffett rule. And maybe I'll talk about that as well very briefly here because I think the gentleman from Arizona did a great job in showing that this is really all about politics, is all this so-called Buffett rule policy is.

There's a gentleman named Charles Krauthammer who happens to be, I believe, one of the smartest, most interesting political commentators or pundits in the land. I saw him talk about the Buffett rule and what a farce it is the other evening, and he illustrated it a little bit differently but it's the same type of illustration. One that brings it, I think, down to Earth.

He had the numbers run on this from a very reputable organization. And if the dollars were collected on the so-called Buffett tax for the next 250 years--so the next 250 years this tax is collected--and he commented that that is longer than the Republic has been in existence, the United States of America. This is longer than our existence. So you collect it for the next 250 years. Do you know how much we would actually collect from that relative to the deficit, which is what this is supposed to do, pay down the deficit? It wouldn't cover last year's deficit alone. So not one year of the Obama deficit would be covered by the so-called Buffett rule if we collected it for 250 years. So it's nothing but pure politics. Don't be fooled by that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as small businesses across the country fight to make ends meet and stay out of debt, the Federal Government continues to dig itself into a hole with its exorbitant spending habits. Small businesses are burdened with massive regulations brought on by ObamaCare. They're further plagued by the threat of tax increases-- significant tax increases--next year, should the relief from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts be allowed to expire. And that's what some people, particular those on the other side of the aisle, would like to happen. They would like the tax cuts to go away. In other words, if tax cuts go away, taxes go up. And this wasn't on the very wealthy. It was on virtually all Americans--middle class folks, people that take advantage of the child tax credit, and a whole range of people in the middle. And yes, at upper income levels as well.

So a lot of folks would be hit very hard with this, particularly small business folks, because the so-called wealth in this country, many of them are small business folks. Again, as I mentioned before, 70 percent of the jobs in this country are created by those folks. So if you're trying to bring the unemployment rate down, why put additional burden on the people that are actually creating the jobs?

Mr. Speaker, tax issues are the single most significant set of regulatory burdens for most small businesses. A recent NFIB Research Foundation study--the NFIB, by the way, is the National Federation of Independent Businesses--found that 4 of the top 10 small business problems were tax-related. Just this week, struggling families and businesses were forced to give the government more of their hard-earned money to satisfy the hungry appetite of government bureaucracies.

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Confiscatory tax rates and fiscal irresponsibility have got to come to an end. Small businesses across the country are fighting to keep their doors open and keep their lights on. It's shameful for the Federal Government to expect these hardworking taxpayers to foot the bill for GSA excursions to Las Vegas and inept corporate schemes like Solyndra while the backbone of our economy, which is the small businesses, continues to suffer. After all, American small businesses are responsible, as I said before, for 70 percent of the jobs that are created in this country. Why do we want to continue to make life so difficult for them? Why are they the target for the left in this House so often?

The America I know is a Nation where hard work creates opportunities for success. After all, that's what our forefathers were seeking in the first place. At the founding of our Nation, small businessowners came to this land to escape excessive taxation and cumbersome regulation. These were families of farmers and builders, traders, inventors, and merchants. It's disheartening that today it's our very own government that's creating the job-killing taxation and regulation.

Our economy is still struggling to rebound from the worst recession since the Great Depression, and we must support the engine that will propel America forward. This engine has always been fueled by hard work and an economic climate that rewards success.

When I'm back home in my district in greater Cincinnati, I make a point to frequently meet with small businessowners to talk about their successes as well as their struggles. I too often hear that the burden of taxes and regulations, coupled with great uncertainty, is keeping these businesses

from growing, and in many cases forcing many of them to close their doors altogether.

That's why I'm a cosponsor of H.R. 9, the Small Business Tax Cut Act. If passed, this legislation would amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow American businesses a tax deduction of 20 percent. This is common sense. It's a fair bill that would help small businessowners to keep more of what they have earned to invest in expansion and hiring. That's the important thing--hiring Americans who now need those jobs.

We still have over 8 percent that are unemployed. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation that will be a shot in the arm to small businesses across the Nation. If there are any of my colleagues that would have any additional things they would like to say, we would welcome them at this time.

May I ask the Speaker how much time we have remaining.

One of the other issues that we haven't covered too much here, and let me talk about this very briefly, is the impact that the high cost of energy, gasoline in particular, what kind of difficulty that's causing small businesses across the country, because I hear this all the time from my small business constituents. It's not surprising that energy prices, and gas prices in particular, have been going up so much. They're double--the gas prices alone at the pump are double what they were when the Obama administration took over, and that's most unfortunate.

But it's really not surprising when you consider the person that President Obama appointed to be the head of energy in this country. The chief mind about energy and what we should do about it is the Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu. Steven Chu a couple of months before President Obama appointed him to that position said that it was his goal, what we ought to try to do, what we ought to strive for, is to raise the price of gasoline in this country, energy costs, prices of gasoline, for example, to European levels. Think of that.

Now they've got approximately, it depends on the country you're talking about, but it's around $9 a gallon--they do liters over there-- but it's about $9 a gallon. Now we're not there yet, but, unfortunately, we're well on our way. It's approaching $4 back in my district in Cincinnati. Here in Washington, just the other day, I had to fill up, and it was about $4.50. So we're not quite there yet, but we're approaching that. It's just unbelievable that we're in this state.

But really I guess it shouldn't be surprising when you consider that the person that President Obama put in control of our energy policy here in this country said that it was his goal to get energy prices up to European levels. As I say, unfortunately, we're well on our way.

Those gas prices, that's what the delivery trucks have to pay, the small business folks that are delivering things to towns, or getting products from other manufacturers. When they come in, they cost more. So they can't charge the consumers as much; or if they do, they drive those consumers away. So it's a vicious circle. We need to get energy prices down in this country, and, unfortunately, they're on their way up.

Another, I think, terrible mistake that this administration has made is to basically shut the door on the Keystone pipeline. This is oil sands from Canada, our friendly neighbor to the north. Our largest supplier of petroleum, by the way, is Canada. And this is a pipeline that would mean a significant number of jobs here in the United States, tens of thousands of jobs. And if we ever needed jobs, we know it's now. And those are good-paying jobs. Many of them are union jobs. But the President has decided that, no, we're not going to make this decision until maybe after the election. So tens of thousands of jobs are at risk here.

Canada has been pretty clear about what they're going to do. If we're not going to accept the oil in our country and build the pipeline, it's quite likely that they'll go ahead and build the pipeline through Canada to British Columbia and ship that oil that ought to be going to the U.S. to China, who is one of our biggest competitors in a lot of ways. And if you know anything about China, the environmental controls that they have over there are far weaker than what we have in the United States.

So if your goal is to make sure that you're protecting the environment--and that's what many of the President's allies, the really radical left-wing environmentalists who are fighting against the Keystone pipeline--if you buy their argument, what they're saying is they want to protect the environment by not having that oil come down here and be refined in the gulf. But the controls we have here are much stronger than what they are over in China. So you're not protecting the environment at all or climate change or anything else if you're going to allow them to spew out what they usually do in China when they handle refining and manufacturing oftentimes and a lot of other things.

We all know how the administration supported an organization like Solyndra and how much tax dollars were wasted there. And it goes on and on. So the energy policy in this country by this administration is impacting consumers. It's impacting you and me and anybody who goes and fills up at the gas pump nowadays. But it's also adversely impacting small businesses and job creation.

Another way that this administration, I believe, has made a mistake which is causing these high prices is to continue to keep off limits much of the Outer Continental Shelf. The gulf, the moratorium, was disastrous for jobs in the gulf region after the spill down there; and, yes, it should have been investigated very thoroughly. But a lot of those oil derricks ended up leaving that area. They couldn't hold out with that cost, the expensive capital costs over 6 months' period of time, so they ended up off the coast of Brazil, for example.

And the President famously said, We'll be happy to buy your oil, Brazil. Well, we can look at oil all around the world, but we ought to be self-sufficient. And the President said he was interested in being energy self-sufficient in this country, but his policies are anything but that.

So he continues to put off limits much of the Outer Continental Shelf. We had the disaster in the gulf, and ANWR up in Alaska the administration has continued to put off limits. Now, we need to do all these things in an environmentally safe manner. And we have the ability to do that now. But, again, this administration has shut this down. That's affecting all of us in higher and higher gas prices. So it's long overdue for this administration to take a look, a long hard look, at what their policies are doing to the country and to reconsider this, to allow us to go after oil that we have available to us, clean coal, natural gas, and a whole range of fuels that we have here in this country so we don't have to be buying that from countries that oftentimes don't have our best interests at heart.

It sends a lot of money over to regions and countries where, unfortunately, a lot of terrorism that has endangered the world and endangers us has come from. So those dollars aren't always spent in a way that's going to help the United States. So, it's time for the administration to turn its policies around.

Mr. Speaker, without further ado, I will yield back the balance of my time.