Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman.

In line with what you were talking about on the infrastructure piece, I think it's important that we take a look at what investments need to be made in the country. We're living, unfortunately, in a narrative in the country where everything that the government invests in is a waste of money, according to some people here in the United States Capitol. No investment that the government could make could possibly be a good one. So we are forced into a discussion of either you're a socialist and the bureaucrats should be CEO of the company or nothing.

What the Democrats are trying to articulate is for us to reestablish the formula that led to the great economic expansion here in the United States. We had figured it out. We figured it out. In just a few hundred years throughout the industrial revolution this new country figured out how to make investments, how to protect intellectual property, how to protect private property, and how to make investments in certain things that were going to yield dividends down the line, that were going to help business and workers alike all at the same time.

And that formula was invest in infrastructure--invest in roads, invest in bridges, invest in ports, invest in the airports, invest in the research, invest in the space program, invest in military research that eventually would spin out into the world. We had the formula. Invest in our workforce, public schools, universities, GI bill. A pretty simple formula. This is not brain surgery we're talking about here, but it worked. And this little country that was fairly small and really insignificant at one point became the industrial powerhouse of the entire world because of that genius of public-private investments.

And, of course, the private sector came in and made big investments. Of course, they did. That's what they do. But our job here, in some instances, is to get out of the way. And we're all in agreement there that, of course, the government can get too much in the way, and we've got to streamline government. The Tax Code is too complicated. It needs to be simplified.

We can do all that without having to disinvest or eat the seed corn that is the future economy of the United States of America. And why I love to join my friend here from California is because every time he comes to the floor, he's talking about how do we make investments today that are going to pay us dividends down the line.

And when you talk about infrastructure, you're talking about making investments that are going to put, for the most part, building-trades workers to work, who make a decent salary, a good salary, good benefits, good health care. And then they go out. You have a road built or a bridge built, and the painters and the ironworkers and all these projects, sheet metal workers, they all come and they build and they all got some money in their pocket. Then they go down the street and they go to Home Depot and they spend some money there. They buy a house or add a room or put a pool in or they invest. They send their kids to college, and the whole thing keeps going. That's what we're talking about here.

Right. And if you look, comparatively speaking, now to what China is doing, what India is doing--granted they're developing countries--but they're spending 7 or 8 percent of their GDP on infrastructure projects. Here in the United States we're spending maybe 2.

I know we are not a developing country; but we do have major investments to make in our cities, in our rural areas, whether you're talking about combined sewer systems, whether you're talking about waterlines, whether you're talking about dealing with the septic systems in rural areas, whether you're talking about bridges. I think in Trumbull County, where I live, I think we have 60-some bridges that are deemed not adequate.

Unsafe. In one county in Ohio, and there's 88 counties.

And we have high unemployment, much higher than any of us would want. And, yes, we have problems; but the Federal Government is getting money at 1 percent. And I know my friends--and I'm on the Budget Committee and we talk a lot about deficits and everything else--I know a lot of people would say we can't borrow our way out of this. And what I'm saying--my argument that I'm making--and I don't want to attribute anybody else to this--is that we've got major billion-dollar, hundreds of billion dollars--probably the Society of Engineers says a couple trillion dollars' worth of infrastructure needs over the next decade or so--why wouldn't we invest in these projects? And they say, well, you've got to borrow the money. We're going to borrow the money at 1 percent, maybe a little higher, depending on the day of the week.

That project that we can do today is going to be a certain price. It's going to be $100, say. What's that project going to be like in 5 or 10 years? It's going to be that much more expensive. Labor is going to be more expensive. Energy costs are going to be more expensive. The raw materials are going to be more expensive. Cement is going to be more expensive. Steel and brick are going to be more expensive. Go right down the line. Everything is going to be more expensive. And part of the problem with the Treasury is we don't have enough people working, paying taxes into the Treasury.

So, to me, you get a twofer, and it's not like the project doesn't need to get done. This is not ``make work.'' This is something that needs to get done.

And, I believe, unleash a new economy. I mean, we are strangling the economy right now because we're not making those kinds of investments.

Again, when you look at our competitors--because I'm from northeast Ohio. We play a lot of football, and there's a scoreboard. America is not going to win every game, but we'd better be in a position in which, in the global economic competition, we are competitive, and we know what makes us competitive.

I'm not saying it's all about making money. A lot of this stuff that we're talking about is quality of life. We won't get into health care and preventative maintenance or anything like that, but we have human beings in Virginia and in major towns who are stuck in traffic for 2 hours in a commute in and out of a city. We're not investing in the high-speed rail, which would be another job creator and good for the environment and a new industry, and it would help develop and spread new technologies.

So we are not leading right now. We have status quo. I hate to say this, but we have a lot of people who want it to be that way. They want the Congress to be dysfunctional because they don't necessarily like government. You don't have to be enamored with government, but you do have to recognize that there is a role to be played here.

If you play sports and if you read the newspaper and watch the football team, you think it's the quarterback, it's the wide receiver, it's the running backs--it's the skill position people--who get all the press, but none of that works. Let's say that those people are the private sector, that they're the CEOs that we worship. Well, within that team there are linemen, and there are blockers and tacklers and linebackers, people who are in the guts of the game, on the front lines, making it happen so that this other stuff can happen.

The infrastructure is the blocking and tackling. It doesn't make the headlines, but it does what needs to be done in order for all of the other stuff to work.

So this resonates with you, yes.

When you look at manufacturing, which the R&D component leads to partnerships with, you have two problems. One is it's year to year, so you can't plan your long term, as you said. But at the same time, the budgets for the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health have been inconsistent as well. Those are things that we need to ramp up. Those aren't huge money items, but those yield a lot of value.

So extend the R&D tax credit; beef up the National Science Foundation; beef up the National Institutes of Health; beef up the research in the Department of Energy. Public-private partnerships. Lay that groundwork for the private sector. Help the private sector.

We had a group of CEOs in last week who were in the semiconductor industry. They talked about the same thing, and they talked about the public-private partnerships and how that's needed for us to maintain our competitiveness here. These are good-paying jobs in upstate New York and other places, and these are the kinds of investments that we need to make. Again, we've got to get out of this mentality that every single thing that the government does is bad. There are some things, and it's the public-private partnerships that are going to ultimately lead the way for us.

I'd just add, lastly, that to me it's about exciting the country and getting the country excited about what the future of America is all about. Tax cuts for the top 1 percent of the people and austerity for the rest is not a vision for an exciting America that young people want to come into.

The private sector is going to be a huge part of this, but there are things that we need to start doing here. Whatever the percentage is that the government's role is in investments, I don't know what that number is, but we're not doing it, and there's no aspirational vision to excite young people to say, Man, we're going to the Moon, or we're going to go energy independent, or we're going to have high-speed rail that's going to connect the entire country.

I think the President has desperately tried to provide that vision, only to be pulled down to the depths by some of the folks here who I think have a completely different agenda, and that agenda doesn't align with the America that was built over the past century or so.

I also join with my colleagues from Ohio to honor the memory of Congressman Charlie Wilson. He was just a fun guy for so many of us who spent a lot of time in Washington, D.C. We shared a district in southeastern Ohio, and Charlie was one of the most popular politicians in the history of southeastern Ohio. He loved bonding with Members. He could very easily work across the aisle with Democrats and Republicans. He always had a funny story or something to tell.

I always appreciate when someone talks about their parents. He would always talk about growing up in southeastern Ohio and his dad and the furniture store and the funeral home and picking Democrats up in funeral cars to take them to the polls to make sure that they can vote. He loved telling those stories. But he loved his kids and grandkids. He would beam when he would talk about being with them for the holidays.

And so we honor him and send our heartfelt wishes to Angela, who was just a lot of fun to be with, too. I know her and Charlie had a lot of good times and a lot of good years together. And I want to say, Charlie, thanks for being a great friend to us and a great Member of the United States Congress. Southeast Ohio is a better place because of your service and your life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Akron Children's Hospital of Akron, Ohio, and more specifically Akron Children's Mahoning Valley. Akron Children's Hospital healthcare system has two hospitals, as well as 20 primary care and 67 specialty care locations. Akron Children's hospital is not only the largest pediatric healthcare provider in Northeast Ohio; it is ranked among the best children's hospitals in the country.

Recently Akron Children's Hospital Mahoning Valley was among six hospitals to receive the American Nurses Association's (ANA) Award for Outstanding Nursing Quality at the association's Nursing Quality Conference in Atlanta. The award winners participate in ANA's National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators (NDNQI), the nation's most comprehensive database of nursing performance measures. The six honorees were identified by researchers from more than 1,900 hospitals--about one-third of U.S. hospitals--that report results to NDNQI and measure their performance against other NDNQI hospitals regionally, statewide and nationwide. Akron Children's along with the other 5 awardees demonstrated superior results and sustained improvements in patient outcomes that are tied to the quality of nursing services and nurse work environmental factors.

Akron Children's Hospital Mahoning Valley was recognized for decreasing blood stream infection rates for very low birth weight infants, a leading cause of disease and death for premature babies, by 30 percent. The nursing staff achieved this by implementing evidence- based best practices for central venous catheter insertion and maintenance processes across five neonatal sites.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing Akron Children's Hospital Mahoning Valley for its outstanding achievement and to extend thanks to the entire Akron Children's Hospital system for its commitment to children and the highest quality of pediatric care.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of Nicholas Mariotti Jr., 72, who passed away April 7, 2013, at his residence in Niles. Nick was born Feb. 18, 1941, in Youngstown, the son of Nicholas Sr. and Mary Levero Mariotti.

Nick was a 1959 graduate of Niles McKinley High School. He worked at US Steel for 22 years in the inspection department and later at Taylor Steel in Warren for 18 years as a splitter before retiring in 2003.

Nick was a member of Our Lady of Mount Carmel parish in Niles, Niles Frontliners and Rebounders and enjoyed sports, casino trips and most of all spending time with his family, especially his grandchildren.

On a personal level, he was Coach Mariotti to me. He was my first football coach and he taught me how to run the option play in 5th grade flag football. Under his leadership, our team went on to win the championship game--something I'll always cherish and remember.

Nick was a father in the best sense of the word. His son, Nicky (Gumsy), was one of my best friends growing up. I fondly remember Mr. Mariotti taking us to amusement parks, festivals or sporting events. He was always available to make sure we had a fun and active childhood. He never missed a game for any of his children. He was warm, caring and always quietly supportive of his kids, saving any comments or suggestions for private.

He will be deeply missed by his wife, Sandra Stull Mariotti, whom he married Aug. 4, 1962; a son, Nicholas G. (Nicholle) Mariotti of Leesburg, Va.; two daughters, Lisa (Michael) Sypert of Mount Juliet, Tenn., and Laurie (Scott) Paden of Niles; brother, Anthony (Kristine) Mariotti of Niles; sister, Marlene Mariotti of Niles; and seven grandchildren, Alyssa, Ariana, Alec and Andrew Sypert, Scott and Kyle Paden and Sophia Mariotti.

To some, Nick will be remembered as a friend, colleague or coach. To others, he will be remembered as father and grandfather who left behind a lasting legacy. To his family, Nick will always be remembered as a loving husband, devoted father to his children, and as a proud grandfather. I will always remember him as someone who always stepped up to help in whatever way was needed. His contributions to this community will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, it gives me great pride to honor the life of Nicholas Mariotti Jr. I extend my most sincere condolences to Nick's wife, Sandy, his son Gumsy, daughters Lisa and Laurie, grandchildren, and the entire Mariotti family.

Mr. Speaker, April marks the 27th annual National Alcohol Awareness Month.

As co-chair of the House Addiction, Treatment and Recovery (ATR) caucus, I rise today to talk about the importance of this milestone and to applaud the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (NCADD), which since 1987 has sponsored Alcohol Awareness Month to increase public awareness and understanding, reduce stigma and encourage local communities to focus on alcoholism and alcohol-related issues.

Alcohol abuse is one of the leading causes of death in this country and is a huge contributor to other pressing health care problems like hypertension, high blood pressure, heart disease and stroke. Not a day goes by that we as a Caucus don't hear another story about the tragedy wrought by the abuse of alcohol. Some have even gone so far as to call the abuse of alcohol and other drugs the number one public health crisis facing this country.

This year, National Alcohol Awareness Month is highlighting the important public health issue of underage drinking, a problem with devastating individual, family and community consequences. With this year's theme, ``Help for Today, Hope for Tomorrow,'' the month of April will be filled with local, state, and national events aimed at educating people about the treatment and prevention of alcoholism. Local NCADD Affiliates as well as schools, colleges, churches, and countless other community organizations will sponsor activities that create awareness and encourage individuals and families to get help for alcohol-related problems.

Alcohol use by young people is extremely dangerous--both to themselves and to society, and is directly associated with traffic fatalities, violence, suicide, educational failure, alcohol overdose, unsafe sex and other problem behaviors. Annually, over 6,500 people under the age of 21 die from alcohol-related injuries.

Additionally:

Alcohol is the number one drug of choice for America's young people, and is more likely to kill young people than all illegal drugs combined.

Each day, 7,000 kids in the United States under the age of 16 take their first drink.

More than 1,700 college students in the U.S. are killed each year-- about 4.65 a day--as a result of alcohol-related injuries.

25% of U.S. children are exposed to alcohol-use disorders in their family. Underage alcohol use costs the nation an estimated $62 billion annually.

And yet, these statistics don't fully convey the danger of underage drinking. The more we learn about the human brain, the more we learn how dangerous early drinking is for underage drinkers.

Reducing underage drinking is critical to securing a healthy future for America's youth and requires a cooperative effort from parents, schools, community organizations, business leaders, government agencies, the entertainment industry and alcohol manufacturers/ retailers. Underage drinking is a complex issue, one that can only be solved through a sustained and cooperative effort. As a nation, we need to wake up to the reality that for some, alcoholism and addiction develop at a young age and that prevention, intervention, treatment and recovery support are essential for them and their families. We can't afford to wait any longer.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to highlight this important issue with a National Alcohol Awareness Month event in their districts. This is a problem that plagues all of our communities but working together, we can restore hope to our young people and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. We are re-establishing the 30-Something Working Group, which some may remember. Many--it seems like many years ago, Congressman Kendrick Meek and I and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz came to this floor in 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and 2006, and we were talking about issues of the day and how they applied to people in their thirties or people in their twenties, and tried to take, at that point, some of President Bush's policies and make them understandable to young people in our society.

And so we had many conversations, many late night conversations here on this House floor, sometimes an hour a night, sometimes 2 hours a night, sometimes 3, 4, 5 hours a week, coming to help deliver the message. And at that time, back in 2004 and 2005 and 2006--and let me just take a second to thank all the staff that was here for those late hours, for always being around for us, and some are still here today, as we are still here today. But today, we want to re-establish this.

Back then it was the privatization of Social Security, Mr. Speaker. And President Bush wanted to take the Social Security program and privatize it, put it in the stock market and allow that to be a part of the private investment system and not the insurance system that we have with regard to Social Security. And fortunately, we were able, through the leadership of Minority Leader Pelosi, at that time, before she was Speaker, encouraged us to go out and do this, and we were able, with her leadership, the 30-Something Group and other Members going out across the country, we were able to put a stop to the privatization of Social Security.

And fast forward just a few years, to 2008, 2009, I think there were a lot of Americans who were very happy that we did not, at that time, have the Social Security program in the stock market. Many people would have lost their retirements.

So today, we have a whole new set of challenges, and we have a new crop of very talented, young Members of Congress, members of the Democratic Caucus, who want to come to the floor and talk about the issues of the day as they pertain to young people and people who have been around a little bit, and how some of these proposals that are coming from the Republican Conference, the Republican Study Committee, the Republican Budget Committee, how some of these policies will hit the ground.

In my opinion, we seem to be governing by bumper sticker. So we want smaller government, we want less of this and less of that, and more of this and more of that, that can be phrased to sound really good on a bumper sticker to where you would drive by and you would look at the bumper sticker and you'd think, it makes a lot of sense.

But what we want to do with this working group and the folks who will be joining me here tonight and over the next several weeks and months is to say, how does this hit the ground? How does the Republican budget hit the ground?

How does it affect you? How does it affect your family? How does it affect your mom and dad? How does it affect your grandma and grandpa? And that's what we would like to talk about here today.

I think, and say this, knowing that many of the folks on the other side of the aisle are friends of mine, dear friends, good friends. Some I like to hang out with, some I don't get an opportunity to hang out with, but are all good people trying to do good things.

But why we need to come here and have this debate and discussion and conversation is that we need to figure out how we're going to move forward as a country. And our arguments on our side are that the Republican budget, the Republican approach, the Republican philosophy has caused a lot of the problems that we have in our economy today. The financial deregulation, looking the other way while Wall Street turned into a crap game, without any regulation at all, no cops on the beat keeping an eye on things.

We saw two wars put on a credit card, Afghanistan and Iraq, no taxpayer, no citizen, other than the families of the military, were asked to make any sacrifice at all, and funding for the two wars was put on a credit card. And then you throw in a prescription drug bill that was not paid for on the credit card.

So this is what happened from 2000 to 2008, where we were running up the deficit, running up the national debt. And here we arrived in 2009, after having to save the banks and do the TARP program in order to plug this trillions of dollars of a hole in our economy to make sure that the banks don't lock up and not loan money and everything else, so we had to go to the taxpayer, and the taxpayer had to foot the bill for the two wars, the prescription drug bill, and the massive deregulation of the financial markets, the too-big-to-fail, and then they failed. And so the taxpayer was asked to foot the bill.

What we are saying here on our side is that that's the wrong approach. Cutting taxes for the wealthiest in our society, this is not to punish the wealthy, this is--our approach is not to punish anybody, but what we're saying is, when the income for the top 1 percent goes up over the last 10, 15, 20 years so dramatically that the average CEO is making 300-plus times what the average worker is making, when you have the rich people that are making hundreds of millions of dollars, the top 1 percent, but then you also have the top .1 percent of the Americans who are making massive amounts of money, hedge funds and whatnot.

What we're saying is, when you have that imbalance and that level of inequality or it becomes a threat to the democratic way of life, that's the democracy piece, but we also have the economic piece. When you get a high concentration of wealth, then the average person doesn't have the amount of money in their pocket to be able to go out and spend in the economy.

So this is a supply side argument, cut taxes for the wealthy, this approach that our friends on the other side, the Republican Party, the Tea Party, has been pitching since 1980: cut taxes for the rich and hopefully something positive will happen for the middle class.

Democrats are saying we've got to invest in the middle class. We've got to help the middle class with health care costs, with the cost of going to school and going to college, getting a trade, going to a community college, helping poor school districts, making sure that families who send their kids to college and take out a student loan, that those loan repayment rates are reasonable. Those are the reforms we made as Democrats here while the Democrats were in charge of the Chamber in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, and those are the investments we made.

We're talking about two separate philosophies. One philosophy on the Republican Tea Party side is to cut taxes for the wealthy, deregulate Wall Street, and look the other way while there's a crap game going on on Wall Street; have two wars, one of them very questionable in why it started in the first place, and a prescription drug bill that all went on the credit card.

So cut taxes, start two wars, and put a prescription drug bill on the credit card, drive up the debt, deregulate the financial markets until the taxpayer has to come in and bail out and the economy collapses, that's what happened. And so we don't really have to have the argument. Those are the facts of a Republican Presidency, House, and Senate that got to implement their tax package. They got to implement their financial regulatory packages. They got to pass budgets that did or did not make certain investments. And what happened is, after a decade of that philosophy being implemented, the economy collapsed. It was not just a normal recession, it was a financial recession, which a lot of economists now are telling us how difficult and how much longer it takes to get out of these financial recessions.

So the discussion that we've had in the last Presidential election and the discussion that we want to have here in this Chamber as to what philosophy should prevail in the United States of House of Representatives, the body that is most directly elected--the Federal piece, anyway--most directly elected, every 2 years, by the people of this country, what philosophy shall we take? And the Democrats are offering, under the leadership of Leader Pelosi, a different world view, a world view that says we make investments in the infrastructure, we make investments in education, we make sure that we have a fair Tax Code that is simpler and fairer, that it doesn't take forever to fill out your taxes. Keep it simple. And at the same time, we ask those people who have benefited so much over the last decade or two, whose income went up and they now make 300-plus times what the average worker makes, that they help pay their fair share and help us pay for the debts that the Republican Party has incurred by putting two wars on a credit card and a prescription drug bill.

So that's the discussion. That's what we want to do. And the President and the Democrats have made these investments. And if you think that things like only paying a certain percentage of your income back for your student loan is what is part of your philosophy, then you fall in our camp on that issue. If you think that the CEO that's making 300 times more, or $300 for every dollar the person on the factory floor is making, needs to be balanced out, maybe they need to help us pay down the debt more and shouldn't have all kinds of tax loopholes, then you're going to side with what the Democrats want to do.

So long story short, we are now in a position where we can talk about the Republican budget. And we all are in agreement, I think, Democrats and Republicans, that budgets are documents that represent our values. And we all are in agreement that we need to take care of our long-term debt. We need to reduce our deficits. It is an issue, and one that we all need to take very seriously.

Now, the Republican plan is presented to the American people, and it is taking needed investments and cutting them so deeply that we are going to get leapfrogged by China and India and Europe in some of the coming industries. These cuts, in order to try to balance the budget in a short period of time, are going to be pushed off. The burden of these cuts will be on the middle class--education, economic development, which are the kind of investments that we need to make. Also, these cuts are going to be cut out of programs that help the poorest among us, and that is not a recipe for success.

We have 300-plus million people in the United States. We are competing against India and China on who's going to determine who's going to shape the future of the global economy. Is it going to be the United States? Is it going to be China? Is it going to be India? Is it going to be Europe? That's the question. Who's going to shape this future? And America has always had a recipe, from post-World War II until roughly in the 1980s, where we made investments in infrastructure, we made investments in research and development, we made investments in education, because we knew that those were public investments that would yield huge benefits for the United States of America.

And now we have a Republican philosophy that says those investments are a waste of money and that any investment that the government makes must be a bad one; that the space program, that the research investments that we make, that making sure that school is affordable, the public-private partnerships that lead to new developments, the research that no one company will make must be made by the public. Those are quality investments that help build our economy for a generation, whether it was post-World War II with the GI Bill and we take all of these soldiers and we make sure that they can go to college, we make sure they can go to law school, we make sure that they can go to medical school, we make sure they can become engineers.

Or the space program, in which public money, with private ingenuity and know-how, came together. That investment in the space program led to a booming economy in the high-tech sector, the other public investments that led to the Internet and satellites and all of these other things, and private companies come in and benefit from that and then invest in a workforce that can take those technologies and make them better and increase productivity so that we have a strong middle class.

Invest in our infrastructure, make sure that we rebuild our country. We've got combined sewer systems, we've got roads, we've got bridges that need done. We need to make sure that we invest in the smart power grids so that we can get alternative energy pumped into our grids, so that we can have a more conservative approach to how we expend energy, a smarter approach because of a smart grid where we're wasting less energy. These are the kind of investments that we need to make, and all the while protecting what's happening and what may happen if the Republican budget would be signed into law.

The dramatic cuts in the Medicare program, asking those going into their senior years to not have a guaranteed benefit that they paid into. Many of those folks who would be hurt by the program, the Republican budget program, would be women, many of them older women. Fifty-five percent of the Medicare population--women. The oldest Medicare beneficiaries, 85 and over, 70 percent of those are women. So as we age, women will see those cuts.

We have proposals from the other side about abolishing Planned Parenthood, about saying that Planned Parenthood does not serve women well. It's many, many women who get basic health care from Planned Parenthood--screenings, birth control, family planning, all done through Planned Parenthood. The other side wants to abolish it, defund it completely.

These are some basic things that we need to do in order to protect the middle class.

So here we are, in the next few weeks and months, we're going to have a discussion about where this country goes and where the House of Representatives goes and what's our philosophy. So we will be coming here week after week after week to compare this philosophy, the philosophy of cut taxes for the top 1 percent, to keep the Tax Code very complicated so the wealthiest benefit from it, or Democratic philosophies and Democratic proposals that say we want a fairer Tax Code, we want a simpler Tax Code, and we want a Tax Code that doesn't have so many loopholes that only if you have high-powered accountants will you be able to take advantage of the Tax Code.

The Tax Code should benefit middle class families. We all need to contribute, but it shouldn't be so complicated that if you have a lot of money or you're a big corporation you're somehow going to get out of paying taxes or you're somehow going to be able to hide your taxes overseas and not pay your fair share. That's one group's philosophy versus ours.

We are saying that, yes, we need to balance the budget, but we want to do it like President Clinton did it and the Democrats did it in 1993. We want to do it in a fair way that continues to make investments in those essential investments that will lead to long-term economic growth.

One of the things we're doing in Youngstown, in my congressional district, is a program that President Obama had to put together administratively--that we want to push for more of these--public- private partnerships and innovative institutes. The innovation institute that we have now in Youngstown is in additive manufacturing, three-dimensional printing, the cutting edge of manufacturing, the cutting edge of additive manufacturing, partnering with big companies like Lockheed and Boeing and other smaller companies in the Mahoning Valley. But public money from the Department of Defense or Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, public-private partnerships to help position America--not just our region--in the next generation of additive manufacturing help drive the cost down for these printers so that everyone that has a desktop computer now can have a desktop printer that prints products that could revolutionize health care, revolutionize energy, revolutionize

manufacturing in the defense industry. But this is a public-private partnership.

What we cannot do is say, ``Oh, my God, that's government money; it's got to be bad,'' these investments that we make for the poor in the Medicaid program so we can make sure that these kids have basic health care in the United States of America.

And, yes, we do need education reform; yes, we do need innovation within the health care system. We've got a long way to go, even with the health care reform bill and how we can revolutionize health care, how we can revolutionize education, how we can revolutionize the way we take care of our veterans. I will be back on this floor talking about some of those ways that we can go about doing that.

But the issue I have with the Republican proposals are they're all about the budget. Listen, we all know we have a demographic problem--we all know we have the baby boomers moving into the Social Security and the Medicare system--but how are we going to drive down Medicare costs? How are we going to drive down health care costs? That's the question. That's what's important. Of course we need to bring the cost down of health care, but you just don't say, well, we're not going to have any reforms, the free market is somehow going to take care of it and it should be pushed off on the backs of the citizens. That's not going to work. That's not humane. There is a better way to go about it, when you look at the field of integrative health care, for example, how you can help prevent a lot of issues from arising that make people sick.

When you look at 70 or 75 percent of health care costs are caused by things that are behavioral in nature, so how do we shift the health care system to even more prevention like we tried to do in the health care reform bill? How do we make investments into areas in medical schools and hospitals that are looking into driving down health care costs in these other ways? Not just talk about, oh, we're going to have draconian cuts to the Medicare program and then we're going to push it all off on the Medicare recipient to foot the bill and we're going to give them a voucher.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is what happens with this Republican Tea Party budget. You will get a voucher, Mr. Speaker. These folks will get a voucher. My friends on the other side say, well, yeah, but that voucher will help you pay for it. The problem is the voucher that the seniors will get doesn't go up, doesn't rise with the cost of health care. So the voucher only goes up a small bit while health care costs have been going up four, five, six, seven, depending on the plan, more percent. So you get a voucher today and it's worth $100 and your health care bill is $150, but next year your voucher is worth $102 and health care costs are $170. That happens every single year. That voucher becomes worthless at some point. The cost will be pushed off onto seniors. They're going to have to come out of pocket. Their kids are going to have to help them.

You see these huge cuts in the Medicaid program, which in many States help senior citizens get into a nursing home and pay for a nursing home.

So the middle class, again, people 40, 50, 60 years old who have parents in a nursing home, are going to have to come out of pocket. That's bad for the economy, less consumer demand.

All of these things fit together. We're going to come back and continue to talk about many of these issues over the course of the next few weeks and months and compare. As I said at the beginning, I've got a lot of Republican friends in this Chamber, I've got a lot of Republican friends in my congressional district, but I also have a lot of Republican friends in my congressional district that would disagree with the approach of the disinvestment in the United States that's coming from the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to coming back in the next week and months, and I'm sure you're excited for that, too.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I'll give myself 30 more seconds to say we believe in putting seniors in charge of their health care, not 15 bureaucrats. Our budget does not change the Medicare benefit for anybody in or near retirement.

But to guarantee that that promise can continue to be made for my mom and the other moms that we've been talking about, to guarantee that it's there for my generation and my kids' generation, you have to reform the program, and that's why we want this bipartisan idea that has proven to work, versus giving the control to 15 bureaucrats.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember and honor the exemplary life and service of Stark County Sheriff Michael McDonald who sadly passed away on February 22nd, 2013. Sheriff McDonald joined the police force at the young age of 18 and over time proved himself to be an effective and talented officer. He served the county in many capacities over his long and illustrious career, including sheriff, chief deputy and jail administrator. The selfless nature that dedicated public servants like Sheriff McDonald embody is what makes our country great.

Sheriff McDonald was a man who gave himself to his community and the people of Stark County, making the lives of those living in the community safer. His legacy will continue to be felt every day as the people and the department that he cared so deeply about continues to protect and serve.

I would like to extend my deepest and heartfelt sympathies to Sheriff McDonald's family: his wife Judy, his son Bradley; his daughter and son-in-law, Kelly and Gabe Moser; his sisters and brother-in-law, Joanne and James Caplea, Laura McDonald and Mary Lou McDonald; sister- in-law, Kelly McDonald; his father and mother-in-law, Paul and Norma Zwick; his in-laws, Rick and Linda Heithoff, Rose Elmerick and John and Sandy Swigert; and his beloved nieces and nephews. I would also like to extend my sympathies to the Sheriff's second family, the men and women of the Stark County Sheriff's Department. Rest assured that his 32 years of devotion to the people of Stark Count will never be forgotten.

I rise this evening just to honor and pay tribute to a dear, dear friend of mine and of the community in my congressional district, Leo Keating. He was the grandfather of my legislative director, Ryan Keating, and of his brother, who is a dear friend of mine, Brendan Keating.

Leo was one of these great World War II veterans who knew how to live life. He was a pilot. He was a lawyer. He loved baseball--and he was funny. He was a tremendous guy who helped me at a very, very young age get into politics. Today, as we went through his funeral mass, his son Dan, who practiced law with him, talked about these three Bronze Stars that he earned in the war. Typical of that generation, nobody really knew about it because he didn't talk about it.

So I wanted to rise and honor that and honor him because I think, as we deal with a lot of the craziness that's going on here in Washington, D.C., it was a nice example today to see this man who was a hero to his country getting the military burial and what-not and to think he never even talked about it and how beautiful that was. He was just a great guy who knew how to live life. We will miss Leo Keating, and I know his family and his friends will miss him dearly, but he gave us one last gift going out: his family wanted him to have dialysis, and he said no.

Come on, Dad. Try it just one time. See if you like it. See if it helps.

No. I'm ready.

And he was ready. And he gave us one last example on how to live with grace and dignity.

So, goodbye, Leo.

If the gentleman would yield too, I'd just comment on the infrastructure piece.

So here we are today, needs abound in the country, both rail, combined

sewer, highways, bridges--I mean, each of our counties, you pull out how many bridges in our counties aren't up to specs; I think it's like 50 or 60 just in one of my bigger counties.

These projects are only going to get more expensive. The energy costs going in are going to get more expensive, the labor costs are going to get more expensive. Everything associated, the materials, everything associated with what needs to get done is going to become more expensive. So I think the good business move, on behalf of the taxpayer, would be to get this done now, get people back to work.

And I recognize that we're still running deficits. But the interest rate at which we're borrowing the money is minimal, 1, 2 percent.

So we're going to wait. Here's what's going to happen. We're going to wait. Accidents are going to happen, bridges are going to collapse, things are going to just need to get done, and then these local governments, State governments, we're going to have to go out and borrow the money at 4 or 5 percent, as opposed to 1 or 2.

So I think as we're thinking about this, it's not that we're sitting here saying, oh geez, we don't have anything better to do, let's just spend a bunch of government money. No, these are strategic investments. Like in Virginia, they're going to increase productivity so people aren't sitting in their cars. They're more productive, have a higher quality of life, more time with their families, all these things that we say are very important.

So, to your point, we're going backwards, because at some point this stuff's got to get done.

I think the gentleman from Buffalo knows a little bit about that too.

Well, one of the things that you were talking about--and I just started to learn more and more about this new additive manufacturing. And there's a center in Youngstown, Ohio now that's a regional center for additive manufacturing.

So the old school manufacturing is you would cut things out, and they called it subtractive manufacturing. The new stuff is a printer that you have that would be like the printer you have in your office, except you pump material into it, and instead of ink on a piece of paper, it's a material that would make a component part. And the cost is down now to about $700 or $800 for these things. So this is the next generation of manufacturing.

And I bring it up because the President put together a proposal, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, to partner with the private sector to create one of these innovation institutes. And he wants to do 15 more for a billion dollars.

If you would see the activity going on in Youngstown, Ohio now, the companies that are partnering with us, with the private sector, with Carnegie Mellon, it goes all the way to Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon, Case Western Reserve, Youngstown State, University of Akron, Lehigh, Penn State, West Virginia--we've got to get Buffalo in this somehow.

But the point is, public/private partnership to expedite the development of new technologies. And the President and his team get this. And Democrats, we get this.

We've got to get away from this narrative that anything the government spends money on is bad; it's a waste of your tax dollars. Whether it's infrastructure, whether it's public/private partnerships like this additive manufacturing institute or the other institutes that we need to create, that's the seed corn for the next generation of alternative energy, windmills, solar panels, whatever the case may be.

We don't know what it is. That's why the recipe has always been to invest in this basic research, put these public-private partnerships together, and magic will happen. Because you have the basic scientific intellect and intelligence there, partnering with the private sector, who has a profit motive, and magic happens. And now we've gotten a scenario where government has no role here. No role at all. And it's not either/or. So I'd like to ask my friends who think it's either/or, what other relationship with another human being do you have that that's that black and white?

This stuff is complicated. It's complex. It takes nuance. And that's what's happening in Youngstown, and I think it's a good example of what can happen around the country in older areas where we don't have the local tax base that we used to have, to have the Federal Government come in. And you should see the ripple effect already happening--and it's a beautiful thing--but it takes that kind of comprehensive plan.

And you look at what our top competitors are spending as a percentage of their GDP. I think we're at 1 percent of our GDP that we spend on infrastructure. It maybe went up to 2 during this recovery package. But if you look at India and China, it's 7 or 8 percent of their GDP. Now, granted, they're still developing in so many different ways. But for us to be at 1 and they're at 6, 7 or 8, how are we going to be able to keep up when our infrastructure is so much older?

It's time to rebuild America. And I don't know anybody in my district, Democrat or Republican, who's really not for that. I've had Republican friends of mine have the light bulb go off and they say, Wait a minute. We're going to have to do this at some point. And we've got a high unemployment rate and we've got low interest rates. This doesn't make any sense to put it off.

When?

As you said, you've got to ship that stuff. That stuff needs to be shipped. It needs manufactured and then it needs to be shipped somewhere on a road and over bridges and ports and airports and logistics facilities and everything else. You've got to make that investment, and that'll grease the wheels of the commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues and people all over the world in recognizing the tragedy known as the Khojaly Massacre which occurred on February 26, 1992 in the small Azerbaijani town of Khojaly. The attack resulted in the massacre of 613 Azerbaijani civilians and is one of the most devastating acts of violence in the South Caucasus in recent history. According to some accounts, the fate of 150 Khojaly inhabitants is still unknown, even after twenty-one years.

The numerous casualties and acts of torture in the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan underscore the need for a political-rather than a military-solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. A fair and comprehensive settlement is the only effective tool to encourage stability, prosperity, and a lasting peace in the region. As co-chair of the Minsk Group, the United States remains committed to working with both sides to that end. With that goal in mind, we remember and mourn the 613 victims of Khojaly and work together to safeguard the human rights of all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to say thank you, thank you to President Obama. A couple of nights ago at the State of the Union, he mentioned Youngstown, Ohio, and the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute that is a partnership between the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Defense, and private partnerships up to about $70 million to advance additive manufacturing innovation in the military and energy and health care that will transform and revolutionize manufacturing.

I wanted to rise this morning to also say thank you to all of our partners in the Tech Belt, which ranges from Cleveland to Akron to Youngstown, to Pittsburgh, all the way down into West Virginia. The old Rust Belt has made a comeback, and we are on our way, as we did many, many years ago, to revolutionize manufacturing again.

This will lead to great opportunities for our young people to come back, institutions like Case Western Reserve, Carnegie Mellon, Youngstown State, University of Akron, Lehigh, Penn State, West Virginia University, all coming together, working as a team. And we now have landed this institute, and we will once again be the hub of manufacturing.

Thank you, President Obama, and thank you to all of the men and women who have helped put this thing together.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Kent State University's Washington Program in National Issues, known as WPNI. On April 23, 2013 WPNI will celebrate its 40th Anniversary. This anniversary marks not only WPNI's 40th year in Washington, DC, but also symbolizes the impressive achievements of faculty, staff, alumni, and students who are and have been dedicated to the success of WPNI. Dr. Lester Lefton President of Kent State University has been a very strong supporter of the program and has contributed significantly to its continued success.

WPNI has three primary objectives: (1) to facilitate learning of the U.S. political system and policy issues and its policy issues; (2) to develop and understanding of the interrelationship of public issues and structures of government; and (3) to encourage individual initiative and provide for experiences and research. Dr. Lefton and Dr. Richard Robyn the program's director have worked extremely hard to ensure that these objectives are met.

WPNI is a full 15-week academic program offered each spring semester by Kent State University since its creation in 1973, WPNI has sent more than 600 selected juniors and seniors from various backgrounds and academic disciplines to Washington, DC to live, work, and study. Throughout the course of the program, students are required to participate in the academic curriculum and maintain an internship position in government, a company, or an organization of their choice. The academic and professional benefits this program brings to its students are extraordinary. At the same time government agencies, companies, and organizations benefit enormously. I know this first-hand because I have had the good fortune of having several students intern in my Washington office over the years.

I commend Dr. Lefton, Dr. Robyn and those at Kent State involved in the continuation of this meaningful program. I also congratulate the students who have in the past 40 years taken part in this wonderful experience. I am certain that with continued support the Washington Program in National Issues will celebrate many more anniversaries to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of an exemplary public servant, Judge John M. Stuard. After nearly five decades of service, Judge Stuard has retired with distinction from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas in Warren, Ohio.

Judge Stuard earned his undergraduate degree from Thiel College and went on to earn his Juris Doctorate from the University of Kentucky. After law school, he practiced law while serving as a solicitor in Newton Falls and the Village of Orangeville. He then became a prosecutor and practiced criminal defense in Warren Ohio. In 1983, he was appointed to the Central District Court in Cortland and later to the Common Pleas bench in 1991.

Judge Stuard is affectionately known as a gentleman's gentleman, he recognizes that his judgment needs to hold people accountable for their actions, yet must not lose touch with the utility of punishment. While not on the bench, Judge Stuard is a member of the Hartford Optimists, Trumbull Farm Bureau, Conservation Club and he is an avid Civil War enthusiast.

I want to extend my warmest thanks to Judge John M. Stuard for his life's devotion to serving the people of Trumbull County. His long and illustrious career will not be forgotten and I would like to wish him congratulations and all the best in his well-deserved retirement. The city of Warren and Trumbull County will forever be indebted to Judge John M. Stuard for his lifelong public service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of an exemplary public servant, Sheriff Randall A. Wellington. Sheriff Wellington will be retiring this year after serving the Ohio Mahoning County with distinction during a career that spanned seven decades.

After serving as a Sergeant in the United States Army during the Korean War, Sheriff Wellington joined the Youngstown Police Force as a cadet in 1957. He was later promoted to Sergeant in 1966, Vice Squad Chief in 1970, Lieutenant in 1972, Captain in 1973, and Police Chief in 1984. After four decades serving the people of the Mahoning County and its largest city, Youngstown, Mr. Wellington became the County Sheriff on August 28, 1999.

Sheriff Wellington, who is affectionately known as a soft-spoken, but firm leader, has many achievements to accompany his long and distinguished career. Among those achievements are the creation of the Senior-citizens Watch Program and the Day-Reporting Program. The latter program, initiated in 2006, allowed misdemeanor offenders to serve time doing community service rather than being incarcerated, which has saved the county about $1 million since enactment. Other initiatives introduced by Sheriff Wellington are the Reserve Deputy Program, Underwater Diving Team, Crisis Response Team, Hostage Negotiations Team and the Youth Explorer's Unit.

I want to extend my warmest thanks to Sheriff Wellington for his lifelong devotion to protecting and serving the people of Mahoning County. His long and illustrious career and will not be forgotten and I would like to wish him all the best in his well-deserved retirement. The city of Youngstown and Mahoning County will forever be indebted to Sheriff Randall A. Wellington for his outstanding service.