Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege as the representative of Indiana's Fourth District to rise and pay tribute to Mr. Dan Terrell, Mayor of Mitchell, Indiana.

Mayor Terrell is a man of deep civic conviction, a loving father of 6, and a devoted grandfather of 17.

Dan Terrell was born in Mitchell, Indiana, and has remained there his entire life. He has never lost the small town conservative spirit that growing up in the Heartland of America gave him.

Following his retirement from the Canadian Pacific Railroad, Dan Terrell was ready to concentrate fully on helping his hometown overcome challenges that so many small cities and towns have faced: lost businesses, sidewalks that were unsafe or non-existent, infrastructure in total disrepair, drinking water barely able to pass State regulations. During Mayor Terrell's four years in office these, and many other concerns, have not only been addressed but have been corrected. That is leadership.

Besides the tangible accomplishments, his representation of the City as he traveled throughout Indiana offered his constituents a Mayor they could be proud of. A great example of this is the fact that he chaired the Southern Indiana Mayors Roundtable, a convention of all the mayors in Indiana.

His leadership and vision will be truly missed as he leaves the Mayor's office. His love and his devotion for his hometown will continue. Mr. Speaker, it has been a true honor to stand in tribute and offer my thanks to the civic service of Mayor Dan Terrell, one of Indiana's best mayors and my close friend.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege as the representative of Indiana's Fourth District to rise and pay tribute to Mr. Dan Terrell, mayor of Mitchell, Indiana.

Mayor Terrell is a man of deep civic conviction, a loving father of 6, and a devoted grandfather of 17.

Dan Terrell was born in Mitchell, Indiana, and has remained there his entire life. He has never lost the small town conservative spirit that growing up in the Heartland of America gave him.

Following his retirement from the Canadian Pacific Railroad, Dan Terrell was ready to concentrate fully on helping his hometown overcome challenges that so many small cities and towns have faced: lost businesses, sidewalks that were unsafe or non-existent, infrastructure in total disrepair, drinking water barely able to pass State regulations. During Mayor Terrell's four years in office these, and many other concerns, have not only been addressed but have been corrected.

Besides the tangible accomplishments, his representation of the city as he traveled throughout Indiana offered his constituents a mayor they could be proud of.

His leadership and vision will be truly missed as he leaves the mayor's office. His love and his devotion for his hometown will continue. Mr. Speaker, it has been a true honor to stand in tribute and offer my thanks to the civic service of Mayor Dan Terrell, one of Indiana's best mayors and my close friend.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 860, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the prior comments, I can't help but wonder if certain Members of this body can't help but not do more than one thing at a time. But certainly, your secretaries of state and your local election officials can multitask, and they do an excellent job of executing the States' elections.

I want to focus on the portion of the bill that eliminates the Election Assistance Commission, Mr. Speaker. As has been said, I have a unique perspective on this. In 2005, as Indiana's secretary of state, and serving as the president of the National Association of Secretaries of State, I coauthored the successful resolution that was talked about earlier to dissolve the EAC after the 2006 election. As the oldest organization of bipartisan elected officials in the Nation, we at NASS renewed the call to dissolve the commission in 2010.

And, no, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, from the debates that we had in that organization, it was not a form letter. It was not a form renewal.

Furthermore, the vote for the renewal was 24-2, with 13 Republicans and 11 Democrats calling for its dissolution. This is not a partisan issue. We recognized, on a bipartisan basis, that the Election Assistance Commission cannot be justified on the grounds of fairness, justice, opportunity, or necessity.

EAC bureaucrats do not make elections fair. In fact, EAC makes them less fair by producing biased, inaccurate reports on the state of elections in our Nation and offering recommendations based on these junk studies. EAC bureaucrats do not enfranchise voters. States and individuals do that, as our Federal Constitution dictates.

Giving unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington more power over elections does not lead to more just election outcomes. If anything, it interferes with a just outcome because these bureaucrats, many with an ideological axe to grind, face little or no accountability for their actions, and they know it.

Voting is fundamental to our system and the legitimacy of our government. Ensuring qualified American citizens have an opportunity to vote is essential. The Constitution tasks the States with execution and maintenance of elections, not Federal bureaucrats.

Like I said, Mr. Speaker, I believe States do an excellent job. And by managing elections closest to the voters at the State and local level, we stand the best chance of ensuring opportunity for all and correcting injustice if the opportunity to vote is denied or interfered with.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of this bipartisan bill in full support of it.

Rarely do we have a chance in this body to make fundamental difference. It's so easy, as I've learned in a short 10 months, for Members of this body to say ``no'' instead of taking a personal responsibility to make the tough decisions that need to be made. This morning we have that chance. I don't think this chance will come closer in our orbit for a very long time.

If we can pass language out of this House this morning, the Senate has to vote on it. The Senate Majority Leader cannot table it. And because it's a constitutional amendment, it has nothing to do with the President. He can't veto it. He doesn't have to sign it. It goes right to the States.

And why is that so important? Why is that so different? Because finally the people of this country, of the State of Indiana, of my beloved Fourth District, will have a chance to tell us, by ratification of this amendment, whether or not they want to live within their means instead of passing their bills from the Federal Government--spending that's occurring here, $8 billion to $12 billion a day more in debt-- whether they're done passing it on to their kids and grandkids. And I believe, speaking specifically to those of us who represent senior citizens, that most of them have grandchildren, and they don't want their bills passed on to them.

Those that say no today, those that say no today are really saying no because they don't want to lose control. They don't want the people to decide. They'd rather have that in their hands. They'd rather keep kicking that heavier and heavier can down the road so that citizens like this, Teddy and Ryan and their kids, can pay the bill.

That's what this is about.

Ladies and gentlemen of this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, there are two constituencies out there. Mr. Posey from Florida said it well. We're robbing Peter to pay Paul. And why that works around here is because Paul can vote for us.

I ask every Member here today: Who stands for the constituency that can't directly vote for the next election? Who stands for their constituency that doesn't exist yet but will?

Because of the decisions that are made here on this floor in this Federal Government in this town where too often up is down and down is up and black is white and white is black, we don't represent the constituency. We don't prioritize the right constituency at the right time. This is a chance to do this. This is a chance to not let us have that out anymore, to make us have the tax fight, to make us have the cut spending fight, but not allow the option of kicking the can down the road to make people who aren't here today pay for it.

I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this time and for your leadership here in the Congress year after year over the years to see that we've come to this point where we again can have a vote in these Chambers about the condition of our country and about living within our means.

As I talk about the balanced budget amendment, I want to also address

what happened here on the House floor and what was said here on the House floor in the last hour. They used the term ``foolish'' several times. I want to describe how foolish what they said is.

Not enough dollars exist in the top 1 percent of taxpayers in this country to possibly address the debt situation we face, to possibly address our economy. There are not enough baseball players. There are not enough football coaches. There are not enough Oprah Winfreys. There are not even enough Warren Buffetts. Even if you taxed 100 percent of everything they made and assume two things, that they wouldn't leave the country and that they would continue to produce, there aren't enough of them to solve this country's fiscal problems.

So when people come here to the House floor or talk anywhere else in this Nation about how the rich aren't paying their fair share, by definition, they are going to come after the middle class. They are going to come after your property, those of us who live in the middle class. Our property being our dollars, which aren't theirs, which aren't the government's. They're ours. And that's what they're angling for; make no mistake about it.

As you may know, I happen to be a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee. A lot of talk was made here today about how we don't spend enough on our education; we have to spend more on our teachers. Let me just say this: The increase in our Federal budget for education has been well over 300 percent since the early 1970s, yet we haven't seen one bit of an improvement in our scholastic scores since the Federal Government has been involved in the education business.

I just find it humorous when they stand here and talk about how we need to now spend money on infrastructure, now spend money on other things that might marginally give us some more jobs. Where were they during the first stimulus when only 6 percent, almost a trillion dollars, went for infrastructure and the rest went for handouts like food stamps, unemployment insurance and other things that won't possibly grow the economy? Not to say that people didn't need help, not to say they still don't need help. But it's a falsehood to think that by giving more handouts you're going to improve the prosperity of this Nation.

You cannot tax, you cannot spend, you cannot lay debt on our kids and grandkids and expect this Nation to get stronger, expect this Nation to be better off. It doesn't work. World history is littered with examples where Nations have tried to do this very same thing; and all it has resulted in is tyranny and the opposite of prosperity.

With that, thank you again for letting me speak about the balanced budget amendment. I opposed the Budget Control Act when we had that vote at the end of July because it wasn't a solution to our debt problem; it was another Washington deal. But as I've said and will continue to admit, there was a silver lining, and that silver lining was the requirement that both Houses at least take a vote on the exact same balanced budget amendment language, and they do it by December 31 of this year.

Our Constitution is the blueprint for our system of government. Our Constitution has only been amended 27 times, and for very good reason. It's not to change with the times. It's not to change with the political winds. It's a blueprint, a document that has outlined a process, contained in it negative rights, that has given us the best system for raising the condition of all men that the world has ever seen. And so it shouldn't be amended that often or that lightheartedly, but it should be amended in this case.

This Chamber, this House, this Federal Government in general, administrations both Republican and Democratic before us, have failed in their job to have us as a Federal Government live within our means. We need a constitutional amendment to do that now. Thomas Jefferson himself even said it: ``I wish it were possible to attain a single amendment to our Constitution, I mean an additional article taking from the government the power of borrowing.''

Given our $15 trillion debt and what's coming, the red menace, the tidal wave of debt that's coming in the near future, there is a clear need for a balanced budget amendment.

Now, there are several different ones to consider. Which one should we take up? I would love to have a balanced budget amendment that contained a supermajority vote for us to even consider raising taxes in order to balance the budget. I would love a balanced budget amendment with language that contained an indication that the Federal Government cannot exceed 20 percent of GDP. That would be spectacular. In this season of football, I'd call that a touchdown pass that wins the game. But there are other plays as well. And I'll take a 50-yard pass; I'll take a 75-yard pass that gets us so far down the field on this debt issue that it puts us in a position to win the day, ``winning'' meaning we save the Republic, we keep the Republic like Franklin suggested. So I would support a clean balanced budget amendment. Clean meaning a statement that simply says we will not spend more than we take in. Our expenditures will equal or be less than the revenues we take in.

Now, some of my very good conservative colleagues would say, well, you're setting us up for one day raising taxes. That may be true. But in all honesty, that's a different fight. We can have that tax fight later. Liberals love to raise taxes because their solution to everything is a bigger government, and the only way to have a bigger government is to have a more expensive government. That will never change. So let's not have the perfect be the enemy of the good. Let's have that fight. And if once in awhile they win, we know that the people who win that fight won't be here for long. And in the meantime, we have an amendment in our Constitution that declares each one of us, as we take the oath to uphold the Constitution, ensures that we will live within our means.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia.

Just a quick note to the gentleman from Virginia.

As we're talking about ``why this hill''--and I think you mentioned the hill being so high and so hard to climb--there might be people at home watching right now, maybe even some in this Chamber right now, who are wondering: Why would this be so difficult? We had others come up and say they had a telephone town hall where over 80 percent of their constituents were in favor of this. Why is this so hard?

We have to think of it this way:

There are two groups of constituents, and we can't appease both sets all the time. There is a constituency that's the here and now that will ensure that, if we do things they want, they'll give us another election; they'll let us serve longer. Yet there is another constituency that doesn't even exist yet. No matter what we do, we won't be around for them to reward us. I would just suggest that everyone here in this House of Representatives serve that latter constituency: our kids, our grandkids, those who don't even exist yet. Vote for them to make sure that we keep the Republic.

For those of you who are watching, make sure you tell your Representatives, Hey, I want you to vote, not for me, not so that I can have more on my plate now; I want you to vote for our future.

If the people of this country demand that of their Representatives and their Senators, we will keep the Republic as Franklin demanded.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also thank the gentleman for his leadership.

We were pleased to welcome you to Indiana, and I know you get that same kind of welcome all over the Nation.

The gentleman from Minnesota, I think, has done an excellent job in making sure that this issue not only was formulated the right way, not only was formulated in a bipartisan way, but is now on the verge of going through committee and coming to the floor so we can take action.

What action are we speaking of?

There is an insidious tax that was put in the new health care law, a law colloquially referred to as ObamaCare. It is a 2.3 percent tax on innovation. I often get asked in Indiana's Fourth District and in other places around the State: How do we stay competitive? Why are you letting jobs go overseas?

I am the first to point out that to succeed in this country, to succeed in this Nation, if we are to be prosperous--to maintain and increase our prosperity in the 21st century--we have got to stay a step or two or five ahead of our competition. In Indiana, we're not competing with people in Fort Wayne or in Jeffersonville or in Terre Haute. We're competing with people from places that we can barely pronounce, meaning not in the United States. No country was ever ultimately successful by building a wall, whether it's a physical wall like we found in ancient China or an economic wall like we see with tariffs or, in this case, with taxes on companies and on an industry that continues to innovate, that continues to keep us on the cutting edge of what the world is doing in this area. That's important. That is the key to our success.

By taxing these devices, by taxing this industry, you're not going to get more of it; you're not going to get more innovation. You're going to get less. If you want less of something, you tax it. By the way, when you do that, you're not even going to get more revenue to pay for that all-inclusive, government-run, bureaucrat-interpreted health care system.

I'm really pleased to be a cosponsor. I continue to learn on this issue. I learned a lot from the field hearing that was done.

I would like to echo the point that was made: This was a bipartisan hearing. Just like in the last hour, we saw in a bipartisan way that we have to live within our means, and we can do that through a balanced budget amendment. We had Democrats come to speak on that.

At the field hearing we had on the repeal bill of the medical device tax, we had that same kind of bipartisanship. Bipartisanship does exist. It exists in Indiana. And with this bill, it can exist here on the House floor as well.

I was alarmed as well. The person testifying was Steve Ferguson from the Cook Group. Mr. Cook, when he started his company, he started from a spare bedroom in his apartment and grew it to a multibillion dollar operation. He is one of the best examples of an American success story. And his partner, Mr. Steve Ferguson, who testified--I will back up Mr. Paulsen in this--said, when new startups come to him, when young men and women come with an idea and want to start a company, he says, go to Europe. Not because he isn't a true-blooded American patriot, but because he's giving honest advice.

Now what does that say about our Federal Government? What does that say about our bureaucracy when, instead of going through the FDA approval process, the best advice is to go through the bureaucracy of a union of countries that can barely stay afloat because of the debt they're incurring? Where does that put us in a 21st century world? Where does that put us in terms of our ability to continue innovating, in terms of our ability to be prosperous?

We have got to put the swords down, as it was said earlier. We have got to come together and realize that it's that innovation, it's that economic freedom, it's that liberty to associate and provide an equal opportunity for one's own success that has made us the best and most successful experiment in self-governance that the world has ever known

and, as a result, has kept us on the cutting edge of profit-making innovations that employ people, that keep taxes low, where we've proven time and time again that the way to success is doing the opposite of levying a tax, by letting individual men and women rise and fall on their own decisions. That's what this medical device bill does.

Thank you for sponsoring this time, Representative Paulsen. It's been an honor and a privilege and a pleasure to work with you.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 792, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Yarmuth was allowed to speak out of order.)

Roll Call Ryder Cup

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and salute an exceptional Hoosier, Dr. Edward B. McLean. Sadly, we lost Dr. McLean on September 12. I wish to express my condolences, thoughts and prayers to his family.

He was an inspiration on my path to serving the people of Indiana, and his teachings have become my primary motivation for seeking to reduce the size and scope of government here in Washington. He was my college professor, my counselor, and my friend. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, he was exactly the same person to countless men who associate with Wabash College in Crawfordsville, Indiana.

As a man of faith, I believe we were put on this Earth to love one another and to make the best of the gifts our Lord has provided. We are all blessed to live in a country that allows us to experience liberty, the opportunity to learn, and the chance to succeed. Not every nation, Mr. Speaker, can say that.

As a professor of political science since 1968, Dr. McLean challenged Wabash College students, faculty, and alumni to think critically and encouraged all to be lifelong learners. He gave us that chance to succeed.

Moreover, he taught me the critical role of the individual in a free republic if, indeed, the republic is to remain free, and how such a system is philosophically and practically superior to the elitist and collectivist systems that have been tried throughout history but which, of course, as we all should know, have failed. They collapsed, ultimately, under the weight of their own tyranny, a point Dr. McLean repeatedly made.

And at every turn, he taught young Wabash men that our rights are derived from our Creator--not Democrats, not Republicans, not any President or any Congressman, but they came from God himself. And as a result, our rights are inalienable, as our Declaration reminds us and as men like Cicero and St. Augustine discovered for us. In a secular sense, our rights are part of natural law, as McLean always taught.

Perhaps most importantly, he taught Wabash men, professors, and others all over the world about the worthy ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals and how it might practically be achieved.

Mr. Speaker, for the Congressional Record, I would submit the following facts:

A masterful scholar, teacher, and lawyer, McLean demonstrate his rigor for teaching and pursuing his own level of education by earning his juris doctorate from Indiana University in 1975. He managed to be an effective teacher, attorney, and deputy prosecuting attorney in Montgomery County. In 1972, he received the McLain---no relation-- McTurnan-Arnold Excellence in Teaching Award. Since 1980, Dr. McLean was most closely associated in administering the Goodrich lecture series. He was active in local and State politics. He demanded that students think critically in his constitutional law and political philosophy classes.

Dr. McLean was both loved and feared as a man who challenged students to hone their critical thinking skills. He used the Socratic method to assist students in recognizing and correcting flaws in their arguments, and somewhere along the line, he earned the nickname ``Fast Eddie.''

Dr. McLean was elected to the board of directors of Liberty Fund, an Indiana institution that has a global outreach. He served there until his death. Founded by Pierre Goodrich, the son of one of Indiana's great Governors, the Liberty Fund is a private educational foundation with the mission of encouraging a deeper understanding of the requisites of restoring and preserving a society of free and responsible individuals.

Just this morning, Mr. Speaker, I pulled up a series of emails that Ed and I exchanged once. They spanned the time in which I was running for the seat I now hold until shortly after the election to this seat. You see, I was asking in the emails if there has ``ever been a nation or civilization that reversed its slide into collectivism or socialism, thereby rescuing itself from the ultimate loss of economic and political liberty?''

Sadly, and months later, he replied, as he was in and out of hospitals at the time, that he could not identify historically the type of reversal that I had described and went on to remind me, perhaps obviously, that the ``desire for more power motivates agents of the state.''

Many men today are responsible for individuals thriving in a free society because of Dr. Edward McLean. Unfortunately, it is now society that is stepping away from liberty due to the irresponsibility of the individual, aided by a nanny state willing to do things for the individual which are rightly his alone to do, and the endless quest, as he said, for expanded power by government and its agents.

So I use today not only to give this tribute to a great Hoosier, but also to, as part of that tribute, profess my continued and renewed commitment to reverse the current and hopefully temporary course of this great Nation, as it really is the last, best hope on Earth for man. For once, I want to prove Ed McLean wrong. We can reverse this course, and by so doing, show the world yet again how exceptional America is. We can and must halt the march of statism for our children and grandchildren and for the idea of liberty in the world. In this case, Ed himself would hope to be proved otherwise.

Everything Ed McLean did, he did for the men of Wabash College, his community, and his country. I would like to thank his wife, Marie, and son, Ian, for sharing Dr. McLean with us. For all he provided this world, he will be truly missed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and thank an important member of Indiana's law enforcement community.

Captain Perry Hollowell is a twenty-nine-year police veteran having served at the state, county, and municipal levels. Currently, Captain Hollowell is assigned to the training division at the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy as Director of In-Service Training. He has served as Sheriff, Chief Deputy, Lieutenant, and Sergeant. Captain Hollowell has an extensive military background, which included graduating from the U.S. Army Sergeants major Academy and as deputy Commandant of the Indiana Military Academy. Captain Hollowell is a graduate of the FBI National Academy and Oakland City University with honors and earned a Master's Degree in Business Management. He has instructed law enforcement and the military for three decades and is currently adjunct faculty at two universities.

In the wake of the horrific attack on Representative Gabrielle Giffords and her staff, I felt it was important to do something to protect my staff, so that we may avoid, or God forbid react to, a situation like the one in Tucson, should one unfold at a Fourth District event.

We also invited, and they participated, the staff of the entire Indiana delegation. To this day, I feel that this was not only one of the best things that any of us Members can do for our staffs, but also the best way we can honor the service and memory of Gabe Zimmerman, Representative Giffords' staffer, who was killed in that attack.

Captain Hollowell led the safety training for the Indiana Congressional Delegation's district staff this Spring. The training included public event planning to avoid or recognize a physical threat and how to act and react in the event of an active shooter. The training sessions provided important basic knowledge for congressional staff members to employ should the need arise during public events where their Member of Congress' and the general public's safety are at risk.

I appreciate and would like to honor his exceptional dedication to his profession and the time he gave in this endeavor. I would like thank his family for selflessly supporting Captain Hollowell in his long and accomplished career as soldier, law enforcement officer, and instructor. I am proud to honor Captain Hollowell in recognition of his leadership and service to his family, colleagues, and community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate an important member of Indiana's business community.

Mr. Stephen Russell founded Celadon Group, Inc., in 1985, and under his leadership, Celadon has grown to become one of the Nation's largest trucking and transportation management companies. Celadon currently operates approximately 3,100 tractors and 9,000 trailers and serves over 2,000 customers. Celadon employs nearly 4,000 people and is the largest transportation company based in Indiana. Mr. Russell serves on several industry, education, and community boards; including on the American Trucking Associations, Inc. Board, Cornell University Johnson Graduate School of Management Board, and as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Indianapolis Museum of Art.

Mr. Russell was one of four laureates inducted into the Central Indiana Business Hall of Fame on February 17, 2011. Established by the Junior Achievement Board of Directors in 1989, the Central Indiana Business Hall of fame honors men and women who epitomize success in the business world and use their success to improve the quality of life of their fellow citizens and surrounding communities.

I congratulate him on all his hard work and success which has been honored with the induction into the Central Indiana Business Hall of Fame. I would like to thank is family for selflessly supporting Mr. Russell in his long and accomplished career as a business and community leader in Central Indiana. I am proud to honor Mr. Russell in recognition of his leadership and service to his family, employees, and community.

I thank the gentleman for yielding some time.

I rise to give my strong support to this measure. This straightforward legislation before us today prohibits the National Labor Relations Board from dictating where private businesses can and cannot locate jobs in America. Mr. Speaker, let me say that again: this straightforward legislation before us today prohibits the NLRB from dictating where private businesses can and cannot locate jobs in the United States.

It's almost a bizarre situation that we're in. An American company wants to provide American jobs in America, and we have an agency of this administration that is trying to prohibit that.

Because of recent overreach by the NLRB, we, unfortunately, need to have this legislation. Businesses that want to hire Americans in America ought to be able to do so. For Americans wondering why jobs are going overseas, it's that there are too many regulations--and too many bizarre regulations--that are forcing companies out of this country just so they can stay in business.

We must continue to empower businesses to create jobs, increase investment, and keep production capabilities right here at home. Not only does that produce a strong economy; it keeps a strong middle class. This bill does just that by letting us stand strong in our commitment to America's job creators. It's just disappointing that we have to bring this bill forward over an administration and a bureaucracy that doesn't understand the success of this country's last 200 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Clyde Thomas Pfisterer on behalf of the people of Indiana as the former Secretary of State and now as the U.S. Representative for the 4th Congressional District. Clyde Pfisterer remains known as a loving husband, father, and grandfather and in that context, I want to extend my heartfelt condolences to his family for their loss.

To Indiana, Clyde's leadership was a shining example of the type of leadership everyone should strive to achieve. Marked by common sense and a commitment to public service, his leadership embodied the qualities emblazoned in the Hoosier spirit. Clyde's focus on service above self; exemplified in his long service as a firefighter, arson investigator, and as a trainer and teacher to countless firefighters around the world, has left us all a better place to live, work, and raise a family.

As a man of faith, I believe we were put on this earth to love one another and to make the best of the gifts our Lord has provided. We are all blessed to live in a country that allows us to experience freedom and the opportunity to chart our own path. When I look at the life story of a man who served his community as a firefighter, served countless friends and neighbors in the community, and provided life saving instruction to his peers, all I can say is Amen. Well done.

Clyde Pfisterer exemplified the American dream in every way. The amazing narrative of his life will live on, not only through those whose lives he touched throughout our community, but through his family. I want to thank his family for sharing him with a community that will not soon forget him.

Mr. Speaker, it has been very interesting listening to this debate so far. I want to add a couple of points to it.

First of all, I would note for the record that this government is spending $7 million a minute. We are borrowing $3 million a minute of that $7 million. This is money that most Americans will never see in a lifetime, and we are spending that much in a minute.

Now, as I listened to the debate so far, I couldn't help but wonder, Mr. Speaker, what is this President, what are the Democrats so very scared of? Why are they scared of letting a balanced budget amendment go to the people of this country? Let's be clear, voting for this bill starts a balanced budget amendment process, not the implementation of the amendment. So why are they so scared of the people of this country?

Well, if you believe that government, if you believe that elites can make better decisions for the people of this country than the people can, if you believe that they should be controlling the people's money, their property, better than the people can, well, no wonder they are scared. Because overwhelmingly, the people of this country would say to us exactly what they say around the kitchen table, and that is we have to live within our means.

My second point, Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I can tell in the history of this Republic that this kind of debt has been racked up with no intention and no plan to pay it back. This is the first time. And, quite frankly, I don't know of anything more piggish or un- American than racking up a bill to be passed on to our best asset, our future--our kids--just so we can have more on our plate now, just so that we can have more largess, just so we can

be more selfish in the here and now and kick that can down the road and let our kids pay for it.

Since when has that become part of American exceptionalism? Since when has that attitude become part of this country?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate, Trinity Ballpark located in Noblesville, Indiana, for hosting this year's C.A.B.A. Midwest National Championship.

The Continental Amateur Baseball Association was developed by Ron Golden and Roger Tremaine in 1984 to provide youth the privilege to compete at the national level. C.A.B.A. hosts events at the national level for age groups 9-18. Since C.A.B.A. was first started, thousands of teams from nearly every state along with other countries including Panama,

Guam, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Japan, and Canada have participated in C.A.B.A. Current Major League Baseball Stars, Alex Rodriguez and Todd Helton, were both Graduates of the Year of this superior organization.

I am proud to honor Trinity Ballpark for hosting this year's Midwest National Championship, and wish all the players the best of luck in the tournament. Today is a fine day to celebrate America's favorite pastime with elite players from all over the country.