Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an exceptional Hoosier couple, Mr. Benton and Mrs. Sandi Marks, who are being honored with the 2013 HAI-Life Distinguished Service Award by Hasten Hebrew Academy of Indianapolis. This honor is well-deserved because of their many years of philanthropic service to the Indianapolis Jewish community, as well as to the broader community.

Mr. Marks joined the Hasten Hebrew Academy Board of Directors in 1997 and has served in a number of leadership positions, including as president of the school. In the 1990s, he was president of the Bureau of Jewish Education and is the only person in the Indianapolis Jewish community to serve as president of both educational institutions. Mr. Marks also served as the president of the Jewish Federation and as Campaign Chair a record five times. He also was chairman of State of Israel Bonds for three years. Mr. Marks has served as a member of the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission, and has donated his time locally to United Cerebral Palsy, Indiana Building Owners and Managers Association, and the Indiana Chapter of the Brown University National Secondary School Committee.

Mrs. Marks has devoted her life to education, serving on the Hasten Hebrew Academy Education Committee and as a board member of the school. She recently retired from Washington Township Schools but continues to serve the district as a school psychologist. She is a member of several women's organizations in our community and works with the Great American Songbook Initiative at the Center for the Performing Arts in Carmel. Mrs. Marks is also a trusted friend and confidant of mine on education issues in my capacity as chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.

Mr. and Mrs. Marks are wonderful entrepreneurs, philanthropists, and friends. I am honored to know them and look forward to our continued friendship. I know they will continue to serve as leaders in our community for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an exceptional Hoosier couple, Mr. Benton and Mrs. Sandi Marks, who are being honored with the 2013 HAI-Life Distinguished Service Award by the Hasten Hebrew Academy of Indianapolis.

Mr. Marks has served as president of both the Hasten Hebrew Academy and the Bureau of Jewish Education, as Jewish Federation campaign chair and president, and as chairman of the State of Israel Bonds. He has also served as a member of the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission, and has volunteered with numerous civic and professional organizations.

Mrs. Marks has devoted her life to education, serving on the Hasten Hebrew Academy Education Committee and as a board member of the school. She recently retired from Washington Township Schools but continues to serve the district and Indiana as a school psychologist. She is also a trusted friend and confidante of mine on education issues in my capacity as chairman of the subcommittee on K-12 education.

Mr. and Mrs. Marks are wonderful entrepreneurs, excellent philanthropists, and most of all, friends. I am honored to know them, even since my days as Indiana Secretary of State, and I know they will continue to serve as leaders in our Indiana community for many years to come.

I want to start out this evening by saying it's been a busy day here in the Capitol and it's been a busy week--some of it good, a lot of it not so

good. But it caused me to come to the floor tonight to talk with my colleagues, talk with the Speaker about some of the things that really are our core values, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans.

First of all, let me say that all of us--Republicans, Democrats, all Americans--believe in diversity, and we are here as a Congress in so many respects to celebrate that diversity. A great, free Republic like this is going to have divergent views, divergent opinions. We're going to have diversity in just about everything we do, everything we say, everything we are, and that's okay. We are open to all races, genders, and other classifications.

We're a family. We're one big national family. And like any other family, we're going to have our struggles, we're going to have our disagreements. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm here to remind us all tonight that that's okay. That's what it means to be in a free Republic. Because the alternative is much, much worse. You see, the alternative is not being able to have diversity at all, not being able to have an opinion different than the commanders at all, not being able to have free speech or free association.

Mr. Speaker, like any family, we face issues that make it difficult-- especially seemingly these days--to find consensus. And like any family, we need to have open and honest dialogue, preferably without yelling or judging each other.

Just like any other family, the neighbors down the street, so to speak, are going to be judging us, be watching us. We don't have to worry so much about them, just to make sure that we continue having our discussion in a respectful way.

Like I said, although we have severe disagreements over some issues, there are core things that we all should be about, regardless of our diversity otherwise. I want to go through some of those tonight.

For example, we believe in the power of the individual, not the power of government over the individual. This isn't a Republican theme, although I am a Republican. This is a constitutional theme. This is what our Founders fought for and wrote for in those two great documents we call the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

We believe, as Americans, that people are capable of making their own decisions--for example, about health care--much better than government can. And, Mr. Speaker, we saw a great debate on that very point just a few hours ago on the very floor of this very House. It is because individuals, families, and people can make decisions for themselves, regardless of whatever it is, better than the government can that I oppose this Affordable Care Act, that we oppose ObamaCare.

We believe that freedom is more when government is less--this is called the power of individualism over collectivism--and it's key, it's key to what this country has been successful about for over 200 years. But perhaps it's better to illustrate what I'm talking about when you realize what happens when freedom is absent.

I want you to take a look at this view from space. This is the Korean Peninsula, and here is the dividing line between North and South Korea.

It is obviously taken at night. And what you are seeing is an actual representation of the lights in both countries, lights generated from electricity by power plants, lights that in South Korea show bustling commerce, show vitality, show economic freedom, show individual freedom.

But look to North Korea. Almost complete darkness. Only one group of lights right around here. The capital city of North Korea where all the elites live, more specifically where all the government officials live, and more specifically than that where all the government officials in a closed tyrannical society live.

Freedom is more when government is less, when government is limited. We believe that the best way to ensure that government remains limited is to stop feeding it so much. Around here, the government's food, what it lives on, what it grows on day by day is money; what it grows on is our tax dollars. More and more these days it is also growing on the taxes of individuals who don't even exist yet, Mr. Speaker--the children of tomorrow. Yes, they are being taxed here today. It is called our nearly $17 trillion worth of debt. And it is also represented by the $100 trillion of debt that is on its way. I would like to get to that in a minute.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that money is the fruit of our labor. We believe that money is our property, the same way this suit is my property, the same way that the land and the homes that some of us may own are our property, the same way that a bicycle that we ride might be our property, so is our money. We believe that when government taxes us, they confiscate our property, and that that property is the fruit of our labor.

We can't forget that. I remember recently being in my district, and specifically in the city of Lafayette, a great place, and West Lafayette, home of Purdue University. And I was struck at a Rotary Club meeting when I used the term ``confiscation'' to describe what government does with our property in the form of taxation and got a good degree of pushback--very annoyed with me that I would use such a word to describe what government does--confiscation of our property-- when clearly the government needs our money in order to function.

And that's true. Government absolutely has a valid role in a free society, as long as it remains in a limited form. And more and more, Mr. Speaker, what I see being debated here on this House floor, and when I see us enact in terms of laws some new laws, some laws that have been on the books for years, is government being involved in things that the Constitution and the people and the free society do not require, in fact, should not have the government be doing.

We believe that individuals, families, communities are always better at making decisions for ourselves than government is. Today, some believe that just having more power over your life, if they could have that kind of control, it would be that much better.

For example, they believe they have the right to tell you what kind of light bulbs to buy, they believe that you should only be able to buy cars with certain gas mileage standards, they believe that they have a right to dictate what goes inside your child's lunchbox before they go to school, and at school they believe they have the right to make sure your child learns certain things, but also to make certain that they don't learn other things. They believe that they can make better health care decisions for you than you can. They believe through the EPA that they can tell you how much electricity to use. And under the guise of making things cleaner, they are simply controlling your life.

That is not America; that is not Americans. We believe the opposite. The Founders knew exactly that the opposite was true--that decisions are best made by individuals and communities at the local level.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we believe that government is the servant of the people and that people aren't the servants of government.

Right now, we in the House are fighting to hold the executive branch accountable for a possible cover-up in Benghazi. This is not only about lives being lost, but about trust being breached. The Obama administration lied about the cause--Islamic terrorism--then they tried to cover their tracks. And now they claim that those of us who are demanding the truth are the ones who are politicizing the situation.

The executive branch owes the people the truth. It is basic accountability. They are our servants; we are not theirs.

We also believe in the right of a free press. Unfortunately, right now we have a Department of Justice that tries to spy on and intimidate members of the press. We found out in recent days that through subpoenas, which is a government action, individual reporters' names, their cell phones, and their phone records have been compromised, have been taken by the Federal Government.

It is my opinion that this administration is simply afraid of being held accountable, whether it is by a free press or by this Congress. Now, the Founders knew that both the free press and Congress with oversight are necessary to prevent tyranny. That is why

our job is so important today. That is why Americans are expecting and counting on us to take the Benghazi investigation, to take the AP, as it is called, the Associated Press, investigation as far as it goes until we find out what the truth is.

Perhaps a fundamental right is the one of free speech. It is the one that is absolutely necessary in a free society. It is the one that is core and fundamental in our Bill of Rights.

But, today, Mr. Speaker, we have an IRS that is targeting groups of private citizens simply because of their political beliefs, violating their right of free speech and violating their right of free association. This is nothing more than an abuse of power. It violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law and should frighten each one of us, regardless of political party.

I guarantee you this, Mr. Speaker, this American, along with many others in this Congress, is going to go as far as we need to go with this investigation in order to find the full truth. The government must remain a servant of the people and not the other way around.

Mr. Speaker, we believe in giving a hand up, not necessarily a handout, because we believe that hand up is what made America strong, while a handout is what basically caused other nations in history to fail, resulting ultimately in tyranny.

A government can't be all things to all people; it can't do everything for everybody. It has been tried before. This is not a new idea, Mr. Speaker. But every time it has been tried in our history, it has resulted in terrible tyranny or ultimate failure altogether.

Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker. Approximately 48 million Americans are on food stamps, more than at any other point in our history. Now, I know we have been going through some tough times, but that is not because too few people are getting food stamps.

The government is handing out free cell phones; but welfare programs are supposed to be for the poorest of the poor, for those who need that hand up. We shouldn't be giving handouts.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are. Just look at the facts. Under the Census Bureau's definition of ``poor,'' 80 percent of poor households have air-conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air-conditioning. Ninety-two percent of poor households have a microwave. Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.

Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV. Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR. These are all poor households. These are mostly households that would qualify also for food stamps and for other welfare programs. Half of them have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers. Forty- three percent have Internet access. One-third has a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.

Now, we are a giving Nation. We want to help out. Our volunteerism and our charity work are second to none in this entire world. It is actually part of our American exceptionalism. It is what makes us unique and different from any other place on this Earth. I'd like to know the American who thinks that given everything I've just listed that that fits his definition of ``poor'' and that that's whom we should be helping and not others who really, really need, again, that temporary hand up and not the permanent handout.

We believe in the freedom of individuals to make their own choices and also in the responsibility to live with the choices that they make. Perhaps more than anything else I've said here tonight, we are losing sight of that in this Congress, in this Federal Government.

The free enterprise system is a beautiful system. It's a wonderful system that rewards risks and rewards those who do useful work. Is it a perfect system? Absolutely not. Is it the best system ever devised by man to raise the condition of all men? Absolutely. Nothing in history has ever compared to it, and no experimentation that we are going to do now--mind you, they're not new experiments; these experiments have been tried--is going to make it any better. The free enterprise system absolutely works.

We believe that each generation should leave the next generation better off to enjoy life, to enjoy liberty, to enjoy the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, everyone knows on the floor of this House and elsewhere, day by day, that we are not leaving the next generation better off, that we are going to be the first generation in the history of this great Nation--based on the facts, based on our budget, based on our debt, based on our standard of living--that will not leave the next generation better off if we don't start living within our means again and if we don't stop printing and borrowing the money that we are to fund this beast called the Federal Government.

The Book of Proverbs commends hard work and enjoying the fruits of one's labor. With the money we earn, we provide for our families, and we can bless other people who are in need. Proverbs says: ``A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children.'' I can't think of a higher source to make the point. We are breaking the promise to the next generation.

The good news is that, again, these are our core values. They're not Republican core values necessarily, and they're not Democrat ones. They are American ones. You might find things that sound like them in the Democratic Party platform. I know we practice them in the Republican Party platform, but, again, they're not ours--they're America's.

Everything I've said here tonight is defined explicitly in the Constitution--that great founding document that is, in my opinion, the core of our American exceptionalism. Now, when I say ``American exceptionalism,'' it's not that I'm thinking about it as our President has thought about it. I don't mean to say that we are a country that judges others. I don't even mean to say that we are a country that thinks categorically we're better than everyone else. Like I said at the outset, we have our own struggles in this family, this national family, but the fact of the matter is we are different, and it's this document--this Constitution--that, in large part, sets off that difference. Here is why:

The Constitution and the core values it contains--the things that I've just recited--all represent the best ideas for self-governance that the world has ever known. Never before in world history have those ideas ever come together at the same time and in the same place except for in the United States Constitution. That's unique. That makes us exceptional.

Now, the President when asked about this said, Oh, yes, America is exceptional. We believe we are exceptional just like the Brits think they're exceptional and just like the Germans might think they're exceptional--entirely missing the point and lacking the understanding of the founding of this country.

I bring that up today, Mr. Speaker, to get the word out, to make a record in this House of Representatives, that that's not at all what this country was about. Again, it doesn't mean we're judging. It doesn't mean we think we are better. We are different, we are unique, and we are the best experiment in self-governance the world has ever known. The only thing that can mess that up, that can destroy that exceptionalism, is us. That's what brings me to the floor at 8 o'clock on a Thursday night. It's important stuff.

In my time remaining, I'd like to focus on this debt that I've mentioned a few times now. Of all the issues that we face, of all the issues that we can properly and rightfully alleviate as a Federal Government, as a Congress, it's this spending. That is one of our chartered things, one of our enumerated powers, to set a budget of this Federal Government's size and its spending levels--and we have failed.

As I talk with you tonight, we are nearly $17 trillion in debt, but that's not even the half of it. The worst part, Mr. Speaker, is this red section--this $100 trillion that's on the way in the next 25 or so years. Do you see how vertical that line goes? The real fear is that, if we don't get our spending under control now, we might never be able to catch it. The fact of the matter is that the drivers of our debt-- the social entitlement program of Medicaid, the health care program of Medicare, Social Security, the net interest we owe ourselves and other countries--mean

that it's growing so fast we may never be able to catch it. That's a huge problem.

Now, the slides I'm showing the House tonight are not Todd Rokita slides. They are the House Budget Committee slides. The Democrats on the House Budget Committee don't disagree with the data. There certainly is disagreement about how to fix the problem, but more and more every day, more astonishingly, I find out that many believe there is not a problem with that graph I just showed you. Here is what the Federal Government is spending its money on. I pulled out two pieces of the pie to show that that's what we vote on in terms of our budget: non-defense discretionary and defense discretionary.

We call this funding ``discretionary'' because we can dial it up or we can dial it down depending on our wishes and our votes here in this Congress and if the Senate agrees or doesn't. Then the President chimes in, albeit late--certainly not on time--with his budget, but it all focuses on not more than about 40 percent of our total Federal spending. The rest of it is all on autopilot. We don't get to dial it up or dial it down. I don't get to decide what the retirees in this country will get in terms of a Social Security check. I don't get to decide what services they're going to get or what fees their health care providers are going to pay for those services through Medicare. That's all decided in the underlying, substantive bills we've passed regarding those programs.

Unless we amend those programs, unless we amend that law, we will never get to what's driving most of our debt, representing about two- thirds of our Federal spending. Again, Social Security: $768 billion per year; Medicare: $466 billion per year; Medicaid: $251 billion per year; the interest we owe ourselves and other countries for this debt: $223 billion per year; other mandatory spending that I can't dial up or dial down nor can you, Mr. Speaker: $547 billion per year--all on autopilot. Until we get to this, we will never get to reducing or to even stabilizing our debt. That's the problem.

Some people have asked about military spending. Some people have asked about cutting it more, even though we've had drastic cuts already. Some people have asked about foreign aid spending. Some people have asked about earmark spending and wouldn't that solve the problem.

I believe that all that should be looked at, including the military. This is a Republican saying that. I believe there is tremendous waste, fraud, and abuse in our military system. I think it's immoral to have that waste, fraud, and abuse and not get every possible dollar we can to the troops.

But having said that, even if we had no military, it would only solve 20 percent of our Federal spending; and, of course, one of our first constitutional duties is to provide for the common defense. A military is necessary. It needs to be run a lot better. And there's a lack of leadership right now amongst our military ranks. It's not leading when you come here to the Congress asking for more money for your pet projects and not doing what you can to eliminate the waste, fraud, and abuse in the military.

I know there's waste, fraud, and abuse in the military because they can't even be audited. It's not because there's a statute, Mr. Speaker, against them being audited. It's because they can't even bring themselves to an audit table to be audited. They're so big and they're so sloppy; they don't know what they spend their money on most of the time. That is wrong. That's wrong for our troops.

Regarding the social entitlement programs, regarding our health care programs, many folks come to me and say, Wait a minute, I paid into those programs. I've been paying into those programs through my paycheck all my life. Don't you dare call them ``social entitlement programs.'' You know what? They're right. We do pay into these programs--most of us--through our working lives.

Here's another truth, and here's a more specific truth, Mr. Speaker. Look at this graph. On average, a couple who made $71,000 or so per year through their working lives--this is about Medicare--will have paid in about 35 percent of what they're actually taking out of Medicare. And that 65 percent difference, Mr. Speaker, that comes out of our kids. That comes out of the grandchildren that don't exist yet. That's part of our national debt. That's part of the $17 trillion and the $100 trillion that's coming. That's what's wrong.

We are taxing the children of tomorrow who don't have any voice in this, except for mine, yours, and others who decide to stand for them. They don't have any voice in this. We're taxing them so, frankly, we can have more on our plate now. That's what's got to stop. It's got to stop with the debt ceiling that's going to come up probably for a vote this fall.

Which way will we go, Mr. Speaker? What will we do to ensure that the children of tomorrow don't have to pay for the bills of today? It will take courage. Frankly, it will take, Mr. Speaker, more than this Congress. We can't wait for Washington to do this alone. We need the help of the people; and that's why I take to the floor tonight ultimately, Mr. Speaker, to get the word out.

I know that this American family, once they know the facts, once they know the truth, they will speak that truth to power. They will demand change; they will demand to live within their means again because that's what every American generation has done before, wanting the next one to be better off. That's what Americans today want too.

I tell this to you, Mr. Speaker, and all the Members of this House, that when there's a direct conflict between the people in the here and now and the people of tomorrow--those without a voice, those who don't exist yet--that's why they don't have the voice--when there's that direct conflict in terms of a vote on an issue, on a bill, at every turn we ought to be thinking about the kids. We ought to be thinking about the grandchildren; we ought to be thinking about those who don't yet exist. And we ought to vote for them, even if it means voting against us in the here and now.

And the debt ceiling is an opportunity to do that, because if and when we raise this debt ceiling, the amount we raise it by will simply be another tax on top of a debt that we've already given them.

What are we going to get for that? If they have to pay that tax, how can we ensure through reform that these programs and other items, that by the time they become an age of majority, that they won't have to pay that kind of debt load? That's the question before us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time. I thank this House for the time. I thank the staff for their work, and I look forward to talking with this House again about these issues throughout the summer.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 5 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, May 17, 2013, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and salute a remarkable American, Mickey Edwards, who has been elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in recognition of his excellence in journalism, public affairs, and communication.

An Ohio native, Mr. Edwards has achieved continued success throughout his long career as a public servant. After receiving his education from the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma City University School of Law, he began his career in news media and public relations. He was later elected to represent the 5th Congressional District of Oklahoma for sixteen years and was a senior member of the House Republican leadership. He served as Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, was a member of both the House Appropriations and Budget Committees, and was the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. After leaving Congress, he taught government and public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Law School, and Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute.

Mr. Edwards is a widely respected columnist and contributor whose work has appeared in news outlets including the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Examiner, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, He is the author of two books, the co-author of a third, and has contributed chapters to several more publications.

Mr. Edwards has chaired several task forces for the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Constitution Project. He has also been an adviser to the U.S. Department of State and is a member of the Princeton Project on National Security. He is currently a lecturer at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, is a vice president of the Aspen Institute, and is director of the Institute's Aspen-Rodel Fellowships in Public Leadership program. I came to know, like, and respect Mr. Edwards through the Aspen-Rodel program.

Mr. Edwards' impressive resume does not fully encompass the accomplishments of this extraordinary man. He continues to fight for cooperation between parties and for placing national interest ahead of political gain, encouraging and educating young Americans on the benefits of civil discourse and compromise. A man worthy of professional accolades and personal respect, Mr. Edwards is truly committed to his family, his community and his country. His is an example we should all strive to emulate. I am privileged to call him a friend and salute him for this tremendous and well-deserved honor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of former Indiana Governor Otis ``Doc'' Bowen, who passed away on the evening of Saturday, May 4, 2013.

I remember Doc Bowen as one of the first ``former'' public figures I met on the campaign trail, running for the third highest office in the Hoosier state, Indiana's Secretary of State, as a 30-year-old. In my mind, he always embraced my words when he was in the audience, although now I am sure that was just Doc trying to encourage one of the young guys in the party. He knew the struggles, not just of Indiana, but of Indiana Republicans, in particular.

While I was Secretary of State, he regularly dropped by my office when visiting the Statehouse, ``to check on the young guy.'' I so greatly appreciated learning from him.

One of hardest conversations I have ever had in politics was with Governor Bowen. He was pitching a candidate for Governor and I had earlier decided to support a different man. Doc Bowen made it very difficult for me that day. He did it, not with threats and guilt trips that are all-too-often the norm in politics, but with honesty and class. It would be a high achievement in our politics today if those in the statehouse and Washington even pretended to emulate the ways of Doc Bowen. All in public life would do well to follow his example.

Doc Bowen was a model public servant who dedicated his life to serving Hoosiers, and our State is stronger because of it. I join Hoosiers from across the State in giving thanks for his life and his service.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, May 4, 2013, the Parks Foundation of the town of Avon, Indiana, will dedicate the Avon World War II Memorial Park in honor of our valiant World War II veterans. The park includes a sculpture in the likeness of one of Avon's remaining World War II veterans, Brigadier General Clyde C. ``Chet'' Wright, who exemplifies the sacrificial service of our veterans.

Brigadier General Wright was born in 1918 in Indianapolis. He graduated in 1938 from Ben Davis High School in Marion County, and two years later enlisted in the 139th Field Artillery Infantry Division of the Indiana Army National Guard. By December 1943, Chet Wright was deployed to New Guinea, staging there in preparation for some of the hardest fought battles in the South Pacific theater, Leyte and Luzon. After the war, Chet Wright returned to the states and to active duty with the Indiana Army National Guard. He served in several leadership positions, and was appointed as Assistant Adjutant General, Army, for the State of Indiana in March 1973.

In Avon today, all citizens enjoy the manifold blessings of liberty secured by veterans like Brigadier General Wright. Entrepreneurship is alive and well. Our growing economy includes world class transportation and logistics-based businesses. We are blessed with good schools, good government, and natural and abundant resources, including rich farmland which plays a pivotal role in feeding our nation and world.

It is my sincere hope that this memorial will properly honor the bravery and sacrificial service of our World War II veterans. May it serve as a daily reminder to all who pass it of the sacrifice that was required to secure this experiment in freedom known throughout the world as America, the land of liberty. May it fortify the resolve of this current generation to be vigilant in our sacred duty to preserve and protect it at all costs. May God bless our World War II veterans, may God bless Avon, Indiana, for its efforts to honor these heroes, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight the deeply disturbing case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who is currently charged with four counts of first-degree murder and one count of third-degree murder related to the botched abortions at a Pennsylvania clinic. Former employees have testified that he delivered babies and then killed them by snipping their spinal cords with scissors. One staffer described this procedure as ``literally a beheading.''

Mr. Speaker, life is precious; therefore, every abortion is a tragedy. But this case exposes the full horror of abortion carried to its logical end. As columnist Kirsten Powers recently wrote, the difference between late-term abortion in the womb and the murder of a newborn infant is simply ``merely a matter of geography.''

In response to a nearly total lack of coverage by mainstream media, myself and many Members who stand today here, including Marsha Blackburn, Steve Scalise, and a whole cadre of folks that are speaking today, wrote to the heads of the major TV networks demanding that they cover this and other high-profile abortion controversies.

Thankfully, this case has begun to receive the attention it deserves, and Americans are discovering that this is not about pro-choice versus pro-life, but about basic human rights.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the most important issue of our time in this country, and really the world.

We are nearly $17 trillion in debt and $100 trillion in debt in unfunded promises to our children and grandchildren that they stand to inherit if we fail to act. This is an issue that my colleagues and I on the Budget Committee take very seriously, and I know that most Members of this body take very seriously.

To that end, we view our role as not only legislators, but educators. And in our great State of Indiana, I talk about this issue almost in a nauseating fashion to some, but I think it's very important that we as people, as Americans, Mr. Speaker, understand what the situation really is because at the end of the day, I am very optimistic that when given the facts, the people of this country, as President Reagan observed several years ago, will right the ship, will do the right thing. We'll start to live within our means again, and they will take control of the situation.

I don't think ultimately, Mr. Speaker, that the reform that is needed to solve this problem will actually start or come from this floor or the floor of our colleagues that we have on the other side of the rotunda. The reform and the solution to this problem will come from Main Street, will come from the farm fields and the businesses and the kitchen tables of the great patriots across this land.

So it's in that vein, Mr. Speaker, that I want to make a presentation here on the floor of the House. I also make this presentation because of the current situation that we're in with regard to our budgeting process.

As I speak with you here on the floor tonight, Mr. Speaker, we have a budget that passed the House of Representatives, we have a budget that passed the United States Senate, and after 2 months of being late, as it has been nearly every year that this current President has been in office, we finally have a budget from our President.

The main difference--well, there are several differences--but the main difference I want to point out tonight between these budgets is that the budget that came out of this House is the only one that balances. Why is that important? It's important because if you never present and pass a budget that balances--and let me remind you that a balanced approach isn't a balanced budget. Someone's opinion of a balanced approach, like our President's, doesn't mean that the budget balances, no matter how many times he or House Democrats say that.

The reason it's so important that a budget balances is because it shows your intent; it shows your intent to finally start paying off the debt. Because like everyone knows, you can't possibly start paying nearly $17 trillion in debt until you get to a balanced budget so that you have a surplus, hopefully, and then, in fact, use that surplus to pay down the debt.

So if you present and pass a budget that never balances, you intend by what you're saying and doing there to never pay off the debt. And I would submit that when you do that, you can't call it debt any more because what you're doing is stealing. You're stealing from future Americans. You're stealing from the children of tomorrow, children that don't exist yet and therefore have no voice in the matter because they can't vote. What an easy target they are.

So when you pass and you vote for budgets that never balance, that's what you're doing, you're stealing. Let's call it what it is, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I want to be clear, this isn't a partisan set of remarks because it's not a partisan issue. In fact, it's very bipartisan, and this chart here shows that.

Going from beyond Kennedy--but I just started tracking from President Kennedy on--every one of our presidents, who represented both parties since the 1960s, have accrued increasing levels of debt. Even Mr. Clinton, with the help of this Republican House who had technically balanced budgets, I think, four times in his 8 years, still overall ran up a very slight debt.

I want to be clear that our debt problems did not start on January 20, 2009, with the inauguration of President Obama. But as this chart also shows, our debt problems have been increasingly and drastically exacerbated since that time, and we need to get this under control.

Let's take a look at exactly how much we're borrowing and what's causing this debt. And I'm grateful tonight for the help of my staff member, Zach Zagar, who is on the floor with me to help get me through these slides a little bit quicker.

We are borrowing 31 cents of every dollar the Federal Government is spending. Now, I'll admit to you, Mr. Speaker, that has actually improved. When I started making this presentation about a year and a half ago, 2 years ago, we were borrowing 42 cents of every dollar we spend. But thanks to some good revenue forecasts and especially leadership right here in the House of Representatives, we've already been able to make some sensible cuts and rein in spending that has decreased some of that spending. But again, until we stop borrowing, we cannot begin to start paying down this debt: 31 cents of every dollar, Mr. Speaker.

Let's also be honest. We've been in debt before as a country, and the question then arises, why should we worry so much now. Well, we should worry now. Let me explain why we should worry by going back to the last time that this country was in this kind of debt, when our debt level, if you include the Social Security trust fund, reached nearly and over 100 percent of gross domestic product. That time was right at the end of World War II.

So what makes our situation so different now than the last time we were in so much debt? Well, number one, the cause of our debt back at the end of World War II was much different than now. The cause of our debt back then was, in fact, the war, and it was a one-time event. One way or another, even back then, we knew it was going to end. If it ended well for us, if we won, which we did, we would have a good economy coming out of that war, we would become creditor to the world and we would begin paying down that debt. In fact, that's exactly what happened. If we had lost World War II, I guess it wouldn't really matter how much debt

we had because we would all be speaking perhaps a different language. This country might not even exist.

The drivers of our debt today, however, have absolutely no intention of ending as they currently stand. I'll get to that in a little bit. The drivers of our debt today are the social entitlement programs and the interest that we continually owe ourselves and other countries.

The second difference between the last time that we had this level of debt and now is who we owe this debt to. Back then, during World War II, we owed the debt to ourselves, nearly 100 percent. Remember the war bond posters, Mr. Speaker? Remember when Americans stood up, bought those bonds and we financed World War II?

Increasingly, as this chart shows, our debt is owed to other countries, the largest of which right now is China. It's getting to the point where the debt we owe to other countries is nearly half our total debt. So we increasingly have creditors who, by definition, don't have our best interests at heart, not like we did as individual Americans buying those war bonds, and that's a problem. It's such a problem that it has become a national security issue, and that needs to be addressed as well.

Think about this, Mr. Speaker: with the interest that we pay China alone on the credit they issue to us by buying our Treasury bonds, et cetera, China with that interest payment every week can buy three new joint strike fighters if we let them, if those were in production. They can finance their military operations just on the money we give them. And in this increasingly complex world, changing every day, new threats, new risks, that is a particularly vulnerable place to be, and we are doing it to ourselves because of our refusal to balance budgets and otherwise live within our means, to put more on our plates now at the expense of our national security and at the expense of the children of tomorrow, people who don't exist yet and therefore have no voice in the matter.

I have to tell you, it is hard for me even as a Budget Committee member to visualize what $17 trillion really looks like, what it means; and I certainly can't understand or visualize what I said earlier about the $100 trillion that's on the way, specifically over the next 50 to 75 years, representing the promises that we've made under the social entitlement programs. That's what's coming. In fact, our country will be bankrupt, I'm sure, and we'll be off the world's reserve currency long before we reach the $100 trillion, but it's coming and it's real.

So what I like to do is take actual budget numbers and break off eight zeros from them so I get them in a more manageable fashion. The President has said, I've heard him reference the Federal Government as some kind of Federal family. Well, I don't know if I'd take it that far, but let's assume for purposes of this debt discussion that the Federal Government acted as a family. Here's what our Federal budget picture looks like.

Our annual family income, $25,000. Those are the tax receipts, the revenue we get from the people of this country, their property that we confiscate to run the Federal Government, some of it necessary, most of it increasingly not necessary. Our annual family spending, $36,000. That is eight zeroes lopped off, a rounded real number, leaving us an annual debt that we have to put onto one family credit card of $11,000.

So we're a family. We're making $25,000. We're spending $36,000, a deficit of $11,000. It goes on a credit card, the one family credit card that already has a balance of $168,000. Future purchases on that credit card, the promises that we made to the wife and the kids over the years, if they were to be put on that credit card now, $1 million.

But wait a minute. Remember I said borrowing has gone down. We're spending a little less. We have this drastic, incoherent, ham-fisted-- whatever the adjectives we're hearing lately--sequester that simply cut 2 percent out of Federal spending. Gee, cutting 2 percent out of Federal spending, can you imagine what the other 98 percent of government does if all this stuff is supposed to happen on just 2 percent? Anyway, we save some money. In this example, it would come out to $310.

Now I will give the microphone, I will yield to any gentleman or gentlewoman, Member of the House, here tonight that wants to get up here and defend this and defend these numbers. I didn't think so.

That's all right, Mr. Speaker. I will note for the record that there are very few Members here.

My next chart, this is what your Federal Government spends its money on. Now, I took the liberty of taking two pieces of the pie and pulling them out. The reason I did that was because I want everyone to understand that when we vote for budgets, the line items we vote on really only represent those two pieces of the Federal spending pie. So our votes every year when we pass a budget only concern spending, quite honestly, on those two pieces. That's non-defense discretionary and defense discretionary. That's why we call it discretionary, because we actually have discretion on dialing up defense or dialing it down, or some of the non-defense programs, like the 167 agencies or so that are under the discretionary budget. That would be the Department of Energy, Department of Education, and all of the ones in between.

But if you look at this, Mr. Speaker, most of the pie is mandatory spending, meaning it doesn't really come through the normal budget process because it can't, because these were promises that were made in the underlying law. They cannot be changed unless you change the underlying law. I can't, as Representative Rokita, decide how much Americans who qualify for Social Security will get in their Social Security check. The law sets that out. I don't get to decide in a budget document what services you get under Medicare. That's set in the underlying law. Medicaid, the same way.

Of course, interest is a contractual agreement. We agree to pay interest to our bondholders. That can't be changed. And then a smorgasbord of other mandatory spending rounds out what really is over two-thirds of our spending. So two-thirds of your Federal spending is on autopilot. It's not adjusted year to year. It's not as simple as just cutting or lowering budget figures. If we're going to get out of debt, in order to lower this debt, we have to reform the underlying causes of our debt, and that's our social entitlement programs.

Now, about this time, many Members are about to get up and claim 30 minutes in response on behalf of their constituents who say, Wait, I paid into those social entitlement programs. That's not the government's money; that's my money. Week after week, out of my paycheck, money went into Medicare and money went into the Social Security account, for example. I paid in; therefore, I get out.

I want to acknowledge here on the floor of the House of Representatives that that is true. You have paid in. We have paid in. We continue to pay in. But it's not the whole truth, as this chart indicates. You see on average, if you made $71,000 a year, you and your spouse through your working lives, you will have paid in--and this is an example for Medicare--about 35 percent of what you're getting; 35 percent of what you're getting. And that 65 percent difference, quite honestly, is paid for by the children of tomorrow, almost all of it. Again, they don't have any voice in the matter because they don't exist yet.

So the moral question that we have as a country is: How much more does a future generation have to pay so we can have more on our plate now? And when you have budgets that do not balance, you are happy to say, when you vote for budgets that don't balance, you are happy to say that we're letting them pay the load. And that's different. That's the first time, this is the first time in American history as I know it, that we have basically said, We don't care. We don't care that our future generations, that the next generation, will be worse off than us at our very expense. But that's exactly what we are doing when we don't pass balanced budgets.

Like I mentioned earlier about the $100 trillion example, it's not just the current debt load that we carry; it's what's coming. And that's what is depicted by the red line here that you notice is going nearly vertical.

It's on a trajectory that we may not be able to arrest, that we might not be able to bend back down again if we don't get ahold of it now.

This is what happens when 10,000 people a day retire into programs that go unreformed. And that's a problem. That's a big problem. And that's why it's so important to get ahold of this problem now, to make these reforms now, before we turn into Greece. And in our case, when that happens, it will be a lot worse, not just for us but for the entire world.

These figures do not lie. By the way, most of these figures that I present tonight don't come from Todd Rokita's office. They come from the Budget Committee. The good Democratic members of the Budget Committee don't disagree with the numbers. I imagine there's disagreement, and we have seen disagreement certainly on the committee about how to solve the problems that the data present. I am increasingly shocked and awed to hear Members on the other side say that there really isn't a problem with the data, with the issue that the data present, but nonetheless the data is the data and the data does not lie.

There have been offered some false solutions, I would say, to our problem of this debt. I would quickly like to dispel some of them, and I'd like a point of order asking the Speaker how many more minutes I have.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The first false solution: We need more tax revenue; we're not taxing ourselves enough, and only if we tax more, especially from the, quote- unquote, rich--those who haven't paid their fair share, quote-unquote-- we'd solve this debt problem.

Let me address that for a minute. This is one of the slides that doesn't come from the Budget Committee; it comes from the IRS. I have no reason to dispute it. I saw it in The Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago. The bars represent where the money in this country is, the taxable revenue, where people's property is, and it's divided along income groups. If you look at the far right of this chart, you'll see that the furthest right bars represent Americans who have taxable revenue of anywhere from $1 million to $10 million. And the largest, the highest bars, where the middle is, represent Americans who have taxable revenue of anywhere from $75,000 to $500,000 a year. The point of this slide is, you can take all the millionaires' money if you wanted, really make them pay their fair share, take a hundred percent of what they earn, and you'll have to assume two things: that they would continue producing, which of course they wouldn't, and you'd have to assume that they would continue living in the country, which I assume they wouldn't. Look at the mass exodus going on in France now with a 75 percent marginal tax rate.

But let's assume for the sake of discussion that you take a hundred percent of what they earn. You're not going to get enough revenue to pay off the debt. There are not enough Oprah Winfreys--or when I'm in Lafayette I like to say Purdue football coaches--to pay off this debt. If people are saying, like our President, that more revenue is needed to pay off the debt, they're coming for the middle class. They're coming for where the property is, where the money is, and that's in people who make anywhere from $50,000, $75,000, to $500,000.

The next slide reflects another false solution: let's just get rid of all that foreign aid. And I'm the first to say we've really got to examine who we give foreign aid to. I would say this, also: we don't give foreign aid necessarily to other countries so that they can thank us. We do it because there's a strategic reason to do it, like our national security, but let's assume we cut out all foreign aid. You're only addressing about 2 percent of our Federal spending. This is not something that you can solve the debt problem with.

Some say let's cut out defense. I will also be the first to say, there is tremendous waste, fraud and abuse in the military, so much that they can't even be audited, not because there's a statute preventing it; they are so big and so sloppy and so leaderless in this fashion that they cannot get themselves to an audit table, and that is wrong. We should be maximizing every dollar we can to our warfighters who protect us, and we're not doing that now.

But, Mr. Speaker, having said that, defense--if we had no defense, if we had no military--would only be a 20 percent cut in our overall spending. Not enough to balance the budget. Not enough to solve this debt problem.

We have several solutions to this, starting with the House Republican budget: reform Medicare, reform Medicaid, reform Social Security, not cut people who are in or on these programs right now because we don't have to. We have the luxury if we act now to reform these programs now, Mr. Speaker. You can go to rokita.house.gov to learn more. Only if you were born in 1958 or after are we offering a restructured program so that it's around for you, so that it's around for all Americans, future generations, and so that we don't have to hurt the people that are on them now.

I'm out of time, Mr. Speaker, to go through all those right now. I'd like to come back at some point and pick up that discussion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 26 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, April 25, 2013, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I'm struck by the mention of fairness from the gentlelady who just spoke. What is fair is the rule of law, and that's what this country was founded on. That is the ultimate fairness. And that's what this bill is fundamentally about--the core American value about respect for the rule of law.

Now, our President chose to violate the law by unconstitutionally appointing new members to the National Labor Relations Board in January of 2012. And while the President claimed he had this authority and while our friends are claiming he had this authority because the Senate was ``in recess,'' there was one problem: the Senate wasn't in recess. The Senate was actually in session.

Last year, in response to this, I led in a letter to our President, with 26 of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, protesting these appointments and asking the White House to obey the law so that we wouldn't have the uncertainty that we do now, so that we wouldn't have to have the argument that we're having now, unfortunately; but by making these appointments, the White House and the executive branch has essentially claimed the authority to determine when the Senate is unavailable to perform its constitutional duties.

The executive branch should not be deciding whether the Senate is unavailable to provide its advice and consent. Our Founding Fathers, who created a government marked by a separation of powers, would be shocked and dismayed by the utter disregard the President has shown to the Constitution of the United States by making these appointments.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleagues on the other side who continually make this argument as though if they said it 20 times it actually makes it more true--it does not--the suggestion that President Obama's actions were similar to past Presidents is patently false. No President ever made recess appointments while the Senate was meeting regularly in pro forma session--until this current President.

If President Obama had followed the practice set by his predecessors, there wouldn't be a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the NLRB today. And this uncertainty, to the point made by my colleagues earlier, is hurting jobs; because when you have Commissioners who are appointed unconstitutionally, their rules are now unconstitutional. Businesses can't follow them. Unions can't follow them. Workers can't follow them. And when that's the case, what job creator is going to hire more people? And that's the real situation we find ourselves in here today, unfortunately.

Now the issue is pending before the United States Supreme Court. It's my hope that the Court will acknowledge that no one, including this President, Mr. Speaker, is above the law in this country, from the poorest of our citizens to himself.

We can never afford to forget that.

For these reasons, I simply urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 1120 and to not listen to the nonsense that we're hearing from the other side. We believe in the worker. We believe in workers' rights. We believe in the rights of businesses. We believe in the rights of unions. We believe the President, above everyone else in this country, should follow the law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and salute a remarkable Hoosier, Robert ``Bob'' C. Reiling, whom retired as Tippecanoe Election Board Chairman after 28 years of service. I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his leadership and service to his county and the State of Indiana.

Mr. Reiling began his service to the voters of Tippecanoe County in 1984. Almost two decades later, I began working with him and the rest of the Tippecanoe County Election Board to help implement the Help America Vote Act. Under his leadership, the county actually began replacing outdated voting systems with new technologies prior to the federal and state mandate to do so. Throughout the past decade, local and state officials with both leading worked in concert to improve election administration and the election experience for voters.

I am most proud of the partnership and friendship we grew as Tippecanoe County became one of three pilot counties to implement the Vote Centers model that is now almost common in Indiana. By introducing this model to the voters of Tippecanoe County, turnout increased, voting wait times decreased, and fewer voters were disenfranchised because there is no wrong place to vote. Tippecanoe County, under the leadership of Bob and the county election board, helped develop a working model that so many other Indiana counties are now emulating.

Mr. Reiling is a family man and remains a good friend even though I am no longer Indiana's Secretary of State. I am honored to have worked with him over the years, and look forward to our continued friendship. While no longer serving on the county election board, I know he will continue to be a leader and serve the people of Tippecanoe County in other ways.

This is Mr. Robert Reiling: a man truly committed to his family, his community, and his country. I value his friendship, counsel, and most of all, his good example. Thank you for your many years of service, Mr. Reiling.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the DePauw University Lady Tigers basketball team, who defeated Wisconsin-Whitewater 69-51 on March 16 to win the Division III National Championship, their second national title in seven years.

DePauw became one of only seven Division III teams to complete an undefeated season, and the only team in Division III history to win 34 games in a single season. DePauw's other recent accomplishments include 14 NCAA appearances in 18 years, including 4 quarterfinals, 14 conference championships in 17 years, and 20 or more wins in 16 of the last 17 years.

Seniors Ellie Pearson, Kate Walker and Kathleen Molloy completed their college careers with a combined record of 112 wins and just 15 losses at DePauw. The rest of the roster includes Ann Sarkisian, Jenna Stoner, Emma Ondik, Lauren Abendroth, Chelsea Francis, Morgan Skordos, Savannah Trees, Colleen McDonagh, Angela Hacker, Alex Gasaway, Hannah Lukemeyer, Ali Ross, Alison Stephens, Erin McGinnis, Abby Keller, and Colleen Frost.

Head coach Kris Huffman is a selfless leader who always redirects any credit for the team's success back to her players. Her .820 career winning percentage is the highest winning percentage ever for a DePauw women's basketball head coach, and she has been named National Coach of the Year 3 times and Conference Coach of the Year 11 times. In addition to Coach Huffman, the coaching staff includes Assistant Coach Mary Smith, volunteer coaches Donna Ferguson and Doug Miller, and Team Trainer Kara Campbell.

Located in Greencastle, Indiana, DePauw is well known for a deep tradition of social engagement by its students and faculty alike, and its women's basketball team has earned much attention for their success on the basketball court as well. Incidentally, DePauw University is a friendly rival to my alma mater 30 miles to the north, Wabash College. This rivalry notwithstanding, I join basketball fans from across the Hoosier State in congratulating the 2013 DePauw women's basketball team on their remarkable accomplishments.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding the time.

I agree with the gentleman from Georgia. It's good to have debate. It's good to have choices. It's good to have options, but that doesn't mean every option is equally good. And we're faced with that situation right here, right now, and that's why I rise in opposition to the CBC substitute budget.

There are different ways to balance a budget. Many, most Americans, many of us here, think that taking 20 percent of the value of a country's GDP, like this Federal Government does and spends it, is more than enough to run it and most anything else.

But to be fair, there are other ways to balance, and one of those ways is to raise revenue. And I want to examine just a few of the ways that this substitute budget proposes to run the Federal Government by raising revenue.

I see from all the different ideas here that their intention was to take from whom they believe are the richest Americans, the wealthiest Americans, those who haven't paid their fair share, the 1 percent, however you want to phrase it, but let's look at it more closely.

One, taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income at a top rate of 39.6 percent, I think this budget forgets how many middle class Americans have 401(k)s, how many of us across the Nation invest in the stock market, how many union members still on the old pension plans, those dinosaur plans, still rely on the stock market for their retirement. What are these capital

gains and dividends going to do to them? They're not the richest, for sure.

Taxing financial transactions at 0.25 percent of the asset's value, the same thing, Mr. Chairman. What about all the middle class individuals, so many Americans in this country that rely for their retirement not just on Social Security but on 401(k)s, union members who rely on pensions? And what's it going to be like for them when we're taking simply more from them from their retirement?

And then perhaps the most insidious, returning estate tax levels to 2009, not only are we taxing twice, but we are making it a bad thing, apparently, to pass on our hard-earned wealth to our children, our next generation. It's no way to run a country. It's immoral, in fact.

But let's assume all these tax increases. The fact of the matter is this budget still never balances, never comes into balance. And I was struck this morning, Mr. Chairman, by Mr. Mulvaney from South Carolina, during his 1-minute speech, when he said, when you contract with somebody to borrow money, that's what debt is. You intend to pay it back. When you contract with somebody and have no intention of paying that debt back, that's thievery.

That's exactly what we're doing, Mr. Chairman, to the children of tomorrow, to the people that do not yet exist, that do not have a vote in this matter. That's why I rise in support, and I urge all my colleagues to defeat this substitute budget.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, like speakers before me, I am thankful and appreciative that others are proposing substitute budgets. It is good to have options, Mr. Chair. It is good to have a debate. But not all options are equally good, so I rise against the substitute budget that is now before us.

Admittedly, there are a couple of different ways and a combination thereof that you can balance a budget: spending cuts--and, by the way, when a Federal Government already takes, on average, 20 percent of the value of all the goods and services that a country produces, a lot of us think that is more than enough to run the government and that spending reductions are actually the solution.

Revenue increases might also get you to balance. That is certainly what this Progressive substitute tries to do. Nearly $6 trillion in tax increases over the next 10 years. And, by the way, Mr. Chairman, they don't get to balance. It doesn't happen. $6 trillion more of the people's property this budget confiscates, and they still can't balance the budget.

Why is balancing the budget so darn important? Well, a couple different reasons. You cannot start paying off the

debt until you get to a balanced budget so that you have a surplus to start paying that debt down.

So their intention, Mr. Chair, is not to pay down the debt. That is what they are stating in this budget, and, frankly, that's immoral.

If you intend to pay a debt back in any contractual situation, or even in this country's budget situation, it is called a debt. When you take money from future generations, when you take money from people that don't yet exist with no intention to pay it back, as this budget does, have no intention to pay it back, it is called thievery, and that's wrong. That is why this budget needs to fail.

I thank Chairman Ryan for his leadership as well as to thank all of the members and staff of the Budget Committee.

We have a good product here. It balances. Balance is important because, until you balance, you can't even begin to start paying off this debt, and we do that. The budget that's on the floor right now never balances. It might claim it does, but the math bears otherwise.

I want to address the Medicaid reforms that we put in our budget, because they were just attacked. We believe in balancing the budget. We believe in balancing, not by raising taxes, but by cutting spending. But you don't just have to cut to cut spending. You can reform.

You can reform these programs, Mr. Chair, so that they are around for the generations to come. Medicaid, a program that by all accounts is failing those whom it is intending to serve, needs reform. It leads to poor outcomes for patients.

A 2010 study suggested that surgical patients on Medicaid were 13 percent more likely to die, Mr. Chairman, than those without health insurance at all. That bears repeating. If you're a surgical patient on Medicaid, you are 13 percent more likely to die. That needs reform.

It drives away doctors who want to serve the poor. On average, doctors who participate in Medicaid earn 56 percent of what those in the private sector do. It also is pushing our States closer and closer to the brink of fiscal collapse. States on average now spend more on Medicaid than on any other expense, including K-12 education, Mr. Chairman. And the dramatic expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare will only make these problems worse.

We have to address these failing programs. The States are doing it already. In Rhode Island, with the help of a waiver from the Federal regulations, they are able to take a cap in spending for 5 years and put everyone in managed care successfully. In my home State of Indiana, 40,000 more people who really needed the care were put on without one more dime of expense.

Mr. Chairman, reform is needed, reform cuts costs, and reform will make sure these programs are around for generations to come. Please do not support this budget. Support the Ryan plan.

I thank the chair for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 115, but I appreciate, quite honestly, the concerns just raised. And let me try to address some of them, if not all of them.

There are victims in this country, for sure. But the real victimization will occur if this House, if this Congress, if this President does not get ahold of the deficit and debt situation that we are incurring. Right now, we are in the middle of debating different budgets, the priorities that we have as parties, as Americans, et cetera.

On the one hand, we have a budget that balances in 10 years--radical for this town. On the other side, we have budgets that never, ever balance. If we don't get ahold of these deficits so we can finally start attacking the debt, and if we continue to leave to future generations our bills--to me, Mr. Speaker, the most immoral thing I can think of, really, that we can do in civic life is to leave our bills for future generations to pay. There will be the victimization.

Yes, we are going to have a hard time at the committee level, and certainly even with our MRAs that have been cut in the past, to try to do our work. But what I heard in these committee hearings from our chairman and our ranking members each is that they pledge to continue their legislative and oversight activities despite these budget cuts. So there is not going to be any victimization here with this House resolution.

The other thing this House resolution does is finally lets us lead by example, Mr. Speaker. How can we have a national family discussion? How can we have a discussion about the morality of leaving our bills for future generations to pay if we are not willing to suck some of it up ourselves? And, yes, we are doing it. Do you know who else is doing it? The military.

I would like to say here on the floor of the House that those excuses should now be taken off the table. We are leading by example in what we have cut through our MRAs already and this House resolution. And guess what? So has the military.

Let's finally get to a discussion and action, more importantly, regarding the real drivers of our debt--the social entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. And, yes, many of our constituents will say, Hey, wait a minute. Don't call those social entitlement programs. We paid into those, therefore, we should get out. And that is true. But what is also true is that on average--let's take Medicare, for example, Mr. Speaker--we are paying in about 40 percent, again, on average, of what we are taking out. It is immoral, wrong, to let that 60 percent get paid for by people who don't even yet exist and, therefore, don't have a say in the matter.

House Resolution 115 lets us lead by example so that we can finally get to the rest of the conversation about the drivers of our debt. Guess what else? The interest we owe ourselves as private citizens-- and, more increasingly, other countries like China, countries that don't necessarily have our best interest at heart, nor should they have to have our best interest at heart--we are paying more to them in interest because of this debt than we are spending on homeland security, education, and roads combined.

That breeds weakness, that fosters instability, that creates victimization. House Resolution 115 will give us the moral authority and the real authority to continue having this discussion, to lead by example, which is so well needed in this country right now at this time. The fact of the matter is, we shouldn't have to have oversight of the budgets of the executive branch if the executive branch and this President were to lead and recognize the debt that we are in, the deficits that we run, and rein in his own people, rein in his own organizations, create a culture of doing more with less.

As it has been famously stated by a former Governor in Indiana: people will never miss the government that has been cut.

It goes without saying, with regard to individualism, people can do more for themselves and people can do more for each other than any faraway Federal Government program can. Let's continue leading by example. Let's continue this fiscal fight that we are engaged in. Let's pass--let's strongly support--House Resolution 115.