Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, when ObamaCare was being debated, its champions and cheerleaders indicated it would create 4 million jobs, including 400,000 jobs almost immediately. I find it deeply disturbing, then, that when I travel back to my district in Indiana, I hear from constituents that jobs are already being lost and hours are being cut in anticipation of this law's implementation.

I've heard from numerous constituents who work low-wage, hourly jobs like school support employees: cafeteria workers, janitors, bus drivers and so on. They're being told that, due to ObamaCare's employer mandate, they will no longer be allowed to work more than 29 hours a week. ObamaCare's proponents have created an incredibly perverse incentive here. Who in their right mind endorses a law where the best business decision is to lay people off, and during a very down economy to boot?

If we're serious about addressing rising health care costs and putting

Americans back to work, we should repeal this law, and repeal it now, and replace it with sustainable, bipartisan health care solutions.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Full Faith and Credit Act.

Now, much has been said about how ridiculous it is that we find ourselves going through this debt limit routine so darned often, but this limit exists in order to induce this body to reflect on the folly of our mindless borrow-and-spend practices. Such reflection ought to lead us to serious debate and even to cooperation. It presents an opportunity for public servants to engage in thoughtful, respectful dialogue and to craft long-term solutions.

As we approach the limit for the third time in my 2\1/2\ years here, we have an opportunity to work together and finally make our largest programs of government sustainable. We have an opportunity to work together and finally tackle long-neglected issues like tax reform so that jobs and personal incomes can grow more quickly.

The Full Faith and Credit Act protects and advances such opportunities for Congress to accomplish big things, and it does this simply by removing the specter of default from the table altogether. No one is contemplating default over our Nation's obligations. America will always and forever pay its bills, and the Full Faith and Credit Act makes this crystal clear--by making default impossible.

Our support for this act simply cannot and should not be regarded as ideological or partisan, so I respectfully call on every one of my good colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to support this commonsense bill, to take default off the table, and to put the focus squarely on dealing with our real challenges. Let's harness this opportunity of an approaching borrowing limit to come together as problem solvers.

It's great to be with the gentlelady, and thank you so much for having me.

Does the gentlelady yield here? I know we've got less formal procedures under way.

Okay. Well, great. This is the great American family room, if you will, where we're sitting around and having a family conversation, the people's conversation, about making life work.

And I would absolutely agree, there are a lot of dimensions to this topic. We've got to get our spending under control. Republicans have put forward a bold budget to make that happen, bring our budget into balance within just 10 years.

We need to stop imposing overly costly, overly burdensome regulations

on American families, American businesses and so on.

We, of course, need to take a look at our energy policy and open up this bounty of resources here in this country; and there's a whole variety of different ones. My colleague from Washington, the gentlelady, just spoke to some in her region.

Of course, in my region, coal remains a viable and important resource; but we're finding increasingly that my constituents in Indiana's Ninth District are enjoying the benefits of natural gas, and very affordable natural gas.

We happen to have oil and gas resources in this country, by some reckoning, that are larger than Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia combined. This will make the United States of America a net energy exporter within just 10 years. So that is a blessing that, once again, Republicans are leading with respect to harnessing these resources we have.

Of course, our human resources are another thing that we could touch on. But, really, my point of emphasis, since I'm on the Ways and Means Committee, this evening is going to be tax reform.

We just finished getting through yet another tax day, and I'm sure my colleagues heard from their constituents just how convoluted and complicated and frustrating and unfair this Tax Code can be to working families.

I was struck by--there's this notion of tax freedom day that some of our colleagues and certainly our constituents are aware of. This is when we, as hardworking taxpayers, stop paying the Federal Government and can start working for ourselves. And it fell on April 18 this year; 3\1/2\ months into the year is when our taxpayers stop paying the Federal Government and can start working for themselves and their families. That suggests to me that we need to work on all fronts to grow this economy more and also to lighten the burden of taxation wherever possible.

Tax simplification is something I'll get into in a little bit, and that's part of our overall tax reform effort.

But with that, I'll yield to my good friend from Colorado. Perhaps you have other thoughts on taxation or other things that are related to our making-life-work theme tonight.

Well, you said so many things that really strike a chord with me. And I know, based on my consultations and visits with my constituents, they certainly do. One is the importance of funding the essential functions of government. I mean, we are the party of smart government. We've put forward specific proposals in order to rationalize different departments, make things run more efficiently, ensure we get more bang for our buck in every department of government, and avoid the duplication and wastefulness that so alienates so many of our constituents.

There's nothing we can do that would more undermine the credibility of government as an institution--and the Federal Government in particular--than to waste money and to spend it in areas where our constituents don't want us to spend it. So our national defense is essential. That benefits working families on a daily basis. It certainly benefits our military families, but really benefits all of us. That's something we have to be very careful with as we approach these different fiscal challenges. So I applaud my colleague for her leadership in this area.

You know, my constituents, and yours too, they don't mind paying taxes if they get the sense that we're spending those taxes on the essential functions of government and we're spending absolutely no more than required. They also wouldn't mind paying their fair share of taxes if in fact complying with the Tax Code were a simple exercise and one that seemed by most Americans to be a fair exercise.

Having just passed tax day here, I'll share a couple of semi-humorous comments about what the American family could do instead of filing taxes, if they had taken all those 13 hours on average per American family and instead been able to use that for themselves.

An average American family, instead of filling out their Tax Code, could have watched the entire ``Harry Potter'' movie series twice, and they'd still have time for two ``Hunger Games'' movies. Or they could have watched all six ``Star Wars'' movies three times. Or they could have lost weight if that's where they want to spend their time. If the time was spent in a spinning class, the average American, we're told, could lose 14 pounds per man and 11.8 pounds per woman, respectively. They could fly between Hong Kong and New York three times. This just illustrates how darn painful complying with this convoluted, complicated, and unfair Tax Code can be.

I like to say that our Tax Code in a way makes those who sit down at the kitchen table and actually do their own taxes--most people actually have to hire a tax preparer or buy tax software these days--but it makes the average American feel like either a crook on one hand or a sucker on the other.

So consider the case of John and Jane. John and Jane are neighbors; they make the exact same amount in personal income. But John decides he's going to itemize his deductions and he takes several credits--he's sort of aggressive when he's filing his taxes. Jane, on the other hand, she takes a standard deduction and fairly limited credits. Now, John is left feeling like a crook. He might feel like he's run afoul of the law. He did his best to follow it, but he might be left to feel like a crook as a result of the whole tax exercise. Jane, on the other hand, knows that John ends up paying far less in taxes even though he makes the same amount, so Jane feels kind of like a sucker. What sort of code makes you feel like either a crook or a sucker?

We have to stop this nonsense, simplify the Code, and reduce the rates in the process to make us more competitive vis a vis our international competitors. That's what we're doing in the Ways and Means Committee, and I invite our Democrat colleagues to help. I actually see a lot of room for common ground here, and I hope that they will join us in this exercise.

Sorry for interrupting there, but you struck a chord when you said ``regulations.''

We know what the American people want. They want fewer hassles, fewer burdens, fewer mandates from on high. They want more flexibility, more walking around cash, they want more choices, they want more hope for themselves and their children and grandchildren.

With respect to regulatory reform, this impacts daily lives in a very big way. We typically hear about it in the context of how it's going to hurt your corporations or sometimes your small businesses. I happen to represent a district with a lot of rural areas in it. Not a week goes by that I don't hear a farmer complaining about some of the regulations in the pipe.

We've had recent attempts by our Federal Government to try and regulate milk spills like oil spills, and to regulate the dust that comes across fields in rural areas.

And how we can make life work for our regular American families, our American workers, and even our companies, because, after all, this is where most of my constituents are employed--sometimes large companies, sometimes small companies.

With respect to regulations, we have tried a Whack-A-Mole approach going back a number of years here, where we do our best with respect to oversight. Sometimes we do better than others. And we try to prevent certain executive departments from actually implementing a given regulation, or we change the law so that the regulation can't move forward. That's hard to do.

But I think we need to be thinking ambitiously here about changing the entire regulatory system. I introduced earlier this year a bill that was originally authored by Geoff Davis, a Republican from Kentucky, called the REINS Act. What the REINS Act does is it establishes a $100 million threshold. So every time, say, the EPA or OSHA puts forward a rule or regulation that is determined will have $100 million or more in economic impact on our multitrillion-dollar economy, that rule or regulation has to go before Congress for an up- or-down vote.

Now, what effect would this have? Of course, this would slow down the regulatory process, which is good. Washington needs to deliberate before it acts, right? We can still regulate. There's a role for smart regulation, but we need to deliberate before we act.

But, perhaps, most importantly, in the end, if we pass the REINS Act, this would allow our constituents to blame us for these painful and costly regulations, rather than unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. We want to be accountable.

I understand that the money that Republicans would propose to spend to address this issue within the Obama structure is money the administration would instead like to spend for advertising--advertising the exchanges, advertising how the Affordable Care Act is actually going to work.

That's right.

This looks like a welcome addition. Before he steps to the microphone there, he's going to tell us where all the money is going, how bad our debt is, and maybe how that's crowding out future investment in our children and grandchildren.

Is that right, Tim?

Mr. Speaker, we spend a lot of time in this body talking about the need to be bipartisan. People rightly feel, I think, that

things get too polarized around here. I think back to the mid-nineties when Republicans controlled the House. We had a Democrat President, and people back then thought things were a bit too polarized as well. Yet in the midst of that atmosphere, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich came up with landmark legislation to reform our welfare programs, and they did so in a bipartisan fashion.

One of the keys to the success of those reforms were the work requirement provisions that led to more jobs, bigger paychecks, and fewer people in poverty, children in particular. As President Clinton said at the time:

First and foremost, welfare reform should be about moving

people from welfare to work.

As further proof that this is not a partisan issue, Republican or Democrat, I look to my own State of Indiana. Before the 1996 welfare reform law was passed, then-Governor Bayh, a Democrat, created similar work requirements for Hoosiers who received certain government benefits. Not only did Indiana's reforms ensure that those who needed assistance were able to receive it, but it also helped ensure that they were quickly back to taking care of themselves.

As Mr. Bayh later said:

The bottom line was trying to make someone self-sufficient.

We were trying to achieve two values--one was the notion of

community, and also responsibility.

Indiana's welfare-to-work initiative was a very successful program that remains a hallmark of his governorship.

With bipartisan consensus on this issue, and for all the talk in Washington about the need to be bipartisan, work across the aisle, it amazes me that HHS would unilaterally try and waive these work provisions. The welfare reform of the 1990s lifted millions out of poverty and put them on a path to self-sufficiency. It was a signature bill for bipartisanship in this town. Let's not undue these positive results by allowing HHS to gut key provisions of this bill.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my friend, neighbor, colleague, and fellow Hoosier, Mr. Messer, and his bill, H.R. 668.

This legislation would require the President's budget proposal to make clear the per-taxpayer cost of any budget deficits. We have repeatedly heard President Obama proclaim his desire to have the most transparent administration in history. In furtherance of that objective then, this should be welcome legislation to all parties.

To many Americans and to many of my colleagues, Federal budgeting might seem like an abstraction, and thus unimportant because dollar amounts in terms of billions and trillions of dollars are beyond normal human comprehension. Most people just don't think in those terms. In fairness, most of us don't think in those terms, so let's clarify this process by bringing these numbers down to the individual level. Let's tell the American people, for example, under the President's last budget, you owe $7,000 just to cover the deficit. That resonates. Folks get that. The math is pretty simple. The median income in Indiana is around $45,000. Income and payroll taxes will eat up about $9,000 of that.

People will understand what it means when you tell them that, under the President's budget, you need almost 20 percent more per year per Hoosier just to balance the budget.

Now, this is important. Contrary to some of the things we heard earlier, maybe this bill will even help incentivize those who are drafting budgets in the future to put together budgets that actually balance at some point in the distant future so that we don't have to rely on these suboptimal cutting gimmicks, like the President's sequester, to, in some way, get spending under control.

We know revenue will double over the next 10 years. We know we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem in this country, so it's time the Federal Government--and the White House, in particular--comes clean about the direct impact of our Federal deficits on our Nation's families.

So I urge my colleagues to support this measure of good government by voting ``yea'' for H.R. 668.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Indiana University's Men's Soccer Team.

I want to congratulate the team, Indiana University, and the greatest college soccer fans in the country--whom we in Indiana affectionately call the Hoosier Army--on their 8th NCAA National Championship. As a resident of Bloomington, the home of IU, I am particularly proud of IU Soccer's achievements this year. They have worked very hard, and merits respect and celebration.

Accomplishments such as this are achieved through diligence and commitment. This being their 8th National Championship, IU's Soccer Program has proven its commitment to creating a strong and enduring tradition of excellence. This win shows that the team benefits now, as in past decades, from exemplary leadership both on and off the field. I commend Coach Todd Yeagley, and the rest of the coaching staff, for instilling confidence in their Hoosier Squad, and for driving them to victory this season.

IU's championship squad also serves as an inspiration to many members of the community of Bloomington, and to Hoosiers across Southern Indiana. Collectively, the student-athletes have shown us what can be achieved through teamwork and perseverance. I commend them on their National Championship, and I salute them for their example. Finally, I join members of the Hoosier Army, and other rank-and-file Hoosiers, in looking forward to many more thrilling seasons in the coming years. Go Hoosiers!

Mr. Speaker, as I travel in my south central Indiana district, I hear frequently two simple requests from my constituents. First, they want us to get our spending and our debt under control. And, second, they want us to work together, collectively, Republicans and Democrats, to get that important job done. That's why I support this proposed legislation, H.R. 325.

The bill strikes me as eminently reasonable because it not only satisfies those simple requests; it asks us to do our job. We are required under law, as has been said before, to pass a budget. The House is required to do it, and the Senate is required to do it. The Senate has not done it for 4 years.

Now, a budget is essentially spending priorities. It lays out your vision for the future. Whatever solutions you may or may not have are revealed in a budget. It's not easy to put together a budget. Sometimes it's unpopular, but it is our duty.

So I say no budget, no pay. I'm tired of the Senate being dilatory in its responsibilities. They need to pass a budget. That's why I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Thank you so much for your hard work on this issue and your leadership on so many other efforts. I can certainly identify with the comments that you've made and that the gentlelady, my fellow colleague from Alabama, has made. We've seen an uptick certainly in my district of these numbers of notices and penalties that the aggregates businesses, for example, in my district receive, oftentimes for petty little issues. And it seems that there has been an increase in the enforcement from this administration on some things where frankly you ought to have these agencies working with our businesses, helping them come into compliance, consulting with them, doing even a little cost-benefit analysis on the ground level. We've lost all sense of perspective.

I have to say as someone who has just been here for a year and a half, I've been a little surprised by a number of things, but perhaps it was my own naivete that led me to expect most of my constituents' concerns would be related to how we should vote on a given matter.

Vote ``no'' on this resolution. Vote ``yes'' on that given bill. But instead, so much of what I have heard over the last 1\1/2\ years has been, as much as anything else: Stop this regulation from being enforced. It's really killing our business. It's hurting job creation right here in our part of the country. How can you rein in these executive mandates? So I've tried to do my part, and others have here as well.

I'll cite my colleague from Indiana, Congressman Todd Rokita, who has worked very hard on a project the last year and a half that he calls the Red Tape Rollback. I hold right here in my hand a report which Congressman Rokita's office recently put out, the catalogs, these regulatory concerns of businesses in my home State and the job- destroying effects of overregulation. It turns out there's a reason why so many businesses in the Hoosier State are suddenly feeling the crushing effect of regulation, and it's because we've seen a sharp increase in regulations under this administration.

Let me throw out some numbers here:

Since 2008, there have been over 34,000 regulators added to the government's payroll;

Additional regulatory costs have increased by $46 billion per year since the beginning of 2009;

The number of regulations with an economic impact of $100 million or more--so-called ``major regulations''--has increased by 32 just last year. By comparison, the last President only added 28 such regulations in his first 3 years in office. All told, this President added 106 through the end of last year.

So the list goes on and on. I know my colleagues can add to this list--parade of horribles--with respect to regulations. Something needs to change up here. I'm glad we're here tonight to talk about a particular bill that will change things for the better.

That's right. They've been added to the government's payroll.

To write new regulations, to go out there and to pore through private sector books, to be boots on the ground to enforce these existing regulations. So we've got 34,000 more individuals who are interfering with private sector activity.

Now, I use the word ``interfering.'' I acknowledge there are cases where we have to have regulations. I think everyone here would agree with that sentiment. But things have gotten out of whack, and we're really constraining job creation at a time when our constituents want us to be creating more jobs.

In everything you've described--from the sports analogy, where people are afraid to go onto the field because they don't know the game, to the direct impact it has on all sorts of businesses--that also applies to our Nation's financial institutions.

It's through our banks and credit unions that so many of our small businesses get off the ground, and that's how, oftentimes, they're able to sustain themselves during dips in the economy. Unfortunately, there is great uncertainty in the financial sector as well. We can cite a number of different things, but I put Dodd-Frank high on the list. I certainly hear that in my district. Let me relate to you a little story about the impact of regulations as they affect banks and how they, in turn, affect businesses in my district and around the country.

I visited, not long ago, a business that manufactures food products, things like these little miniature pizzas that are frozen--you buy them at the grocery store--and little hot dogs with dough encrusted around them. It's actually an incredibly productive manufacturer of these things, and it has developed a lot of expertise. This company was on the verge of a major expansion. It would have created hundreds of jobs in my district and led to additional jobs because of the supply industry that would have supported this company.

But Federal regulations got in the way.

The company needed a $3 million bridge loan to get everything online and begin production. They were a dream sort of business. To give you a sense of what they had lined up, they had a world-renowned entrepreneur, and they had a billionaire investor. The person who had conceived of this business put up $1 million of his own money--his life savings. They had several high-profile, nationally known businesses lining up with purchase orders. They'd already secured a new facility and invested significantly in new capital equipment.

So everything is online, but the new banking regulations prohibited them from getting the money they needed to take it to the next level. Things are finally moving forward for this business. I'm happy to say that, despite these headwinds, the founder of this business was able to secure alternative financing from private sources and others. Ultimately, it was regulations that almost killed these hundreds of jobs in my district.

This is the sort of human impact that so many Americans and communities are facing right now. This is what we're trying to get our hands on with this legislation that we're passing.

Absolutely.

So we've seen this in the ag sector, where traditionally between crops being planted and harvested, it's not uncommon to get bank loans to keep the operation afloat, especially with smaller farms. We see it in all types of businesses. It's time that we take care of these financial regulations and other types of regulations, and I'm glad we are acting here on the Republican side in the House of Representatives.

We've just lost all sense of perspective. We ought to be measuring the cost of any given regulation--of any proposed regulation--of the benefits, and then comparing the two. I think any fair-minded person would take into account both of them and, in the end, decide whether or not a given regulation makes sense.

I was doing a little research earlier in preparation of my coming down to the floor. I just wanted to see what some of the cost-benefit analyses have been for recent regulations.

I came across a report by the National Bureau of Economic Research. It was from a decade ago. They took a look at some of the regulations that have been proposed over the years. One of them was child-safe lighters. The Consumer Product Safety Commission determined that a life would be saved for a cost of only $100,000 by implementing these regulatory standards for

child-safe lighters. That strikes me as pretty reasonable. That's absolutely worth it. There was another regulation proposed, and conceivably for a cost of $100 trillion that we might save a life some day by the solid waste construction regulatory standards that our Federal Government has proposed. There has got to be a sense of balance here, or we're going to crush our economy.

If I can intervene here. You would think that during a down economy, what some have called the worst economy since the Great Depression, we would stop piling on. It's the first rule of holes: you stop digging when you find yourself in one. But we continue to dig even though we're in a hole. We pile on new significant regulations on top of the existing significant regulations.

There's a portion of this legislation that was offered originally by Congressman Griffin. His name is still on it: Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act. This places a moratorium on all significant regulations, all of those with $100 million or more economic cost on our economy.

This is common sense among my constituents, probably among the vast majority of the American people here, that you just stop piling on the major regulations during a down economy. I'm certainly supportive of this. I think we need to go further.

Mr. Tipton of Colorado mentioned the REINS Act. It would be my preference that every time we have any proposed rule or regulation imposing a $100 million cost or more on our economy, it comes back to Congress for a hearing, for an up-or-down vote. We should allow our constituents to weigh in on the manner, tell us how to improve the regulation, tell us if they think it ought to be eliminated altogether, or perhaps they like it. In the end, I think we need to own these significant regulations.

You know what? If we pass that REINS Act, that will give all of us an incentive not to punt on the hard issues, not to pass them onto the EPAs and OSHAs and USDAs of the world. Ultimately, we would own it. We would be accountable. I would invite that sort of scrutiny and accountability.

Just one addition to the gentlelady's comments. The President also ordered a regulatory review of all regulations in that very same speech. And he was going to root out, he said, existing regulations that were constraining job creation. He reaffirmed his commitment to repealing all these sorts of measures. You know, his rhetoric is not matched by commitment, by action. So we're acting in terms of this piece of legislation, and I am proud of that.

Does anyone know--I will pose this question to my colleagues. Is the President's jobs council working on this issue?

I have heard that. It seems he has other priorities. But we need to force the hand. We need to make the argument here. This is what our constituents are asking us to do, every conceivable thing we can think of to create an environment where jobs can be created, where new businesses can be started, where entrepreneurship is at a 15-year low, where existing businesses can expand, where unemployment remains above 8 percent for how many months now.

Mr. Speaker, there is broad bipartisan agreement in this House that the looming defense sequestration cuts are bad policy for the U.S. military and our national defense.

Our Defense Secretary has testified to me and to other members of the Armed Services Committee that such cuts would hollow out the military, and our constituents are rightly concerned about our ability to provide necessary equipment to troops in the field, troops who are often our sons, daughters, brothers, or sisters.

The original goal of this legislation that gave us the sequester was to find deficit reduction in the Federal budget in a careful, deliberative manner. Despite their best efforts, the small group that was charged with finding these cuts failed in the end. That's why we have passed legislation in the full House to replace the defense cuts with deficit reduction elsewhere, but the Senate has, once again, failed to act. As for the administration, it has failed to specify how these cuts will be distributed and what kind of impact they will inevitably have on our Nation's security.

Military spending decisions should not be made in a vacuum. We shouldn't merely try to manage down to some predetermined, arbitrary spending level. Ultimately, strategy should guide these sorts of decisions. Missions we are asking our men and women in uniform to perform to keep our country safe should be our measuring stick, and we should ensure that full funding exists to carry out each of these missions.

The bottom line is this: It is the responsibility of this administration to

inform Congress and the American public of its plans to implement the sequester and to provide clarification on its scope and severity.

With that, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this blessedly bipartisan legislation, the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012.

Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle keep saying we should focus on jobs. So let's look at how ObamaCare has impacted jobs and the economy.

A few numbers: 48 percent of business owners say the potential cost of health care coverage under ObamaCare is the reason why they're not hiring additional workers; 74 percent of small businesses said the law will make it harder to hire new employees.

States like my home State of Indiana would be hit particularly hard. Among the 21 new taxes found in ObamaCare, there is a 2.3 percent excise tax on the profits from medical device companies. Now, Indiana-- and southern Indiana in particular--is home to dozens of these businesses. It employs over 20,000 Hoosier jobs in its medical device sector.

Now, because of the negative effect on our economy, we must start over and get health care reform done the right way--in the light of day, with bipartisan support, and with due deliberation. I hope we can do that. That's why I'm proud to cosponsor this first step, the Repeal Obamacare Act. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it too.

I thank the gentlelady, my hardworking colleague from Tennessee, who is also a health care professional and quite conversant on these issues. You speak with some authority. So thank you very much.

I come from the State of Indiana with internationally renowned medical device manufacturers, manufacturers like Cook Group in Bloomington, or smaller entrepreneurial companies like MedVenture in Jeffersonville. Indiana, in fact, is a global leader in the medical device industry. Scores of successful medical device businesses are headquartered in the Hoosier State, and they provide nearly 20,000 hardworking Hoosiers with good-paying jobs. Now, these jobs, by the way, provide wages that are over 40 percent higher than the State average. These are exactly the sort of businesses we need to expand and grow right here in America if we want to create a healthy economy.

I bring this up because the President's health care law--what most Americans now know as ObamaCare--would shrink the number of American jobs in the medical device industry. This is because the law contains a 2.3 percent industry-specific excise tax that will cripple the sale of these medical devices. It would cripple the entire sector and hurt American jobs.

Now, back in October, a bipartisan group of us from Indiana held a field hearing in Indianapolis to discuss this very issue with industry leaders. The response from businesses was unanimous: this device tax would be, across the board, harmful to these manufacturers throughout the industry. Many admitted that they would have to move jobs to Europe. Now, when is the last time that we heard it was cheaper to move American jobs to Europe?

For the sake of keeping these high-paying, advanced manufacturing jobs here in the United States, this tax must be repealed. In fact, the medical device excise tax is so harmful to the American economy that the House voted just 2 weeks ago to repeal this narrow part of ObamaCare. It's one in a long string of votes that we've cast in this House to repeal or replace a portion of this law.

Now, there's a better way to address increasing health care costs than by imposing additional taxes on the American people. I say, let's start over. If the Supreme Court doesn't do our work for us, let's repeal the Affordable Care Act. Then, let's get to work and pass bipartisan legislation that would actually bring down the cost of health care--what this whole exercise was supposed to be about in the beginning. Our constituents deserve no less. They expect us to engage in this effort. I'm certainly committed to it, and I know my colleagues here on the Republican side in the House are committed to it as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the important work of our broadcast radio stations in emergency situations.

Back in March, a violent tornado ripped through a 49-mile stretch of my southern Indiana district. It leveled entire towns, did millions of dollars in damage, and took numerous lives. The death toll probably would have been higher were it not for the early warnings to seek shelter so many received by radio. In the aftermath of the storm, with no power or TV or Internet and virtually no cell service, radio instructed Hoosiers where to find first aid, food, and shelter.

So I'd like to thank our broadcasters today for the valuable service they provide. In the midst of chaotic situations, it is our Nation's radio broadcasters who provide needed direction.

I want to thank my friend, Tom Ellsworth, and his wife, Elsie, for traveling all the way from Bloomington, Indiana, to deliver this morning's open prayer.

Tom has devoted his life to ministry. He is senior minister to me, my wife, Jenny, our four children, and so many other Hoosiers at Sherwood Oaks Christian Church in Bloomington.

2012 marks the 50th year since Sherwood Oaks was founded. To mark the celebration, Tom has thrown down the gauntlet. Our church will pray, give, and serve like never before. Tom is challenging more of us to become the hands and feet of God, serving our neighbors, our country, and beyond.

Tom understands that our Nation, in fact any nation worthy of the name, was built by selfless servants, people like the 55 members of our church who recently activated their faith to help out tornado victims in southern Indiana. America needs more such servants and more people like Tom to inspire us to service.

Thank you for making a difference, Tom.

Mr. Chairman, as our national recession near its fourth year, unemployment stays above 8 percent and gas prices continue to skyrocket, our brave men and women continue to serve in harm's way overseas, this Nation is in trouble, and I wonder which of the following choices would Americans choose if they had to pick one. Would it be A, an across-the-board income tax increase? Would it be B, a new tax increase on gas, electricity, and natural gas? Would it be C, a cut in funding for our soldiers to levels that the Pentagon warns is dangerous to our national security?

Now, I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that the American people, if given the choice, would prefer to have an option

D, none of the above. But, unfortunately, they're not given this choice in the Progressive Caucus budget. It forces, instead, all three unpalatable options on the American public that is already struggling.

It raises taxes in every income tax bracket to the tune of $4.4 trillion, it raises the price at the pump and on utility bills ever higher by creating a new tax on all fossil fuel-based energy sources, and it makes no attempt to offset the defense spending sequester. And while I do commend my colleagues for making the effort to develop solutions to the Nation's problems and getting specific on those solutions, I think the American people can do better.

We House Republicans have given Americans that none-of-the-above option through our own budget. Our budget responsibly solves our Nation's debt challenges, it responsibly cuts our spending, it avoids a tax increase, and it strengthens programs like Medicare and Medicaid, important to so many Americans. Most importantly, it does so by lightening the burden of government on hardworking American taxpayers, not burdening them with more government.

I respect my colleagues, and urge my colleagues, however, to vote against the Progressive Caucus budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I've never been prouder to call southern Indiana home.

Late Friday afternoon in our part of America, a disaster brought neighbors together, turned strangers into friends, and reminded us all of what it means to be part of a community.

Over the course of several hours, fierce winds, softball-sized hail, and deadly tornadoes descended upon southern Indiana communities, leaving behind a 50-mile path of destruction from New Pekin to Chelsea and beyond.

Our people are still assessing the costs, but we know this much: at least 13 Hoosiers have died; scores have lost their homes and businesses; and citizens across the region have suffered untold damage to their personal and public property.

As hard as it is to imagine, the tragedy might have been worse were it not for the bravery, and resilience, of rank-and-file Hoosiers.

Our firemen, policemen, EMTs, and local officials deserve our thanks. Those who serve in Indiana's National Guard, our State Police, and our Department of Homeland Security stepped up, too. From the initial response through the ongoing efforts today, their service has been exemplary.

But it has been concerned citizens--so-called ordinary Americans--who have restored a measure of stability to a region pummeled by forces beyond our control.

There was the bus driver in Henryville who, in the nick of time, rushed dozens of children back to school to protect them from the approaching twister.

There were the EMTs off Interstate 65 who saw a woman thrown from her car, and saved her from being pummeled by hail by dragging a large metal sign across the road and holding it over her. They likely saved her life.

There is Stephanie Decker, a Marysville mother who lost parts of both legs but courageously saved the lives of her two children by covering them with her body as a tornado crushed their home on top of them. We are pulling for you and your family, Stephanie.

There were parents and friends and even strangers across southern Indiana who, as danger approached, took a moment to extend a hand to others, and said, ``Come inside, we'll make room.''

After the storms left their mark, Hoosiers immediately turned to accounting for loved ones and comforting neighbors.

The damage was, and is, severe. One tornado--by some accounts a half- mile wide--carved a clear path through southern Indiana, ripping trees out of the earth, hurling automobiles and combines long distances, severing power lines, and decimating countless homes and businesses.

Here again, Hoosiers did not sit around and wait for others to help us out. We got to work.

Over the weekend, I spent time surveying the damage and meeting with those who lost the most. Everywhere I visited, I met citizens wearing boots and work gloves who were busily beginning to sort through piles of rubble. I met others who had fired up their chainsaws and were clearing debris from roadways. I saw clusters of cars and pick-up trucks parked outside homes that were hit hardest.

In the aftermath of such a tragedy, one would be forgiven for asking, ``Why me?'' But I never heard it.

Instead, time and again I heard Hoosiers sympathize with those who lost more than they. And more than one person told me that, in the end, stuff isn't all that important--it's people that are important. And I heard sincere, caring people ask their neighbors, ``How can I help?''

At one stop, I met a young couple from Jeffersonville--only 15 miles away--who offered me a drink of water. Their city didn't suffer much damage, so they loaded up their cars with bottled water and granola bars, looking for others who needed a hand.

In Henryville, a pizza shop was mostly destroyed, except for the freezer. The couple who owned it, rather than worrying about the loss of their business, asked officials how they could donate food from the freezer to those who needed it most.

In Marysville, the local Christian Church remains intact, but little else. Pastor Bob Priest told me their decades-old building is no longer structurally sound, but the congregation has never been stronger. As congregants were busy making repairs, I noticed the stained glass window above the church doorway was undamaged. It reads, ``In Memory of the Willing Workers.''

The local Red Cross chapter opened an overnight shelter, but in the first weekend no one checked in: Instead, friends shared their homes; churches opened their doors . . . everyone, it seems, could count on someone.

For those of us who have seen the scale and scope of destruction up close, we know the path back will not be easy. But we will fix all that Mother Nature broke.

Government at all levels will, and must, be there to help--from local authorities, to the

State of Indiana, to our congressional offices. My staff and I, in particular, are eager to connect our constituents to whatever federal services, and funds, might help them get their lives back on track.

But make no mistake: it will be the people of Indiana--the people of tight-knit communities like Henryville, Marysville, Chelsea, and New Pekin--who will rebuild broken lives.

During these tough times, Hoosiers are reminding us what it means to be a community of citizens--One Nation, Under God, indivisible, come what may. That sense of community has always bound Americans in tough times, and it will get us through this tragedy as well.

This thought especially struck home with me as I visited Henryville High School. The roof of the gymnasium was torn off, some of the walls had collapsed, and the bleachers were demolished. But hanging in the rafters, waving in the breeze, still hung the American flag unscathed.

May God be with those Americans who are putting their lives back together. We are praying for you, and here for you.