Floor Statements

Madam 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 what it means to be part of a community.

Over the course of several hours, fierce winds, softball-sized hail, and deadly tornados 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: 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 a 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 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 find 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 didn't sit around and wait for others to help us out. We got to work.

Now, over the weekend I spent time surveying the damage and meeting with those who lost the most. Everywhere I visited, I met citizens wearing work boots and work gloves who were busily beginning to sort through the piles of rubble. I met others who had fired up their chainsaws and were clearing debris from roadways. I saw clusters of cars and pickup 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 doesn't really matter; it's people that are important.

I heard sincere, caring people ask their neighbors: How can I help? 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.

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 be available to 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 their broken lives.

Now, 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 together in tough times, and it will get us through this tragedy as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3578, the Baseline Reform Act, and to commend my hardworking colleague from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for leading in this effort.

Now this is straightforward legislation. It removes the pro-spending bias that currently exists in the baseline that we use here in Congress as a starting point for our annual budgeting. The baseline should be a neutral starting point for considering fiscal policy. It shouldn't presume any spending by this body.

Now we've already heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle numerous examples of programs that they fear will be cut in the future as a result of this legislation. Well, this legislation just says that without the sanction of Congress, without a free and open debate about the merits of any given program, there will not be any automatic increases to that program.

Today, the baseline does assume an automatic increase for inflation each year in the discretionary budget. Instead of looking at what each agency actually needs each year to fulfill its mission, we simply assume that that agency needs more money than it had the previous year.

Well, these assumptions add up. In fact, they add up to approximately $1.4 trillion in outlays over a 10-year period to last year's discretionary spending baseline. This bill would change that pro- spending bias by setting the baseline at the previous year's spending level--and not a cent more. The effect would be to put an end to the longstanding and confusing Washington practice of characterizing any effort to maintain the same level of funding as last year as somehow a ``spending cut.'' It's time to bring Washington definitions of ``spending cut'' in line with America's definition of a spending cut, and that is an actual cut in spending. This bill does that, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1905, the Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011. This bill promises to meet the threat the Islamic Republic of Iran poses and takes significant, tangible steps in limiting Iran's uranium enrichment and targeting Iran's nefarious activities.

The latest United Nations weapons inspectors' disclosure and International Atomic Energy Agency report on the Islamic Republic of Iran are consubstantial. The Iranian nuclear weapons program is in direct contravention to Iran's ratification of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, endangers regional stability, and poses an unfathomable threat to international security. The Iranian Regime has defied international order and expectations in its undeniable pursuit of nuclear weapons and its close relationship with foreign terrorist organizations.

That is why the Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011 is so important. These sanctions are right and just based on irrefutable evidence of malice on the international stage. We must declare that it is United States policy to deny, at every juncture, the ability for Iran to fund and pursue its nuclear program and its policy of inciting violence abroad. The Iranian regime's continuous circumvention of past sanctions and continued noncompliance require more aggressive actions.

The only way to ensure the Iranian regime cannot circumvent international will is to take definitive actions. The sanctions in the Iran Threat Reduction Act in conjunction with the language in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 to formally sanction the Central Bank of Iran, CBI, are the steps required at this moment to impede the progress of Iran's ambitions. By sanctioning the CBI and creating accountability to those that deal with Iran, we limit the Iranian leadership's ability to function and directly curtail the infrastructures that sustain Iran's illicit nuclear ambitions and its state-sponsorship of terrorist organizations.

I urge my colleagues to support the Iranian Threat Reduction Act of 2011 and stand with me against the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear program and Iran's known links to various terrorist organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the overwhelming majority of my southern Indiana constituents.

A year ago, they sent me to this body to give a voice to their frustrations with Washington--a frustration I shared then and share now more than ever. The American people's frustration stems from a lack of real progress in addressing our Nation's most fundamental challenges: Federal spending, our national debt, job creation, and the decline of the middle class. Our fellow citizens have concluded what I, too, have concluded--Washington is broken, and no one is in a hurry to fix it.

Congress hasn't passed a balanced budget in over a decade. The Senate hasn't passed any sort of budget in 3 years. Our national debt recently topped $15 trillion, and our unemployment rate hovers around 9 percent. Instead of trying to fix our problems, Washington would rather argue about who's to blame for causing our problems. Sure, there's a lot of agreement as to what's wrong with our country, but not a lot of action geared towards making anything right. Our President and too many in this Congress would rather demagogue and demonize than lead and legislate. Washington is broken, and nobody's in a hurry to fix it.

While many of our constituents are struggling to find a second, and in some cases a third, job, Washington is failing to perform its only job--governing. Is it any wonder that so many Americans are frustrated?

These aren't Republican problems or Democrat problems. They're not House problems or Senate problems; these are Washington problems. Unfortunately, after 11 months on the job, I've seen far too few Washington solutions.

Many of us came to Washington this year, some of us new to government, to offer solutions. We came ready with ideas. We came ready to defend those ideas, to respond to criticisms, to make the ideas into workable solutions and, ultimately, to implement those solutions to make a better life for those who sent us here. We came with the same sense of urgency that the American people expect of us.

But Washington is broken. Too many people in this city resist publicly committing to hard, workable solutions because parroting talking points is so much easier. But until we get down to brass tacks, we'll continue to talk past one another.

So I make this entreaty to all of my colleagues: whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, commit to proposing workable solutions. Get into the details. Put them on paper. Until both sides put a specific, written, scoreable plan on the table, we'll never find the common ground necessary to strike that grand bargain. In the absence of specifics, we're just playing politics. That's why Washington is broken.

Now, earlier this year, those of us on the Budget Committee introduced a comprehensive plan that would reduce our deficit over the next decade by over $6 trillion. It would balance the budget and start paying down our debt. It would create an environment where jobs could flourish and grow, and it would save and strengthen our safety net programs likes Medicare and Medicaid. Most importantly, it addressed our challenges with the sense of urgency they require.

If you disagree with that plan or you have a more optimal solution, let's hear it. Introduce it. I'm open to better plans. I didn't come to Congress because I thought I had all of the solutions. I came to Congress because my constituents wanted me to be part of the solution. But criticizing the other guy's plan is not the same as having a plan.

Real leadership consists of presenting your vision for America to the American people and then defending it. In so doing, Republicans and Democrats may discover that we have some common ground, that we are not enemies, but friends. Let us summon up, as we have before, the ``better angels of our nature'' and rededicate ourselves to the hard work of leadership.

Washington is indeed broken. Let's hurry up and fix it together.

I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his leadership and I certainly share your desire to lighten the burden on this high-value-added industry. We need to ensure that all of the manufacturing jobs, all of the job and economic growth opportunities that we can help create an environment for, a nurturing environment for, that we do.

One thing that I hear as I travel around southeastern Indiana and listen to my constituents, there's a lot of feedback about the level of uncertainty within our economy. There's regulatory uncertainty, there's uncertainty about future tax rates, and there's uncertainty about energy rates and health care costs. And so these medical device manufacturers are certainly laboring under the burden of uncertainty with respect to the FDA regulatory process. And then here we add an additional excise tax to their bottom line. And so I'm happy to support H.R. 436, which would lighten that burden.

I don't think probably many people appreciate--I certainly didn't appreciate it until I started looking into it--exactly how burdensome this device tax could be on the medical device industry. The tax is 2.3 percent of gross sales. So that's a top-line tax before all the other deductions and costs come out. So, essentially, that would translate into about 15 percent taxation on profits of many of these medical device companies. You add that 15 percent profit tax to 35 percent corporate tax

and the 5 percent tax when you add together the State and the local corporate tax burden, and you're north of 50 percent of tax on profits. So it's no wonder that so many of these device makers are instead deciding to expand their operations or start up new operations overseas. And we have to do what we can to prevent that.

Now, in my home State of Indiana, approximately 40 percent of all life sciences sector jobs are related to this devices industry, this high value-added industry that improves the lives of so many patients and certainly all the workers who work at these companies. My district, in particular, has some employers that we'd like to keep around, like the Cook Group in Bloomington, my hometown. And then as we head further south to Jeffersonville, Indiana, we have MedVenture. And there are people everywhere in between that work at this company.

The tax impact is going to burden not just the large companies, however. There are 300-plus FDA-approved medical device manufacturers in the State of Indiana. And as my colleague from Minnesota just indicated, they're all searching for financing. They're searching for venture capital to bring their fledgling operations to the next level. So a Cook Group could probably weather this storm and figure out some way to remain profitable, but it's the next Cook of the world, the next tinkerer in their garage or their spare bedroom that may not be able to grow their business and create the jobs that our constituents are all demanding should this device tax go into effect January 1 of next year as it's currently scheduled to do.

The regulatory challenges which I've already mentioned are also very important. They must be addressed separately. I know there's separate legislation out there to do that, and I will be supporting that initiative as well. But the bottom line here is that there are jobs at stake and there are people's lives at stake as well.

We heard very powerful testimony from Sheila Fraser. Her name has been mentioned here before. She is an outstanding young lady, a high school student, who at a very young age contracted cancer, and she was going to have to have her leg amputated. And because of the ingenuity and the entrepreneurship of people in my home State of Indiana, they were able to put together a company and sell these products and develop a product that benefited Sheila Fraser directly. And now she's living a very productive life, and she has both of her legs, thank the Lord. And we need other people to benefit from similar sorts of innovations in the future.

I am most proud to be here to speak on behalf of H.R. 436. I urge my colleagues to sign on to this legislation and to vote in favor of it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise along with Congressman Mike Pence to honor the life and legacy of Professor Harve Rawson.

Harve Rawson was greatly talented and abundantly generous. He earned a bachelor of arts in psychology from Antioch College, and went on to earn a master of arts and doctorate in research psychology at Ohio State University. For thirty-two years Dr. Rawson served as a professor of psychology at Hanover College, and later served as dean of faculty at Franklin College. He was the first two-time winner of the Baynham Teaching Award, and he was named the Mary E. Hamilton Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Hanover College.

Dr. Rawson was a two-time Fulbright Scholar in psychology and also spent a year teaching at the College of Health Sciences in Bahrain. His great passion for traveling also took him to more than 100 countries and all seven continents. Throughout his long and storied career, he authored dozens of research articles, gave more than 500 professional presentations, and wrote nine books about his personal experience and interests.

His list of accolades and recognitions include being named a Malone Scholar, a Sagamore of the Wabash by the State of Indiana, a Kentucky Colonel, a Citizen of the Year by the National Association of Social Workers, and a Distinguished Academic Psychologist by the Indiana Psychological Association. Dr. Rawson was also awarded the Golden Quill Award for Outstanding Research and the Outstanding Community Service Award for Psychologists.

But beyond his many academic achievements, Harve Rawson was known as a generous leader who truly possessed a servant's heart. He founded Englishton Park Children's Program, a short-term residential program for at-risk children, where he served as director for 25 years. He was also a founding and long-time board member of the Jefferson County Youth Shelter in Madison, Indiana. Mr. Rawson was a four-time president of the Lide White Boys and Girls Club Board of Directors, a long-time member of the Board of Directors of Englishton Park Presbyterian Ministries, Inc., and a member of the Big Brothers Big Sisters board. His impact on the community will forever be remembered by the many lives he touched during his lifetime of service.

We offer our deepest condolences to his sons Paul and Reed, his brother John, his sister Margaret, and his four grandchildren. During this difficult time, we pray you find solace in faith and family.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with Hilltop Resources, a concrete company that has a presence in my southern Indiana district. They were here to talk about how the new Cement MACT regulations would affect their business and their workforce.

Their cost of production would go up 7 to 10 percent--a huge hit for any business. They would have to import more of their raw materials from places like China--materials that are of a lesser quality. And those increased costs would require them to scale back their American workforce at a time when we need them to expand.

We cannot keep letting the EPA impose these burdensome and job- crushing regulations without any concern for how they affect our constituents. When we take up H.R. 2681 later today, we have the chance to help an industry that has already been hit hard by the recession. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Madam Speaker, we need to cut spending now. We need to control spending in the future. But the American people understand that our foremost constitutional duty here in Congress is to make sure that America is safe.

Former Secretary Gates said that further cuts to our military will mean that there are certain things our military won't be able to do and places they won't be able to go.

This proposal, the Reid-Obama plan, proposes cutting defense spending by $859 billion over 10 years compared to the President's fiscal year 2011 budget. Yet the President and Senator Reid have not told us what places we won't be going and what missions we won't be doing. This is irresponsible. I can't support this proposal.

Madam Speaker, I was on record last night, speaking to the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011 and as to what the many merits are of this legislation. I think it is a fine bill, and I commend its consideration to those on the other side of the aisle; but I have to say the debate surrounding Cut, Cap, and Balance has a certain Alice in Wonderland character to it. It made me open up the old storybook just minutes ago and recall a favorite passage.

I recall Alice asks, ``Would you tell me which way I ought to go from here?'' to which the Cat responds, ``That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.''

Alice replies, ``I don't much care where.'' Then of course the Cat says, ``Then it doesn't matter which way you go.''

I get the sense my good friends on the other side of the aisle don't really care where we go from here. They certainly don't care enough to put a specific plan forward themselves.

Unemployment remains at 9.2 percent. Investment in hiring remains sluggish all around this country, particularly in places like my southern Indiana district. Uncertainty reigns about future taxes, future interest rates, future inflation rates all because Washington continues to spend way too much money, often on things we don't need, but also on important public programs. We need to figure this out. We need to figure it out as a country. Our national debt is over $14 trillion. It's

time we come forward with specific plans. Yet the other side still has no plan, seemingly no new ideas to offer to this debate, no solutions-- only poll-tested rhetoric.

The American people deserve more than this during this critical time. Our markets certainly are asking for more than this. Standard & Poor's on July 14 said, ``We may lower the long-term rating on the U.S. . . . if we conclude that Congress and the administration have not achieved a credible solution to the rising U.S. Government debt burden and are not likely to achieve one in the foreseeable future.''

We need a plan. House Republicans have been putting forward plans. We put forward a plan already approved to close tax loopholes, something we've heard a lot about, in order to help create jobs by making the Tax Code flatter, fairer and simpler.

We need a plan from the President. We need more certainty restored to these markets. Let's reject this Alice in Wonderland sort of leadership.

Don't bring me problems, I say to my colleagues. Bring me solutions. One solution is the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, and I commend it for your consideration.

I thank my colleague from Arizona for his learned words and eloquent words, quoting, Madam Speaker, Shakespeare. I'll begin by quoting Yogi Berra, that great fount of wit, wisdom, and good old American common sense. More recently, Yogi Berra said, When you come to a fork in the road, take it. We find ourselves as Americans right now certainly in a fork in the road--a fork in the road as a Nation. Either we must act boldly or some would say we face financial Armageddon. Unemployment is at 9.2 percent. Investment is down. Hiring is sluggish. The American people are anxious about where they're going to find jobs, where they're going to send their kids to school. People in southern Indiana ask me all the time what they're going to do as we fall further into the financial abyss. Our national debt is over $14 trillion--and growing.

We know we're not in the mess because the American people are taxed too little. We're in this mess because Washington spends too darned much. And we want to address that. So, as the President stands at this fork in the road, having no plan and refusing to lead, we know that we here in Congress must lead. We must act. We must, as we say in the United States Marine Corps, we must have a bias for action. Well, that's why we put forth this Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011. It's a responsible action.

I'll briefly outline its finer points. First, it cuts total spending by $111 billion in fiscal year 2012. No changes to Social Security, no changes to Medicare, no changes to veterans' benefits. And considering the size and scope of the massive debt crisis we face in this country, it proposes a very modest cut of $111 billion next year--certainly a manageable down payment as we work to address this leviathan debt we face. It caps total Federal spending in the future as a portion of our economy--that is the cap component of this cut, cap, and balance plan-- and brings down by the end of the decade our Federal spending to less than 20 percent as a proportion of our economy. That's the post-World War II average. Very sensible, very responsible. And then, finally, it balances our budget. It does so through a balanced budget amendment that will come up for a vote later, subject to the normal super majority requirements in each House of Congress. This works in 49 of the 50 States across this great Nation. It will work here in Washington, too. If we have the courage to pass it.

The cut, cap, and balance plan will restore confidence. It will restore confidence in investors around this world, people who are right now eyeballing this body, wondering whether or not we're going to pass a bold plan to address our financial situation and therefore maintain our high AAA credit rating. It will restore confidence in those who create jobs--the entrepreneurs, the innovators, the investors across the fruited plains whom people rely on for their family incomes. It will show them that we understand Washington has a problem, and we are prepared to address it in a very specific way.

Finally, this will calm down, this will restore confidence among those we represent. Yeah, we have a deficit in Washington. And it's not just a financial deficit. It's a leadership deficit. We need to show the American people we understand our Federal Government must balance its books, just like American families and businesses are making hard decisions and balancing their own books during this difficult time.

The President stands at this fork in the road. No plan, no action, no leadership. And he characteristically refuses to choose a path. We have laid out a path. The path is one of leadership. The path is one of choosing. I believe that to lead is to choose. We must choose. I encourage the members of this body, my esteemed colleagues, to choose the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona.

Just an observation here. I know our President said earlier today that we had--frankly, we don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs. He was referring, of course, to this debt limit debate and our insistence here in the House that we get some serious spending cuts in conjunction with that debt limit and come up with a plan to get our debt under control in the longer term.

My response to this idea that we don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs, first I look to the Constitution itself. Article V of the Constitution, the first phrase there is pretty clear. ``The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution.''

I would say it's our duty, when we deem it necessary, to go ahead and propound constitutional amendments to solve various problems here that we think need to be addressed within our Federal Government. First, we are duty-bound to put forward such a solution. Second, history bears out many examples where institutionally or culturally or historically the time has arisen for certain improvements in our way of government.

So we've put forth some fine amendments like, say, the 19th Amendment, which gave women the guaranteed right to vote. I think that's a fine thing. I think it was important that Congress put forth amendments to guarantee women's right to vote so that we would do our job. It was necessary. It was necessary to put forth that amendment, just as it's necessary to put forth a constitutional balanced budget amendment.

I guess the final thing I would say is it's necessary that we pass a constitutional balanced budget amendment as part of this Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011 because it's the only viable plan we have on the table right now. What is the President's plan to get our budget back into balance? I ask that time and again. I have not seen any sort of acceptable answer.

So we need to bind the hands of our political class. I think this Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, which my colleagues have been speaking to over recent minutes, is a very responsible direction to go, and I ask for the consideration of my friends across the aisle as well.

I thank my colleague from Arizona.

He said a couple of things that I would like to pivot off of. They certainly struck a chord with me. First, the notion that markets deal with perception, as opposed to always reality. I thought it was a brilliant example of Fort Knox, should the gold be taken, the press release versus the actuality of that gold being taken.

It reminded me of a conversation I had just today on the airplane as I headed backed to Washington from my southern Indiana district. I was sitting next to someone who dealt in the financial markets, and I asked him a fairly pointed question. I said, you know, the media, in recent days, in recent weeks, has really sort of ratcheted up attention, even anxiety with respect to the debt limit debate and whether or not the debt ceiling is, in fact, going to be raised, what is going to be attached to a debt ceiling vote.

And I certainly understand this. I take this vote very seriously and have factored into my calculus of voting for and against various measures, the interest rate response we might see.

But the funny thing is there hasn't really been much of an interest rate response. For all the hemming and hawing about what might happen should we not raise the debt ceiling by August 2, there hasn't been an interest rate response. And I find that amazing.

And so I asked my friend why he thought that was, and he put forth one idea. He said certainly, Todd, that these are complicated matters, and there are all different things that factor into them. But in his professional opinion, one reason was that we finally have a group of people in Washington that are taking very seriously this notion we ought not spend more money than we bring in. That's pretty powerful.

I'm proud, as a new Representative, to be part of this group of people supporting the cut, cap, and balance measure that would bring our spending under control. So we ought to be proud. That's an early victory. The markets, at least, believe we are serious about getting this spending under control. I hope we can play this out and prove that we are serious.

The other thing that my colleague from Arizona said that struck a chord with me was this notion that statesmen look not just to the next election, they look to the next generation.

There was a group of people back 150 years ago that entered politics. It was around the 1850s, and they entered politics certainly looking to the next generation. It was their belief that every man, woman, and child should be entitled to the fruits of their labor. They weren't partisans. In fact, they were Know-Nothings. They were independents, some Democrats. They came together with this notion, though, that everyone should be entitled to the fruits of their labor.

Well, when we continue to spend money we don't have, oftentimes on things we don't need, and kick the debt forward another year, another 5 years, another 10 years, another generation or two down the road, ladies and gentlemen, we are committing the fruits of the next generation's labor to pay off our current debt.

Madam Speaker, I think this is wrong. I think this cut, cap, and balance plan is a viable plan, a specific plan to stop this practice so that everyone, my four children, everyone else's grandchildren and great grandchildren, will not be paying off our future debts.

So again, I urge consideration and support of this cut, cap, and balance plan. And for those who are unable to support it, I would ask them to put forth a specific plan of their own, one that will get our spending under control and put this Nation back on the right fiscal course.

I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Our Nation's unemployment rate currently sits at 9.2 percent, a full 1.6 percent higher than when President Obama took office. I am hearing from my southern Indiana constituents, and I've heard this for months now, that the President's failed experiment of spending our way to prosperity and creating great uncertainty about future tax rates and interest rates must end.

A step in the right direction would be supporting this modest amendment which my esteemed colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and I have worked on together. The amendment would merely restore eligibility criteria for the Weatherization Assistance Program to pre-stimulus levels.

By way of background, prior to 2008, the Weatherization Assistance Program enabled families at or below the 150 percent poverty level to reduce their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient. Since the stimulus bill increased this eligibility threshold, the Weatherization fund has exploded and currently has accumulated an estimated $1.5 billion in unspent funds.

Moreover, the program has been a model of government waste and inefficiency. Late last year, for example, New Jersey's State auditor audited just $614,000 worth of Weatherization funds disbursed in his State. He found that $33,000 of this $614,000 that were spent actually went to no services at all. So over 5 percent of the funds spent in that State were spent on nothing.

This sort of waste and inefficiency, no doubt, is being seen all across the country. We have seen recent audits of Weatherization programs in Illinois, Delaware, Tennessee, and Texas yield similar results.

Personally, I agree with those who say that most Americans already have sufficient incentives and means to reduce their energy bills by weatherizing their own homes and that government lacks sufficient incentives to spend our tax dollars responsibly. That is why we should adopt this modest amendment that would merely limit this program to our neediest citizens by restoring eligibility criteria back to pre- stimulus levels.

So I would say let's improve our climate for private sector job creation however we can. Let's eliminate wasteful and nonessential spending wherever we can find it. That is what this amendment does.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Young of Indiana

Amendment No. 75: Page 62, after line 2, insert the

following new section:

Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act may

be used to pay the salaries of Department of Energy employees

to carry out section 407 of division A of the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to my honorable colleague from Georgia.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment is quite simple. The amendment would simply reduce by a modest 10 percent that part of the USDA's budget used for ``general administration and miscellaneous supplies.''

This category of spending is so broadly defined that Washington bureaucrats could use this money as a sort of gift card for these general administration and miscellaneous expenses. My amendment would put over $2 million of the money back into the spending reserve account to reduce our Federal deficit. That, of course, will lead to lower future taxes, lower future interest rates and thus a lower future unemployment rate.

I was sent here by the great people of Indiana's Ninth Congressional District to focus like a laser on creating jobs and to get our Federal spending under control so that we can keep our tax burden low. That will serve to the benefit of businesses and all that work for them around our country. Since being sworn in on January 5, that has been my mission, and I know it has been the singular focus of many of my colleagues.

So this simple amendment advances this mission by trimming more bureaucratic fat from Washington, and it signals to all job creators and to our financial markets that we in Congress are serious, very serious, about cutting unnecessary spending wherever we can find it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in support, as so many of my colleagues have, of House Resolution 292, because this Congress is a coequal branch of government, and we must never be a quiet coequal branch, especially on military matters.

When the U.S. sends its sons and daughters into harm's way, it must only be done to protect America's vital national security interests and where there is a clear plan to advance those interests.

We know our Nation is insolvent, with a national debt of over $14 trillion. Our troops are already overextended, we're hearing, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Meanwhile, the administration is talking about defense spending cuts at the very same time it's piling on this new mission, a humanitarian mission, a narrow humanitarian mission, we're told, on top of all our other commitments.

Now what gives? This Congress needs to be heard. Our President has failed to properly define what vital national security interests justify this military intervention, and with this resolution, we give him 14 days to do so. Sadly and ironically, by becoming involved in Libya, our NATO alliance, which does remain a vitally important national security interest, may well have been put at risk.

This Congress will be heard.

I rise in support of the rule and H.R. 1540.

As a U.S. marine, I understand the importance of strong national defense, especially during this time of war. That's why I'm glad this bill provides our troops with the resources they need and enables them to carry out the missions we ask of them.

As a freshman member of the House Armed Services Committee, I would like to thank Chairman McKeon for his leadership throughout this process. He has been very open in working with me and other colleagues on the committee in developing ways to restructure the Quadrennial Defense Review process. This process informs the annual defense spending bill, of course. So I am proud of the bill we are debating today. I am encouraged by our recognition that a restructured QDR process will allow us to better identify DOD priorities. And that is the key to efficiently spending taxpayer dollars.

In sum, this bill responsibly addresses military issues facing us today, and it is being offered with an eye to improving the defense funding process in the future.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' Mr. Speaker.