Cliff Bentz

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 980, I call up the bill (H.R. 6679) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to aliens who carried out, participated in, planned, financed, supported, or otherwise facilitated the attacks against Israel, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 6679.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. On October 7, 2023, Hamas initiated its brutal, unprovoked terrorist attack on Israel, the deadliest terrorist attack since the State of Israel was formed. There is no place in the United States for people who would commit such acts. H.R. 6679, the No Immigration Benefits for Hamas Terrorists Act ensures that aliens who carried out, participated in, planned, financed, provided material support to, or otherwise facilitated the attacks on the Israeli people that started on October 7 are inadmissible to and removable from the United States. It also makes such aliens ineligible for any immigration relief. Legislation like this is increasingly important because we have an executive who has implemented policies specifically designed to allow bad actors in the United States and to let them stay here. The Biden administration's policies have thrown every facet of our immigration system into chaos. Since President Biden took office, more than 7 million illegal aliens have been encountered on our southwest border. We are on track to reach 12 million by the end of President Biden's term. More than 3.3 million have been deliberately released into the United States. Another more than 1.7 million known got-aways successfully evaded Border Patrol agents to enter the country. Thanks to the Biden administration's open-border policies, the immigration court backlog has ballooned to over 2.5 million cases. In addition, arrests of criminal aliens have dropped exponentially. What does all of this mean? Illegal aliens do not face swift immigration consequences. Open-border policies present grave national security risks for our country and the world. The FBI Director warned the Judiciary Committee that the open border constitutes a massive security threat. Post-October 7, Germany, Belgium, and France have already seen lone- wolf terrorist attacks inspired by the Hamas attack on Israel. Foreign nationals exploit U.S. immigration laws and policy to do us harm. We learned that lesson on September 11, 2001. Since October 7, here in the United States, at least one foreign national has already been arrested for plotting an attack against Houston's Jewish community--a Jordanian national who had overstayed his visa several years ago, but then applied for asylum and was issued a work authorization by the Biden administration. Just this week, we learned that last March, the Biden administration released an Al-Shabaab terrorist into the United States. It is not farfetched to think that October 7 terrorists would try to come here. It is imperative that Congress ensures that such bad actors will find no refuge in the United States. H.R. 6679 does just that. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, many of my Democrat colleagues joined with us during the Judiciary Committee markup to report H.R. 6679 favorably. I hope many more Democrats join with Republicans today to send a message that if you engage in terrorist attacks against our Israeli friends, you are not welcome here. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the members of the emergency medical services (EMS) profession who are on the frontlines of providing vital emergency 9-1-1 and interfacility ambulance services. These individuals dedicate their lives to providing often lifesaving medical care and transport services to patients as well as entire communities. I would like to highlight a very special group of EMS professionals or ``Stars of Life'' who are being honored this week by the American Ambulance Association. These Stars of Life will be meeting with their members of Congress today and tomorrow and I strongly encourage my colleagues to take the time to chat with these exceptional individuals. For the past thirty years, the American Ambulance Association has honored those paramedics, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), dispatchers and other ambulance service personnel who exemplify what is best about the EMS field. The American Ambulance Association has appropriately designated these individuals as ``Stars of Life''. Past Stars of Life have included paramedics and EMTs who were part of evacuation and response efforts to natural disasters, acts of terrorism and public health emergencies. Every year, the dispatch of an ambulance is the first response to millions of medical emergencies. Often, the survival of a patient is enhanced by the prompt medical attention provided by paramedics and emergency medical technicians prior to the arrival at an emergency department. As a result of the selfless acts of these courageous and devoted professions, the lives of thousands of Americans are saved each year. While these professionals do not expect to receive recognition for their work, they deserve our outmost gratitude. Of equal importance, this program also pays tribute to those ambulance service personnel whose heroic acts or community service activities may not have made the news, but were just as meaningful to the people they aided. They are truly America's health care safety net. I am especially proud of the six Stars of Life from Oregon being recognized this year who work for five different ambulance service organizations and serve Oregonians with pride. They are Carol Boies, Sean Fuller, Victor Hoffer, Daniel Lee, Kristina Ploeger, and Don Thomas. I had the opportunity to meet with Kristina Ploeger from Baker City today and can tell you firsthand that she is an exceptional individual and a fantastic representative of the EMS profession.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Vietnam and Korean War Veterans from Oregon's Second Congressional District who, through the efforts of Honor Flight of Oregon, are visiting their memorials on the National Mall. When I meet these heroes, I am reminded of the enduring words of George S. Patton Jr., who said, ``The highest obligation and privilege of citizenship is that of bearing arms for one's country.'' These words, Mr. Speaker, still ring true today. Those who value liberty are indebted to these heroes, for each one of them defended our freedom through acts of service, sacrifice, and bravery on behalf of our country. It is my privilege to include in the Record their names. The Veterans on this Honor Flight from Oregon are: Joshua Alvarez, Army; Dennis Anderson, Navy; Thomas Beckley, Army; Jerry Chattier Sr, Marine Corps; Fred Conn, Marine Corps; David Cunningham, Navy; William Duncan, Army; Richard Gehrke, Navy/Marine Corps; Edward Goodman, Navy; Roger Haynes, Air Force/Army; Robert Howerton, Navy; Michael Hoffman, Navy; David Johnson, Army; Earl Kilpatrick, Air Force; Jesse Redding, Navy; Paul Lofland, Army; Robert Long, Marine Corps; Jesus Lopez, Air Force; Preton Manville II, Marine Corps; William Mathews, Army/Air Force; Lawrence Mixon Jr, Army; Charles Owen, Army; Robert Rammin, Army; Steven Rolston, Army; Loyd Thurman, Army; Jerry White, Army; and Otto J. Williman, Air Force. These heroes join over 260,000 Veterans, who since 2005, have been honored through the nationwide Honor Flight Network of volunteers. I would also like to recognize the volunteers and guardians traveling on this trip: Janet Wilkerson, and the guardians who have also served our country: Kathrine Berg, Army; Jody Williman III, Marine Corps. Mr. Speaker, in his 1983 Memorial Day address, Ronald Reagan said, ``We are forever indebted to those who have given their lives that we might be free.'' As a nation, we must never take for granted the liberties we enjoy today, recognizing that these freedoms have been hard-won by the honor, commitment, and sacrifice of our Veterans. Each Member in this chamber and citizen in these United States should be humbled by the courage of the brave Veterans who voluntarily underwent the dangers necessary to preserve our country. Colleagues, please join me in thanking these Veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Oregon for their remarkable service and devotion to our great country.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the Department of the Interior from using appropriated funds for any purpose having to do with establishing, under the Antiquities Act, a national monument in Malheur County, Oregon. Malheur County is part of my congressional district, and it is huge, almost 10,000 square miles in size. As you can see from this picture to my right, this county is 145 times the size of Washington, D.C. It is sparsely populated, but the people who live and work there understand the value and importance of protecting the land. Why? Because many are second, third, and fourth generations who have spent their lives earning a living in the most challenging of arid locations, knowing from hard experience that the only way to survive is to live in harmony with the land. Back in 2015, a small group of mostly urban activists funded by recreational sportswear companies tried to convince the Obama administration that it should use the Antiquities Act to abruptly impose a national monument designation on 2.5 million acres of the 6.3 million acres making up Malheur County. That is about 40 percent of the county's entire area. This picture beside me shows the typical type of land that makes up this 2.5 million acres. Almost 200 miles of the canyon seen cutting through the sagebrush flats in this picture are already protected with scenic river designations. We don't need a monument stacked on top of those designations. Much of the 2.5 million acre area is covered by sagebrush and extremely dry. The widely separated springs and ephemeral trickles of water trying to pass as streams in this vast environmentally fragile area are generally the site of ranch headquarters operated for generations by rancher families. These ranchers, in addition to being an important part of the economy, provide first responder protection for recreationists, hikers, hunters, and, when wildfire breaks out, the land itself. Their presence also protects against abuse of the land by those who have little regard for its fragility. Back in 2015, when those activists began to lobby the Obama administration for a monument designation, local residents gathered together in opposition. They formed a group of ranchers, hunters, environmental NGOs, and others. For the past 7 years, this group has been meeting, studying, arguing, discussing, and working with landowners, State legislators, county commissioners, Congressmen, Senator Ron Wyden, and others to develop a legislative initiative addressing many of the concerns of interested parties. Their work culminated in S. 1890, the Malheur Community Empowerment for the Owyhee Act, now pending in the Senate. Thus, there is no reason for a national monument designation. The pending Senate bill, when finalized, plus the Federal protections already in place, as shown in the chart beside me, are designed to protect this important area. A top-down monument designation will not protect the land, and in fact, such a designation will attract tens of thousands of people to this fragile area, resulting in destruction of the very things a monument purports to protect. It is a sad commentary on those that preach cooperation and nonpartisanship that one of the environmental NGOs that was at the resolution table and participated in the structure found in S. 1890 has now begun to advertise, fundraise, and lobby advocating that the President use the Antiquities Act to designate that same 2.5 million acres as a national monument, ignoring the years of work and time invested by those who actually live in, on, and around this land. Mr. Chair, my amendment is designed to stop the use of Federal moneys for a monument designation, thus allowing the locally driven public land protective process to continue. Mr. Chair, I ask for support of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Chair, I want it known for the record that we had a vote in Malheur County some years ago on whether or not to have a monument, and 90 percent of the voters said no to the monument. The purpose of the amendment is focused on Malheur County, Oregon, alone. The purpose of including the entire county is that the county itself and the work we are doing in this other bill addresses the county. There is no reason to worry about the amendment being overly broad. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Vietnam and Korean War Veterans from the Honor Flight of Central Oregon who, through the efforts of Honor Flight of Oregon, are visiting their memorials on the National Mall. When I meet these heroes, I am reminded of the enduring words of Richard Watson Gilder who said, ``Better than honor and glory, and history's iron pen, was the thought of duty done and the love of his fellow-men.'' These words, Mr. Speaker, still ring true today. Those who value liberty are indebted to these heroes, for each one of them defended our freedom through acts of service, sacrifice, and bravery all on behalf of our country. It is my privilege to include in the Record their names. The Veterans on this Honor Flight from Oregon are: Thomas Adams, USAF; Lloyd Albright, Army; Donald Beckett, USMC; James Carmean, Army; Robert Carter, USCG; LeRoy Chu, USAF; David Cupp, Army; Harold Darcey, Navy; Kenneth Delzer, USAF; Thomas Doughtie, Army; Ralph Dow, Navy; David Gentry, Navy; Kenneth Hauge, Navy; John Heriza, Navy; Lee Houston, Army; LeRoy Johnson, Navy; Arland Kunz, USAF; Kenneth Lawler, Navy; Thomas McCall, Navy; Richard McDonnell, Army; Roger McGrady, USMC; James Mills, Navy; Gerald Newcomb, Navy; David Pete, Army; Robert Seidenberg, USAF; Murray Turnbow, Army; Herb Waits III, Army; and Jerry Wilken, Army. These heroes join over 260,000 Veterans, who since 2005, have been honored through the nationwide Honor Flight Network of volunteers. I would also like to recognize the volunteer's, guardians, and those who have also served our country: Randy Albright; James Anderson; John Baldwin; Kaylie Boschma; Matthew Carter, Navy; Kylie Cross; Don Deland; Georgia Edwards; Rodney Edwards; Tiffany Grimsley; Samuel Houston; Joshua Kimzey; Samantha Kimzey; Judith L'Homme; Jose Lopez III, Army; Jennifer Mays; Megan Marino; Clint Mcauliffe; Rosalie McGaugh; Krista McKnitt; Jessica Meyer; Zachary Mills; Dane Prevatt; Craig Reed; Cody Rheault; Kevin Scoggin, USAF; Megan Silvey; Colby Keith Sime Jr., USMC; Wendi Schmid, Army; Wendy Stauffer; and Michael Woll, Army. Mr. Speaker, in his 1988 Veterans Day address President Ronald Reagan said, ``We remember those who were called upon to give all a person can give, and we remember those who were prepared to make that sacrifice if it were demanded of them in the line of duty, though it never was. Most of all, we remember the devotion and gallantry with which all of them ennobled their nation as they became champions of a noble cause.'' As a Nation, we must never take for granted the liberties we enjoy today, recognizing that these freedoms have been hard-won by the honor, commitment, and sacrifice of our Veterans. Each Member in this chamber and citizen in these United States should be humbled by the courage of these brave Veterans who voluntarily underwent the dangers necessary to preserve our country. I ask my colleagues to please join me in thanking these Veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Oregon for their remarkable service and devotion to our great country.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Vietnam and Korean War Veterans from Oregon's Second Congressional District who, through the efforts of Honor Flight of Oregon, are visiting their memorials on the National Mall. When I meet these heroes, I am reminded of the enduring words of George S. Patton, Jr., who said, ``The highest obligation and privilege of citizenship is that of bearing arms for one's country.'' These words, Mr. Speaker, still ring true today. Those who value liberty are indebted to these heroes, for each one of them defended our freedom through acts of service, sacrifice, and bravery on behalf of our country. It is my privilege to include in the Record their names. The Veterans on this Honor Flight from Oregon are: Joshua Alvarez, Army; Dennis Anderson, Navy; Thomas Beckley, Army; Jerry Chartier, Sr, Marine Corps; Fredd Conn, Marine Corps; David Cunningham, Navy; William Duncan, Army; Richard Gehrke, Navy/Marine Corps; Edward Goodman, Navy; Roger Haynes, Air Force/Army; Robert Howerton, Navy; Michael Hoffman, Navy; David Johnson, Army; Earl Kilpatrick, Air Force; Jesse Redding, Navy; Paul Lofland, Army; Robert Long, Marine Corps; Jesus Lopez, Air Force; Preton Manville II, Marine Corps; William Mathews, Army/Air Force; Lawrence Mixon, Jr, Army; Charles Owen, Army; Robert Rammin, Army; Steven Rolston, Army; Loyd Thurman, Army; Jerry White, Army; and Otto William, Air Force. These heroes join over 260,000 Veterans, who since 2005, have been honored through the nationwide Honor Flight Network of volunteers. I would also like to recognize the volunteers and guardians traveling on this trip: Janet Wilkerson, and the guardians who have also served our country: Kathrine Berg, Army; Jody William, III, Marine Corps. Mr. Speaker, in his 1983 Memorial Day address, Ronald Reagan said, ``We are forever indebted to those who have given their lives that we might be free.'' As a Nation, we must never take for granted the liberties we enjoy today, recognizing that these freedoms have been hard-won by the honor, commitment, and sacrifice of our Veterans. Each Member in this chamber and citizen in these United States should be humbled by the courage of the brave Veterans who voluntarily underwent the dangers necessary to preserve our country. Colleagues, please join me in thanking these Veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Oregon for their remarkable service and devotion to our great country.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor retired NASA engineer, Norman Chaffee, and to recognize his achievements and outstanding efforts in inspiring countless rural students across Oregon through the Rural Schools Education Initiative program. Throughout his 37-year career at NASA, Mr. Chaffee held several positions at the NASA Johnson Space Center from 1962 to 1998. He contributed to the Mercury program, Gemini, Apollo, Lunar, and Mars exploration programs. Mr. Chaffee has received numerous awards in recognition of his accomplishments including JSC Engineer of the Year in 1987, NASA Exceptional Service Medals in 1983 and 1991, a recognition from the State of Texas for his efforts in education outreach, and many more well-deserved awards and citations. Continuing his devotion to education, Mr. Chaffee has continued to sustain a commitment for education and science having served as the Manager of the Space Settlement Design Competition for High School Students from 1999 to 2012 and continuing to be a champion for STEM. After retiring in November 1998, Mr. Chaffee helped to create unique hands-on experiences for students in Oregon. In 2017, he led a personal tour of NASA's Robotics Lab at Johnson Space Center in Houston for students competing in the 2017 First International Robotics World Championship. Over 250 Oregon high school students participated in this experience. His remarkable work has served to promote Science, Technology, Robotics, Engineering, Arts, Math, and Medicine educational opportunities to Oregonians of all ages. On behalf of Oregon's 2nd Congressional District, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Norman Chaffee.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of the late NASA Engineer, James McBarron II, and to recognize his lifetime achievements and commitment to inspiring countless students in rural Oregon through the Rural Schools Education Initiative. Throughout his 38-year career at NASA, from 1961 to 1999, Mr. McBarron II contributed to the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Space Shuttle, International Space Station missions. He began his career in 1961 as an aerospace technologist with the Crew Equipment Branch, Life Sciences Division, Space Task Group at Langley Field, Virginia. His positions throughout his career included working as Crew Chief Crew Systems Division, CTSD chief engineer for EVA projects, and Spacesuit Systems Manager. He earned numerous prestigious awards for his achievements including the American Astronautical Society Victor A. Prather Award for outstanding contribution in the field of EV protection in space in 1979 and awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Nixon in 1971 as a member of the Apollo 13 Mission Operations Team. Mr. McBarron II assisted in the promotion of the Rural Schools Education Initiative program in Oregon which helps bring retired NASA engineers to rural areas in Oregon to share their stories and inspire young students. By sharing his story and experience with Oregon students and community leaders he inspired hundreds of students to reach for the stars, to continue their education, and to enjoy their work while being successful. On behalf of Oregon's 2nd Congressional District, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life and accomplishments of Mr. James McBarron II.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2. This country must have an immigration system that works. If our Nation is going to compete with China, we have to have an immigration system that works. If our Nation is going to continue to feed the world, we need a system that works. If our Nation is going to continue to build its infrastructure, roads, buildings, and structures that our economy needs, we need an immigration system that works. If our Nation is going to take care of its elderly, sick and retired, we need a system that works. If our Nation is going to compete at the highest level of AI and computer chip manufacturing, we need an immigration system that works. If our Nation is to have an economy that is not starving for workers, we need an immigration system that works. Mr. Speaker, to have an immigration system that works, we have to have a border that works, and our border is broken. Hundreds of thousands of people coming across the border every day do not support an immigration system that works and does not reflect an immigration system that works. Mr. Speaker, we need to fix the border first and then we can fix our immigration system. This is the first step, the first absolutely essential and necessary step to provide a foundation for a comprehensive revision of our immigration system. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for H.R. 2, and I will be voting for it.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Veterans from Oregon's Second Congressional District who, through the efforts of Honor Flight of Oregon, are visiting their memorials on the National Mall. When I meet these heroes, I am reminded of the enduring words of Abraham Lincoln, who said, ``Honor to the Soldier, and Sailor everywhere, who bravely bears his country's cause. Honor also to the citizen who cares for his brother in the field, and serves, as he best can, the same cause--honor to him, only less than to him, who braves, for the common good, the storms of heaven and the storms of battle.'' These words, Mr. Speaker, still ring true today. Those who value liberty are indebted to these heroes, for each one of them defended our freedom through acts of service, sacrifice, and bravery all on behalf of our country. It is my privilege to include in the Record their names. The Veterans on this Honor Flight from Oregon are: Carlo Pelaccio, Navy; Richard Azhocar, Air Force; Arden Baker, Air Force; Charles Bamber, Navy; William Barry, Army; Stephen Bonebrake, Navy; Robert Bruton, Army; Brian Busch, Marine Corps/Army; Robert Crum, Navy; Larry Dickson, Army; George Eisenhauer, Army; Frank Escalante, Army; Carl Hanhart, Navy; Theodore Henderson, Army; Edward Hill, Marine Corps; James Jackson, Army; Robert Keller, Navy; Robert Kohlhoff, Navy; Jack Lillard, Army; Gary Lowe, Navy; Walter McPherson, Marine Corps; Robert Miller, Army; Michael Myers, Marine Corps; Riley Terrance, Army; David Roberts, Marine Corps; Douglas Schruth, Army; Kelly Toller, Marine Corps. These heroes join over 240,000 Veterans, who since 2005, have been honored through the nationwide Honor Flight Network of volunteers. I would also like to recognize the volunteers and guardians traveling on this trip who have also served our country: Paul Mills, Army; Robert Crum, Army; Douglas Hanhart, Navy; Michael Whitfield, Army; Robert Allen, Army; James Scroggins, Marine Corps; Earl Snellings, Navy. Mr. Speaker, in his 1983 radio address to the Nation, Ronald Reagan said, ``Veterans know better than anyone else the price of freedom, for they've suffered the scars of war. We can offer them no better tribute than to protect what they have won for us.'' As a Nation, we must never take for granted the liberties we enjoy today, recognizing that these freedoms have been hard-won by the honor, commitment, and sacrifice of our Veterans. Each Member in this chamber and citizen in these United States should be humbled by the courage of the brave Veterans who voluntarily underwent the dangers necessary to preserve our country. Colleagues, please join me in thanking these Veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Oregon for their remarkable service and devotion to our great country.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Madam Speaker, let me ask this question: Will the United States be the better for adding Puerto Rico as a State? The answer is perhaps. The answer also is that we need to address the issue, and we need to address the issue correctly. I had the privilege of sitting through a discussion of this bill 6 months ago. I was surprised when it abruptly appeared this morning, because back then I pointed out that as a practicing attorney, I have had many occasions to put together large business deals, and we used incredible care to bring those deals together. Yet, when I see something that is dealing with not only the 3.2 million people in Puerto Rico but also the 340 million people in the United States being treated with such a cavalier nature, then I have to ask: Why do such a disservice not only to the United States but also Puerto Rico? I asked that question in committee. The bill fails to talk about and address U.S. sovereignty, U.S. elections, government benefits, taxation, immigration, and a myriad of other important issues, all of which need to be addressed. This is not to suggest that Puerto Rico at some point shouldn't be a State. The question is: How do we go about doing it? Because if we are going to add two more Senators and a number of other Representatives, if we are going to upset the structure of our Nation with this addition, then why aren't we doing the proper study to get it right? Because there is no reason for us to jump into something like this and upset the rest of our Nation. Why would we do such a thing? It makes no sense. I was sad to see this bill appear here today because I don't like getting up and talking this aggressively about hard work that has been done by the people of Puerto Rico and my good friends in the delegation. But the truth has to be called out. If we are going to add another State to this Nation, then let's do it right.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article titled, ``Lina Khan's Unfair and Deceptive Approach to Antitrust.'' [From U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Sept. 20, 2022] Lina Khan's Unfair and Deceptive Approach to Antitrust (By Sean Heather) In a recent speech at Fordham University, Federal Trade Commissioner (FTC) Chair Lina Khan outlined an aggressive new approach to the agency's competition policy. Under her leadership, she explained, the FTC will interpret ``unfair methods of competition'' broadly, block mergers that could reflect an ``incipient'' trend toward monopoly, reject efficiency defenses, and contend that ``conglomerates'' harm consumers, irrespective of economic evidence. In Khan's view, her agenda is ``fundamentally conservative'' because it shows ``respect for the rule of law'' as reflected in congressional intent. Khan's speech hearkens back to George Orwell's Ministry of Truth, where words apparently lose all meaning. Khan's agenda rejects the rule of law in favor of a progressive policy agenda that grants the government total discretion to challenge any merger for any reason whatsoever, ignoring basic economics, history, and decades of precedent from the Supreme Court. Most troubling is the fact that Khan's agenda would allow the agency to challenge any private conduct that conflicts with progressive notions of fairness. Section 5 of the FTC Act directs the agency to combat ``unfair methods of competition.'' Historically, the agency has tied this authority to what's in the consumers' economic interest, which hews closely to the other main antitrust statutes, namely the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. As a result, the FTC provided Section 5 with context, guardrails, and predictability, which are all integral to the rule of law. Under the FTC's new leadership, however, anything goes. The FTC's new strategic plan condemns ``unwarranted health, safety, and privacy risks'' and seeks ``equity for historically underserved communities.'' These issues, while important, lie far outside the FTC's statutory authority or competence. Yet under Chair Khan's reading of Section 5, the FTC can do whatever it pleases. Without guardrails, for example, the FTC could condemn as ``unfair'' a merger that would result in job losses even if that merger would lower costs and lead to lower prices for consumers. Congress never envisioned the FTC to serve as the morality police over the market. Cherry-picking History In fact, the last time the FTC embarked on a path of overreach of this scope was the 1970s. As a result, the Washington Post editorial board labeled the agency the ``National Nanny'' and Congress nearly eliminated the agency altogether. Similarly, Chair Khan's approach conveniently sidesteps this period of tremendous overreach and willfully ignores the succeeding decades of precedent and economic learning. According to her, the amendments to Section 7 of the Clayton Act show that Congress was concerned with any trend toward mergers and that, therefore, the agencies and courts erred in accounting for the possibility that a merger might increase efficiency. Khan points to Supreme Court cases from the 1960s to support her position and, in fairness, she is correct that in an earlier time in our history mergers were reflexively viewed more skeptically--but that was prior to now decades of reliance on sound economic analysis that accompanies merger review. Chair Khan, however, seeks to divorce economic analysis from antitrust law. In those intervening decades, economists came to understand that relatively few mergers actually threaten competition, whereas most mergers, particularly vertical mergers, have pro-competitive benefits such as improved capital flows and greater efficiency. Across political administrations, the antitrust agencies tailored their enforcement activities to target those mergers that posed a genuine risk to competition. Consistent with economic learning and experience, the Supreme Court interpreted the antitrust laws more permissively to allow the private sector more freedom to operate. By returning to the worldview prevalent in the 1960s, Chair Khan's FTC would seriously damage the economy's dynamism. By blocking mergers that increase concentration only slightly, the FTC would prevent startups from obtaining the capital and technical expertise that they need to grow and thrive. By replacing Section 5's guardrails with amorphous standards subject to the shifting winds of politics, the FTC would eliminate the certainty and predictability that businesses need to plan and invest. And by barring use of the efficiency defense, the FTC would force companies to incur more costs to produce the same products--costs that would be passed along to consumers.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I support title II of this bill, and, actually, I would vote for it if it was set up as a separate bill as it once was. I would not support title III. The real issue is title I and the $1.4 billion that it would provide to the Department of Justice and the FTC. The assertion is that it would not or is not supported by the record. Let me explain, however, what has not happened that should have in order to make this $1.5 billion supportable. And what hasn't happened is we have not had Chairwoman Lina Khan appear before us in our Committee on the Judiciary. It seems odd that we wouldn't find out how this money is going to be spent before we allocate it to the purposes reflected in the Record. Let me just read from a recent speech at Fordham University: ``Chair Lina Khan outlined an aggressive new approach to the agency's competition policy. Under her leadership, she explained, the FTC will interpret `unfair methods of competition' broadly, block mergers that could reflect an `incipient' trend toward monopoly, reject efficiency defenses, and contend that `conglomerates' harm consumers, irrespective of economic evidence. In Khan's view, her agenda is `fundamentally conservative' because it shows respect for the rule of law as reflected in congressional intent.'' To quote the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: ``Khan's speech hearkens back to George Orwell's `Ministry of Truth,' where words apparently lose all meaning. Khan's agenda rejects the rule of law in favor of a progressive policy agenda that grants the government total discretion to challenge any merger for any reason whatsoever, ignoring basic economics, history, and decades of precedent from the Supreme Court. Most troubling is the fact that Khan's agenda would allow the agency to challenge any private conduct that conflicts with progressive notions of fairness. Section 5 of the FTC Act directs the agency to combat `unfair methods of competition.' Historically, the agency has tied this authority to what is in the consumers' economic interest, which hews closely to the other main antitrust statutes, namely the Sherman and Clayton Act. As a result, the FTC provided Section 5 with context, guardrails, and predictability, which are all integral to the rule of law. Why didn't we have Chairwoman Khan appear before us and explain why she wants to vary so dramatically from what has been the law for the past 30 years. ``Under the FTC's new leadership, however, anything goes. The FTC's new strategic plan condemns `unwarranted health, safety, and privacy risks,' and seeks `equity for historically underserved communities.' These issues, while important, lie far outside the FTC's statutory authority or competence. Yet under Chair Khan's reading of Section 5, the FTC can do whatever it pleases. Without guardrails, for example, the FTC could condemn as `unfair' a merger that would result in job losses even if that merger would lower costs and lead to lower prices for consumers.'' Mr. Speaker, this is a bill whose time is not right. We don't know how the money is going to be spent, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Korean and Vietnam War Veterans from Oregon's Second Congressional District who are visiting their memorials on the National Mall through the efforts of Honor Flight of Oregon. When I have the opportunity to meet these heroes, I am reminded of the enduring words of Douglas MacArthur, who said, ``Duty, honor, country. Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be.'' The words he spoke then, Madam Speaker, still ring true today. Those who value liberty are indebted to these heroes, for each one of them chose to defend freedom through acts of service, incredible sacrifice, and bravery on behalf of our country. It is my privilege to include in the Record their names. The Veterans on this Honor Flight from Oregon are as follows: John Cullett, Navy; Thomas Clarke, Marine Corps; Robert Cline, Air Force; Dominic LaRosa, Navy; Harry Nystrom, Navy; Richard Traugh, Army; Virgil Wilkes, Army; Agnes Aamot, Air Force; Edward Seto, Army; Charles Arguijo, Marine Corps; Steven Baker, Navy; John Banuat, Army; Ronald Bly, Marine Corps; Robert Danielson Air Force; Charles Elmore, Army; Gary Goulart, Navy; Melvin Griffith, Navy; Karl Hoehne, Marine Corps; Larry Larangiera, Army; Richard Otto, Navy; Kenneth Pottmeyer Army; James Pringle, Navy; Don Stark, Air Force; Clyde Thrift, Air Force; Terry Weakley, Army; Billy Wirch, Navy; Warren Clark, Marine Corps; Charles Elmore, Army; Helene LaRosa, Air Force; Bryan Bailey, Navy; and Nicholas Rupe, National Guard. These heroes join over 240,000 Veterans who have been honored through the Honor Flight Network of volunteers nationwide since 2005. Madam Speaker, Ronald Reagan affirmed that, ``We owe this freedom of choice and action to those men and women in uniform who have served this nation and its interests in time of need. In particular, we are forever indebted to those who have given their lives that we might be free.'' As a nation, we must never take for granted the liberties we enjoy today, recognizing that these freedoms have been hard-won by the honor, commitment, and sacrifice of our Veterans. Each Member in this chamber and citizen in these United States should be humbled by the courage of the brave Veterans who voluntarily underwent dangers and successes in order to preserve our country and way of life. Colleagues, please join me in thanking these Veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Oregon for their remarkable service and devotion to our great country.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Korean and Vietnam War Veterans from Oregon's Second Congressional District who are visiting their memorials on the National Mall through the efforts of Honor Flight of Oregon. When I have the opportunity to meet these heroes, I am reminded of the enduring words of General George S. Patton, who said, ``Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of men who follow and of the man who leads that gains that victory.'' The words he spoke then, Madam Speaker, still ring true today. Those who value liberty are indebted to these heroes, for each one of them chose to defend freedom through acts of service, incredible sacrifice, and bravery on behalf of our country. It is my privilege to include in the Record their names. The Veterans on this Honor Flight from Oregon are as follows: Robert Altvatter, Army; Dennis Allen, Marine Corps; Kenneth Anderson, Navy; Fred Barber, Marine Corps; Keith Becker, Marine Corps; Robin Brown, Coast Guard; Ricky Davis, Air Force; James DeSully, Army; George Endicott, Army; Robert Fincham, Navy; James Gabriel, Navy; Vernon Gurney, Army; James Lindgen, Navy; Thomas Mabalot, Navy; Thomas McCann, Navy; James Mills, Navy; George Oldham, Army; Joseph Petrelli, Navy; Thomas Queener, Navy; Wade Reece, Army; John Richardson, Marine Corps; Ronald Robbel, Army; Harold Schneider, Navy; Gerald Smith, Army; Spencer Stewart, Marine Corps; Allan Tobiason, Army; Jay Turnage, Navy; Mark Wirges, Marine Corps, Jimmie Young, Marine Corps; and James Zupancic; Air Force. These heroes join over 240,000 Veterans who have been honored through the Honor Flight Network of volunteers nationwide since 2005. I would also like to recognize volunteer Dr. Jana Frazier for her years of dedicated service to our Veterans and the Central Oregon Honor Flight. Madam Speaker, Ronald Reagan affirmed that, ``We owe this freedom of choice and action to those men and women in uniform who have served this Nation and its interests in time of need. In particular, we are forever indebted to those who have given their lives that we might be free.'' As a nation, we must never take for granted the liberties we enjoy today, recognizing that these freedoms have been hard-won by the honor, commitment, and sacrifice of our Veterans. Each Member in this chamber and citizen in these United States should be humbled by the courage of the brave Veterans who voluntarily underwent dangers and successes in order to preserve our country and way of life. Colleagues, please join me in thanking these Veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Oregon for their remarkable service and devotion to our great country.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Madam Chair, Oregon, Idaho, California, New Mexico; the Western United States is on fire. We need to do something now. The folks here probably remember last year when we looked out the window here in D.C., we saw smoke going over the top of this town and that was Oregon or what used to be part of Oregon. If we are going to avoid that, we need to do something now. To delay is to destroy. This bill, sadly, should be called the delay bill. Why? Because built into it throughout are obstacles to getting back into the forests. Obstacles in the form of foundations for litigation of all sorts, all types, and what we engage in then is paralysis through litigation. This bill creates numerous new means of delaying getting back into the woods. We cannot afford to do this. To delay is to destroy. This bill needs to be opposed.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering the Big Cat Public Safety Act. I have some concerns. First, this is not what most Americans are concerned about right now. People outside of the Beltway are worried about the cost of living. Food prices are way up. Gas prices are nearly double what they were last year. Crime is skyrocketing. Drought and wildfire are ravaging my State of Oregon, and the Biden administration denies responsibility; and, worse, has no plan. Americans aren't fooled. They know that the priority number one should be lowering the cost of living. Second, I have concerns about the Big Cat bill itself. This is a State issue, not a Federal issue. Most States already have restrictions on keeping big cats as pets, if not outright bans. In fact, 38 States have already addressed the issue. For example, my home State of Oregon has already banned private possession of big cats. Other States can legislate on this issue as they see fit. It is not appropriate for Congress to intervene, and this would certainly be an improper expansion of the Lacey Act. We should, instead, focus upon the most important issues facing our Nation: inflation, the price of fuel, wildfire, and drought.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from Claremont Review of Books, spring, 2022, titled ``In the Red,'' by Jeffrey H. Anderson. In the Red Our glidepath to insolvency. When Ross Perot won an impressive 19 percent of the popular vote as an independent candidate for president in 1992, his main issue was the national debt. In one of his unusual, half-hour-long campaign ads, Perot declared, ``Just this year, we ran up $341 billion in new debt . . . . That's our legislators and our president trying to buy our vote, this year, with what used to be our money.'' Three decades later, our national debt--which reached $4 trillion the year that Perot ran--has hit $30 trillion. If our debt were to keep rising at that rate over the next 60 years, it would increase more than 50-fold and surpass $1.5 quadrillion (a quadrillion, which sounds like a made-up number, is a thousand trillions). The portion of the national debt that really matters is the almost 80 percent that's held by entities--whether foreign or stateside--other than the federal government. Such ``debt held by the public,'' which is fueled by deficit spending, has to be paid back to outside entities, whereas debt not held by the public merely involves intragovernmental transfers. Foreign holdings compose about a third of all debt held by the public. Japan and China hold by far the most (over $1 trillion each), some of which belongs to private investors and some to government entities. Put another way, China--an increasingly hostile world superpower--has more than $1 trillion of leverage over us. It's getting worse, fast. Our recent deficit spending has been truly historic. In 2020, based on official federal tallies (the basis for all figures in this essay), the federal government brought in $3.4 trillion in tax revenues and dished our $6.6 trillion in spending--so, for every $10 that came in, $19 went out. This lavish expenditure smashed the deficit record like New York's Bob Beamon smashed the long-jump record in the 1968 Olympics. Beamon soared past the previous record--27 feet, 4\3/4\ inches--to make an astounding 29-foot, 2\1/2\-inch jump. In similar fashion, with the deficit record sitting at $1.4 trillion, the federal government in 2020 spent a spectacular $3.1 trillion that it didn't have. In 2020 alone, the government racked up more deficit spending than it had during the first 36 fiscal years of the postwar era (1947 through 1982), and that's after adjusting for inflation. Even before our blowout spending during COVID, our deficits had already reached breathtaking levels. In constant 2012 dollars (to adjust for inflation), the average annual deficit during the four years from 2016 through 2019--a stretch of relative peace and prosperity--was $700 billion. In comparison, during the four years from 1942 through 1945-- during which we funded and fought a two-front war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan--the average annual deficit was $505 billion in constant 2012 dollars. After the war (using the Office of Management and Budget's composite deflator), we owed $3 trillion of debt held by the public in constant 2012 dollars (four times what we owed when the war began). Subsequent statesmen succeeded in cutting that tally in half by 1974 (to $1.5 trillion), but it rose back to end- of-World-War-II levels by 1986 (to $3 trillion), doubled end- of-World-War-II levels by 2008 ($6 trillion), tripled them by 2010 ($9 trillion), quadrupled them by 2014 ($12 trillion), quintupled them by 2019 ($15 trillion), and sextupled them by 2020 ($18 trillion). In other words, we added as much debt held by the public in 2020 alone as we did from the end of World War II to the end of 2008, and we racked up more debt in the 12 months of 2020 than we did during the four years of the Second World War. That's after adjusting for inflation. No Big Deal And yet, incredibly, many politicians and commentators claim that our staggering indebtedness is nothing much to worry about. Unwilling to face the challenge of reining in the budget, we seem to have thrown up our hands in recent years and chosen to treat our ballooning deficits as funny money. Debt apologists like to measure taxes, spending, and debt in relation to the gross domestic product (GDP), rather than in relation to inflation or population growth. That way, if Americans' tax bills double, but the economy doubles in size over that same span, it can be said that Americans aren't paying any more in taxes (as a percentage of GDP). The same thing is true with the debt, which only rises by this measure if it increases faster than economic output. This way of talking partially masks the magnitude of our debt problem by assuming that our government should grow every bit as fast as our economy. Even so, by the percent-of- GDP measure, debt held by the public is now at approximately end-of-World War II levels. But whereas it fell dramatically after World War II, there is no reason to think it will do so now. It more than tripled from 2001 (32 percent of GDP) to 2020 (100 percent of GDP), putting us on course to surpass 300 percent of GDP if it grows at the same rate from 2020 to 2039. For all of the myriad cultural, technological, and moral problems we face, few things would guarantee the undoing of the founders' experiment in self-government more surely than continuing to pile on the burden, to ourselves and our posterity, of runaway debt. Thomas Jefferson described fiscal profligacy as a precursor to inevitable misery and suffering, the first in a stampede of apocalyptic horsemen. ``[T]he fore horse of this frightful team is public debt,'' he wrote. ``Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.'' This wretchedness will only be more keenly felt as interest rates rise. Too much debt puts power in the hands of our enemies and renders the average American poorer every year. Mandatory Bankruptcy The first step in avoiding a truly calamitous, debt-ridden future is to understand bow we got ourselves into this predicament to begin with. It is not national defense or even the New Deal but rather the Great Society that is bankrupting us. A fundamental preliminary question is whether our government taxes too little or spends too much. The answer is easy to determine. In 2021, the federal government collected more than three-and-a-half times as much money, in real dollars per capita--that is, above and beyond inflation and population growth--as it did at the start of the postwar period. But it spent nearly seven times as much. From 1947 (the first postwar fiscal year, as FY 1946 began in July of 1945) through 2021, the population of the United States rose 2.3-fold, while prices rose nearly 13-fold. Combining these two factors, the federal government could have collected and spent 29 times as much in nominal dollars in 2021 as it did in 1947 without collecting or spending any more in real (inflation-adjusted) dollars per capita. Instead, the federal government taxed more than 100 times as much in 2021 as in 1947 and spent almost 200 times as much. By any reasonable standard, our government isn't afflicted by a shortage of tax revenues but by an almost endless appetite for spending. What are we spending all of that money on? Contra the Left's repeated claims, it isn't defense--and our debt problem wasn't created by Ronald Reagan. We actually spend less per capita on defense now, after adjusting for inflation, than we did during the Kennedy Administration. Real per-capita defense spending fell from $2,283 in 1962 to $1,953 in 2020, a drop of 14 percent. Even at the height of the Reagan defense buildup, we exceeded the 1962 level by only 2 percent. Meanwhile, real per-capita spending on everything but defense increased more than eight-fold (from $1,930 in 1962 to $15,646 in 2020). If overall federal spending had followed the same trajectory as defense spending, we would have had a surplus in 2020 of $2.1 trillion instead of a deficit of $3.1 trillion. The problem isn't defense: it's health care. More specifically, it was Lyndon Johnson and his (mostly) Democratic congressional allies who put us on a glidepath toward insolvency with the passage of their Great Society programs. The New Deal put strain on the federal budget, to be sure, but not enough to break it. By 1964, over three decades after Franklin Roosevelt had taken office, federal debt held by the public had fallen more than 40 percent from the end of World War II, in real (inflation-adjusted) dollars. The real deficit was 1/68th as large as it would be in 2020. As the first Ford Mustangs rolled off the assembly line, the country's debt was manageable and dropping, its deficits were minimal, and seven of the postwar years had actually produced surpluses. The next year, Johnson signed legislation creating Medicare and Medicaid. Broadly speaking, there are two ways to fund federal programs. Congress either decides how much funding a program will get (``discretionary'' spending), or just puts a program on autopilot and finds out later how much it turned out to cost (``mandatory'' spending). With discretionary spending, Congress decides each year how much money to appropriate (for something like national defense), taking into account such quaint notions as what we need and what we can afford. With ``mandatory'' spending, Congress creates a program and pledges to fund it at the same time, even though no one knows what its price tag will be. Within ``mandatory'' spending, there are programs that have a dedicated and generally sufficient revenue stream (such as Social Security), and there are those that do not have a dedicated revenue stream that comes anywhere near covering their costs--such as Medicare and Medicaid (and Obamacare, part of which expanded Medicaid). Payroll taxes cover only about a third of Medicare's costs and none of Medicaid's. In other words, no one who launched these programs had any idea how to pay for them. This has had extraordinary consequences. The first year that Medicare spending visibly hit the books was 1967. From that point through 2020, Medicare and Medicaid cost a combined $17.8 trillion, while our combined federal deficits over that same span were $17.9 trillion. In essence, our deficit problem is a Medicare and Medicaid problem. The Father of Our Debt By 1975, a decade after they were created, Medicare and Medicaid were entrenched. From that point through 2019--the most recent ``normal'' (pre-COVID) spending year--real per- capita Medicare and Medicaid spending rose nine-fold (more than triple the rise in Social Security costs over that period). In 1975, we spent more than five times as much on defense as on Medicare and Medicaid combined. By 2019, we spent 56 percent more on Medicare and Medicaid than on defense. In 2019, the federal government collected about $10,500 in revenues per capita and spent about $13,500. Here's how Americans' contributions to the federal treasury were allocated. The first $1,000 essentially just went into the trash--it was used to pay interest on the debt, not to buy anything. About $2,000 was spent on defense and another $2,000 on non-defense discretionary spending. Roughly $3,000 was spent on Social Security, $3,000 on Medicare and Medicaid (with about a 60 percent-40 percent split between them), and $2,500 on other ``mandatory'' spending, to include much of Obamacare, unemployment, welfare, etc. So, in all, about $4,000 (or roughly 30 percent) was discretionary spending, actually voted upon by Congress, and about $9,500 (roughly 70 percent) was either ``mandatory'' spending or payments on the national debt. If we had a Mount Rushmore of deficit spending, then, Lyndon Johnson would merit George Washington's place of honor as the father of our debt. Beside him would be the three most recent presidents. For we have run up more debt under Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden--even after adjusting for inflation--than we did under the previous 42 presidents combined. After a brief period of fiscal responsibility under Bill Clinton, the average annual deficit soared to $455 billion under George W. Bush ($41 billion more than under his father), $857 billion under Obama, and $1.462 trillion under Trump (who was averaging $805 billion even before COVID hit). Again--amazingly--these figures are adjusted for inflation. They are based on each president's having been responsible for the deficit the year after he took office--for example, Obama, who took office when fiscal year 2009 was already underway, was responsible for fiscal years 2010 through 2017. But note the following exceptions: the $179 billion in Obama- signed ``stimulus'' funds spent in 2009, and the $1.115 trillion in Biden-signed COVID ``stimulus'' funds spent in 2021 are treated as part of Obama's and Biden's deficit tallies, respectively; and the $147 billion in TARP loans repaid in 2010 ($110 billion) and 2011 ($37 billion) are counted as reductions in George W. Bush's deficit tallies, as they paid back money that was counted as deficit spending when it was loaned out on Bush's watch. Clinton is the obvious outlier, having managed an average annual surplus of $3 billion during his eight years in office, six of them with a Republican Congress. After Perot sounded the alarm and Republicans won the House for the first time in four decades, Speaker Newt Gingrich and his Republican colleagues--working with Clinton--made good on the Contract with America's pledge to balance the budget. They cut defense spending, passed welfare reform, benefitted from a strong economy that increased revenues, and were able to lower federal interest payments as the debt fell. Most surprisingly, however, they managed to cut Medicare spending, via reforms passed through the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA). After Medicare's costs had quadrupled from 1982 to 1997, they actually dropped from 1998 to 1999--not just in comparison to inflation, but in terms of the actual number of dollars that went out the door. It was around this time that the ``experts'' decided the work was done and the free-spending days could return once again. In 2002, after the George W. Bush tax cues had been enacted, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the federal government would run a surplus in nine out of the ten years from 2003 through 2012 and a decade-long surplus of $2.3 trillion. It turned out that the federal government ran a deficit in all ten of those years and a decade-long deficit of $7.l trillion. The CBO also projected that debt held by the public at the end of 2012 would be $1.3 trillion. It turned out to be $11.3 trillion, so the CBO was off by $10 trillion and a factor of nearly nine. Despite this subsequent debt explosion, the Clinton- Gingrich era was a successful one in terms of fiscal responsibility. Indeed, over the past 40 years, deficits have been lowest when a Democrat has been in the White House and Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress. The second-best scenario has been a Republican president with either party controlling both houses of Congress. Next-best has been a Democratic president paired with a mixed Congress (with each party controlling one house), followed by a Republican president paired with a mixed Congress. The worst scenario has been Democratic control of the whole government. Over the past four decades, Democratic control (average deficit of $1.1 trillion in constant 2012 dollars) has been more than twice as costly as Republican control ($490 billion). No matter who is in power, however, about 70 percent of our spending--consuming about 90 percent of our tax revenues--is on autopilot. To balance the budget by focusing solely on cutting those portions of the budget that Congress actively controls through the appropriations process, we would have to cut discretionary spending--which includes defense--by about 75 percent. Any realistic effort to balance the budget, therefore, must focus on ``mandatory'' spending. Fixing Our Mess Medicare absolutely must be reformed. Its autopilot has malfunctioned and is flying not only the plane but also the country into the ground. We came tantalizingly close to fixing things back in 1999, when the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare grew out of the BBA and drafted an appealing blueprint for reform. The Commission, chaired by Democratic Senator John Breaux and Republican Congressman Bill Thomas, floated a variety of proposals, most notably ``premium support,'' which would utilize private competition to keep public costs down. But events intervened: Politico healthcare editor Adriel Bettelheim writes that ``with the Monica Lewinsky scandal festering and the threat . . . of impeachment growing, [Clinton] took a very public turn to appease his left flank'' and turned against the commission just as it was wrapping up its 11 months of work. Nevertheless, the commission was a serious effort at exploring promising ideas, many of which Congressman Paul Ryan picked up during his Obamacare-fighting era. Ryan's advocacy of premium support did not keep him from being tapped as Mitt Romney's 2012 running mate, nor did it hurt the Romney-Ryan ticket (Romney did that all on his own). This suggests that Medicare reform can be politically viable when advanced with determination and skill. Medicaid also cannot go on in its present form. Its funding system, whereby every $1 of state funding is matched by between $1 and $9 of federal funding, invites waste and inefficiency. The more a state spends on Medicaid, the more federal money it gets. If it manages to reform its Medicaid program, it gets at most half of the savings--usually far less. Also, states often hire consultants who concoct elaborate shell games to exaggerate states' Medicaid funding, thereby bringing in even more federal money, much of which funds non- Medicaid ventures. If Medicaid were reformed so that each stare simply received a given amount of federal funding, independent of the state's level of funding, that would presumably remove most of these perverse incentives and reduce Medicaid's costs. Social Security has always been self-funded, but it too is projected to dip into the red about a dozen years from now. It poses nowhere near the threat to our fiscal solvency that Medicare and Medicaid do, bur its costs have still risen faster than overall federal spending, and it does need to be sensibly revised. The percentage of the U.S. population that is over age 75 is roughly the same as the percentage that was over age 65 when Social Security was created, yet the eligibility age for receiving full retirement benefits has been raised just two years (from 65 to 67) over the past eight decades. Gradually (but not too gradually) raising that age to reflect current biological and fiscal realities is an obvious and necessary fix. In addition to changing individual programs, there are measures we can take to promote fiscal responsibility more generally. Simply demanding a balanced budget, either as a matter of policy or through a constitutional amendment, will not do: the state could still spend as much as it accrued, which might encourage ever-greater levels of taxation to fund an ever-larger government, as in many European countries. Instead, we ought to focus on measures that can keep spending itself low. For instance, the American citizenry would be more apt to view the debt as a shared concern if nearly everyone paid at least some income tax, as Florida Senator Rick Scott has proposed. At the least, no one's income tax bill should go negative, as it does when tax credits are made ``refundable''--available not as a tax cut but as a payment to those who don't pay income tax. A few years ago, I released ``The Main Street Tax Plan'' (Hudson Institute, 2016), which the Tax Foundation said would reduce deficits. It declared, ``Nearly everyone should be paying something in income tax, however small, and Americans shouldn't regard April 15 as a payday.'' Some, such as Senator Mitch McConnell, oppose Scott's proposal because--in McConnell's words--it ``raises taxes'' (for people who don't pay income taxes). Those who share this concern should consider pairing refund reform with an end to the Medicare payroll tax. Unlike the Social Security payroll tax, which is viral and funds Social Security as a (more or less) pay-in-for-yourself program, the Medicare payroll tax funds only about a third of Medicare and helps perpetuate the false notion that Medicare too is mostly pay-in-for-yourself. Eliminating the Medicare payroll tax would soften the perception of Medicare as an entitlement, simplify the tax code, and ease the tax burden of the working poor. Combining this with Scott's plan would encourage more people to care about the size and scope of the federal government. In 2010, back when the Tea Party was ascendant and the national debt was $13 trillion rather than $30 trillion, I proposed (in National Affairs) a Limited Government Amendment to the Constitution. Such an amendment would limit annual increases in federal spending to inflation plus two percentage points, except during a formally declared war, or if two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of state legislatures authorized additional spending for other reasons. An amendment in this spirit could greatly facilitate fiscal restraint. It has become fashionable to think of constitutional amendments as relics from the past. But then, so are fiscal responsibility and--increasingly--representative government. The founders made the Constitution amendable for a reason, and we should take our cues from them. In the late 1990s, we showed--briefly--that it's possible to take action to reverse our course and help save our country from the tragic fate that Jefferson described. But the first step is to recognize that the $30 trillion elephant in the room isn't going away. It's just growing bigger.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, sadly, to H.R. 2773. Although protecting our endangered species is truly a worthy cause, our country is not fiscally sound, and to commit $1.4 billion a year in perpetuity is exactly the kind of spending that has landed us in the mess we are now in. Let me be clear: we do not have the money. In the 30 years since 1992, the national debt has increased from $4 trillion to $30 trillion. Mr. Anderson notes in his article that: At that rate over the next 60 years, our debt would increase by more than 50-fold to surpass $1.5 quadrillion. In case one is wondering, a quadrillion is 1,000 trillions. Mr. Speaker, some might say: Just raise taxes. But, Mr. Speaker, the author of the article points out that, in fact, the Federal Government last year taxed over 100 times what it did in the first postwar year and spent nearly 200 times as much. So taxes are not the problem. Spending is the problem. The $1.4 billion per year is perpetual. Now, under anyone's measure, perpetuity is a long time. Since this money will never be paid back, some might say like those deep in credit card debt: We will just pay the interest. The interest on $1.5 billion for 30 years at current rates of 3.4 percent is $51 million a year. But, Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the current total interest bill. It is estimated to be almost $400 billion a year or about 8.7 percent of everything we spend. Why would we add to this enormous obligation? There is a quote by Ernest Hemingway: How did you go bankrupt? The answer is: Gradually, then suddenly. Mr. Speaker, this is exactly how bankruptcy works. You can keep spending recklessly and rack up debts for a while--even a long while-- but at some point, it comes to an end abruptly. We have ignored our Nation's spending problems for far too long. We have been going bankrupt gradually, and I fear the day will come when we will go bankrupt immediately. We must correct this course. For this reason, I cannot support, sadly, this bill.