Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support the Small Business Investment Company Modernization Act of 2012, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6504) to amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to provide for increased limitations on leverage for multiple licenses under common control, and for other purposes.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers on our side at this time, and so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentlelady if she has any additional speakers.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 6504, the Small Business Investment Company Modernization Act of 2012. This is a bipartisan bill I introduced along with Representative Renee Ellmers and Representative David Cicilline that will increase the leverage limit for a family of SBIC funds from $225 million to $350 million. I introduced this legislation because the need for increasing small business access to capital is something universally agreed upon, and this legislation does exactly that. Specifically, this bill will increase investments to small businesses by $500 million per year without requiring an appropriation. In addition to having bipartisan Member support, this bill has the support of the Small Business Investor Alliance, the association that represents SBICs and other small business investors, as well as the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business organization. Additionally, the Obama administration recommended this provision as a part of the President's Startup America initiative. The Small Business Investment Company program was created in 1958 and provides leverage to highly regulated private investors. These private investment funds are called small business investment companies, or SBICs for short. SBICs raise private capital from institutions like banks and pension funds, and they also borrow Federal capital to invest in our country's most promising small businesses. As required by law, 100 percent of the money is invested in American companies. Small businesses need capital to grow and create jobs to support our local and regional economies. SBICs have invested in over 110,000 businesses since the creation of this program. Twenty-three percent of the investments are made in the manufacturing sector of our economy, and 18 percent of the investments are made in the transportation sector. The manufacturing economy is very important to my State in particular, Ohio, and we need to continue committing to this. In the past 6 years, Ohio's businesses have benefited from an investment of over $307 million from SBICs. Last year, representatives of one of the SBIC funds in Ohio testified before the House Small Business Committee about the benefits of the SBIC program and in support of the legislation we have in front of us here today. Northcreek Mezzanine, which is located in Cincinnati, Ohio, has successfully invested in five companies since it became an SBIC a little more than 3 years ago. Northcreek understands the importance of supporting successful managers through this program. It's important for my colleagues to know that this bill does not cost the taxpayers' money, nor does it increase the risk of the program. The SBIC debenture program will remain a zero subsidy program. That means that the SBICs that participate must pay an up-front fee to cover any losses. It's good public policy like this that truly helps business grow and access capital at no cost to taxpayers. This legislation assists proven fund managers, like Northcreek Mezzanine, as I mentioned before, that have a track record of success by allowing them access to additional funds that they can then use to assist small businesses. We have here a bill that increases the leverage to $350 million for successful investors. The SBA, the Small Business Administration, will continue to determine whether funds receive additional leverage after meeting certain licensure requirements. Investment decisions will be made by proven private sector fund managers, not the SBA, thus ensuring that the amount of new capital used by this bill will go to qualified small business investors. H.R. 6045 is the perfect gift this Christmas season as it is the gift that keeps on giving. The increase in the flow of capital to small businesses will have a ripple effect throughout the economy as businesses will expand, create jobs, and invest in research and development. Congress can take an important step in getting the capital to businesses that need it the most. I would urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 6504 on the floor today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, states across the Nation are reducing their health care costs by doing something that makes a lot of fiscal and common sense: they are making it easier for seniors to receive care where they most want to be--in their homes. Washington should take notice. Instead of making it more difficult for home health care providers to operate, the Federal Government should strive to make these services more accessible to all seniors. After all, home health care is clinically advanced, cost effective, and, most importantly, patient preferred. Take my home State of Ohio as an example. Under Governor John Kasich's leadership, Ohio has significantly increased seniors' access to home health care--and, according to analysis by Miami University's Scripps Gerontology Center, the State is saving half a billion dollars a year as a result. I think Governor Kasich put it best when he said, that he could not, ``think of anything more important to a senior than to be able to stay in their home with assistance, rather than being put in a facility that they are not comfortable with.'' The Governor is right. Mr. Speaker, as is usually the case, States are leading the way with low-cost, high-quality home health care. They are forging ahead with policies that not only save money, but deliver a better quality of life for our seniors. Making at home health care more accessible for seniors is a win-win for my State, and Washington would be wise to follow.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4305, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 4305, a commonsense, bipartisan bill which would increase resources for local law enforcement to aid in the recovery of missing children and elderly adults. I would also like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), for his diligent work on this bill. Every 40 seconds, a child goes missing. Throughout the United States, an average of 2,000 children under the age of 18 are reported missing every day, and as many as 800,000 each year are reported missing. Although many of our children are at risk, the risk for children living with autism is even greater. About one in four parents of children living with autism spectrum disorders have reported that their children have gone missing long enough to cause significant concern about their safety. In addition, health care reports show three out of five Americans living with Alzheimer's disease will sometimes wander from their locations and may be unable to find their way back home. The need to locate missing children and seniors in some instances in the first hours of the disappearance is vital. Unfortunately, most law enforcement agencies lack the appropriate resources to knock on every door in the community in every unfortunate crisis. Further, although the Amber Alert and Silver Alert are sometimes successful alert programs, there remains a crucial lapse of time between the point when a child or elderly adult is first reported missing and when one of these services can be utilized. This important legislation would help solve this problem by employing targeted telephone and cellular alerts within minutes of a missing person report to residents and businesses in the area where the person was last seen. In fact, as many as 1,000 calls can be made in merely 60 seconds, a vital asset in reaching the greatest number of neighbors in the early, critical moments of a search. Targeted alert programs are typically available to law enforcement nationwide, and they're multilingual. The regional databases used for alerts can take years to build and contain an accumulation of public residential telephone numbers, as well as volunteered cellular phone numbers. These programs are able to utilize computer mapping and enhanced satellite imagery to select the targeted calling area. To date, as many as 8,500 law enforcement agencies have received training with targeted alert programs. My legislation would support these programs which assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the rapid recovery of missing children and elderly persons while saving tax dollars. The automated alert systems are free for local law enforcement to use, saving thousands of dollars on a traditional search which could require as many as 10 officers on the ground at any one time. A recent success story in my district highlights the value of a targeted telephone and cellular alert program. On February 1 of this year, a 9-year-old girl was reported missing from her home after she went to walk her dog and did not return. Sergeant Beavers of the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department in Cincinnati contacted A Child is Missing and provided the girl's description to be distributed via a telephone alert. Nearly 1,700 alert calls were made asking that anyone with information contact the police. According to the case follow-up report after the alert was activated, several calls were received immediately, some containing valuable tips. The police used these tips to locate the girl safely approximately one-half mile away from her home in less than an hour after the activation of the alert. When it comes to protecting the most vulnerable among us, it's important that we first equip our law enforcement at the local level. H.R. 4305 would facilitate the partnership of privately run programs with law enforcement and members of the community to safely recover missing individuals, whether they're minors or whether they be, in the case of Alzheimer's, for example, senior citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward, bipartisan legislation. Once again, I would like to thank Mr. Deutch for his leadership on this issue, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4305) to authorize the Attorney General to provide a grant to assist Federal, State, tribal, and local law enforcement agencies in the rapid recovery of missing individuals, as amended.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time. We have no additional speakers at this time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to conclude by saying that this is, I think, a very important program. Every parent I think is always afraid of that potential nightmare that one of their children goes missing. All of us that have senior grandparents, for example, know how prevalent Alzheimer's can be in the senior community. This is a program that can help those at a very early age and those later in their lives. I think it's a great program. I urge my colleagues to support it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and I thank her for her very strong support and leadership on this particular issue and on so many issues in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this well-crafted legislation which significantly ratchets up pressure on the regime in Tehran, as well as all those who support or enable its dangerous quest for a nuclear weapons capability. As we stand here today, Iran's centrifuges continue to spin and the regime inches closer to that very end. If allowed to cross that threshold, untold consequences would surely follow. Iran, which former President George W. Bush aptly called the ``world's primary state sponsor of terror,'' would no doubt feel emboldened in its meddling in the internal affairs of our gulf allies and in threats to U.S. global and regional interests. Questions of rationality aside, the regime would also have the ability to follow through on its repeated threats to eradicate the State of Israel. Iran cannot be allowed to acquire this capability, and I believe that this legislation may very well significantly enhance pressure on the regime. The nuclear program is, however, a symptom of the disease rather than the disease itself. A nuclear program is not in and of itself what makes this particular regime so nefarious. Rather, it is the perverse nature of the regime that makes the nuclear program so dangerous. And there can be no doubt that the regime in Tehran is a blight upon the Iranian people and on the region, and, in fact, on the whole world. To speak of the nuclear program independently of the regime which pursues it is in effect putting the cart before the horse. But this legislation does not fall into that trap. In addition to targeting the nuclear program, H.R. 1905 puts significant pressure on the regime for its horrific human rights abuses and supports the oppressed Iranian people in their fight for freedom. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this critical legislation, and I want to once again thank the distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Ileana Ros- Lehtinen from Florida, for her leadership on this issue. She has been pushing and pushing and pushing against this corrupt Iranian regime for such a long time, and to do right by our ally Israel, and ultimately to do what is in the best interest of the people of the United States as well. It is in nobody's interest to have a nuclear Iran, and so I want to thank her for her leadership.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership in this area. Mr. Speaker, last week I became a grandfather for the first time. Seeing that defenseless little child for the first time reminded me just how precious life is and why we're morally obligated to protect it. H.R. 3803 would do just that, putting an end to a cruel practice taking place here in our Nation's capital. The infamous 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade relied upon medical knowledge that is now obsolete. Recent medical research and testing shows that an unborn child may have the capacity to experience pain starting as early as 20 weeks in the womb. In fact, in the 2004 case of Carhart v. Ashcroft, Dr. Sunny Anand was asked whether a fetus would feel pain in a common abortion procedure, dilation and extraction, also known as ``dismemberment abortion.'' He testified: ``If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus, and I believe that it will be severe and excruciating pain.'' We must stop that, and that's what this legislation would do.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I really do appreciate the great leadership Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen has shown on this issue and on so many issues around the world. I appreciate as well the great leadership of Mr. Berman, the ranking member. Together, in a bipartisan manner, both have really done a great job for our country, and we appreciate that. Despite the tremendous progress that has been made toward ensuring Israel's continued security, critical challenges still remain. Now, perhaps more than at any time since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel faces real and direct threats to its very homeland. Although the so- called Arab Spring has raised hopes that with time and hard work democracy may take hold in Arab lands, it has also ushered in what will, no doubt, be a period of profound and prolonged instability. And while we most certainly should be working with Arab countries in this time of transition, we must not forget Israel, the Middle East's only established democracy and our friend and ally, which faces unprecedented threats to its security. Some of these are threats that Israel has not had to deal with in a very long time. To the west, Israel faces new and untested Egyptian leadership, which has sent some troubling messages about its intentions for Egyptian- Israeli bilateral relations. To the north, fighting in Syria is continuing to intensify, and all signs suggest that the country may collapse into full-scale civil war. Other threats are sadly perennial. To Israel's north and west, terrorists remain poised to attack and otherwise disrupt normal life for millions of Israeli citizens. To the east, the Iranian threat looms large on the horizon, and they threaten Israel and the entire region with the prospect of a nuclear weapon's capable radical regime right next door. There is no question that the illicit Iranian nuclear program must remain at the very top of our priority list. It's certainly at the top of Israel's priority list. The nuclear program is, however, a symptom of the disease rather than the disease itself. The nuclear program is a paramount challenge to U.S. core national security interests, as well as those of our allies, and it must be addressed. As long as this regime is in power and the region continues to experience the kind of instability we're now witnessing, we must commit ourselves fully to doing everything we can to help aid Israel in securing itself. I urge the adoption of this very important resolution.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court's unfortunate decision to uphold ObamaCare doesn't mean it's the right thing for this country. It's not. It was bad public policy when it was forced upon the American people 2 years ago, and it's bad public policy today. Last Friday, the Department of Labor announced that millions are still out of work across this country and that businesses are still struggling to keep their doors open. It is unfortunate that this President doesn't seem to recognize that this law is hurting American workers and those looking for work. Businesses will be hit with more than $500 billion in new taxes--and the Supreme Court has said what it is, a tax--a maze of burdensome red tape, and mandates that could cause the loss of 1.6 million additional jobs. We can't afford that. And for what?--a law that puts government ahead of people, a law that consolidates power into the hands of a group of 15 unelected bureaucrats, a law that has already increased health care costs and will limit Americans' access to quality, affordable health care. There is a better way forward. This misguided law must be replaced with patient-centered reforms that allow families to make their own health care choices and to visit the doctors they want to visit. Health care decisions should be made at home, around kitchen tables all across the country, not in the back rooms on Capitol Hill. Mr. Speaker, we do not need health care reform like this, but we do need health care reform. This law is not the answer. It's a Big Government power grab. That's what it really is. What history has shown time and again is that Big Government makes things more expensive, more bureaucratic, and less effective. It is time to repeal this law and to get our economy moving again and to get Americans back to work.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, this Nation cannot continue spending money it doesn't have. It is imperative that Congress end the borrow-and- spend mentality that created our staggering national debt and that we put our Nation on a sustainable path to a balanced budget. Now, more than ever, we need to be pragmatic in our approach to transportation, ensuring that every dollar spent represents a long-term investment that will improve the flow of commerce and create American jobs. My amendment this evening is about priorities. The city of Cincinnati has been in the planning process of constructing a streetcar for years now. The primary funding for this project came in the form of an urban circulator grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation in the amount of $25 million. Earlier this year, city of Cincinnati officials came to my office looking for even more funds for the Cincinnati streetcar project. The total cost is expected to be well over $120 million for a 4-mile loop connecting only two Cincinnati neighborhoods with little-to-no positive impact on traffic congestion, freight, or our aging infrastructure. Far from a necessity, the Cincinnati streetcar is a luxury project that our Nation and our region simply cannot afford. Imprudent and irresponsible spending of taxpayer dollars on discretionary projects like this must stop. For too long, taxpayers have been footing the bill for frivolous projects that reap little to no benefit. Much like the ``bridge to nowhere,'' this ``streetcar to nowhere'' is yet another instance of wasteful government spending. My amendment simply says, no more--no more funding for this streetcar in my own district. Unlike the Cincinnati streetcar, however, there are a number of other infrastructure projects that are of high priority and far more worthy of Federal infrastructure investment. In particular, there are two ready-to-begin projects that would have a direct impact on Cincinnati's economy and create permanent jobs, and those are replacing the Brent Spence Bridge and completing the I-71 Martin Luther King interchange. The Brent Spence Bridge carries two major interstate highways that connect Ohio and Kentucky and serves as a major thoroughfare not just for Cincinnatians, but for the entire Midwest region, and in fact the Nation at large. Furthermore, this bridge rests on one of the busiest freight routes in North America and is estimated to carry 4 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product annually. The Federal Highway Administration has declared the Brent Spence Bridge functionally obsolete, indicating that the current state of the bridge does not meet today's standards. Currently, this bridge carries 170,000 vehicles on average per day, which is more than double the 80,000 it was designed to carry. Replacing the bridge would save an estimated $748 million in congestion costs annually, savings that would grow in real dollars to $1.3 billion annually by 2030. The other worthy project I mentioned, the Martin Luther King interchange plan, has long been on the minds of businesses and citizens in our region, so much so that stakeholders have their own money in this plan. Unlike the streetcar to nowhere, the completion of this much-needed project would have a direct impact on one of Cincinnati's most important economic hubs. The Martin Luther King interchange would free up traffic congestion around the University of Cincinnati, Children's Hospital, and the uptown region of Cincinnati. This proposed interchange would directly impact 60,000 people who work in the area and allow far greater highway access, generating an additional 2,000-plus permanent jobs. We need to focus our limited resources on projects that are practical, impactful, and that will deliver results. Those of us in Congress must make responsible choices and invest in projects on their merits and nothing else. We owe it to the American people to invest only in those projects that will produce real results, keep us competitive, and, most importantly, create American jobs. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for yielding. I also want to thank her for organizing this Special Order this evening on such an important issue. None of us knows for sure what the United States Supreme Court is going to do in the next few days, the next week, maybe 10 days. None of us even knows for sure when it's going to happen, but I think we all anticipate that it will be soon. I think none of us would disagree with the fact that whatever they do, it's going to have significant and real implications to an awful lot of people all across this country. I think it's important to remember how we got into this position-- this mess, quite frankly--that we're in right now relative to health care and what happened. The Democrats were in complete control. President Obama had been elected, and they controlled the House and the Senate. And rather than act in a bipartisan manner on something as important as this, which is what they should have done--they should have gotten input from both sides and done what was in the best interest of the people when you are dealing with something as important as health care--they basically rammed through a bill. Unfortunately, few had even read the bill, as we heard over and over again. And in fact, Speaker Pelosi, who was Speaker at the time, even made a statement that it was important that they pass the bill so they could find out what was in it. What an incredible statement to make. And unfortunately, deals were made to get people to vote for this legislation. The ones that came out that seemed to be the most egregious were maybe on the other side of the Capitol building, in the other body, some of the things that we heard about there. But this is really not the way that legislation is supposed to happen, especially something as important to people's lives as their health care is. And I think they thought that--in fact, statements were made that-- the people would like it; they'd fall in love with it once it was passed. Well, that clearly hasn't happened. There was a poll out, a New York Times and CBS News poll that just came out recently that indicates that two-thirds of the American people hope--they'd like to see the Supreme Court either strike down this health care legislation, or ObamaCare or whatever terminology one prefers to use, but they'd like to see it struck down either altogether or at least in part. Unfortunately, when they focused so much attention on this health care bill, or ObamaCare, they should have been focused on an even bigger issue, and that is how the economy is so weak and so many people are unemployed. They were back at that time, and they still are now. Instead of devoting attention where it should have been, on the economy and on getting Americans back to work, they passed this so-called economic stimulus package, spent over $800 billion. And it did grow one thing, and that's government. But unfortunately, it did not grow jobs in the private sector. After passing that monstrosity, they moved to health care and then passed this piece of legislation. It took them basically a year to get it passed. And what has happened is it didn't, as you indicated--and I think you did an excellent job in pointing out what was said and what actually happened. They said it's not going to raise taxes. Well, it's raised 20 different taxes. They said it was going to drive down health care costs. It's increasing health care costs. They said it was going to create jobs. It's reduced jobs. In fact, it's been a wet blanket over the whole economy. I've talked to a lot of small business people in my district back in Cincinnati and in the greater Cincinnati area, and I have heard over and over again that small businesses are afraid to hire people. They're afraid of the new regulations, the new taxes. So people aren't getting hired and the jobs aren't being created. And this isn't the only reason, but this is one of the biggest reasons that you hear our small business folks say why they are not hiring folks. In the small business community, about 70 percent of the jobs created in our economy over the last few decades have been in the small business sector, and those are the folks that are going to be particularly hard-hit by this ObamaCare if the Supreme Court upholds it. Now, of course, as our colleague from Alabama mentioned previously, in the House, we passed legislation earlier in this Congress to repeal this bill. But the other body wouldn't take it up. And even if they had, I think most of us speculate that the President would have vetoed it, and we wouldn't have had two-thirds to override the repeal. So we hope the Supreme Court acts. But even if they don't, we hope that this body and the body on the other side of the building will act to repeal it. Now, relative to one particular thing, the employer mandate, it's been estimated that that has resulted in the loss--or will result in the loss of 1.6 million jobs if that ultimately is imposed on businesses, that they have to move to this ObamaCare. And I think we all know that a lot of businesses are just going to drop coverage altogether. People that have insurance now will not have insurance if or when this goes through. We also know there is going to be more red tape. There are going to be more regulations. There are going to be higher taxes. And it's been estimated the higher taxes alone are going to be over $500 billion-- $569 billion, to be exact. And what is all of this for? It's a law that puts government ahead of people. It's a law that consolidates power into the hands of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats that are going to decide how much of our seniors' Medicare is going to be cut. And that estimate is about $500 billion of cuts also in Medicare. So it's just an awful piece of legislation which we certainly hope the Supreme Court strikes down in the very near future. There were alternatives to ObamaCare, things that Republicans have been pushing for a long time. For example, allowing insurance companies to sell insurance across State lines. That means more competition. That drives the cost down so people have more access to health care coverage. Also, association health plans. That means that small businesses can join together in order to negotiate with the insurance companies. They have more power to get lower rates for their workers and their employees. Medical malpractice reform. We have far too many doctors ordering tests, very expensive tests just to prevent themselves from getting sued. At least half of these lawsuits are probably frivolous. We need medical malpractice reform. And then, finally, health savings accounts, which more and more people are finding more and more attractive, saving them money and giving them more control over their health care dollars. Those are a few of the commonsense reforms that have been proposed over the years but, unfortunately, have been blocked. And they put all of their money and all of their eggs in the basket of this ObamaCare, and I really think the thing is likely to be struck down in the very near future. The decisions ought to be made by the people back home around their kitchen tables--people--mothers and husbands and fathers talking about what is the most important thing to their family with health care. That's where the decisions ought to be made, not in backroom deals up here on Capitol Hill. So yes, we need health care reform. We didn't need this big government cop out, really; this monstrosity, this takeover. I know that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle cringe when we say takeover of health care, but that, in essence, is what it is-- not a complete takeover, but a heck of a big takeover by Big Government. And that's the last thing we need. So this is bad public policy. It's bad for the American people. It needs to go. I just want to thank you again for organizing this Special Order this evening and look forward to doing future ones talking with the American people.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have left of my 5 minutes?

Mr. CHABOT. I do.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I introduced this amendment because it is high time that we take our debt and our deficit seriously. We no longer can afford to go on with politics as usual and continue to subsidize wasteful spending programs and policies that redistribute wealth and that really have zero economic impact. These supposed economic development programs that are referred to in my amendment are anything but that. Instead, they're really wasteful programs that the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, has found to be duplicative. In other words, there are other bills and there are other programs that do exactly the same things. These are wasted tax dollars that do the same things over and over again. Really, they have no track record of success. In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office and White House Office of Management and Budget found that the Denali Commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, and the Delta Regional Authority had 29 duplicative programs--not one, not 10, not a dozen--29 that do essentially the same thing. Furthermore, Citizens Against Government Waste has found that the Denali Commission duplicates several programs in the Labor Department. Last year, the GAO released a report detailing Federal programs that overlap and provide similar services as a supplement to its report, the title of which is ``Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue.'' In this report, the GAO revealed the names of 80 Federal economic development programs administered by four different agencies. Surely, my colleagues in the House do not favor paying twice for the same program. Yet, Mr. Chairman, the decision to continue the funding for these regional commissions will do exactly that unless we eliminate them, which is what I am suggesting that we do by this amendment. The taxpayers are fed up with the frivolous spending of our Federal Government. It's time that we identify wasteful programs--that's what we are doing here--and cut them. Numerous agencies and organizations have plainly stated and repeatedly recommended the dismantling of these types of programs. Congress ought to listen and heed these requests, and that's what I'm suggesting that we do in this particular legislation. I am suggesting in here programs that affect my own area. I'm not just saying let's go into other areas around the country. The Appalachian area is an area of the country that I represent, the same general area. I'm saying let's not just do it in Alaska or out West or somewhere else. We ought to do it right at home and in my district as well. So that's what I'm suggesting is that we eliminate these programs. As I indicated, it's supported by Citizens Against Government Waste, and there are a number of other budget-cutting types of organizations that are in favor of this, so I would recommend my colleagues support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.