Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

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.

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

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

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of national security. This amendment would force the United States to be 100 percent reliant on the Russian and European suppliers of enriched uranium, a compound critical to America's energy and national security needs. That's just unacceptable. I don't have anything against the Russians or Europeans, our friends, but it would be a strategic malfeasance to rely on them. Do not pass this amendment.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the chair for yielding time to me. She is doing an exemplary job as chairman of the very important Foreign Affairs Committee, and we thank her for that. I rise in strong support of this resolution. As we approach the 64th anniversary of Israel's declaration of independence, we must confront the unfortunate reality that all is not well in the Middle East. Just over a year and a half ago, a street vendor set off a wave of popular revolution which continues to shake the region's core foundations. And although I hope that the so-called Arab Spring will usher democracy and human rights into a region where both have been exceptions rather than the rule, and a year and a half in, the picture is starting to look-- let's face it--bleak. Times like this make us especially aware of who our friends are, and I am proud to support this and any resolution which strengthens the United States-Israel relationship. For 64 years, the bonds of friendship between our two countries, reinforced by both shared interests and shared values, have remained strong and continue to grow stronger. Today, Israel faces unprecedented threats to its security, some of which, like the Iranian nuclear program, have loomed on the horizon for some time; and some, like the current regional instability that we've seen, are relatively new. At this time of heightened danger and profound change, it is incumbent on us to do everything in our power to help to secure Israel. It's our strongest ally in the region, has been for many years, and will continue to be in the future. The administration is fond of trumpeting its undying support for Israel, as Vice President Biden did just yesterday, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the administration is truly serious about Israel's security, it can start by stating loudly and clearly that it will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapons capability-- not just the weapon, but the capability to produce one. That would be far more meaningful than another of the dozens of generic statements we frequently read about in the newspapers. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman mentioned the Buffett rule. And maybe I'll talk about that as well very briefly here because I think the gentleman from Arizona did a great job in showing that this is really all about politics, is all this so-called Buffett rule policy is. There's a gentleman named Charles Krauthammer who happens to be, I believe, one of the smartest, most interesting political commentators or pundits in the land. I saw him talk about the Buffett rule and what a farce it is the other evening, and he illustrated it a little bit differently but it's the same type of illustration. One that brings it, I think, down to Earth. He had the numbers run on this from a very reputable organization. And if the dollars were collected on the so-called Buffett tax for the next 250 years--so the next 250 years this tax is collected--and he commented that that is longer than the Republic has been in existence, the United States of America. This is longer than our existence. So you collect it for the next 250 years. Do you know how much we would actually collect from that relative to the deficit, which is what this is supposed to do, pay down the deficit? It wouldn't cover last year's deficit alone. So not one year of the Obama deficit would be covered by the so-called Buffett rule if we collected it for 250 years. So it's nothing but pure politics. Don't be fooled by that. Now, Mr. Speaker, as small businesses across the country fight to make ends meet and stay out of debt, the Federal Government continues to dig itself into a hole with its exorbitant spending habits. Small businesses are burdened with massive regulations brought on by ObamaCare. They're further plagued by the threat of tax increases-- significant tax increases--next year, should the relief from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts be allowed to expire. And that's what some people, particular those on the other side of the aisle, would like to happen. They would like the tax cuts to go away. In other words, if tax cuts go away, taxes go up. And this wasn't on the very wealthy. It was on virtually all Americans--middle class folks, people that take advantage of the child tax credit, and a whole range of people in the middle. And yes, at upper income levels as well. So a lot of folks would be hit very hard with this, particularly small business folks, because the so-called wealth in this country, many of them are small business folks. Again, as I mentioned before, 70 percent of the jobs in this country are created by those folks. So if you're trying to bring the unemployment rate down, why put additional burden on the people that are actually creating the jobs? Mr. Speaker, tax issues are the single most significant set of regulatory burdens for most small businesses. A recent NFIB Research Foundation study--the NFIB, by the way, is the National Federation of Independent Businesses--found that 4 of the top 10 small business problems were tax-related. Just this week, struggling families and businesses were forced to give the government more of their hard-earned money to satisfy the hungry appetite of government bureaucracies. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Confiscatory tax rates and fiscal irresponsibility have got to come to an end. Small businesses across the country are fighting to keep their doors open and keep their lights on. It's shameful for the Federal Government to expect these hardworking taxpayers to foot the bill for GSA excursions to Las Vegas and inept corporate schemes like Solyndra while the backbone of our economy, which is the small businesses, continues to suffer. After all, American small businesses are responsible, as I said before, for 70 percent of the jobs that are created in this country. Why do we want to continue to make life so difficult for them? Why are they the target for the left in this House so often? The America I know is a Nation where hard work creates opportunities for success. After all, that's what our forefathers were seeking in the first place. At the founding of our Nation, small businessowners came to this land to escape excessive taxation and cumbersome regulation. These were families of farmers and builders, traders, inventors, and merchants. It's disheartening that today it's our very own government that's creating the job-killing taxation and regulation. Our economy is still struggling to rebound from the worst recession since the Great Depression, and we must support the engine that will propel America forward. This engine has always been fueled by hard work and an economic climate that rewards success. When I'm back home in my district in greater Cincinnati, I make a point to frequently meet with small businessowners to talk about their successes as well as their struggles. I too often hear that the burden of taxes and regulations, coupled with great uncertainty, is keeping these businesses from growing, and in many cases forcing many of them to close their doors altogether. That's why I'm a cosponsor of H.R. 9, the Small Business Tax Cut Act. If passed, this legislation would amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow American businesses a tax deduction of 20 percent. This is common sense. It's a fair bill that would help small businessowners to keep more of what they have earned to invest in expansion and hiring. That's the important thing--hiring Americans who now need those jobs. We still have over 8 percent that are unemployed. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation that will be a shot in the arm to small businesses across the Nation. If there are any of my colleagues that would have any additional things they would like to say, we would welcome them at this time. May I ask the Speaker how much time we have remaining.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that, and I really appreciate Chairman Graves making it possible for so many of us who care about small business in this country this evening to take a little time to talk about how important it is and what we ought to be doing to support our small business folks all over the country. After all, 70 percent of the jobs that are created historically in the American economy aren't the big guys. They're not the huge corporations, although we want them to do well and hire a lot of people. But even though a lot of people think it's the huge corporations that are doing all the hiring, it's really small business folks. It's mom-and-pops places. It's people that have fewer than 500 employees. Oftentimes, fewer than 50. Sometimes it's 5, or even 1. These are the folks that historically have created 70 percent of the jobs. And, unfortunately, I would argue that this administration and the policies that have been implemented by many of the folks on the other side of the aisle, unfortunately, have made it very challenging to these small businesses to be successful and to hire additional employees. And there's a whole range of issues that we're going to talk about this evening. We have limited time, so I'm going to turn it over to a couple of my colleagues. I would like to first recognize the gentleman from Arizona, David Schweikert, who's been a leader in trying to come up with policies that will be supportive for small businesses in this country.

Mr. CHABOT. One of the other issues that we haven't covered too much here, and let me talk about this very briefly, is the impact that the high cost of energy, gasoline in particular, what kind of difficulty that's causing small businesses across the country, because I hear this all the time from my small business constituents. It's not surprising that energy prices, and gas prices in particular, have been going up so much. They're double--the gas prices alone at the pump are double what they were when the Obama administration took over, and that's most unfortunate. But it's really not surprising when you consider the person that President Obama appointed to be the head of energy in this country. The chief mind about energy and what we should do about it is the Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu. Steven Chu a couple of months before President Obama appointed him to that position said that it was his goal, what we ought to try to do, what we ought to strive for, is to raise the price of gasoline in this country, energy costs, prices of gasoline, for example, to European levels. Think of that. Now they've got approximately, it depends on the country you're talking about, but it's around $9 a gallon--they do liters over there-- but it's about $9 a gallon. Now we're not there yet, but, unfortunately, we're well on our way. It's approaching $4 back in my district in Cincinnati. Here in Washington, just the other day, I had to fill up, and it was about $4.50. So we're not quite there yet, but we're approaching that. It's just unbelievable that we're in this state. But really I guess it shouldn't be surprising when you consider that the person that President Obama put in control of our energy policy here in this country said that it was his goal to get energy prices up to European levels. As I say, unfortunately, we're well on our way. Those gas prices, that's what the delivery trucks have to pay, the small business folks that are delivering things to towns, or getting products from other manufacturers. When they come in, they cost more. So they can't charge the consumers as much; or if they do, they drive those consumers away. So it's a vicious circle. We need to get energy prices down in this country, and, unfortunately, they're on their way up. Another, I think, terrible mistake that this administration has made is to basically shut the door on the Keystone pipeline. This is oil sands from Canada, our friendly neighbor to the north. Our largest supplier of petroleum, by the way, is Canada. And this is a pipeline that would mean a significant number of jobs here in the United States, tens of thousands of jobs. And if we ever needed jobs, we know it's now. And those are good-paying jobs. Many of them are union jobs. But the President has decided that, no, we're not going to make this decision until maybe after the election. So tens of thousands of jobs are at risk here. Canada has been pretty clear about what they're going to do. If we're not going to accept the oil in our country and build the pipeline, it's quite likely that they'll go ahead and build the pipeline through Canada to British Columbia and ship that oil that ought to be going to the U.S. to China, who is one of our biggest competitors in a lot of ways. And if you know anything about China, the environmental controls that they have over there are far weaker than what we have in the United States. So if your goal is to make sure that you're protecting the environment--and that's what many of the President's allies, the really radical left-wing environmentalists who are fighting against the Keystone pipeline--if you buy their argument, what they're saying is they want to protect the environment by not having that oil come down here and be refined in the gulf. But the controls we have here are much stronger than what they are over in China. So you're not protecting the environment at all or climate change or anything else if you're going to allow them to spew out what they usually do in China when they handle refining and manufacturing oftentimes and a lot of other things. We all know how the administration supported an organization like Solyndra and how much tax dollars were wasted there. And it goes on and on. So the energy policy in this country by this administration is impacting consumers. It's impacting you and me and anybody who goes and fills up at the gas pump nowadays. But it's also adversely impacting small businesses and job creation. Another way that this administration, I believe, has made a mistake which is causing these high prices is to continue to keep off limits much of the Outer Continental Shelf. The gulf, the moratorium, was disastrous for jobs in the gulf region after the spill down there; and, yes, it should have been investigated very thoroughly. But a lot of those oil derricks ended up leaving that area. They couldn't hold out with that cost, the expensive capital costs over 6 months' period of time, so they ended up off the coast of Brazil, for example. And the President famously said, We'll be happy to buy your oil, Brazil. Well, we can look at oil all around the world, but we ought to be self-sufficient. And the President said he was interested in being energy self-sufficient in this country, but his policies are anything but that. So he continues to put off limits much of the Outer Continental Shelf. We had the disaster in the gulf, and ANWR up in Alaska the administration has continued to put off limits. Now, we need to do all these things in an environmentally safe manner. And we have the ability to do that now. But, again, this administration has shut this down. That's affecting all of us in higher and higher gas prices. So it's long overdue for this administration to take a look, a long hard look, at what their policies are doing to the country and to reconsider this, to allow us to go after oil that we have available to us, clean coal, natural gas, and a whole range of fuels that we have here in this country so we don't have to be buying that from countries that oftentimes don't have our best interests at heart. It sends a lot of money over to regions and countries where, unfortunately, a lot of terrorism that has endangered the world and endangers us has come from. So those dollars aren't always spent in a way that's going to help the United States. So, it's time for the administration to turn its policies around. Mr. Speaker, without further ado, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Lieutenant Colonel John L. Coombs who has served this great Nation in the U.S. Army since 1989, most recently as the Acting Director of Operational Contracting Support and Policy with the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Procurement. John L. Coombs enlisted as a Private and began his Army career as a Light Infantryman with the 7th Infantry Division in Fort Ord, California. He was soon recommended for and graduated from the Officer Candidate School where, in 1992, he was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Chemical Corps. As a Chemical Officer, he served as a Battalion and Brigade Chemical Officer in artillery, cavalry, and aviation battalions and brigades for the 1st Armored Division in Germany and the 1st Cavalry Division in Texas. In 1995, he deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina as the nuclear, biological and chemical reconnaissance platoon leader. There he developed tactics, techniques, and procedures to detect environmental hazards at industrial sites occupied by U.S. forces, leveraging the capabilities of the mobile mass spectrometers installed in the nuclear, biological and chemical reconnaissance vehicles. In 2001, Captain Coombs was accessed into the Acquisition Corps, attended the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California and in 2002 graduated with a Master of Science in Business with an emphasis on federal contracting. From 2002 to 2005, as the Contracting Division Chief in the Wiesbaden Contracting Center for the U.S. Army Contracting Command, Europe, Captain Coombs supervised more than 30 contracting officers who awarded and administered more than $400 million in annual contract awards. He deployed to Kosovo for six months as the Chief of a Joint Contracting Center, where he led a joint military staff, U.S. civilians and Kosovar nationals to procure $5 million in annual contract awards. While in Kosovo, his work helped to improve multi- national relations when he negotiated a complex settlement for damages to a hotel occupied by NATO forces. The following two years, Major Coombs served as the Deputy Chief of Office in the Italy Regional Contracting Office for U.S. Army Contracting Command, Europe. He oversaw high visibility procurements including letter contracts to lease properties supporting the 2006 Winter Olympics security operations in Torino. He was named the Army Europe Contracting Officer of the year in 2005. An Army fellowship at the RAND Arroyo Center in Santa Monica, California brought this Hamilton, Ohio native back to the U.S. There he developed RAND's recommended acquisition strategy for Future Combat Systems to balance cost control for the Army and risk to the contractor. Since 2008, Lieutenant Colonel Coombs has been assigned to Army Headquarters at the Pentagon. He has served as the Executive Officer, Deputy Director and several senior positions in the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Procurement. His expert knowledge of operational contracting policy for military operations, natural disasters and humanitarian relief has been invaluable. Mr. Speaker, for more than two decades, Lieutenant Colonel John L. Coombs has faithfully served our Nation as a dedicated steward for American taxpayers. As he enters this next phase of his life with his beloved wife Kellie and their four children; Lyndsay, Adam, Emily and Jesse; I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Lieutenant Colonel John Coombs upon his retirement and thank him for his service in the U.S. Army.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I would like to thank my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee (Mr. Smith of Texas) for yielding the time. He explained it much better than I can, but I'll take a stab at it myself. H.R. 4086 is really a straightforward bill which would better clarify the relationship between the Immunity from Seizure Act and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Since 1965, the Immunity from Seizure Act has provided the executive branch with authority to grant foreign artwork and other objects of cultural significance immunity from seizure by U.S. courts. The purpose of this was to encourage loaning and sharing exhibitions between U.S. and foreign museums. However, there is now a conflict between the Immunity from Seizure Act and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that has interrupted this friendly exchange. Essentially, a provision of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act allows U.S. courts to have jurisdiction over foreign governments when their artwork is temporarily imported into the U.S., putting foreign artwork and artifacts at risk of seizure. Unfortunately, this has led, in many instances, to foreign governments declining to import into our country artwork and cultural objects for temporary exhibitions. In order to maintain the exchange of government-owned artwork and artifacts, Congress should clarify the relationship between these two acts in question. This bill would do just that, ensuring that American museums like the Cincinnati Museum Center and the Cincinnati Art Museum, two in my district, can continue to enjoy international artwork and cultural artifacts. Enacting this legislation will remove a major obstacle to foreign loans and exchanges to American museums. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4086, and I would also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for their leadership and their support in this effort.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank our distinguished chairman for yielding the time. Mr. Chairman, when I talk to small business owners back in my district in Cincinnati in southwest Ohio, I continue to hear the same thing over and over again. Overbearing regulations are crushing their ability to grow and create jobs, and that's what we are supposed to be about is getting this economy moving and getting people back to work again; but the regulations are just crushing them. Over the last year, however, the Obama administration has enacted more than 3,500 new rules and regulations, and they have another 4,000 pending. So rather than reduce the regulations, they are talking about putting on even more. Mr. Chairman, small businesses in this country are struggling. Unemployment is at record levels and our economy is showing little or no signs of improvement. We must pass legislation that reduces redtape and repeals burdensome regulations. This bill will reform the rulemaking system and provide much needed regulatory relief to small business. If President Obama is serious about job creation, then he must sign this bill. Small businesses are struggling to keep up with the overwhelming costs of compliance that his administration has put on our Nation's job creators. If Congress wants to give the American people a gift this Christmas season, let it be regulatory relief and the jobs that will result.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, our national debt has reached a staggering $15 trillion. We're currently borrowing 43 cents on every dollar that's spent here in Washington. Think of it, 43 cents on a dollar. A trillion dollars had to be borrowed from China. Our very sovereignty is at risk when you look at numbers like that. It's outrageous. Our great Nation is on a dangerous path of fiscal irresponsibility directed by a reckless addiction to spending here in Washington. Research has consistently shown that the American people want a balanced budget amendment. In fact, a recent survey found that 81 percent of those polled support the requirement that the Federal Government balance its budget each year, just like American families have to do. Today, each of us will have the opportunity to choose sides, casting an ``aye'' vote and standing with the American people on this issue, or casting a ``nay'' vote and opposing what the American people are demanding. The balanced budget amendment is a game-changer. It will hold Congress' feet to the fire, forcing us to live within our means just as every American family and every American business must do every year. It has become commonplace for Washington to spend money it doesn't have for projects it doesn't need. This is an unacceptable position for us to be in. Our constituents deserve better. Washington's spending binge has put a wet blanket over our economy. Small businesses are struggling to stay afloat, and according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a staggering 26 million Americans are unemployed, underemployed, or have given up looking for a job altogether. Small business owners tell me that the uncertainty that they're going through right now makes it so they won't hire people because they don't know how much money they're going to have. What we're doing here in Washington puts those small businesses at risk. That's why they're not hiring. Passing H.J. Res. 2, the balanced budget amendment, would be a huge step in the right direction, and in my opinion is the only thing that will actually work over the long run to get our spending under control here in Washington. You know, it's interesting. The President recently weighed in on this, and one of the things that he said about the American people is that they're lazy. I mean, what an incredible comment to make. That's absolutely not true. That's not what the problem with the economy is. The problem is that the government sector is sucking up so much of the funding now that the private sector has no funds to invest or go out and hire people and create jobs. That's the problem, not, as the President said, that the American people are lazy. That's absolutely not true. It's outrageous. This is not a Democrat or a Republican issue. This is an American issue. I had the opportunity to weigh in on this amendment back in 1995, when it was last voted on here in Congress. I voted for it, alongside most of my Republican colleagues as well as 72 Democratic Members of the House. I would urge them to vote with us today. Let's pass this. It's in the interest of the American people.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the chairman for yielding. Madam Chairman, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: ``The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' In this modern age when it is very common for people to travel to work or for pleasure, it has really become routine, and the National Right-to-Carry Act is a commonsense solution to adapt to today's needs. This legislation allows people with valid, State-issued permits or licenses to carry a concealed firearm in any other State that has essentially the same laws. To be clear, this legislation does not create a national licensing scheme or agency. It does not supersede the laws for firearms use in any other State. The right of self-defense is a fundamental one and has been recognized in law for centuries. The Second Amendment dictates that the appropriate way to fight crime is to target criminals, not law-abiding gun owners. Today we have an opportunity to clearly recognize the right to bear arms for our citizens and to allow law-abiding citizens to exercise freedom without restrictive barriers. Let's take that opportunity today.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment would effectively gut the bill, though the intent is actually somewhat unclear. As written, the amendment allows a visitor to carry a handgun under the provisions of the bill only in States that require applications to be completed and submitted in person; however, few States have such a requirement for nonresidents. This amendment would create unnecessary confusion. For example, Florida accepts applications by mail, but the State of Washington does not. If this amendment were adopted, a Virginia resident who held a valid permit could carry a handgun in Washington, which requires everyone to apply in person, but not in Florida, which has no concerns about issuing permits by mail. It is possible that the amendment was intended to allow interstate carry under the bill's provisions only for holders of permits that were issued in person. The problem is that isn't how the amendment is drafted. If it were, it would still effectively gut the bill because so few States require in-person application. The fact is that any application or fingerprinting requirements for a resident or a nonresident to obtain a concealed-carry permit are in addition to all the other requirements, including a national instant- background check that the applicant must go through first to legally purchase the gun. Despite what some opponents of H.R. 822 would have you believe, not everyone who owns a gun is a criminal. And, in fact, there is overwhelming evidence to show that concealed-carry laws have resulted in lower crime rates in most States. Typically, most criminals don't bother with legally purchasing a gun and then making sure they have a valid permit before they carry it concealed; they just do it. That's why we call them criminals. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to offer my enthusiastic congratulations to Army Specialist Thomas Hauser for being named the Army's 2011 Soldier of the Year. Specialist Hauser is a native of my district, Ohio's First Congressional District. He is a 2008 graduate of Colerain High School and is the son of Colerain Township residents Kim Ranson Hauser and Michael Hauser. Without question, Specialist Hauser has distinguished himself as the best of the best. This Army-wide competition culminated in a final round of 12 soldiers being tested on a wide array of skill sets, to include physical fitness, urban warfare tactics, a day and night land navigation course, battlefield scenario tests, and a variety of drills. Specialist Hauser serves his country as a proud member of the 563rd Military Police Company, of the 91st Military Police Battalion, and of the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, New York. Congratulations to Specialist Thomas Hauser on this great accomplishment. You've made all the folks back home in Cincinnati proud.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove myself as a cosponsor of H.R. 1380.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, October 18, 2011; that when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, October 21, 2011; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday, October 24, 2011.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary have until 5 p.m. on Thursday, October 20, 2011, to file a report to accompany H.R. 822.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. On October 5, civil rights legend Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth passed away while residing in Birmingham, Alabama. From 1961 to 2007, Reverend Shuttlesworth lived in Cincinnati, and when I first came here in '95, I had the distinct pleasure of representing him here in Congress. Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth defied death numerous times while fighting against violent segregationists, even surviving the blast from 16 sticks of dynamite that were planted by unknown assassins. So devoted to this cause was he that he pledged to ``kill segregation or be killed by it.'' From freedom rides and sit-ins to pastor and founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Reverend Shuttlesworth was a tireless and fearless civil rights hero, who not only talked the ``talk'' but who walked the ``walk'' in places where few others were willing to go. The enormity of Reverend Shuttlesworth's achievements and contributions to American history cannot be overstated. Even Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. once referred to him as ``the most courageous civil rights fighter in the South.'' Let us forever remember this great man of faith and the legacy he leaves for America. God bless you, Reverend Shuttlesworth, and may God bless the Shuttlesworth family.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Our national debt stands at a staggering $14.3 trillion and we currently borrow more than 40 cents on every dollar we spend, and our President and Democrats in the other body say that a balanced budget amendment is ``dead on arrival.'' Fifteen years ago, the balanced budget amendment passed the House with a bipartisan vote only to lose by one vote, one vote in the Senate. A constitutional amendment is the only way to ensure that future Congresses live within their means and end the spending binge. Our colleague, Congressman McClintock, might have summed it up best in a Washington Times op-ed earlier this week. He said: Imagine a family that earns $50,000 a year but is spending more than $88,000 a year and has a credit card balance of $330,000 a year. That's us. We're bankrupt, and Washington is broken. Why are Senate Democrats and the President so afraid of making a commitment to balance our budget? Stop the spending. No more empty promises. No more excuses.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Our national unemployment rate is stuck at over 9 percent. We're currently borrowing 43 cents on every dollar that's spent around here, and our national debt stands at a staggering $14.5 trillion. The American people are demanding that we in Congress provide real solutions to these serious problems. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act does just that. The debate today is not whether we should make good on our current obligations. We're all in agreement that we must pay our bills, but the spending in Washington is out of control and it has to stop. We have to cap future spending, and passing a balanced budget amendment is critical to doing that; because, let's face it, historically Congress has shown no will or the ability to stop its addiction to spending. Right now, back in my district in Cincinnati, hardworking Americans are making tough decisions, tightening their belts, and making sacrifices to pay their bills. They expect us to do the same. Now let's do the right thing and pass this critical bill.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the distinguished chair for yielding. Israel has no greater friend than Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida. Despite some progress that has been made toward ensuring Israel's continued security, critical challenges still exist. Rejectionist elements within the Palestinian leadership still refuse to sit and negotiate in good faith even as Israel repeatedly expresses its commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state. These elements spurn Israeli overtures and seek to establish a Palestinian state unilaterally through a vote of the U.N. General Assembly. Although short-term security may be achievable unilaterally, peace is not. Palestinian rejectionism, whether by Hamas or Fatah, must be abandoned. U.S. taxpayer money should, under no circumstances, go to the Palestinian government, whose members do not all abide by the Three Quartet principles: recognizing the state of Israel's right to exist; renouncing terrorism; and abiding by previous agreements. And just as the U.S. should not support a Palestinian government whose very composition is anathema to peace, so, too, should it not support an institution that offers an easy alternative to genuine peace through negotiations. That is why I recently introduced a resolution calling on the administration to cut all funding to the U.N. General Assembly should it vote to recognize a Palestinian state in direct defiance of the U.N. Security Council and the U.N. Charter. True Israeli-Palestinian peace will only be made between two peoples, Israelis and Palestinians, and not the 191 other members of the General Assembly. Israel, like the United States, welcomes those who would make peace even as it fights those who would make war. Time and again, Israel has demonstrated its commitment to a Palestinian state living as its neighbor in peace and security, but there are no shortcuts on the path to this outcome, and there is no getting around the hard concessions that will have to be made. The U.S. must now stand with Israel and against those who would obstruct rather than advance the cause of peace. I urge the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I first want to thank Chairman Smith and Chairman Goodlatte for their leadership in getting us to the point that we are on this important legislation here this evening. Section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution states that the Congress shall have power to ``promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'' The Constitution clearly grants Congress the authority to grant patent rights to inventors, and it defers to the discretion of Congress how best to procedurally award these rights to the inventor. I rise in support of H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act. The first- inventor-to-file provision shifts us to a system used by all other modern, industrial nations. This system would end the need for expensive discovery and litigation over priority dates and would put an end to expensive interference proceedings that small entities overwhelmingly lose. This provision also ensures that inventors can establish priority dates by filing simple and inexpensive provisional applications. This is a much needed change, which former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey indicated would be both constitutional and wise. Congress has the right, in fact the duty, to protect those who invent or discover. Through in-depth studies conducted by former U.S. PTO commissioners, the first-to-file system has been found to be faster and cheaper in resolving disputes among inventors. The current system creates an environment for exorbitantly expensive litigation. It has also become cost prohibitive for small businesses and independent inventors to fight the claims filed by larger corporations which can cost over half a million dollars just to litigate. In the past 7 years, only one independent inventor out of 3 million patent applications filed has successfully proved an earlier date of invention over the inventor who filed first. However, with the new first-inventor-to-file system, a bold timeline of filing dates will allow these small businesses and independent inventors to more easily defend and settle their disputes over the rightful patent holder. Lastly, the Supreme Court has never held that first-to-file is an unconstitutional procedure. We are now simply returning to the system that our Founders originally established. It is a commonsense procedure that will spur more rapid innovation, yield new jobs, and stimulate the economy; and I think as we all know if we ever needed to get this economy moving and get America back to work, we're in that time right now.