Todd Rokita

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. We can never afford to forget that. For these reasons, I simply urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 1120 and to not listen to the nonsense that we're hearing from the other side. We believe in the worker. We believe in workers' rights. We believe in the rights of businesses. We believe in the rights of unions. We believe the President, above everyone else in this country, should follow the law.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and salute a remarkable Hoosier, Robert ``Bob'' C. Reiling, whom retired as Tippecanoe Election Board Chairman after 28 years of service. I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his leadership and service to his county and the State of Indiana. Mr. Reiling began his service to the voters of Tippecanoe County in 1984. Almost two decades later, I began working with him and the rest of the Tippecanoe County Election Board to help implement the Help America Vote Act. Under his leadership, the county actually began replacing outdated voting systems with new technologies prior to the federal and state mandate to do so. Throughout the past decade, local and state officials with both leading worked in concert to improve election administration and the election experience for voters. I am most proud of the partnership and friendship we grew as Tippecanoe County became one of three pilot counties to implement the Vote Centers model that is now almost common in Indiana. By introducing this model to the voters of Tippecanoe County, turnout increased, voting wait times decreased, and fewer voters were disenfranchised because there is no wrong place to vote. Tippecanoe County, under the leadership of Bob and the county election board, helped develop a working model that so many other Indiana counties are now emulating. Mr. Reiling is a family man and remains a good friend even though I am no longer Indiana's Secretary of State. I am honored to have worked with him over the years, and look forward to our continued friendship. While no longer serving on the county election board, I know he will continue to be a leader and serve the people of Tippecanoe County in other ways. This is Mr. Robert Reiling: a man truly committed to his family, his community, and his country. I value his friendship, counsel, and most of all, his good example. Thank you for your many years of service, Mr. Reiling.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the DePauw University Lady Tigers basketball team, who defeated Wisconsin-Whitewater 69-51 on March 16 to win the Division III National Championship, their second national title in seven years. DePauw became one of only seven Division III teams to complete an undefeated season, and the only team in Division III history to win 34 games in a single season. DePauw's other recent accomplishments include 14 NCAA appearances in 18 years, including 4 quarterfinals, 14 conference championships in 17 years, and 20 or more wins in 16 of the last 17 years. Seniors Ellie Pearson, Kate Walker and Kathleen Molloy completed their college careers with a combined record of 112 wins and just 15 losses at DePauw. The rest of the roster includes Ann Sarkisian, Jenna Stoner, Emma Ondik, Lauren Abendroth, Chelsea Francis, Morgan Skordos, Savannah Trees, Colleen McDonagh, Angela Hacker, Alex Gasaway, Hannah Lukemeyer, Ali Ross, Alison Stephens, Erin McGinnis, Abby Keller, and Colleen Frost. Head coach Kris Huffman is a selfless leader who always redirects any credit for the team's success back to her players. Her .820 career winning percentage is the highest winning percentage ever for a DePauw women's basketball head coach, and she has been named National Coach of the Year 3 times and Conference Coach of the Year 11 times. In addition to Coach Huffman, the coaching staff includes Assistant Coach Mary Smith, volunteer coaches Donna Ferguson and Doug Miller, and Team Trainer Kara Campbell. Located in Greencastle, Indiana, DePauw is well known for a deep tradition of social engagement by its students and faculty alike, and its women's basketball team has earned much attention for their success on the basketball court as well. Incidentally, DePauw University is a friendly rival to my alma mater 30 miles to the north, Wabash College. This rivalry notwithstanding, I join basketball fans from across the Hoosier State in congratulating the 2013 DePauw women's basketball team on their remarkable accomplishments.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding the time. I agree with the gentleman from Georgia. It's good to have debate. It's good to have choices. It's good to have options, but that doesn't mean every option is equally good. And we're faced with that situation right here, right now, and that's why I rise in opposition to the CBC substitute budget. There are different ways to balance a budget. Many, most Americans, many of us here, think that taking 20 percent of the value of a country's GDP, like this Federal Government does and spends it, is more than enough to run it and most anything else. But to be fair, there are other ways to balance, and one of those ways is to raise revenue. And I want to examine just a few of the ways that this substitute budget proposes to run the Federal Government by raising revenue. I see from all the different ideas here that their intention was to take from whom they believe are the richest Americans, the wealthiest Americans, those who haven't paid their fair share, the 1 percent, however you want to phrase it, but let's look at it more closely. One, taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income at a top rate of 39.6 percent, I think this budget forgets how many middle class Americans have 401(k)s, how many of us across the Nation invest in the stock market, how many union members still on the old pension plans, those dinosaur plans, still rely on the stock market for their retirement. What are these capital gains and dividends going to do to them? They're not the richest, for sure. Taxing financial transactions at 0.25 percent of the asset's value, the same thing, Mr. Chairman. What about all the middle class individuals, so many Americans in this country that rely for their retirement not just on Social Security but on 401(k)s, union members who rely on pensions? And what's it going to be like for them when we're taking simply more from them from their retirement? And then perhaps the most insidious, returning estate tax levels to 2009, not only are we taxing twice, but we are making it a bad thing, apparently, to pass on our hard-earned wealth to our children, our next generation. It's no way to run a country. It's immoral, in fact. But let's assume all these tax increases. The fact of the matter is this budget still never balances, never comes into balance. And I was struck this morning, Mr. Chairman, by Mr. Mulvaney from South Carolina, during his 1-minute speech, when he said, when you contract with somebody to borrow money, that's what debt is. You intend to pay it back. When you contract with somebody and have no intention of paying that debt back, that's thievery. That's exactly what we're doing, Mr. Chairman, to the children of tomorrow, to the people that do not yet exist, that do not have a vote in this matter. That's why I rise in support, and I urge all my colleagues to defeat this substitute budget.

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, like speakers before me, I am thankful and appreciative that others are proposing substitute budgets. It is good to have options, Mr. Chair. It is good to have a debate. But not all options are equally good, so I rise against the substitute budget that is now before us. Admittedly, there are a couple of different ways and a combination thereof that you can balance a budget: spending cuts--and, by the way, when a Federal Government already takes, on average, 20 percent of the value of all the goods and services that a country produces, a lot of us think that is more than enough to run the government and that spending reductions are actually the solution. Revenue increases might also get you to balance. That is certainly what this Progressive substitute tries to do. Nearly $6 trillion in tax increases over the next 10 years. And, by the way, Mr. Chairman, they don't get to balance. It doesn't happen. $6 trillion more of the people's property this budget confiscates, and they still can't balance the budget. Why is balancing the budget so darn important? Well, a couple different reasons. You cannot start paying off the debt until you get to a balanced budget so that you have a surplus to start paying that debt down. So their intention, Mr. Chair, is not to pay down the debt. That is what they are stating in this budget, and, frankly, that's immoral. If you intend to pay a debt back in any contractual situation, or even in this country's budget situation, it is called a debt. When you take money from future generations, when you take money from people that don't yet exist with no intention to pay it back, as this budget does, have no intention to pay it back, it is called thievery, and that's wrong. That is why this budget needs to fail.

Mr. ROKITA. I thank Chairman Ryan for his leadership as well as to thank all of the members and staff of the Budget Committee. We have a good product here. It balances. Balance is important because, until you balance, you can't even begin to start paying off this debt, and we do that. The budget that's on the floor right now never balances. It might claim it does, but the math bears otherwise. I want to address the Medicaid reforms that we put in our budget, because they were just attacked. We believe in balancing the budget. We believe in balancing, not by raising taxes, but by cutting spending. But you don't just have to cut to cut spending. You can reform. You can reform these programs, Mr. Chair, so that they are around for the generations to come. Medicaid, a program that by all accounts is failing those whom it is intending to serve, needs reform. It leads to poor outcomes for patients. A 2010 study suggested that surgical patients on Medicaid were 13 percent more likely to die, Mr. Chairman, than those without health insurance at all. That bears repeating. If you're a surgical patient on Medicaid, you are 13 percent more likely to die. That needs reform. It drives away doctors who want to serve the poor. On average, doctors who participate in Medicaid earn 56 percent of what those in the private sector do. It also is pushing our States closer and closer to the brink of fiscal collapse. States on average now spend more on Medicaid than on any other expense, including K-12 education, Mr. Chairman. And the dramatic expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare will only make these problems worse. We have to address these failing programs. The States are doing it already. In Rhode Island, with the help of a waiver from the Federal regulations, they are able to take a cap in spending for 5 years and put everyone in managed care successfully. In my home State of Indiana, 40,000 more people who really needed the care were put on without one more dime of expense. Mr. Chairman, reform is needed, reform cuts costs, and reform will make sure these programs are around for generations to come. Please do not support this budget. Support the Ryan plan.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chair for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 115, but I appreciate, quite honestly, the concerns just raised. And let me try to address some of them, if not all of them. There are victims in this country, for sure. But the real victimization will occur if this House, if this Congress, if this President does not get ahold of the deficit and debt situation that we are incurring. Right now, we are in the middle of debating different budgets, the priorities that we have as parties, as Americans, et cetera. On the one hand, we have a budget that balances in 10 years--radical for this town. On the other side, we have budgets that never, ever balance. If we don't get ahold of these deficits so we can finally start attacking the debt, and if we continue to leave to future generations our bills--to me, Mr. Speaker, the most immoral thing I can think of, really, that we can do in civic life is to leave our bills for future generations to pay. There will be the victimization. Yes, we are going to have a hard time at the committee level, and certainly even with our MRAs that have been cut in the past, to try to do our work. But what I heard in these committee hearings from our chairman and our ranking members each is that they pledge to continue their legislative and oversight activities despite these budget cuts. So there is not going to be any victimization here with this House resolution. The other thing this House resolution does is finally lets us lead by example, Mr. Speaker. How can we have a national family discussion? How can we have a discussion about the morality of leaving our bills for future generations to pay if we are not willing to suck some of it up ourselves? And, yes, we are doing it. Do you know who else is doing it? The military. I would like to say here on the floor of the House that those excuses should now be taken off the table. We are leading by example in what we have cut through our MRAs already and this House resolution. And guess what? So has the military. Let's finally get to a discussion and action, more importantly, regarding the real drivers of our debt--the social entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. And, yes, many of our constituents will say, Hey, wait a minute. Don't call those social entitlement programs. We paid into those, therefore, we should get out. And that is true. But what is also true is that on average--let's take Medicare, for example, Mr. Speaker--we are paying in about 40 percent, again, on average, of what we are taking out. It is immoral, wrong, to let that 60 percent get paid for by people who don't even yet exist and, therefore, don't have a say in the matter. House Resolution 115 lets us lead by example so that we can finally get to the rest of the conversation about the drivers of our debt. Guess what else? The interest we owe ourselves as private citizens-- and, more increasingly, other countries like China, countries that don't necessarily have our best interest at heart, nor should they have to have our best interest at heart--we are paying more to them in interest because of this debt than we are spending on homeland security, education, and roads combined. That breeds weakness, that fosters instability, that creates victimization. House Resolution 115 will give us the moral authority and the real authority to continue having this discussion, to lead by example, which is so well needed in this country right now at this time. The fact of the matter is, we shouldn't have to have oversight of the budgets of the executive branch if the executive branch and this President were to lead and recognize the debt that we are in, the deficits that we run, and rein in his own people, rein in his own organizations, create a culture of doing more with less. As it has been famously stated by a former Governor in Indiana: people will never miss the government that has been cut. It goes without saying, with regard to individualism, people can do more for themselves and people can do more for each other than any faraway Federal Government program can. Let's continue leading by example. Let's continue this fiscal fight that we are engaged in. Let's pass--let's strongly support--House Resolution 115.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. I thank Chairman Ryan for his distinguished leadership in bringing this budget to the floor. I rise in high support of it. I also am very proud. It's one of the highest honors I have had in my short time here to serve on this committee, not because of chairman Ryan only, but because of the members. By members, I mean Republican members and Democrat members. I note for the Record that Mr. Levin is not a member of the Budget Committee. But there are great people who are. That's why it's perhaps because of some of that pride that I'm disappointed to hear the ranking member characterize the accomplishment--because that's what it is--the accomplishment of balancing within 10 years as some sort of political goal. Families who are trying to put food on the table, neighborhood associations, nonprofits, and for-profit businesses, for that matter, that have to make a budget balance every day, every month, ever year, I think should be offended by that characterization. It's not a political goal. You know what's political, Mr. Chair? It's never balancing. You know what's political is the immoral idea that we are going to put more on our plate now, add up deficit after deficit, create a bigger and bigger debt, and then make people who don't even exist yet pay for it. Why is that political? Because, Mr. Chair, the people in the here and now can vote. Generations in the future, our grandkids who don't yet exist, can't vote. And that's what makes the other approaches we've heard about immoral, wrong, political. We balance. We balance within 10 years. Now let's contrast that a bit--our responsible approach--to what the Senate Democrats have done, for example. Next year alone, the Senate Democrats' budget increases spending by $162 billion above what we're spending today. Over 10 years it increases our debt by $7.3 trillion from today's levels, despite a massive tax hike that they have. And that tax hike adds $1.5 trillion in new taxes. So even after that, they still add to the debt--our kids' debt, our grandkids' debt--by $7.3 trillion. Again, Mr. Chair, it never balances. After 4 years and $6 trillion in debt since a budget was even last passed, the Senate Democrats' vague proposal leaves America with even more debt and government that never stops growing. Amazingly, after 4 years, the Democrats were unable to identify any real reforms--no tax reform and no entitlement reform. It's simply not a serious proposal. I stand, again, in support of the House budget because it's responsible, it's real, it balances in 10 years, and it's the last thing from political.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. He says that these common performance measures are absolutely critical. Even the simple difference of committing someone to a job for, and measuring their performance in that job, from 6 months to a year makes all the difference in how we really gauge whether or not these programs are successful and whether or not our economy is really growing.

Mr. ROKITA. Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Kline and Representative Foxx for their work and their leadership on this bill. The Workforce Investment Act is long overdue for reauthorization, especially given the monumental changes to our economy over the past 10 years since the law was last authorized. There are many important reasons to do so, including cutting waste and improving efficiency, but the most important reason to me is the moral one. Quite simply, the existing maze of Federal workforce training programs is failing those whom it is intended to be serving. By trying to be all things to all people, the Federal workforce training program is serving no one well, and that's a problem. The Federal Government's footprint has gotten far too large, and our national debt has grown with it. As a result, it is failing to serve the workforce of today, and it's piling up ever-larger bills for the children of tomorrow, people who don't even exist yet. What the SKILLS Act does is to consolidate and eliminate many unnecessary and duplicative programs, not simply for the sake of downsizing, but to improve the quality of the workforce training, and that's what we all should be about, Republicans and Democrats alike. Business owners understand this. They understand the importance of streamlining and efficiency. They also understand the importance of getting a good return on their investment, and we aren't getting that right now. We have to make sure that the Federal Government abides by those same principles. In addition to consolidating existing programs, which the SKILLS Act does, it's important for us to make sure that we are actually recovering savings and reducing the deficit as well. We can do both things at once, my friends. I'm thankful for the opportunity to work with Ms. Foxx and the chairman to include an important provision that will take the next step and reduce the amount of employees at the Department of Labor in line with reducing the programs. The bill gives the director of OMB 60 days to identify how many full- time equivalent employees work on or administer programs that have been eliminated or consolidated. The director would then have a year to reduce the Federal Government's workforce by that same number. Jobs that have the most value are jobs in the private sector, the productive sector, and to the extent we need jobs in the public sector, they should be to truly support and grow the private sector in a responsible way. Quite simply, if the programs no longer exist, then there is no reason for extra Federal Government bureaucrats. While many of these Federal employees are not doubt very committed to their work, it is immoral for us to borrow more money from our children and grandchildren to pay for unnecessary expenses today. The Department of Labor may exist to serve our workforce, but it is not supposed to be a jobs program in and of itself. The legislation before us is a strong step in the right direction and will not only shrink the Federal Government and reduce our debt, but will ensure that we are delivering better results for America's workforce. By actually reducing the Federal Government's employment rolls, we will be restoring more local control. And, perhaps more importantly, will be making smarter use of America's tax dollars. So I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation for that, and also the common performance measures that are included in this. One of my constituents, a small business owner, Jim Cramp, serves on one of the workforce investment boards.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this important legislation offered by my good friend from Indiana. For more than 2 years now, my colleagues and I have led a family discussion across this country about our debt and deficits. Our current national debt stands at over $16.5 trillion and increases by $4 billion per day. We have $100 trillion, Mr. Speaker, in unfunded promises coming down the pike. What many Americans, including some Members of this distinguished body, fail to understand is that these numbers have consequences. Our debt and deficits are not simply a series of numbers. They are a reflection of our morality as a people. And what our debt and deficits reveal is that, for the first time in the history of our country, this generation is preparing to leave the next worse off. I always seem to be able to talk about, at least on one side of this body, how many times something was introduced last year versus this year, and somehow expecting a difference. Einstein had something to say about repeating something and expecting a different result. Would anyone in this room be able to stand here and argue that this choice, leaving the next generation worse off, is morally correct? Of course not. The out-of-control spending coming from Washington will have a devastating impact on future generations, our children and grandchildren. I recently received a letter from a Boy Scout in my district by the name of Michael Krane, who said he is ``concerned and disappointed in the job Congress has been doing in the handling of the budget.'' Unfortunately, Michael does not have a voice in this conversation. He is too young to vote. And, of course, his children that he will one day have have no voice, yet they will be paying this bill. That is why I support Luke Messer's bill, to continue this conversation with the American people by simply saying, to those of us who are taxpayers, what we bear in terms of the cost for the government that we now have, as inefficient and ineffective as it is.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and salute a remarkable Hoosier, Dr. Andrew Fischer, whom turns 50 years old today. I wish to express my congratulations on this milestone. He is a true leader in his community and the Hoosier state. Dr. Fischer earned his medical doctorate from the Sackler School of Medicine at Tel Aviv University in 1989. After graduation, he interned at the Michael Reese Hospital and Med Center in Chicago, Illinois. Dr. Fischer completed his Residency in 1992 through the University of Illinois-Chicago at Michael Reese Hospital, and his Fellowship through Harvard Medical School at Bringham and Women's Hospital in Boston. As a physician who specializes in critical care medicine, internal medicine, and pulmonology--Dr. Fischer is an asset to the Lafayette community and Franciscan St. Elizabeth Health Network. He is Board Certified in each discipline and licensed to practice in both Indiana and Illinois. As a Board Certified physician, Dr. Fischer is current on the latest techniques and skills for the procedures required in his discipline. Through his expertise, he has helped countless individuals recover from their various ailments. Dr. Fischer is a family man and a good friend and confidant. I am honored to have known him over the years and proud to call him a friend. The Lafayette community and I look forward to many more years of extraordinary service and friendship. This is Dr. Andrew Fischer. A man truly committed to God, his family, his country and his community. I value his friendship, counsel, and most of all, his good example. Happy 50th Birthday Dr. Fischer.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and salute a remarkable Hoosier, Theodore ``Ted'' W. Ogle. He was a true leader in his home of Columbus, Indiana. He left us way too soon. Mr. Ogle served his community in many ways, including as a youth sports official and coach, as a board member of the Big Brothers and Big Sisters, and for 16 years on the Columbus City Council. Most recently, he served local Republicans as county and district chair. He was my dear friend. I got to know Ted best when I first ran for office and needed his support. Ted said he was happy to see me but that his boys had a swim meet, and if I needed to see him, it was going to have to be there. So off I went to see him that day. To be honest, I probably learned more about swimming than politics. As this Chamber knows, politics can be a tough business. There's always another meeting, another event, another obligation. It is all too easy to push our family life to the back burner. In his own quiet but direct way, Ted showed me where he set his priorities, and when it came time for me to have a wife and children, where I should set mine. I try to do that. That was Ted Ogle--a man truly committed to God, his family, his country, and his party. I will miss his friendship, counsel, and most of all, his good example.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act. Time and again I hear from my constituents that they want to hire more workers, but they don't know what regulation is going to be coming down the pike next. Congress does not spend enough time fulfilling its constitutional responsibility of overseeing the executive branch. This is why, a little more than a year ago, in partnership with the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, we started Indiana's Red Tape Rollback Program to listen to Hoosiers, take their regulatory concerns to Washington, and get results. This, Mr. Speaker is our annual report. This is a page from that report, about 26 pages long. Regulatory burdens are equal opportunity. They don't affect one industry or type of people. Regulatory burdens hurt agriculture, transportation, and even our home health care workers, who fear they won't be able to care for their clients. They hurt everybody. I'm pleased that we have achieved a victory in 20 of our cases, and we will continue charging forward. I will continue to talk about the harm of overregulation and what it does to our economy. I will continue to advocate for a limited government, and I will continue to roll back the red tape. You can get the report at rokita.house.gov.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chairman. In my 18 months here, one thing has been clear and, that is, just like so many bills, this bill isn't just about the underlying subject. What this bill is about is controlling the individual. What this bill is about is government oversight, government control, government decision-making by bureaucrats hundreds of miles away from us over something that should be between us and our doctor. I do agree with the gentlewoman from Ohio, this bill, this law has already made a difference. The facts are clear. ObamaCare will add trillions of dollars in new taxes, increase our $16 trillion national debt by hundreds of billions of dollars, cause millions of Americans to lose their health insurance, destroy jobs, increase health premiums, impose new costs on States, and penalize American innovation. It's making a difference. In Indiana--I also agree with the gentlewoman from Ohio--in Indiana, it shows just how harmful this law will be to the Hoosiers I represent. For people purchasing insurance in Indiana's individual market, premiums are expected to increase 75 to 95 percent from 2014 to 2020. Since passage of ObamaCare, my State has seen five insurance carriers withdraw from the individual market, resulting in less choice and less competition for Indiana consumers. Indiana estimates that implementing and operating a federally mandated exchange would cost between $10.4 million and $18.3 million annually. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this law is making a difference--a bad difference. As the House votes again to repeal President Obama's unpopular health care law, the American people must continue to make their voices heard. End of story.

Mr. ROKITA. Personal health care decisions should be made between individuals and their doctors. ObamaCare passed more than 2 years ago. In the infamous words of the House leadership on the other side of the aisle at that time, we have now had a chance to see what's in it, and the fact remains: we do not like it.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, Indiana is a global leader in medical device innovation in the United States, providing tens of thousands of high-wage jobs to Hoosiers. There are over 300 medical device manufacturers in the State, many of them small businesses, all working on cutting-edge innovation. Mr. Speaker, we need to preserve what is working in America. The medical device industry is working. In fact, it's helping to save manufacturing in this country, period. One of the biggest threats to the medical device industry is the tax punishing policies put forth by the last Congress and the President of the United States, commonly known as ObamaCare. It will send these manufacturing jobs to other countries so the cost of the tax can be made up. In addition to sending jobs out of the country, this tax, if not repealed, will only drive up the cost of health care by shifting the costs onto consumers. Medical device jobs provide an average of $60,000 in Indiana alone, which is 56 percent higher than the State average. The economic impact of Indiana's medical device industry eclipses $10 billion, and job growth has increased nearly 40 percent in the last few years. Similar numbers can be applied to the State and across this Nation.

Mr. ROKITA. Although the tax is not scheduled to take effect until next January, we are already feeling its choking boot on the necks of hardworking Americans and sick people. Indiana medical device companies have already laid off good Americans, thanks to this tax, which is just one more example of this failed Presidency. The national unemployment rate increased again last month. We cannot afford to move forward with this ill-conceived tax on American innovation, on American companies who add value to this Nation and its economy. I encourage all of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to vote ``yes'' on the rule and for final passage of H.R. 436.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend a publication that has played a central role in shaping the ideas that have powered the conservative movement for decades. Launched in 1944, Human Events is the Nation's oldest conservative newsweekly. In 1961, a rising star by the name of Ronald Reagan began reading Human Events. He enjoyed it so much that throughout his Presidency he would receive the very first issue each week hot off the presses. Back in 1992, I was honored to serve as an intern for Human Events, where I worked closely with political editor John Gizzi, whom I consider a good friend. This week, Human Events relaunched its print edition with a new format and expanded Washington coverage. Conservatives have long depended upon Human Events to carry out its mission, which is to analyze events through the eyes that favor limited constitutional government, local self-government, free enterprise, and individual freedom. That is a mission I wholeheartedly support. I commend Human Events to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this entire body.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. I rise today to recognize an Indiana-born and bred entrepreneur who exemplifies innovation and dedication. Charlotte Lucas, along with her husband, Forrest, founded Lucas Oil Products in 1989. Under her leadership, Lucas Oil quickly established itself as a top-selling additive line in the trucking and automotive retail industry. To Indiana, Charlotte is still the good-natured Hoosier who always enjoys meeting new people and who knows the importance of being there for people in need. Marked by common sense and a commitment to philanthropic interests, her leadership embodies the qualities emblazoned in the Hoosier spirit itself. There is a slogan at Lucas Oil, Mr. Speaker, that reads: ``It works.'' Well, I think the same can be said of Charlotte. Working on behalf of children, the elderly, race car drivers and their families, and many more other causes, she has provided so many with a better place to live, work, and raise a family. Whatever Charlotte does, it works. As a man of faith, I believe we were put on this Earth to love one another and to make the best of the gifts the Lord has provided. When I look at Charlotte, her husband, Forrest, and how she shared her good fortune with our world, all I can say is, Amen. Charlotte Lucas exemplifies the American Dream in every way, and I am proud to honor her on her birthday in recognition of her devotion to her family, friends, employees, and our whole Hoosier community.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Budget Committee, I'm pleased to have not only helped author this budget but to stand here in strong support of it. It's a fair budget. It's an honest budget. The gentleman from New Hampshire said this is the second year in a row that we are telling the truth to the American people. You know, the old adage was ``never touch that third rail of politics.'' Never touch Medicare, never touch Medicaid, never talk about Social Security. Touch it and you will die. We are debunking that myth because that's exactly what it is. We give credit to the American people by telling them the truth. We have that respect for them. Sixty-five percent of our spending year over year comes out of this House on programs that don't work well and that are bankrupt. They won't be around for our children, and that's these programs right here. This is what drives our debt: 65 percent of our current spending. You know what's unfair? It's unfair that in a few decades these programs, as this chart shows, will take 100 percent, will take up all of the revenue that we bring in, the taxes that we bring in as a Federal Government. Now, some will say, Hey, wait a minute, I paid into those programs; I deserve to take out. Well, that's kind of true as well. Let's take Medicare for example. On average, we pay in 30 percent of what we're going to take out; and that 70 percent difference comes from the children of tomorrow who don't exist yet, who have no voice in this debate. It's unfair that no one speaks for them. We do. We speak for the people in the here and now, and we speak for the people of tomorrow. Immigrants didn't come to this country for wealth redistribution. They didn't come to this country to practice intergenerational theft. They want their kids and they want their grandchildren to have a better life than they did. Our budget does that.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and salute an exceptional Hoosier, Jerry W. Throgmartin. Sadly we lost Mr. Throgmartin on January 22. I wish to express my condolences, thoughts and prayers to his family. He was a true model of the entrepreneurial spirit. As a man of faith, I believe we were put on this earth to love one another and to make the best of the gifts our Lord has provided. We are all blessed to live in a country that allows us to experience freedom, the opportunity to learn, and the ability to succeed. As a Hoosier businessman, Mr. Throgmartin devoted his career to growing the appliance and electronics store founded by his grandfather, Henry Harold Gregg in 1955. Starting with the company in 1975 as a salesman, he worked his way up, succeeding his father, Gerald, as president in 1989. As Chairman and CEO from 2003 to 2009, under his leadership, the company grew rapidly through acquisitions and new store openings. HHgregg expanded to over 200 stores employing hundreds of Americans. A graduate of the University of Indianapolis, Mr. Throgmartin also served as Chairman of the Board of Trustees. He earned his MBA at Indiana University where he was Chairman of the Indiana University Simon Cancer Center Development Board. His involvement with the Center had personal meaning, as he overcame lymphoma in the early 1980s. He was a regular contributor and adviser to the Shepherd Community Center on the Eastside of Indianapolis. The Executive Director of the Community Center called Mr. Throgmartin a person who weaved his faith, family and career into a beautiful tapestry. Jerry was the embodiment of the American spirit and I would like to thank his family for sharing him with our Hoosier community.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor an incredible seventh generation Hoosier, Randall T. Shepard, upon his retirement as Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court. Chief Justice Shepard's leadership skills were tested and noticed early in his life when he received his Eagle Scout designation. He received his under-graduate degree from Princeton University in 1969; his Law degree from Yale Law School in 1972; and his Masters of Law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1995. He served as Vanderburgh County Superior Court Judge from 1980 1985. He was appointed by Governor Robert D. Orr as the 99th Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court on September 6, 1985. In March of 1987 Justice Shepard became the youngest State Chief Justice and has served in that capacity since, making him the longest serving Chief Justice in the country. His love for the Judiciary, coupled with his incredible intellect and quiet thoughtful demeanor, Justice Shepard has forever left his stamp on the Indiana Supreme Court. ``C J'', as he is affectionately called on the third floor of the Indiana Statehouse, has opened those imposing doors to television cameras and webcasts during arguments. He also directed changes that led to fewer criminal appeals and more civil cases being heard by the Supreme Court. He stated he is most proud that during his years on the bench Indiana has better court-related programs for children and domestic violence victims; increased professional development for judges; and a wider range of sentencing options. Indiana has not been able to keep Justice Shepard solely to itself. He is recognized as a national authority on judicial ethics and legal professionalism. In 2006, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice and fellow Hoosier, John Roberts, appointed him to the U.S. Judicial Conference Advisory Committee of Civil Rules. In 2009, Justice Shepard was the recipient of the national Dwight D. Opperman Award for Judicial Excellence. As a Justice, Mr. Shepard has authored more than 850 majority opinions and has published more than 40 Law Review articles. All Hoosiers must now, reluctantly, give ``C J'' back to his wife, Amy McDonnell, and their daughter, Martha. We do so knowing that the state of the Judiciary in Indiana has been led by the best of the best these last twenty-five years. We wish him relaxing days with more time to spend on his love of historic preservation and God's richest blessings in his retirement. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the time, and not just for the time but for her continued leadership on the floor of this House and in the Halls of Congress. It is steady, it is dignified, it is common sense, and it is certainly a great reflection of the people she represents. I rise this afternoon to give my strong support to this measure. During this time of economic uncertainty and high unemployment, it is more important than ever to make sure the Federal Government does not stand in the way of Americans who wish to continue their education and gain the skills necessary for a more prosperous future. It's pretty simple. I believe a strong higher education system is critical to preparing American graduates for an increasingly competitive workforce. In Indiana, my students are not just competing with other students in Fort Wayne and Evansville. They are competing with students from places all over the world whose names we can barely pronounce. That requires a different strategy. However, the regulatory initiatives put forth by the Department of Education will only add strain and undue burden on our colleges and universities. One of these regulations pertains to the authorization that a college or university must obtain from a State when operating within that State. For institutions providing online education programs, which is becoming the new norm, this regulation could require them to obtain authorization in every State where enrolled students reside in order to participate in the Federal student aid programs. This regulation will only serve to negatively impact States and institutions of higher education across the country and inject the Federal Government once again into an issue that is best left to the States and the postsecondary institutions themselves. I heard from many outstanding institutions in Indiana on this regulatory change. They are facing hundreds and potentially thousands of additional administrative hours just because they offer online programming. That is not fair. That is not American. Not only that, but if this rule goes into effect, they will likely deny entrance to students in States where they are not approved and deny financial aid to any current students living in those States, as well. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to adopt this measure.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege as the representative of Indiana's Fourth District to rise and pay tribute to Mr. Dan Terrell, Mayor of Mitchell, Indiana. Mayor Terrell is a man of deep civic conviction, a loving father of 6, and a devoted grandfather of 17. Dan Terrell was born in Mitchell, Indiana, and has remained there his entire life. He has never lost the small town conservative spirit that growing up in the Heartland of America gave him. Following his retirement from the Canadian Pacific Railroad, Dan Terrell was ready to concentrate fully on helping his hometown overcome challenges that so many small cities and towns have faced: lost businesses, sidewalks that were unsafe or non-existent, infrastructure in total disrepair, drinking water barely able to pass State regulations. During Mayor Terrell's four years in office these, and many other concerns, have not only been addressed but have been corrected. That is leadership. Besides the tangible accomplishments, his representation of the City as he traveled throughout Indiana offered his constituents a Mayor they could be proud of. A great example of this is the fact that he chaired the Southern Indiana Mayors Roundtable, a convention of all the mayors in Indiana. His leadership and vision will be truly missed as he leaves the Mayor's office. His love and his devotion for his hometown will continue. Mr. Speaker, it has been a true honor to stand in tribute and offer my thanks to the civic service of Mayor Dan Terrell, one of Indiana's best mayors and my close friend.