Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, despite the Obama administration's recent actions to disguise their attempt to force contraceptive coverage on religious institutions, the American people will not be fooled. The Obama administration has gone out of its way to impose its radical agenda on Americans. While some religious exemptions exist for churches, affiliated institutions such as religious hospitals or schools would not be exempt from this overreaching mandate. In fact, New York Bishop Timothy Dolan summed it up when he said: Never before has the Federal Government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their own conscience. This shouldn't happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights. This administration has shown no restraint in expanding the size, scope, and power of the Federal Government. We must repeal this law and restore religious freedom to religiously affiliated institutions in this country.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chair, we need to repeal this bad legislation. As Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, we looked into the CLASS Act and the actions of HHS. We issued a bicameral report on the failures of this fiscally reckless program. Some Senate Democrats expressed that they ``had grave concerns that the real effect of the [CLASS Act] would be to create a new federal entitlement with large, long-term spending increase that far exceed revenues.'' Perhaps the most damning indictment came from the Senate Budget Chairman who characterized CLASS Act as ``a ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.'' This legislation is so fiscally unsound that even the Secretary of HHS has announced that she does ``not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time.'' This despite all her statements in support of CLASS when the Democrats were ramming Obamacare down our throat. Under CBO rules, the CLASS failure will cost American taxpayers $86 billion--the most recent CBO project of the supposed savings from the CLASS Act. However, if CLASS had gone into effect, it would have increased our deficit by the third decade. We need to repeal this fiscally unsound entitlement. We need to stop wasteful spending. We need to bring our country back to the path of fiscal responsibility and repealing CLASS is an important first step.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it was April 29, 2009, 1,000 days ago, when the Democrat-controlled Senate last passed a budget. Back then, Solyndra was not a household name. General Motors was not yet bankrupt. Billy Mays was still selling OxyClean, and my good friend, Tebow from Gainesville--no one knew about Tebowtime. Since then, the Federal Government has added $4.1 trillion to the national debt. Our fiscal situation is in shambles. Entitlement spending is growing while defense spending is being cut, and the policies of a bigger and bigger government and higher taxes have not been successful. When the Senate last passed a budget, CBO predicted that the deficit for 2011 would be $693 billion. Today, it's $1.3 trillion. A budget is the first and most basic step that must be taken towards reining in historically high levels of spending and massive government growth. It is time for the Senate to do their job.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, our economy today continues to suffer after shocks from the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression. Today we understand a series of mistakes were made in the past decade which led to our current financial crisis. Now the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, FCIC, was given the task to investigate the causes of the meltdown of our financial institutions. Though the commission was unsuccessful in reaching a certain consensus of the exact cause, they did, however, conclude that the financial crisis was avoidable and was the result of the following factors, an explosion in risky subprime lending, an unsustainable rise in housing prices, widespread reports of egregious and predatory lending practices, dramatic increases in household mortgage debt, and exponential growth in financial firms' trading activities, unregulated derivatives, and short-term repo lending markets, just among a few of the red flags. Surely with all those factors Chairman Bernanke should have been more concerned. In fact, the title of my speech this morning is, ``Even with Warning Signs, Bernanke Failed to Sound the Alarm.'' In fact, he was warned by members of the Federal Reserve Board often. The release of transcripts from the Federal Open Market Committee, FOMC, meetings in 2006 shed light on the critical failures of the Federal Reserve and Mr. Bernanke to act when the warning signs were clear and present. The first meeting, however, was spent praising Bernanke's predecessor, outgoing Federal Chairman Alan Greenspan. But the FCIC later concluded that 30 years of deregulation and reliance on self-regulation by financial institutions that was championed by Mr. Greenspan were the factors in devastating the stability of our Nation's market, stripping away safeguards that simply could have avoided this catastrophe. Now in a later meeting on May 10, 2006, of the FOMC, then Fed Governor Susan Bies was one of the earliest to raise concern over the Nation's mortgage sector, which offered exotic loans that increased household debt over time instead of decreasing it. Now, specifically, her concerns stem from the absence of home equity growth, and the consumer's ability to absorb the uncertainties of the housing market. Listen to Mr. Bernanke's response when she made her declaration. ``So far we are seeing, at worst, an orderly decline in the housing market; but there is still, I think, a lot to be seen as to whether the housing market will decline slowly or more quickly.'' Yet again another colleague, then Fed Vice Chairwoman Janet Yellen, warns of the possibility of ``an unwelcome housing slump.'' But in the meeting of August 8, 2006, Chairman Bernanke remains hopeful in his prediction for a ``soft landing'' for our economy. Need I say the 2008 Great Recession was not a soft landing? In the September meeting, the Feds still remained oblivious to the detrimental effects in the housing market that will affect the rest of the economy. In the last meeting, Mr. Speaker, of the FOMC, Fed Governor Bies again, in December 2006, stated once again her concern of the housing market, stating that mortgages securitized in the past few years warrants additional risk than the investors have been focusing on. Despite the concerns that reported increased difficulty getting mortgages in their region, as well as a noticeable cool down in housing activity, Mr. Bernanke fails to see the warning signs and, again, predicts a soft landing on December 12, 2006, once again. This was his second statement of a soft landing in the same year. It was the failure of Mr. Bernanke to not pursue possible vulnerabilities and assuring us to the contrary that attributed to the economic crisis that we faced. On February 15, 2007, he stated ``Overall economic prospects for households remains good. The labor market is expected to stay healthy. And real incomes should continue to rise. The business sector remains in excellent financial condition.'' Again, on March 28, 2007, he stated, ``The impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime markets seems likely to be contained.'' Even on May 17, 2007, despite concerns raised by Fed Governor Bies again, he said, ``We do not expect significant spillovers from the subprime market to the rest of the economy or to the financial system.'' How wrong he was. But all of the dire warning signs were there. At Bernanke's confirmation hearing in the Senate Banking Committee, he conceded to the notion that the central bank ``should have done more.'' That's an understatement. The Fed had the authority and necessary power to prevent further abuses happening in the financial industry, but simply chose to ignore critical warning signs. Bernanke agrees he missed the warning signs, but thinks he can prevent a further crisis. Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that he, being Chairman, is going to prevent a further crisis and, frankly, I'm sure he failed to sound the alarm of the 2008 Great Recession.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on December 12, 2011, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes numbered 913 through 916. For the record, had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall 913--H.R. 3220, to designate the Master Sergeant Daniel L. Fedder Post Office--``aye''; rollcall 914--H.R. 2158, to designate the Wayne Grisham Post Office--``aye''; rollcall 915--Approval of the Journal--``aye''; rollcall 916--Motion to Adjourn--``nay.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my distinguished colleague. You know, I say to my colleagues on the Democrat side, we can sit here and blame Bush; we can sit here, on our side we could blame President Obama; and we can have this high rhetoric talking about this issue but now is the time to get serious. But we are in a very precarious situation. This is all different with a debt to GDP ratio at 100 percent. When you look at the statistics and you say, well, look, what's going to happen in this country in 10 years, in 10 years 95 percent of all Federal tax revenues will be consumed by payments of interest on the national debt and mandatory programs like Social Security. I think you would agree with that. Medicare and Medicaid are also there. This will leave just about 5 percent of our annual tax revenue available for funding national defense and other essential functions of the government. So this is an attempt here today, a very sober attempt, to control federal budgets and do this through a balanced budget amendment. Now, you make a valid argument about the difference of these 49 States having an operational balanced budget, which is they don't have a capital outlay balanced budget. I understand that argument. But also, with this constitutional amendment, we are projecting an attempt to have a rainy-day fund, where we set aside money for these emergencies we all worry about. So you cannot hang your whole argument on the difference between the state operational budgets and a state capital budget and a federal budget as a reason for not voting for this because we are at such dire extreme situations. And talking about Founding Fathers, they understood the perils associated with debt. In fact, Thomas Jefferson said, ``The principle of spending money to be paid by future generations, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.'' We need to come together and understand that this is not business as usual like when we voted for the constitutional amendment some 16 years ago. This is a precarious moment in history. We do not think we can go forward without controlling our spending, and this is a legitimate attempt to do so. I think the high rhetoric on both sides of blaming different Presidents and talking about the past is gone. We're talking about the future. I urge you to support this resolution.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. My colleagues, this legislation simply guarantees citizens' constitutional rights as affirmed by two Supreme Court cases, D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, which simply ruled the Second Amendment is an individual right. This bill will allow law-abiding citizens who already have valid carry permits to carry firearms when they travel to protect themselves and to protect their families. These are people who have proven themselves to be among the most responsible and safe members of our communities, and we should not deprive them of this fundamental right when they simply cross a State border. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. It's a long time in coming, I'm pleased it's on the floor, and I look forward to its passage.

Mr. STEARNS. I would say to my colleague, I'm from Florida, and I'm supporting this bill. In fact, I'm the proud sponsor of this bill, ladies and gentlemen. I have sponsored this legislation since the 105th Congress--that's almost 14 years ago--because I believe it's long overdue that we take action to enhance the fundamental right of self- defense for all law-abiding citizens of this country. I want to thank Mr. Trent Franks from Arizona for his assiduous and hard work in pushing this through the full committee and subcommittee, and I also thank Chairman Lamar Smith for his efforts, too. My colleagues, the right--the simple right--to defend yourself and your loved ones from a criminal is fundamental. And it's not extinguished when you simply cross a State border. This bill recognizes this important fact by establishing the interstate recognition of concealed-carry permits in much the same way driver's licenses are recognized. Now under this legislation, lawfully issued carry permits will be recognized in all States that also issue carry permits. There are now 49 States that issue these permits. Most of these States also recognize permits issued from at least some other States, while some States recognize all valid permits issued by any State. But herein, simply, lies the problem. The nonuniformity of the laws regarding reciprocity makes it difficult for law-abiding permit holders to know for sure if they are obeying the law as they travel from State to State. While preserving the power of the States to set the rules on where concealed firearms can be carried, this legislation will establish interstate carry permit recognition in the 49 permit issuing States. So this legislation will simply make it easier for law-abiding permit holders to know that they are simply in compliance with the law when they carry a firearm as they travel this wonderful country of ours. Now consider the outcome if States administered driver's licenses as they currently do carry permits. Drivers would have to stop at the State line to determine whether their license was valid before proceeding. Each State would recognize some licenses but, of course, not all of them. Some States would insist that others have precisely the same requirements for issuance of a license before offering reciprocity. And the status of such reciprocity would be constantly changing, literally day to day. So that is the reality of the current State reciprocity agreements for carry permits today. And only the Congress can remedy this interstate muddle. Our Union is a strong one, and we are proud to be citizens of a Nation who need not present papers to cross internal boundaries. But the holders of carry permits must indeed today worry whether their permits are valid before they can safely venture out of their home State while exercising a fundamental right. Our system of federalism beckons this body to remedy this disparity in due process and equal treatment under the law. Mr. Chairman, over the past 20 years, 17 States have passed right-to- carry laws. In each of these States, opponents of firearms ownership have made dire predictions of mayhem in the streets if we simply dared to allow law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm for their own self- defense. But in each case, these predictions were proven to be completely false. In fact, during that period, violent crime has dropped 51 percent to a 46-year low--1991 to 2011--and these are according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Statistics don't lie in this case. They are actually showing violent crime has dropped, and this is one of the reasons. Mr. Chairman, this legislation will not strip States of the ability to prohibit dangerous persons from carrying a firearm. Federal law already prohibits a convicted felon or someone shown to be a danger from the mere possession of a gun, and the carry regulations set up in each State will apply to all permit holders, both residents and nonresidents. This bill does not set up a Federal carry permit system or establish any Federal regulations of concealed-carry permits. That power remains with the States. Additionally, this legislation does not include any new Federal gun laws, nor does it call for additional Federal regulation of gun ownership. In fact, it does not allow for new Federal regulation, for it amends the part of the Gun Control Act that allows only such regulation as is necessary, and in this case none.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the University of Florida's Student Body Government, and to submit for the record their resolution supporting the U.S. commitment to a negotiated settlement of Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The University of Florida Student Government was established in 1909, and represents the interests of the student body. As representatives for the students of the University of Florida, this student government body has put forth Resolution 2011-138, which calls for the continuation of peaceful negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and to oppose any attempt seeking a unilateral declaration of statehood from the United Nations. The students of the University of Florida hereby resolve: Resolution Supporting the U.S. Commitment to a Negotiated Settlement of Palestinian Conflict Through Direct Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations, and Calling Upon the United States to Oppose Unilateral Palestinian Efforts of Declaring Independence in the United Nations. Whereas, a true and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinian people can only be achieved through direct negotiations between two legitimate parties and the acceptance of Israel's right to exist; and Whereas, direct negotiations between two legitimate parties to ensure an agreement that acknowledges both historical territorial claims to land while also taking into account the current demographic and security realities; and Whereas, Hamas, an organization responsible for the death of hundreds of Israeli and American civilians, has been designated by the United States State Department as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and is in control of the Gaza strip; and Whereas, Hamas has held merger talks with the Palestinian Authority and continues to forcefully reject the possibility of peace with Israel, and Whereas, refusing to come to the table and negotiate despite President Obama's direct request for a meeting following the Israeli nine month settlement freeze, the Palestinian Authority is preventing any constructive dialogue from taking place that could eventually lead to the formation of a Palestinian state; and Whereas, the Palestinian Authority attempting to gain full membership at the United Nations through a unilateral declaration of statehood is counterproductive to the peace process; and Whereas, a poll done by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion showed that eighty-three percent of Palestinians cited job creation as the most pressing issue, with only four percent citing UN recognition of Palestinian statehood as the most important; and Whereas, of that same poll only forty percent of Palestinians think that the UN vote will actually help to bring about an independent Palestinian state; and Whereas, the United States passed H. Res 268 and S. Bill 185 calling on the Administration to block the Palestinian Authority's efforts at the United Nations, and to cut foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority in the event of a unilateral declaration, and Whereas, the Obama administration has publicly criticized the Palestinian Authority's push for an unsustainable unilateral declaration, then be it Resolved That the University of Florida Student Senate, on behalf of the students of the University of Florida, join our elected officials in support of a peaceful, two-state solution through direct negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis; and be it further Resolved That the students of the University of Florida support a halt to any efforts for a unilateral declaration of statehood at the United Nations and that the Palestinian Authority terminates its association with Hamas, so that it may be considered a legitimate partner for peace.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. First of all, let me say to my colleague from New Hampshire that you weren't here when it was passed. I am sure glad as heck that you're here today to provide this legislation and give respectful oversight to the taxpayers and help them out with trying to save money and being accountable. So it is a credit to you and your initiative to get this bill on the floor. I also want to thank the chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee for his initiative in getting this on the floor. It's something that, I think, we've wanted to do for a while; and between the leadership of Mr. Bass and the leadership of Mr. Walden, we've got this today.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. Although the disabled have made significant progress in achieving the American Dream today, they still face unfairness in the workplace under a provision that allows employers to pay workers with disabilities less than the Federal minimum wage. Protections for disabled workers were excluded in the Fair Labor Standards Act in the mistaken belief that they would not be as productive as other workers. That is why I offered the Fair Wages for Workers with Disabilities Act, along with my good colleague, Congressman Bishop of New York. This legislation would phase out the provision in the Fair Labor Standards Act that allows subminimum wage for disabled workers. It is deplorable and wrong in America that these not-for-profit centers would hire people with disabilities, including the visually impaired, and pay them less than $1 an hour. Workers with disabilities contribute to our economy and to our society, and they deserve equal pay for equal work.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ted Williams, the last baseball player to hit .400 or better for a season, a feat he accomplished 70 years ago this very month, September 1941, which has never been equaled. Ted wasn't just a remarkable baseball player; he was a remarkable American who also served his country as a Marine Corps pilot in World War II and the Korean War. Ted Williams once said: ``A man has to have goals--for a day, for a lifetime--and that was mine, to have people say, `There goes Ted Williams, the greatest hitter who ever lived.' '' Not only did he have a goal, but he also harnessed the determination and hard work necessary to succeed. Today I honor a man who was a friend, a constituent and a great American on the anniversary of his greatest achievement. He will always be remembered as baseball's greatest hitter.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ocala's own Army National Guard Captain Thomas Harper of the 20th Special Forces Group (Airborne). Captain Harper and the 2nd Battalion, 20th Special Forces unit successfully provided security assistance for the French Foreign Legion in the Uzbeen Valley -of Afghanistan. He was among those soldiers separated from their unit by a mortar blast causing shrapnel to injure four of the five American soldiers and exposed to enemy fire. Despite their injuries, Captain Harper and his comrades moved the severely injured to safety and repelled the attack for more than an hour until air support and medic helicopters arrived. Captain Harper was among five National Guards and one active duty Special Forces soldiers honored with the French Croix de la Valeur Militaire (French Cross of Military Valor), an honor rarely bestowed on any soldier, especially those who are not French. I join his family, Dr. Wayne Harper, Debbie Harper and sisters Chrissy and Lauren in sharing great pride in the accomplishments of this great American. For their bravery, I rise today Mr. Speaker to honor Captain Thomas Harper and his comrades for their service, and for the unwavering dedication shown to their country.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, my flight was delayed on July 25, 2011 and I was unable to cast my vote on rollcall vote Nos. 630 and 631. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. It's been said before that the United States Government owes close to $14.3 trillion. An estimate by the CBO reveals that by the year 2021, the government will spend 100 percent of every dollar in revenue on entitlements. Simply raising the debt limit to $16.3 trillion without comparable spending reduction is irresponsible at best and catastrophic for our Nation at worse. Forcing our Nation's spiraling and out-of-control debt onto the backs of our country's children and grandchildren is irresponsible. Comparable spending reductions would be in the amount of at least $2 trillion. But as that does not even cover the interest on the debt, a $4 trillion spending reduction would be appropriate; and that's what we should be working on. Today we must ask ourselves, Is this blessed country of ours disciplined enough to solve the debt problem through austerity and productivity? I think we can. I believe we can. But only if we break from the tradition of spending and raising our debt limit. Instead, we must pass H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 561 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today the United States Government owes close to $14.3 trillion. It's estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that by the year 2021, the government will spend 100 percent of every dollar raised in revenue on entitlements. And yet we are being asked to raise the debt limit to $16.3 trillion. That's a $2 trillion increase, or 14 percent increase. In 2010, our national GDP was $14.6 trillion. Raising the debt to $16.3 trillion means our debt ceiling will surpass our country's GDP. And yet for the 81st time since 1940, we are being asked again to raise the debt ceiling. In 2002, our debt stood at $6.2 trillion. Now, not even 10 years later, we are asked to raise it to $16.2 trillion. That's a 250 percent increase, or an average of 16.7 percent increase per year. Obviously, continuing on this path next year, it is likely we will be asked in this Chamber to raise the debt ceiling to $19 trillion. That's staggering. In keeping with this 70-year tradition, we are certain to force our Nation's spiraling and out-of-control debt onto the backs of our country's children and grandchildren. Raising the debt ceiling today without reform will merely lead to a new call, a new call to raise the debt again tomorrow. Is the United States disciplined enough to solve this debt problem through austerity and productivity? I think it is. Yet I believe we can, but only if we break this tradition of continued spending. Now recently a constituent of mine wrote a simple letter to the editor of my hometown paper and this what is he said: ``If you and your wife haven't made a budget for the last 2 years, and now you have maxed-out the $14,300 credit limit on your Visa card, do you: A, expect Visa to raise your limit to $16,700; B, print counterfeit money to cover your debts; C, borrow more money; or, D, sell the Cadillac.'' Responsible Americans would sell the Cadillac. It's time for the Federal Government to do the same thing: reduce spending or sell unneeded assets. We must begin to closely scrutinize our bills and eliminate wasteful and fraudulent programs, sunset some of them. As we negotiate the upcoming vote on the debt ceiling, we should ensure that any cut in spending exceeds any increase in the debt limit. Selling the Cadillac is meaningless when you continue to max out on your credit card. The point here is to make a difference in our debt, not to merely provide a vehicle to continue Washington's spending addiction. Moreover, any future spending must be restricted. We cannot sell the Cadillac this year only to buy a Mercedes Benz next year. Again, we must begin to live within our means. I know that leadership is working tirelessly to ensure that a compromise can be reached and the Republicans' demands can be met, and it appears we are making progress. But, the President has in one breath asked both parties to leave their rhetoric at the door, but then in the same next breath he accused Republicans of refusing to cut tax loopholes for the rich in order to curb the debt problem. But that alone won't do it. Beyond being contradictory and self-serving, these accusations demonstrate that Democrats continue to misunderstand the real problem. CBO has nailed it. They recently revealed that it is runaway spending, not a lack of revenue, that is driving our debt today. According to CBO's long-term budget forecast, even with a tax increase that raises revenues from its historic 18 percent of GDP to 23 percent of GDP, the national debt will continue to grow unless we have the spending reductions. Everyone here in Congress understands how important this vote is, but surely after the CBO analysis, we must confront the fact that spending is growing relentlessly and needs to be placed under control. Therefore, to move the debt ceiling up another $2 trillion, we need to see corresponding spending reductions regardless--regardless--without tax increases. Now is the time to do it. It can be done. And it must be done today.

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. Basically, I am taking 16 million, not billion, $16 million from a part of the Department of Defense budget, which is called defense-wide appropriations, where there's almost 20 billion. So I'm asking to take roughly .0008, or .08 percent, from this defense-wide appropriations which is used for other than military departments. So it is not even applicable to the Army, Navy, and Air Force, not the military departments, but it is used by the Secretary of Defense for the maintenance, lease, and operation of facilities and equipment. And what I'm doing is taking this $16 million and I'm transferring it to the Peer-Reviewed Prostate Cancer Research Program. Funding levels, my colleagues, for this program, has gone down dramatically since 2001. Right now, it's funded at $64 million. It was funded in 2001 at 100. It has continually come down and down and down. So I'm not asking to take it up to the 2001 level; I'm just asking to take it up to perhaps what it was in 2005. I think, without going into all of the details, this is a very wise move because funding levels for this program have continually decreased, yet prostate cancer is the second-leading cause of male cancer-related death in the United States, with an estimated 27,360 casualties just last year. There are no noticeable symptoms in early stages. The use of widespread testing, however, has led to 9 out of 10 cases of early detection. That is why this very paltry amount of $16 million in funding would be better spent for prostate cancer research for our military than abroad. According to the Prostate Cancer Research Program, the PCRP, active duty males are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer than their civilian counterparts. Research funded by the PCRP advances treatment and procedures for warfighters exposed to chemical weapons, soldiers exposed to chemical agents such as Agent Orange, and those exposed to depleted uranium. Congress has consistently supported funding levels of over $80 million annually for this important cause, yet it is only funded at $64 million. The PCRP funds innovative high-risk, high-reward research projects supporting basic and clinical research in both the individual and multidisciplinary collaborative group setting. Funding for the PCRP enables research to advance faster and to be better prepared to apply for future funding from the National Institute of Health or to advance clinical trials. Unlike any other Federal cancer research programs, any other, the PCRP award review panels are made up of the country's top researchers and prostate cancer survivors, together making sure that innovative ideas rapidly benefit all men and families burdened by this disease. In 2010, the PCRP, along with the Clinical Consortium, helped shepherd two new drugs through clinical trials. Both drugs are designed to prolong a man's life with prostate cancer. These drugs moved through the clinical trials process and have made their way to the bedside of men dying from prostate cancer to extend their lives. This public- private partnership is an incredible way to maximize productivity of government funded and privately funded medical research. So I ask my colleagues to support my simple amendment to transfer $16 million from defense-wide appropriation, which is other than military which they use presently for maintenance, lease, operational facilities and equipment, and it represents a 0.08 percent reduction of this other military-wide funding. With that, Mr. Chairman, I include the letter to me regarding the Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Research Program from the Prostate Cancer Foundation for the Record. Prostate Cancer Foundation, Santa Monica, CA, July 6, 2011. Hon. Cliff Stearns, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Stearns: Founded in 1993, the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) has raised more than $450 million to fund more than 1,500 prostate cancer research programs at nearly 200 research centers in 12 countries. Our research enterprise aims to improve prostate cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment for the more than 16 million men and their families battling prostate cancer worldwide. PCF also serves as a primary source for new standard-of-care and research information. Prostate cancer poses a substantial public health burden in America. A total of 240,890 new cases of prostate cancer and 33,720 deaths from the disease are anticipated in the United States in 2011, making it the most frequent nondermatologic cancer among U.S. males. A man's lifetime risk of prostate cancer is one in six. Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in men, exceeded only by lung cancer. At this time, the Prostate Cancer Foundation would like to express our strong support for increasing the $64 million provided for the Department of Defense's Prostate Cancer Research Program (DoD PCRP) by the fiscal year 2012 Defense Appropriations Act, H.R. 2219 by an additional $16 million. Without this addition, the 20% decrease from the fiscal year 2011 $80 million appropriation would effectively return the DoD PCRP funding level to what it was ten years ago. This decrease will mean that we lose hundreds of thousands of American lives to lethal prostate cancer in the next few years. In a unique public-private partnership with the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Research Program co-sponsors the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Network (PCCTC), which is the world's most comprehensive ``first in man'' phase I/II clinical trials group for prostate cancer composed of 13 Centers of Excellence in genitourinary oncology. The Consortium has helped to bring to market 2 new medicines for men with advanced prostate cancer that were approved by the FDA in 2010-11: namely, XGEVATM (denosumab)--Amgen Inc. and ZYTIGATM (abiraterone acetate)--Johnson & Johnson. More than 2,700 patients have had access to 83 clinical trials since 2005 through the Department of Defense's sponsorship of this Consortium. Since 1997, when the DoD PCRP was initiated, about $1.1 billion has been appropriated by Congress and used to fund more than 2,000 prostate cancer research studies across the U.S. Since 2006, this program has been funded at $80 million per year. The Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Research Program is America's leading undiluted support to find and fund the best prostate cancer research. The research funded by DoD PCRP has led to many dramatic improvements in our Nation's prostate health, from decreases in deaths due to prostate cancer to increased life expectancy for men facing terminal diagnoses. Today, continued life-saving progress for prostate cancer patients is threatened because of the possibility of decreased funding through the Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Research Program. The funding for the Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Research Program is not duplicative with funding at the National Cancer Institute. While PCF understands and appreciates the budgetary constraints currently facing our Nation, PCF also believes that advances in prostate cancer research must remain a very high national priority. Critical funding is needed in order to maintain clinical and translational research that will lead to the development of new cancer therapies and technologies that will help prostate cancer patients. On behalf the Prostate Cancer Foundation, our Board of Directors, and the two million men and their families battling prostate cancer in America, I urge you to restore funding for the Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Research Program at $80 million per year in fiscal year 2012. Thank you for your careful consideration of this important request. Sincerely, Jonathan W. Simons, MD, President and Chief Executive Officer. David H. Koch, Chair.

Mr. STEARNS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman from Washington. Oftentimes, I give him an amendment which he has very little time to look at. Again this happened, but I am very pleased he is supporting my amendment. With that, obviously I will not call for a vote. I appreciate the appropriators supporting my amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, let me just briefly say, this is a very simple amendment. It takes the Center for Tobacco Products back to the 2009 level. Now all of you should realize, this agency never existed in 2006. There have been prodigious increases in this center. We are taking the funding for this Center for Tobacco Products back to the 2009 level. Now under the President's plan, the budget for the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products has simply exploded. The administration's budget justification to Congress states, ``FDA is experiencing an unprecedented and dramatic surge in staffing and facility needs that will cause FDA facility requirements to exceed the scope of the 2009 master plan.'' I understand that. The FDA is expanding, does good work. I'm not criticizing it. But one area of the FDA's budget that is growing way too fast under this administration's budget is the brand-new Center for Tobacco Products. Again, this agency, this center did not exist in 2006. In the FY 2012 Agriculture appropriations legislation reported by the committee, it continues the trend of major discretionary spending reduction sought by the Republican majority. This same fiscal restraint should be applied to the Center for Tobacco Products. We're talking about appropriation levels going back to 2006, 2009, 2010. So all I'm asking is let's move this back to 2009. An FY 2012 budget that was requested by the FDA's Tobacco Act was $454 million, an increase of $238 million from fiscal year 2010 enacted levels of $235 million. So think of that: in 1 year it practically doubled, 110 percent increase. Now, this is when we have a deficit, $1.5 trillion every year, and we have a debt that's approaching $15 trillion. If we look at FY 2009, an $85 million funding, from the fiscal year 2009 there's been a 500 percent increase in this new Center for Tobacco Products. Tobacco regulation, obviously, is a new program at the FDA. They have been just champing at the bit over there for the last 25 years to be involved with the regulation of cigarettes and everything like that. They want to regulate tobacco, and I think, frankly, you know, the House voted for it. I accept that. But we don't need to increase from 2009 up to what we're looking at, these large increases. We've got to return some of these increases to the debt and to the deficit. So a 500 percent increase in a budget is way too large. I suggest that funding should continue at the 2009 levels. We are rolling back funding for many other programs, and it's proper to ensure that FDA also bears some of the burden during some of these most austere budgetary times. Now, all of us know that smoking is bad. And the question is, what is the FDA doing through this Center for Tobacco Products? It's not clear to me, but do they have to increase over the years almost 500 percent? Reducing their funding to fiscal year 2009 levels will be a restraint and will give the authorizing committee a chance to review the FDA regulations and review how the FDA plans to implement the law. I simply want to ensure that the FDA does not overreach with their authority, and ensure that it is using the best approach to ensure that tobacco harm is reduced. We all want to see it reduced. But the question, we all have to take a sacrifice--doesn't the Center for Tobacco Products also have to contribute? There's no reason for it to have over these years a 500 percent increase. And so, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a modest attempt to try and save money. It's quite a substantial amount of money for a good cause, which is reducing our deficit, our debt. In the long term, let the FDA and this new Center for Tobacco Products move forward, but not at these chomping, prodigious, gargantuan increases because they felt that it's catch-up time. I mean, every agency down here can come and say it's catch-up time. But obviously, under this economy and under this huge deficit, we cannot continue to look at agencies like this over this period of time getting a 500 percent increase in funding. So I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in March of 2006, then-Senator Obama was on the Senate floor and this is what he said: ``The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that `the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.'' But now, Mr. Speaker, a few short years later, President Obama now takes the opposite approach, calling for an increase in the debt limit and threatening doom otherwise. President Obama has failed to send to Congress a budget that would realistically solve our Nation's financial problems. He calls for plans that spend too much and borrow too much and tax too much. When Congress reasonably rejected his plan and proposed a budget with responsible cuts, he turned to political rhetoric rather than meaningful discussions. So, at a time when our Nation must address a fiscal crisis, our President has offered no real solution and has politicized the issue. What we have today more than ever before is a sign of leadership failure, back to his original speech when he was a Senator. America deserves better. So today, with the debt ceiling already $5.3 trillion higher, higher, than the level President Obama objected to raising 5 years ago, he now asks us to raise it again for the 81st time since 1940. We all know this famous quote that defines insanity as doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. If we actually want to solve today's problems, we must depart from the insane 70-year tradition of just continuing to spend. If we do not delve into the real spending problems today, we will have this same debate a year later, 3, 5, 10 years later from now, and will again be urged to raise the debt limit or face a financial catastrophe. The United States Government already owes more than $14 trillion. Less talked about is the Federal Government faces another $114 trillion in unfunded liabilities for Social Security and for Medicare. An estimate by the Congressional Budget Office reveals that by the year 2025, the government will spend 100 percent of every dollar in revenue on entitlements. And Federal debt aside, State and local governments face a combined $3 trillion coupled with their own unfunded liabilities in the form of pensions. Forcing the government to live within its means is the only solution. Just as a family household does it when it reaches its spending limits, we must begin to closely scrutinize our bills and decide where there is unnecessary waste. When families seek to decrease their utility bills, they remember to turn off lights when they leave a room. We must begin doing this as well. Wasteful, fraudulent programs must be turned off and long-term programs such as Medicare and Social Security must be addressed seriously today. Debt must be paid down instead of piled on. Although the President, the Senate leader, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury believe the worst thing that could happen to all of us is that we default on August 2, I believe that the worst thing that could happen for Congress to do is to fail to couple the increased debt limit with meaningful spending cuts. Once again, the private sector has affirmed this. On June 11, 2011, 150 economists called for immediate spending cuts to help support job growth in a letter to Speaker John Boehner, which I would like to have placed in the Record. A Debt Limit Increase Without Significant Spending Cuts and Budget Reforms Will Destroy American Jobs An increase in the national debt limit that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms to address our government's spending addiction will harm private-sector job creation in America. It is critical that any debt limit legislation enacted by Congress include spending cuts and reforms that are greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority being granted to the president. We will not succeed in balancing the federal budget and overcoming the challenges of our debt until we succeed in committing ourselves to government policies that allow our economy to grow. An increase in the national debt limit that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms would harm private-sector job growth and represent a tremendous setback in the effort to deal with our national debt. Ryan C. Amacher, University of Texas at Arlington; Michael Applegate, Oklahoma State University; King Banaian, St. Cloud State University; Stacie Beck, University of Delaware; John Bethune, Barton College; Scott Bradford, Brigham Young University; Phillip J. Bryson, University of Wisconsin- Madison; Oral Capps, Jr., Texas A&M University; James E. Carter, Emerson Electric Co.; Robert E. Chatfield, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Kenneth W. Clarkson, University of Miami; John P. Cochran, Metropolitan State College of Denver; Charles W. Baird, California State University, East Bay; Bruce Bender, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; Donald R. Booth, Chapman University; Michael Boskin, Stanford University; David A. Brat, Randolph-Macon College; David P. Brown, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Todd G. Buchholz, Two Oceans Management; Samantha Carrington, California State University. Don Chance, Louisiana State University; Candice Clark, Economic Consultant; R. Morris Coats, Nicholls State University; John F. Cogan, Hoover Institution; Robert Collinge, University of Texas at San Antonio; Kathleen B. Cooper, Southern Methodist University; Nicole Crain, Lafayette University; Robert Crouch, University of California, Santa Barbara; Coldwell Daniel III, The University of Memphis; J. Ronnie Davis, University of New Orleans; Ted Day, University of Texas at Dallas; Arthur T. Denzau, Claremont Graduate University; Nasser Duella, California State University, Fullerton; Joseph W. Duncan, Private Consultant on Information Policy; Frank Egan, Trinity College; Dorla A. Evans, University of Alabama--Huntsville; Frank Falero, California State University; Layton W. Franko, Queens College; Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Hudson Institute; Dave Garthoff, The University of Akron--Akron, Ohio. Gerald Gay, Georgia State University; Cathleen J. Coolidge, California State University, Chico; Mike Cosgrove, University of Dallas; Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr., Competitive Enterprise Institute; Robert Dammon, Carnegie Mellon University; Antony Davies, Duquesne University; Stephen J. Dempsey, University of Vermont; Phoebus J. Dhrymes, Columbia University; Floyd H. Duncan, Virginia Military Institute; John Eckalbar, California State University; John B. Egger, Towson University; Dino Falaschetti, Florida State Law; Michelle Michot Foss, University of Texas; Michele Fratianni, Indiana University; Delworth B. Gardner, Brigham Young University; James R. Garven, Baylor University; Robert Genetski, classicalprinciples.com; Micha Gisser, University of New Mexico; Joseph A. Giacalone, St. John's University, NY; David Gillette, Truman State University. Marvin Goodfriend, Carnegie Mellon University; Richard L. Gordon, The Pennsylvania State University; Richard J. Grant, Lipscomb University; Earl L. Grinols, Baylor University; Eric A. Hanushek, Hoover Institution; Joseph H. Haslag, University of Missouri; Joel Hay, University of Southern California; David R. Henderson, Hoover Institution; Douglas Holtz-Eakin, American Action Forum; Chris Inama, Golden State University; Stephen Jackstadt, University of Alaska, Anchorage; Gerald R. Jensen, Northern Illinois University; Jerry L. Jordan, Pacific Academy for Advanced Studies; Alexander Katkov, Johnson & Wales University; Richard LaNear, Missouri Southern State University; Lawrence Goodman, Center for Financial Stability, Inc.; Ed Graham, University of North Carolina at Wilmington; Paul Gregory, University of Houston; Dennis Halcoussis, California State University, Northridge; Stephen Happel, Arizona State University. Kevin Hassett, American Enterprise Institute; Bob Heidt, Indiana University--Bloomington; John P. Hoehn, Michigan State University; C. Thomas Howard, University of Denver; F. Owen Irvine, Michigan State University; Joseph M. Jadlow, Oklahoma State University; Ryan S. Johnson, BYU-Idaho; June O'Neill, Baruch College, CUNY; Marek Kolar, Trine University; Corinne Krupp, Duke University; Norman Lefton, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville; Larry Lindsey, The Lindsey Group; Jane Lillydahl, University of Colorado at Boulder; R. Ashley Lyman, University of Idaho; David Malpass, Encima Global; Henry Manne, George Mason University; Timothy Mathews, Kennesaw State University; Roger Meiners, University of Texas-Arlington; James C. Miller III, Hoover Institution; Ed Miseta, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College. Andrew P. Morriss, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa; John E. Murray, University of Toledo; George R. Neumann, University of Iowa; Seth W. Norton, Wheaton College; James B. O'Neill, University of Delaware; Svetozar Pejovich, Texas A&M University; Ivan Pongracic, Jr., Hillsdale College; John A. Powers, University of Cincinnati; Richard W. Rahn, Cato Institute; Glenn MacDonald, Washington University in St. Louis; Yuri N. Maltsev, Carthage College; Michael L. Marlow, California Polytechnic State University; Martin C. McGuire, University of California-Irvine; Allan Meltzer, Carnegie Mellon University; Thomas P. Miller, American Enterprise Institute; James Moncur, University of Hawaii at Manoa; Robert Mundell, Nobel Laureate in Economics, 1999; Richard F. Muth, Emory University; Robert D. Niehaus, Robert D. Niehaus, Inc.; Lee E. Ohanian, University of California, Los Angeles; Stephen T. Parente, University of Minnesota; G. Michael Phillips, California State University, Northridge. William Poole, University of Delaware; Ronald L. Promboin, University of Maryland University College; James B. Ramsey, New York University; Thomas A. Rhee, California State University, Long Beach; R. David Ranson, H. C. Wainwright & Co. Economics Inc.; Christine P. Ries, Georgia Institute of Technology; Thomas Carl Rustici, George Mason University; Thomas R. Saving, Texas A&M University; Judy Shelton, Atlas Economic Research Foundation; George P. Shultz, Hoover Institution; James F. Smith, EconForecaster, LLC; Houston H. Stokes, University of Illinois at Chicago; Avanidhar Subrahmanyam (Subra), University of California, Los Angeles; Robert Tamura, Clemson University; Clifford F. Thies, Shenandoah University; Leo Troy, Rutgers University-Newark; George Viksnins, Georgetown University; James P. Weston, Rice University; Michael E. Williams, University of Denver; Michael Wohlgenant; North Carolina State University. Gene C. Wunder, Washburn University; Paul H. Rubin, Emory University; Gary J. Santoni, Ball State University; Robert Haney Scott, California State University, Chico; William F. Shughart II, The University of Mississippi; Timothy F. Slaper, Indiana University; Vernon Smith, Chapman University School of Law; Lawrence Southwick, University at Buffalo; Brian Strow, Western Kentucky University; Richard J. Sweeney, Georgetown University; John B. Taylor, Hoover Institution; Stephen A. Tolbert, Jr., Montgomery County Community College (PA); David G. Tuerk, Suffolk University; Richard Vedder, Ohio University; Sherri L. Wall, University of Alaska Fairbanks; J. Gregg Whittaker, William and Jewell College; D. Mark Wilson, Applied Economic Strategies; Gary Wolfram, Hillsdale College; Benjamin Zycher, Pacific Research Institute; Joseph Zoric, Franciscan University of Steubenville. The letter specifically says: ``An increase in the national debt limit that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms to address our government's spending addiction will harm private-sector job creation in America. It is critical that any debt limit legislation enacted by Congress include spending cuts and reforms that are greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority being granted to the President.'' If there has ever been a failure of leadership, it is today. We're broke, and the solution lies in reform rather than rhetoric, spending cuts rather than spending increases. Leadership has called for compromise in the next couple of weeks. A compromise does not involve a vote on raising the debt ceiling without these spending cuts. We demonstrated that on May 31 when, 97-318, the House rejected this measure. No Republican supported the vote then, and no Republican should support such a vote in August. Only after we curb the trillions of dollars of debt that we continue to pile up can we consider raising the debt limit.