Jean Schmidt

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I thank my colleague from Kansas. And I couldn't agree with you more. The passage of a balanced budget amendment will legally prevent us from spending more than we take in. It is the only method guaranteed to control our spending. By controlling our spending, we will lower the deficit, which will lower interest rates, which will contribute to greater economic growth. The passage of a balanced budget amendment will provide job creators with a better understanding of the economic environment in which they can expect to do business--that's called certainty--thereby encouraging investment and expansion. I could go on and on. I will now turn to my good friend from Florida because I want to hear your thoughts on this balanced budget amendment.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I thank my good friend from Florida. As I said a moment ago, a balanced budget amendment will legally prevent us, tie our hands from spending more than we take in. It's the only method available to control spending in Washington, and it will lower our interest rates which will contribute to economic growth. This balanced budget amendment is a job creator because it puts certainty back into the marketplace. It will remove legislative gimmicks--you know, the kind of accounting gimmicks that say we've cut when we really haven't--from the budgeting process because it will be just like what this woman is doing with her checkbook, how much in, how much is going out, are we in the black or are we in the red. Since the passage of a balanced budget amendment, or the attempt to pass a balanced budget amendment in 1995 by a bipartisan House and its subsequent failure by one vote in the Senate, the national debt has grown by $9 trillion. You know, if we just had that courageous person in the Senate in 1995 to say yes, I dare say we wouldn't be in the position we are in today. The passage of a balanced budget amendment would be a key step to rebuild, restore, and regain the American public's trust and confidence in the United States, and not just the confidence for the Americans to have in us, but the confidence for our creditors around the world. This resolution does a couple of things. It prohibits outlays for a fiscal year except for those repayment of debt principal from exceeding total receipts for that fiscal year except those derived from borrowing unless Congress by a three-fifths rollcall vote, none of this voice vote, rollcall, we have to put our card in the machine and show how we vote up on the wall, authorizes a specific excess over the outlay. So if you have to overspend, three-fifths of us are going to have to agree to overspending. It requires a three-fifths rollcall vote of each Chamber to increase the public debt limit. Again, none of these shenanigans about a voice vote when we're all in the corners of the hallways or back home. Each and every one of us are going to have to take our voting card and put it in the machine and Americans are going to see how we voted right on that screen. It directs the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress annually. Wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air? It prohibits any bill to increase revenue from becoming law unless approved by a majority of each Chamber by again a rollcall vote. That means putting your card in the machine and having it displayed on the wall. It authorizes waivers of those provisions when a declaration of war is in effect or under other specified circumstances involving military conflict. So again, in a case of national emergency where we would be placed in harm's way, it allows for those provisions to occur. My fellow friends in this Chamber, it is so important that we think about doing this and doing it this week because I do not believe we can wait any longer. You know, the United States, as was said before, has spent almost $15 trillion of accumulated debt, 3.7 of new debt in just 2 years. It's an alarming figure. No wonder our bond creditors are looking at us and shaking their fingers. Our spending driven debt crisis poses a lethal threat to our country's economic recovery, our national security and our sovereignty and the standard of living for future generations. And, Mr. Speaker, I have a stake in these future generations because not only do I have a wonderful daughter and a great son-in-law, but I have the two best grandsons a grandmother could ever have. And I look at them and I see such potential in their eye. And I look at them and I remember how my ancestors came from Ellis Island with nothing but pennies in their pockets, maybe not even pennies, how my own father started with nothing and worked and worked and worked to put food on the table and give us the promise for a better future. How me, from an ordinary beginning, born and raised on a farm, could end up serving in the U.S. Congress. All of that is the fabric of the American dream. All of that is the potential that we can be and we should be, and I see it being threatened by our overspending. Mr. Speaker, about 10 days ago I took the Staten Island ferry to Staten Island. You know me, I'm a runner. I was doing my 90th-whatever marathon it was. My friend, my cousin, said let's take the ferry and we did. It reminded me of the critical juncture we are in in our Nation. On the way down in the cab, where you catch the ferry is real close to the World Trade Center. My daughter lived in New York during the time of the attack on the World Trade Center. I had just taken her to the Windows of the World for dinner just 3 weeks before those towers came crashing down. So I said to the cab driver: Would you mind driving me around, I want to see what the new building looks like. You know, I saw the rebirth of the brick and mortar of that emblem in New York. And then I got on the boat, on the ferry. The sun was coming up and it was dancing across the water, and I saw Ellis Island. I thought: Wow, my ancestors came through there; my own grandfather with nothing came through there and ended up in Cincinnati. And then I saw the Statue of Liberty. I thought: Oh, my gosh; that's the beacon of hope. That is where people from across the globe want to come to America because they know they have the chance to be the best person they can be. They have the choice and the chance and the opportunity to be what they want to be, to chart their own destiny. And there are so few places around the world that give them that choice. And then we landed, got to the bridge, the Verrazano Bridge, where we start the marathon. Because I was in the second wave, we started with ``America the Beautiful'' and then they sang ``New York, New York,'' you know, the Frank Sinatra song. Actually, it wasn't ``America the Beautiful,'' it was ``God Bless America,'' but I digress. And I started to cry. And it wasn't just soft tears, these were tears running down my face and I cried because I realized we are at a crossroad. We could lose all of this. All of this could be lost because we're allowing ourselves to become obese with debt. Let me repeat that, obese with debt. You know, our First Lady likes to talk about obesity in America. And yes, it's a problem, but we have become obese with debt and we have no road map to get out of it. The road map to get out of it is a balanced budget amendment because it says you can't spend more than you take in. You can't do it. And oh, if you decide in this Chamber to do it, we're going to see how you vote. And it's not just going to be 51 percent, or 50 plus one, it's going to be three-fifths of everybody in this Chamber. And we're going to have to show America how we voted right there on that wall. So if you're going to overspend, you better dog on well have a good reason to do it. Again, let me repeat what this measure does. It requires the Congress not to spend more than it receives in revenues unless a supermajority, three-fifths vote and a rollcall vote to provide otherwise. It requires a corresponding three-fifths vote to raise that debt ceiling; again, a rollcall vote. It requires the President to submit a balanced budget to this auspicious body. It requires him to do that--him or her. It requires a majority rollcall vote for any proposed bill to increase taxes. So if we want to do this by increasing taxes, you've got to have three-fifths to do that. It also provides for a limited exemption in times of war and serious military conflict. So it protects us in case we have a national strike against us. And it would take effect beginning the fifth fiscal year after the ratification by the States, because my friends, the problem is our national debt crisis. I would now like to turn to my good friend from North Carolina.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. May I ask a question? When you do your bills, do you do what this lady is doing and balance your checkbook first? What would happen if you didn't do that?

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I thank you for your attention in this matter, and you're absolutely right. We've got to get control of the spending and get control of it now. It reminds me of when you're trying to go on a diet. And so if I'm trying to go on a diet back home--believe it or not, every once in a while I have to watch what I eat--I don't sit there and have every candy bar in the world out in front of me and open them up. That only entices me to want to eat it. So if I'm going to go on a diet, I don't buy the candy. I buy an apple, I buy bananas, I buy something that is filling and good for me. But I certainly don't tempt myself with something that I know is only going to be wasted calories and put on weight. And yet, we don't do that here at the Federal level. We say, well, it's okay, we'll cut spending tomorrow, but we'll spend today. If we had a balanced budget amendment, we couldn't have that attitude. We'd have to look at every single dime that is in our checking account and account for it before we built a new program. Look at how many attempts there are for new programs, small and large, right here in this body. You've been here 11 months. How many programs and ideas have come before you and you've had to say, can we afford it? But here we don't have to answer that question. We have the freedom to do it. We may not be able to afford it, but I'm not balancing the checkbook, so we don't know. It doesn't matter. It's okay. No, it's not. We have to force ourselves to do what's right for America, and not just here in 2011, but in 2111 and 2211 and beyond. Our protection, the only protection that we have is with a balanced budget amendment because it ties our hands to future spending. It forces us to balance that checkbook and do what's right for America. As we are looking at this, we know that the American public is with us on this. Ninety-five percent of Americans believe that the deficit problem is what's ruining our Nation, and almost 75 percent of those that recognize that the problem is the debt and the deficit, almost 75 percent say a balanced budget amendment is the right tool to make the answer. Stop the spending. I turn now to my good friend from the State of Washington.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. And I thank you, my good friend, for that eloquent view and argument for the balanced budget amendment because we are at a crisis, we are at a threshold, we are at a fork in the road in our country. And if we don't get this spending under control, your children and my grandchildren--they're about the same age--are going to have a really tough time charting their own destiny. This is America. This is the place where streets are ``paved in gold,'' and it's the gold of sweat from the Americans before us, the Americans that are here with us now, and the Americans of our future. But if we don't stop the unbridled spending in Washington, our future is not going to be able to continue to pave the way with gold. This spending has to stop. To say we'll do it tomorrow is not enough. We have to force ourselves into fiscal discipline. And the only way to do that, the only legal way to bind us is through a constitutional amendment, because the Constitution says one legislative session can't bind a future legislative session with anything unless it is written in the Constitution. That means what? A balanced budget amendment. If we're going to control the spending, we have to have the balanced budget amendment. I think we're going to take this historic vote on Thursday or Friday. This is not a partisan vote. This is what is right for our future. Three-quarters of Americans get it. That woman that balanced her checkbook on this picture gets it. My family that's back home, my brothers and sister and nieces and nephews that are probably balancing their own checkbooks sometime this week, they get it. The local government that I used to represent, they have to do it, they get it. The State legislature that I came from, they just balanced theirs on June 30 of this year, they get it. I think it's insane that we don't do the same thing. Mr. Speaker, this week we're going to do something that is right for America. It's not a partisan thing. It's not a bipartisan thing. It is an American thing. It is what will preserve for us the American Dream, not just for our children, but their children and their children. It will promote economic security and national security. It will say to the world we're ready to stand as a nation with a firm financial foundation. It has to happen with a balanced budget amendment. I yield to my good friend, if you have anything to add.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. You know, you're right. If I could go back a little bit, the local government that I represent, they have to ratchet back their revenue spending because their revenues are not what they used to be. The State that I represent, Ohio, they've had to ratchet back on their spending because guess what they have to do? They have to balance their budget. They can't go in the red.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I thank you, and I thank you for your time because I know you've got a busy schedule and you've got those two adorable children that you want to throw some love to. And the best love that we can give to our children and our grandchildren is the balanced budget amendment. Ronald Reagan was right in so many ways, but he was right in 1982 when he said, if we are going to resolve our overspending, it has to be through a balanced budget amendment. My good colleagues, 29 years later, we've got to hear his words and act on them because, if we don't, 29 years from now, I'm not sure if we will be the greatest nation that we are today. My good friends across the aisle want to talk about how we create jobs, and we do need to create jobs. Our President, as I said earlier, had this stimulus bill that he thought was going to create jobs, and it didn't create any jobs. And then just a few months ago he rolled out a new jobs bill of a half trillion dollars that he thought was going to create jobs, but I just don't think that it's going to create jobs either. It's just going to add to our national debt. And the reason why he can do all of these things is because he doesn't have to do what this lady does each and every day, and that's to balance the checkbook. Americans want a checkbook that's balanced. I would like to show another visual. I'd like to talk about what a few other people said in addition to Ronald Reagan. Ben Franklin: ``Creditors have better memories than debtors.'' George Washington: ``As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible.'' Oh, my good friends in the House, if we had only utilized his words, to use it sparingly as possible. Both sides have been part of the problem. This is not a Republican or a Democrat sin. This is a sin from past Congresses. This is a sin we can rectify. Thomas Jefferson: ``The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.'' The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale. He was saying you can't spend your way out of debt. You can't spend today, put the burden on your children of tomorrow and expect a healthy economy. No Nation has ever been successful in doing that. We in America will not be successful in doing that, and that's why we have to have the balanced budget amendment. My good friends in the House, this week is a very important week for America. We need to pass the balanced budget amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 60th anniversary of one of Cincinnati's most treasured restaurants-- Montgomery Inn. In 1951, Ted and Matula Gregory purchased and renamed what was then a small bar in Montgomery, Ohio called McCabe's Inn. Known for her cooking, Matula would take dinner to her husband each night. One evening, Matula decided to test out a new recipe for ribs and barbecue sauce on her husband. Little did she know that her new recipe would soon be world famous. As a result of her delicious new recipe, the bar was quickly transformed into a restaurant. As their restaurant grew, so too did the town of Montgomery. The rest, as they say, is history. Over the last 60 years, Montgomery Inn has grown to become one of the country's most well-known independent restaurants. The ribs have also taken on a life of their own and garnered something of a celebrity status. They have been enjoyed by countless dignitaries, athletes, celebrities, and every President from Ford to Obama. Montgomery Inn is proud to call the late Bob Hope their greatest ambassador. With Matula still at the helm, all four of the Gregory children--Tom, Dean, Vickie, and Terry--are involved in the business. Montgomery Inn has grown from one small restaurant to a thriving business with four locations total in both Ohio and Kentucky. They also sell their world famous barbecue sauce nationwide. After 60 years, Ted's legacy is still going strong. Like most Cincinnatians, my family has a long tradition of dining at Montgomery Inn. My own father was fortunate enough to call Ted Gregory a friend, and my daughter and son-in-law celebrated their engagement at The Boathouse. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating Montgomery Inn on their 60th anniversary, and I'm sure the citizens of Cincinnati look forward to 60 more years of Montgomery Inn.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I thank my good friend from Missouri. You know, I often talk about kitchen table politics in this well because as Ronald Reagan said in his farewell speech, all good ideas begin at the dinner table. And they do. Look at this poster. This is a poster that I think really illustrates what's going on in families all across America, including our seniors, and that is, how are we going to pay our bills, and how are we going to move to the future? It's a huge issue, and it's one that this Congress needs to address in many ways. The U.S. Census says that over 40 million Americans today are 65 years or older, almost 20 percent of our American families. Almost 20 percent of those sitting around that kitchen table. These are an incredible group of people. These are the people who fought in World War II, that created the Greatest Generation. They fought in Korea, sustaining the Greatest Generation. And today, they are now faced with so much anxiety and uncertainty in our Nation. One of the things that I think we have to do in Congress is to erase that anxiety, whether it's through the financial markets, to ensure that we are putting forth programs that allow our banking systems to work effectively so that they don't have to be concerned with what the cost of banking is going to be or what their financial assets are going to be, to make sure that our businesses are flourishing in this country and are not saddled with unnecessary regulations that constrict them from going forward, to move within the economy. In other words, we have to get our economy moving. It is so important for our Nation, especially for our seniors. But I think that there are some other things that we have to talk about with our seniors as well. You know, as we sit around the kitchen table and we worry about our bills, they also worry about, not just how they're going to pay their income tax, but the mammoth issue of paying the income tax. And for seniors, instead of having to go to an accountant and use their precious dollars to figure the whole system out, maybe we should pass H.R. 1058, the Senior Tax Simplification Act of 2011. You know, this is a bipartisan bill. If passed, it would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to make available a new Federal income tax form similar to the 1040-EZ form for people who have turned over 65. It would make the completion of the Federal income tax return simpler, faster, easier, and less costly for most of our American hardworking seniors. I think another bill that we have to really look at, and this is the one that I really want to focus the rest of my talk on, is the repeal of the death tax. This is an issue that I've had to personally face in my life. I grew up on a family farm, and there's nothing better than being raised on a farm. It's the best way you can raise a family, and you do a lot of talking at that kitchen table. When my dad was seeing his declining days, he realized if he didn't do something, hire a fancy attorney at a lot of money an hour, he wouldn't be able to pass that farm along to his kids. So he did some estate planning, but it wasn't enough. And at the end of the day when my father passed away, my brother, sister, and I had to make a collective decision to sell personal assets to just be able to keep that farm because we want our children and our grandchildren to have the same experience that we had. And I think, how often is this occurring unnecessarily? And it's not just the family farm, it's the family business, whether it is a manufacturing business, whether it's a winery, whatever the business is. If it's a family business, why do we have to worry as we see our declining years how we're going to do some tax structures and pay an insurance plan and whatever else is out there to try to keep a part of it for our children. It's counterproductive, because in the end the Federal Government may get a piece of money at your death. But that's the end of the money they'll ever get from you or your family. Ending the death tax won't hurt our economy. It will only improve our economy. And for our seniors that sit around that kitchen table that may be what we call land poor--have a lot of money in the land, but not a lot of money in the bank--they won't be forced to make the same decisions so many of my friends had to make when I went to their family funerals. And they said, By gosh, we're going to keep Dad and Mom's farm. We're not going to get rid of it. They weren't as fortunate as my sister, my brothers, and I were that we had some personal assets that we could use to keep our farm. They had to sell theirs. And what's left, brick and mortar? It's a serious issue. We need to repeal it. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do this. It will not only move our economy forward, but for our hardworking American seniors it will alleviate that anxiety at the kitchen table. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and colleague from Missouri, Mrs. Hartzler for hosting this Special Order on seniors, a group to whom we owe so much. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, over 40 million Americans today are 65 years of age or older. That's almost 20% of our American family. These are the folks upon whose shoulders we stad today. They are the ones who have carried us through the good times and the bad. Today's seniors are an incredible group of people. They have witnessed a lot of history, and, in fact, they have made a lot of history. They served in World War II, the Korean Conflict, and the Vietnam War. They fought and bled on the battlefields of those wars, places such as North Africa, Normandy, Iwo Jima, Pork Chop Hill, Outpost Harry, and Hamburger Hill. During those wars they built our ships, our tanks, and our planes; they plowed the fields and raised our crops; they manufactured the millions of items necessary to keep a nation at war amply supplied. Between wars, they built our skyscrapers and our interstate highway system; they developed our space program and landed men on the moon; and, they even invented the first computers. And, most importantly, while they were accomplishing all these great feats, they also found time to fall in love, to get married, and to have families. I think it goes without saying that we owe our seniors a huge debt of gratitude. Still, I want to take this opportunity to say to our seniors in this great country, thank you. Thank you for all that you have given and for all that you have sacrificed and for all that you have done for your country and your fellow Americans. Mr. Speaker, it was with our seniors in mind, and as an expression of gratitude to them, that I proudly co-sponsored three bills of special interest. The first bill, H.R. 436, is known as the Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2011. This bill, which has support from both sides of the aisle, would, if passed and signed into law, amend the Internal Revenue Code to repeal the excise tax on medical devices. Eliminating this excise tax would allow medical device manufacturers to better spend that money researching new products. The development of these potential, new medical devices would, ultimately, provide higher health care standards and lower the costs of health care. The second bill, H.R. 1058, is known as the Seniors' Tax Simplification Act of 2011. This bill, which also has support from both sides of the aisle, would, if passed and signed into law, direct the Secretary of the Treasury to make available a new federal income tax form similar to Form 1040EZ for individuals who have turned 65 as of the close of the taxable year. It would make the completion of federal income tax returns simpler, faster and easier for most seniors. Finally, the third bill, H.R. 1259, is known as the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2011. This bill, like the previous two bills, also has support from both sides of the aisle. It would, if passed and signed into law, amend the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) repeal the estate and generation-skipping transfer taxes, and (2) make permanent the maximum 35% gift tax rate and a $5 million lifetime gift tax exemption. Having spent decades working hard to develop and accrue assets, a person should be able to convey those assets, upon his or her death, to whomever he or she chooses, without the heavy hand of the government reaching in to steal a portion. Estate taxes are especially harmful to farmers, ranchers, and small business owners. They need to be eliminated. In conclusion, I want to say again to our seniors, thank you. I also, once more, want to thank my good friend and colleague, Mrs. Hartzler, for facilitating this evening's discussion and focusing on a segment of our society that is so deserving of our time and attention and to whom we owe so much.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I'm actually one of the folks that read the bill before we passed it, and there are passages in the bill that do allow for Federal funding of abortion. What this bill does is it seeks to correct that language. The Hyde amendment clearly states that no Federal tax dollars can be used for abortion. At the time that the Hyde amendment was created, we really only had Medicaid to worry about; but with the vast changes in our lifestyles, other avenues have come forward for Federal funding of abortion to occur if we are not careful in the way we construct laws in this awesome body. Time and time again, the American public has said we're conflicted on the issue of abortion, but we're not conflicted about not using Federal funds to pay for it. Just in April of this year, 61 percent of respondents on a CNN poll said no Federal funding of abortion. What this bill does is what we should have done in March of 2010--not allow any Federal funds to be used to pay for abortion any time, any place in this health care bill. I urge my colleagues to pass this and correct the language that should have been done a year ago.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary memorial built in Israel in honor of the victims of the September 11th attacks. On the 10th anniversary of the September 11th attacks, hundreds gathered just outside of Jerusalem to dedicate the 9/11 Living Memorial. This memorial, commissioned and built by the Jewish National Fund-USA/Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael, was designed by Israeli artist Eliezer Weishoff. It depicts a beautiful 30 foot high bronze American flag which rests on a granite base partially composed of metal from the World Trade Center towers and features the name of every victim of the attack. Honored guests included my colleague, Congressman Henry Waxman, U.S. Ambassador Dan Shapiro, Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and my friend, Stan Chesley, President of the Jewish National Fund. While those tragic events occurred here at home, it is important to remember that there were victims from more than 90 countries, including five Israeli citizens. This memorial will act as an important reminder of the need to remain committed in the fight against terrorism, and why Israel continues to remain one of our strongest allies. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in thanking Israel for this thoughtful memorial.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 28th annual Roy Rogers Festival in Portsmouth, Ohio, and the 100th birthday of Roy Rogers himself. Leonard Slye--better known as Roy Rogers--was born on November 5th, 1911 in Cincinnati, Ohio. A few months after Roy was born, he and his family decided to travel up the Ohio River on their houseboat to Portsmouth, Ohio. It was near this area, in Southern Ohio, that Roy and his family called home. Roy Rogers grew up on a farm in Duck Run, just outside of Portsmouth. Roy, who often rode his horse to school, once said, ``We lived so far out in the country, they had to pipe sunlight to us.'' As a result, Roy and his family had to entertain themselves. It was while he was growing up that Roy learned to play the mandolin, call square dances, and sing. Little did his family know that one day, Roy would be known as the ``King of the Cowboys.'' Roy went on to star in numerous western movies, record multiple chart topping albums, and along with his trusty sidekicks Trigger and Bullet, star in a hit television show. Regardless of how popular Roy Rogers became, he always spoke fondly of his home in Southern Ohio. In 1982, the Roy Rogers-Dale Evans Collectors Association was founded and immediately began planning an annual event to commemorate Roy Rogers and his wife Dale Evans. In 1983, the first Roy Rogers Festival was held. This annual event attracts families from around the country to not only commemorate the life of Roy Rogers, but to turn Portsmouth into the Ol' West for a few days. Mr. Speaker, please join me in not only honoring the Roy Rogers Festival, but also the 100th birthday of a great American--Roy Rogers.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, just tonight we passed the debt ceiling vote, and it had a very critical feature, a feature that requires accountability in our House--a balanced budget amendment. Every day, millions of Americans sit at their kitchen tables, trying to figure out how they pay their bills. But before they write that check and determine how much they're going to have to spend out of that checking account, they first balance that checking account to know how much money is in it. But we, in the United States Congress, don't do that. We don't balance our account. We don't know how much money's in there. We just spend money. The American public expects accountability from us. In order to have that accountability, we need to do what 49 States in America do, and that's pass a balanced budget amendment. The first of that series of steps was accomplished tonight. Now it's the Senate's turn to pass that balanced budget amendment provision, have both Chambers pass it, and have a majority of the States ratify it. This is what the American public wants. They want us to balance our checkbook, just as they do theirs.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember former Hamilton County Commissioner John Dowlin, who passed away on July 15th at the age of 81. After spending 38 years at Procter and Gamble and 28 years as the Mayor of Sharonville, Ohio, John Dowlin served 13 years on the Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners. Throughout his distinguished career, John became known for his principles, his work ethic, and especially his bow ties. I had the opportunity to work with Commissioner Dowlin when I was in the state legislature, and I always found him to be honest and fair. Commissioner Dowlin was the kind of person we should all strive to be, standing up for what he believed was right--even when others believed he was wrong. He is survived by his loving wife, Sarah, four children, and nine grandchildren. The world is a better place because of John Dowlin. May he rest in peace. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring the life of a true public servant.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I thank my good friend Mrs. Ellmers from North Carolina for hosting this Special Order this evening because this is about America's future and about America doing what each and every woman, each and every man, each and every family has to do each and every week at their table, and that's balance the budget and pay the bills. The greatest President, they say, in the last century was Ronald Reagan. And in his farewell speech, he said, ``All great change in America begins at the dinner table.'' And it does. It's the universe of our home life. It's where we educate our children, where we feed our children, where we stake out the ideas on how we want our future to go, where we plan parties, where we plan events, and where we discuss Grandma's departure. It is the center of our home. And it is from that that I want to focus on what I think needs to be said tonight. We have to balance our budget in America, in this House, in this Chamber, at this kitchen table. We have all seen what it is to take a checkbook, take the bills, and make them come together. That's what we need to do, and that's what I believe a balanced budget amendment will force this Congress and future Congresses to do: balance our checkbook. Just like mothers and grandmothers across this country, I have a major stake in the future of our Nation, and that is not just my daughter and her wonderful husband, but my Michael and my Anthony, my wonderful little grandchildren. My father was the epitome of the American Dream. He came from nothing, but he worked hard and started his business and paid the bills of those businesses at their little, small kitchen table. And he grew that and gave us the opportunity to make sure that what we wanted to accomplish in the United States was available to us. And that's what I did for my daughter. And, you know, when she started her little business, do you know where she started it? At the kitchen table in the house she grew up in. And she's got a thriving little business. But she's got two little children, and we want that American Dream for them. We've got to get our fiscal house in order. We cannot keep creating the debts and deficits that we are creating in this country. A balanced budget amendment will force us to do the right things for our country just as moms and dads across the Nation have to do all the time at their kitchen tables; that's live within their means. I urge the Senate to take up the balanced budget amendment. I urge this Chamber to adopt it, I urge the Senate to adopt it, and to make it a reality.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor something really wonderful in my district, the 125th birthday of America's sixth-oldest amusement park in Cincinnati, Ohio. What began as a 20-acre apple orchard on the banks of the Ohio River in 1867 was quickly transformed into a private picnic retreat, complete with a bowling alley, a dance hall, and a mule-powered merry-go-round. In 1886, Parker Grove became known as Ohio Grove, the Coney Island of the West, after being sold to the Ohio Grove Corporation. Modeling itself after Coney Island in New York City, they quickly dropped the name of Ohio Grove and just called it Coney Island and began to add more rides and more attractions. In 1911, the first roller coaster was added, the Dip the Dips, and in 1913 the Dip and Dots was added. But it wasn't until 1924 that the signature attraction of Coney Island was realized when George Schott, one of Cincinnati's greatest philanthropists, purchased with a group of investors Coney Island. In 1925, they added Sunlite Pool, the world's largest recirculating swimming pool. Mr. Speaker, let me give you the dimensions of this pool because it is bigger than a football field. A football field is 300 feet by 160 feet; this is 200 feet by 401 feet. In addition to being the world's largest recirculating pool, it continues to be the largest flat surface pool in North America, and was the precursor to zero-depth pools in the United States. It went through a lot of trials and tribulations over the next part of the century, but they kept adding new attractions and new rides, including ones that I enjoyed as a child, like the Wildcat and the Shooting Star. In 1971, a decision was made to take the amusement portion of it and move it to another portion in my district in Kings Island, which made people wonder what would happen to Sunlite Pool. But again, the visionaries realized they had an attraction, they had a water park, and they continued to add dimensions to Sunlite Pool to make it an attraction. In 1986, River Bend was realized by putting in two separate theaters, outdoor theaters, to allow concerts to occur. Today, Coney Island continues to thrive with a small amusement park for children, the Sunlite Pool, and a thriving River Bend. I would like to say, on a personal note, I remember my mother telling me stories when her mother took her; my mother took me; I took my daughter; and over the Fourth of July break, I was able to take my two grandsons to Coney Island to swim in the pool. I am so excited that this beautiful attraction has continued to exist for 125 years. I want to celebrate the tenacity of the folks along the way who have continued to invest in this great asset in my district, and I want to wish them a great happy birthday, and I hope Coney Island continues for at least another 125 happy years. Happy birthday, Coney Island.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I thank my good friend from Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I really want to say thank you to my parents for instilling in me the opportunity to live the American Dream. My father didn't have much as a child. He didn't even have an education. But he grew up in a place where he could live his dream. He knew if he worked hard that he could live and do what he wanted to do, and that was to provide for his family, buy a farm, own a business, and give us the opportunity to lead our lives in the way that we wanted to. I instilled that hope and that desire in my own daughter. Over 5 years ago, I decided to run for this office. It was March 23, 2005. I'll never forget the date. It was the day my daughter got engaged. As we celebrated both decisions, I realized the enormity in the decision that I was making. See, back then I realized that government was spending too much money, and we had to do something about it. But now that she is married and I've been here over 5 years and administrations have changed, I realize that we weren't spending as much then as we are today. The accelerated spending is really hurting our American Dream. My daughter owns her own business, and she has two wonderful little children, but I fear that they won't be able to have the American Dream that she is trying to hold onto and that I was afforded by my own parents. And I look today and I say to myself, what has this administration done to help us move forward? A year ago, the President announced that in 2010, June 17, was going to be the summer of recovery. How is that recovery going? Well, we're still over 9 percent unemployment. We spent over $1 trillion in stimulus money to no effect. Our underemployment is at 19 percent. We have over 14 million people that are underemployed and looking for work and 9 million people have part-time jobs. But in addition to those statistics, our economy is not growing, and it's not growing because this government is getting in the way of the growth and it's with overregulation. I worked with Bob Gibbs on one bill, H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, which took an erroneous court decision and put it in its place. But it's more than just that bill that's in our way. As a mother and a grandmother, I'm alarmed at the USDA getting into my grandchildren's lunch boxes and into my pantry with overregulation, telling schools what they can provide for their students. They're taking potatoes out of the lunch room. It's not just eliminating potatoes to one cup a week, but it's the enormity of the burden of expense that's put onto our school system, over $5 billion mandated to public schools, and most of that burden is on schools that can least afford it. I could go on and on about the overregulation that is squelching the ability for our country to grow. I have a stake in this. Actually I have two. It's Michael and it's Anthony. They mean everything to me. I want those two wonderful little boys to have all the hopes and dreams that I had as a child fulfilled as an adult. I want them to have the same hopes and dreams that my daughter had fulfilled. I want what my father gave to me, the belief that with God and living in America, all things are possible. We have to stop the overregulation and the overspending that is occurring in this country today. Our future is at stake, and it is serious. The Republican women in the House get it, and I applaud them for fighting with me for their children, for their grandchildren, but most importantly for my Michael and my Anthony.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago my friend from California had an amendment that she did withdraw that really wanted to codify into law the USDA's rules regarding the school lunch program. And while I won't go into the lengthy reasons why it's the wrong way to go for nutrition--not just the cost that it bears to the schools, but also the fact that USDA was recommending reducing the consumption of potatoes, corn, peas and lima beans to just one serving a week--which believe me I was shocked. But it wasn't just myself that had this reaction; it was also the California Fruit Growers Association, it was the National School Boards Association, it was the Council of the Great City Schools that wrote a letter. And that's why I and 40 other colleagues wrote to Mr. Vilsack of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in reaction to the promulgation of these rules. I will enter into the Record the testimony I was going to give until she withdrew the amendment, as well as these four letters. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Breakfasts and lunches served in schools are important components of the diets of school age children. Improving the nutritional profile of meals served to school children is very important. When the USDA proposed a rule that eliminated potatoes from the School Breakfast program and limited the School Lunch program to one cup a week of potatoes, I was very concerned. On the Agriculture Committee, I have made it frequently known how important healthy living and nutritious eating habits are to me as a person, a mother, a grandmother and as a legislator. It is especially near and dear to my heart when we discuss policies that affect children's nutritional needs. When I heard that the USDA recommended reducing the consumption of potatoes, corn, peas, and lima beans--I was shocked. When my daughter was growing up, I took great care to ensure that she ate healthy, balanced meals. Of course, potatoes were a part of that equation. You all know that they are full of potassium, vitamins C and B6, potassium, fiber, and antioxidants. I cannot understand why the USDA would want to reduce school children's consumption of potatoes. I think that it is short sighted for the USDA to ignore the health benefits that the potato provides. When looking at how to incentivize healthier eating habits, we in Congress need to find a way to encourage and educate program recipients to eat balanced meals. I think it is very important to make sure that children receive balanced meals, and that certainly includes potatoes. I, along with forty-one of my colleagues sent a letter to the USDA asking a number of questions about this proposed rule. Mr. Speaker, without objections, I would like to submit a copy of this letter to the Record. Mr. Chair, potatoes, lima beans, peas, and corn are all healthy vegetables that should certainly be in the School Breakfast and Lunch Programs. Potatoes are an excellent source of potassium and good source of fiber. According to the USDA's own magazine, Amber Waves, potatoes deliver these nutrients at a very low cost. FNS has estimated that the proposed rule would increase the cost of school meals by $6.8 billion over the next five years. Per meal, the cost will increase by 14 cents per lunch and fifty cents per breakfast. Mr. Chair, school districts and states across the country are already cash-strapped and cannot afford this increased cost. This additional burden will be passed onto students paying full price for their meals. While I agree with the intent of the USDA to encourage the consumption of more fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and lean proteins--restricting the consumption of nutritious vegetables like potatoes, lima beans, peas, and corn is short-sighted and not the most effective approach to achieve that goal. I encourage my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and instruct the USDA to issue a new proposed rule on implementing the new national nutrition standards for the School Breakfast and School Lunch Programs. California League of Food Processors, Sacramento, CA, June 15, 2011. Hon. Lynn Woolsey, Rayburn House Office Building, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Woolsey: The California League of Food Processors (CLFP) respectfully opposes your amendment to the FY 2012 Agriculture Appropriations bill, H.R. 2112, prevent the Agriculture Department from reissuing more reasonable and cost effective proposed regulations on the school breakfast and lunch program. CLFP has concerns about USDA recommending school breakfast programs eliminate ``starchy vegetables'' and proposing restrictions on the use of tomato paste and cheese. As I'm sure you remember CLFP members account for 95% of the fruits and vegetables canned, frozen and dehydrated/dried in California and this repersents more than 35% of U.S. production. For a number of preserved food products, California produces 100% of U.S. output, for example tomato paste. These new USDA restrictions could potentially mean the loss of millions of dollars in sales of vegetables, fruit and cheese to the national school program. Its negative effects would ripple throughout the industry, from farmers, dairymen, package manufacturers, etc. The cost impact of this rule on our schools and food producers should be considered by USDA. Affirmative changes to the meal plan relative to starchy vegetables limits and tomato serving calculations would go a long way to fixing the cost issues that are concerning to schools. CLFP supports your efforts to help ensure school kids have access to healthy and nutritious meals. However, we urge you to allow USDA to ensure the new rule on school meals is cost neutral and resist efforts by USDA to proclaim vegetables and other healthy foods ``good'' or ``bad''. Very Truly Yours, Ed Yates, President and CEO,

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the 90th birthday of a restaurant. While it was started in Wichita, Kansas, in 1921, this restaurant then came to Ohio, came to Cincinnati, and it's that little square hamburger, White Castle. And when you look at the Ingram family and what they've done across the Nation with their idea of an entrepreneurship of just a little square hamburger--they now have 400 stores in 11 States. This is a family company, and it employs thousands of people. The craze that Mr. Ingram created in 1921 has grown in large part due to marketing, innovation, and adaptations of service. It has been reported that White Castle was the first fast-food restaurant to advertise in newspapers. It developed cardboard cartons for hamburgers, French fries, drinks, and even invented its own small type of semipermanent restaurant building. Mr. Speaker, ``White Castle'' was certainly a fitting name for this Ohio institution. Please join me not only in congratulating the Ingram family on the 90th birthday of White Castle but to remind ourselves of the importance of jobs and entrepreneurship in the United States.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day for my district because today we're going to lay an American hero to rest, Private First Class William ``Seth'' Blevins. He was only 21. Just before Christmas in 1989, on December 22, Steven and Trish Wagnoner Blevins got the best gift of all--a beautiful, healthy little boy. They lived in rural America, Sardinia, Brown County, Ohio. They were small business owners, working hard to make a living and working harder to make sure that their children achieve the American Dream. And they did their job with Seth. You see, Seth was a wonderful young man, a young man who loved our country so much he put the cloth of his country, a uniform, on and decided to protect our freedom no matter what cost or peril it was to him. In 2008, he graduated from Eastern High School in Brown County. He played soccer, basketball, participated in the band, and was a member of the Eastern High School chapter of the National Honor Society, clearly a winning individual. He attended Ohio University and took courses at the University of Cincinnati prior to enlisting in the Army. He was a member of the Peace Lutheran Church in Arnheim. His parents now feel an unbearable sorrow with the loss of their wonderful son, Seth, but so does his sister, Paige Blevins, his mother's fiance, Brandon Black, his maternal grandparents, Will and Shirley Wagoner, and all of the aunts and uncles and cousins and friends, everyone in the community. Seth was a member of the U.S. Army, 2nd Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks in Hawaii--commonly referred to as the Wolfhounds--and he loved what he did. Unfortunately, on May 23, 2011, while so many Americans were planning their celebrations for Memorial Day, he was the victim of an improvised explosive device in Kunar Province, Afghanistan, participating in Operation Enduring Freedom. Mr. Speaker, we must never forget the bravery of our men and women in uniform that continue to serve our country and continue to serve it in harm's way. These are true American heroes--so many who have died, so many continue in the battlefield, so many that are injured. But today, I ask this Chamber and America to recognize Seth Blevin's family and pray for them so that they can endure this heartache and find a way to overcome it. Mr. Speaker, may Seth Blevins rest in peace, and may his family find peace.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I want to thank Chris Smith and Chairman Smith for this very simple but profound bill. Ladies and gentlemen, all this bill does is end public funding-- taxpayer funding--of abortion. The driving force behind H.R. 3 is simply to update the longstanding Hyde amendment and apply it to programs that are federally funded but outside the scope of the Labor- HHS appropriations as well as replace a patchwork system with permanent law. It takes the Hyde amendment, the Dornan amendment, the Helms amendment, the Hyde-Weldon amendment, as well as others, and makes them permanent. That's what the bill does. H.R. 3 enjoys great bipartisan support and had over 227 cosponsors. The support of this bill is in the public's hands. A CNN poll recently taken last month said 61 percent of the respondents do not want their tax dollars used to pay for abortions. And that's what this bill does. It ends the public funding of abortions. There are a host of other polls that clearly state the same thing. The Hyde amendment is in current law but it simply needs to be broadened for all the things that we do here in Congress. I ask my colleagues to vote for this very important bill.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, you know, times are tough, including in Congress. And we have to find wise ways to spend our taxpayer dollars. For every 33 pregnant women that walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic, 32 receive an abortion. Planned Parenthood does over 1,000 abortions a day, and they receive $1 million a day from taxpayers. The time has come to stop funding Planned Parenthood. We have better ways to spend our taxpayer dollars. Let's put it back to the Treasury and reduce the deficit.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I rise in support of the bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we act in a timely manner on H.R. 872 to ensure that our small businesses, farmers, communities, counties, and State and Federal agencies will not be burdened with a costly, duplicative permit requirement that offers no environmental or health benefits. It is important to note that pesticides play an important role in protecting our Nation's food supply, public health, natural resources, infrastructure, and green spaces. They are used not only to protect crops from destructive pests, but also to manage mosquitoes and other disease-carrying pests, invasive weeds, and animals that can choke our waterways, impede our power generation, and damage our forests and recreational areas. The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 amends FIFRA and the Clean Water Act to eliminate the requirement of a permit for applications of pesticides approved for use under FIFRA. This Act is being passed in response to National Cotton Council v. EPA, which found NPDES permits are required for point source discharges of biological pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is not intended to exempt waste- streams or discharges from regulation simply because they may contain pesticides or pesticide residues. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, makes clear that the NPDES exemption only addresses discharges of pesticide or pesticide residue resulting from applications consistent with FIFRA. The legislation does not exempt applications of pesticides that violate the relevant requirements of FIFRA. There have been accusations that this bill would cause contamination of our waterways. But, Mr. Speaker, I challenge those accusations. Today, some will argue in defending the Sixth Circuit Court decision that pesticide applications were a violation of FIFRA. The case in question is the Talent Water District in Jackson County, Oregon, where it is claimed that the application of pesticides in violation of the FIFRA label resulted in a fish kill of more than 92,000 juvenile steelhead. I point out that these pesticide applications were in violation of FIFRA and the requirements of FIFRA, and therefore would be addressed under that law. Requiring a duplicative permit under the Clean Water Act would not offer any additional environmental safety standard. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 872 is a simple fix. The legislation before us passed unanimously through the House Agriculture Committee and with an overwhelming 46-8 vote in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This proves that this is not a partisan issue but an issue of such importance that Republicans and Democrats and even the EPA have worked together to provide a solution. H.R. 872 makes clear that it was never the intent of Congress to require this redundant layer of bureaucracy, especially since the EPA already comprehensively regulates the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides. Although the court did extend the effective date of its order to October 31, it did not fix the underlying problem. The impact on all pesticide users required to obtain this extra permit will be the same in October as it is today. There is no difference in the burdensome cost or real impact on their livelihoods. The only things this extension provides is more months of regulatory uncertainty. I ask my colleagues to support this necessary piece of legislation and to ensure that FIFRA remains the standard for pesticide regulation. Let us help protect our mutual constituency from duplicative obligations that provide no qualified benefit to human health or environmental concerns. I reserve the balance of my time.