Allen West

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for allowing me to participate this evening. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to have this time. But I want to also pay homage to two great men that are going to be departing this House of Representatives. I think back to 5 years ago, in December of 2007. I had just gotten back from 2\1/2\ years of serving in Afghanistan, and I decided that I was going to throw my hat into the ring to run for Congress in 2008. I understood what it meant to be a constitutional conservative. I understood what it meant when you talked about limited government, when you talked about fiscal responsibility, individual sovereignty; when you talked about a free marketplace of ideas, where the American people can prosper, and also a strong national defense. But of course the critical thing was I could go back and I could read Locke and I could read Montesquieu. I could read Hobbes or Rousseau. I could read all of the writings of our Founding Fathers. But I wanted to look at two individuals or several individuals that I could see as role models. So when you get back and you start to look at C-SPAN and say, Who can I model myself after, I can tell you that the two men that are going to depart this House of Representatives--one to go be Senator-elect from Arizona, another going to be Governor-elect from Indiana--were two individuals that I studied. When I wanted to know about fiscal responsibility, I heard about this gentleman, Representative Jeff Flake from Arizona, who was Mr. Earmark. I, first of all, had to understand, okay, being in the military, what does an earmark mean? Well, I come to understand what it meant, and I come to understand how horrible it is when you look at what is happening with our debt and our deficit and our fiscal irresponsibility. I came to understand what it meant to have principles and pragmatism and having the courage to stand upon your convictions and continue to push and continue to try to make a difference, even if it seems that you may stand alone. Because that's one of the mottos from a great unit in the 101st Airborne Division, Currahee. We know that from the Band of Brothers what that means, ``stands alone.'' If there is one person that has always stood alone and will continue to do so for the principles that are right, fiscal responsible principles that are right, it's Senator-elect Jeff Flake. Being able to study him and see him and not so much worrying about having a bunch of conversations, but learning by example, helped me to have 2 great years here in the people's House, the people's House where for 22 years in uniform I served to protect, and now I got the opportunity to walk in these great Halls with a great man, who I know will continue to go on to the Senate, where they truly do need some help with fiscal responsibility. I know that when we look across, just the same as that unit in December of 1944, when they were surrounded, they sent back one simple response, that they were not going to surrender. I think we all know what that one-word response is. If I could think of one person that will stand on the Senate floor and give that same response, it will be Senator-elect, Jeff Flake. Now, when I think about the other gentleman, the Governor-elect of Indiana, there was a person that contacted me, and if you talked to him, he will say I was supporting Allen West before it became cool to support Allen West, and that is absolutely 100 percent right. Because Mike Pence understood that it's not about the empty promises of outreach to a community, it's about finding those individuals that really and truthfully do believe in constitutional, conservative principles and supporting them to get them to a position where they can have a voice and they can, in turn, be examples to our black communities. That's what Mike Pence did for me in 2008. He kept encouraging me. And even though we fell short, on that next day, he was the first person to call and say: I know what type of man you are, and I know what type of fighter you are, and I know you're going to do it again. Therefore, I ended up being here in 2010. I had the opportunity to be taught, to be coached and to be mentored by a great man, a great constitutional conservative, a man there that will go make a difference for a State, and I think that one day he will make a difference for our great Nation. So as once upon a time a general said, as he stood there, that old soldiers never die, they just fade away, I'm not going to fade away, because these two men have encouraged me to do something better and do something different, to take off a camouflage uniform and put on a suit and tie but continue to fight for the principles and values that make this country great and that make this country exceptional. I think that's what we see happening right now. I am so encouraged that we have the right people here in the House, we will have the right people in the Senate and we will have the right people down in our States to make a difference to secure a better future for all of our children and our grandchildren so we do not saddle them with the debt that we're currently looking at, we do not saddle them with the out-of-control spending, and we do not leave them with an unsecure America and an unstable world. Those men that are going to depart here are going to be part of that transformation, that restoration, that reclaiming of a sense of American pride and exceptionalism that when we look at those words up there, ``in God we trust,'' we will truly inculcate that back into who we are as a people. So as we go forth, we talk about this thing called the fiscal cliff, I know that these men understood what the right type of tax policies are that create economic growth. We are not about wealth redistribution. We are about wealth expansion. We are about that American Dream that can take an inner city kid from Atlanta, Georgia, and allow him to be standing here today speaking to the American people before incredible men that will go and do more incredible things for this great Nation. I believe that we are standing on the verge of a new dawn for America. But all we have to do is go back and recommit to those principles and value that our Founding Fathers accepted, that our Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration, that they improved and perfected through the Constitution, and now they're looking at us in this generation to be the ones that carry it on. 236 years. And I believe that we will be around for another 236 years. The test for us right now is do we believe that America is about a bigger government? Or do we believe that America is about an indomitable, entrepreneurial spirit? And if we believe the latter instead of the former, then we will have those right tax policies, we will have the right regulatory policies, and we will have the right monetary policies so that we are not printing more money and devaluing our dollar so that we see commodity prices going up. Will we, once again, have our small businesses grow, which is a reflection of our entrepreneurial spirit? But, most importantly, will we respect the individual, their sovereignty, their rights, and their freedoms, and make sure that we have the strongest, most powerful military that will cause people to say, we will not challenge you, because they know that what we stand for, this that we will defend, is something that we truly do believe in. So as this may be my last time speaking here on this House floor, I can tell you that the principles and values that we stand for as constitutional conservatives, you don't have to be in the House of Representatives to continue that fight, because it's a fight worth doing, but it's a fight worth doing because I've had some great men and great women to be examples for me as I go forward. There are many men and women that are standing on freedom's ramparts, our watchmen on the walls, that are trusting and depending on us right now to make sure that their service, their sacrifice, and their commitment shall not be in vain. So I thank you all. I thank you for your coaching and your mentoring. I thank you for the example that you set. I thank you for allowing me to be here to speak on this night. May God bless America, and may God keep us all forevermore.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to stand today and recognize Tom Kaiser for his selfless devotion to his fellow veterans and brothers in arms. Mr. Kaiser is a proud member of the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Jewish War Veterans, Korean War Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars and Sons of the American Legion. As a member of these veterans organizations, Mr. Kaiser has displayed an unyielding sense of duty in making the sacrifice that our veterans have displayed throughout the years known to south Florida residents. Mr. Kaiser, as the head of the Boynton Beach Veterans Council, was able to establish the Boynton Beach Veterans Park and oversaw many dedications at the park to veterans of all wars. The park now has 32 monuments and benches to honor the branches of service. Further, Mr. Kaiser has arranged to have local schools visit the park to learn about our history and the many wars it has taken to promote the freedoms that we hold so dear. He also helped many World War II Veterans obtain the French Medal of Honor. At this time, they have honored at least 300 veterans. Mr. Speaker, I drive down Federal highway almost daily when I am home in south Florida, and not a day goes by when I do not see the POW/MIA signs along the road. We all have Mr. Kaiser to thank for installing those onto such a busy highway for all to see. We hope that these signs will one day stretch from Key West to the Georgia state line. As a 22-year active duty retired Army Lieutenant Colonel, I know the sacrifice and sense of duty that all veterans feel. I know that many of our veterans do their job, not for recognition, but for love of country and selfless devotion to their fellow brother in arms. Mr. Speaker, today, however, Tom Kaiser deserves this recognition for all the hard work he has displayed throughout the years, ensuring that our veterans' sacrifices are never forgotten, and that our future generations may carry the torch that he has helped carry. May Mr. Kaiser always remain steadfast and loyal in these altruistic pursuits.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. I'm not talking about Bain Capital. You said raise taxes on individuals. I'm talking about personal income.

Mr. WEST. I want to thank my colleague for allowing me to come here. This is not a charade. I served 22 years in the United States military, and I was part of a reduction in force coming out of Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and I know what these types of cuts will do to the military. Also, this is what these types of cuts will do to non-defense discretionary. The sequestration will put at risk all that we have accomplished in education and weaken programs that help children, serve young families, send young people and adults to college and make the middle class American Dream possible. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. Secretary of Defense: This mechanism of sequestration will force defense cuts that, in my view, would do catastrophic damage to our military and the ability to be able to be protect our country. I think right now, Mr. Speaker, it's very simple. George Santayana had a quote back in the 1920s and said: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. At the end of World War I, we cut our military, then came World War II. At the end of World War II, we cut our military, then came the Korean War. At the end of the Korean War, we, of course, did the exact same thing, and, of course, we had to chase communism all over the world, Vietnam. As I spoke about earlier, I participated in the RIF after Desert Shield/Desert Storm. This sequestration does one simple thing: It takes the Army and Marine Corps down to 1940s levels. It puts 200,000 of our men and women in uniform on the streets. It makes our United States Navy go to 1915 levels. Currently, we have a naval force of 283 warships. It goes down to 230. It takes our Air Force down to the smallest Air Force we have had in modern history, when we created the United States Air Force. It cuts nontactical fighter squadrons. If you talk to any of our service chiefs, if you listen to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who talks about hollowing out this force, we should not be doing this at a time when we all see what is happening in the world right now, when the United States of America has had a sovereign piece of its territory attacked. We have had an Ambassador that has lost his life. The message that we are going to send is that we are going to do nothing? This legislation says, very simply, we have passed a plan out of the House. The Senate, if you don't like our plan, come up with your own plan. Mr. President, you are the Commander in Chief. Come up with a plan. One of the things that you learn as a young officer, that if you ever get into a firefight, you are ever in an ambush, to do nothing means that people lose their lives. I will not stand here and do nothing at this time because those are my friends still in uniform; those are my relatives that are still in uniform. Now, I did not have the ability to be selected to be on the supercommittee--maybe because I have only been here as a freshman--but that does not mean that I will not be an adult and present a solution that says, very simply, If you don't like what we passed in the House, then do something. Come up with a plan. We just heard the debate about the continuing resolution, a continuing resolution we have been forced into because we have a Senate that has not passed a budget in close to 3 years. We have a Senate that has not taken up any appropriations bills. Well, I will tell you--and I will reach out to my colleagues from the other side--at least here in the House we have done something. But we have been forced into a position with this sequestration to say we have got to come up with a solution. The supercommittee did not meet its enacted mandate. Does that mean we're going to stop? Does that mean that we're going to look at the men and women in uniform and say we will allow this to happen? Did that mean that we're going to look at other people that are affected by these non-defense discretionary cuts? All I'm saying is, with this piece of legislation, those who have come up with a plan, tell us what you want so that we do not have this occur. Think about the second- and third-order effects that will come to this. We are talking about the people that will be lost in uniform.

Mr. WEST. No, I will not yield, so please--thank you. We're talking about the Department of Defense civilian positions that would be lost. We're talking about the defense industrial base, the technology that is going to develop the next generation of weapons systems for our men and women that will be lost. We're talking about a critical decision for the way ahead for the United States of America. And I understand what has been said about this balanced approach that the President sent over in his fiscal year 2013 budget. They had $1.9 trillion of new taxes, but yet it never balances at any time. If it was such a good plan, such a good budget, no one here took it up. That's my concern. This is a last chance for us to be the adults, to do something, to stave off this sequestration. The House voted. The House sent a piece of legislation out in May. The House voted on the Sequestration Transparency Act. We still have not gotten anything. The Director of the OMB, Mr. Jeffrey Zients, testified before the Armed Services Committee he has no plan. All he did was sit there and say that, if you guys would stop with these tax cuts not being brought up on the rich, then this would not happen. What is a fair share when the top 1 percent pays close to 37 percent of taxes? That's not the debate, Mr. Speaker. The debate is what we're going to do about this sequestration.

Mr. WEST. If the gentleman will yield, it says that it would be replaced. If you come up with a plan, it will be replaced.

Mr. WEST. We voted to cut defense spending by $487 billion. We're talking about additional. And when you talk about raising these taxes, Ernst & Young had an independent report that talked about the adverse ramifications that will come from raising taxes. Obviously, one thing we fail to understand, small business operators, subchapter S corps, LLCs, you're going to ruin this economy and more job losses by raising those taxes.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding achievements of a class of athletes whose stories embody the classic American values of perseverance and commitment to excellence. I am speaking of the laudable Paralympians who represented our nation in the Paralympic Games in London. There is perhaps no better event to remind us of the unwavering desire for greatness, inherent in every American, than the Paralympic Games. The Olympic Games in London have amplified the patriotic spirit that unites us as Americans and reminds us, with each American medal, of our grand fortune as citizens of this blessed country and our legacy of exceptionalism. Paralympic athletes complement the narrative of our history by reinforcing the notion that determination and dedication trump any of the hurdles circumstance may send our way. Their remarkable achievements as Paralympians alike shatter misconceptions that physical disability implies shortcoming of any kind. I am proud to stand alongside them and support them as emissaries of the United States. Their rousing individual stories prove just as remarkable as the event itself. As a Member of the House of Representatives from south Florida, I am overjoyed to represent five inspiring Paralympians. Justin Zook, a young man from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, has quite the resume. Justin competed on the United States Swim Team in the London Paralympics, and earned a gold medal in the men's 100 meter backstroke. In his special event, Justin has won a total of three gold medals in the 100 meter backstroke. He has set impressive world records in the 50 meter backstroke, 100 meter backstroke and 400 meter freestyle. He has represented Team USA for the past two Paralympic Games in the S10 division, winning gold and bronze medals at both appearances. Justin's record of excellence charges on, never affected by his disability. In addition to his marked brilliance in the realm of swimming, Justin remains committed to his academics as he pursues an MBA in Sport Management at Florida Atlantic University and ultimately strives for the position of Athletics Director at an NCAA Division I institution. His focus and determination to excel in all aspects of life are qualities deserving of the utmost respect. Paul Callahan, of Palm Beach, Florida competed in the Three-Person Keelboat Sonar sailing event along with two other team members, and came in seventh place. Paul currently serves as the Chief Executive Officer of ``Sail to Prevail'', a non-profit corporation whose mission dates back to 1982 and seeks to provide disabled children and adults with the opportunity to overcome adversity through therapeutic sailing. Paul's championing of ``Sail to Prevail'' is reflected in his own experience and story. After an accident during his junior year at Harvard rendered Paul a C4-5 quadriplegic in 1979, he returned to school after years of therapy, obtained a degree from the prestigious Harvard Business School, and worked at Goldman Sachs for a number of years. Paul left Wall Street to join the team at ``Sail for Prevail'', where he learned to sail nearly 15 years after his accident and cultivated the sailing expertise and philosophy that would eventually lead him to become part of the United States Sailing Team in 1998, and a participant with the 2000 and 2012 Paralympic teams. Paul's dedication to providing the means and occasions for disabled individuals to sail alongside their able-bodied counterparts reflects his vision to create bigger and better opportunities for disabled athletes to counter the physical and psychological challenges that can sometimes come with disability. Among many other notable qualities, Paul's tenacity and love for his craft makes him a standout athlete and Paralympian. Noah Yablong is a recent graduate of the University of Arizona with a degree in mechanical engineering from Ocean Ridge, Florida. Noah's immense talent qualified him to travel with Team USA to compete in the London Paralympics in the sport of wheelchair tennis. In the London Paralympics, Noah qualified to compete up to round 32 in the wheelchair men's tennis doubles, along with his teammate Steve Baldwin. He also succeeded in making it to round 64 in the wheelchair men's singles. Noah's athletic endeavors, achieved in spite of the disease that limits his mobility, have provided him with opportunities of travel and sport that most American athletes can only imagine. Noah has visited five of the seven continents for tennis, and represented the United States in the World Team Cup three times. Noah's story is a classic one that speaks to the American spirit of perseverance. A participant in every sport imaginable, Noah's athletic experiences before his diagnosis included basketball, baseball, soccer, tennis, golf, and swimming. At age ten, Noah was diagnosed with Legg Calve Perthes, a rare and degenerative hip disease that makes it exceedingly difficult for him to walk and run. A devoted athlete through and through, the thirty hours of weekly training Noah dedicates to his craft extinguishes the assumption that disabilities limit accomplishments, and ultimately dreams. Noah's story, like Paul's, is a testament to the power of hard work and proves inspirational to all Americans, regardless of background or circumstance. A fourth example of athletic excellence is Brad Johnson, a member of the United States Paralympic Sailing Team three times over and a lawyer by trade. Never limited by the automobile accident that severed both of his legs, Brad began his career as a nationally-renowned athlete and Paralympian by participating in the national sit-volleyball team after graduating from law school. Brad's love for sailing was one that he cultivated relatively recently, illustrated by the fact that he took up the sport at the age of thirty. Nearly a decade and a half later, Brad has managed to collect a variety of medals and championships that distinguish him as truly one of the best in both sit-volleyball and sailing. Along with one of his teammates Paul Callahan, he placed seventh in the Three-Person Keelboat Sonar sailing event. After Brad medaled at the 2004 Athens Paralympic Games in the sonar class of sailing, he returned to sit-volleyball and traveled to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil as part of the winning-U.S. Men's Sitting Volleyball Team in 2007. In 2010, Brad attended the Sitting Volleyball World Championships as a participant of Team USA, where the team placed tenth. As a practicing attorney and Paralympian residing in Pompano Beach, Florida, Brad maintains a full schedule, but always seeks to integrate his love for sport, determination in his career, and commitment to changing perceptions toward disability in his daily life. The versatility and activism with which Brad approaches his craft makes me proud to represent him. Scott Danberg resides in Cooper City, Florida and represents one of the most recognized athletes in the Games. Scott competed in the past four consecutive Paralympic Games, which makes his appearance in London his fifth Paralympic Games. While there, he placed seventh in the men's discus throw. Over the 20-plus years that Scott has competed, he has garnered accolades in a variety of events as part of the U.S. Track and Field Team. His distinction in the events of javelin, shot put and powerlifting characterize Scott as an outstandingly talented athlete, which speaks to the discipline he shows in his personal life, as well as his competitive life. Scott works as the Director of Fitness at Pritikin Longevity Center in Aventura, Florida, a company dedicated to promoting a holistic approach to health that focuses on nutrition, exercise and mind-body health. As a Master's of Kinesiology and a Ph.D. candidate in Leadership and Education, it is clear that Scott's true passion lies in his desire to harmonize all of his strengths, talents, by inspiring others to also achieve their dreams. Scott's lifestyle and achievements distinguish him as an exceptional Floridian and one that I am honored to represent. I enjoyed watching him compete in both the shot put and discus categories in the Games, and commend him for leading by example. These great Paralympians are some of the best athletes that our country has to offer. Their will to succeed is not limited, but rather encouraged by the adversity they have faced. These men are defined by so much more than their disabilities. They are defined by their fearlessness, by their steadfast movement forward in pursuing bigger and better, by their medals, by their families and communities, by their hearts, and by the American spirit built in each of them. Justin, Paul, Noah, Brad, and Scott set an example for men, women, and children in every way. During the 2012 Paralympic Games, they made all Americans and our Nation proud.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud American, anxious to support our American athletes who will be competing in the 2012 London Olympics over the next two weeks. Like the vast majority of my fellow citizens, I will be closely following and cheering for each of our athletes as they represent our country--especially those from the state of Florida. Every two years, when the torch has completed its journey across the world and the cauldron is lit opening up the winter or summer games of the Olympics, we put down our differences for a brief moment and rally around our young American athletes. Each time the Stars and Stripes are raised just a little bit higher than the other flags and as the Star-Spangled Banner is played for the world to hear, we feel the unfettered pride of being an American. For these next two weeks, American Exceptionalism runs through the veins of every American as we root for our fellow athletes. The very best of America can be seen in so many of our young men and women who compete to bring the gold home. Athletes like Lopez Lomong, who escaped unspeakable horrors as a child soldier in Sudan after running for three days, only to end up in a refugee camp for 10 years, before being rescued by an American family. After legally earning his American citizenship in a country he refers to as ``next to heaven,'' Lopez proudly carried the American flag in Beijing and will compete in the 5,000 meter race in London. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this champion athlete has nothing to do with sports. After learning that he had two brothers still in Africa, he brought them to the United States where he encouraged them to attend a military academy so that they can give back to a country that has given him so much opportunity. My daughters and I will be rooting for this true American hero and patriot. This momentous occasion to represent the United States of America is an unequivocal honor for each athlete, the members of their team, their families, and all who have exhibited support along the way. As a member of Team USA, these champion athletes join a select group who will accompany each other in an endeavor to achieve the very best. Mr. Speaker I am extremely proud to recognize the Olympic Athletes who reside in South Florida. I salute: Venus Williams, a three-time Olympic gold medalist, has won a gold medal in tennis singles and two in women's tennis doubles. I am proud to proclaim that Venus Williams has won more Olympic medals than any other female tennis player. Tony McQuay, a three-time NCAA track champion and helped lead the University of Florida men's track and field team to the 2012 college national title. Tony posted the third-fastest time in the world this year in the 400-meter event. Sarah Lihan who is competing in sailing. After becoming the 2009 ICSA Women's National Champion, we will cheer her on as she sets sail to London in her first Olympic games. Anna Tunnicliffe also competing in sailing. After winning gold in the Women's Laser Radial class in the 2008 Olympics she is back on Team USA to hopefully bring home another gold medal. Christie Rampone is a defender on the U.S. Olympic soccer team. She has been an invaluable member of the Olympic team and this will be her fourth Olympics. Becky Sauerbrunn will compete on the U.S. Olympic women's soccer team in her first Olympics. She currently resides in West Palm Beach and we look forward to seeing her succeed as a defender alongside her teammates. Andy Roddick a native Floridian is competing in tennis for his second Olympics. He proved over and over that he highly excels in his discipline which is singles, doubles and mixed doubles. Sanya Richards-Ross is track and field and will be competing in the following events: Women's 4 400m Relay, Women's 200m, and the Women's 400m. In the 2008 Olympics she brought home a 4 400m bronze and a 400m gold. And finally, Foluke Akinrakewo a first time Olympian competing in the volleyball tournament. She was previously the starting middle blocker on the gold winning U.S. Women's Junior National Team. As the world's attention shifts to London for the next two weeks and our nation turns its attention to the very best American athletes it is an honor to offer my congratulations and best wishes to all these great athletes on their journey in competing in the 2012 London Olympics. I extend my best wishes for all around success in the upcoming London 2012 Olympics as their hard work, dedication, and perseverance is put to the test! Go U.S.A.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. I spent 22 years of Active Duty service in the United States Army. One of the things that seriously concerns me is this dark specter that hangs over our country right now that is called ``sequestration.'' It would mean that we will hollow out our military force: that we would have the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest Navy since 1915, the smallest number of fighter aircraft that we've ever had since the creation of the modern United States Air Force. This morning, at the Army Aviation Caucus breakfast, I sat between two distinguished fliers. One was the commander of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment. Another was Chief Warrant Officer Ford. Between the two of them, they had almost 40 deployments into combat zones. Also at that breakfast this morning was a former cadet of mine, now Lieutenant Colonel Dave Almquist, a distinguished master aviator in the United States military. Our men and women are watching us--the men and women who are the best and the brightest that this country can produce. But as well, our enemies are watching us to see what we will do to our United States military. Let us learn the lessons from post-World War I, post-World War II, and post-Korean War. Let's not gut our United States military. Let's own up to our responsibilities in article I, section 8.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Thank you very much to my colleague, Mr. Reed, for allowing me to be here and spend some time to talk about one of the reasons why I did not want to continue on supporting what has to be the ``Patient Protection Unaffordable Tax Act.'' When you think about down in south Florida, where I am from, a lot of people play golf. I've never swung a golf club in my life. But I do appreciate this term that they use called a mulligan. And a mulligan means you get to do it over. And I think that's what the American people want from us here in this distinguished body, Republicans and Democrats, a do-over. So that's what we tried to do today. And hopefully, Senator Reid will take our heed and he will go forth and allow the American people to see that mulligan take place. But I sit on the Small Business Committee. When you think about the effects that this tax law--because that's really all that it is now that the solicitor general from the administration argued that it was a tax and Chief Justice Roberts did agree with him. So it's a tax. And so down South, if it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, doggone it, it's a duck. Roughly 940,000 small businesses will be hit by an incredibly big tax hike. According to the National Federation of Independent Business, the advocacy group for small businesses, 75 percent of small businesses are organized as pass-through entities, small businesses, subchapter S, LLCs, meaning that they pay their taxes on their business income at an individual rate. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this tax hike that is going to be hitting will affect 940,000 small businesses. Half of all small business income would face higher taxes. According to Bloomberg News and an analysis by the JCT, it also shows that President Obama's plan for these massive tax hikes mean higher taxes on 53 percent of business income reported on individual returns. More than a quarter of American workers' jobs are at risk. According to U.S. Census data through the NFIB, small businesses employ more than 25 percent of the total workforce. So raising taxes on these small businesses threatens these jobs--and that's the last thing we need to do in this weak economy. My colleague, Mr. Reed, just talked about this artificial employer mandate where if you go over 50 employees, then you get hit with these fines because you have to provide certain levels of health insurance and health coverage. Well, why would we put that type of artificial burden? What does that mean for a small business owner that is at 48 and 49? He's not going to seek to go any higher. Or, if he does go any higher, he's going to drop people off of his insurance coverage. Or, maybe even worse, he'll just get rid of that employee, which means another person that's added in. A U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey showed that 74 percent of small businesses contend that this law will make job creation at their companies even more difficult. The Supreme Court's health care ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases enacted as part of this law. A dozen of these are going to affect those people: less than $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for married couples--a clear violation of what the President talked about with his pledge to avoid taxes on lower- and middle-income taxpayers. This is the reason why I said we've got to have a mulligan. An additional 0.9 percent payroll tax on wages and self-employment income and a new 3.8 percent tax on dividends, something very important for seniors down in south Florida. Capital gains. Why are we going after capital gains in a health care law? I don't know. I think it's a tax law. Why are we going to go after capital gains when we need to have investments so we can grow our economy--and other investment income for taxpayers. ``Cadillac tax'' on high-cost plans; annual tax on health insurance providers; annual tax on drug manufacturers and importers; a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers and importers. And if I'm right, Mr. Reed, that's one of those pieces of legislation, that 31 or 32 sitting on Harry Reid's desk, so we can get rid of that medical device tax. Again, I just tell this guy we need to have a mulligan. Raise a 7.5 percent AGI on medical expense deductions to 10; deny eligibility of ``black liquor'' for cellulosic biofuel producer credit. What does that have to do with health care? Codify economic substance doctrine; increase penalty for non- qualified health savings account distributions; impose limitations on the use of health savings accounts, flexible spending accounts, and Archer MSAs to purchase over-the-counter medicines; impose fee on insured and self- insured health plans and patient-centered outcomes research trust fund; eliminate the deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare part D subsidy; impose a 10 percent tax on tanning services. I have got to tell you, down in south Florida, if it's kind of clouded over, a lot of people go into the indoor tanning booths. Now they've got to pay a tax for that. What are we doing with the Tax Code, Mr. Reed? Are we now using the Tax Code as a means by which we're going to promote social policy? Are we using the Tax Code now as a means by which we're going to create behavior modification here in the United States of America? That's all this bill does. Sixteen thousand new IRS agents. Why do we need 16,000 new IRS agents if this is supposed to be a health care law? It's because someone's got to collect all that money that this ``Patient Protection Unaffordable Tax Act'' is bringing upon the American people. What do you really get with this? You get 159 new government agencies and bureaucracies. You get all of these different bureaucrats up here in Washington, D.C., that are going to interject themselves between the doctor-patient relationship. Well, no one talked about this a lot, how in this health care law the Federal Government took over college education loans. It was the people from across the aisle who made the decision that we will take it from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. Once again, it became incumbent upon us to come in and try to clean up the mess that was made. It is truly as the former Speaker said: we have to pass this bill in order to find out what is in it. And now that we're finding out what is in it, we just cannot stomach this. The ObamaCare tax is already holding back job growth in medical innovation, with venture capital investment and medical device firms down 50 percent in 2011 compared to any of the previous 5 years. The average American family already paid a premium increase of approximately $1,200 in the year following passage of this law. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that health insurance premiums for individuals buying private health coverage on their own will increase by $2,100 in 2016 compared to what the premiums would have been in 2016 if this law had not been passed. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about the fact that we need to do something to reform the health care process here in the United States of America and make it more affordable. But to all of a sudden bring the Federal Government in--you know, it was about 30-some-odd years ago when there was a former Democrat President that said everyone has a right to own a home, and the Federal Government created this thing called the Community Reinvestment Act. And look how well that worked out 30 years later in 2008 when we had that financial meltdown tied to the mortgage industry. So what is going to happen with this incredibly onerous invasion into the health care industry? I don't want to be around 30 years from now to see. And that's why my message to Harry Reid is very simple: The American people want a mulligan. Let's do it over and do it right.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey showed that 74 percent of small businesses contend that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will make job creation at their companies even more difficult. A recent report by Bloomberg News noted that the President's health care law will impose an estimated $813 billion in new taxes on job creators and middle class families, based on data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Additionally, the law and the more than 13,000 pages of related regulations issued before July 11, 2012, are causing greater uncertainty, slowing economic growth, and limiting hiring opportunities for the approximately 13 million Americans searching for work. Imposing higher costs on businesses will lead to lower wages, fewer workers, or both. Half of all small business income would face higher taxes. According to Bloomberg News, analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation also shows President Obama's plan for massive tax hikes ``would mean higher taxes on 53 percent of business income reported on individual returns.'' The ObamaCare tax is already holding back job growth in medical innovation, with venture capital investment and medical device firms down over 50 percent in 2011 compared to any previous 5 years. Mr. Speaker, today I had 17 members of the South Florida Chapter of the Association of Builders and Contractors saying that this law is going to adversely affect their businesses. Roger Dunshee, of Twin Vee Catamarans in Fort Pierce, Florida, is considering who he will have to leave off of his insurance coverage or who he will have to completely get rid of from his business. David Carbone, president and CEO of St. Mary's Hospital in West Palm Beach, is concerned about how he will be able to run the hospital and also the type of care he will be able to provide. Dr. Mark Powers of Orthopedic Specialists in Port St. Lucie, Florida, is concerned about what he will be able to provide as a small business owner.

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, this is not about taking anything away from the American people. We can keep what is good. But this is bad policy that had to be passed in order for us to find out what was in those 2,700 pages. Let us do what is right for the American people. Repeal this onerous monstrosity that is nothing more than a tax law and develop a health care solution for which the American people can be proud.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove myself as a cosponsor of H.R. 3798, the Egg Products Inspection Act.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not only as a Member of Congress, but as a citizen of the great State of Florida. My fellow Floridians are frustrated with the Federal Government for imposing more and more burdensome regulations that continue to hurt our already struggling State and Nation. The President's policies have failed and are making this economy worse. While the President continues to give speeches on the principles of job growth, his administration continues to pursue job-killing policies that threaten this country's economic recovery. In fact, since President Obama took office, we've seen a 52 percent increase in completed regulations deemed economically significant. These regulations are costing the economy at least $100 million each year. Mr. Speaker, this is worth repeating so the American people clearly understand: since January of 2009, this President has increased by more than 50 percent the regulations costing at least $100 million annually. The President cannot stand on his record of the last 3\1/2\ years, so he has regrettably turned to the politics of envy and division. We cannot create a fair system for job creators when the Federal Government keeps changing the rules. We can't help the job seeker by punishing the job creator with more government red tape. According to a September 2010 report from the Small Business Administration, total regulatory costs amount to $1.75 trillion annually. Put another way, this $1.75 trillion of regulatory burden is enough money for businesses to provide 35 million private sector jobs with an average salary of $50,000. According to the same report: Small businesses which have created 64 percent of all new jobs in the past 15 years face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory costs facing large firms. Yet rather than provide incentives for these businesses to expand and create jobs, the Obama administration raises taxes and imposes unnecessary, burdensome layers of red tape that impede private sector investment and destroy jobs. In the last few months, we've heard a lot about fairness from the President, especially when it comes to the so-called rich. Accompanying President Obama's budget for fiscal year 2013 was a simple message to the American people: everyone must shoulder their fair share. Mr. President, the free market is not about fairness. This is not Little League baseball where everyone gets a trophy. There is nothing fair about the Federal Government telling you what kind of lightbulbs you can use to light your home, how many gallons of water you can use to flush your toilet, and which kinds of food your children have to consume. While the President continues his ``Kansas City shuffle'' trying to get the American people to look right while he goes left, he continues to try and turn the attention of the American people away from his policies that continue to drag the economy down. The facts speak for themselves. Today, there are more Federal regulations on the books than in any other time in the history of our Nation. The Obama administration currently has proposed 3,118 regulations with 167 considered economically significant. In 2011 alone, Mr. Speaker, there were 79,000 new pages printed in the Federal Register. The same year, the Obama administration issued $231.4 billion in regulatory burdens from proposed or final rules. Today, there are 291,676 unelected Federal regulatory agency employees surrounding the United States Capitol. According to the Financial Services Roundtable, it will take 24,503 employees just to comply with the flood of regulations emanating from the Dodd-Frank banking regulations. According to a February 15, 2012, Gallup poll, 48 percent of small businesses said they were not hiring due to concerns about possible rising health care costs, while 46 percent said they were worried about new government regulations. A 2010 study by The Heritage Foundation found that an unprecedented 43 major regulations were imposed in fiscal year 2010, with a total economic cost of $26.5 billion, the highest total since at least 1981. A recent report from The Heritage Foundation also found that during the 3 years of the Obama administration, a total of 106 new major regulations have been imposed at a cost of more than $46 billion annually and nearly $11 billion in one-time implementation costs. This amount is about five times the cost imposed by the prior administration of President George W. Bush. Mr. Speaker, I think it is essential the American people understand just a few proposed Obama administration regulations that will cost each of us billions of dollars: Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Estimated cost: $19 billion to $90 billion. It was withdrawn in September 2011. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. Estimated cost: $10 billion. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Source Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. Estimated cost: $3 billion. Standards for the Management of Coal Combustion Residuals Generated by Commercial Electric Power Producers. Estimated cost: $6 million to $1.5 billion. Require motor carriers operating commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce to use electronic onboard recorders to document their drivers' hours. Estimated cost: $2 billion. Hours of service on commercial motor vehicle drivers. Estimated cost: $1 billion. A Consumer Product Safety Commission rule deeming children's books printed prior to 1986 to be potentially toxic due to the possibility of excessive lead in the ink, even though the actual risk of the lead exposure from older books ranks only about 0.5 on a scale of one to 10, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nonetheless, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has urged libraries to put older children's books in storage until they can be tested for lead toxicity--at a cost of $300 to $500 for each book. The Federal Government's attempt to regulate the precise moisture, temperature, and chemical standards of compost for use in producing certified organic foods. The Department of Energy's desire to rewrite water efficiency standards for the Nation's urinals--yes, rewrite water efficiency standards for the Nation's urinals, that's correct, Mr. Speaker. An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission declaration that requiring a high school diploma as a job certification has a disparate impact on certain individuals that failed to meet such a standard. A Department of Justice regulation requiring enhanced access for disabled individuals at public and private facilities such as swimming pools. And of course Numeric Nutrient Criteria, which I will discuss later. It's no surprise why entrepreneurship in the United States of America is at a 17-year low. In 2010, the Obama administration published 82,480 pages of regulations. Two comprehensive legislative packages--the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank banking regulations--were passed and scheduled to regulate greenhouse gases as well for the first time ever in the history of this country. In 2011, agencies finalized $187 million in deregulatory actions, and proposed more than $1.1 billion in rescissions. However, these deregulatory measures were dwarfed by the new regulations that the administration published just this year. For proposed or final rules, the Obama administration published $231.4 billion in regulatory burdens and 133 million paperwork burden hours. Assuming a 2,000-hour work year, it would take 66,730 employees just to file the Federal paperwork. On average, Mr. Speaker, eliminating the job of a single regulator would grow the American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private sector jobs annually. The reverse is true as well: each million-dollar increase in the regulatory budget costs the economy 420 private sector jobs. A recent article in The Economist highlighted the increased complexity caused by ObamaCare, citing that ``every hour spent treating a patient in America creates at least 30 minutes of paperwork, and often a whole hour.'' Next year, the number of Federally mandated categories of illness and injury for which hospitals must claim reimbursement will rise from 18,000 to 140,000. There are nine codes, Mr. Speaker, relating to injuries caused by parrots--yes, parrots--and three relating to burns emanating from flaming water skis. Let's be real clear at this point of time: The only jobs created by regulations are jobs for regulators and more regulators. What I notice when I ride up and down Federal and Dixie Highways in south Florida are the numbers of closed storefronts, the numbers of vacant spaces. However, when I fly into Washington, D.C., Mr. Speaker, I see the number of sky cranes building more housing and office space for these regulators. The number of Federal workers employed in regulatory activities-- excluding the TSA--has jumped 20 percent since 2008 while total workforce participation in the United States of America is at a 30-year low. Our Nation has faced 3 years of unemployment at or above 8 percent. Mr. Speaker, do you want to guess what the employment rate is in Washington, D.C.? In May, the unemployment in the Washington, D.C., metro area was 5.3 percent. Of course, the environment is only one area of regulatory overreach by the Obama administration. In its review of overregulated America, The Economist magazine noted that the Dodd-Frank banking law, at 848 pages, is 23 times longer than the preceding Glass-Steagall Act. These regulations are choking off the oxygen of growth in this country, especially in our area of south Florida. Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment to talk about an example which is taking place in our congressional district. In 2006, Rybovich Yachts became the only company in the United States capable of repairing mega- yachts with the opening of its facility in West Palm Beach. The company took a dilapidated boatyard and turned it into the finest repair facility in the world. This facility now employs 230 workers directly and as many as 300 subcontractors each and every day. The facility quickly exceeded all business expectations, attracting commerce from around the globe and cementing south Florida's leadership position in the marine industry. Last year, this facility generated $5.5 million in local and State tax revenue. Consider the regulatory hurdles Rybovich had to leap through, the mountains of paperwork in order to get a permit issued, and the burdensome red tape they endured every step of the way. Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable that any U.S. company chooses to do business on its own shores. To satisfy the environmental regulations and requirements for the first facility, Rybovich was required to inspect and analyze every other possible location in the area to see if there was an alternate site that would have less impact on local sea grass beds. Once the location was chosen, the environmental impact had to be measured and mitigated one for one. In the case of Rybovich, 5 acres of sea grass needed to be replaced. Since there are limited areas where sea grass could be replanted in the vicinity, the company, Rybovich, a private sector company, had to buy an island, construct a wall around it, and plant sea grass. The island alone cost the company $4 million. In 2008, Rybovich realized there was market potential for a second facility to service even larger yachts. Construction for this new facility is estimated to create over 600 jobs. The total economic impact from the first 5 years of operations is estimated to be $630 million in Palm Beach County and $111 million in the city of Riviera Beach. One would think, after going through the permitting process and jumping through all the environmental hurdles to open the first facility, the second would go more smoothly. One would think. One would think, given the state of our local economy, a new project of this scope would be welcomed with open arms. But, Mr. Speaker, 4 years later, Rybovich still hasn't received a permit for its proposed project in Riviera Beach. And did I mention the 600 jobs that would be created? That's correct. I did. However, the Federal regulators don't seem to care about that fact. What is happening to Rybovich is not an isolated incident. This is happening all over the United States. Rybovich is merely a whiff of the toxic bureaucratic fumes emanating from the Obama administration that regulators are using to go choke off job and economic growth with excessive environmental regulation. Another case in point is the numeric nutrient criteria. The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed ludicrous standards for Florida's nitrogen and phosphorus levels for the State's lakes, rivers, streams, and springs. Until 2009, the State of Florida was working cooperatively with the EPA to improve our water quality standards. However, in 2009, in an attempt to settle a lawsuit brought by environmental groups, the EPA decided to abandon that cooperative approach, federally preempt our water quality State standards, and impose new criteria on our State. Like all Floridians, I want clean and safe water. For several years now, Florida has been working to improve its water quality, and in many respects, the State's efforts have been a model for other States throughout this country. As Florida Wildlife Commissioner Ron Bergeron explains, ``A water standard of 10 parts per billion required by numeric nutrient criteria, is more stringent,'' Mr. Speaker, ``than rainwater which is 15 parts per billion, and is a quality of water that is humanly impossible to achieve.'' Even the EPA's own Science Advisory Board has expressed serious concerns about the science used to support the regulation, and the EPA has repeatedly refused to allow a third-party review of the proposal. But there is no doubt about one thing, Mr. Speaker. This mandate is poisonous to the economy. These regulations are not about whether we want clean water for Florida. These regulations are about how we reach that goal and at what cost. This EPA mandate, which singles out the State of Florida, will drive up the cost of doing business, double water bills for all Florida families, and will destroy jobs. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection estimates this Federal mandate may force municipal wastewater and storm water utilities to spend as much as $26 billion in capital improvements to upgrade their facilities. This $26 billion will eventually be paid by each Floridian who uses water, and that means every resident. A study by the University of Florida and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services concluded that the EPA's numeric nutrient criteria regulations would directly cost Florida's agricultural community roughly $1 billion each year, with additional indirect costs also exceeding $1 billion. This billion dollar cost eventually will be paid by every American who wants to enjoy an orange, a grapefruit, or other produce that comes from our State. The study goes on to say that implementation of the EPA regulations could put more than 14,000 agricultural workers out of a job and would cost the average household up to $990 in higher sewer rates. That is per year, per family, $990 more in higher water bills. Can our already stagnant economy in Florida take that? Will families move to Florida and choose to buy homes in our already depressed housing market if they're going to have to pay nearly $1,000 more in their annual water bills for years to come? The EPA has repeatedly refused to allow any third-party review of the science behind the proposed mandate of numeric nutrient criteria. The EPA has also failed to complete an economic analysis. In a disturbing article in The New York Times on February 16, 2011, an EPA official said they have no plans to implement this regulation in any other State except for the State of Florida. Excessive EPA regulations hamper business expansion and job growth in nearly every industry. They hurt farmers. They hurt utility workers, pipe fitters, construction workers, coal miners, factory workers, truck drivers, and machinists. Sixty national companies and dozens of Florida-based companies and organizations, including the United States Chamber of Commerce and the American Farm Bureau, have sent letters to the United States Congress to oppose these burdensome regulations. Mr. Speaker, we must reduce the regulatory burden on our Nation's businesses and help put Americans back to work. We must get the Federal Government out of the way of our small businesses and entrepreneurs so that they can succeed and prosper. When there is a need for regulations, they should be developed in concert with the private sector and, of course, done with common sense. Over the last few months, the United States House of Representatives has passed more than two dozen bills designed to do just that--staunch the toxic regulatory flow coming from the Federal agencies. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, they're all still sitting on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's desk, which really does stink. John Engler, the President of the Business Roundtable, recently stated that: Regulations are hidden taxes that strangle job creation. We need action by government agencies to clear out obsolete rules and streamline permitting to reduce delays and impediments for companies to invest and grow. The private sector is the only hope for future job creation. We need to recognize this and work together to let businesses, small and large, invest in people. Mr. Speaker, I could not have said that any better. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize the 25th Anniversary of the Rolling Thunder Demonstration Run, held annually over Memorial Day weekend in Washington, DC. Rolling Thunder was founded in 1987 by Vietnam veterans Ray Manzo, Walt Sides, John Holland and Ted Sampley to bring attention and awareness to unaccounted for servicemen and women at the conclusion of the Vietnam War. Exercising their First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution to assemble, these proud veterans organized a motorcycle rally to take place in our Nation's Capital to ensure that we, as a nation, demand a full accounting of our members of the armed forces held as Prisoners of War (POW's) and those still Missing in Action (MIA's). This moving tribute to our American war heroes started in 1988 when an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 bikers rode in the streets surrounding the United States Capitol, to bring awareness to the POW/MIA issue. Over the last 25 years, their efforts to increase the awareness of the POW/MIA issue and honoring all military veterans has grown; so have the days since the last solider left Vietnam. Over Memorial Day 2012, on the 25th Anniversary Rolling Thunder Run, an estimated 1.3 million people and 500,000 motorcycles participated making it the largest one-day event in our Nation's Capital, and one of the largest one-day events in the world. Mr. Speaker, as this dome of the United States Capitol stands as a beacon of liberty, freedom and democracy throughout the world, it is only fitting for the last quarter century that the men and woman who have ridden their motorcycles in the shadow of this building send a message from our shores and beyond that our American POW's/MIA have served honorably and will never be forgotten. I would like to add my voice in commending Rolling Thunder for their efforts to honor America's POW's/MIA's, and also raise awareness around the issues facing the brave men and women who have served and currently serve in this nation's military.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, I realize that small business is essential for creating jobs in our nation. Small businesses are the engine of America's economy, and there is an organization that exists to help strengthen small businesses and assist them in achieving their dreams. That organization is SCORE. SCORE is a nonprofit that provides free business advice to anyone looking to start or grow a small business. With over 350 chapters across our nation, SCORE volunteers stand ready and willing to help all of those who want it. As a strong supporter of all small businesses in our nation, I am proud to congratulate the South Palm Beach SCORE chapter in Florida for winning the United States Small Business Administration's National SCORE Chapter of the Year Award. South Palm Beach SCORE was chosen to receive this award thanks to the strong relationships they've built in their local small business community, the programs they have developed assisting veterans and young entrepreneurs, and their efforts to expand the reach of their chapter to new entrepreneurs and small business owners. South Palm Beach SCORE helped over 5000 small businesses in Fiscal Year 2011. South Palm Beach SCORE has also started a number of programs that have helped their community grow, including joining with Lynn University, Palm Beach State College, and Florida Atlantic University to assist with Veteran Affairs, Government Trade Shows, and Mentoring Business School students and alumni; forming a program with the Boca Raton Chamber of Commerce to provide a 33-week course working with area students, ages 11 18, focused on successfully starting and operating a small business; and creating the Veterans Grant Program to help returning Iraq and Afghanistan vets start or grow their own business. South Palm Beach SCORE members funded the program by donating over a quarter of a million dollars of their own money to get the program off the ground. The criteria for National SCORE Chapter of the Year award is based on demonstration of the chapter delivering quality, contributions to the community, client focus, and merit achievement. To ensure small businesses' continued success, I will work to focus in the United States Congress on what is best for entrepreneurs, small business owners and their communities. This means providing SCORE with the funding they need to adequately assist those people who need it. SCORE is an effective and efficient catalyst for job creation. Studies show for every $1 appropriated to SCORE, $57 flows into the federal treasury from SCORE clients. SCORE is a unique national organization serving the two great American ideals: entrepreneurial spirit and volunteerism. It is my hope the Federal Government tries to maintain SCORE's budget at $7 million to let volunteer experts continue to help small business owners at no cost to them. SCORE exists to help entrepreneurs achieve their dream of success and strengthen the economy of this great nation, and we need to support them in their efforts. South Palm Beach SCORE chapter winning the Small Business Administration's National SCORE Chapter of the Year Award exemplifies the goal in meeting entrepreneurs' dreams and growing of economy.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to speak. I will say this one thing. I've been in Afghanistan for 2\1/2\ years. And having been a ground combat commander, I say one thing: if this amendment were to pass, where it says this amendment would restrict the authorization and use of funds for continuation of combat operations in Afghanistan, just today, in the Farah province, which I've been to, the Taliban attacked an Afghan Government compound, killing 7 people. What you are telling our men and women in combat, what you are saying to the enemy is that we are going to leave those men and women hanging, that we are not going to provide them the resources. Now, I see where this amendment says it does not prohibit or restrict the use of funds available for the U.S. to carry out diplomatic, humanitarian, development, or general reconstruction efforts. One of the problems that we have had in Afghanistan is that we got involved in nation-building, we got involved in occupational-style warfare, and truly not being involved in a counterterrorism style of warfare and going after the enemy. This is where our primary focus should be. We have generals that are on the ground that know what they're doing. They've been to Staff College, they've been to War College. Why is it that we don't want to listen to the people that we have placed trust and confidence in to lead our men and women in combat? They have been told that in 2014 we will be drawing down and leaving Afghanistan. Why in God's name would we want to repeat some of the horrible things that I saw my older brother go through in Vietnam, where we restricted funding, and the next thing you know you had the killing fields of Pol Pot? I'm telling you, I've been in Afghanistan; I know this enemy. And I don't see anyone over there, my dear colleagues on the other side, that I would trust more than General Allen, who is on the ground, who knows what he has to do. The message that you send to our troops is that you're abandoning them. The message that you send to the Taliban, to al Qaeda, to the Haqqani Network, to LeT, to every single radical Islamic group, is that we have turned our backs on our military, and you can continue to kill them. I just want to say one simple thing. Two weeks ago, I went to the memorial service for PFC Michael J. Metcalf of Boynton Beach, Florida, who was laid to rest today in Arlington. I will not turn my back on those men and women who are still my friends, some of them even my relatives. I ask that my colleagues do not vote for this amendment.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Wittman, and I do rise to support this amendment. Having spent time in the military, we were taught that there were some basic principles. A couple of those basic principles are unity of command and unity of effort. I will take nothing away from the civilian appointee that we have in this position currently, but as we said, this is the Army national cemetery. And it being the Army national cemetery, I feel it is very important we have a chain of command, a chain of leadership. That could fall under the Military District of Washington. As a matter of fact, the sergeant major of the Military District of Washington is someone that I served with at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, when I was a young major, and we understand chain of command. We understand responsibility and accountability. And I talked to him about this, and he feels that will be something that will be very well appropriate, to have a military commissioned officer. When you look at our arsenals, our arsenals out there have strong civilian leadership and also strong civilian employees, but yet we have a military commander. When you look at an organization such as the Army Material Command, which is some 60 to 70 percent civilian, but yet we have a four-star general, General Ann Dunwoody, someone that I also know very well and served with, who is in charge of that organization. So I think if we want to make sure that we have right type of unity of command, unity of effort, chain of command in place, we need to make sure that we have a uniformed military person that's in control and in command of this Army National Cemetery. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. WEST. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I find it very interesting that back in 1942, when there were German Nazi saboteurs that were captured off the coast of Long Island, that they were prosecuted in a military commission. One of them was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment; others were sentenced to death. And I understand that this is a different type of battlefield that we're on, the 21st century battlefield. We're all on this battlefield. No one would have ever thought that Major Malik Nadal Hasan would stand in Fort Hood, Texas, and shoot 43 Americans and 13 of those would be killed. I find that we have to understand that we are at a war. We are not in a police action. We cannot look to guarantee to those who seek to harm us the constitutional rights that are granted to Americans. If we extend that to them, then we are starting to say that this war on terror, now it's a criminal action. And I find it very interesting that a sponsor of this amendment is the Council for American Islamic Relations, which is an unindicted coconspirator for the largest terrorist financing act here. So I say we should not support this amendment.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Thank you, Chairman McKeon, and thank you, Ranking Member Smith. I stand today to offer my support for H.R. 4310, Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. To echo the comments of my colleague from Washington (Mr. Larsen), I am very happy to see that the recommendations from the Defense Business Panel will be included in this legislation because we have to streamline our processing and our contracting opportunities as well for our small businesses. I'm also very happy to know that the End Strength Reduction Act was included in this legislation to make sure that we have the proper procedures in tearing down the reduction of our forces, and making sure we periodically go back and reassess our national security objectives to make sure that our end strength of our military meets those objectives. I'm also very pleased to know that we continue to protect the well- earned TRICARE health care benefits for our veterans and for military retirees, staying away from the tripling of those health care rates. We will continue to index that toward the COLA. We will continue to provide for the proper support of our military families and their children and the programs on our installations. But most importantly, I am very happy to know that we will continue to resource our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, and our Marines, because as we are standing here today debating this piece of legislation, someone is out there being the watchman on the wall. Someone is out there about to go on a patrol, and they are trusting and depending upon us to do the right thing through the amendment process of this legislation to ensure that they are given the resources so they can provide victory and once again provide for the common defense of this great Nation. We must make sure that our military cannot be seen as a bill payer for fiscal irresponsibility. And the most important thing is, when you look at our track record for predicting the next conflict, it is not a good track record. We must make sure that we do not destroy our military and decimate its capabilities and capacities while we're trying to rectify the fiscal situation here. Let's stay focused on our primary responsibility of providing for the common defense.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, as we end our congressional session for the month of April, I think it's very important to have an honest conversation about taxation in America. The United States Constitution clearly states in article 1, section 8, that: The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Unlike in Great Britain, the Framers bestowed this power to a Congress directly representative of the people. Men, religious men like Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, were taught the ideals that all men and women are created equal and that there is no divine right of a King's rule. Moreover, our Framers believed in the social contract, an intellectual device used to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their government. The social contract our Framers envisioned was one in which a legitimate government was defined by government operated and derived from the consent of the governed. In other words, the government envisioned by our Framers would be answerable to those that elected them through regular elections. One of the most famous social contract thinkers, John Locke, believed if a government were to abuse that relationship, the governed had the natural right to overthrow their leaders. Our Framers lived under the rule of King George III, a ``man of a small mind,'' according to one British historian, at a time when ``republicanism,'' defined as the protection of liberty through the rule of law, was sweeping across the British Empire. The British Empire, extending to the Americas, ruled by King George was one where high taxes without representation was the rule of law and where dissension was met with a noose. Following on the heels of the Molasses Act, where a tax was imposed on all molasses sold within the Colonies, set to expire in 1763, the British Parliament passed the Sugar Act in April of 1764. The following year, Parliament passed the Stamp Act, stating that all printed materials within the Colonies needed to be on taxed and stamped paper from London. In response to the Stamp Act, the American Colonials formed the Stamp Act Congress, held in New York. In 1765, this assembly was seen as the first true collective dissension shown towards the British Crown in colonial history. What followed throughout the rest of the century, Mr. Speaker, that was a lesson in the early beginnings of American exceptionalism. Learning from their lesson of taxation without representation, a viewing gallery was built in our first House of Representatives so that any citizen may bear witness to the decisions made on their behalf. Following the American Revolution, very few taxes were enacted and imposed on the American people, such as modest taxes on alcohol, sugar, and tobacco to pay for the simple workings and infrastructure of government. The War of 1812 brought on new taxes on luxury goods, such as gold and jewelry. After on-again, off-again taxes for the next half century, Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1862, under the tutelage of President Abraham Lincoln. In 1913, the 16th Amendment replaced a large excise tax from alcohol that was repealed after Prohibition and that provided the government with revenue to fund the First World War, thus making a Federal income tax permanent. But after the war was over and Prohibition was repealed, was this tax still necessary? Did the creation of a permanent income tax contradict the previous taxes we saw in our early history? At the time, a very controversial amendment, the 16th Amendment, had been cited in multiple Supreme Court cases, most significantly in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad and in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company. The Court ruled it was never the intent of Congress to place a direct tax on the American people. Mr. Speaker, that's a decision we now see being debated again in the Supreme Court with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. These direct taxes, such as a direct tax on property ownership, were seen to be apportioned for the States to decide. Since its induction, we have seen a mass exploitation of the income tax. No longer is the Tax Code used simply to pay for the workings of government. Today, we see tax dollars wasted on such egregious projects as $150,000 to the Institute of the Museum and Library Services funds for an American Museum of Magic in Marshall, Michigan; $175,000 in National Institutes of Health funds for the University of Kentucky to study how cocaine enhances the sex drive of Japanese quail; and a National Science Foundation grant of $198,000 to the University of California at Riverside for research on whether using social media makes one happy. But, Mr. Speaker, why are we here today? We are here because millions of Americans have just filed their Federal taxes. I wonder how many of those Americans actually understand their taxes. How many of those Americans have to pay someone hundreds of dollars who can understand the seemingly unending wail in thousands of pages of Tax Code? As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the American people know that even some of our colleagues here on Capitol Hill, in this very body, have had some issues with the Tax Code, to include our own Secretary of the Treasury. Most alarming might be the fact that the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Mr. Shulman, has claimed that he uses a tax preparer. This is simply ridiculous. There are serious ramifications of a Tax Code that is over 67,000 pages. How many small and large business owners are not hiring because they are constantly being told they're not paying their fair share of taxes and cannot predict how much they will pay in the future? Mr. Speaker, I reject this progressive mantra that we need to raise taxes so that the government can waste more hard- earned American taxpayer dollars. So now is an absolutely important time to go back and examine our Tax Code, move away from the progressive Tax Code system and simplify it for the American people. Milton Friedman famously quipped: If you put the Federal Government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there would be a shortage of sand. President Obama has increasingly upped his rhetoric of class envy by suggesting that higher-income taxpayers are avoiding their responsibility in not paying their fair share. Instead of resorting to manipulative rhetoric, pitting one working American against another, the President and Congress should work together to enact pro-growth economic policies to help put Americans back to work. One of the biggest reasons our economy continues to struggle is that employers, both large and small, are filled with uncertainty. They look to Washington only to see more government spending, the desire for more taxes, and more government regulations on the horizon. Washington spending has been out of control for years, Mr. Speaker--and Republicans and Democrats certainly could have done more in the past to stop it--but the spending binge that has occurred under President Obama is truly unprecedented. President Obama's proposed tax hikes that are buried in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, increasing regulation, government intervention into the private sector, and skyrocketing debt have created economic uncertainty, thus freezing investment and hiring. The solution for reviving our economy is straightforward: cut wasteful government spending and remove the unnecessary tax and regulatory barriers that cause the uncertainty that prevents employers from hiring Americans. Understand that you cannot help the job seeker by punishing the job creator with higher taxes. Job creators know that historic debt levels will lead to historic job-destroying tax increases. If we raise taxes on the very people that we need to grow and invest in our economy and hire new workers, our economy will continue to spiral. If we do not have economic growth, we will never balance the budget. Nearly 75 percent of America's small businesses, the economic engine of growth, pay their taxes through their owners' personal individual incomes. Half of those small businesses would suffer from a higher tax burden under the President's proposed tax increases. Those proposed tax increases will limit their ability to hire more workers and invest. Raising taxes on small businesses, where a majority of Americans go to work every day, will not put American families back to work. Instead, these tax increases will hamper the ability of these job creators to keep workers on their payrolls, expand their businesses, hire new employees, and invest. These tax increases will hurt economic recovery and growth because they suppress incentives to save and invest at a time when investments and capital are desperately needed to recover our economy. Mr. Speaker, since moving into the White House just over 3 years ago, President Obama has been spending millions of dollars campaigning around this great Nation, pushing a so-called Buffett rule. The President claimed that the Buffett rule would stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why the President continues to mislead the American people. The bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation stated that the Buffett rule would only raise $46.7 billion over the next 10 years, reducing our deficit by less than .4 percent. In other words, the so-called Buffett rule would only raise enough revenue to keep the Federal Government's lights on for 11 days. Just a couple of weeks ago, the President was in the congressional district that I represent, touting his political divide-and-rule gimmick that would collect almost $47 billion through the year 2022; but when you look at the comparison of the $7 trillion in Federal budget deficits that will come in that exact same period, we are not making progress. Clearly, we have a spending problem in Washington, D.C. and not a revenue problem. Mr. Speaker, the President should stop trying to score these cheap political points and should work towards solutions that will actually solve our Nation's debt crisis. His claim that the Buffett rule is something that will get us moving in the right direction toward fairness would be more convincing if he took other steps in that direction, too. Three years into his Presidency, President Obama has not introduced a plan for comprehensive tax reform, arguably the most important vehicle for fixing the Nation's finances and for boosting long-term economic growth. When you look at the progressive Tax Code system that we have in the United States of America, we hear a lot of talk today about fairness, fair share, economic equality, and shared sacrifice. Well, one of the things that we must understand is that the top 1 percent of wage earners in the United States of America are paying close to 40 percent of Federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of wage earners in the United States of America pay close to 58 percent of Federal income taxes. The top 25 percent of wage earners in the United States of America pay 86 percent of Federal income taxes. Mr. Speaker, to make matters worse, a large percentage of wage-earning households--about 47 percent--are paying absolutely nothing in Federal income taxes. I would also like to speak to the other side of that equation, which is how we are using the Tax Code as a weapon for behavior modification. One of the things we have to be very concerned about is all of the new taxes that will kick in with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act from January of 2013 out to January of 2018. One of those taxes even includes a real estate tax, as well as an insidious tanning tax. At a time when the housing market is still in free-fall, why would the President tax people for purchasing or selling their homes? It is not only unfair, but it is immoral to leave these types of policies as our legacy to our children and grandchildren. Also within this new government takeover of health care is the federalization of student loans, and we just voted about keeping those loan rates for our college students at 3.4 percent, not realizing that the Federal Government has now taken over the management of college loans. This completely cuts out any competition to help lower student loan interest rates. The federalization of these loans has done nothing but drive up interest rates on our young people. President Obama himself even said that this will do nothing to help solve the problem of ever-increasing college tuition costs. This equates to a tax on the American Dream of higher education, which is so crucial to success. Unfortunately, the economy and job market that the Obama administration is fostering is just pouring salt on an open wound, Mr. Speaker. Not only will recent graduates see themselves paying higher interest rates on their loans, they will also enter a job market that is seeing some of the highest unemployment rates for recent graduates in our history. Nearly half of all recent college graduates cannot find jobs after graduation. Mr. Speaker, at the rate we're going, our children will be the first generation to not live a better life than their parents. This is simply unacceptable. What is the President's response to this crisis? He introduces his fiscal year 2013 budget that would spend an incredibly obscene $47 trillion over the next ten years; higher taxes on individuals to pay for increased government spending; higher taxes on small businesses that will stifle new jobs; and higher taxes on investors to ensure our innovation lags behind the rest of the world. The President's planned tax increases seem designed to demonize the so-called ``rich'' and use them as a propaganda tool to score political points. But the fact is next year, unless changes are made to the Tax Code, Americans will be subject to the largest tax increase in our Nation's history. If the Obama-Bush tax cuts expire, a typical family of four in south Florida with a household income of $50,000 per year would have to pay $2,900 more in taxes each year. Mr. Speaker, seniors who count on dividends and investments to cover expenses during retirement will have to pay higher tax rates, even if they have a modest income. Children of farmers and small business owners who wish to continue the legacy of their parents will find it increasingly difficult to do so as the death tax exemption will shrink from $5 million to $1 million. Further, inherited assets exceeding that amount will be taxed at a maximum rate of 55 percent, with a 5 percent surcharge on estates over $10 million. Investors will be battered with a capital gains tax increase from 15 percent to a top-level maximum of 25.8 percent. Seniors who rely on those dividend returns will also be hammered. Stock dividends currently at 15 percent will be taxed as ordinary income at a top rate of 43.4 percent. Mr. Speaker, the President is also going after our military families. If he were to have his way, all military families would see their TRICARE health care fees triple above the current rates that they are already paying, all while leaving civilian unionized health care completely untouched. Mr. Speaker, why? Why is the President targeting some of the most vulnerable groups in our society like our young people, seniors, and those who have risked their lives to protect our freedoms? This certainly isn't right. This certainly is not fair. It is, Mr. Speaker, downright immoral. In the last few months, we've heard a lot about this fairness from the President, especially when it comes to the so-called ``rich.'' In President Obama's own message about his proposed budget for fiscal year 2013, he says everyone must shoulder their fair share. But how does the President define fair when 47 percent of wage-earning households paid zero Federal income taxes while the top 25 percent paid 86 percent? Does President Obama think it's fair that our children and grandchildren will be burdened with debt because of his unprecedented reckless spending, because Washington currently borrows 42 cents of every dollar it spends? Does the President think it's fair to pile another $47,000 of debt onto every household in the United States of America over the last 3 years? Is it fair for every American to have a $50,000 debt obligation on them right now? Does the President think it's fair to use college students as props for these campaign-style rallies, without explaining how his bad policies will leave them in deeper debt? Does the President think it's fair to force hardworking American taxpayers to subsidize a wealthy person's purchase of a hybrid luxury car just because it fits his idea of American energy? Does the President think it's fair to hand out millions of tax dollars to politically correct solar energy companies that then go bankrupt? We've seen five so far. Does the President think it's fair to tell thousands of workers they won't have jobs because he blocked the Keystone XL pipeline to solidify the support of far-left radical environmentalists? How does the President feel about the fact that 3 years of his policies have left us with more people on food stamps, more people in poverty, lower home values, higher gas prices, and higher unemployment? Is this fair, Mr. Speaker? That's why we must simplify this Tax Code. Mr. Speaker, this great constitutional Republic simply needs a flat tax. A flat tax would dramatically reduce the ill-effects of our progressive Tax Code. Perhaps more important, it would reduce the Federal Government's power over the lives of taxpayers and get the government out of the business of trying to micromanage the economy. The major features of a flat tax include a single flat rate. All flat tax proposals have a single rate that is usually less than 20 percent. The low flat rate solves the problem of high marginal tax rates by reducing penalties against productive behavior such as work, risk- taking, and entrepreneurship. It has an elimination of special preferences. A flat tax proposal would eliminate provisions of the Tax Code that give preferential treatment on certain behaviors and activities. Getting rid of deductions, credits, and exemptions also helps to solve the problem of complexity, allowing taxpayers to file their tax returns on a simple form. There should be no double taxation of saving and investment. Flat tax proposals would eliminate the Tax Code's bias against capital formation by ending the double taxation of income that is saved and invested. This means no death tax, low or perhaps no capital gains tax, no double taxation of savings, and no double taxation on dividends. By taxing income only one time, a flat tax is easier to enforce and more conducive to job creation and capital formation. There are two principal arguments for a flat tax: growth and fairness. Many economists are attracted to the idea because the current tax system with its higher rates and discriminatory taxation of saving and investment reduces growth, destroys jobs, and lowers incomes. A flat tax would not eliminate the damaging impact of taxes altogether, but by dramatically lowering rates and ending the Tax Code bias against saving and investment, it would boost the economy's performance, especially when compared to the current Tax Code. Under a flat-tax system, I believe in only three taxable deductions: a child tax credit, a mortgage interest tax deduction, and a charitable contribution deduction. Mr. Speaker, we want families to have children, and we want children to have homes. Most importantly, we want Americans helping Americans. This system would end the class warfare rhetoric perpetrated by President Obama and eliminate many, if not all, special interest loopholes that have been created over decades of Tax Code manipulation. Look at other countries around the world that have implemented and are in the process of implementing the flat tax. Economic growth increases, unemployment drops, and we see more compliance with the tax law. Nations such as Estonia and Slovakia are widely viewed as role models since both have engaged in dramatic reform and are reaping enormous economic benefits. Since instituting the flat tax, Estonia has thrived and become a member of the European Union. The flat tax was implemented in 1994 at 26 percent and has since fallen to 21 percent of income. From 2001 to 2007, Estonia's economy grew by an average of 9 percent per year, which, as we just saw with our recent GDP growth statistics for the first quarter of 2.2 percent, we are severely lacking. In 2003, its unemployment rate was in excess of 12 percent. Just 5 years later, only 4.5 percent of its population was without jobs. Compare that, Mr. Speaker, to the anemic GDP growth of the economic recovery under President Obama. I think the most important thing we have to come to understand is that this time in history truly does belong to the American people. The money, the resources belong to the American people. The liberal, progressive approach that one should give more money to the government in order to better society is a flawed approach and, please, Mr. Speaker, tell me where a social, egalitarian, welfare, nanny state has ever been successful in the world. Thomas Sowell once said: Liberals seem to assume that, if you don't believe in their particular political solutions, then you don't really care about the people that they claim to want to help. I do not believe that I can spend the money of over half a million people I represent in south Florida any better than they can themselves. We should be coming up with ideas of how to keep more money in American pockets to invest in our economy instead of propaganda- esque divisive rhetoric separating the American people for the spoils of politicians. Let's start treating the American people as adults and find our own integrity and character, Mr. Speaker. The key thing that has to accompany this is that we must reduce the size and scope of government as well because as we start to focus more on Main Street, as we start to focus more on the hardworking American taxpayers and what is truly best for them, then we can have that investment at their level; we can have the growth at their level. When President Obama talks about increasing investments in government, I must simply inquire: What is the rate of return? We grew the bureaucracy of education, and the standards of education in the United States of America dropped. We created the Department of Energy, and still we are not energy independent. We bail out private sector industries yet experience the slowest economic recovery in U.S. history. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that I came to the United States Congress is to begin enacting sweeping reforms that show the American people that we are serious about turning this economy around and that we're serious about creating the right type of policies that set the conditions of job creation. We're talking about economic freedom for the American people as opposed to economic dependency upon government. This incredible, exorbitant system that we have is complex to the point where it is causing more pain for the American people and causes them to not have the freedom that they deserve nor faith in any of us. Mr. Speaker, I reject the notion that fairness comes from wealth redistribution. True fairness rewards merit, creating the conditions for economic success and achieving your goals. That is the American way, to promote individual industrialism to honor the entrepreneurial will and spirit of our countrymen. Mr. Speaker, a simple question: Why did your ancestors come to this country? Did they come to get a fair system of forced income redistribution? The government cannot and never will save our country nor our economy. Unless we let our children earn their successes, we will hand them a country in decline, one where they will need to rely on government for their success. It is immoral to pull the ladder of success out from under our children's feet like this. And how can I explain this to my children, my two daughters, Aubrey and Austen? How would you explain this to your children, Mr. Speaker? We have never done less with America in our history, and I believe here in Washington, D.C., we need to try doing a lot more with less of the resources of the American people. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let us show the American people that we stand steadfast and loyal to this constitutional Republic and to the preservation of a legacy of liberty, freedom, and democracy for subsequent generations. To all others who would stand contrary to those simple beliefs, well, Mr. Speaker, in the words of the great philosopher, Mr. T, I say that ``I pity the fool.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. I thank the kind colleague of mine from New York (Mr. Reed). Mr. Speaker, as a field artillery officer in the United States Army, I learned a thing or two about weaponry. Our success on the battlefields of Desert Storm and Desert Shield depended on choosing the correct artillery for each specific objective, whether it was halting the enemy's forward progress, diminishing the strength of its forces, or completely destroying its capabilities. Although he has never served our country in uniform or risked his life to defend its freedoms and liberties on distant shores, it seems President Obama understands a thing or two about weaponry as well. But in the President's case, Mr. Speaker, the current weapon of choice is tax policy, and the enemies are small businesses, investors, entrepreneurs, and corporations, who seemingly are deemed undesirable. In short, these are the economic engines of our Nation. The President's planned tax increases seemed designed solely to demonize the rich and use them as a propaganda tool to score political points. But the collateral damage of these policies will spread far and wide into the heartland of America. After all, the 160 percent increase in Federal cigarette taxes put in place in 2009 by President Obama and his administration, certainly affects those earning far less than $250,000, despite his promise not to raise their taxes. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, next year, unless changes are made in the Tax Code, Americans will be bombarded with the heavy artillery of the largest tax increase in the Nation's history, causing massive economic injury and destruction. To begin with, if the Bush-Obama tax rates are allowed to expire, the current tax brackets of 10 to 35 percent will rise to 15 to 39.6 percent. Other tax provisions scheduled to disappear that will hit ordinary Americans include the American Opportunity Tax Credit--up to $2,500 per student for qualified college costs, a tax exclusion for forgiven mortgage debt, and a tax credit for employer-provided child care. Children of farmers, as my colleague from Georgia talked about, and small business owners who wish to continue the legacy of their parents will find it increasingly difficult to do so, as the death tax exemption will shrink from $5 million to $1 million. Further, inherited assets exceeding that amount will be taxed at a maximum rate, Mr. Speaker, of 55 percent, up from 35 percent, and a 5 percent surcharge on estates over $10 million. Investors will be battered with a capital gains tax increase from 15 percent to a maximum of 25.8 percent. Seniors who rely on their dividend returns will also be hampered. Stock dividends, currently 15 percent, will be taxed as ordinary income with a top rate of 43.4 percent. That's 39.6 percent income tax plus a 3.8 percent tax on investment income proposed in the President's health care law. In the last few months we've heard a lot about fairness from the President, Mr. Speaker, especially when it comes to wealthier people. In President Obama's own message about his proposed budget for fiscal year 2013, he says everyone must shoulder their fair share. But how, Mr. Speaker, does he define fair when 47 percent of wage-earning households pay zero Federal income taxes, while the top 25 percent of wage-earning households pay 87 percent? Besides, the spending proposed in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget is far beyond what the revenue base can support. It would be mathematically impossible to increase taxes on the Nation's highest earners to close the future trillion dollar-plus deficits if spending continues as President Obama has planned. And according to a report by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the highly touted Buffett rule would raise a paltry 30 to $40 billion over the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, during that same timeframe, President Obama's budget would create nearly $7 trillion in new debt, which means the Buffett tax would lower that debt by less than half a percent. This is clearly not sound fiscal policy. It's the misguided policy of economic fairness, and it is just as Frederic Bastiat stated in his essay, ``The Law'': It is legal plunder under the guise of benevolence and misconceived philanthropy. While the President has some understanding of the destructive capability of his tax policy, he demonstrates little understanding of battlefield strategy, because those who are on the receiving end of an artillery barrage seldom stay in place. When businesses and individuals are being bombarded with higher tax rates, they will simply change their behavior. Investors will shift money from taxable to nontaxable investments. Total economic activity slows, as there is less incentive for employees to work extra hours, while smaller, potential returns mean investors and venture capitalists are less willing to shoulder risks. All taxpayers have a greater incentive to shield their income. Obviously, President Obama is no student of history either, Mr. Speaker, for if he were, he would know revenues increased under Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and yes, George W. Bush, at least until the 2007 financial crisis, when tax rates were reduced. But increasing tax revenue does not appear to be the President's strategic objective. If it were, he would be recommending policies to help increase the revenue base by optimizing the regulatory and tax environment to encourage businesses to invest, grow, and hire. The House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, has passed 26 bills to do just that, but they currently languish on the desk of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who will not bring them up for vote in the Senate. Instead, President Obama seems determined to punish and wipe out economic success in this country, leveling tax weapons of mass destruction on all taxpayers. This is a battle our Nation can ill afford to lose. We must reform our Tax Code, and we must restore the conditions for economic success for all our citizens because truly, they are taxed enough already. Mr. Speaker, unleashing the individual industrialism and entrepreneurial spirit of Americans does not come from capital consolidation in Washington, D.C. The American people do not want more Solyndras and GSA boondoggles. The American people want economic security, which comes from this body becoming responsible stewards of their tax resources, not taking more from them based upon divisive, socioeconomic rhetoric. The American people, Mr. Speaker, want a constitutional republic, not a socialist, egalitarian, welfare nanny state. The American people want an economic future so bright that they will have to wear sunglasses.

Mr. WEST. I just want to say you are absolutely right, and I thank you for yielding an additional minute. It is truly the choice between two futures: it is a future of economic freedom, or a future of economic dependency. It is a future that talks about the entrepreneurial will and spirit and the individual industrialism of the American people or collective subjugation. I think that the American people will make the right choice in November 2012.

Mr. WEST

Mr. WEST. I want to thank my colleague from New York (Mr. Reed), and I want to thank my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy) and the previous colleague, Mr. Duncan, my freshman class president, my brother from Georgia, and also my colleague from the great State of Arkansas (Mr. Griffin). Mr. Speaker, very simply, the Supreme Court has begun to consider the legality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also referred to as ObamaCare. The High Court will pore over article I, section 8 of the Constitution to determine the meaning behind the words: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with Indian tribes. The 2012 Supreme Court must now determine whether the Founders had any intention of mandating the behavior of private enterprises and American citizens. To me, Mr. Speaker, the answer is obvious-- absolutely not. Our Nation was founded on the Declaration of Independence. Freedom of choice and a free market are at the core of our Nation's soul. A governmental mandate for the behavior of individuals and private enterprises is anathema to what our Founders intended. The prospect of having an unelected panel of bureaucrats determining fundamental decisions about our individual health is perhaps the most personal and intimate intrusion into our lives. This concept is absolutely absurd and dangerous law, which surely ranks with the grievances laid down 236 years ago in the Declaration of Independence. Grievances such as: He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance unless suspended in their operation until his assent should be obtained, and when so suspended he is utterly neglected to attend to them. He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation; for imposing taxes on us without our consent; for taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments. That's why, Mr. Speaker, each and every day I carry this Declaration of Independence and Constitution right here next to my heart. Because in January of 2011, Florida Federal District Judge C. Roger Vinson ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional, stating ``never before has Congress required that everyone buy a product from a private company essentially for life just for being alive and residing in the United States.'' If the government has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a transaction, it is not hyperbolic to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted, just as my colleague from South Carolina articulated so well. Today, this prediction is being attempted before our very eyes. With ObamaCare, insurance companies will be forced even to provide contraceptive products free of charge. But, Mr. Speaker, why just contraception? Will the government next force insurance companies to provide surgical procedures free of charge? Where does it end? Perhaps supermarkets will be compelled to offer apples and carrots free of charge to ensure children have access to healthy food. Beyond exerting oppressive control over individuals and private enterprises, ObamaCare circumvents the foundation of our own legislative structure. At the heart of the Affordable Care Act is the Independent Payment Advisory Board, made up of 15 unelected officials appointed by the President to one simple purpose: to reduce Medicare spending. The IPAB will be tasked with and given the authority to reduce costs to the government by, among other things, limiting reimbursements to doctors. It doesn't take a brain surgeon, Mr. Speaker, to recognize that this will lead to more physicians leaving the Medicare system, reducing access to care for our seniors, and limiting available treatments. But this isn't the most frightening part. Any recommendations that the IPAB automatically brings forth becomes law. The only way around this unprecedented amount of power for Washington bureaucrats is an act of Congress with a three-fifths supermajority in the Senate. In other words, the unelected IPAB, appointed by the President, essentially becomes its own shadow legislative body. The fundamental structure of our government with three co-equal branches and a careful system of checks and balances is being usurped. Our freedoms and liberties are being chipped away bit by bit. Our country is being transformed step by step, incrementally, into a centrally planned, stringently controlled, bureaucratic nanny State. What I find most frightening is that a portion of our populace willingly dons these shackles and like lemmings will march this great constitutional Republic off to its own demise. Perhaps some Americans are simply unaware of the exorbitant monetary cost of this governmental behemoth. But numbers don't lie, Mr. Speaker, and they are dangerous: $1.76 trillion from the American taxpayers to pay for ObamaCare over 10 years, nearly double the $940 billion that was forecast when the bill was signed into law. As a previous Speaker said, ``We have to pass the bill in order to find out what is in it.'' Fifty-two billion in new taxes on businesses as employers are forced to provide health insurance, $47 billion in new taxes on drug companies and medical device-makers, costs that will surely be passed down to patients, particularly our senior citizens. Families earning more than $250,000 a year will see more taxes as ObamaCare adds a new tax to investment income, including capital gains, dividends, rental income, and royalties; 16,000 new IRS agents; 159 new government agencies and bureaucracies; $575 billion in cuts to Medicare. Insurance premiums are expected to increase 1.9 percent to 2.3 percent in 2014 and up to 3.7 percent by 2023 because ObamaCare adds a premium tax on health insurers offering full coverage. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unworkable and destined to fail. One need only look back a few years ago to the last Big Government program with the word ``affordable'' in it. Our colleague from the other side, Barney Frank, brought forth the National Affordable Housing Act, and it, in less than a decade, managed to demolish the housing market, weaken financial institutions, and wipe out the net worth of millions of Americans. What makes anyone, Mr. Speaker, think government intervention in health care will be successful? ObamaCare is unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it is anti-constitutional. It violates those great, inalienable rights that Thomas Jefferson said do not come from man, they come from our Creator--of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It violates our individual sovereignty. And most certainly it is probably one of the most awful pieces of American policy. Mr. Speaker, I pray that after next week's Supreme Court decision--or whenever it comes--that this Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act becomes the most short-lived piece of legislation in American history.