Todd Young

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Mrs. Marilyn Harris for receiving the Rural Development Site Manager of the Year award for Elderly Projects. This award was presented to her on June 11th, 2013 at the Council for Affordable and Rural Housing Annual Meeting and Legislative Conference in Arlington, Virginia. Marilyn was nominated by her friends and colleagues at Richland Senior Citizens Housing, Inc. in Ellettsville, Indiana. She was nominated for not just being an exceptional property manager but also being a dear friend to those senior citizens who count on her for a safe and comfortable living environment. She also enjoys the privilege of helping with several other properties that her company manages, including PRAC 811 properties for the developmentally challenged and a Rural Development property for families. As a Regional Manager of these properties, she oversees the daily operations of these communities in Indiana and Tennessee. Being both state and nationally recognized, Marilyn's hard work has not gone unnoticed, and it goes without saying, that this sort of accomplishment is not reached overnight, but through a career dedicated to exceptional work. I once again commend Marilyn for all that she has done, and thank her for her service to South Central Indiana, as she stands as testimony to Hoosier compassion and work ethic.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Albert Anness of Franklin Indiana has shared with me a particularly memorable experience during his service as a Congressional Page in the House of Representatives. Mr. Anness's story takes place during the first session of the 81st Congress in the winter of 1949, in which he gives his account of the inauguration of President Harry S Truman. His story holds both sentimental and historical value, and I believe future generations will find equal worth in his narrative. I am sure all of my colleagues join me in thanking Mr. Anness for his service to the House of Representatives during the 81st Congress and for sharing his account of a special moment in history. With utmost gratitude, I present the text of the letter written to me by Mr. Anness: A Moment in Historical Remembrance (By Albert Anness) Franklin D. Roosevelt unexpectedly died April 12, 1945, and his Vice-President Harry S Truman succeeded him to the Presidency. Three years later on Thursday the 20th of January 1949 Harry S Truman again took the `Oath of Office', becoming the 33rd President of the United States. The historical significance of his inauguration is greatly enhanced when you consider that of the members of the 81st Congress attending his inauguration, four of them would someday themselves become President, i.e. John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford. Three of whom--Johnson, Nixon, and Ford--would like Truman, first serve as Vice- President. And of even greater historical significance, Congressman Gerald Ford would become both Vice-President and President without ever having been elected to either office! Fellow House Page, Jim Richardson and I briefly occupied what would arguably have been considered among the best seats at Truman's inauguration. The operative word in this scenario is BRIEFLY as our `up close and personal' presence at this historic milestone in our country's glorious history was soon, very soon, cut short by our boss `Fishbait' Miller, Doorkeeper of the United States House of Representatives. Thursday January 20, 1949 was a cloudy cold winter's day. The Boarding house where my roommate Senate Page Bob Hansel and I lived was located on New Jersey Avenue, a `stone's throw' from the entrance of the Old House Office Building. Leaving our lodgings early that Thursday morning, we encountered an almost surreal scene. It appeared as if Capitol Hill was in a `state of siege' with soldiers and military vehicles everywhere! We quickly realized today was going to be a very special day. Entering the Old House Office Building we soon were in the underground Capitol Hill complex on our way to school. After school we usually had breakfast in the House cafeteria before reporting for work. The House after a brief session adjourned, and as a body proceeded to President Truman's Inauguration. Our services no longer being required, my fellow House Pages and I scattered like the four winds! I cannot remember how it came to be that I found myself in the Rotunda of the Capitol Building standing beside the Secret Service man guarding the entrance to President Truman's Inauguration Platform. An even bigger mystery is how fellow House Page Jim Richardson came to be standing next to me. But there we were, and as luck would have it the last Congressman about to pass through the door and onto President Truman's Inaugural Platform was my Congressman Edward G. Breen of the then 3rd Congressional District of Ohio. After greeting me Congressman Breen proceeded to invite Jim and me to come along and watch President Truman's Inauguration. I explained that our passes did not extend to the Inaugural Platform. Congressman Breen while patiently waiting to pass thru the huge double ornate doors, causally turned to the Secret Service man and informed him that we were official House Pages. Unhesitatingly, and without uttering a single syllable, the Secret Service man with a mere wave of his hand gave permission for us to join the House Members on the inaugural platform. Albeit, our stay was brief but the undeniable fact remains that Jim and I were the only Pages (House, Senate or Supreme Court) who that day gained admission onto President Truman's Inaugural platform. Jim and I were ensconced in the `nose bleed' seats. Behind us was the stone outside wall of the U.S. Capitol Building! As a matter of fact we rested our backs against it. In front of us sat the House of Representatives! Across the wide center aisle was the Senate. The Supreme Court was in attendance, including Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson (who swore into office that day, both Vice President Alben W. Barkley and President Harry S Truman), the members of President's Cabinet and invited V.I.P guests. Seated immediately in front of the Inaugural platform was the United States Marine Band, and in front of the band were the members of the Washington Diplomatic Corps and beyond them, thousands of invited guests. It was an exciting scene that Jim and I were certain we would always remember! With the arrival of Vice President-Elect Alben W. Barkley and his daughter, the Marine Band played `ruffles and flourishes', and we all stood as they took their places on the platform. We arose from our seats again when the Marine Bang struck up `Hail to the Chief', announcing the arrival of President Truman, his wife Bess and daughter Margaret. Standing there thrilled to be participating in the Inaugural ceremonies, Jim and I were thunderstruck when out into the middle aisle stepped `Fishbait' Miller, looking straight at us and inexplicably, but with great emphasis gestured for Jim and me to leave the Inaugural Platform. And to leave immediately! We looked at each other in utter disbelief! How could Fishbait, in this huge throng of people have known Jim and I were on that platform? Considering the distance from where we were seated to where he was standing it just did not seem possible! Congressman Breen who had been observing the scene, turned to me and said, ``Al, I guess you two will have to go.'' With the sounds of ``Hail to the Chief'' ringing in our ears we quickly departed. Disappointed, but not ready to call it `quits', Jim and I scurried up to the roof of the Capitol Building, sharing that lofty vantage point with the Marine who were there on guard. But it was not the same. And, after a while we came back down, and with several other House Pages observed the remainder of President Truman's Inauguration from one of the House windows. To mark the occasion, we opened the window panel and inscribed our names. Several days passed before the opportunity presented itself to inquire of Head Democratic Page why `Fishbait' Miller had ordered Jim and me off President Truman's Inaugural platform. He told me that Jim was `inappropriately dressed' as he was wearing a surplus WWII Navy Pea Coat. More than sixty years have passed since that day and I still cannot figure how `Fishbait' spotted the two of us in that crowd! Not too long after the Inaugural, I was honored to be invited by Fishbait to be his guest at his church's Father & Son Banquet. He couldn't take all of the House Pages so I was selected to represent them. I still have the Banquet Program. Later that spring Fishbait assigned me to the House Ways and Means Committee to operate the sound system during the committee hearings on Amending the Social Security Act 1935. For that assignment I am forever grateful to him. On the first day of the hearings, the Doorkeeper sent fellow Page Dave Cunningham. Dave did not like the job and asked to be reassigned. Early the next morning Fishbait collared me, and away I went to the New House Office Building and the Ways & Means Committee! Had I been on the job the first day of the hearings I would have met former President Herbert Hoover, the man who was President of the United States the year I was born. In 1949 he was then President of the Hoover Commission and the first person to testify before the committee. I deeply regret having missed that opportunity. I couldn't have been happier with my assignment on the Ways & Means Committee, and I remained for the entire hearings; I was later recalled for several hearings on other legislative matters. I have a letter from Ways & Means Committee Chairman, the late Robert L. Doughton (North Carolina) in which he said, ``I remember you and your efficient services to the Committee very well. If and when you are in Washington while I am here, I would be pleased to have you come by and see me.'' He enclosed a line drawing of himself inscribed ``to my Dear Friend Albert R. Anness'' and signed it, ``Robert L. Doughton.'' My last contact with Fishbait occurred sometime in the 1970's. My wife Sharon and I were in the D.C. area visiting college friends, and one day with time to spare found ourselves near Capitol Hill. As I wanted to show Sharon around the House of Representatives, I hailed a cab, and in short order we were walking up the steps into the Rotunda through the same huge double ornate doors that I had exited President Truman's Inaugural Platform many years earlier. Desiring to renew my acquaintance with Fishbait, introduce Sharon to him and ask him permission to take her onto the floor of the House, we headed for his office. Since the House was in recess I didn't hold out much a chance of finding him there, but I felt lucky that spring day! I was pleased to find Fishbait in his office bent over a mimeograph machine busily trying to get it to work! He looked up, and greeted us in his typical down home fashion. I introduced myself and Sharon. After we shook hands he immediately hugged and kissed Sharon and then hugged and kissed her again! Grinning like Cheshire cat, Fishbait turned his attention to me. He, of course, did not remember me, and small wondering considering the hundreds of House Pages he encountered during his long career as Doorkeeper. We talked briefly and he mentioned several former Pages who had returned as Congressmen. Realizing he was busy, I soon came to the point of my visit and asked for a pass to the House floor. He apologized for not having the time to personally conduct our tour himself, and quickly scribbled out a note to the Capitol Policeman in the Visitor's Gallery. After handing me his handwritten pass, he again hugged and kissed Sharon. We shook hands, and wished each other the best. I turned, and left Fishbait's presence for the last time. On September 12, 1989, two days before my fifty-eighth birthday, Fishbait passed away.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on July 2, the President announced the delay of ObamaCare's employer mandate tax. Now, we know this is great for business, for those businesses that have the resources, the lobbyists, the accountants and so on to get their message out to Congress and the administration. But it does little for hardworking American individuals and families. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people must be a government that is fair to all of its citizens. It's simply unfair to give business a pass, but not to give such treatment to rank-and-file Americans. So that's why I introduced H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American Families Act. The bill gives individuals the same reprieve from ObamaCare that our President gives to Big Business. Under current law, individuals must buy insurance on January 1 or pay a tax. My bill would merely delay implementation of the individual mandate tax for 1 year as well. It's worth noting that the individual tax is just as confusing to hardworking Americans as the employer tax is to businesses; but families don't have teams of accountants and lawyers to help them comply with ObamaCare. It isn't getting any easier either. On July 5, an additional 145 pages of regulations were promulgated by this administration related to the individual tax. So how are ordinary Americans supposed to keep up with all of this? That's why poll after poll shows that the individual mandate tax is so unpopular. In fact, only 12 percent of Americans like it. The White House said they delayed the employer tax because it's too darn complex for businesses. Well, I hear from my constituents every day that the individual tax is just as confusing. They want relief. The President only wants to give relief to some. I think all of our constituents deserve relief. And with that in mind, I ask my colleagues from both political parties, let's take off our political blinders for once. Let's do the right thing here, and let's support the Fairness for American Families Act. Let's provide the same relief to America's families that the Obama administration has granted to Big Business. That's only fair.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Mrs. Clara Roedl on her upcoming 100th birthday, and to celebrate her life's devotion to her faith, family, and friends. Clara says those Three F's, along with kindness to others, are the secret to her longevity. Furthermore, I would like to thank her for being such a positive role model to her fellow Hoosiers, teaching us all a thing or two about important things in life. As a father of four young children, I share Clara's views about faith, family, and friends, and I firmly believe these values are the cornerstone of the Hoosier mindset. She loves to tell stories of her childhood on a farm, and through them she imparts many lessons to friends and family alike about those shared values and traditions. I am truly moved by the example she sets for those around her, and I know that the community in her hometown of Nashville joins me in this sentiment. A little more about Clara: She is the proud mother of two sons, Frank and Fred, who both have loving wives and families of their own. She also has three grandsons and two granddaughters, all of whom she loves dearly. Her commitments to family and faith go hand-in-hand: As a devout Catholic, one of her greatest pleasures comes when she is praying the Rosary with her devoted daughter-in-law, Mary Beth. So today I commend Clara for being an outstanding Hoosier and teaching family, friends, and anyone willing to listen about how to live a long, happy, and virtuous life. I wish her only the best as she celebrates her 100th birthday, and thank her again for being a living testimony to our state's traditions and values.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I thank so much the gentleman from Georgia for his hard work on this issue, working with our colleague, Mr. Yoho of Florida, and organizing this freshman initiative designed to tackle overly burdensome regulations, ensure that we produce smart regulations here at the Federal level and alleviate some of the pain during this very down economy that so many Americans are facing. You know, when you talk about regulations, this is not some arcane issue. These are the rules we live by, just like the legislation that emerges out of this body. It impacts our jobs, our economic growth, the level of personal income that Americans enjoy. It impacts the number of long-term unemployed we have in this country, and right now we're at a historic low. It impacts these things and so many others. People have too many hassles, too many burdens, too many anxieties, and regulations are a big part of the reason why. There are direct costs of regulations that come out of the alphabet soup agencies that populate Washington, D.C. There are compliance costs that our small businesses, in particular, must contend with. There's a great deal of uncertainty associated with the regulations being developed in the buildings around Washington, D.C.; and regulations lead to an increase in the costs of our goods and services produced, thus making us less competitive economically vis-a- vis our international competitors. Regulations reduce, oftentimes, the productivity of our workers, which drives down their wages, which hurts our competitiveness once again. So what's the solution to this? Well, we here in Congress, especially folks on this side of the aisle--although, I have to say, this doesn't have to be a partisan issue, and, historically, it has not always been. I think that's a good thing. But we on this side of the aisle have been trying to alleviate the pain that many businesses and Americans feel by the costliest regulations coming out of Washington, D.C. I think that is proper, and I think we should continue to do so. But I also believe it's time for us to consider a comprehensive approach to improving the entire regulatory process, and so that's why I have introduced, in this 113th Congress, the REINS Act. Now, what the REINS Act does is it establishes a $100 million threshold. This is the threshold established historically by our Office of Management and Budget for a so-called major regulation. And every major regulation, after it goes through the public hearing process, under the REINS Act, it has to go before Congress for an up-or-down vote before it can become the law of the land. This would improve immeasurably the quality of regulations that come out of Washington, D.C. It would slow down the regulatory process, to be sure. But let's remember, our Founding Fathers devised a system where they wanted people in Washington to deliberate before we acted. This would lead to more deliberation, wiser judgment. This would also allow the American people, the citizens of this great country, to weigh in on given regulations, ones they feel passionately about. And, most importantly, the REINS Act would hold Members of Congress accountable for the regulations that come out of Washington. You know, of course it would allow us to tame some of the executive agencies that have gone rogue from time to time, that pass unwise regulations. But I think, more importantly, it would allow those who elect us to bodies like this to hold us accountable for the things that cause pain to them, those imperial regulations that are promulgated from a distant Capitol, which our Founding Fathers were so upset about when this Nation was founded. To the issue of congressional accountability, too many vague laws are made in this body--Dodd-Frank, the Affordable Care Act. I could go on and on. We pass and we kick the can down the road, as is often heard, on sticky issues, politically sensitive issues that politicians don't want to deal with because we know ultimately there will be regulators to fill in the gaps of our vague laws. Well, the REINS Act would prevent that. It would incentivize Members of Congress to take on the hard issues in the beginning because they'd know that in the end those issues are going to come back and have to be resolved in this body. When I go home and meet with small business people and individual constituents and they speak to me about specific regulations that are causing them pain, oftentimes, the best I can do and my colleagues can do is say, Listen, we'll try and repeal that particular regulation by preventing it from being implemented at the agency and by impacting the funding of that agency. These are very difficult things to do, and it's so incredibly difficult to identify all the bad regulations that are out there. But under the REINS Act, that would no longer be an acceptable excuse to my constituents. Unelected bureaucrats, in the end, would not be accountable; Members of Congress would. And that is the intent, in the end, of the REINS Act. Now, I believe in regulations, smart regulations, and this bill is about improving the regulatory process so that here in the United States of America this remains a vibrant place to live with a growing economy. Our rules must be balanced against economic concerns. The American people must have a voice about what those rules will be, and Congress cannot skirt responsibility to legislate. Again, I'd like to close here by thanking those who led this effort-- Mr. Collins, in particular, for leading the floor conversation this evening. He's shown some great leadership as a freshman. He's working very hard. I know he came here, as did other Members, the freshman class of the 113th Congress, to make a difference. By supporting the REINS Act, I think you will help advance that cause in a very big way.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the Armed Services Committee on their excellent work here, and I want to take this opportunity to highlight an issue addressed in last year's NDAA which required the Secretary of Defense to produce a report this fall that examines an issue of great importance. During my prior service on the Armed Services Committee, I learned of a discrepancy in the law where military facilities closed outside of the BRAC process are not given the same indemnification against liabilities that are a result of hazardous substances left over from any previous DOD activities. Several Army ammunition plants were closed outside of the BRAC process, and because DOD is not required to maintain responsibility for potential problems related to military use, we are hindering redevelopment of these properties. Last year, I wrote a bill called the Base Redevelopment and Indemnification Correction Act, or the BRIC Act, that would extend the same BRAC protections to non-BRAC closed facilities. It was included in the House-passed NDAA but was removed during conference. However, language was adopted that requires a DOD assessment of the status of these former defense facilities as well as recommendations to facilitate their redevelopment. Local redevelopers should not be held responsible for any lingering issues that were a result of DOD operations. I anticipate the Secretary's report on this matter will provide a path forward for these former military installations that remain disadvantaged without these important indemnification protections. I thank the chairman for his continued support to address this ongoing issue and look forward to working with the committee after the report is released to address this glaring anomaly. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 170 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I thank my good friend from Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to stand here tonight as a member of this Problem Solvers Coalition. The coalition offers a common ground for lawmakers to make government work better and to negotiate solutions without the blinders of partisan talking points. Our country has a history, during difficult times, times more difficult than these, times of great political strife, of coming together, rank-and-file Americans and legislators alike. During the early days of our Republic, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to his friend, Edward Rutledge, and he said this: You and I have seen warm debate and high political passions. But gentlemen of different politics would then speak to each other. It is not so now. Men who have been intimate all their lives cross the street to avoid meeting, and turn their heads the other way lest they should be obliged to tip their hat. Well, we, as Americans, made it through those difficult times, and eventually this hall was populated by people who were prepared to tip their hat. During this time in our history, we too need to be hat tippers. We need more hat tippers in the U.S. Congress. We need more statesmen, more men and women who are prepared to root out waste, to improve the performance of our largest programs of government, to modulate our discourse. We need to recognize that our public disagreements aren't always about ends; sometimes they're merely about means. So I invite my colleagues to join this coalition of problem solvers. Let's work together, Republican and Democrat. Let's work together for the common good for the future of this country.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Speaker, when ObamaCare was being debated, its champions and cheerleaders indicated it would create 4 million jobs, including 400,000 jobs almost immediately. I find it deeply disturbing, then, that when I travel back to my district in Indiana, I hear from constituents that jobs are already being lost and hours are being cut in anticipation of this law's implementation. I've heard from numerous constituents who work low-wage, hourly jobs like school support employees: cafeteria workers, janitors, bus drivers and so on. They're being told that, due to ObamaCare's employer mandate, they will no longer be allowed to work more than 29 hours a week. ObamaCare's proponents have created an incredibly perverse incentive here. Who in their right mind endorses a law where the best business decision is to lay people off, and during a very down economy to boot? If we're serious about addressing rising health care costs and putting Americans back to work, we should repeal this law, and repeal it now, and replace it with sustainable, bipartisan health care solutions.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the value of home healthcare to the people of Indiana's Ninth Congressional District. In addition to being a preferred place for care for most eligible seniors, home health consistently offers seniors the lowest cost venue. In Indiana alone, over 61,000 Medicare beneficiaries receive home health services from more than 8,000 Hoosiers who provide their care. Home health services, properly regulated, need to be encouraged rather than discouraged, to fulfill their mission of quality care for America's seniors and greater value for our Medicare program. I appreciate the home health care community's efforts to develop their own proposal to weed out bad actors in their industry. One proposal that might save money within Medicare would place reasonable per-provider limitations on 60-day episodes of homecare. Such limitations aim to ensure beneficiary access to care and stop abusive billing practices that appear to exist in a small number of counties nationwide. MedPAC's March Report to Congress referenced 25 counties in the nation where a reasonable reduction in homecare utilization with an episode limit could achieve up to $1 billion in savings per year. A reasonable but stable reimbursement environment is necessary for homecare providers to continue accomplishing their mission. Since 2010, the homecare industry has been subjected to nearly $70 billion in reimbursement cuts, 21% of their total funding. I have said time and again that our Medicare system needs broad reform to make it sustainable for future generations. We cannot continue to impose cut after cut on our providers and expect to fix the system without shifting more of the financial burden to our senior population or harming patient care. Working together to implement creative reforms like this, we will ensure that this valuable service continues to improve the lives of our seniors in their homes in Indiana and across the nation.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Full Faith and Credit Act. Now, much has been said about how ridiculous it is that we find ourselves going through this debt limit routine so darned often, but this limit exists in order to induce this body to reflect on the folly of our mindless borrow-and-spend practices. Such reflection ought to lead us to serious debate and even to cooperation. It presents an opportunity for public servants to engage in thoughtful, respectful dialogue and to craft long-term solutions. As we approach the limit for the third time in my 2\1/2\ years here, we have an opportunity to work together and finally make our largest programs of government sustainable. We have an opportunity to work together and finally tackle long-neglected issues like tax reform so that jobs and personal incomes can grow more quickly. The Full Faith and Credit Act protects and advances such opportunities for Congress to accomplish big things, and it does this simply by removing the specter of default from the table altogether. No one is contemplating default over our Nation's obligations. America will always and forever pay its bills, and the Full Faith and Credit Act makes this crystal clear--by making default impossible. Our support for this act simply cannot and should not be regarded as ideological or partisan, so I respectfully call on every one of my good colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to support this commonsense bill, to take default off the table, and to put the focus squarely on dealing with our real challenges. Let's harness this opportunity of an approaching borrowing limit to come together as problem solvers.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. This looks like a welcome addition. Before he steps to the microphone there, he's going to tell us where all the money is going, how bad our debt is, and maybe how that's crowding out future investment in our children and grandchildren. Is that right, Tim?

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. You know, my constituents, and yours too, they don't mind paying taxes if they get the sense that we're spending those taxes on the essential functions of government and we're spending absolutely no more than required. They also wouldn't mind paying their fair share of taxes if in fact complying with the Tax Code were a simple exercise and one that seemed by most Americans to be a fair exercise. Having just passed tax day here, I'll share a couple of semi-humorous comments about what the American family could do instead of filing taxes, if they had taken all those 13 hours on average per American family and instead been able to use that for themselves. An average American family, instead of filling out their Tax Code, could have watched the entire ``Harry Potter'' movie series twice, and they'd still have time for two ``Hunger Games'' movies. Or they could have watched all six ``Star Wars'' movies three times. Or they could have lost weight if that's where they want to spend their time. If the time was spent in a spinning class, the average American, we're told, could lose 14 pounds per man and 11.8 pounds per woman, respectively. They could fly between Hong Kong and New York three times. This just illustrates how darn painful complying with this convoluted, complicated, and unfair Tax Code can be. I like to say that our Tax Code in a way makes those who sit down at the kitchen table and actually do their own taxes--most people actually have to hire a tax preparer or buy tax software these days--but it makes the average American feel like either a crook on one hand or a sucker on the other. So consider the case of John and Jane. John and Jane are neighbors; they make the exact same amount in personal income. But John decides he's going to itemize his deductions and he takes several credits--he's sort of aggressive when he's filing his taxes. Jane, on the other hand, she takes a standard deduction and fairly limited credits. Now, John is left feeling like a crook. He might feel like he's run afoul of the law. He did his best to follow it, but he might be left to feel like a crook as a result of the whole tax exercise. Jane, on the other hand, knows that John ends up paying far less in taxes even though he makes the same amount, so Jane feels kind of like a sucker. What sort of code makes you feel like either a crook or a sucker? We have to stop this nonsense, simplify the Code, and reduce the rates in the process to make us more competitive vis a vis our international competitors. That's what we're doing in the Ways and Means Committee, and I invite our Democrat colleagues to help. I actually see a lot of room for common ground here, and I hope that they will join us in this exercise.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Well, you said so many things that really strike a chord with me. And I know, based on my consultations and visits with my constituents, they certainly do. One is the importance of funding the essential functions of government. I mean, we are the party of smart government. We've put forward specific proposals in order to rationalize different departments, make things run more efficiently, ensure we get more bang for our buck in every department of government, and avoid the duplication and wastefulness that so alienates so many of our constituents. There's nothing we can do that would more undermine the credibility of government as an institution--and the Federal Government in particular--than to waste money and to spend it in areas where our constituents don't want us to spend it. So our national defense is essential. That benefits working families on a daily basis. It certainly benefits our military families, but really benefits all of us. That's something we have to be very careful with as we approach these different fiscal challenges. So I applaud my colleague for her leadership in this area.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Okay. Well, great. This is the great American family room, if you will, where we're sitting around and having a family conversation, the people's conversation, about making life work. And I would absolutely agree, there are a lot of dimensions to this topic. We've got to get our spending under control. Republicans have put forward a bold budget to make that happen, bring our budget into balance within just 10 years. We need to stop imposing overly costly, overly burdensome regulations on American families, American businesses and so on. We, of course, need to take a look at our energy policy and open up this bounty of resources here in this country; and there's a whole variety of different ones. My colleague from Washington, the gentlelady, just spoke to some in her region. Of course, in my region, coal remains a viable and important resource; but we're finding increasingly that my constituents in Indiana's Ninth District are enjoying the benefits of natural gas, and very affordable natural gas. We happen to have oil and gas resources in this country, by some reckoning, that are larger than Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia combined. This will make the United States of America a net energy exporter within just 10 years. So that is a blessing that, once again, Republicans are leading with respect to harnessing these resources we have. Of course, our human resources are another thing that we could touch on. But, really, my point of emphasis, since I'm on the Ways and Means Committee, this evening is going to be tax reform. We just finished getting through yet another tax day, and I'm sure my colleagues heard from their constituents just how convoluted and complicated and frustrating and unfair this Tax Code can be to working families. I was struck by--there's this notion of tax freedom day that some of our colleagues and certainly our constituents are aware of. This is when we, as hardworking taxpayers, stop paying the Federal Government and can start working for ourselves. And it fell on April 18 this year; 3\1/2\ months into the year is when our taxpayers stop paying the Federal Government and can start working for themselves and their families. That suggests to me that we need to work on all fronts to grow this economy more and also to lighten the burden of taxation wherever possible. Tax simplification is something I'll get into in a little bit, and that's part of our overall tax reform effort. But with that, I'll yield to my good friend from Colorado. Perhaps you have other thoughts on taxation or other things that are related to our making-life-work theme tonight.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. It's great to be with the gentlelady, and thank you so much for having me. Does the gentlelady yield here? I know we've got less formal procedures under way.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. That's right.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I understand that the money that Republicans would propose to spend to address this issue within the Obama structure is money the administration would instead like to spend for advertising--advertising the exchanges, advertising how the Affordable Care Act is actually going to work.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. And how we can make life work for our regular American families, our American workers, and even our companies, because, after all, this is where most of my constituents are employed--sometimes large companies, sometimes small companies. With respect to regulations, we have tried a Whack-A-Mole approach going back a number of years here, where we do our best with respect to oversight. Sometimes we do better than others. And we try to prevent certain executive departments from actually implementing a given regulation, or we change the law so that the regulation can't move forward. That's hard to do. But I think we need to be thinking ambitiously here about changing the entire regulatory system. I introduced earlier this year a bill that was originally authored by Geoff Davis, a Republican from Kentucky, called the REINS Act. What the REINS Act does is it establishes a $100 million threshold. So every time, say, the EPA or OSHA puts forward a rule or regulation that is determined will have $100 million or more in economic impact on our multitrillion-dollar economy, that rule or regulation has to go before Congress for an up- or-down vote. Now, what effect would this have? Of course, this would slow down the regulatory process, which is good. Washington needs to deliberate before it acts, right? We can still regulate. There's a role for smart regulation, but we need to deliberate before we act. But, perhaps, most importantly, in the end, if we pass the REINS Act, this would allow our constituents to blame us for these painful and costly regulations, rather than unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. We want to be accountable.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Sorry for interrupting there, but you struck a chord when you said ``regulations.'' We know what the American people want. They want fewer hassles, fewer burdens, fewer mandates from on high. They want more flexibility, more walking around cash, they want more choices, they want more hope for themselves and their children and grandchildren. With respect to regulatory reform, this impacts daily lives in a very big way. We typically hear about it in the context of how it's going to hurt your corporations or sometimes your small businesses. I happen to represent a district with a lot of rural areas in it. Not a week goes by that I don't hear a farmer complaining about some of the regulations in the pipe. We've had recent attempts by our Federal Government to try and regulate milk spills like oil spills, and to regulate the dust that comes across fields in rural areas.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, we spend a lot of time in this body talking about the need to be bipartisan. People rightly feel, I think, that things get too polarized around here. I think back to the mid-nineties when Republicans controlled the House. We had a Democrat President, and people back then thought things were a bit too polarized as well. Yet in the midst of that atmosphere, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich came up with landmark legislation to reform our welfare programs, and they did so in a bipartisan fashion. One of the keys to the success of those reforms were the work requirement provisions that led to more jobs, bigger paychecks, and fewer people in poverty, children in particular. As President Clinton said at the time: First and foremost, welfare reform should be about moving people from welfare to work. As further proof that this is not a partisan issue, Republican or Democrat, I look to my own State of Indiana. Before the 1996 welfare reform law was passed, then-Governor Bayh, a Democrat, created similar work requirements for Hoosiers who received certain government benefits. Not only did Indiana's reforms ensure that those who needed assistance were able to receive it, but it also helped ensure that they were quickly back to taking care of themselves. As Mr. Bayh later said: The bottom line was trying to make someone self-sufficient. We were trying to achieve two values--one was the notion of community, and also responsibility. Indiana's welfare-to-work initiative was a very successful program that remains a hallmark of his governorship. With bipartisan consensus on this issue, and for all the talk in Washington about the need to be bipartisan, work across the aisle, it amazes me that HHS would unilaterally try and waive these work provisions. The welfare reform of the 1990s lifted millions out of poverty and put them on a path to self-sufficiency. It was a signature bill for bipartisanship in this town. Let's not undue these positive results by allowing HHS to gut key provisions of this bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of this bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my friend, neighbor, colleague, and fellow Hoosier, Mr. Messer, and his bill, H.R. 668. This legislation would require the President's budget proposal to make clear the per-taxpayer cost of any budget deficits. We have repeatedly heard President Obama proclaim his desire to have the most transparent administration in history. In furtherance of that objective then, this should be welcome legislation to all parties. To many Americans and to many of my colleagues, Federal budgeting might seem like an abstraction, and thus unimportant because dollar amounts in terms of billions and trillions of dollars are beyond normal human comprehension. Most people just don't think in those terms. In fairness, most of us don't think in those terms, so let's clarify this process by bringing these numbers down to the individual level. Let's tell the American people, for example, under the President's last budget, you owe $7,000 just to cover the deficit. That resonates. Folks get that. The math is pretty simple. The median income in Indiana is around $45,000. Income and payroll taxes will eat up about $9,000 of that. People will understand what it means when you tell them that, under the President's budget, you need almost 20 percent more per year per Hoosier just to balance the budget. Now, this is important. Contrary to some of the things we heard earlier, maybe this bill will even help incentivize those who are drafting budgets in the future to put together budgets that actually balance at some point in the distant future so that we don't have to rely on these suboptimal cutting gimmicks, like the President's sequester, to, in some way, get spending under control. We know revenue will double over the next 10 years. We know we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem in this country, so it's time the Federal Government--and the White House, in particular--comes clean about the direct impact of our Federal deficits on our Nation's families. So I urge my colleagues to support this measure of good government by voting ``yea'' for H.R. 668.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Indiana University's Men's Soccer Team. I want to congratulate the team, Indiana University, and the greatest college soccer fans in the country--whom we in Indiana affectionately call the Hoosier Army--on their 8th NCAA National Championship. As a resident of Bloomington, the home of IU, I am particularly proud of IU Soccer's achievements this year. They have worked very hard, and merits respect and celebration. Accomplishments such as this are achieved through diligence and commitment. This being their 8th National Championship, IU's Soccer Program has proven its commitment to creating a strong and enduring tradition of excellence. This win shows that the team benefits now, as in past decades, from exemplary leadership both on and off the field. I commend Coach Todd Yeagley, and the rest of the coaching staff, for instilling confidence in their Hoosier Squad, and for driving them to victory this season. IU's championship squad also serves as an inspiration to many members of the community of Bloomington, and to Hoosiers across Southern Indiana. Collectively, the student-athletes have shown us what can be achieved through teamwork and perseverance. I commend them on their National Championship, and I salute them for their example. Finally, I join members of the Hoosier Army, and other rank-and-file Hoosiers, in looking forward to many more thrilling seasons in the coming years. Go Hoosiers!

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, as I travel in my south central Indiana district, I hear frequently two simple requests from my constituents. First, they want us to get our spending and our debt under control. And, second, they want us to work together, collectively, Republicans and Democrats, to get that important job done. That's why I support this proposed legislation, H.R. 325. The bill strikes me as eminently reasonable because it not only satisfies those simple requests; it asks us to do our job. We are required under law, as has been said before, to pass a budget. The House is required to do it, and the Senate is required to do it. The Senate has not done it for 4 years. Now, a budget is essentially spending priorities. It lays out your vision for the future. Whatever solutions you may or may not have are revealed in a budget. It's not easy to put together a budget. Sometimes it's unpopular, but it is our duty. So I say no budget, no pay. I'm tired of the Senate being dilatory in its responsibilities. They need to pass a budget. That's why I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.