Todd Young

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Speaker, as we approach the deadline for enrolling in ObamaCare-sanctioned insurance, it has become clear the system is not working as its supporters intended. For months, we have been learning about Web site problems, spiking premiums, and lost coverage. For months, we have seen an underwhelming number of signups, not even close to matching the stated enrollment goals of this administration. For months, we have heard heart-wrenching stories from our districts about the negative impact this botched rollout has had on hardworking American families. Unfortunately for those families, the White House and those who helped bring us this law have consistently turned a deaf ear to Americans' concerns. Meanwhile, at the urging of the business community, we had the White House delay the employer mandate tax-- twice. What must the constituents in our districts do to be heard by ObamaCare supporters? Should they form trade organizations and hire a lobbyist so maybe President Obama and champions of this law will listen? Well, guess what? My constituents did hire someone to lobby on their behalf when they elected me to Congress. It is simply not fair when businesses get a break but the people who work at those businesses do not. I am all for delaying the employer mandate tax because it is confusing and it is cumbersome for our businesses. I also feel very strongly that the individual mandate tax is just as cumbersome for individuals and families as the employer mandate tax is for our businesses. I believe that individuals and families deserve the same sort of delay. So on behalf of my constituents in Indiana's Ninth District, and on behalf of all of yours, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill and to support simple fairness.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because this is an essential issue that affects groups in my home State of Indiana, as well as groups throughout the country. As a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I have been present during hearings where we have learned that the IRS targeted conservative and Tea Party groups. During those same hearings, I have shared letters and documents that showed some of the targeted conservative groups were my fellow Hoosiers. Regretfully, it appears that the IRS, rather than holding those responsible for this targeted sort of activity, is seeking to make political targeting part of their standard operating procedure. The recently proposed IRS regulation that pertains to these 501(c)(4) groups is designed to do so in a way that clearly inhibits their First Amendment activities. 501(c)(4) is the section of our Tax Code that many of the conservative groups tried to file under. They can't file as a 501(c)(3) because that would limit their ability to engage in grassroots lobbying. They can't file as a 501(c)(5) because they aren't a labor union. They can't file as a 501(c)(6) because they aren't a chamber of commerce. They can't file as a 527 because that would limit them only to political activity. None of these other organizations are affected by the new regulations--only 501(c)(4)'s. Now, this seems curious to me, and the regulation seems aimed at preventing such groups from engaging in civil discourse. This is why I strongly support H.R. 3865, the Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs, or STOP, Act. This bill doesn't say that the IRS cannot regulate this issue, or even that they should not regulate this issue. Instead, it just tells them to wait until the investigation into this targeting concludes before discussing whether any changes to the rules are necessary. It is eminently reasonable. It would help protect the political speech and the civil rights of my constituents and those around the country. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, since the launch of open enrollment and healthcare.gov on October 1, I have heard repeated stories of frustration from my constituents trying to enroll in the Federal exchanges. The President and his administration have tried to assure us time and again that the Web site is improving and that Americans are enrolling. Unfortunately, neither the stories I have been told, nor the claims of this administration, are easy to verify because HHS is giving us very little data to go off of. Now, that is a shame, because one of the greatest constitutional obligations of the legislative branch is robust oversight of the executive branch--to be sure that laws are working and being enforced as intended. But there is an even bigger shame here. In August of 2013, HHS estimated that approximately 900,000 individuals in my home State of Indiana were uninsured. This week, HHS offered us a progress report. Now, can you guess how many Hoosiers, according to this report, actually selected a plan through healthcare.gov as of December 28? Only 30,000. Now, that means, according to the HHS estimates, the Obama administration estimates 29 out of every 30 uninsured Hoosiers have not selected a plan through healthcare.gov. That 30,000 figure, by the way, is suspect in itself, to put it charitably. Since HHS is only reporting those who put a plan in a shopping cart, we don't know how many actually went through with the purchase. Now, with a big deadline coming up for the individual mandate tax penalty, it is imperative that Congress understands exactly how many people are in compliance with the law. Merely selecting a plan won't help you avoid being taxed by the IRS. That is why I am a strong supporter of the Exchange Information Disclosure Act. The Obama administration should be required to provide the American people and Congress weekly reports on the status of healthcare.gov. They should be required to tell us how many are actually purchasing plans. They should be required to tell us all sorts of additional data points they are already tracking that will help Congress perform our oversight role on behalf of the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this measure here in the House and, hopefully, in the Senate.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, a fellow Hoosier, fellow marine and fellow patriot died on December 28 in his 81st year. I didn't know Andrew Jacobs, Jr., a gentleman who for 30 years represented the Indianapolis area in the House of Representatives with great distinction. But I am familiar with the qualities of a decent, honorable public servant; and Andy Jacobs deserves to be remembered, honored, and even emulated by those of us who now serve in this body or bother to keep watch on its proceedings. He was born February 24, 1932, in Indianapolis. After high school, Jacobs joined the United States Marine Corps. He was a plucky marine. His country called him to serve in the Korean war. He responded to the call of duty, fought bravely, and was wounded in action. When Jacobs returned home to Indiana, he enrolled in Indiana University, graduating in 1955, and 3 years later he graduated from IU's law school. Jacobs had a passion for public service. So after completing his studies in 1958, the marine kept fighting--fighting for a better America first as a sheriff's deputy, then as a lawyer, then as a State legislator, and then, beginning in 1965, as a Member of Congress. In Congress, Andy Jacobs was a member of the House Ways and Means Committee where he fought to balance the Federal budget and simplify the Tax Code. He also fought, in the memorable words of journalist Colman McCarthy, to ``oppose wars that he believed couldn't be won, explained or afforded.'' Jacobs is survived by countless admirers, a beloved wife of 25 years, two sons and two sisters. May each of us honor this fallen marine's memory--and his constancy of purpose--by picking up his rifle and doing our part to fight for a better America.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, small mom-and-pop businesses are an integral part of local economies, especially in the State of Indiana. Schimpff's Confectionary, located in Jeffersonville, Indiana, is a prime example of a small, family-owned business that has maintained a tradition of community involvement and devotion to a quality product. Schimpff's is not only a vital part of the community, but also an important Jeffersonville landmark. Schimpff's Confectionary is a world-class candy maker, confectionary store, and museum located within the Old Jeffersonville Historic District. This candy store is one of the oldest in the country. It has kept the same atmosphere throughout the years and continuously draws large crowds. In addition to selling candy, Schimpff's Confectionary gives tours to visitors of the shop, providing an interactive experience and insight into how the finest candy was and is made. Schimpff's Confectionary contributes mightily to the town of Jeffersonville. Not only do they reliably provide delicious treats to the families of Southern Indiana and beyond, but they maintain local jobs, and their outstanding presence is a source of deep pride for the entire community. Residents of Jeffersonville have grown up with Schimpff's Confectionary, and the store has faithfully maintained its high quality standards, and friendly atmosphere, since the day it opened. For these reasons and more, I am proud to recognize Schimpff's in this installment of the 9th District's Small Business Spotlight. Although the Schimpff family had been making candy in Louisville, Kentucky, since 1850, the Jeffersonville store was established in 1891 by Gustave Schimpff, Sr. and Jr. The shop continues to be run by his family and is now run by the third generation of Schimpff's. Gustave's great-grandson, Warren Schimpff, continues the family legacy of exceptional candy making with his wife, Jill. Through their leadership and labor, Schimpff's has expanded their operations and developed a distinguished international reputation. While Schimpff's has been based in Jeffersonville since 1891, the family has traveled to Sweden to participate in the Candy Championships, the international candy competition in Granna. Jill and Warren Schimpff are the first Americans to have ever participated in this competition. While visiting Sweden, they met European candy makers, and learned some new and creative techniques to share with their many customers. Such initiatives have brought people from across the globe to Jeffersonville for the purpose of visiting their fine establishment. The confectionary has gained its fair share of local and national attention as well, including recognition by ``Louisville Business First'' as one of the area's top twenty for-profit attractions. Additionally, the business has gained national media attention from the Food Network, the History Channel's ``Modern Marvels,'' and American celebrity chef Paula Deen. The Schimpff's dedication to customers and quality has sustained the family legacy, and is responsible for the longstanding success of their business. This confectionary has been a Jeffersonville treasure since its opening over 120 years ago, and it will continue to be a recognized landmark for years to come.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 90th birthday of Professor Menahem Pressler of the Indiana University Jacobs School of Music in Bloomington, Indiana. I would like to join Indiana University in recognizing his lifelong dedication to music, teaching, and the artistic inspiration of others. During Professor Pressler's 60 years with the piano faculty of the Jacobs School of Music, he has earned the reputation as a passionate and gifted instructor, helping young, talented musicians expand upon their skills and abilities. For his commitment to music and teaching, he has received the rank of Distinguished Professor of Music at Indiana University, and also holds honorary doctorates from several other American universities. Moreover, his repute among his peers, colleagues, and students serves as a testament to his outstanding character. Professor Pressler's talents have taken him all over the world, performing in well-renowned competitions and musical events in the United States and abroad. He has performed solo as well as collaborated with groups like the Beaux Arts Trio, which is considered the gold standard for trios throughout the world. He has received numerous honors for his musical performances during his lifetime, beginning with first prize at the Debussy International Piano Competition in San Francisco in 1946. Since then, his career has been world renowned, performing with the orchestras of New York, Chicago, London, Paris, and many others. I know that Hoosiers throughout Indiana's 9th District are proud to have such a brilliant, talented gentleman reside in the vibrant town of Bloomington. He has left an incredible impact not only in South Central Indiana, but also across our nation and the world, and his life and career are deserving of much recognition. For his continued work at Indiana University and outstanding contributions to music, please join me in wishing Professor Pressler a very happy birthday.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a distinguished colleague.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to reiterate five key points: One, our current national debt exceeds $17 trillion, an amount that is greater than our annual GDP, the size of our economy. Two, while I and so many others in my party agree with many of my colleagues across the aisle that risking default is irresponsible, it is just as irresponsible to ignore why our debt is so darn high and what it means for the future of our country. Three, we can and must work across partisan lines to avoid default in conjunction with a debt ceiling vote or a default related to a continued failure to address the largest drivers of our debt; and we must begin that work now, not at the last minute, or the next self- imposed fiscal deadline. Four, those who have served here for decades have known for decades that our population was growing older, that health care costs were rising, and that our long-term fiscal trajectory was unsustainable; but nothing has happened. Five, this recognition that Washington continually misses opportunities to put our country on a path to fiscal health ought to be something on which we can all agree. I urge all my colleagues who want to see our country address our long-term challenges before it is too late to vote ``yes'' on this resolution of disapproval. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and my friend and colleague.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), a hardworking colleague.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have so much respect for the long-standing service and distinguished tenure of my colleague on the other side of the aisle, and I just think that there is some clarification that is required in this body and for all who may be watching this evening's proceedings, so let me begin by reminding those who would review the record. I am not sure I invoked the words ``Republican'' or ``Democrat'' in my opening comments. If I did, it certainly wasn't in a partisan nature. Instead, I extended a hand of friendship. I tried to actually increase trust and offered the hope that we might work together, we might actually work together to work on the very problems that caused me to run for office for the first time in 2010: the $17 trillion national debt that I know has grown to a great degree during the service of the good gentleman on the other side of the aisle who just spoke; the unsustainable entitlement programs that, when push comes to shove and we can no longer find the resources to fund them because people haven't made bold enough leadership decisions, those on the margins of society will be most adversely impacted. I know these are issues that my good ranking member friend on the other side of the aisle cares about as much as I do. We have just not yet come together and found bipartisan solutions to these things. Now, the continuing resolution vote that we passed, the package, if you will, the vote that we passed a few days ago, accomplished a few things. We indicated that the President could suspend the debt ceiling, but that move could be checked by votes of disapproval in the House and the Senate. So this was a process that was put into motion by that earlier bipartisan vote that occurred right here in this body. It is true that it has been made clear over in the other Chamber, the Senate, that the leader there will never bring this bill up in the Senate. That has been made eminently clear. The risk of default is something that ought not be mentioned. We needn't spook the markets here. We will pay our bills in this country. That is something I have been proud to stand for ever since I have been in this body. The continuing resolution package also indicated that, on February 8, the debt limit would be increased to reflect the borrowing that occurred during the debt limit suspension period, and then the Treasury would be given the ability to create additional headroom via so-called extraordinary measures after the debt limit was reinstated on February 8, 2014. So that is the larger context here. It sounds to me very procedural, not particularly partisan. In fact, my hope was that this could be offered in the spirit of bipartisanship. This is a messaging bill. There was an allusion during my good friend's comments to a message being sent as if that is somehow a negative thing. Now, most of the bills that are introduced in this body are introduced in part, at least, to offer a message to the broader American people, and we stand here and argue on behalf of the message that we are trying to drive home. The message that I am trying to drive home is that these debt problems have lingered on too long and that to increase a debt limit, to suspend a debt limit, is certainly not to approve further borrowing in the future absent the sort of bold changes that, frankly, have not been enacted when my good friend has served many years in Congress. So that is the larger message here, and that is how I would respond. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished freshman gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), who has had a lot of life's experiences.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Some people may be wondering why we find ourselves here today. Some people may be confused as to why we are voting on a resolution to disapprove of the debt limit suspension 2 weeks after the fact. And some people may be asking why I introduced this resolution of disapproval on behalf of some people who voted ``yes'' and others who voted ``no'' to give the President the authority to suspend the debt limit. The answers to these questions are much simpler than they might appear. We are here today because the United States of America carries a debt load of over $17 trillion and counting. We are voting on this resolution today because this is the procedure that was put in place by the Senate when they crafted a package to end the government shutdown. Many of us voted for that Senate legislation largely because we didn't think it was responsible to risk defaulting on our national debt. However, I introduced this resolution, and a majority of House Members will vote to disapprove, because it is also not responsible to ignore the problems created by our long-term debt. Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that a large number in this body voted to avoid default, it would be a gross mischaracterization to say that we approve of a debt limit suspension absent adoption of bold policy reforms that will set our Nation on a sustainable fiscal trajectory. We must break the habit of negotiating these fiscal deals at the last minute. We must stop kicking the can down the road, proverbially skipping along from crisis to crisis. Simply put: enough is enough. Let's start talking across party lines about how to fix our debt problems now, not the end of a deadline. We know that programs like Medicare and Social Security are on unsustainable footing. That is why a Democratic President and Republican House have both offered up reforms for these programs. So if we agree there is a problem, why must we wait until the next crisis to address it? We know that our Tax Code is outdated and that it has become too larded up with narrowly tailored provisions that benefit only a small number of special interests. That is why our House Ways and Means chairman has met weekly with the Senate Finance chairman to discuss how best to achieve a fairer, flatter Tax Code in a bipartisan way. If there is agreement here, then why are we looking to self-imposed fiscal deadlines in hopes of getting a deal? I could go on and on, but I think the point is clear: Washington missed an opportunity during our most recent fiscal showdown. This resolution sends a message that ignoring our problems does not make them go away. It sends a message that we should not wait until the last minute, but should reach across the aisle to face these challenges now; and it sends a message that we take these issues very seriously because they bear directly on job creation, personal income levels, and our collective faith in America's enduring exceptionalism. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the joint resolution under consideration.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 391 and section 1002(e) of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership in these early stages of his first tour in Congress. I know he is proud of his military background, and I know he is proud of our Nation's veterans. I am proud of my own service, and I am proud of our veterans as well, the veterans of Indiana's Ninth Congressional District, those veterans I served with. And I would like to just highlight today one veteran who inspires me as I reflect upon his life, one veteran that I had the opportunity to get to know when I was at the United States Naval Academy. He is a fellow marine. And Veterans Day, you will recall, is a day of celebration. November 11 is a time we celebrate not only those living, but also those who have worn the uniform and died in the course of service. So today, I would like to talk about my classmate, the class of 1995 at Annapolis, Doug Zembiec. Maybe some of you have heard of Doug. He is a man of quite a reputation. He was a two-time NCAA All-American wrestler at the Naval Academy. He was a leader. He had an amazing presence. Even among his fellow athletes who spent a lot of their hours preparing for the next match, the next game, he stood out. He worked especially hard, always went above and beyond. Because of his tireless work ethic, because of his infectious personality and a certain X factor about him, Doug just earned all sorts of friends. And he earned the respect of people in an atmosphere at a service academy where leaders and aspiring leaders are competing for the respect of their peers, and that really says something. On May 31, 1995, Doug and I were commissioned as second lieutenants in the U.S. Marine Corps, at which point our careers took separate paths. After initial training at The Basic School in Quantico, Doug joined a Force Reconnaissance platoon. It was among the toughest of the United States Marines. We like to think we are all tough, but we can certainly agree that Force Recon marines have earned the respect of their fellow marines and fellow Americans. He was among the first to enter Kosova in 1999 with his first unit, and 5 years later, he found himself in command of Echo Company, 2nd Battalion, 1st Marines. During Operation Vigilant Resolve in 2004, Doug led his rifle company of 168 marines and sailors in the first ground assault into Fallujah. His remarkable leadership earned him a number of decorations. These things weren't important to Doug, but it is important that our country recognize our fearless leaders like him. We awarded him a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts for the wounds he suffered in the course of the Battle of Fallujah. His men were so impressed by the bravery and the principled leadership that Doug exhibited that they named him the ``Lion of Fallujah.'' The Lion of Fallujah would serve four combat tours in Iraq. In his final tour, on May 11, 2007, Doug was killed by small arms fire. He was always thinking of others first. Doug warned the Iraqi forces that he helped train to get down, but Doug himself did not make it. A mutual friend of ours and fellow Naval Academy classmate, Eric Kapitulik, who was very close to Doug, he delivered a moving eulogy at Doug's funeral at the Naval Academy chapel. He read some words that were written by Doug himself in the closing of that eulogy, entitled, ``Principles My Father Taught Me,'' and here they are: Be a man of principle. Fight for what you believe in. Keep your word. Live with integrity. Be brave. Believe in something bigger than yourself. Serve your country. Teach. Mentor. Give something back to society. Lead from the front. Conquer your fears. Be a good friend. Be humble and be self- confident. Appreciate your friends and family. Be a leader and not a follower. Be valorous on the field of battle. And take responsibility for your actions. Never forget those that were killed, and never let rest those that killed them. That is Doug Zembiec. May God continue to bless Doug Zembiec and his wife and beautiful child he left behind. May God continue to bless our Nation's veterans, and may God continue to bless this great Nation, the greatest Nation on Earth, America.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, nearly 3,000 Hoosier children are currently eligible for adoption while living in foster care. Now, I know all of us can agree that these children and the over 100,000 children in the United States eligible for adoption deserve a stable, permanent, and loving home. While there is no doubt our foster care programs provide an essential service, I strongly believe, as a proud father of four young children and as someone who used to provide free legal services to those wanting to adopt, that there can be no substitute for the care a loving family can provide. Whether it is living with a family member or being adopted into a new family, we must do everything in our powers to see that children everywhere receive the best upbringing possible. This legislation represents a step forward in finding these children caring and supportive homes. By extending the Adoption Incentives program, we effectively encourage and incentivize States to help adopt more children out of foster care so these children can lead happy, healthy, and successful lives.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, individuals and families benefit when businesses, big and small, are able to help communities maximize their economic potential. In Southern Indiana, Dan Cristiani is one outstanding example of a small business owner who harnesses the talent and work ethic of his employees to improve their community. At just fifteen years old, Mr. Cristiani started his first business by cutting down timber and selling it as firewood. Today his company-- Dan Cristiani Excavating--is a full service business that sells and rents heavy equipment, distributes topsoil and mulch, and offers waste disposal services for individuals and companies. In addition to owning a thriving business, Mr. Cristiani has become a recognized community philanthropist. He is particularly involved with Clark County 4-H, saying, ``My dad was involved in Floyd County 4-H, and I guess I'm kind of a chip off the old block.'' In 2002, he started a consignment auction to help raise money for the organization. The annual event provides an opportunity for individuals and businesses to sell farm equipment that is no longer needed, typically generating between $15,000 and $20,000 for 4-H. Additionally, he donates money for 4-H project animals. There is no doubt that 4-H plays an essential role in educating children about the benefits of agriculture throughout Indiana's 9th District, and I appreciate that he is helping give children access to this wonderful organization. Beyond his contributions to 4-H, Mr. Cristiani and his excavating company help provide many other services to Clark County, such as funds and equipment for a new baseball park. But perhaps his greatest impact is felt when the community is most in need. For example, in 2004 a tornado struck the north edge of Borden, Indiana, and he immediately sent his excavating equipment and crew to the affected area to begin cleanup. He did so under no pretense of being paid, and there was no guarantee of reimbursement for equipment use or staff salaries. Despite that, his team stayed in the area for weeks providing assistance to Hoosiers when they most needed it. As a result, Borden was back on its feet much more quickly than other towns impacted by the storm. Dan Cristiani and Dan Cristiani Excavating are representative of the small businesses in which Hoosiers in Indiana's 9th District take pride. Their commitment and generosity prove that, whether big or small, businesses of any size can make a positive contribution to their community. I am proud to represent such sturdy Americans, and I am pleased to highlight their good works in the Congressional Record today in this installment of Indiana's 9th District Small Business Spotlight.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I would absolutely agree. And I throw another wrinkle into this conversation. We need to be identifying ways to control health care costs. Whatever one thinks of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--as the President's health care law is known--we are not here to discuss the larger law. But to the extent we figure out or can incorporate into our policies cost-saving measures that still maintain the quality of care that Americans have grown to expect from our medical system, that allows us to reduce the burden of taxation. So I think those who are enamored of this law need to reflect on this litany of different taxes that have been put into place in order to pay for it--many of them, I believe, unwise. But this one is particularly unwise; that's why we have so much bipartisan support behind its repeal.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. They are, indeed. And the numbers add up quickly. Right now, you indicated we're looking at a semi-monthly payment of this tax by our device companies. Roughly $100 million is due to the Internal Revenue Service semi-monthly as a result of this tax, And those numbers add up quickly. So far in fiscal year 2013, the taxes already cost device manufacturers nearly $2 billion, and next year is looking even worse. Next fiscal year, starting October 1, the device tax is projected to cost manufacturers over $2.5 billion. So, once again, these taxes are not just being paid by the large companies; they're being paid by companies that are drawing on all their financial wherewithal--all the venture capital they can find, all their personal savings, all the community bank loans they may be able to get during these rough times. Those monies are being used to, with a threadbare budget, to research and develop these technologies into something that can finally make their way to the market. And all the while Uncle Sam is taxing away any profits they might be realizing on another product that may already be at market. So this is absolutely something that is a disincentive to innovation. It undermines job creation at a time that all politicians are talking about creating jobs and saving the middle class. These are good-paying jobs. Manufacturing jobs, which you started off talking about, we need to be creating more manufacturing jobs here in the United States. So these pay better than your median or your average wage in a given State. This is why we have 79 supporters in the United States Senate, Republican and Democrat--and I think perhaps an independent in there, one never knows, that might favor repealing this device tax. Here in the House, we have 260 cosponsors for repealing the device tax, Republican and Democrat. So let's get it done.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue, a bipartisan issue. And I am encouraged to see so many colleagues on both sides of the aisle be here with us this evening to speak out to encourage our leadership, to encourage our fellow Members to stay engaged on this. In the end, this is about improving lives. This is about delivering innovation within one of our highest growth economic sectors so that lives can be changed in a very positive way. And to bring this sort of down to Earth here, aside from the very important economic statistics that we'll be citing this evening related to jobs and economic growth and losses in revenue, aside from the stories that we're going to hear this evening about manufacturing facilities being moved overseas, plans to build them no longer in the Midwest in a place like Indiana, instead, Europe is a better place to do business, let's set all that aside just for a moment and talk about one individual. This young lady, her name is Sheila Fraser. Now, Sheila is a Hoosier, and she testified at a field hearing on the device tax and its impact on the individuals who benefit from medical devices and on businesses. This field hearing was held in Indianapolis a couple of years back, and Mr. Paulsen helped convene it, and we appreciated that. But Sheila testified that, at age 10, she was diagnosed with bone cancer in her leg. She was an elite athlete for her age, playing gymnastics and track. And one day she just woke up facing the prospect of amputation, of all things, at age 10. Biomet, a company out of Indiana, made a custom device for Sheila designed to expand as she grew and to replace the diseased bone while saving her leg. Now, today, Sheila's much older. She leads a normal, active life. When we first met, she was a senior at Marian High School in Mishawaka, Indiana. Her courses were geared for college preparation. She received honors for a GPA of 3.5 or above. She's a member of the National Honor Society. Now, Ms. Fraser, no doubt, has a bright future ahead of her. We have to wonder how differently her life might be were it not for the innovation that occurred at that Indiana medical device company. Innovation in devices changes lives, thousands of lives every year across this country. It's just--she's just one remarkable example of all the people that benefit from these devices. And without this type of innovation, let's think about what Sheila's life would look like. Well, she'd be physically disabled. She'd face a future of sky-high health care costs. Who knows what sort of opportunities she wouldn't be able to seize as a result of the innovations that came out of Biomet, just one company. Now, taxing companies that rely so much on research and development and are positively impacting so many lives, it makes absolutely no sense to me. And the only way I can make any measure of sense out of it is something that my good colleague from the other side of the aisle, Mr. Matheson, said earlier. This medical device surtax wasn't included in the Affordable Care Act, what the President calls ObamaCare, for any sort of policy reason. It was just put in to raise revenue. There was no real consideration when this bill was passed about how to make the bill sustainable from a fiscal standpoint. Instead, it was an insurance coverage bill, and they were going to figure out some of the financials later. And so this was one effort, I think, to mitigate the cost of the bill. We've discovered that it's just incredibly costly in other ways, though, the opportunity costs that will be borne by people like Sheila Fraser if this innovation doesn't occur. So, for Sheila and for millions of Americans, tens of millions of people around the world that benefit from these devices, I think we owe it to them to repeal this medical device tax, a very bipartisan issue, a bicameral issue. My constituents are demanding it. The American people are increasingly demanding it across the country. And so I just look forward to getting this done in conjunction with those here and others in this body.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. This hits very close to home. Because for every Zimmer or Biomet I visit in the State of Indiana, there have to be four or five small, fledgling businesses that aspire to become the next Zimmer or Biomet of the world. We're inhibiting, with this device tax, their future growth, their research efforts, and the lean years when they're just trying to get a product approved into market. With entrepreneurship at a 15-year low, we need to be doing everything conceivable to incentivize people to start businesses, to grow jobs, to increase personal incomes, which is exactly what this medical device sector has done in recent years. But it's all in jeopardy as a result of this surtax. I'm in the mood this evening to tell stories. So you have opened the door there, my good friend, Mr. Paulsen of Minnesota. So let me share with you another story about innovation in this sector. There was a young college student who dreamed one day of becoming a doctor. So he did very well in school and studied incredibly hard. When he graduated, the U.S. military came calling. He was brought into the service against his will--drafted--and served his time as a medical technician. He got married later and they had children and one thing led to another. They ended up moving to my hometown of Bloomington, Indiana. And so this once-aspiring doctor did what so many Americans decide to do: they didn't give up on their dreams. So he and his wife decided to try and make a difference in the area of medicine in their own little way. He started tinkering with some wire guides in a spare bedroom of their apartment in Bloomington. Eventually, this turned into a small business--a profitable business--and they were able to hire other people and move out of the spare bedroom. In later years, this company would grow to become the largest privately-held medical device company in the world, the Cook Group, headquartered in Bloomington, Indiana. Its founder was Bill Cook and his wife, Gayle, who survives him. They have created thousands of jobs not just in Bloomington but around the State of Indiana, all around the Midwest. And now they're creating them in Europe. They're creating them in Europe not because they want to. In fact, there were plans, I'm told, for a number of manufacturing facilities to be built in America's Midwest. But because of our regulatory burdens and, more importantly, this medical device surtax, the plans were changed and those manufacturing facilities are now going to be constructed and jobs created in Europe. Because that's a better place to do business when they look at their financials. They tried hard. They resisted making this decision. But their Federal Government pushed them in this direction. There's still an opportunity to salvage so many jobs, to rescue this great American industry that's really in its early stages of development. We must repeal this medical device tax. This is a no- brainer, as my oldest child says. It's a bipartisan issue. So I'm really encouraged to see Republicans and Democrats down here this evening trying to ensure that the next Cook Group can be created and the next Cook Group won't be strangled in the cradle during its early formative years when it's trying to get cash-flow positive. I'm glad we're getting out the word tonight to the American people on this important issue.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. One would hope it's precise.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Well, the mandate is that every employer across the United States of America who employs 50 or more persons on a full- time basis must provide government-sanctioned, government-approved health insurance to their employees. Now, look, superficially, that sounds just great. There's some problems here. First, this law redefines full-time in a way that Americans have never understood

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I introduced the bill in response to some of the same things I'm hearing from my colleagues who are, in turn, hearing from their constituents and the sort of things I hear back home in Indiana, which is this is absolutely ridiculous. We're helping very few people at the expense of many. Let's restore the definition of full-time as it's always been popularly understood and provide some relief. So we need to move forward on that. Let's continue to educate and assess what is being reported across the country on some of these.