Todd Young

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Does anyone know--I will pose this question to my colleagues. Is the President's jobs council working on this issue?

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. In everything you've described--from the sports analogy, where people are afraid to go onto the field because they don't know the game, to the direct impact it has on all sorts of businesses--that also applies to our Nation's financial institutions. It's through our banks and credit unions that so many of our small businesses get off the ground, and that's how, oftentimes, they're able to sustain themselves during dips in the economy. Unfortunately, there is great uncertainty in the financial sector as well. We can cite a number of different things, but I put Dodd-Frank high on the list. I certainly hear that in my district. Let me relate to you a little story about the impact of regulations as they affect banks and how they, in turn, affect businesses in my district and around the country. I visited, not long ago, a business that manufactures food products, things like these little miniature pizzas that are frozen--you buy them at the grocery store--and little hot dogs with dough encrusted around them. It's actually an incredibly productive manufacturer of these things, and it has developed a lot of expertise. This company was on the verge of a major expansion. It would have created hundreds of jobs in my district and led to additional jobs because of the supply industry that would have supported this company. But Federal regulations got in the way. The company needed a $3 million bridge loan to get everything online and begin production. They were a dream sort of business. To give you a sense of what they had lined up, they had a world-renowned entrepreneur, and they had a billionaire investor. The person who had conceived of this business put up $1 million of his own money--his life savings. They had several high-profile, nationally known businesses lining up with purchase orders. They'd already secured a new facility and invested significantly in new capital equipment. So everything is online, but the new banking regulations prohibited them from getting the money they needed to take it to the next level. Things are finally moving forward for this business. I'm happy to say that, despite these headwinds, the founder of this business was able to secure alternative financing from private sources and others. Ultimately, it was regulations that almost killed these hundreds of jobs in my district. This is the sort of human impact that so many Americans and communities are facing right now. This is what we're trying to get our hands on with this legislation that we're passing.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Absolutely. So we've seen this in the ag sector, where traditionally between crops being planted and harvested, it's not uncommon to get bank loans to keep the operation afloat, especially with smaller farms. We see it in all types of businesses. It's time that we take care of these financial regulations and other types of regulations, and I'm glad we are acting here on the Republican side in the House of Representatives.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. We've just lost all sense of perspective. We ought to be measuring the cost of any given regulation--of any proposed regulation--of the benefits, and then comparing the two. I think any fair-minded person would take into account both of them and, in the end, decide whether or not a given regulation makes sense. I was doing a little research earlier in preparation of my coming down to the floor. I just wanted to see what some of the cost-benefit analyses have been for recent regulations. I came across a report by the National Bureau of Economic Research. It was from a decade ago. They took a look at some of the regulations that have been proposed over the years. One of them was child-safe lighters. The Consumer Product Safety Commission determined that a life would be saved for a cost of only $100,000 by implementing these regulatory standards for child-safe lighters. That strikes me as pretty reasonable. That's absolutely worth it. There was another regulation proposed, and conceivably for a cost of $100 trillion that we might save a life some day by the solid waste construction regulatory standards that our Federal Government has proposed. There has got to be a sense of balance here, or we're going to crush our economy.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. To write new regulations, to go out there and to pore through private sector books, to be boots on the ground to enforce these existing regulations. So we've got 34,000 more individuals who are interfering with private sector activity. Now, I use the word ``interfering.'' I acknowledge there are cases where we have to have regulations. I think everyone here would agree with that sentiment. But things have gotten out of whack, and we're really constraining job creation at a time when our constituents want us to be creating more jobs.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. If I can intervene here. You would think that during a down economy, what some have called the worst economy since the Great Depression, we would stop piling on. It's the first rule of holes: you stop digging when you find yourself in one. But we continue to dig even though we're in a hole. We pile on new significant regulations on top of the existing significant regulations. There's a portion of this legislation that was offered originally by Congressman Griffin. His name is still on it: Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act. This places a moratorium on all significant regulations, all of those with $100 million or more economic cost on our economy. This is common sense among my constituents, probably among the vast majority of the American people here, that you just stop piling on the major regulations during a down economy. I'm certainly supportive of this. I think we need to go further. Mr. Tipton of Colorado mentioned the REINS Act. It would be my preference that every time we have any proposed rule or regulation imposing a $100 million cost or more on our economy, it comes back to Congress for a hearing, for an up-or-down vote. We should allow our constituents to weigh in on the manner, tell us how to improve the regulation, tell us if they think it ought to be eliminated altogether, or perhaps they like it. In the end, I think we need to own these significant regulations. You know what? If we pass that REINS Act, that will give all of us an incentive not to punt on the hard issues, not to pass them onto the EPAs and OSHAs and USDAs of the world. Ultimately, we would own it. We would be accountable. I would invite that sort of scrutiny and accountability.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Just one addition to the gentlelady's comments. The President also ordered a regulatory review of all regulations in that very same speech. And he was going to root out, he said, existing regulations that were constraining job creation. He reaffirmed his commitment to repealing all these sorts of measures. You know, his rhetoric is not matched by commitment, by action. So we're acting in terms of this piece of legislation, and I am proud of that.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I have heard that. It seems he has other priorities. But we need to force the hand. We need to make the argument here. This is what our constituents are asking us to do, every conceivable thing we can think of to create an environment where jobs can be created, where new businesses can be started, where entrepreneurship is at a 15-year low, where existing businesses can expand, where unemployment remains above 8 percent for how many months now.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. That's right. They've been added to the government's payroll.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Thank you so much for your hard work on this issue and your leadership on so many other efforts. I can certainly identify with the comments that you've made and that the gentlelady, my fellow colleague from Alabama, has made. We've seen an uptick certainly in my district of these numbers of notices and penalties that the aggregates businesses, for example, in my district receive, oftentimes for petty little issues. And it seems that there has been an increase in the enforcement from this administration on some things where frankly you ought to have these agencies working with our businesses, helping them come into compliance, consulting with them, doing even a little cost-benefit analysis on the ground level. We've lost all sense of perspective. I have to say as someone who has just been here for a year and a half, I've been a little surprised by a number of things, but perhaps it was my own naivete that led me to expect most of my constituents' concerns would be related to how we should vote on a given matter. Vote ``no'' on this resolution. Vote ``yes'' on that given bill. But instead, so much of what I have heard over the last 1\1/2\ years has been, as much as anything else: Stop this regulation from being enforced. It's really killing our business. It's hurting job creation right here in our part of the country. How can you rein in these executive mandates? So I've tried to do my part, and others have here as well. I'll cite my colleague from Indiana, Congressman Todd Rokita, who has worked very hard on a project the last year and a half that he calls the Red Tape Rollback. I hold right here in my hand a report which Congressman Rokita's office recently put out, the catalogs, these regulatory concerns of businesses in my home State and the job- destroying effects of overregulation. It turns out there's a reason why so many businesses in the Hoosier State are suddenly feeling the crushing effect of regulation, and it's because we've seen a sharp increase in regulations under this administration. Let me throw out some numbers here: Since 2008, there have been over 34,000 regulators added to the government's payroll; Additional regulatory costs have increased by $46 billion per year since the beginning of 2009; The number of regulations with an economic impact of $100 million or more--so-called ``major regulations''--has increased by 32 just last year. By comparison, the last President only added 28 such regulations in his first 3 years in office. All told, this President added 106 through the end of last year. So the list goes on and on. I know my colleagues can add to this list--parade of horribles--with respect to regulations. Something needs to change up here. I'm glad we're here tonight to talk about a particular bill that will change things for the better.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, there is broad bipartisan agreement in this House that the looming defense sequestration cuts are bad policy for the U.S. military and our national defense. Our Defense Secretary has testified to me and to other members of the Armed Services Committee that such cuts would hollow out the military, and our constituents are rightly concerned about our ability to provide necessary equipment to troops in the field, troops who are often our sons, daughters, brothers, or sisters. The original goal of this legislation that gave us the sequester was to find deficit reduction in the Federal budget in a careful, deliberative manner. Despite their best efforts, the small group that was charged with finding these cuts failed in the end. That's why we have passed legislation in the full House to replace the defense cuts with deficit reduction elsewhere, but the Senate has, once again, failed to act. As for the administration, it has failed to specify how these cuts will be distributed and what kind of impact they will inevitably have on our Nation's security. Military spending decisions should not be made in a vacuum. We shouldn't merely try to manage down to some predetermined, arbitrary spending level. Ultimately, strategy should guide these sorts of decisions. Missions we are asking our men and women in uniform to perform to keep our country safe should be our measuring stick, and we should ensure that full funding exists to carry out each of these missions. The bottom line is this: It is the responsibility of this administration to inform Congress and the American public of its plans to implement the sequester and to provide clarification on its scope and severity. With that, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this blessedly bipartisan legislation, the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle keep saying we should focus on jobs. So let's look at how ObamaCare has impacted jobs and the economy. A few numbers: 48 percent of business owners say the potential cost of health care coverage under ObamaCare is the reason why they're not hiring additional workers; 74 percent of small businesses said the law will make it harder to hire new employees. States like my home State of Indiana would be hit particularly hard. Among the 21 new taxes found in ObamaCare, there is a 2.3 percent excise tax on the profits from medical device companies. Now, Indiana-- and southern Indiana in particular--is home to dozens of these businesses. It employs over 20,000 Hoosier jobs in its medical device sector. Now, because of the negative effect on our economy, we must start over and get health care reform done the right way--in the light of day, with bipartisan support, and with due deliberation. I hope we can do that. That's why I'm proud to cosponsor this first step, the Repeal Obamacare Act. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it too.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I thank the gentlelady, my hardworking colleague from Tennessee, who is also a health care professional and quite conversant on these issues. You speak with some authority. So thank you very much. I come from the State of Indiana with internationally renowned medical device manufacturers, manufacturers like Cook Group in Bloomington, or smaller entrepreneurial companies like MedVenture in Jeffersonville. Indiana, in fact, is a global leader in the medical device industry. Scores of successful medical device businesses are headquartered in the Hoosier State, and they provide nearly 20,000 hardworking Hoosiers with good-paying jobs. Now, these jobs, by the way, provide wages that are over 40 percent higher than the State average. These are exactly the sort of businesses we need to expand and grow right here in America if we want to create a healthy economy. I bring this up because the President's health care law--what most Americans now know as ObamaCare--would shrink the number of American jobs in the medical device industry. This is because the law contains a 2.3 percent industry-specific excise tax that will cripple the sale of these medical devices. It would cripple the entire sector and hurt American jobs. Now, back in October, a bipartisan group of us from Indiana held a field hearing in Indianapolis to discuss this very issue with industry leaders. The response from businesses was unanimous: this device tax would be, across the board, harmful to these manufacturers throughout the industry. Many admitted that they would have to move jobs to Europe. Now, when is the last time that we heard it was cheaper to move American jobs to Europe? For the sake of keeping these high-paying, advanced manufacturing jobs here in the United States, this tax must be repealed. In fact, the medical device excise tax is so harmful to the American economy that the House voted just 2 weeks ago to repeal this narrow part of ObamaCare. It's one in a long string of votes that we've cast in this House to repeal or replace a portion of this law. Now, there's a better way to address increasing health care costs than by imposing additional taxes on the American people. I say, let's start over. If the Supreme Court doesn't do our work for us, let's repeal the Affordable Care Act. Then, let's get to work and pass bipartisan legislation that would actually bring down the cost of health care--what this whole exercise was supposed to be about in the beginning. Our constituents deserve no less. They expect us to engage in this effort. I'm certainly committed to it, and I know my colleagues here on the Republican side in the House are committed to it as well.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the important work of our broadcast radio stations in emergency situations. Back in March, a violent tornado ripped through a 49-mile stretch of my southern Indiana district. It leveled entire towns, did millions of dollars in damage, and took numerous lives. The death toll probably would have been higher were it not for the early warnings to seek shelter so many received by radio. In the aftermath of the storm, with no power or TV or Internet and virtually no cell service, radio instructed Hoosiers where to find first aid, food, and shelter. So I'd like to thank our broadcasters today for the valuable service they provide. In the midst of chaotic situations, it is our Nation's radio broadcasters who provide needed direction.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I want to thank my friend, Tom Ellsworth, and his wife, Elsie, for traveling all the way from Bloomington, Indiana, to deliver this morning's open prayer. Tom has devoted his life to ministry. He is senior minister to me, my wife, Jenny, our four children, and so many other Hoosiers at Sherwood Oaks Christian Church in Bloomington. 2012 marks the 50th year since Sherwood Oaks was founded. To mark the celebration, Tom has thrown down the gauntlet. Our church will pray, give, and serve like never before. Tom is challenging more of us to become the hands and feet of God, serving our neighbors, our country, and beyond. Tom understands that our Nation, in fact any nation worthy of the name, was built by selfless servants, people like the 55 members of our church who recently activated their faith to help out tornado victims in southern Indiana. America needs more such servants and more people like Tom to inspire us to service. Thank you for making a difference, Tom.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, as our national recession near its fourth year, unemployment stays above 8 percent and gas prices continue to skyrocket, our brave men and women continue to serve in harm's way overseas, this Nation is in trouble, and I wonder which of the following choices would Americans choose if they had to pick one. Would it be A, an across-the-board income tax increase? Would it be B, a new tax increase on gas, electricity, and natural gas? Would it be C, a cut in funding for our soldiers to levels that the Pentagon warns is dangerous to our national security? Now, I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that the American people, if given the choice, would prefer to have an option D, none of the above. But, unfortunately, they're not given this choice in the Progressive Caucus budget. It forces, instead, all three unpalatable options on the American public that is already struggling. It raises taxes in every income tax bracket to the tune of $4.4 trillion, it raises the price at the pump and on utility bills ever higher by creating a new tax on all fossil fuel-based energy sources, and it makes no attempt to offset the defense spending sequester. And while I do commend my colleagues for making the effort to develop solutions to the Nation's problems and getting specific on those solutions, I think the American people can do better. We House Republicans have given Americans that none-of-the-above option through our own budget. Our budget responsibly solves our Nation's debt challenges, it responsibly cuts our spending, it avoids a tax increase, and it strengthens programs like Medicare and Medicaid, important to so many Americans. Most importantly, it does so by lightening the burden of government on hardworking American taxpayers, not burdening them with more government. I respect my colleagues, and urge my colleagues, however, to vote against the Progressive Caucus budget.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I've never been prouder to call southern Indiana home. Late Friday afternoon in our part of America, a disaster brought neighbors together, turned strangers into friends, and reminded us all of what it means to be part of a community. Over the course of several hours, fierce winds, softball-sized hail, and deadly tornadoes descended upon southern Indiana communities, leaving behind a 50-mile path of destruction from New Pekin to Chelsea and beyond. Our people are still assessing the costs, but we know this much: at least 13 Hoosiers have died; scores have lost their homes and businesses; and citizens across the region have suffered untold damage to their personal and public property. As hard as it is to imagine, the tragedy might have been worse were it not for the bravery, and resilience, of rank-and-file Hoosiers. Our firemen, policemen, EMTs, and local officials deserve our thanks. Those who serve in Indiana's National Guard, our State Police, and our Department of Homeland Security stepped up, too. From the initial response through the ongoing efforts today, their service has been exemplary. But it has been concerned citizens--so-called ordinary Americans--who have restored a measure of stability to a region pummeled by forces beyond our control. There was the bus driver in Henryville who, in the nick of time, rushed dozens of children back to school to protect them from the approaching twister. There were the EMTs off Interstate 65 who saw a woman thrown from her car, and saved her from being pummeled by hail by dragging a large metal sign across the road and holding it over her. They likely saved her life. There is Stephanie Decker, a Marysville mother who lost parts of both legs but courageously saved the lives of her two children by covering them with her body as a tornado crushed their home on top of them. We are pulling for you and your family, Stephanie. There were parents and friends and even strangers across southern Indiana who, as danger approached, took a moment to extend a hand to others, and said, ``Come inside, we'll make room.'' After the storms left their mark, Hoosiers immediately turned to accounting for loved ones and comforting neighbors. The damage was, and is, severe. One tornado--by some accounts a half- mile wide--carved a clear path through southern Indiana, ripping trees out of the earth, hurling automobiles and combines long distances, severing power lines, and decimating countless homes and businesses. Here again, Hoosiers did not sit around and wait for others to help us out. We got to work. Over the weekend, I spent time surveying the damage and meeting with those who lost the most. Everywhere I visited, I met citizens wearing boots and work gloves who were busily beginning to sort through piles of rubble. I met others who had fired up their chainsaws and were clearing debris from roadways. I saw clusters of cars and pick-up trucks parked outside homes that were hit hardest. In the aftermath of such a tragedy, one would be forgiven for asking, ``Why me?'' But I never heard it. Instead, time and again I heard Hoosiers sympathize with those who lost more than they. And more than one person told me that, in the end, stuff isn't all that important--it's people that are important. And I heard sincere, caring people ask their neighbors, ``How can I help?'' At one stop, I met a young couple from Jeffersonville--only 15 miles away--who offered me a drink of water. Their city didn't suffer much damage, so they loaded up their cars with bottled water and granola bars, looking for others who needed a hand. In Henryville, a pizza shop was mostly destroyed, except for the freezer. The couple who owned it, rather than worrying about the loss of their business, asked officials how they could donate food from the freezer to those who needed it most. In Marysville, the local Christian Church remains intact, but little else. Pastor Bob Priest told me their decades-old building is no longer structurally sound, but the congregation has never been stronger. As congregants were busy making repairs, I noticed the stained glass window above the church doorway was undamaged. It reads, ``In Memory of the Willing Workers.'' The local Red Cross chapter opened an overnight shelter, but in the first weekend no one checked in: Instead, friends shared their homes; churches opened their doors . . . everyone, it seems, could count on someone. For those of us who have seen the scale and scope of destruction up close, we know the path back will not be easy. But we will fix all that Mother Nature broke. Government at all levels will, and must, be there to help--from local authorities, to the State of Indiana, to our congressional offices. My staff and I, in particular, are eager to connect our constituents to whatever federal services, and funds, might help them get their lives back on track. But make no mistake: it will be the people of Indiana--the people of tight-knit communities like Henryville, Marysville, Chelsea, and New Pekin--who will rebuild broken lives. During these tough times, Hoosiers are reminding us what it means to be a community of citizens--One Nation, Under God, indivisible, come what may. That sense of community has always bound Americans in tough times, and it will get us through this tragedy as well. This thought especially struck home with me as I visited Henryville High School. The roof of the gymnasium was torn off, some of the walls had collapsed, and the bleachers were demolished. But hanging in the rafters, waving in the breeze, still hung the American flag unscathed. May God be with those Americans who are putting their lives back together. We are praying for you, and here for you.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise today because I've never been prouder to call southern Indiana home. Late Friday afternoon, in our part of America, a disaster brought neighbors together, turned strangers into friends, and reminded us all what it means to be part of a community. Over the course of several hours, fierce winds, softball-sized hail, and deadly tornados descended upon southern Indiana communities, leaving behind a 50-mile path of destruction from New Pekin to Chelsea and beyond. Our people are still assessing the costs, but we know this much: 13 Hoosiers have died, scores have lost their homes and businesses, and citizens across the region have suffered untold damage to their personal and public property. As hard as it is to imagine, the tragedy might have been worse were it not for the bravery and resilience of rank-and-file Hoosiers. Our firemen, policemen, EMTs, and local officials deserve our thanks. Those who serve in Indiana's National Guard, our State police, and our Department of Homeland Security stepped up, too. From the initial response through the ongoing efforts today, their service has been exemplary. But it has been concerned citizens, so-called ``ordinary'' Americans who have restored a measure of stability to a region pummeled by forces beyond our control. There was a bus driver in Henryville who, in the nick of time, rushed dozens of children back to school to protect them from the approaching twister. There were the EMTs off Interstate 65 who saw a woman thrown from her car and saved her from being pummeled by hail by dragging a large metal sign across the road and holding it over her. They likely saved her life. There were parents and friends and even strangers across southern Indiana who, as danger approached, took a moment to extend a hand to others and said, Come inside, we'll find room. After the storms left their mark, Hoosiers immediately turned to accounting for loved ones and comforting neighbors. The damage was and is severe. One tornado--by some accounts a half- mile wide--carved a clear path through southern Indiana, ripping trees out of the Earth, hurling automobiles and combines long distances, severing power lines, and decimating countless homes and businesses. Here, again, Hoosiers didn't sit around and wait for others to help us out. We got to work. Now, over the weekend I spent time surveying the damage and meeting with those who lost the most. Everywhere I visited, I met citizens wearing work boots and work gloves who were busily beginning to sort through the piles of rubble. I met others who had fired up their chainsaws and were clearing debris from roadways. I saw clusters of cars and pickup trucks parked outside homes that were hit hardest. In the aftermath of such a tragedy, one would be forgiven for asking: Why me? But I never heard it. Instead, time and again I heard Hoosiers sympathize with those who lost more than they. And more than one person told me that, in the end, stuff doesn't really matter; it's people that are important. I heard sincere, caring people ask their neighbors: How can I help? In Henryville, a pizza shop was mostly destroyed, except for the freezer. The couple who owned it, rather than worrying about the loss of their business, asked officials how they could donate food from the freezer to those who needed it most. In Marysville, the local Christian church remains intact, but little else. Pastor Bob Priest told me their decades-old building is no longer structurally sound, but the congregation has never been stronger. For those of us who have seen the scale and scope of destruction up close, we know the path back will not be easy, but we will fix all that Mother Nature broke. Government at all levels will and must be there to help, from local authorities, to the State of Indiana, to our congressional offices. My staff and I, in particular, are eager to connect our constituents to whatever Federal services and funds might be available to help them get their lives back on track. But make no mistake, it will be the people of Indiana, the people of tight-knit communities like Henryville, Marysville, Chelsea, and New Pekin, who will rebuild their broken lives. Now, during these tough times, Hoosiers are reminding us what it means to be a community of citizens--one Nation under God, indivisible, come what may. That sense of community has always bound Americans together in tough times, and it will get us through this tragedy as well. May God be with those Americans who are putting their lives back together. We're praying for you and here for you.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3578, the Baseline Reform Act, and to commend my hardworking colleague from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for leading in this effort. Now this is straightforward legislation. It removes the pro-spending bias that currently exists in the baseline that we use here in Congress as a starting point for our annual budgeting. The baseline should be a neutral starting point for considering fiscal policy. It shouldn't presume any spending by this body. Now we've already heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle numerous examples of programs that they fear will be cut in the future as a result of this legislation. Well, this legislation just says that without the sanction of Congress, without a free and open debate about the merits of any given program, there will not be any automatic increases to that program. Today, the baseline does assume an automatic increase for inflation each year in the discretionary budget. Instead of looking at what each agency actually needs each year to fulfill its mission, we simply assume that that agency needs more money than it had the previous year. Well, these assumptions add up. In fact, they add up to approximately $1.4 trillion in outlays over a 10-year period to last year's discretionary spending baseline. This bill would change that pro- spending bias by setting the baseline at the previous year's spending level--and not a cent more. The effect would be to put an end to the longstanding and confusing Washington practice of characterizing any effort to maintain the same level of funding as last year as somehow a ``spending cut.'' It's time to bring Washington definitions of ``spending cut'' in line with America's definition of a spending cut, and that is an actual cut in spending. This bill does that, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1905, the Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011. This bill promises to meet the threat the Islamic Republic of Iran poses and takes significant, tangible steps in limiting Iran's uranium enrichment and targeting Iran's nefarious activities. The latest United Nations weapons inspectors' disclosure and International Atomic Energy Agency report on the Islamic Republic of Iran are consubstantial. The Iranian nuclear weapons program is in direct contravention to Iran's ratification of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, endangers regional stability, and poses an unfathomable threat to international security. The Iranian Regime has defied international order and expectations in its undeniable pursuit of nuclear weapons and its close relationship with foreign terrorist organizations. That is why the Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011 is so important. These sanctions are right and just based on irrefutable evidence of malice on the international stage. We must declare that it is United States policy to deny, at every juncture, the ability for Iran to fund and pursue its nuclear program and its policy of inciting violence abroad. The Iranian regime's continuous circumvention of past sanctions and continued noncompliance require more aggressive actions. The only way to ensure the Iranian regime cannot circumvent international will is to take definitive actions. The sanctions in the Iran Threat Reduction Act in conjunction with the language in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 to formally sanction the Central Bank of Iran, CBI, are the steps required at this moment to impede the progress of Iran's ambitions. By sanctioning the CBI and creating accountability to those that deal with Iran, we limit the Iranian leadership's ability to function and directly curtail the infrastructures that sustain Iran's illicit nuclear ambitions and its state-sponsorship of terrorist organizations. I urge my colleagues to support the Iranian Threat Reduction Act of 2011 and stand with me against the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear program and Iran's known links to various terrorist organizations.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the overwhelming majority of my southern Indiana constituents. A year ago, they sent me to this body to give a voice to their frustrations with Washington--a frustration I shared then and share now more than ever. The American people's frustration stems from a lack of real progress in addressing our Nation's most fundamental challenges: Federal spending, our national debt, job creation, and the decline of the middle class. Our fellow citizens have concluded what I, too, have concluded--Washington is broken, and no one is in a hurry to fix it. Congress hasn't passed a balanced budget in over a decade. The Senate hasn't passed any sort of budget in 3 years. Our national debt recently topped $15 trillion, and our unemployment rate hovers around 9 percent. Instead of trying to fix our problems, Washington would rather argue about who's to blame for causing our problems. Sure, there's a lot of agreement as to what's wrong with our country, but not a lot of action geared towards making anything right. Our President and too many in this Congress would rather demagogue and demonize than lead and legislate. Washington is broken, and nobody's in a hurry to fix it. While many of our constituents are struggling to find a second, and in some cases a third, job, Washington is failing to perform its only job--governing. Is it any wonder that so many Americans are frustrated? These aren't Republican problems or Democrat problems. They're not House problems or Senate problems; these are Washington problems. Unfortunately, after 11 months on the job, I've seen far too few Washington solutions. Many of us came to Washington this year, some of us new to government, to offer solutions. We came ready with ideas. We came ready to defend those ideas, to respond to criticisms, to make the ideas into workable solutions and, ultimately, to implement those solutions to make a better life for those who sent us here. We came with the same sense of urgency that the American people expect of us. But Washington is broken. Too many people in this city resist publicly committing to hard, workable solutions because parroting talking points is so much easier. But until we get down to brass tacks, we'll continue to talk past one another. So I make this entreaty to all of my colleagues: whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, commit to proposing workable solutions. Get into the details. Put them on paper. Until both sides put a specific, written, scoreable plan on the table, we'll never find the common ground necessary to strike that grand bargain. In the absence of specifics, we're just playing politics. That's why Washington is broken. Now, earlier this year, those of us on the Budget Committee introduced a comprehensive plan that would reduce our deficit over the next decade by over $6 trillion. It would balance the budget and start paying down our debt. It would create an environment where jobs could flourish and grow, and it would save and strengthen our safety net programs likes Medicare and Medicaid. Most importantly, it addressed our challenges with the sense of urgency they require. If you disagree with that plan or you have a more optimal solution, let's hear it. Introduce it. I'm open to better plans. I didn't come to Congress because I thought I had all of the solutions. I came to Congress because my constituents wanted me to be part of the solution. But criticizing the other guy's plan is not the same as having a plan. Real leadership consists of presenting your vision for America to the American people and then defending it. In so doing, Republicans and Democrats may discover that we have some common ground, that we are not enemies, but friends. Let us summon up, as we have before, the ``better angels of our nature'' and rededicate ourselves to the hard work of leadership. Washington is indeed broken. Let's hurry up and fix it together.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his leadership and I certainly share your desire to lighten the burden on this high-value-added industry. We need to ensure that all of the manufacturing jobs, all of the job and economic growth opportunities that we can help create an environment for, a nurturing environment for, that we do. One thing that I hear as I travel around southeastern Indiana and listen to my constituents, there's a lot of feedback about the level of uncertainty within our economy. There's regulatory uncertainty, there's uncertainty about future tax rates, and there's uncertainty about energy rates and health care costs. And so these medical device manufacturers are certainly laboring under the burden of uncertainty with respect to the FDA regulatory process. And then here we add an additional excise tax to their bottom line. And so I'm happy to support H.R. 436, which would lighten that burden. I don't think probably many people appreciate--I certainly didn't appreciate it until I started looking into it--exactly how burdensome this device tax could be on the medical device industry. The tax is 2.3 percent of gross sales. So that's a top-line tax before all the other deductions and costs come out. So, essentially, that would translate into about 15 percent taxation on profits of many of these medical device companies. You add that 15 percent profit tax to 35 percent corporate tax and the 5 percent tax when you add together the State and the local corporate tax burden, and you're north of 50 percent of tax on profits. So it's no wonder that so many of these device makers are instead deciding to expand their operations or start up new operations overseas. And we have to do what we can to prevent that. Now, in my home State of Indiana, approximately 40 percent of all life sciences sector jobs are related to this devices industry, this high value-added industry that improves the lives of so many patients and certainly all the workers who work at these companies. My district, in particular, has some employers that we'd like to keep around, like the Cook Group in Bloomington, my hometown. And then as we head further south to Jeffersonville, Indiana, we have MedVenture. And there are people everywhere in between that work at this company. The tax impact is going to burden not just the large companies, however. There are 300-plus FDA-approved medical device manufacturers in the State of Indiana. And as my colleague from Minnesota just indicated, they're all searching for financing. They're searching for venture capital to bring their fledgling operations to the next level. So a Cook Group could probably weather this storm and figure out some way to remain profitable, but it's the next Cook of the world, the next tinkerer in their garage or their spare bedroom that may not be able to grow their business and create the jobs that our constituents are all demanding should this device tax go into effect January 1 of next year as it's currently scheduled to do. The regulatory challenges which I've already mentioned are also very important. They must be addressed separately. I know there's separate legislation out there to do that, and I will be supporting that initiative as well. But the bottom line here is that there are jobs at stake and there are people's lives at stake as well. We heard very powerful testimony from Sheila Fraser. Her name has been mentioned here before. She is an outstanding young lady, a high school student, who at a very young age contracted cancer, and she was going to have to have her leg amputated. And because of the ingenuity and the entrepreneurship of people in my home State of Indiana, they were able to put together a company and sell these products and develop a product that benefited Sheila Fraser directly. And now she's living a very productive life, and she has both of her legs, thank the Lord. And we need other people to benefit from similar sorts of innovations in the future. I am most proud to be here to speak on behalf of H.R. 436. I urge my colleagues to sign on to this legislation and to vote in favor of it.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise along with Congressman Mike Pence to honor the life and legacy of Professor Harve Rawson. Harve Rawson was greatly talented and abundantly generous. He earned a bachelor of arts in psychology from Antioch College, and went on to earn a master of arts and doctorate in research psychology at Ohio State University. For thirty-two years Dr. Rawson served as a professor of psychology at Hanover College, and later served as dean of faculty at Franklin College. He was the first two-time winner of the Baynham Teaching Award, and he was named the Mary E. Hamilton Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Hanover College. Dr. Rawson was a two-time Fulbright Scholar in psychology and also spent a year teaching at the College of Health Sciences in Bahrain. His great passion for traveling also took him to more than 100 countries and all seven continents. Throughout his long and storied career, he authored dozens of research articles, gave more than 500 professional presentations, and wrote nine books about his personal experience and interests. His list of accolades and recognitions include being named a Malone Scholar, a Sagamore of the Wabash by the State of Indiana, a Kentucky Colonel, a Citizen of the Year by the National Association of Social Workers, and a Distinguished Academic Psychologist by the Indiana Psychological Association. Dr. Rawson was also awarded the Golden Quill Award for Outstanding Research and the Outstanding Community Service Award for Psychologists. But beyond his many academic achievements, Harve Rawson was known as a generous leader who truly possessed a servant's heart. He founded Englishton Park Children's Program, a short-term residential program for at-risk children, where he served as director for 25 years. He was also a founding and long-time board member of the Jefferson County Youth Shelter in Madison, Indiana. Mr. Rawson was a four-time president of the Lide White Boys and Girls Club Board of Directors, a long-time member of the Board of Directors of Englishton Park Presbyterian Ministries, Inc., and a member of the Big Brothers Big Sisters board. His impact on the community will forever be remembered by the many lives he touched during his lifetime of service. We offer our deepest condolences to his sons Paul and Reed, his brother John, his sister Margaret, and his four grandchildren. During this difficult time, we pray you find solace in faith and family.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with Hilltop Resources, a concrete company that has a presence in my southern Indiana district. They were here to talk about how the new Cement MACT regulations would affect their business and their workforce. Their cost of production would go up 7 to 10 percent--a huge hit for any business. They would have to import more of their raw materials from places like China--materials that are of a lesser quality. And those increased costs would require them to scale back their American workforce at a time when we need them to expand. We cannot keep letting the EPA impose these burdensome and job- crushing regulations without any concern for how they affect our constituents. When we take up H.R. 2681 later today, we have the chance to help an industry that has already been hit hard by the recession. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Speaker, we need to cut spending now. We need to control spending in the future. But the American people understand that our foremost constitutional duty here in Congress is to make sure that America is safe. Former Secretary Gates said that further cuts to our military will mean that there are certain things our military won't be able to do and places they won't be able to go. This proposal, the Reid-Obama plan, proposes cutting defense spending by $859 billion over 10 years compared to the President's fiscal year 2011 budget. Yet the President and Senator Reid have not told us what places we won't be going and what missions we won't be doing. This is irresponsible. I can't support this proposal.