Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, here we are 20 months removed from December 2010 when we last had this debate, 20 months removed from when the President, 91 current House Democrat Members, and 39 sitting Democratic Senators all agreed that our economy couldn't survive a new round of tax increases; 20 months removed from unemployment of 8.9 percent that has continued, quarterly GDP growth of just 2\1/2\ percent; and 20 months from a President who proclaimed it wasn't wise policy to raise taxes during a recession.

Well, what has changed, Mr. Speaker? Not much. Unemployment is still over 8 percent, GDP growth has actually worsened to 1.5 percent, and politicians and Presidents from both sides of the aisle are, once again, saying it is not wise economic policy to increase taxes.

Yet one thing has changed. Earlier this summer, the President reversed his decision, decided our economy had undergone some sort of significant improvement and called for massive tax increases on American small businesses, a call which Senate Democrats responded to and which, according to independent analysis, would shrink our economy by 1.3 percent.

The rhetoric used to advocate for increasing taxes by the other side is the same populist grandstanding we have been hearing for years: everyone needs to pay their fair share.

We need to increase taxes on those millionaires and billionaires.

Only 3 percent of America's job creators will be affected.

Well, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once famously said:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but everyone is

not entitled to their own facts.

Just like before, none of the claims made by my friends on the other side are supported by fact but, instead, only by campaign commercial- made opinion.

Here are the facts by independent analysis. According to the independent Joint Committee on Taxation, 900,000 small businesses will be subject to these higher taxes, 53 percent of small business income would be hit by these tax increases, 710,000 fewer jobs in America if this tax increase is implemented. And investments, many of which senior citizens live on, dividend income, will increase by as high as 40 percent with this tax increase.

Simply put, there is no bigger ``pants on fire'' argument than that being put forward by our President proclaiming that these proposed tax increases would only affect 3 percent of our Nation's small businesses.

Now, look, the decision is very clear. We can vote ``no'' on both of the proposals, H.R. 8 and H.R. 6169, to follow the President and the Senate Democrats towards a vision that has been proven to cost our economy jobs and growth, or we can alternatively vote ``yes'' on these two proposals which will ensure that the Bush-Obama tax rates stay in effect for a year and we get the comprehensive tax reform we're looking for.

Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4402, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act.

Many Americans might not be aware, but our country is facing a crisis when it comes to rare earth elements. These naturally occurring elements are vital to our national security because they are essential components in defense weapon systems. However, their importance does not end there. Everyday items that Americans are accustomed to, such as cell phones and computers, require rare earth elements. Our energy infrastructure is dependent on these resources, including: pipelines, refining capacity, electrical power generation and transmission, and renewable energy production. Strategic and critical minerals are also used to support the manufacturing, agriculture, housing, and telecommunications industries. Even medical equipment utilizes these elements.

During the 1960s and continuing to the 1980s, America was the premiere leader in rare earth element production. However, since then production has moved almost exclusively to China. They now produce about 97 percent of rare earth oxides, are the single exporter of commercial quantities of rare earth refined metals, and are the manufacturer of the world's strongest magnets.

What is most disturbing is that China appears to be cutting its rare earth exports and restricting other countries access to these resources. America has become almost totally dependent on China for rare earth elements, and we have lost our domestic capacity to tap into our own supply.

Madam Chair, this House has had lengthy debates about how onerous red-tape and regulations are hurting our country's economy. Unfortunately, over-regulation is hurting our ability to produce rare earth elements. Frivolous lawsuits and a maze of a permitting process have caused America to no longer be a leader in rare earth element manufacturing. H.R. 4402, corrects this problem. This legislation will allow our country to more efficiently develop these essential resources.

The National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act will cut red-tape and streamline the permitting process to begin a mineral production project which can currently take over a decade. This bill will require the permitting review process to be completed within 30 months. Additionally, the legislation ensures projects are not indefinitely delayed by litigation by setting time limits to file legal challenges to mining projects.

Overall, this legislation would require the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to better help develop our rare earth elements here at home.

Madam Chair, this bill is vital to our national security and our economy, and I urge its swift passage.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise and offer a few facts. You know, there's been a lot of opinion going around here today, and we're all entitled to our own opinion, but we're not entitled to our own facts.

President Obama famously said: ``If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan, period.'' The Congressional Budget Office released the fact that 20 million people are expected to lose their health insurance coverage if this law stands--20 million Americans who currently have health insurance will lose it under this plan: Fact. Why? Because of bad provisions in the bill.

Seventy-one out of the Fortune 100 companies will save $422 billion by eliminating their employer-provided coverage and opt instead to pay the $2,000 per-employee penalty instead. It incentivizes bad behavior, precisely the opposite of the stated goal.

Another claim the President repeated was: ``Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of any tax increase.'' Yet the only reason ObamaCare was found constitutional, the primary reason that Chief Justice Roberts--joining with Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, along with Sonia Sotomayor--upheld the individual mandate is under Congress' taxing authority. The truth is 76 percent of those paying this new individual mandate tax in 2016 will in fact be individuals who make only $59,000, or a family of four who makes $120,000--far below the threshold, the promise, and the guarantee of President Obama's $250,000.

Finally, my friends on the other side of the aisle claimed health care spending would rise by a mere bargain of only $938 billion--there was much to-do, I remember, about then Speaker announcing it was below $1 trillion--yet the Congressional Budget Office has updated their number to cost $1.8 trillion just this next decade. For those reasons and more, we need to repeal this bill.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the repeal of the 2.3 percent medical device tax created in the health care law.

This tax will have a devastating impact on jobs, estimated to be over 1,200 job losses in the State of Illinois, which already has an unemployment rate higher than the national average. Instead of working on policies that will incentivize economic growth, this tax will stunt it while adversely affecting small businesses and local communities.

Not far from my hometown is Canton, Illinois, an example of what can happen when device manufacturers partner with small communities. In May of 2013, Cook Polymer Technology, a raw material manufacturer, announced plans to open a second plant in Canton, Illinois, a town with a population of just under 15,000. These two facilities jump-started Canton's economy, leading to the creation of over 100 new well-paying jobs.

This partnership also led to a full percentage point drop in Canton's unemployment rate. According to Canton's mayor, private developers are now building more homes than at any time in the last 15 years combined in this little town's history. None of this would have been possible without Cook's decision to invest in Canton. Unfortunately for Canton, the looming medical device tax has already resulted in Cook's decision against building a new factory in the United States.

This tax will lead to future job losses as companies decide to close or cut back on their operations in R&D work. Communities like Canton will see their recent economic gains stalled, and it is why it is imperative that Congress repeal this device tax before job losses are realized and America finds it is no longer the leader in medical device technologies.

I urge passage of this bill and the repeal of the tax.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 48 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 7, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

First, let me say thank you to my good friend from the great State of Washington for his cooperation in allowing me to offer this amendment at this time.

This amendment specifically dedicates $16 million within the Office of Rural Health to expand the current rural veterans' access to covered health services through qualifying non-VA health providers to a new area within each VISN they currently operate and new VISNs altogether. This

came about in talking to veterans who live, in many cases, hours away from the qualified VA facility. It expands a very popular program within the VA that allows these veterans who are in need of health services to visit an approved health care provider closer to them, limiting their cost, the time and travel required to get their needed benefits.

At this time, I yield to my friend from Illinois, Congressman Schilling, who's been working tirelessly on this effort of expanding health care for rural veterans.

With that, I would just say I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to increase funding for rural health care.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By Mr. Schock

Amendment No. 9: Page 28, line 23, insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(reduced by $16,000,000) (increased

by $16,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my distinguished chairman yielding time.

I can understand why the American people are frustrated. We have a President who, from day one, campaigned on raising taxes, raising taxes, then became the President of the United States, and his party in the House and his party in the Senate, they've talked about raising taxes. All the while, we've had a down economy. All the while, we've had unemployment above 8 percent. Yet the interesting thing is that, when the same Democratic Party controlled the House of Representatives and controlled the United States Senate for 2 years, they decided not to implement the Buffett tax.

They decided not to increase taxes on Americans.

Why? Because they know what we know and they know the truth, and that is that raising taxes will hurt the economy, that raising taxes is not what you do when you want to put people back to work. It's bad policy. It's why a year ago, despite all the rhetoric against the Bush tax cuts, despite all the rhetoric against the '01 and '03 rates, this same majority in the United States Senate and this same President said-- what? President Obama said, Now is not the time to increase taxes on any American. A year ago.

If that were good policy a year ago, I might submit to you that it's good policy today. I don't know many Americans who believed a year ago that the economy was in any worse of a situation than it is in today. Raising taxes is not good policy on any American. If ever there were a starker contrast between the two visions for America, if ever there were a starker contrast between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party's visions on how to get the economy going, it is what's happening today in Washington, D.C.

Across this hallway, in the United States Senate, they are attempting to raise taxes on America's small businesses--yes, pass-through entities that pay a rate and take that capital away from them and their ability to invest in capital, in their ability to hire workers. Here in the House of Representatives, we are trying to do the opposite. We're saying that we're listening to these job creators, that we're listening to these people who actually do the hiring.

Do you know what they're saying? Their access to capital is drying up, and the cash in their bank accounts doesn't quite meet their needs each month. They need more capital to be able to go out and hire people. They need more capital to be able to go out and buy equipment.

So that's what this targeted tax cut is. It's not for the big corporations. It's targeted at people who have fewer than 500 employees. And guess what? You can have whatever opinion you want on the political ideology. You can't have your own facts, and the facts are these:

Over the last 2 years, seven out of 10 jobs created in this country were created by people who employ fewer than 500 people, the very people this tax bill is targeted at. Second, you can't throw up your hands and wonder why America's job creators are not hiring, why unemployment continues to be above 8 percent for the longest time in our country's history while at the same time advocating policies that will drive a stake into the heart of our economy and our small businesses.

This tax policy targeted at America's small businesses will give them the capital they need to stay in business, to hire those additional workers, to invest in additional capital, and maybe even to prevent layoffs, maybe even to prevent somebody from having to go on the unemployment line. It is the right policy. I wish that our friends on the other side of the aisle would embrace the policy that they had a year ago, which is that tax increases on any American is a bad policy in a down economy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of an exceptional young person whose character and accomplishments during his short life of 15 years merit commendation. Chris Canning was an honor student, musician, athlete, humanitarian, and elite martial artist.

In addition to achieving the status of First Degree Black Belt in Taekwondo in only 4 years and playing baseball, basketball and football for his high school, Chris found time to volunteer in his community of Maroa, Illinois, delivering food and clothing to those in need and working in an animal shelter.

Chris has been honored for his service to others and excellence in martial arts by the United Nations Youth Assembly, the World Martial Arts Hall of Fame, the United States Olympic Committee, and the USA Taekwondo Martial Arts Commission, among many others. Despite all of these accolades, the qualities that Chris's family and friends most associate with him were humility and a commitment to service above self. His pursuit in each of life's endeavors, in and out of the martial arts, was to give more than he received, not to gain praise or honor, but to share achievement with others and to set aside his own desires in order to help those less fortunate. His greatest satisfaction came from being there when needed and making a difference.

He was a sincere friend and loving son, and he is missed by all who knew him. His legacy lives on through the Chris Canning Foundation and Awards Program, which has been given to 77 youths from around the world who exemplify the strength of character and excellence that Chris possessed.

It is my honor to recognize the legacy of this exceptional young man from Central Illinois today.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today to offer an amendment with my good friend and colleague, Mrs. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia.

Our amendment is simple. It requires the EPA to consider the impact of new agriculture jobs and the economy before issuing new rules and regulations. A similar amendment to the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act passed this House in July, and it enjoyed broad bipartisan support.

My amendment today says if jobs and the economic well-being of farmers would be negatively impacted, the EPA will be required to hold public hearings in the impacted State. It would also require the EPA to notify the State's Governor, legislature, and congressional delegation. It would also require that the EPA post its analysis of the negative job impact on its Web site, request the Secretary of Agriculture to do the same, and request the Governor of that State to post similar analysis on the State capital's Web site.

I don't believe this is too much to ask. We are simply asking the EPA to calculate the number of jobs lost and the economic impact on the agricultural community with a new rule that would do such. If its calculation turns out to be detrimental, we want the EPA to let our Nation's farmers know before it implements additional red tape and new regulations.

We expect the bureaucrats in the EPA here in Washington, D.C. to go out into the real world and understand the impact of the rules that they are implementing, that they are suggesting, and that have a real effect on farmers who are trying to run their operations across America and are helping to feed the world's population.

This past weekend, the Illinois Farm Bureau, in my home State, had its annual meeting. It conducted a survey of the thousands of farmers who participated in that convention, and it asked them an open-ended question:

What posed the biggest threat to their future profitability as family farmers? Was it input costs? lower commodity prices? land prices? commodity price swings?

No. Their answer, overwhelmingly, was government regulation.

Dale Hadden, who is a farmer from Jacksonville, Illinois, recently told me: ``The thought of the EPA continuing to place more regulations on my farming operation is unfounded. My family prides itself on being environmental stewards and making our farm better for the next generation. We do it better here than in any other place in the world.''

Jamie Schaffer, another farmer from my district, in Princeville, Illinois, told me:

``The EPA over-regulation has the potential to shut us down. We wouldn't be able to farm with modern equipment. Livestock walks across the field and creates dust when it's dry out. We need to take regulators out to our farms and personally show them there's no way around dust or dirt. It's just a natural part of the environment.''

Let's let Dale, Jamie, and other farmers in our country continue to do what they do best. Let the EPA bureaucrats understand first, before they implement a new rule, what kind of effect, if any, it will have negatively on jobs and the economy throughout our country.

I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time remains?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would respond to my friend from California with a couple points.

First of all, we did have the opportunity to apply a similar rule to the entire bureaucracy. We passed that yesterday. It's called the REINS Act.

But with regard to specifically pointing out agency by agency, a similar amendment passed earlier this year to the clean water bill, the Clean Water Act, that had bipartisan support, and I would certainly hope that this amendment would as well.

To the concern about expense, I can't imagine what's more expensive than putting Americans out of work. I can't think of what's more expensive than asking American farmers to come up with more cash and more expenses because of bureaucrats' new rules in Washington, D.C.

Finally, this does not prohibit the agency from doing anything. It just requires the agency to know what they're doing, the impact on jobs, and that to be known by the farmers, the State, the congressional delegation, and certainly the bureaucrats at the EPA.

With that, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 125th Anniversary of Congregation Agudas Achim in Peoria, Illinois.

Agudas Achim was founded in 1886 by a group of 18 settlers in Peoria as the first Traditional Orthodox Jewish Congregation in that part of the country. In the following decades, Agudas Achim grew to be the largest Traditional Jewish Congregation in Illinois outside of Chicago.

Since its founding, Agudas Achim has had a physical presence in many parts of the City of Peoria, constantly expanding its facilities to meet the needs of its growing congregation. From the South Side to North Peoria, Agudas Achim has put down deep roots in the city.

Throughout its long history, Agudas Achim has weathered many challenges and changing times, but it continues in its mission to serve the Traditional Jewish community in Central Illinois through assembly, study, and prayer. I congratulate the leaders and members of the congregation on this significant anniversary.

First, I thank the chairman for his leadership in support of these agreements.

Let me say I agree with the President. The passage of the Colombia, Panama, and South Korea trade agreements will mean 250,000 new jobs at a time when our economy needs them most. But these trade agreements, Mr. Speaker, aren't just about new jobs. They're about the millions of Americans who rely on new markets and new customers. In my district in central Illinois alone, Illinois' farmers depend on customers in South Korea, in Panama, and in Colombia. And when the United States of America does nothing, we lose market share.

Five years ago, when this agreement was negotiated, Colombians purchased 60 percent of their wheat from the United States' farmers. Today, that number is 30 percent. It's costing jobs and it's costing opportunity here in our country. In manufacturing in my home area, Caterpillar, one of the major manufacturers of our country, employs a lot of high-wage union jobs, manufacturing jobs. Eight out of 10 of the tractors that are built in my district are sent to other customers around the world. With only 5 percent of the world's population in this country, it takes a pretty defeatist mentality to believe that our country would be better off not selling to the other 95 percent of the world.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives will pass a jobs bill, a jobs bill that can pass the House, a jobs bill that can pass the Senate, and a jobs bill, Mr. Speaker, that the President of the United States has already said he will sign into law. And this jobs bill, Mr. Speaker, does not require a tax increase. This jobs bill does not require us to go into debt. And this jobs bill has bipartisan support and is good

not only for current Americans, but more importantly, it's good for future Americans and the future generation of America.

I urge passage of these three bills.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lincoln Magnet School in Springfield, Illinois for being named a 2011 National Blue Ribbon award winner in high academic performance. Lincoln Magnet School was only one of 17 public and private schools in the state of Illinois and one of 304 schools nationwide to receive this prestigious honor.

Lincoln Magnet School serves 321 students in sixth, seventh and eighth grade. It incorporates technology in the classroom by providing each student with an individual laptop. The school has previously been recognized as an Apple Distinguished School, one of a select number of schools nationwide to receive that elite honor. Their vision is to ``prepare students to be outstanding global citizens in an ever- changing technological world.'' Lincoln Magnet School has not only met this goal, but has exceeded it.

Lincoln Magnet School is the type of institution more schools should emulate. Students at the school have also consistently demonstrated high academic performance--outscoring their peers at the state level in every category. For example, 95% of students in 2010 met the State of Illinois' benchmark in mathematics with 44% of students exceeding the benchmark. In reading, 96% of students achieved the reading benchmark and 33% exceeded it.

The staff and leadership of Lincoln Magnet School have also partnered with local agencies in order to offer numerous educational opportunities to their students. At a time when employers in my district lament the lack of skills in the workforce, I am proud to see schools such as Lincoln Magnet School utilize laptops, virtual lab experiences and other types of technology to better prepare their students for the technical demands of the future.

The one-to-one laptop environment present at Lincoln Magnet School offers students the ability to answer their own questions while also incorporating real-world experiences into the classroom. Virtual science laboratories make difficult concepts easier to understand. The prevalent use of different types of technology means a student never stops learning.

Once again, I congratulate the teachers, staff, students, parents and community members of Lincoln Magnet School for all of their hard work in achieving the National Blue Ribbon award.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the City of Peoria, Illinois' establishment of September 11th Remembrance Day on September 10th this year. In recognition of the 10th anniversary of the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the citizens of Peoria are dedicating September 10, 2011 to remember those who lost their lives on that day and the brave men and women who, despite the dangers, rushed to help others.

The images of the attacks on September 11th are seared into our national memory. Those who lived through that terrible day, in New York, Washington, DC and Pennsylvania, as well as in cities and towns across the nation, will always remember where they were when they heard that the United States was under attack. Two thousand eight hundred nineteen people lost their lives on that tragic day, and the citizens of Peoria honor them with this Day of Remembrance.

The tragedy of September 11th will never be forgotten, but neither should the spirit of unity brought about by countless acts of heroism on that day and in the days following; acts of ordinary Americans who found themselves in extraordinary circumstances and answered the call to help. It is in honor of those who died, but also of those who rushed into burning buildings, sacrificed themselves to protect countless others, and came from all across the country to offer assistance that residents of Peoria pause on the Day of Remembrance.

Abraham Lincoln, who once represented Central Illinois in this chamber, said on the battlefield at Gettysburg, ``it is from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion.'' We as Americans renewed our devotion to our national values in the wake of September 11th, values that unite rather than divide us. Through the establishment of this Day of Remembrance, Peoria residents continue their dedication to that same cause. This nation has endured many challenges, but the American people have always joined together to overcome them.

Therefore, in honor of the victims and heroes of September 11, 2001, I recognize Peoria, Illinois' establishment of September 11th Remembrance Day.

Mr. Speaker, the small town of Bradford, Illinois this month lost one of its most beloved residents. Bob Mowbray dedicated his life to actually living the words we utter so frequently about loving God and country. He first served his country in his youth, as a corporal in the Marines during the Korean conflict. After he returned home, he served his community in Bradford as the Postmaster for 36 years. He also was a loyal and active member for 58 years of the American Legion, Post #445.

When he was drafted by the Marines, he left behind a promising possible career as a big league pitcher. Even though he chose to return home instead of pursuing his baseball dreams, he never lost his passion for America's pastime.

Anyone who knew Bob knew about his unabashed love for sports, especially the Bears, the Bulls, and the White Sox. But what very few people knew--including those closest to him--was that he acted out his faith in God through his quiet charity. Bob wouldn't talk about it, but he was extremely generous, even giving money to support those he had never met.

Although he never had children of his own, all the children of Bradford--and even many in the surrounding towns--knew about Postmaster Mowbray. Bob brought in countless bags of candy over the years, always having a treat ready to slide over the counter to every kid who came in. And with that piece of candy would come a gentle nod and a warm smile.

Bob Mowbray was a man of few words, but he left a deep impression on many. He will be missed.