Floor Statements

Rarely are the goals of our country as aligned as they are now. Clearly we need economic recovery with good jobs and with good benefits for those who frankly right now have a problem with unemployment. As it turns out, we also have the goal of increasing our energy security and, lastly, a goal of protecting our environment. Now, let's just go through these in order.

As regards jobs, let's just talk about the oil and gas industry. The President, the administration's estimates of the economic impact of the moratorium and the permitorium are hundreds of thousands of jobs lost and about $2.5 billion in lost economic activity.

This is not just the gulf coast and it is not just the oil rig workers. It is also those who work on pipelines. It is boat builders. Indeed, as it turns out, one of the boat builders in Louisiana is the largest customer worldwide of Caterpillar engines. An engine that is built in the State of Illinois using steel from the Midwest is used on the coast of Louisiana to build boats to service those rigs. Needless to say, those Caterpillar engines are not now being ordered. That steel order going to Caterpillar to build these is not being done. So the jobs that ripple out are not just in the gulf coast, but go all the way across the country.

We also have a goal to increase our energy security. Prior to Macondo, one-third of the domestically produced oil in the United States came from the Outer Continental Shelf. Since we have limited further exploration, we have lost that potential to increase our domestic supply of energy, to increase our security, to insulate us, if you will, from those issues in North Africa which are currently driving up our fuel prices.

Lastly, we have a goal to protect our environment. Oh, we all care about that. In Louisiana, we particularly care about that. We do not take this for granted. But in Louisiana, we realize you have to be both pro-business as well as pro-environment, and we take that very seriously.

So what are the facts on this? The President right after the Macondo bill appointed a blue ribbon commission from the National Academy of Engineering. These engineers that the President picked said that the causes of the oil spill are identifiable and correctable and that a prolonged moratorium will not, will not, will not appreciably improve safety.

So what we have seen since, though, is not a recommendation that the President's blue ribbon commission is right, but rather a regulatory hurdle set upon regulatory hurdle set upon regulatory hurdle. Now we have a notice to lessees which demands that which this amendment also demands, so we are going to have not just a notice to lessees, but we are going to have this amendment on top of it. At some point your hostility to an industry becomes hostility to workers, becomes hostility to our energy security and, frankly, becomes a hostility to our environment.

I oppose this amendment. I think it is bad for our workers, I think it is bad for our economy, and I think it is bad for our environment.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 265, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Stated against:

Thank you, Dr. Gingrey.

Now, Dr. Gingrey, I'm struck. Sometimes folks think that when we speak about health care, we're only speaking about health care. That seems kind of a simplistic statement. But let's think about it.

Right now, States are having these huge budget crises. We see in Wisconsin where there's a protest. We see in some States where there may be as much as a $10 billion budget deficit. In my State of Louisiana, there is a $1 billion to $2 billion budget deficit. And if you think about this a little bit deeply, you understand that this can be related to health care.

Now, specifically, for Medicaid. Medicaid, for those watching who are unfamiliar with it, is a combined program in which the State puts up some money and the Federal Government puts up some of the money, and with this it is used to care for the elderly, for pregnant women, for children, typically people of low income. Well, as it turns out, it is this program which is bankrupting the States. In a State, if you're paying this amount for health care and this amount for roads and this amount for education, as the amount for health care increases, you either raise taxes or you decrease spending on the other areas. Now, as it turns out, this has had tremendous impact.

Today, the Governor of Massachusetts came and spoke to one of our committees regarding the impact of their health care program, which is very similar to the bill just passed last Congress, in Massachusetts, and I was struck by what a nice view he gave. If you heard Governor Patrick speak--I didn't have a chance to ask him questions, but if you heard him speak, there's no problems with it whatsoever. But as I logged on and, say, read the Boston Globe, I learned different things.

First, I learned that Massachusetts, which has already implemented a program like this, the amount of money spent on health care has gone from 21 percent of the State budget in the year 2000 to 37 percent now. So from 21 percent to 37 percent is the amount the State of Massachusetts is now spending on health care. Well, you can only imagine the crowd-out effect that has on spending for other issues.

Well, the Governor again, as he went on and praised their program, said that there has been no problems paying for it. Well, as it turns out, and according to the paper, there's about a $1.5 billion to $2 billion shortfall in the Massachusetts budget. And in Massachusetts, the Governor of Massachusetts has said that the Medicaid spending is unsustainable. Hmm, that's different. So this is, if you will, the beta version of the Affordable Care Act--or as I call it, the unaffordable care act. This is the beta version of it, but it gives us an idea of what our future is going to be like.

Now, in order to deal with these costs--again, I'm quoting the Globe--it says that ``most recently dental benefits have been slashed for hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts Medicaid patients and they have lost access to their dentists.''

Now, by the way, the goals of health care reform are to provide affordable, quality health care that is accessible to all; but if you can't afford it, you eventually lose access. And I think what we found in Massachusetts is that the inability to afford is, of course, decreasing access. And it's not just the fact that these folks lost access to their dentists. Last year, folks who are recent immigrants to the United States who have been enrolled upon Medicaid in Massachusetts were disenrolled. So, if you will, this Massachusetts Medicaid program that has grown from 21 percent of the Massachusetts budget to 37 percent and still growing, now the cost is being controlled by denying access.

Now, we also mentioned a third goal of health care reform, which is quality care. You know, there's actually now concerns about the quality of health care afforded by Medicaid. If you will, there's a study recently reported in the Archives of Surgery in which someone looked at the outcomes of patients covered by Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance, or uninsured. As it turns out, they say, of all four groups, the cost and length of stay associated with Medicaid was longer than the rest.

Also, mortality rates--now, that's a way to say how many people die. Mortality rates associated with uninsured, Medicare, private insurance, and Medicaid was highest for Medicaid. So if you had Medicaid, you had a higher death rate from your hospitalization than if you're on private insurance, if you're on Medicare, and if you're uninsured.

Now, it's so counterintuitive that being on Medicaid is worse than being uninsured in terms of outcomes. Clearly, this is an issue that has to be studied further, but it certainly calls into question the very premise of using Medicaid as the basis for health care reform.

Just to make a point, under the Affordable Care Act--or the unaffordable care act--many people are insured; 20 million Americans are put on Medicaid as a way for them to be now insured.

And yet if we see that it's bankrupting States, it's clearly not affordable. If we see that because it's not affordable States are now denying access to care, as is the case in Massachusetts, and the care that is provided is of problematic quality, we can say to ourselves that this is not the basis for reform. It's like the antithesis of reform.

So I will yield back to you, Dr. Gingrey, just pointing out that this not only involves health care but also involves our ability as a State to afford other things, like roads and education. And to use that State government-Federal Government program as a basis for reform does not serve patients, does not serve the States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Dalton Vernon Martin, Chief Petty Officer, United States Navy (Ret.), and Sherriff's Deputy, East Baton Rouge Sherriff's Department, who passed away on January 23, 2011.

Born in St. Francisville, Louisiana on November 11, 1921, Mr. Martin first excelled as a high school boxer, compiling a record of 63 victories in 65 bouts. He dedicated that resolve and fighting spirit towards serving and defending his country, enlisting in the U.S. Navy to fight in World War II and the Korean War, including the Pacific battles of the Gilbert and Marshall Islands, Tarawa, and Okinawa.

After a distinguished 38 year career in the Armed Forces, Mr. Martin retired from active duty and embarked on a new mission of service as a Deputy of the East Baton Rouge Sherriff's office. Here, Mr. Martin spent 23 years protecting his fellow citizens and upholding the rule of law.

Mr. Martin lived a life of service, but he never sought to label himself as the hero he truly was. He spoke honestly and openly about the fear and sadness that are inseparable from the glory and honor of serving in combat. He was grateful for the opportunities afforded by his service to visit the farthest reaches of the world, but he served for no other reason than to defend his country and one day return home to his beloved Louisiana.

If the measure of a person is by what they leave behind, then Mr. Martin sets a standard to which we should all aspire. His life's story is yet another testament to the strength and legacy of the Greatest Generation. And for his wife, Christy, his children, Paul, John and Susan, and his grandchildren, Erin, Tristan, Madeleine, Jack, Lauren and Caroline, his spirit and legacy live on. The country he helped to preserve as the greatest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world remains forever grateful.

Mr. Speaker, I discuss this bill as a doctor who has been treating the uninsured for 20 years.

Now, opponents of repeal argue that this gives Americans insurance, but what in truth it often gives is Medicaid. Now, Medicaid is a Federal-State program, which is often called ``welfare medicine,'' and it is a program which is destroying State budgets.

Last spring, the New York Times spoke about how this has implications for patient care. They spoke of a woman on Michigan Medicaid with metastatic cancer who could not find an oncologist because Michigan Medicaid had been cut so much because of Michigan's budget problems.

Carol died a week after the article. That's Medicaid.

Now, the supporters of the ObamaCare bill believe that more people on Medicaid is good. Republicans disagree because what happened in Michigan is happening across the Nation.

Last year, before this bill was passed, 20 States cut Medicaid payments, and 39 cut provider payments. This is threatening to bankrupt them. Now imagine what happens when their rolls double. Mandating that 16 million more Americans get put on Medicaid is not health care; it is a way around State budgets. It is the illusion of coverage for patients.

Let's repeal this law and pass real reform.

``But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper, and the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise today in support of House Resolution 1645, expressing support for designation of the week beginning on November 8, 2010, as National School Psychology Week.

National School Psychology Week takes place from November 8 to November 12 this year. Recognizing National School Psychology Week promotes the importance of providing support for students to help to create a healthy, safe, and positive learning environment and to help remove academic and personal barriers to students' success.

The role of school psychologists is diverse. School psychologists may help deliver mental health services as well as academic support. These individuals may also help to assess students to determine what learning barriers they face and how best to address those barriers.

The theme of this year's National School Psychology Week is ``today is a good day to shine.'' This theme focuses on highlighting the positive work school psychologists do to promote students' academic and personal success. We recognize National School Psychology Week to show our support for the efforts school psychologists make to create a healthy, safe, and positive learning environment. I stand in support of this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4072, the American Manufacturing Efficiency and Retraining Investment Collaboration Act, or the AMERICA Works Act.

H.R. 4072 amends provisions in the Workforce Investment Act, or WIA, and in the Perkins Career and Technical Education Act to highlight industry-recognized credentialing, especially those in high-demand professions.

This bill would require One-Stop Career Centers to give priority to training programs that result in participants receiving an industry- recognized credential for a high-demand profession in the locality these centers serve. This bill also requires schools to include in their career and technical education plans a description of how the Career and Technical Education Program will assist students in earning an industry-recognized credential or certification.

This bill makes some positive steps towards encouraging students and job seekers to pursue training that leads to industry-recognized credentials which could increase participants' chances of obtaining a job in a given profession.

However, H.R. 4072 amends only a very small portion of the Workforce Investment Act, which is 8 years overdue for reauthorization. This bill would amend a provision without reauthorizing other important aspects of the law. Considering these changes within the context of a larger reauthorization discussion is important to ensuring the future of the American workforce. We need to take a comprehensive approach to workforce development and not approach these problems in a piecemeal fashion.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the chairwoman's request to suspend the rules and pass S. 3839. The legislation provides a 4-month extension of all of these Small Business Administration's programs until January 31, 2011. This is a necessary measure as the extension we passed last July expires September 30.

America's small businesses are struggling in this tough economy. Employers are having a tough time accurately predicting costs and revenues, making them hesitant to hire new workers or to take steps to expand their businesses.

It is time to show our small business owners that we recognize and support the essential roles that they play in our economy. We can do so by approving this temporary extension of SBA programs, and then we must continue our work by crafting and implementing a more thoughtful and complete reauthorization of these critical programs.

Again, I support the chairwoman's request to pass S. 3839, and I urge all Members to vote for the measure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 540 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, supposedly today we unite to bring relief to gulf coast families. But I tell you, if you vote for this bill, there is no unity with gulf coast families. This bill actually prolongs the misery of the gulf coast. It kills jobs.

How does it do so? It raises taxes on domestic oil and gas but not on foreign. We're going to prejudice towards a foreign product. It's a reverse tariff. Call it a jobs program for OPEC.

Now the $22 billion that we raise, by the way, isn't to benefit the gulf. It's to buy parkland across the United States. So when everybody says we're going to raise $22 billion for the gulf, they're raising $22 billion for parklands across the United States.

And now we're going to raise the liability caps because we're going to stick it to Big Oil. We're not sticking it to Big Oil. What we're doing is we're sticking it to small and medium size independent producers who control 90 percent of the leases and, by the way, create 300,000 jobs. This bill kills jobs.

And what is most egregious is the ``Buy American'' provision. We're not only helping the gulf; we're patriotic. Oh, my gosh. But let's look at it.

We haven't built a deepwater rig from beginning to end in over 10 years in the United States. By June of 2011, we've got to create the infrastructure and put out the rigs in order to drill. Now what we do do here is the high value-added, high-tech buildup on top of the hull type job. Those are gone because we don't have the capability to build the hull.

This bill is supposed to help the Louisiana gulf coast. The Louisiana gulf coast says, ``Keep your help. We would rather have our jobs.''

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, in its current form.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, the gulf oil spill has been terrible for the gulf

coast. But as bad as it has been, the Federal Government's moratorium on deepwater drilling can be worse. And the tragedy of it is that it actually is not going to measurably improve safety.

Now, it's not me saying that, it's the entity, the National Academy of Engineering, eight of them, the President appointed them and asked them to approve and to look at his plan. They issued a statement after the blanket moratorium. These are the petroleum engineers. ``A blanket moratorium is not the answer. It will not measurably reduce risk. The tragedy has very specific causes. The blanket moratorium will have the indirect effect of harming thousands of workers and further impact State and local economies. We would in effect be punishing a large swath of people who were and are acting responsibly in providing a product the Nation needs. Overcome emotion with fact.''

What does that mean? Overcome emotion with fact. We're all angry. Everybody in here is angry at BP. Everybody in here in some way wants to punish those responsible.

On the other hand, it's not Big Oil being punished. It's not BP. It is the workers. It is the blue collar welders, roustabouts. It is the service industry. It is the caterers. They are the ones who are going to be punished.

And, by the way, the BP fund to recompense them is only $100 million. Estimated wages lost are $700 million. It is not going to come close to covering it. These people don't want an unemployment check. They want a paycheck.

In case you think I overestimate, these are the most conservative estimates of the economic impact. Over 8,000 jobs lost in the gulf coast, 12,000 nationwide, $700 million in lost wages, $2.1 billion in lost economic activity in the gulf coast, and nearly $2.7 billion lost nationwide.

Now, it's not just the President's engineers; it's also the President's cochairs of his Presidential commission. Bob Graham said-- former Senator from Florida--There is a disconnect between Washington and the gulf coast in the sense of urgency needed in winding down the moratorium.

Bill Reilly said, Questions were raised by witnesses. Unanimously, they opposed the moratorium, even among the fishermen.

Now, the other Reilly quote was, It is not clear to me why it should take so long to reassure oneself about safety considerations in those rigs.

So we have the engineers. We have the cochairmen of the Presidential commission. We also have a Federal judge. When the Federal judge threw out the first moratorium, he said, The administration simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the gulf region.

So we've heard from engineers. We've heard from the cochair. We've heard from a Federal judge. Most importantly, let's hear from the families.

Charlie Melancon earlier spoke movingly of families in his district who fear they will lose it all because of this moratorium. There are people who have walked up to me and said, Hey, I would be with you but my concern is my district won't understand. These people don't fear a district. They fear dissolution of their financial health. Think about it. These are blue-collar people who made decisions about buying a house, about buying a car. They're going to have a 6-month interruption in income. Can any one of those families tolerate 6 months of lost wages?

I ask you to overcome emotion with fact. Agree with the engineers, agree with the cochair, agree with the Federal judge, but, most importantly, agree with the families. End this moratorium now.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, a blanket moratorium is not the answer. It will not measurably reduce risk. It will have a lasting impact on the Nation's economy, which may be greater than that of the oil spill. We do not believe in punishing the innocent. Overcome emotion with logic. These are quotes from five engineers from the National Academy of Engineering who object to the President's moratorium.

This is not a drilling moratorium; it is a jobs moratorium. It is an assault on those most injured by the gulf oil spill. By some estimates, over 100,000 Americans--welders, pipe fitters, engineers, caterers, roustabouts--will lose their jobs because of this moratorium, decent, hardworking Americans.

Eleven thousand people yesterday filled the Cajun Dome in Lafayette, Louisiana, to protest the jobs moratorium. They're begging that politics be put aside, the President listen to the scientists, and let the workers return to work supplying our Nation's energy needs.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Magnolia Mound Plantation located in the City of Baton Rouge in Louisiana's Sixth Congressional District. It gives me great pleasure to announce that as of May 10th, 2010 the Plantation has achieved national accreditation by the American Association of Museums, joining an impressive and elite group of only 778 institutions around the country to achieve this distinguished accreditation.

Magnolia Mound Plantation has successfully demonstrated that it meets the high standards established by the accreditation program and the museum field. It has done this through its completion of a rigorous process of self study and reviews by a visiting committee of its peers and the Accreditation Commission. The accreditation process certifies a museum's commitment to excellence and professional standards of operation.

Located in Baton Rouge, the capital of Louisiana, Magnolia Mound Plantation is a rare survivor of architecture influenced by early settlers from France and the West Indies. This landmark is unique in southern Louisiana not simply because of its age, quality of restoration, or outstanding collections, but because it is still a vital part of the community. Through educational programs, workshops, lectures, festivals, and other special events, Magnolia Mound's mission is to illustrate and interpret the lifestyle of the French Creoles who formed the fascinating culture which still influences and pervades life in southern Louisiana today. With this accreditation, I can only hope that Magnolia Mound Plantation will continue to be an asset to our community.