Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 109th Anniversary of the Ilinden Uprising. On August 2, 1903, the Macedonian people rose together to fight for their freedom. Today is a cause for true celebration.

The Ilinden Uprising's ideas were rooted in the ideals of the American and French Revolutions. The Macedonian people fought for an independent state, whose people would enjoy civil liberties and be free in their pursuit of happiness.

Macedonia's forefathers fought bravely for the Macedonian nationhood, and their dream became a reality in 1991, when the Republic of Macedonia became free, independent and sovereign.

I would also like to take a moment to congratulate the Macedonian- American community in my district, in New Jersey, and throughout the entire United States on the progress their homeland has achieved. Today marks the Anniversary of a huge step towards an independent Macedonia, and I am happy to support the Republic of Macedonia as it continues to move forward on its path to full NATO membership.

I am always pleased to recognize and commemorate historic occasions such as this one. As a proud member of the Congressional Caucus on Macedonia and Macedonian-Americans, I again commemorate the 109th Anniversary of the Ilinden Uprising in Macedonia.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, all Macedonian people, and me, in recognizing the 109th Anniversary of the Ilinden Uprising in Macedonia.

I thank the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, this bill makes it as clear as day just what the priorities of the majority are. Instead of working with us to shift the tax burden away from the middle class--who haven't gotten a raise in a long time--and small businesses, this bill does the exact opposite.

And for you to continue to say that this is going to be a burden across the board on small businesses is delusional. Ninety-seven percent of small businesses won't be affected by our bill.

To the antitax crusaders, this bill will raise taxes on the middle class--your bill--and working poor--your bill--by an average of $1,000. In New Jersey, this bill will make 3.2 million middle class and working poor families pay more taxes so that 231,400 millionaires can get a bigger tax cut.

It's as simple as that. You can shake your head all you want; those are the facts. This bill would add almost $1 trillion more to the deficit than the Democratic bill. My Lord, I don't hear you talk about that. I don't hear you say that. I wonder why? Just so that 0.3 percent of the taxpayers can get an average tax cut of over $74,000?

At least the last time the Republicans took this shortsighted, trickle-down approach, we had a $5.6 trillion surplus, thanks to Bill Clinton. In 2008, we were $11 trillion, over $11 trillion in debt. We quite simply can't afford to gives millionaires another tax break and make our children and our grandchildren foot the bill.

The proof is in the pudding. In 2000, when we first tried this supply side voodoo, unemployment was 4.2 percent. By 2008, it had doubled.

To those Members concerned with tax fairness: today, wealth concentrated with the top 1 percent is at the same level as the period immediately preceding the Great Depression. So you shrunk the middle class with your great economic ideas between 2001 and 2008, and what you did was made the rich richer. I salute you if that's what you think America is about. We are all job creators, not just the rich.

Mr. Chair, as Co-Chair of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force, I have spent the last eleven years I have fought for patients with brain injuries, both on and off the battlefield. We all know that traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the signature wound of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and while we made great progress on ensuring our soldiers have the best care, there is still more work to be done.

An Institute of Medicine study was released last week about the effects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on our troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am particularly concerned with the report's analysis of the Department of Defense's efforts to identify and treat PTSD. The 2010 Defense Authorization required this study as well as mandated the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to report a response to this report the relevant Committees by no later than January 1, 2013.

As this report shows, there is still more work to be done when it comes to caring for our soldiers suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The report notes that the prevalence of PTSD in 2.6 million service members who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan is at a staggering rate of 13% to 20%. This statistic points to the importance of finding better ways to identify and treat this ailment. The report's many recommendations include the need for the Department of Defense to collect data on the delivery and effectiveness of all prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitative services currently in use to determine

best practices, as well as ensuring that PTSD screening occurs once a year. The report also points out barriers to care faced by returning soldiers to accessing care.

It is clear that the Department of Defense must do more to ensure that soldiers who suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder are identified, the effectiveness of treatments are tracked, and that returning soldiers suffering from PTSD are encouraged to come out of the shadows. Making sure that funding for Defense Health programs and research into Post Traumatic Stress Disorder addresses the concerns raised in the IOM report is extremely important. This year's Defense Appropriations bill provides $125 million for traumatic brain injury and psychological health research, and $30 million for suicide prevention and outreach programs. We must continue to make the investments in these critical areas to ensure the health and safety of all our returning soldiers.

I hope that going forward, these recommendations will be factored into the research and funding undertaken by the Department of Defense- Defense Health Programs. With continued work and adequate funding for research and treatment for PTSD and TBI, I know our service members will be able to attain improved health outcomes, live more productive and satisfying lives, and ultimately, save our nation millions of dollars in future care costs.

Madam Speaker, Albert Einstein once said the definition of ``insanity''--and you've heard this before, Madam Speaker--is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Well, we've already voted over 30 times to repeal or restrict the Affordable Care Act, and here we are again, wasting time with politics instead of putting people back to work.

We're offering you the opportunity to help your constituents right now, Madam Speaker. You can defeat the previous question and take up the Bring the Jobs Home Act, which, for the first time, makes sure we promote insourcing of jobs and stops the corporate welfare for outsourcing jobs.

In the last decade, we have lost 5.5 million manufacturing jobs and 1.3 million back-office jobs. However, we have seen that the light of our economic recovery is powered by domestic production, not the outsourcing of jobs, and we've added over half a million manufacturing jobs in just the last 2 years.

There are some who think outsourcing is a good policy. In fact, they have made hundreds of millions doing just that.

I believe that the American Dream starts by creating good jobs right here in the United States, and that we should not outsource the American Dream to China or any other country.

This bill is very simple here. We're going to end the tax breaks that encourage companies to shift their jobs overseas, and use that to pay for tax credits for patriotic companies that want to bring jobs back home. That's pretty simple.

With all due respect, Madam Speaker, why are we wasting our time? The Supreme Court has ruled. The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land. If the law is repealed, according to a report by the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, employers would see health care costs grow by more than $3,000 a year, and premiums would be increased from 14 percent to 18 percent per year higher to those who want to buy insurance, and my home State of New Jersey would have 10,000 fewer jobs by the end of the decade.

Despite the rhetoric, the majority is yet to propose a replacement that will cover all of the people they want to throw off the health care rolls. And they continue to ignore the number one priority of the American people: creating jobs.

A week after the Fourth of July, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this motion and let the House vote on a patriotic American bill that will create jobs right here.

Mr. Speaker, on July 9, 2012, I missed the following rollcall votes of the day.

Had I been present I would have voted

1. Yes rollcall vote No. 452 H.R. 4155--Veteran Skills to Jobs Act

2. Yes rollcall vote No. 453. H.R. 4367--To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to limit the fee disclosure requirement for an automatic teller machine to the screen of that machine

3. Yes rollcall vote No. 454 H.R. 5892--Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2012

Personal Explanation

I ask unanimous consent to remove Congressman Harold Rogers and Congressman Rick Berg from H.R. 3238.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member. This bill repeals the 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices used in the United States that was originally enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act. Now let's talk straight to the American people. How many bills do we have to go through until you will admit that all you're doing is trying to bleed the legislation, which is now law in the United States, so that the resources are not there to carry out the mandate? No industry gets a free pass when it comes to health care reform. All sectors of the health care industry, from pharmaceutical companies to hospitals to drug manufacturers and the medical device industry, contributed to the cost of health reform and were at the table during these discussions. How different is that? They agreed to this.

In fact, in a letter to President Obama in 2009, the medical device industry pledged to do their part in lowering health spending by $2 trillion. What made them change their mind? They committed to making health care reform a reality. They put it in writing. It's all in--it's all in--to lower health care costs. Now we've had some kind of a moral change of sorts.

Many of these companies were present when it was discussed, and they understood the long term benefits. Thanks to health care reform, the medical device industry stands to gain a lot of customers and increase a lot of revenue. According to the RAND Corporation, an estimated 33 percent of newly insured adults will be of the age 50 64, an age group when many people will need medical devices. By bringing so many new people into the insurance market, the Affordable Care Act will provide patients the opportunity to access medical devices that save and improve their lives.

This bill that we have before us is not about patient care. It is not about saving money in our health care system. It's just another attempt by the majority to dismantle health care reform piece by piece. Repealing this provision from the Affordable Care Act once again undermines financing for the law and will unfortunately do more harm than good.

Unlike what happened in the previous 8 years, we want to pay for things so we don't get ourselves deeper into debt. You don't get it.

And to pay for this change, the majority once again returns to the true-up provision--how many times are you going to go there?--which only hurts the middle class, who receive needed subsidies to enter the health insurance market.

So here's what's going to happen in the health care bill: insurance companies gain a lot of new customers, adding to free enterprise. We're not against that. Medical device companies are going to get a lot of new customers, particularly in the age group which I mentioned before. We're not against free enterprise. But they agreed at the table, since they were all in, and they put it in writing, that they were willing to provide those lowering of costs of close to $2 trillion. You can't go back on a deal--let's call it that. An agreement--let's make it better.

I urge my colleagues to protect the Affordable Care Act. Vote ``no'' on this legislation. It will not bring us any closer to health care reform in this country.

I think that this is a very important amendment. We talked about reining in tax cheats, and that's what we're talking about here. Given the relationship between offshore tax avoidance--and we've seen chapter and verse of how people avoid taxes--I want everybody in this room to understand when they avoid taxes, that means those who pay taxes have to pay more to make up the difference. We're talking here about a billion dollars to help tackle the Nation's deficit and debt if we follow up on the specifics of this legislation.

We have tax avoidance, and I don't think anybody supports tax avoidance unless you like being taxed more yourself. Tax evasion, the actual attempts to avoid paying specific taxes--in other words, you know what the law is--evasion is a very conscious act, whether it's done by an individual or a business.

Money laundering, we have heard that phrase, which is referred to many practices and activities, that's serious business.

As my brother from Staten Island remembers, the FBI looks into a lot of money laundering. You worked for the FBI and did a stellar job. Money laundering is critical. When money is laundered, the average American gets hurt and the specific connection is very, very ominous.

This is a natural fit, Mr. Speaker, to combat financial crime.

Treasury could prohibit U.S. banks from accepting wire transfers or honoring credit cards from banks found to significantly hinder U.S. tax enforcement. We all support, I would hope, in this body, enforcement of the tax law. As much as we have derided the IRS and its efficiencies and proficiencies, think if we had fewer people in the IRS overseeing these transfers. I don't recommend that; I don't recommend that at all.

This amendment will give the Treasury greater power to fight against offshore tax havens and tax cheats. The counter-argument, my friend, through the Speaker, from New York, I want you to pay particular attention to this. This is my final point.

You can say you're giving the government more power. Why are we so frightened to give oversight to government? This is what got us into a big jam in the last 20 years when there was very little oversight over financial transactions.

We need to have more power for the Federal Government to fight against offshore tax havens and tax cheats because the bottom line is, if we don't, then more of the burden is placed upon us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the bill before us, H.R. 2764, the WMD Intelligence and Information Sharing Act of 2012. As a former member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, I am proud to co-sponsor this bill, which will increase coordination and information sharing between the Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence Community, and Federal, State and local authorities. This bill will also enhance DHS's ability to analyze, prepare for, and prevent potential threats from weapons of mass destruction.

We all know that WMDs continue to pose a serious threat to the United States. As rogue states such as Iran with established ties to terrorism continue to pursue nuclear weapons, the threat is all too real that WMDs could fall into the hands of those who would like to attack our country.

The bill we are considering today is comprised of two provisions from H.R. 2356, the WMD Prevention and Preparedness Act of 2011, which was considered and passed by the Homeland Security Committee earlier this month. I was proud to introduce H.R. 2356 as a comprehensive bill to prevent a WMD attack along with my colleague from New York and the Chair of the Homeland Security Committee, Congressman Peter King. This bipartisan legislation would finally begin to implement the recommendations of the 9 11 Commission and the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, and I hope we can bring the entire bill to a vote as soon as possible.

I am glad to see that we are taking these long-overdue steps to make our country safer in the wake of the horrific terrorist attacks which occurred over a decade ago on September 11, 2001, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to H.R. 3541--Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2012, because it is a backdoor attempt at reversing decades of precedent established by Roe v. Wade. I have always believed that a woman's right to choose is a constitutional right. And personal decisions, such as deciding whether or not to have an abortion, should involve a woman, her family and her faith. If an abortion is a personal decision, the government should not interfere.

The passage of the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act presents would put the onerous on health care providers in deterring the intent of the woman seeking an abortion. The legislation would create a civil cause of action for an injunction that could take months to resolve, leaving the woman with limited options. Most egregiously, the legislation would, for the first time in almost forty years, allow the government to legislate this personal decision in the first trimester of pregnancy. It is clear that the ultimate goal of this legislation is an outright ban on abortion services. For these reasons, I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to stand with women and against the Republican continuous attacks on their rights.

Mr. Speaker, on May 31, 2012, I missed the three rollcall votes of the day.

Had I been present I would have voted: ``no'' on rollcall vote 297, Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5743, H.R. 5854, H.R. 5325, and H.R. 5855; ``no'' on rollcall vote 298, H. Res. 667, Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5743--Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, H.R. 5854--Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013, H.R. 5325--Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013 and H.R. 5855--Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2013; ``no'' on rollcall vote 299, H.R. 3541, The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2012.

Mr. Chairman, I stand today with my colleague from New York (Mr. Grimm) to support the working men and women of this great Nation.

You might take a quick look at section 517 of this legislation, the appropriations bill, and think it doesn't stop the Department of Defense from using a project labor agreement. But you must know, in reality, this confusing language is carefully hiding a back door, a back door opening to do away with PLAs.

Specifically, while currently the Department of Defense can choose whether they want to use a PLA, this language would prohibit even the option of choice whether to use a PLA. That's unacceptable.

This amendment doesn't dictate using PLAs. It just gives the Defense Department back the option to use them. Agencies like the Department of Defense need the flexibility and choice to use PLAs because of the variables they face in doing their job--from security issues, a very critical part of every contract; onsite safety, just as critical; to the skills needed to build unique facilities and structures.

Furthermore, the use of PLAs establishes a required skill level for what the project and the government require or desire, ensuring that these highly sensitive and complex projects are performed on time and on budget.

Let's cut to the chase, Mr. Chairman. The jobs where PLAs are used require higher skill sets.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The jobs where PLAs are used require higher skills, higher wages for engineers and laborers. Undercutting their ability to bid on contracts will not only hurt the project and the Department of Defense's bottom line, but it will also hurt the working men and women who are building our future.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Grimm amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to support H.R. 5651--Food and Drug Administration Reform Act of 2012, which reauthorizes the Federal Drug Administration's (FDA) prescription drug and medical device user fee programs through 2017. This legislation will provide the FDA the ability to collect user fees from drug and medical device companies to help fund its reviews of their products. These user fee programs provide the FDA the resources to enable the efficient review of applications and give patients access to therapies at the earliest possible time, and most importantly, help prevent drug shortages that threaten public health.

I am supportive of the legislation because it will authorize a new user fee program for generic drugs, resulting in decreased review times, and it authorizes user fee program for biosimilars, thus ensuring parity. Additionally, the legislation reauthorizes and makes permanent two complementary pediatric drug programs, which foster the development and safe use of prescription drugs for children.

Further, the legislation will assist in the modernization of the FDA's global drug supply chain authority, resulting in improved safety of our prescription drugs The legislation will also provide new incentives for the development of antibiotics to address the public health threat of antibiotic resistance. Finally, the bill includes important provisions to help prevent and mitigate drug shortages, which have unfortunately now become an all-too-frequent occurrence.

Ultimately, the legislation will ensure that Americans have access to crucial medicines and medical devices, improves access to new and innovative medicines and devices, helps prevent and mitigate drug shortages and reduces drug costs for consumers by speeding the approval of lower-cost generic drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to state for the record that on May 30, 2012, I missed the three rollcall votes of the day. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 294, H.R. 5651, The Food and Drug Administration Reform Act of 2012; ``yea'' on H.R. 4201, The Servicemember Family Protection; ``yea'' on H.R. 915, The Jaime Zapata Border Security Task Force Act.

Mr. Speaker, on May 18, 2012, I missed several rollcall votes due to a longstanding commitment to give the commencement address at Passaic County Community College, in my district.

Had I been present I would have voted:

``Aye''--Smith (WA)/Amash Amendment (No. 46)--Eliminates indefinite military detention of any person detained under AUMF authority in US, territories or possessions by providing immediate transfer to trial and proceedings by a court established under Article III of the Constitution of the United States or by an appropriate State court.

``Nay''--Gohmert Amendment (No. 45)-- Clarifies that the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act and the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (UAMF) do not deny the writ of habeas corpus or deny any Constitutional rights for persons detained in the United States under the AUMF who are entitled to such rights.

``Nay''--Coffman Amendment (No. 17)--Repeals the moratorium on A 76 procedures, which prohibits the outsourcing of U.S. military jobs to private contractors.

``Aye''--Keating Amendment (No. 18)--Freezes the transfer, reduction or elimination of Air National Guard units supporting an Air and Space Operations Center or an Air Force Forces Staff until the impact of the unit's loss and alternative plans to support the augmented Air Force missions are provided to.

``Aye''--Broun Amendment (No. 19)--Eliminates the maximum age limitation for individuals seeking to enlist in the U.S. military, provided they meet all of the other current qualifications for enlistment.

``Aye''--Carson Amendment (No. 20)--Prohibits military promotion boards from considering any information from official documents, word of mouth, or in writing on the pursuit of treatment or counseling for mental health or addiction issues, unless the service member is found unfit for duty or a danger to themselves or others. Would require the information on this prohibition to be promulgated to current service members.

``Aye''--Cummings Amendment (No. 26)--Expands the mortgage protections under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) to include servicemembers serving in a contingency operation, surviving spouses of servicemembers whose deaths are service-connected, and veterans who are totally disabled at the time of discharge. The amendment also repeals the sunset provision that is set to expire at the end of this year and increases fines for violations of the SCRA.

``Nay''--Sablan Amendment (No. 29)--Includes the Northern Mariana Islands as an eligible location, in addition to the United States and Guam, for the overhaul, repair and maintenance of naval vessels and other vessels under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy.

``Aye''--Johnson (GA) Amendment (No. 30)--Includes a finding stating that the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea would destabilize the Western Pacific region and would not be in the national security interests of the United States.

``Aye''--Johnson (GA) Amendment (No. 31)--Requires the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to report to Congress regarding whether nuclear weapons reductions pursuant to the New START Treaty are in the national security interests of the United States.

``Nay''--Price (GA) Amendment (No. 32)--Prohibits the President from making unilateral reductions to U.S. nuclear forces.

``Nay''--Rigell Amendment (No. 38)--Replaces the pending sequester of discretionary spending for FY 2013 and replaces it by reducing the discretionary spending limit for that year so that it conforms with the Republican/Ryan budget levels deemed in force in the House, but this replacement is contingent upon the enactment of spending reductions over five years of at least the amount of the sequester it supplants. Also requires a detailed report on the impact of the sequestration of funds authorized and appropriated for FY 2013 for the Department of Defense.

``Aye''--Lee Amendment (No. 42)--Limits Defense funding to the amount consistent with the Budget Control act. The resulting $8 billion reduction in the underlying bill's authorization would come from programs selected by the President in consultation with the Defense Secretary, with military pay and health care exempt.

``Nay''--Duncan amendment (No. 47)--Limits funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act to any institution or organization established by the Convention on the Law of the Sea, including the International Seabed Authority, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

``Aye''--Coffman Amendment (No. 48)--Authorizes the President to remove all Brigade Combat Teams that are permanently stationed in Europe and replace them with a rotational force.

``Nay''--Lee Amendment (No. 49)--Appoints a Special Envoy for Iran to ensure that all diplomatic avenues are pursued to avoid a war with Iran and to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

``Nay''--Franks Amendment (No. 54)--Limits the availability of funds for nuclear nonproliferation activities with the Russian Federation until Russia is no longer providing support to the government of Syria's suppression of the Syrian people or transferring to Iran, North Korea or Syria equipment and technology that could be used to make weapons of mass destruction.

``Nay''--Pearce Amendment (No. 55)--Strikes provisions in the bill that authorize $150 million for DOE to support the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC) development of domestic uranium enrichment capacity.

``Nay''--Rehberg Amendment (No. 59)--Bans any reductions to the strategic nuclear triad unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that: 1) further reductions in the Russia Federation's arsenal are needed for compliance with New START limits; and 2) Russia is not developing or deploying nuclear delivery systems not covered by New START limits. Would also protect all three legs of the nuclear triad from elimination.

``Aye''--Price Amendment (No. 111)--Requires the Department of Justice to order an investigation into the possible violation of U.S. law regarding numerous leaks of sensitive information involving U.S. and Israeli military, intelligence, and operational capabilities. Would provide the Administration with 30 days after bill becomes law to begin its investigation and 60 days after enactment to report to Congress.

``Aye''--Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 4310.

``Nay''--Final Passage of H.R. 4310--National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.

``Aye''--Democratic Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 4348-- Offered by Mr. Barrow of Georgia.

``Aye''--Democratic Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 4348-- Offered by Mr. Rahall of West Virginia.