Floor Statements

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 6324, the Cutting FUEL Act. This bill is being rushed to the floor without any hearings or considerations by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The result is a poorly drafted bill that may have harmful, unintended consequences. This bill would require all Federal agencies to reduce their purchases and leases of vehicles by 20 percent, below 2010 expenditure levels. This reduction would not apply to military vehicles, and an exception is provided for vehicles necessary for national security purposes.

While my colleagues' goal is to cut government spending and force agencies to spend their money more efficiently, this bill is not the way to achieve those objectives. This bill does not take into account agencies that have already decreased their fleet sizes by improving fleet management procedures. According to a recent GAO report, agencies such as the Air Force have implemented various fleet downsizing policies and have made efforts to eliminate vehicles that are not mission critical. Instead of examining the needs of each individual agency, this bill simply makes a sweeping 20 percent cut applicable to all agencies regardless of whether they have already made significant improvements.

The GAO also noted that some agencies, like the Department of Veterans Affairs, have increased their fleet sizes due to expanded programs essential to assisting our disabled veterans. This bill would prevent agencies, such as the VA, from effectively serving our veterans when they return home from war.

Mr. Speaker, we come to the House floor only to bring up legislation that was recently introduced in August. There have been no hearings in committee, no amendments, no markups, no substantive debate, all of which could have made significant improvements to the bill.

The American people are asking their elected officials to be bipartisan and pass legislation to add more jobs to our economy. We should focus on extending the tax cuts for the middle class, or passing legislation to resolve the looming crisis in the postal service. But, no, the Republican majority and their leadership would rather focus on passing messaging bills before the election. They prefer to leave Washington and campaign, rather than take up the real issues that confront our country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I ask that we get back to doing the work of the people.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to John Barrow from the great State of Georgia.

I have no additional speakers and yield myself such time as I may consume.

I do want to stress that we should not be adjourning. We should continue to work and try to do things to preserve Medicare. This Congress has voted to end Medicare as we know it, to turn it into a voucher system.

And we need to extend the middle class tax breaks, and jobs--the President's jobs bill. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democratic, have come forward with jobs bills that we could consider on passing and working.

I must say they are very urgent priorities, and the American people are calling my office, and I'm sure all of my colleagues, concerning the farm bill. We need to pass a farm bill.

The Violence Against Women Act, this used to be bipartisan legislation. It was introduced as bipartisan legislation. Yet, in this Congress, people have voted to repeal some of the protections, and we have not been able to have a consensus on what has historically been a consensus issue.

On the war on women, I am issuing a report today that shows that the Republican majority is not only out of step with the Main Street of America and the Democratic majority, but they are out of step with the historic Republican Party. The historic Republican Party--in fact, I'll give one example: title X. George H.W. Bush was the author of title X when it passed, and it was signed by a Republican President. This Congress voted to defund title X--family planning, birth control. This is unprecedented.

So there are many things that we need to address. I would say specifically the farm bill and the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. This should be an area where we could all agree and come together. I urge my colleagues not only to vote against this particular bill, but also to speak to their leadership on the other side of the aisle that these pressing issues should be taken up and should be addressed.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6361, the Vulnerable Veterans Housing Reform Act.

This bill is aimed at helping some of those who most deserve and need our help, our severely disabled wartime veterans who are living with service-connected disabilities. It is designed to help that relatively small population of veterans who are disabled, impoverished, and in need of constant care due to their service wounds.

They are wounded warriors who now need assistance performing the basic functions of daily life, like the simple things that most of us take for granted and perform without second thought: bathing, feeding themselves, getting dressed. They put their lives on the line for us, and it is now our turn to see to it that they are afforded every opportunity to live a life of independence and self-sufficiency.

To this end, H.R. 6361 would exempt any expenses related to veterans and benefits from consideration when they are being considered for housing assistance. The fact that the benefits are currently counted as income is an obstacle for many of our military men and women. Let's take a hypothetical case and now look at how things stand now.

A single, severely disabled veteran with no dependents who has an adjusted gross annual income of less than $12,256 can receive up to an additional $8,191 in aid and attendance benefit each year to supplement the cost of their medical care. This fix will make it just a little bit easier for our veterans to qualify for the housing assistance they need and deserve. But this bill also makes changes to current utility allowances as part of section 8 public housing assistance. Under this bill, utility allowances would be calculated and capped based on family size rather than apartment size.

Our Financial Services Committee members have been hard at work adding hardship exemptions to protect people with disabilities, the elderly, and families with children by providing them with increased utility allowances, as needed.

I commend my colleagues for their bipartisan cooperation in finding a middle ground and a solution. I also congratulate my good friend and colleague, Congressman Al Green, for his contribution to this bill. He works tirelessly on behalf of our Nation's military men and has fought especially hard to get his HAVEN bill to the floor, despite it being folded into this bill.

The HAVEN bill would establish a pilot program to provide grant funding to rehabilitate and modify the homes of low-income or disabled veterans so that wheelchair ramps, repairs, and energy-efficient features can be put in place. Helping repair the homes of our veterans before they become too sick is not just a smart policy; it is our duty. We need to do all we can to keep our veterans self-sufficient and independent, and help them transition back into civilian life as seamlessly as possible.

I will vote ``yes'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to compliment the gentleman on his statement and point out that across the country one of the largest groups of people that are homeless are veterans, and this particular bill has the right incentives to direct the housing assistance to our veterans and help to keep them in their homes.

I have no other speakers at this time, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6431 and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Currently, congressional mandates require that the U.S. representative must vote ``no'' on any proposed assistance going from an international financial institution to Burma. This bill before us today would change that. It would allow the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct our executive directors at the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the IMF to support proposed assistance to Burma, if the President determines that it is in our national interest.

This flexibility will be needed in the coming months. There will likely be some important votes coming up at the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank on development projects and arrears clearance packages for Burma. Binding the U.S. representative to always vote ``no'' on such measures would work directly against our hope of engaging Burma and supporting her democratic reforms, and that's why I strongly support this bill.

The economic and political reforms in Burma show great promise. That is why the United States lifted the sanctions on investment in Burma back in July. And the right thing to do now is to support development and economic aid to Burma through the international financial institutions.

Both multilateral development and humanitarian assistance are important now because Burma needs both long-term and short-term results. Her people need to see that a democracy has tangible positive impacts on their everyday lives.

It is not just in the best interests of the Burmese people that they continue to support the democratic and economic reforms in the country; it is in the interest of the United States as well. And I would say that it's in the world's best interest, too.

It was a great honor today to welcome Aung San Suu Kyi to the Capitol. She is a courageous woman of matchless strength and towering integrity.

I congratulate her on receiving the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest award that we can give anyone, which she so richly deserves. She honors us by her presence and her acceptance of this award.

Her unshakeable conviction that democratic values and fundamental human rights were not only possible but absolutely necessary for Burma provided her country with a model of courage and perseverance that helped to sustain it throughout the most difficult years.

We congratulate her. We thank her. And I want to let her know that she is a very special heroine to me, and that we remain strongly committed to the cause of reform in her country and to supporting not only her country, but her people.

Aung San Suu Kyi has said that aid and investment in Burma must be done in a way that is democracy friendly. She describes that as investments that prioritize transparency, accountability, workers' rights, and environmental sustainability. Aung San Suu Kyi has also said that the government needs to apply internationally recognized standards such as the IMF Code of Good Practices on Fiscal Transparency. I agree with her wholeheartedly on both of these issues.

As the international financial institutions move to reengage in Burma and we move through this piece of legislation in support of that engagement, I urge the administration to use its leadership at the IFIs to ensure that assistance to Burma supports democratic reforms, ensures an open and transparent government, and establishes safeguards that support growth, alleviates poverty, and safeguards the rights of the people.

There is a tide in the affairs of nations that, taken at the flood, can lead to greatness. And this is such a moment of political and economic import for Burma.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to continue to support the efforts of the people of Burma towards the establishment of a truly just and democratic society.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no additional speakers and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2827 and commend my good friends and colleagues, Ms. Moore and Mr. Dold and Ranking Member Frank, and everyone else who worked very hard on this bill and for their willingness to work in a bipartisan way.

It is helpful to recall that the original Dodd-Frank regulations relating to municipal bond advisers only came about because of a number of manmade financial disasters involving municipalities and their advisers who were unregulated. It was just about a year ago that Jefferson County, Alabama, filed the biggest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history. They joined the ranks of 11 other entities to file a chapter 9 bankruptcy that year, including Boise County, Idaho; Central Falls, Rhode Island; and Harrisonburg, Pennsylvania. They all had unique problems, but one of the things that they had in common was that they got some pretty costly advice, and it will haunt taxpayers for years.

This was an area that was completely unregulated before the financial crisis; and the Dodd-Frank reforms, including the municipal adviser registration requirement, were enacted to respond to those crises. The Dodd-Frank reforms require individuals who advise municipalities to register with the SEC and be subject to regulation by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. This is a very good thing, but most of us agree that the SEC's proposed original rule went just a little bit too far and made the definition of a municipal adviser a little bit too broad. It was defined in a way that could have potentially captured those who were not actually providing investment advice.

For example, I know many institutions were concerned that under the SEC's proposed rule merely providing a bank account to a municipality could mean that an institution would have to register as an adviser and be subject to MSRB regulation all because they just provided basic banking services. As someone who was there during the consideration of Dodd-Frank, I can tell you that that was not what Congress intended; however, I was concerned that the original version of this bill went too far in the other direction, and that could have opened up such a gaping hole you could have driven a truck full of other people's money through it. I was concerned that the draft bill eliminated the critical fiduciary duty standard that we included in Dodd-Frank. The fiduciary duty is a vital element that ensures that the advisers provide advise that is in the best interest of the municipality.

I think that with this revised bill we have struck a good balance. Fiduciary duty is back in, and unintended capture is out. The revised language clearly and reasonably defines the activities that municipal advisers engage in and describes the kinds of advice that they provide. This bill now gives clear legislative guidance to ensure that the goal of heightened supervision of municipal advisers is realized. It keeps taxpayers a little bit safer, credit markets more stable, and regulations a bit fair.

All in all, I would say that it is a job well done, done in a bipartisan spirit with a great deal of time and commitment. I commend the two major sponsors who are speaking with us today; and I thank my good friend, Gwen Moore, for her work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the National Women's History Museum Commission Act of 2012. I am proud to be joined in this effort by my friend and colleague Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, as well as by Senator Susan Collins.

This bipartisan bill, which has also been introduced by Senator Collins, creates a new commission to examine the feasibility and cost of building a National Women's History Museum, NWHM, on or near the National Mall.

This commission will be a bipartisan, eight member body comprised of two members appointed by the Senate Majority Leader, two members appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, two members appointed by the Minority Speaker of the Senate, and two members will be appointed by the House of Representatives Minority Leader. All appointees will need to demonstrate a commitment to the research and study of women's history.

Most importantly, no federal dollars will be spent on this important, new museum. The work of the NWHM Commission would be paid for entirely with private funds.

Women's history has taken a backseat to the hundreds of years of written and available narrative focusing on men. Women are largely missing from textbooks, memorials, and museum exhibits. Of the 210 statues in the United States Capitol, only 9 are of female leaders. Across the country, less than 5 percent of the 2,400 national historic landmarks chronicle women's achievements.

The museums and memorials in our nation's capital reveal what we as Americans value. Today, we have museums dedicated to many important people and issues of interest, including flight, postage stamps, and law enforcement. But we still do not have a museum dedicated to woman's history and their contribution to building our great country.

A vital part of achieving equal rights for women is acknowledging and commemorating the deep and lasting impacts women have made in history. This bill would provide us with a blueprint of steps to take in order to finally honor 53% of our population. Certainly, women should be honored for their many contributions that are the very fabric of our country.

I urge my colleagues to join me in filling this void and honoring our Nation's foremothers by cosponsoring the National Women's History Museum Commission Act.

Madam Speaker, today we mark the 11th anniversary of 9/ 11. The tragedy that day still burns in our hearts, and once again, we renew our pledge to ``never forget.'' The thousands who died and the thousands who rushed to rescue them truly deserve this moment of honor and remembrance; but today, there is also good news for those who became sick as a direct result of being exposed to the deadly toxins.

As part of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which Speaker Pelosi and my colleagues in the House and especially the New York delegation fought so hard to pass, the World Trade Center Health Program ruled yesterday that 50 kinds of cancer will now be included under the Zadroga Act. This important step means that those who have developed cancer, often years after their exposure, will have the opportunity to receive the needed care and compensation that they justly deserve.

On 9/11, thousands lost their lives, and thousands more lost their health because of their exposure to the deadly toxins. Many are sick and dying. I am proud that the Zadroga Act can now include their needs, and I hope that they

accept, once again, the thanks of a grateful Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise along with my colleague Rep. McHenry to introduce the Interstate Land Sales Disclosure Act Update of 2012.

The Interstate Land Sales Disclosure Act was enacted in 1969 to protect consumers from being sold property where the property's description in the contract and related materials was not what was to be delivered to the buyer.

It was intended to protect out-of-state buyers who were sold land that was not what was advertised and provides a right of action to rescind the contract and walk away from the deal. However, Courts have ruled over the years that ISLA applies to condominiums, and developers are required to file redundant paperwork that is unnecessary and out of keeping with modern condominium development.

During the economic downturn, some buyers have used the recording requirements of ILSA to rescind otherwise valid contracts for economic reasons, an unintended consequence of the act and its intent. The law now needs a technical fix to distinguish condominium sales from other types of land sales and to recognize the unique conditions under which these units are sold in today's market.

I fully support the consumer protections that were enacted through ILSA, and this proposed legislation does nothing to affect those protections. But I also believe that we need to make distinctions for condominiums in order to allow the condominium development industry to rebound from the recession. The bill would only exempt condominiums from ILSA's registration requirements but will maintain the consumer protections to ensure consumers still have the right to rescind contracts in cases of fraud. Developers would, of course, still be required to comply with state laws that require specific disclosures.

As we recover in this still fragile economy, we want to encourage, not discourage, buyers and sellers to enter into real estate deals responsibly.

That is why this bill is important to ensure development and the return of an important industry in our country, residential condominium sales. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to be introducing a resolution supporting the importance of census surveys and the data they produce. Special thanks to Senator John Rockefeller for his leadership on the issue and for introducing the Senate companion, and to the House original cosponsors, Reps. Michael Honda, Judy Chu, Keith Ellison, John Olver, Betty McCollum, Jose Serrano, Laura Richardson, Earl Blumenauer, Fortney Stark, John Lewis, and Barney Frank, for their strong support of census surveys.

Since our founding, Congress has recognized the value of census surveys to inform policymaking and measure our country's progress. By including this modern invention in our Constitution, the founders turned a survey into a tool of political empowerment. The decennial census is the basis for fair representation and fair distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal aid. In recent times, the information is used by the public and private sectors for planning purposes and to better understand the needs of communities.

The statistics gathered through the Census Bureau give politicians, researchers, urban planners, educators, and other interested Americans, a regular and measurable snapshot of the growth and the socio-economic status of our Nation. Census programs like the American Community Survey and the Economic Census provide vital data to federal, state, and local governments, to all sectors and industries, and to all geographic areas across the country--from rural to urban to suburban neighborhoods.

These surveys are a fundamental building block for how our country measures itself; the value of these statistics cannot be underestimated. They let us know how we are doing as a nation, identifying areas where we could grow, where we could be more economically efficient, and how best to compete globally. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, U.S. citizens who live and work abroad serve as American's informal ambassadors, helping to strengthen the United States economy and promoting American influence around the globe. For years I have worked to ensure overseas Americans are able to exercise their right to vote and have access to banking services. Five years ago I formed the Congressional Americans Abroad Caucus to focus and bring awareness to the concerns of the 4-6 million U.S. citizens residing abroad. Because they're scattered across the world, it can be hard for Americans living abroad to get the attention of Congress. U.S. citizens remain Americans wherever they are in the world and should not be ignored.

Americans living and working outside the U.S. continue to voice concerns regarding the impact of federal policies on voting, access to financial institutions, immigration, and taxation. Given that these and other federal policies affecting Americans abroad cover an array of agencies, we should study the full impact of these policies on the overseas community. That is why today I am introducing the Commission on Americans Living Abroad Act, creating an Executive Commission expressly charged with examining the concerns of U.S. citizens living and working abroad. This new legislation creates a 15 member panel to study the impact of U.S. laws and Executive actions on the overseas Americans community. The study would then be used to make recommendations for actions Congress and the Executive Branch could take to improve collaboration and communication of policies impacting this community. Through this study we can better ensure awareness, coordination, and integration of the activities of the federal government relating to Americans abroad. Thanks to original cosponsors Reps. Michael Honda and Charles Rangel for their support of the bill and their advocacy on behalf of overseas Americans.

It is time we take a systemic look at all the issues affecting our citizens living abroad. Through this bipartisan Commission we can establish the state of policies and rules affecting Americans abroad so we can better serve their needs as they live and work in our global economy. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 679, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act, which was introduced in the Senate by Senators Schumer and Alexander. This bill will improve the Presidential appointment process by reducing the number of Presidentially appointed positions that are required to be confirmed by the Senate.

The number of Presidentially appointed positions that require Senate confirmation has increased over the years. The Congressional Research Service estimates that at the beginning of the Obama administration, there were 1,215 executive branch positions subject to Senate confirmation. It takes months for a new President to fill these positions, and the resulting gaps in leadership make the government less efficient and less productive.

This bill will reduce the bureaucracy and red tape that comes with requiring the Senate to confirm Presidential appointments. Under this bill, high-profile positions, such as Department Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries, will continue to require the consent of the Senate. This bill impacts lower-level positions, which a President routinely fills these positions without any controversy. For example, this bill would eliminate the Senate confirmation requirement for positions such as the alternate Federal cochairman of the Appalachian Regional Commission and

members of the National Council on Disability.

In addition to reforming the Presidential appointments process, the legislation before us today makes the Director of the Census Bureau a Presidential term appointment of 5 years, subject to confirmation by the Senate. I particularly am pleased the bill includes this provision so that the Director is tied to the needs of the decennial census and not to an election year calendar.

For years, I have been working on this provision, which I proposed in H.R. 4595 in the 111th Congress, to ensure the Census Bureau is able to perform the decennial census as accurately and as inexpensively as possible. Senator Carper introduced this bill in the Senate and added this amendment to the bill we are considering today.

Too often, in the last four decennials, there have been major operations issues to overcome just before implementation. Historically, it's not uncommon for the Bureau to be without a Director to lead the agency until shortly before the decennial. We did not have a Director in place for the current 2010 count until mere months before census day. In 2000, the Census Director took office 2 years before the decennial count; and in 1990, it was 1 week before the count.

This change will help to ensure the independence of the Census Bureau from political interference and ensure adequate leadership for the census in critical planning and implementation phases for the decennial.

Data and analysis from the Census Bureau provides policymakers, businesses, and State and local governments with vital, accurate, scientific information that is used to guide our country's economic growth. It's important that Bureau leadership have stability. So I thank the chairman and ranking members for getting this done.

The Senate passed this bill with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. I believe this body should defer to the will of the Senate when it comes to their own process for confirming Presidential appointments. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this good- government bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I respectfully disagree with my good friend from the great State of Texas, Representative Gohmert. The number of executive branch positions subject to Senate confirmation has grown at a very large number, and it literally takes months to fill these positions, and the resulting gaps in leadership makes the government less efficient and less productive. It came to us with a strong bipartisan vote in the Senate, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I am pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of H.R. 4365, a bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to make clear that accounts in the Thrift Savings Fund are subject to Federal tax levies.

Current law authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to levy private sector 401(k) retirement plans in order to collect unpaid Federal taxes.

However, due to an existing ambiguity between the Internal Revenue Code and the authorizing statute for the Federal Thrift Savings Plan, the IRS is unable to garnish TSP accounts to recover unpaid taxes from Federal employees and Members of Congress. In light of this statutory confusion, the Thrift Savings Plan's executive director requested clarification from our committee back in July of 2011 as to whether the TSP should honor Federal levies on TSP accounts.

H.R. 4365 would simply ensure that Federal TSP accounts and private sector 401(k) plans receive equal treatment in the area of tax administration and enforcement by amending the TSP authorizing statute to make clear that TSP fund accounts are, in fact, subject to Federal tax levies by the IRS. In addition, pursuant to an amendment offered by our distinguished ranking member, Mr. Cummings of Maryland, and included in the bill as reported by our committee, any potential revenue derived from the enactment of H.R. 4365 may be used only for the purposes of deficit reduction.

In supporting this bill, I would note that the vast majority of our public servants pay their taxes in a responsible and timely manner. In fact, according to the most recent IRS statistics, the tax delinquency rate among Federal employees in 2010 was 3.33 percent, far lower than that of the general public.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this reasonable legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

The serious fiscal challenges facing the Federal Government demand that agencies do everything they can to operate as efficiently as possible. The Federal Government spends billions annually through its purchase card programs, using purchase cards and convenience checks to acquire millions of items--everything from paper and pencils to computers--and to make payments on government contracts for a variety of goods and services such as vehicles and relocation services.

The primary responsibility for purchasing these items rests with cardholders and the officials who approve their purchases. Because of the position of public trust held by Federal employees, Congress and the American people expect cardholders and approving officials to maintain stewardship over the Federal funds at their disposal. Specifically, purchase cardholders and approving officials are expected to follow published acquisition requirements and exercise a standard of care in acquiring goods and services that is necessary and reasonable for the proper operation of an agency.

Because every Federal dollar that is spent on fraudulent, improper, and abusive purchases is a dollar that cannot be used for necessary government goods and services, ensuring that purchase cards are used responsibly is of particular concern at a time when the United States is experiencing substantial fiscal challenges.

I strongly support Senator Grassley's bill, on which he has worked many years, S. 300, because the legislation will require agencies to establish internal control activities over travel and charge cards. Agencies will be able to perform credit checks on potential recipients of travel cards. Agencies will also be able to appropriately discipline employees who misuse charge cards, including termination of their employment.

Most importantly, this legislation will keep agencies accountable for charge card misuse because the inspectors general of each agency will be required to examine charge card use twice a year and report any violations to the Office of Management and Budget.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman Issa stated during the Oversight Committee's consideration of this bill, H.R. 828, this is largely a symbolic gesture.

We all agree that everyone, including Federal workers, should pay their taxes. Members on both sides of the aisle emphasize the need to hold Federal employees accountable for tax obligations. However, the overwhelming majority of Federal workers take their income tax obligation seriously.

The tax compliance rate for Federal employees is much higher than for the American public. According to the most recent statistics from the Internal Revenue Service, more than 96 percent of Federal workers pay their taxes on time and do not owe money to the government.

In addition, there are already existing laws and regulations that address tax debts owed by Federal employees, and the IRS has a system in place for levying up to 15 percent of Federal wage payments made to delinquent taxpayers until the tax debt is satisfied.

The Joint Committee on Taxation has concluded that H.R. 828 would have ``negligible impact'' on revenue. In fact, implementation of the bill would have a small cost. So, I'm not certain that this bill will have any significant impact whatsoever.

I strongly believe that the House's efforts and energy would be better spent by focusing on measures to strengthen the Federal civil service and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal Government rather than by making symbolic gestures that reinforce a negative view of the Federal workforce.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his hard work on this bill and in so many other areas in our Congress, not just for veterans and the military, but in a large array of areas, from health to national security, where he has been a leader.

I rise in strong support today of H.R. 1627, as amended, the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012. This represents the hard work of both sides of the aisle. I thank Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, as well as the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) and Representative Miller from North Carolina on our side who have been leaders on this issue.

I am particularly proud to rise in support of this legislation to finally give medical coverage and justice to those military families previously stationed at Camp Lejeune where, for three decades--three decades--thousands of Marines and their families consumed water contaminated with toxic chemicals that likely led to very serious illnesses.

Because of travesties like this, I authored an amendment to the 2012 Defense authorization bill prohibiting the secrecy of information about water contamination on our military bases. I asked Secretary Panetta for transparency to help strike the necessary balance between safeguarding our national interests and preventing another Camp Lejeune scandal from happening that endangers the health of our military families here on the soil of our country.

I strongly support this bill because this is a big step in making sure that our veterans are continuously cared for throughout their deployment and thereafter here at home and are not put at risk for their health.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue and so many others.

I rise in opposition to the D.C. abortion act and thank my colleague from New York, Jerry Nadler, and Eleanor Holmes Norton for their very strong leadership in opposition to this bill.

The callous indifference that is shown to the lives, the health, the well-being, and constitutional rights of women in this bill simply beggar description. For instance, the bill has no provision whatsoever for women who have been the victims of rape or incest, and there is no exception for a woman's health.

This bill would use the awesome power of the State to compel the victim of a violent assault to bear the child of her attacker, and it would compel a minor child who has been the victim of incest to bear her sibling.

How can you even begin to justify the intrusion of Federal power into such deeply painful and personal matters. This bill is an assault on decency and common sense. And it adds to the battery of weapons being used by our Republican colleagues in their war against women.

A vote for this bill is a vote to show contempt for women's health, women's rights, a doctor's role in health care decisions, and the Constitution all in one fell swoop. Vote ``no'' and stay out of the doctor's office and the private lives of American women. The health and safety of women in D.C. is too important, and this is a recurring bad dream. This happens to be the ninth anti-choice vote brought to the floor during this Congress. It is another example of the Republicans' war against women. I urge a strong ``no'' vote.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore