Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Rick A. Greco, DO, FACOI, who will be inaugurated as the American College of Osteopathic Internists' (ACOI) 71st President on October 13, 2013. The ACOI, which represents the nation's osteopathic internists, medical subspecialists, students, residents and fellows, is dedicated to the advancement of osteopathic internal medicine through education, advocacy, research and the opportunity for service. Dr. Greco embodies the mission of the ACOI as evidenced by his commitment to his patients and local community.

Dr. Greco is a life-long resident of West Virginia. He obtained a Bachelor of Arts in Biology from West Virginia University and a Doctor of Osteopathy degree from the West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine. Following medical school, Dr. Greco completed his residency training at Ohio Valley Medical Center in my hometown of Wheeling, WV.

He has spent his entire career working to improve access to high- quality care in underserved areas. Recognizing the need for a new medical training program in Wheeling, Dr. Greco established an osteopathic internal medicine residency program in 1999 at Ohio Valley Medical Center. In 2003 he became the Director of Medical Education and the large numbers of residents who complete their training and remained in the area to provide essential primary care services in an underserved area are testament to the quality of his training program. As a result of Dr. Greco's efforts, many more West Virginians have access to high-quality care where and when they need it most.

Dr. Greco has held numerous leadership positions. He served as president of the West Virginia Society of Osteopathic Medicine and the Ohio County Medical Society and was a state delegate for the West Virginia Medical Association. In addition to his many other duties, Dr. Greco continues to serve on the ACOI Board of Directors, where he has served since 2004 and serves on numerous committees at the Ohio Valley Medical Center. His commitment to his patients, trainees, church and community is unmatched.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 1st Congressional District of West Virginia, I ask all my distinguished colleagues to join me in congratulating my friend, Dr. Rick Greco, on his inauguration as the 71st President of the American College of Osteopathic Internists.

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

Mr. Chairman, this bill currently requires that all regulations that cost $100 million or more must first be approved by Congress.

Therefore, I rise today to offer an amendment to reduce that threshold from $100 million to $50 million. This would ensure greater transparency and more accountability in the process. Let's put this in perspective, Mr. Chairman.

For the past 2 years, according to the regulators, of all of the regulations individually that have exceeded $100 million, only 2 percent have been reviewed. That means 98 percent of all of the regulations that we have faced in America have not had the involvement of Congress. I mean, who would be satisfied if only 2 percent of our food that we eat has been inspected? Who would be satisfied if only 2 percent of the planes that we fly in are inspected--or of our homes? businesses? The Obama administration and its overly aggressive bureaucrats are playing with people's lives.

Last weekend, I was at a Serbian picnic in northern West Virginia, and I was approached by two adult males who were very concerned. Mr. Chairman, their eyes welled up with fear and concern because of all of these regulations that are being imposed on them.

They fear whether they're going to have jobs because of all of these regulations which no one is overseeing. These men love to work and they want to work, but they feel these new regulations threaten their American Dream and are taking away the possibility for them to raise their families. Each of us knows men like them. They live in our neighborhoods. Whenever we go home, we see these people. They want to work, but they're afraid of someone moving the goalpost with a new regulation that's not checked by Congress.

Every year, these regulations cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually, and 98 percent of them are implemented without congressional oversight. According to the Small Business Administration, the cumulative burden of regulations exceeds more than $1 trillion annually out of our economy. Let me say this again: nearly 98 percent of all new regulations have no economic analysis or oversight by the American public. According to the GAO, Federal regulators last year, Mr. Chairman, issued 2,500 new regulations--just in 1 year alone.

Doesn't this administration understand that excessive, unchecked regulations harm working families?

Just because the administration can issue a regulation doesn't mean that it should. By reducing the threshold from $100 million to $50 million, we provide Congress an opportunity to rein in these out-of- control agencies and allow more of our people to continue working and supporting their families.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2218.

For 33 years, Congress has wrestled unproductively with how to deal with coal ash, an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal.

After countless hearings, meetings, and amendments, we come here today with a solution. Over the past 2\1/2\ years, we've listened to environmental organizations, industry, Senators, the States, the EPA.

Now the bill has strong bipartisan support with Democrat cosponsors and a broad coalition of over 300 organizations and businesses, including State environmental officials, Governors, recyclers, manufacturers, coal miners, coal operators, and labor unions, just to name a few.

If we don't act decisively, Congress will once again kick the can down the road. That would mean the status quo continues.

At the Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on the draft legislation earlier this year, EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus testified that States have the ability to ensure proper management disposal of coal ash under this legislation. At that hearing, my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, asked Mr. Stanislaus if the EPA was not opposed to this language in the bill. Stanislaus' response was, ``That is right.''

Even the President has become engaged in this debate. The statement from the administration this past week noted they appreciate the efforts of the House and issued no veto threat; no opposition was expressed. That ought to tell you something.

The opponents of this legislation should read the last sentence of the administration's statement:

The administration would like to work with Congress . . .

to allow for development, implementation, and enforcement of

appropriate standards for managing coal combustion residuals,

while encouraging the beneficial use of this economically

important material.

Let me show you what we are talking about here. This is a jar of fly ash. Every day, coal ash is produced in 48 of our 50 States across America. This is a national issue, not just one for coal States. Over 140 million tons of coal ash are produced annually. Approximately 40 percent of the material is recycled into everyday products used in households and the construction industry. The remaining 60 percent is disposed of in landfills.

Now, 2218 deals separately with both of these issues. The first part deals with recycling. Early in the Obama administration, the EPA proposed a rule to declare coal ash as a hazardous material, despite the fact that under the Bill Clinton administration the EPA had already determined in 1993 and 2000 that coal ash was not hazardous. Let me repeat that. They've already said it's not hazardous.

No industrialized nation in the world classifies fly ash as a hazardous material. Deeming it such would essentially destroy the ability to recycle coal ash, dramatically increase the cost of electricity, and crush hundreds of thousands of jobs across America.

The United States already has a much lower rate of recycling than other countries. Europe recycles over 90 percent of the fly ash; China over 65; and Japan, 95 percent of their coal ash is recycled. We should be encouraging recycling, not standing in the way.

The second part of the bill deals with processes for disposing of coal ash that is not recycled. This section has been significantly strengthened and provides for all new and existing landfills to be State-run, using the Federal law known as RCRA, which incorporates Federal standards and requirements for protecting ``human health and the environment.''

RCRA's primary goals are to ``protect human health and the environment, to reduce the amount of waste generated, and to ensure that wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner.''

Consequently, under his bill, disposal requirements will require ``composite liners, air quality and dust controls, groundwater protection standards, emergency action plans, corrective actions for deficiencies, inspections and structural stability.''

Let me make it clear. If a landfill ever becomes deficient, it must be fixed--no ifs, ands, or buts. It is just that simple.

For example, under the corrective action under section 4011, subsection (C)(2)(b):

An owner/operator of a deficient facility is not relieved

of their obligation to develop alternative disposal

capability regardless of whether they have space available

onsite.

For anyone to argue otherwise, perhaps they haven't read the bill.

For the first time, there will be a uniform, national standard for disposal. Or Congress can do nothing--it can--just as it has been for the last 33 years. But I don't think we should continue with the status quo. Working in this bipartisan fashion we've made progress.

After 30 years of debate, it is time for action. Our constituents deserve protection for their health and environment. This legislation makes it possible.

We often hear Congress isn't voting on a jobs bill. Mr. Chairman, there is not a clear jobs bill that we are going to deal with in this Congress protecting 316,000 jobs across America and preventing utility bills to increase. We must protect these jobs.

I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this pro-health, pro-environment, and pro-jobs legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

First, I want to just add a congratulations to my colleague from California whose position apparently has evolved over the last couple of years, because I remember back in 2011, he had a problem and voted against the recycling material. So to hear him today say how he favors, I appreciate that. That was on H.R. 1 in February of 2011.

But as for this amendment, this is not necessary because H.R. 2218 establishes a minimum standard of protection for coal ash permit programs. The standard of protection is the minimum requirements that are set out in this bill and includes protections such as groundwater monitoring; corrective action; financial assurance; specific cleanup and closure requirements for unlined, leaking impoundments; stringent structural stability requirements; and fugitive dust controls.

Furthermore, H.R. 2218 establishes a minimum national standard that is based on the existing criteria for municipal solid waste landfills which were promulgated by EPA to ``protect human health and the environment.''

This chart is a collection of some of the elements that are included in the bill already to deal with standards. Things like requiring that the structure be located above water tables. Groundwater monitoring is to be included in this. We have surface water controls under section 4011, controls for CCR landfills, control runoffs for CCR surface, accelerated corrective action for unlined surface impoundments.

We included in this bill, and if people would read the bill, they would see that under 4011, there are areas where the EPA can help to identify deficiencies, including specific criteria for undertaking a deficiency review. It has a backstop authority to enforce that these requirements are upheld and to correct any EPA-identified deficiency.

My colleague continues to use this ``race to the bottom'' among States, and they will compete with each other to become the dumping ground for neighbor States. That's a misguided assumption and, frankly, an insult to the hardworking State environmental regulators. It is unfortunate that he also does not trust the environmental regulators in his State, or any other State for that matter, to establish permit programs that are protective. My colleague ignores that the State regulators are tasked every day with protecting human health and the environment.

Another problem with this amendment is that, since it is not well defined, the EPA or a judge would have the sole discretion to determine what constitutes ``protecting human health and the environment.'' Any State failing to meet this subjective and ambiguous standard would have their permit program stripped from them to be run by the EPA.

This amendment diminishes the important role of the States and let's the EPA meddle in a program the States have proven that they are capable of handling. This amendment is not about protecting human health and the environment; it's about growing Federal control at the expense of the States. States have been tasked with implementing RCRA, and this bill allows them to continue to do just that.

If you support bigger government, support this amendment; but if you trust your State to take care of its own people, then we should oppose it. I urge opposition to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, later today, the President will once again refocus his efforts on jobs. Well, House Republicans never lost our focus on jobs.

We have a plan to create jobs, grow our economy, and to secure our future for all Americans by expanding opportunity, not expanding government.

Our plan holds government accountable to hardworking taxpayers; our plan reins in runaway government spending; our plan combats waste and abuse in government; our plan promotes an all-of-the-above all-American energy strategy that will create jobs, lower energy costs, and strengthen our national security.

These are commonsense solutions that the American people deserve. It is not fair that Washington liberals keep offering up only more spending and political games. Real solutions to real problems, that's the American commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule.

For over 33 years, Congress has wrestled unproductively on how to deal with coal ash, which is an unavoidable by-product of burning coal.

The bill before us today provides a resolution, finally, to this issue and avoids kicking the can down the road.

H.R. 2218 has two parts. The first part codifies the previous EPA studies that were conducted in 1993 and 2000 under Bill Clinton, both of them. I have copies of it here. And perhaps those that need to read those reports would understand that in the 1993 and in the 2000 reports, they concluded that coal ash is a nonhazardous material and should be beneficially recycled for use in products such as concrete block, brick, wallboard, and used in our roads and bridges across America.

The second part, unfortunately they're not aware of it yet, but if they'd read the bill, they would find that it has been significantly rewritten since last year. We listened to what people were saying. We listened to the EPA, we listened to the administration, and incorporated those into this bill, so that this second part now provides for all new and existing landfills to be State run, using a Federal law known as RCRA, which in and of itself incorporates the Federal guidelines for protecting ``human health and the environment.''

Consequently, disposal requirements under H.R. 2218 will require composite liners, dust control, groundwater monitoring, financial assurances, emergency action plans, inspections, and structural stability, just to name a few. In fact, the EPA states that RCRA's primary goals are to:

Protect human health and the environment, to reduce the

amount of waste generated, and to ensure that wastes are

managed in an environmentally sound manner.

For the first time, there will be a uniform national standard for disposing of coal ash. However, as you just heard, you hear opponents of this legislation state this legislation does not protect human health and the environment. But quite frankly, that's not the case.

H.R. 2218 not only includes nine different references and sections of RCRA which protect human health and environment, but also incorporates the existing RCRA part 258 regulation.

To use the words of the EPA, ``EPA believes that part 258 criteria represents a reasonable balance ensuring the protection of human health and the environment.''

The opponents of this measure seem to lack a fundamental understanding, Mr. Speaker. There are jobs at stake here, 316,000 jobs across America. It's really that simple.

A compromise is available. Anyone who opposes this rule will continue to support the status quo. If we do nothing, coal ash, which is generated every day in 48 of the 50 States, will continue to be disposed of. The status the way it's been since the 1950s and '60s and the unwarranted stigma that's associated with recycled materials will continue.

Fortunately, finally, today, after listening and compromising and working together, there appears to be an emerging consensus to allow for the beneficial recycle of coal ash, and the concerns raised by a previous Congress have been addressed.

Mr. Speaker, after 33 years of fussing with this issue, it's time to put it to rest.

Mr. Speaker, this week close to 50,000 Boy Scouts and members of the Scouting community are gathering in Glen Jean, West Virginia for the 17th national Boy Scout Jamboree. This 10-day event features some of the most physically challenging events in its history, including rock climbing, rappelling, white water rafting and biking. The Jamboree is a monumental event for Scouting and is a highlight for the thousands of Scouts who attend.

The first Jamboree was held in 1937 in Washington, D.C. and featured more than 27,000 Scouts who camped on the National Mall under the Washington Monument. Since that time, the Boy Scouts of America has held National Jamborees at several locations across the country, with the most recent in 2010 in Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia.

As an Eagle Scout, I could not be more proud that the Mountain State is hosting the Jamboree for the very first time and will serve as the permanent home for the event in the coming years.

This week, thousands of Scouts from around the United States, their leaders and others have travelled to the new facility near the New River Gorge in beautiful Fayette County, West Virginia. The site, known as the Summit Bechtel Family National Scout Reserve, will house Scouts, staff and adult leaders, who will enjoy the outdoors and test their abilities in a number of ways. During the Jamboree, the Summit will be the third largest city in West Virginia.

Also, because of its location in the beautiful mountains of West Virginia, physical activities will be more intense and will provide a more diverse terrain for Scouts of all ages. The Summit will challenge Scouts with programs like BMX biking, climbing, whitewater rafting, and gliding along one of the fastest zip line courses in North America.

Construction of this permanent home for the national Boy Scout Jamboree has pumped nearly $170 million into the West Virginia economy over the past four years.

The new home for the jamboree, sitting on 10,600 acres in a world- renowned adventure sports region, will undoubtedly provide a huge economic boost for the state and hopefully the participants will keep coming back to enjoy all our stunning state has to offer.

But the greatest impact the Summit will have will be on the thousands of Scouts and adults who participate. This type of impact may be not measured immediately, but will be felt for generations to come. I know that, first hand.

As an Eagle Scout from Troop 6 in Wheeling, W.Va., I can say that the lessons I learned as a young man in the Boy Scouts have stuck with me throughout my life and guided my decisions in my personal and professional career.

My experience in Scouting has helped shape who I am today.

Sadly, many of the values held true by the Scouts are sorely missing in society today. Too often, duty to God and country are not valued in our culture. That is why it is so vital that we help the Boy Scouts continue their mission.

For over 100 years the Boy Scouts have made this country a better place. More than 2.6 million Scouts are continuing to build character, promote physical, spiritual and mental growth, and acquire leadership skills for generations of young men. You can look no further than the 300,000 hours of community service that will be performed during the Jamboree to understand the positive impact Scouting has on its members and the community as a whole.

Now, the Boy Scouts of America have a brand new home to carry on their jamboree tradition in the beautiful state of West Virginia. We are also excited that for the first time in 52 years, the World Scout Jamboree will be held in the United States at this same site in 2019.

While thousands of Scouts are here to ``Go Big, Get Wild,'' we welcome them to our beautiful country roads!

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.

Whenever I speak with teachers, principals, and parents back in West Virginia, a common theme that emerges from those conversations is that they acknowledge one size doesn't fit all. They want control restored to the State and local levels. The underlying bill makes great strides in returning that control to the people who know best how to educate our children and our grandchildren, not bureaucrats in Washington.

My colleagues, Mr. Reed and Mr. Owens, and I have offered an amendment to go even further in giving States that flexibility they seek. The amendment will allow States and local governments to take multiple measures into consideration.

Currently, No Child Left Behind uses narrow Federal mandates on testing to

measure results. Testing may be just part of the solution, but States should be allowed to look at the ability of other benchmarks like graduation rates and the percentage of students taking advance courses.

This amendment has bipartisan support and is a commonsense way to improve the underlying bill. Local government and flexibility should trump Washington mandates.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the committee for this piece of legislation that's before us today.

Throughout the entire bill, we can see efforts that will result in more efficient use of taxpayer dollars. Additionally, it is encouraging to see the emphasis on certain research accounts at the National Energy Technology Laboratory.

It is clear that you understand the challenges that the fossil fuel industry faces in trying to meet the excessive regulations imposed by this administration. However, I am concerned that the $78 million cut from current funding in this amended legislation represents a 16 percent reduction in funds and will have dire consequences for NETL's ability to manage grants and contracts to conduct the necessary research and development of fossil fuel energy. America depends on fossil resources for over 80 percent of our energy needs and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

As you know, the funding for this research and development has led to horizontal gas drilling, reductions in acid rain, increases in power plant efficiencies, and carbon capture and utilization efforts for enhanced oil recovery.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will continue to agree that, in order for us to continue this vital research in fossil fuel energy, NETL needs to be properly funded and that you will work with us in an effort to try to restore the 16 percent reduction in the funding for this account.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for those comments.

These research projects are in every State in the Nation and almost every congressional district throughout our country. Every one of our colleagues has a vested interest in this laboratory operating efficiently, putting us into the next generation of power and use and efficiency. We have appreciated your leadership and commitment to this program.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, President Obama continued his relentless war on coal. He indicated he would circumvent Congress and use unelected bureaucrats to fulfill his anticoal agenda. He implied he had a moral obligation to do so because Congress is not acting. But Congress has, indeed, acted and simply doesn't agree with the President's ambitions. Congress realized that his agenda will destroy jobs and increase the cost of electricity. Electric bills will go up for everyone who uses power. Everyone will pay more.

The President is basing his call for action on flawed theories about what may happen in the future, but his actions will have an immediate negative impact today.

During his remarks, the President insulted his critics with sophomoric name calling and dismissed the opinions of over 32,000 scientists and physicists who contend that the issue of global warming has not been settled. In the coming months, we will highlight the devastating impact these anticoal policies will have on America's future, its families, and the economy in general. We will point out the flaws in his climate projections.

The President may believe that a war on coal is exactly what's needed, but the thousands who will lose their jobs and the millions who will pay more for electricity beg to differ.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 150th birthday of West Virginia's statehood. As a seventh generation West Virginian, I am proud of the special history of the Mountain State.

On June 20, 1863, West Virginia became the 35th state in the country. While the Civil War divided the nation, few states faced more internal strife because of the conflict than Virginia. Bitter relations between eastern and western Virginians had been growing for years before the Civil War as people living in both regions were divided geographically, culturally, economically and politically. After Virginia voted to secede from the Union on April 17, 1861, people living in western Virginia pushed for the creation of a new state by formally petitioning President Abraham Lincoln for statehood.

A public referendum on the issue of statehood passed on October 24, 1861, and a constitutional convention held in my hometown of Wheeling in February 1862 produced a constitution that was intensely debated, with one controversial issue being the emancipation of slaves. The first draft of the new state constitution was not well received by the U.S. Senate because it contained no emancipation clause, so the Willey Amendment, which called for the gradual emancipation of slaves, was added. It apparently worked. The measure passed by a vote of 23 to 17. After another contentious debate, the measure passed the House on December 10, 1862, by a vote of 96 to 55.

In late December 1862, President Lincoln turned to his Cabinet for advice on whether the legislation that would create the state of West Virginia was constitutional. He received contradictory opinions, and no consensus. Lincoln agonized over his decision and weighed arguments from both sides before announcing his decision. On New Year's Eve 1862 he signed the bill that gave birth to West Virginia.

It was a controversial decision that scholars continue to debate to this day, mainly because the petition for statehood was approved by the government representing the territory that would become West Virginia and not the territory that would remain Virginia. Lincoln recognized the questionable nature of the state's creation, noting that ``a measure made expedient by a war, is no precedent for times of peace.'' But he said he signed the bill because he could not afford to lose the support of loyal West Virginians.

``Her brave and good men regard her admission into the Union as a matter of life and death,'' the president said in his written opinion. ``They have been true to the Union under very severe trials.

``We have so acted as to justify their hopes; and we cannot fully retain their confidence, and cooperation, if we seem to break faith with them.''

After the Civil War, the new state experienced an era of unprecedented industrial development with burgeoning industries based on its rich natural resources--coal, oil, natural gas and timber--along with the construction of hundreds of miles of new railroads that helped to open up the Mountain State to trade with the world. By the turn of the century, West Virginia had grown to become a significant contributor to the nation's industrialization and expansion.

While the state remains a leader in energy, it also is a global supplier of chemicals and a national hub for biotech industries. Its diverse economy now includes aerospace, automotive, healthcare and education, metals and steels, media and telecommunications, manufacturing, hospitality, biometrics, forestry, and tourism.

West Virginia also is a great place for outdoor recreation with 32 state parks, Alpine and Nordic ski areas, whitewater rafting, and other attractions, such as The Greenbrier resort in White Sulphur Springs and the Summit Bechtel Family National Scout Reserve in Glen Jean. The state's beautiful mountains, lakes and rivers, low crime rate, and other lifestyle factors continue to draw tourists and retirees alike.

From its difficult beginnings until today, West Virginians have remained ``true to the Union,'' as Lincoln said. More than 500,000 West Virginians have answered the call of duty since the Revolutionary War. More than 10,000 West Virginians have given their lives in combat, and the state, though only 1.8 million strong, leads the country in the number of military veterans per capita.

As the only state born of the Civil War and the only state formed by presidential decree, West Virginia proudly celebrates its sesquicentennial.

Madam Speaker, today, the great State of West Virginia is celebrating its 150th year birthday.

The unique history of the Mountain State is a source of pride for all West Virginians. On this day in 1863, West Virginia entered the Union to become the 35th State. It is the only State born during that divisive War Between the States, and the only State formed by Presidential decree.

From these challenging years, our State has become a significant contributor to America's economy. West Virginia's natural resources-- coal, oil, natural gas, and timber--have played an integral role in the industrialization of our country. Now, in addition to providing energy to continue fueling our Nation's economy, West Virginia has grown into a leader in health care, research, education, biotech, aerospace, and many other diverse industries.

The Mountain State's natural beauty also attracts people from all around the world to visit and enjoy its breathtaking scenery.

Madam Speaker, today West Virginia takes special pride in our wild and wonderful State. We celebrate our past and look forward to the future.

Happy birthday, West Virginia. Here's to the next 150 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Linda and Richard Kerr on their fiftieth wedding anniversary.

Richard Kerr and Linda Fleming were married in Morgantown, West Virginia on June 4, 1964. They proudly raised two daughters with love and a wonderful sense of humor. They are committed to continuous learning and have a natural curiosity that they share with their four grandchildren.

Dr. Richard Kerr practiced medicine in West Virginia for over 35 years, while Mrs. Kerr served as a teacher at Morgantown High School. Dr. and Mrs. Kerr are two incredibly patriotic people who have tirelessly worked towards the improvement of our country, and our home State of West Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 1st Congressional District of West Virginia, I ask all my distinguished colleagues to join me in congratulating my friends, Linda and Richard Kerr, on their fiftieth wedding anniversary and wishing them fifty more.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1919.

Let me bring attention to a provision in the bill that we were just discussing about electronic distribution of prescription information for health care professionals and pharmacists. Industry and the FDA have been in discussions for years about eliminating the paper attached to bottles of prescription drugs.

Let me show you this. This is what we are talking about--this wad of paper on the top of a prescription bottle. It's a folded up piece of paper. It can be in three and four parts. This is not an efficient way to distribute critical information about prescription drugs. Eliminating this wad of paper would save the consumers millions of dollars in printing and shipping costs.

The House committee recognized the need to allow pharmacists the option of electronic or paper copies, because some rural pharmacies may not have Internet capabilities. Unfortunately, this labeling provision is not in the Senate bill.

So, as the process moves forward into conference, this labeling provision needs to be retained so that we have a final product that assures patient safety and provides uniform national standards to strengthen the national drug supply chain.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and the labeling provision.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Helping Sick Americans Now Act.

I cosponsored this legislation because it addresses something that is particularly important to Republicans and Democrats alike: providing care for those who need it most.

I strongly opposed ObamaCare and have supported the efforts to repeal it; however, it's the law of the land. In it, the President and Congress made a promise to help Americans with preexisting conditions. The President has broken this promise when he consciously cut off access to the program dealing with preexisting conditions and left tens of thousands of Americans with nowhere to turn for their health care. To many Americans, this is typical of Washington: empty gestures and broken promises. This has to stop.

We have a chance to help people get the care they were promised by taking money from a wasteful slush fund. I intend to uphold the promise the President once made and now has broken. I urge my colleagues to do the same and vote for this commonsense legislation.

Thank you, Congresswoman.

I rise today in a belief that America can handle the truth. Abraham Lincoln said, ``I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.'' To that end, Speaker Boehner has been candid about the fiscal challenges facing our Nation and has put forth a balanced plan. However, as the President continues to promote his own plan, he seems to be deliberately not sharing key details with the public.

First, the plan will hurt nearly a million small businesses by treating them the same as the wealthy Americans. Secondly, the plan ignores the central driver of our deficit--government spending. It ignores that.

On the first matter, why should we lump the owner of a hardware store together with Wall Street executives and tax them at the same rate? When the President talks about the rich paying their fair share, he fails to mention that he also raises the same rate of taxes on small businesses. Earlier this week, the President told factory workers that his plan is to ``ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a slightly higher tax rate.'' Previously, he said, ``Millionaires and billionaires can afford to pay a little bit more.'' But not once did the President publicly acknowledge his plan will raise taxes on owners of small family businesses.

I'd like to give you an example of a small business owner who would fill out the tax form here, a 1040. This form is for a single woman, Mary Workman, who is in software development. She makes $50,000 in wages, and the company makes $150,000. She picks up some dividends and capital gains, so she has a total family income of $210,000. Under the President's proposal, Mary would be hit with the same tax rate equal to those of millionaires--at $50,000 in wages.

Where is the fairness in that, Mr. President?

It's one thing to ask Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, or Donald Trump to pay more in taxes, but it's something else to penalize the small businesses of Main Street, like the software developer, for example.

This is not an isolated case. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 940,000 small businesses will face higher taxes under this President's plan. These are not the wealthiest Americans, but they're proprietors of small, family-owned businesses that are located in every town across America. According to the report by Ernst & Young this summer, 710,000 jobs will be lost by these companies if they're taxed at the same rate as corporate America.

The President's proposal, curiously, would raise taxes on small businesses to as high as 39 percent, but for larger, mature corporations, the President is seeking to lower their tax rate to 25 percent. Although reforming and lowering the corporate tax rate is a worthy goal, neither Congress nor the President should give tax advantages to large corporations at the expense of the owners of small, family businesses.

Generally, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to raising taxes. However, if in the spirit of compromise Congress is forced to adopt new revenue in order to achieve reductions, then Congress should insist that personal wages be separated from small business income and taxed differently. This could be done by using the information already filed on the 1040, which is just like they do on capital gains, dividends, and interest payments.

Now on to the second matter, the spending side of the equation. Surely, the President understands that raising taxes on small businesses and Wall Street executives won't sufficiently cover the deficit. Despite this reality, he consistently confuses the public by ignoring the role that reducing government spending would and should play in deficit reduction.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, this administration's plan to raise the top rates generates an average of $43 billion a year, yet we are faced with a deficit of $1.1 trillion. This new revenue, as you pointed out, Madam Congresswoman, is only enough to fund the government for 8 days. During the campaign, the President proposed that there should be $2.50 in new spending reductions for every dollar in

new revenue, but now that the campaign is over, his latest plan calls for just the opposite--an unacceptable ratio of $4 in new revenue and only $1 in spending cuts.

Speaker Boehner is right: America has a spending problem, not a taxing problem. While the President has consistently told the American public that he is merely asking the wealthy to pay just a bit more in taxes, when was the last time the President also reminded the American public that we borrow 46 cents out of every dollar we spend? Congress is chasing the wrong rabbit. Raising taxes on small businesses is no more a solution to fixing the deficit than is cutting worthy social programs. The problem lies much deeper than that.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke admitted that the spending levels of this administration are unsustainable. Just as President Clinton declared years ago that the era of Big Government is over, this Congress needs to man up and declare the era of taxing, spending, and borrowing into perpetuity is over as well. Now is the time for the President to provide leadership, to level with the American people, and to set aside the campaign rhetoric of class warfare, division, and envy.

Small, family-owned businesses cannot and should not be painted with the same broad brush as millionaires, billionaires, and Wall Street executives. We must protect our small businesses and stop promoting the treatment of their income to be the same as that of the wealthy.

At the same time, this administration needs to admit that raising taxes on businesses will not pay the excesses of spending that has occurred over the last 4 years. We must prioritize our fiscal negotiations by putting spending reductions before addressing new revenues.

Mr. Speaker, I came to Washington 2 years ago to get something done. Speaker Boehner has shown that he understands the gravity of the situation and wants to find a solution that is balanced and realistic. I stand solidly behind him. Protecting small businesses and addressing our spending problems are too important to the economy to ignore. The situation demands that we deal in reality. Once again, Mr. Speaker, America can handle the truth if given all the facts.