Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, haven't we done enough already in this bill to impact low-income families' access to food?

The U.S. Government purchases 20 percent of domestic milk production for use in anti-hunger programs. So if the price of milk goes up, so does the cost of our nutrition programs like the Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or the WIC program; and the National School Lunch program.

Everybody admits that the effect of the underlying language in the bill will be to raise milk prices.

This is a burden that our low-income families simply cannot afford. We need a balance. We need a balance that will give a safety net to our dairy families but won't take it off of the backs of our low-income folks.

So I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. Just like the Consumer Federation of America and so many other groups that Ms. Lee talked about, this is a good thing for consumers, it's a good thing for Americans, and we should have that balance. Vote ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, at a time when Americans want their elected officials to focus on jobs and building our economy, here we are again focusing our efforts on limiting a woman's ability to make her own health care decisions.

As I have heard time and time again from women across this Nation, women don't want politicians imposing their extreme beliefs on them when they're making tough decisions. I keep hearing about polls from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Well, here's a poll. We just heard about it today. Congress' popularity is at an all-time low of 10 percent, and bills like this are exactly why.

Last session we wasted a lot of the American people's time debating and voting on legislation designed solely to take a woman's health care decision out of her hands and that of her doctor and instead to allow politicians to step in and substitute their judgment. Now, this time it did take the majority 6 months of the new session, but here we go again, right back down that same rabbit hole.

Today, we're voting on another extreme policy that's dangerous to women's health, interferes with the doctor-patient relationship, and is also patently unconstitutional. As introduced, the bill provided no exceptions for victims of rape and incest; but last week, after some of us pointed that out, the bill's sponsors maneuvered to add an attempted exception for rape and incest victims. But even this latest attempt is deeply offensive.

The bill now requires a woman to prove that she had reported the rape to authorities in order to have access to a legal medical procedure. Let me say that again: a woman would now have to prove she actually reported the rape to obtain a necessary medical procedure, making her into a two-time victim.

This kind of logic demonstrates a callous, almost willful ignorance towards the health needs of women across the Nation, and it shows how the proponents have no respect for women's ability to make their own decisions.

Vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Colorado State Senator Pat Steadman, who today was honored by the White House as a ``Harvey Milk Champion of Change'' for his commitment to equality and public service.

Pat has championed equality for LGBT Coloradans for over 20 years. While studying at the University of Colorado School of Law, Pat fought against ballot issues that targeted gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities. After law school, Pat worked to oppose Amendment 2 on the 1992 Colorado general election ballot. When that anti-gay amendment passed, Pat co-founded the non-profit organization that spearheaded the lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of Amendment 2; the case eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court. This landmark case Romer v. Evans declared Amendment 2 unconstitutional and established the first major court precedent protecting the equal rights of LGBT Americans.

In 2009, Pat was selected to fill the vacant Colorado Senate seat in the 31st District. Since that time, he has worked hard to protect and defend the rights of all his constituents and continue his fight for equality. Last year, his partner of many years Dave Misner was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and died in September after a brief battle. Dave was also a champion for equality, and I know he would have been so proud when this year Pat introduced for the third time the Colorado Civil Unions Act, which legalized civil unions for any two unmarried adults, regardless of gender. This landmark was signed into law by Governor John Hickenlooper on March 21, 2013. I was honored to be able to perform some of the first civil union ceremonies in Denver earlier this month. The joyful celebrations reinforced the fact that Pat has achieved extraordinary things that empower and inspire his fellow Coloradoans. And I know Dave would be even more proud of Pat today.

Yesterday, Pat visited the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. and shared online his favorite inscription at the Memorial. On the southeast interior panel, he was moved by an inscription from an 1816 letter by Jefferson to a friend that reads: ``I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.''

Pat, your service to Colorado has embodied this quote, as you work to keep our laws and institutions moving hand in hand with progress. On behalf of a grateful state, thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend, my college debate coach, and my mentor, James Alan Johnson--known to everyone as ``Al''--who passed away in late December of last year. Al Johnson's life began in the little farming town of Swink, Colorado, on July 6, 1930. He attended school in nearby La Junta, and when he was old enough he joined the United States Navy and fought in the Korean War. After the war, he earned his bachelor's degree from Colorado College (CC), and went on to receive a Masters in economics from Stanford University.

He returned to his undergraduate alma mater to spend his career, and became a beloved figure on CC's campus. Respected by his colleagues and admired by his students, Al's career spanned many decades, where he was a professor of economics, the college's debate coach, and the college Registrar. As Registrar, he guided the college towards excellence. It was under his leadership that CC's unique approach towards higher education--the Block Plan--became a reality. Because of this visionary plan of study, Colorado College students have the opportunity to focus on one class at a time. Al's steady hand as Registrar made the vision of the Block Plan a reality; one that continues to challenge students today.

As CC's debate coach, Al inspired generations of debaters. He expected nothing less than our best at all times. He urged us to be scholar-debaters, not just debaters; driving us to research a topic thoroughly, yet honestly, looking at the matter from all sides. All these years later, I remember how Al would repeat anything that was particularly important three times. As I now spend my days giving speeches designed to influence and inform, that guidance continues to resonate with me--to repeat that which is important as you make your argument.

Al's commitment to debate ran beyond just our classroom. He held the positions of president and treasurer of the National Collegiate Debate Association, and organized the National Parliamentary Debate Association and various international tournaments. Even in his

retirement, Al continued his active involvement with the debate community, urging the national associations to keep the activity relevant to the training of future generations of leaders.

Throughout his life, Al loved to travel, and in fact, he and his brother Bill visited all 50 states, six continents and 50 different countries. In recent years, Al and Bill made regular trips to Washington, DC to visit their late sister, Shirley, and he always called me when he was in town. A lifelong Coloradan, Al was a scholar of Colorado state history, as well as American and world history, and frequently gave speeches on history in El Paso County and in Denver.

Al was beloved by his many former students and colleagues. During his final illness, the outpouring of love and support from his friends helped ease his days. Al received visits, phone calls, cards, and emails from around the world. A true mark of his influence was how the community rallied around him. I had the honor of seeing Al just a few weeks before his death, and will forever be glad that I had one more opportunity to hear his wisdom.

Al Johnson was a scholar, a teacher, a mentor and a friend to countless students and colleagues throughout his life. His passing is a great loss for Colorado College, for the state of Colorado, and a personal loss for me and all who loved him. He will be sorely missed, but I know his legacy of excellence will endure.

Yesterday, in his inaugural address, our President reminded us of the founding principle of our Nation--that all Americans are created equal. For the women of this great country, there can be no greater means of equality than the right to reproductive choice.

Today, on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I come to the floor to reflect on that landmark decision that allowed American women the freedom to make health care decisions on their own, in consultation with their family and doctors.

I don't know the story of every woman who's had to make a difficult decision, but I can tell you this: each one is unique. Each woman's story is her own. As a politician, I'm not going to tell women when to get checkups or when to get mammograms. And no politician, now or ever, should tell a woman how to handle her pregnancy.

Just this morning, The Wall Street Journal issued a poll that showed Americans agree with this; 7 in 10 Americans believe Roe v. Wade should stand. And I think everybody who tries to reverse this fundamental right should keep that in mind.

Thank you to everybody who fights every day for the rights of women. Today is a day to be grateful and to celebrate and to commit to hard work in the future.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, 20 beautiful children and their loving teachers were shot by a deranged man with an assault rifle that had a high-capacity magazine. The time has come for us to have a national conversation about this--about mental health, about the community issues, about school safety, and about these types of weapons.

Now, we know we are never going to be able to stop disturbed individuals from going into a school or a movie theater or a shopping mall to do harm, but we can slow them down. We don't have to give them so many bullets in high-capacity clips so that they can shoot 26 people in 10 minutes multiple times. We can take those away, and that will give people a fighting chance. By limiting those clips, we can save lives.

We can start right now by doing that, Mr. Speaker. There is a bill which Congresswoman McCarthy, Congresswoman Maloney, and I are sponsoring. We can pass the bill this week on a bipartisan basis, and we can tell the moms and dads of America that it's a first step to keeping their kids safe.

``Not again.'' We all said it to ourselves in the split second we heard it on Friday, ``Not again.'' Then, when we heard about the victims, we knew it was different. Twenty little children slaughtered in their classroom. In our sadness, we know our society bears responsibility because we have not done enough to protect our children.

We have not been able to get a grip on the increasing incidence of gun massacres, and because of that we have failed our children.

In the wake of Newtown, this country must really have a conversation about our views on violence, our views on guns, and how we're going to respond to people who are obviously mentally ill. Certainly through that conversation we can find consensus around reasonable solutions to keep these killing machines out of the hands of impaired individuals.

There's not one magic solution. It's not one thing. It's many things. It starts by us having inward conversations with ourselves and our families. It then starts by creating a more comprehensive and effective mental health system. Then we have to have a meaningful conversation about gun violence in our country. We are never going to be able to stop a deranged individual from going into a school or a movie theater or a shopping mall to shoot people; but if you limit the weapons and the ammunition available to them, you can give the people in their sights some fighting chance to stop that killer.

Of the 12 deadliest shooting massacres in history, six have occurred since 2007. In 1999, in my second term of Congress, I dealt with the devastation of Columbine, which is now in my district. Just this summer, I stood here like the Connecticut Representatives.

I stood right here with my Representatives from Colorado, like the Connecticut delegation, and mourned our friends in Aurora. And now again we stand here.

We can start by passing a bill this week to ban high-capacity ammo clips, the same kind this killer used and the same kind the killer in Aurora used. My colleague and friend, Carolyn McCarthy, and I have a bill to do just that, and we're going to urge the Republican leadership to do that this week. But after that, we have to have that conversation as parents, as neighbors, as friends, and the custodians of those 20 courageous little souls and the adults who tried to protect them.

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

During my time in Congress, one important lesson that I've learned is that good oversight results in good legislation, and biased and partisan oversight results in biased and partisan legislation. The No More Solyndras Act is a good example of that rule. It's bad legislation born of part biased and partisan oversight.

The Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, on which I sit as ranking member, investigated the Solyndra loan in excruciating detail, but after 18 months, 300,000 pages of documents, 14 interviews with key officials, five hearings, and three subpoenas, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have failed to prove any of their inflammatory accusations that they've leveled at the administration. Instead, they simply repeat one unproven allegation after another, trying to score political points, ignoring key exculpatory evidence, and making misleading accusations about the Solyndra loan based on cherry-picked evidence.

Now, the loan guarantee program was actually developed in 2005 as part of the Energy Policy Act by the Bush administration. It was developed with the thought that as we look at development of domestic energy sources like oil and gas, we should also look at development of alternative energy sources like wind and solar. So this program was passed by a Republican Congress, with a Republican President in the White House, in order to do such a thing.

It's important to note that the Solyndra loan, the first application was made under the Bush administration. It was then funded under the Obama administration. What happened was, once this loan was thoroughly vetted by the career employees at the Department of Energy and funded, the market conditions changed. China decided to flood the market with cheap solar panels, causing Solyndra's business model to change.

Now, the career employees--many of whom had been there under a Republican and Democratic administration at the Department of Energy-- had a decision to make: they could walk away from $500 million of U.S. taxpayer money or they could try to restructure the loan in the hope of recovering that money, and that was the decision that they made. The facts simply do not support the over-the-top allegations that there was anything wrong with this decision.

Now, let me be clear, Mr. Chairman, my job is not to defend the administration. If something improper occurred on this loan, I would want to know about it, and I would want to expose it. But what the evidence showed is that the career officials and the Bush and Obama administration appointees who worked on the loan told our investigators that political considerations played no role in the decisions on Solyndra.

They told us that there was no improper pressure to rush key decisions on the loan, to approve the loan, or to change the terms of the loan. Each and every one of these officials confirm that there were no corners cut in the process and that decisions were made purely on the merits.

As David Frantz, a career civil servant who has served as Director of the loan guarantee program since 2007 under the Bush administration, said:

. . . through the whole history of the program, from its

inception to today, it has not been driven by any political

considerations whatsoever.

But the Republicans ignored the evidence before the committee and they repeatedly made insinuations that were simply not correct. For example, my Subcommittee Chairman Stearns claimed that the committee's investigation:

. . . reveals a startlingly cozy relationship between

wealthy donors and the President's confidants, especially in

matters related to Solyndra.

But this statement is exactly the opposite of what the committee found. Chairman Stearns was referring to unproven allegations of White House political favoritism on behalf of the Solyndra investor George Kaiser, a supporter of President Obama.

But the committee interviewed two key White House decisionmakers, Adi Kumar and Heather Zichal, about their interaction with Mr. Kaiser. The committee learned that at the time the Solyndra loan was being reviewed, neither of these officials had any knowledge of Mr. Kaiser's support for the President, nor did they have any role in the substantive decisions about the loan. These are the key officials Republicans claimed were at the center of the White House's improper activities, and yet they had no knowledge of Mr. Kaiser's political support and no involvement in the decisions on the loan.

These facts directly contradict the allegations that we've been seeing repeatedly in the press for these many months, and they contradict the findings in the bill that we're debating today. That's why I have an amendment which will come up in a few minutes to strip some of the inaccurate findings out of the bill. These facts don't seem to matter to my friends on the other side of the aisle, though.

Throughout the investigation, Democrats urged the chairman to take a different path. We asked for responsible oversight that could actually shed light on why this company failed and

what legislation might be needed to advance our energy security and our domestic clean energy sector.

Despite our requests, Republicans refused to hold hearings on the competitive challenges U.S. manufacturers face in the global clean energy market. They refused to seek testimony from the largest private equity investors in Solyndra to understand why the company attracted so much private capital, and they refused to invite DOE witnesses to take a serious look at the legal and financial rationale behind the subordination of the government position in the Solyndra loan.

This was not a fair, complete, or effective investigation. It sure was long, though. But the result, the legislation before us, is also not fair, complete, or effective.

The bill does nothing to advance our Nation's energy security or to save taxpayer money. It ignores the benefits of the DOE loan programs: 300 million gallons of gasoline saved, the world's largest solar plants, the Nation's first electric vehicle manufacturing facilities, and tens of billions of dollars in private investment dollars off the sidelines and into the American economy.

The legislation does allow DOE to award $34 billion in future loan guarantees, but it prohibits the DOE from considering any new applications. Refusing to allow DOE to even consider cutting-edge applications is not the way to advance innovative energy technologies in this country. And the legislation also ties DOE's hands in the event a loan recipient needs additional capital, removing an important and legal refinancing tool that the DOE and independent observers agree can help save and protect taxpayer funds.

It's clear this legislation is a political exercise. It does nothing but attempt to keep the word ``Solyndra'' in the news and to give a platform to repeat these accusations. And it's a shame, because what we should be doing today is working together, in a bipartisan way, to find a complete energy policy that will help us, for national defense and for economic reasons, become independent from foreign oil and create new, clean energy that's domestically based.

It's disappointing legislation, and for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no''.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

I also ask unanimous consent that the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), control the rest of the time on this side of the aisle.

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

Mr. Chairman, sadly, this deeply flawed legislation we are considering today is the result of a political investigation, not a fact-based investigation. The majority has ignored the benefits of the DOE loan program and has consistently ignored evidence uncovered in the investigation that contradicts their predetermined view of events. All you have to do is look at the six pages of partisan findings at the beginning of the bill as proof that this is really just a witch hunt.

What my amendment does is it at least attempts to fix the most egregious parts of the false and misleading legislative findings so that at least the record will attempt to be clear and honest.

The first findings I deal with in my amendment are these findings in paragraph 9 that say:

The review in 2009 of the Solyndra application by the

Department of Energy and OMB was ``driven by politics and

ideology, and divorced from economic reality where the

Department of Energy ignored concerns about the company's

financial condition and market for its products.''

That is so blatantly partisan. Our committee's oversight work found that the Solyndra loan determination was based on thorough, unbiased, and fair analysis of DOE and OMB officials without political or ideological influence from Obama administration political appointees or from career officials.

These findings also ignore the fact that each and every one of the 20 witnesses we questioned in interviews and in hearings told us unequivocally there was no political influence on this loan guarantee, that no corners were cut in the review, and that all decisions were made purely on the merits. Shame on the majority for just putting this blatantly false allegation in these findings.

Mr. Chairman, there are also other findings in the legislation that are inaccurate and should be removed. The findings state that the DOE acted illegally in subordinating the Solyndra loan, and Chairman Stearns talked quite a bit about this in his closing remarks on the substance of the bill. But when looking at the facts, this is simply not the case. What the law says is in the initial granting of the loan guarantee, the government position shall not be subordinated, but DOE's general counsel carefully analyzed the law and determined that subordination in the restructuring would be allowed legally. This opinion was supported by others in the administration, and by outside experts consulted as part of the committee investigation.

Chairman Stearns talks about talking to independent lawyers who said that the subordination was not legal. Sadly, he refused to call any of those lawyers to testify before our committee. Furthermore, he refused to call the lawyers at the Department of Energy or DOJ who had said subordination was legal, despite repeated requests by myself and Chairman Waxman that they should come in.

Here's my question: If subordination was already illegal as the majority claims, why are we considering legislation that makes it illegal? Why doesn't

the Department of Justice just go and prosecute these people? It just doesn't make sense. That's why my amendment also replaces the misleading findings about subordination with an honest set of facts.

Mr. Chairman, the findings also ignore the important successes of title XVII and the ATVM loan programs. In total, the DOE loan programs are creating 60,000 jobs and saving nearly 300 million gallons of gasoline a year. The title XVII and ATVM programs have supported six power generation projects that are already complete and nine projects that are sending power to the electricity grid. The program is funding one of the world's largest wind farms; the world's largest concentrated solar generation project; the world's largest photovoltaic solar power plant, as we heard from Mr. Waxman; and the Nation's first two all- electric vehicle manufacturing facilities. The programs have allowed private investors to come off the sidelines to invest tens of billions of dollars and create thousands of jobs.

Now, several of my friends on the other side of the aisle, including Chairman Stearns, and my dear friend from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), said we should just cede leadership in this to other countries. If other countries like China are investing money, well, too bad for us; we should cede the leadership in solar to them.

I do not think this is the right place for the U.S. to go. For that reason, I believe my amendment should be adopted. Let's have the findings of fact be accurate. Vote ``yes'' on the DeGette amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the tireless work and exceptional accomplishments of Dr. Patricia Gabow, Chief Executive Officer of Denver Health and Hospital Authority. After a remarkable 20 year career at the helm of Denver Health, Dr. Gabow is retiring and leaving behind national models for institutions and aspiring leaders in the field.

Dr. Gabow's commitment to Colorado's health care safety net has been recognized in many areas. She has been elected to the Colorado Women's Hall of Fame for her generosity in mentoring others, her innovation in going outside health care in search of new management ideas, and her commitment to best practices. In addition, Dr. Gabow is the recipient of numerous awards including the American Medical Association's Nathan Davis Award, the Florence Rena Sabin Award, and the 2008 National Healthcare Leadership Award. She has been named as one of the top 25 women in health care, one of the top 50 physician executives, and one of the 100 most powerful people in American health care. Of note, Dr. Gabow was one of only four women named to this list in 2006, and I want to acknowledge my pride in the path she creates for future generations to find their own way in the business of quality health care delivery.

Knowing Dr. Gabow was hard at work in Denver was a comfort and a source of pride as I worked in Congress to improve the health and potential of people in my home state of Colorado. Like many Members of Congress, I have often turned to Dr. Gabow for her expertise in health care policy. For example, during the process of crafting the Affordable Care Act, Dr. Gabow testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee on the role of safety net providers in providing coordinated care, Medicaid's vital function in health reform, and the importance of protecting Medicaid and Medicare funding that helps hospitals treat the uninsured and underinsured. Her influence helped to expand the Medicaid program under health reform, which will help millions of children and their families across the nation. We share so many priorities and it is with a deep appreciation of and affection for Dr. Gabow that I recognize her invaluable service to our community and country.

Dr. Gabow has proved that a researcher can run a hospital and run it well. In an era when many hospitals are operating in the red, Dr. Gabow has taken a hospital that, even while treating thousands of uninsured patients, maintains a viable, successful business model. Dr. Gabow has led this success by looking to other industries, like the auto industry, and translating their business efficiencies into the health care sector by developing integrated care models. Hospital administrators, doctors, and researchers have looked to and will continue to turn to Dr. Gabow for ways to re-imagine heath care in America.

I do not know what is next for Patty Gabow. But I do know that whatever she does, we will be inspired, impressed, and indebted to her for all she will continue to do to strengthen the rights and the outcomes for those among us who are sick and in need of quality health care. Thank you, Patty, for your friendship and work on behalf of the people of the First District of Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my dear friend and colleague, Ed Perlmutter, for yielding to me.

This is a difficult week for all of us in Colorado.

There were two movie theaters in the Denver metro area that were showing this premiere at midnight last Thursday night. So there were people from all over the community in that theater there with their families and their friends, almost the entire employees of a restaurant in Colorado. They went to have a fun evening on a summer night. And tragedy, of course, struck that night unexpectedly to everybody.

I've been overwhelmed, as we all have in the delegation, by the support of the community for all of the victims of the shooting and their families.

The way the communities have come together--Aurora and Denver and Inglewood and all of the communities--has been a blessed thing to see for all of us.

No one can make sense of a tragedy like this, and the stories of heroism are still coming out every day. The stories of miracles--babies born just a day or two after in the same hospital where the father lies in a coma. Yet while we hear all of these stories of heroism and while we hear all of the stories of first responders rushing to the scene and helping within 90 seconds, in our heart we say: How can this happen and what can we do?

I did have a number of constituents in that theater, some who were just injured, some who were in the nearby theaters who will be scarred psychologically forever by this, a close friend of my daughter, and others. I had at least three constituents who were killed by this terrible crime. The little girl, Veronica Moser, age 6--whose mother, Ashley, lies in critical condition--Jessica Ghawi and Alex Teves. Our prayers and thoughts go out to all of them and their families.

It's wonderful to see my friends from the delegation here, the entire House delegation from Colorado. We consider ourselves to be close allies, although we often disagree on different issues.

I just want to say something to all of my colleagues and to everyone in this House, Mr. Speaker. We have now had, as of today, 25 moments of silence as respects victims of gun violence since the Columbine shooting. I was here for that too. We had two moments of silence just the other day, one for Aurora and one for the anniversary of the Capitol police officer who was killed 10 years ago today.

So we can have our debates, we can have our discussions, we can mourn for the victims, which is appropriate this week; but it is our challenge, as leaders of our State and leaders of our country, to go on from today and to say: What can we seriously do as a Nation to make sure that no tragedy of this scope or horror ever happens in this country again?

Mr. Speaker, we get the message: the Republican majority wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We got that message the last 30 times they tried to repeal it. And after this week, the 30 million Americans who have lived in fear of bankruptcy because they didn't have health insurance before the Affordable Care Act are left to ask the same question that I've been asking for the last 30 votes: What would you replace it with?

What would the Republicans tell the millions of Americans with kids with preexisting conditions like asthma and diabetes who would lose their insurance after this vote? What would they tell the millions of seniors who have lower prescription drug prices and prevention care, which would evaporate if this bill passed? What would they tell women who, under the Affordable Care Act, won't have to pay higher insurance rates simply because they're women? What would they tell the millions of young adults who are able to stay on their parents' insurance plans who would be thrown off if this bill passed?

All of those benefits and more would evaporate with this vote. And the Republican majority has nothing to say.

I have an idea. Let's put this silliness aside. While these benefits continue to roll out, let's stop the political grandstanding and instead come together to make sure the law is implemented in the best possible way. That's governing. And that's what the American public sent us here to do.

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

I'm proud to stand here today with my Western colleague, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, to speak in support of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act, H.R. 5892. Both of us realize how important hydropower is towards our country and towards energy independence. It's the largest source of renewable energy in America today, but, as Mrs. McMorris Rodgers said, it's only 3 percent of our Nation's dams that are producing this power.

The Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act will enable increased electricity production from clean domestic energy sources by removing roadblocks to new hydropower projects. This legislation will create smarter and more efficient permitting processes for hydropower projects across the Nation by easing the licensing requirements for small hydroelectric projects.

In particular, the bill will allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend preliminary permits for those projects that had been conducted responsibly and to expand the number of hydropower projects that are exempt from FERC licensing requirements. The bill also directs FERC and the Secretary of Energy to perform studies that will reveal new potential for hydropower production and to increase grid reliability. This legislation will promote growth in our hydropower industry and it will create new jobs.

Since my colleague, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, and I began crafting this bill in December of last year, it has advanced with strong bipartisan support every step of the way. This is a testament both to the substance of the bill and to the spirit of everybody who contributed to the process. Members, staff, and stakeholders negotiated constructively and openly to produce this legislation. It's important for us to realize that even in these politically charged times, such collaboration is possible and necessary for us to fulfill our commitment to the American public.

I want to thank my colleague across the aisle for her hard work on this bill, and I also want to acknowledge Ranking Member Waxman and Chairman Upton on the Energy and Commerce Committee for their support throughout the process.

H.R. 5892 will expand our potential to advance clean energy production and create jobs. I urge all Members to vote for this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to support this bipartisan legislation which addresses critical problems affecting the safety of drugs and medical devices in this country. There are several highlights I'd like to talk about, like Dr. Gingrey's incentives for antibiotic development, or the supply chain legislation that Mr. Dingell has worked on tirelessly for years.

But there's one issue that I've been working on on a bipartisan basis throughout this Congress that I want to discuss briefly. Drug shortages have rattled our hospitals, our doctors, and our families. Figures recently released by the University of Utah show there were 56 more newly reported drug shortages in the U.S. last year than in 2010 when there were 211.

So, again, let me say 211 drugs in shortage. How can this be happening, and what can we do about it?

Representative Tom Rooney from Florida and I introduced the bipartisan Preserving Access to Life-Saving Medications Act, which eventually had 85 cosponsors. The bill creates an early warning system between the FDA, drug companies, and providers so a community can respond to a drug shortage quickly and efficiently. It won't solve the root problems of the drug shortage crisis, but it will help providers and doctors and hospitals identify those crises and help with the patient.

This February, for example, under a voluntary program, the FDA stepped in to allow for temporary emergency importation of the cancer drug, Doxil, which was in shortage. And at the same time, the FDA prioritized the review of a new manufacturer of the same drug when the cancer drug went into shortage.

So what our bill will do is make this program mandatory. What we think it will do is it will help patients across the spectrum get the drugs they need. It will help the hospitals and the providers identify potential shortages, and it will help the manufacturers better make sure that they get the drugs to the patients that need them.

I'm thrilled that this is contained, and I want to thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I don't support abortion for gender selection. I don't know anyone who does. Maybe that's because there is no problem in this country of abortion for gender selection.

What H.R. 3541 does--what it really does--is make doctors fear criminal prosecution for their privileged patient relationships. What this bill really does is attempt to scare doctors out of providing a legal medical procedure. And therefore, what this bill really does is jeopardize women's access to full medical care.

I've been racking my brain about how you would enforce this law. Would the ``small government'' Republican majority require notarized affidavits from women and their doctors? Would we have independent investigators?

We all know what this is about--so I have an idea--let's get back to the agenda Americans really want us to talk about: jobs and the economy.