Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership in bringing this bill forward.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the RAPID Act. It is hard enough for working middle class wage earners, many of whom haven't seen a raise in years, to get by. With record low temperatures, polar vortexes, and damaging snowstorms, this brutal winter has created even bigger problems for America's families.

For too many, just paying the monthly heating bill has become a real challenge. A few weeks ago, my hometown paper, the Richmond Times- Dispatch, reported on record-high propane prices and the impact it has had on the 135,000 Virginia families who heat their homes with propane.

Unfortunately, cost increases are affecting families, whether they use propane, natural gas, or electricity to heat their homes. Right now, moms and dads all across America are sitting at their kitchen table looking at one of the largest home heating bills they have ever seen.

We in Congress can't do much about the cold weather, but we can enact sensible policies that expand energy supplies and reduce costs, and that is exactly what we are doing in the House this week.

If you heat your home with propane, our bills tackle the infrastructure problems that have led to record price increases. If you heat your home with natural gas, we are trying to make it easier to move the natural gas that is being developed throughout the country to your home. If you heat your home with electricity, we are halting excessive and unnecessary regulations that are expected to drive up the costs of electricity.

The bottom line? We are reducing energy costs for America's families. Middle class families in Virginia and throughout America have enough to focus on without having to worry about Washington making it more expensive for them to heat their homes.

This is an opportunity for Members of the House to stand together and to offer some relief to struggling Americans who are simply trying to pay their energy bills and provide for their families.

I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte, Representative Marino, and the rest of the Judiciary Committee for their hard work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I would also like to thank Chairmen Upton and Whitfield, Chairman Shuster and Congressman McKinley for their work on all the legislation dealing with energy costs this week.

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady and congratulate her on her leadership for this bill and making sure that we reinsert a notion of fairness back into the law for the people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the SIMPLE Fairness Act.

For the past few months, the President's health care law has been wreaking havoc on the American people. After the administration's disastrous launch of the exchanges, ObamaCare has been anything but what the President had promised it would be. It has become very clear that this law is doing more harm than good.

We now know that ObamaCare has pushed up to 5 million people off the health care plan they liked, and many are now being denied the care they had. To make matters worse, many of these new plans will force Americans to pay higher premiums and higher deductibles. This leaves them with a limited number of options for health care coverage.

Many folks are also finding out that they cannot keep the doctor or the pediatrician that they want to go to and trusted. To put it simply, this is not how America should work. The American people deserve better.

Yet, time and again, the Obama administration has shown its true colors by putting politics first and unilaterally delaying parts of the law to avoid political repercussions. This has become most evident by the administration's delay in the employee mandate for big businesses and its refusal to delay the individual mandate for working Americans.

Just yesterday, it was reported the administration will announce another major unilateral delay on their minimum coverage requirements to--and I quote the publication The Hill--``ease election pressure on Democrats.''

Doesn't it say something that the authors of this legislation are worried that it is being implemented before they face voters again?

And I ask: Will future Presidents, perhaps of our party, be able to simply delay or cancel all or part of ObamaCare? Will my colleagues on the other side of the aisle withhold complaint then?

There is no greater indictment of this law or proof of its failure than the fear that full implementation invokes in its authors.

It is not fair to pick and choose which parts of an unpopular law should be enforced at the expense of working individuals for political expediency, and it is just not fair that businesses and insurance companies get delays and exemptions and not hardworking Americans. It is not fair.

Millions of Americans all over the country are already living paycheck to paycheck. The last thing they need is another brazen attack on their pocketbooks from a health care law they don't want, they didn't ask for, and that doesn't work for them.

Through this administration's ad hoc implementation of ObamaCare, some people won't have to pay the penalty, but others will. Here is who I am concerned about and who the bill before us today protects, the single mom, who for whatever reason ended up without insurance for several months.

She doesn't need a new tax bill from Uncle Sam for hundreds of dollars because she can't access the coverage that Washington says she must. She could use that money to pay the heating bill or to buy groceries for her children.

All Americans--not just some--but all Americans deserve a delay from the punishing financial penalties of the President's health care law. This is our chance to make it happen. With the legislation before us today, no one in this country would be forced to pay the individual mandate tax in 2014.

This is an opportunity to stop the political games and put working Americans first. Let's stand together and support the SIMPLE Fairness Act in bipartisan fashion and give our constituents some relief from the financial burdens of ObamaCare.

I would like to thank Chairman Dave Camp and Representative Lynn Jenkins for their hard work on this issue and on behalf of working Americans.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. The last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. On Friday, no votes are expected.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business today. Of note, I expect one of those suspensions to be the bipartisan flood insurance bill.

In addition, the House will consider a number of bills to address the middle class squeeze brought on by the increase in home heating costs. This winter has been one of the coldest in recent memory, and people are running their heaters longer to keep their families warm. Last fall, the Energy Information Administration predicted that 90 percent of U.S. households would see higher home heating costs this year, and low-income families already spend 12 percent of their household budget on energy costs.

America does not work if middle class families are taking home less. To lower the cost of heating a home, to increase paychecks for middle class Americans, and to build an America that works, the House will consider the following bills:

H.R. 4076, the HHEATT Act, authored by Chairman Bill Shuster, to make it easier to transport propane to areas with shortages;

H.R. 2641, the RAPID Act, sponsored by Representative Tom Marino, to expedite Federal permitting for energy construction projects;

H.R. 2824, Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America, authored by Representative Bill Johnson, to protect coal mining from excessive and unnecessary Federal regulation; and

H.R. 3826, the Electricity Security and Affordability Act, sponsored by Representative Ed Whitfield, to protect electric utility plants from excessive and overly burdensome EPA regulation.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, given all the problems Americans are facing with the rollout of ObamaCare, the House will consider the Simple Fairness Act. This bill will provide relief and fairness to individuals, just as the administration has done for business, by making the individual mandate penalty zero dollars for the remainder of the year.

I thank the gentleman for his comments about the issue of flood insurance and the need to sustain the effort to return to actuarial soundness in that program, at the same time to have affordable and sustainable increases in premiums, which is important for the actuarial soundness of the program. So I appreciate that and look forward to the bipartisan effort next week on the floor with that.

As to the gentleman's comments, Mr. Speaker, about the minimum wage and unemployment insurance extension, it is interesting, if you look at the constituents that we need to focus on, those individuals who struggle to get through the month to pay the bills, those struggling at their job each week with wages that have not increased in real terms in a decade, we could do something on the floor of this House that would be as beneficial, if not more so, to the economy and would address the concerns that we have about decreasing wages, and that is we could roll back the 30-hour workweek rule under ObamaCare. If we were to do that and return it to the 40-hour workweek again--that is a 25 percent increase in wages--we could do that, and

the wage earner at minimum wage would be about $2 off from where that wage earner would be if you followed what the gentleman is suggesting in raising the minimum wage, as the President wants, to $10.10. But the added benefit is, as CBO has warned, you don't have to go about harming job creation prospects at the same time, which means, an increase in minimum wage, as CBO suggested, could very likely result in less jobs being created.

So we can do this without harming the prospects for job creation and help those constituents right now who have been struggling for so long. That is how we can make America work again. Let's get America back to work, more Americans working.

So as far as the gentleman's suggestions about UI, at the end of the day, what we need to do--and I think what most of our constituents who are out of work would like, is they would like a job. And what we know today is there is a mismatch in terms of the job openings and the skills that those who are unemployed have.

We passed a bill on the floor of this House called the SKILLS Act, and it is something I have spoken to the President about and I have spoken to the Vice President about. I would like to work with the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, to see if we can resolve the differences on that bill that has passed this House to get the Senate to act so we can finally get the chronically unemployed in this country back on a path to productivity and give them a hope so they can get a job again. They need the skills.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to underscore and respond to that, that I don't believe there is the requisite number of votes in the House to pass the Senate's comprehensive immigration bill. We have taken the position on our side of the aisle that we are not for that bill. The gentleman rightfully points out that the Speaker and our leadership put out some standards to provide a path for discussion about how we go about addressing a very broken immigration system.

The problem is, Mr. Speaker, we don't have a lot of trust on our side about how this administration will implement the laws we pass; nor do I think, Mr. Speaker, one can blame us given the track record of this administration in seemingly unilaterally making decisions on how to implement a health care law when it doesn't work. This is the frustration and lack of trust that has resulted from those kinds of actions.

We do need to restore the trust in our government for the people that put us here. We do need to address a very broken system, but the administration or anyone's insistence that somehow everything has to be addressed right now our way is not something that is going to sit well, especially given the fact that there is not a lot of trust given the lack of what we believe would be full and faithful execution of the laws as to what is going on with the health care law and others on the part of the administration.

So I don't in any way accept the status quo, I would say to the gentleman on immigration, but we have got to work to see a way forward that can provide a better way.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

I thank both gentlemen from Texas for their leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Consumer Financial Freedom and Washington Accountability Act.

Our constituents deserve an open government that can easily be held accountable. We in the House have got to be focused on reforming this government so we can create an America that works again. The Founders of our country created this democratic system to include a series of checks and balances to prevent any institution from becoming too powerful, and, today, it is as important as ever to keep those checks and balances strong.

Right now, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an independent agency within the Federal Reserve System that is full of unelected bureaucrats who enjoy an unprecedented amount of power with a serious lack of accountability to any of the three branches of government.

American consumers should not have to fear Federal bureaucrats who can eliminate access to their credit options, collect information on their personal finances without their knowledge or consent, or limit the availability of a mortgage due to the onerous Qualified Mortgage rule that the CFPB put in place last month.

Working families who are struggling to make ends meet during these hard economic times should also not have to worry about their hard- earned tax dollars being spent so recklessly and irresponsibly by government agencies. We have recently learned that the Federal Reserve's inspector general opened up an investigation to find out why a renovation to the CFPB's headquarters skyrocketed from $55 million to $145 million in under 2 years. This reckless waste is one of the most dangerous kinds of government abuses. The American workers' pocketbooks are not Washington's ATM machine.

The bill before us today provides solutions to these problems with important structural changes that will place the levers of power in a bipartisan panel, as opposed to a single director, while subjecting the CFPB to the regular appropriations and oversight processes, guaranteeing more accountability.

This is an opportunity for us to show the American people that we are committed to restoring trust in government. By passing these commonsense reforms in a bipartisan fashion, we can hold Washington more accountable to the people we are supposed to protect. So let's pass this bill and take one step closer to stopping government abuse.

Again, I would like to thank Chairman Hensarling, Chairman Neugebauer, Representatives Duffy, Bachus, Westmoreland, and Fincher, and the rest of the Financial Services Committee for their hard work on this issue. I urge my colleagues in the House to support this legislation so we can begin to make America work again for everybody.

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act.

Political speech was considered by our Founders to be deserving of the utmost protection. The First Amendment they wrote is no less crucial to our democracy today than it was in those initial days. Since those days, Americans have come up with all sorts of ways to exercise their fundamental free speech rights, including assembling together in organizations to express their thoughts about what their government is doing.

These groups, including those known as 501(c)(4) organizations, are an important part of our democracy. Many of these groups are formed to specifically engage and educate our citizenry through candidate forums, debates, grassroots lobbying, voter registration, and other activities to promote the common good so America has an informed public.

For over 50 years, these organizations have been eligible to apply for tax-exempt status, but now, Mr. Speaker, that status is under threat from new regulations being proposed by the IRS. The goal here is clear. These regulations were reverse engineered in order to directly silence political opponents of this administration's.

That is the worst kind of government abuse. Silencing your critics is commonplace in authoritarian countries, not in the United States of America. Frankly, it is a cowardly act to silence people via backroom regulations. Those who disagree with any administration's policies, whether conservative or liberal, still deserve the constitutional protections afforded to them. This kind of government abuse must stop, and it must stop now.

Today, we have an opportunity to act in a bipartisan manner because this bill prevents these costly regulations from taking effect on groups that promote issues both sides of the aisle deeply care about. Nearly 70,000 comments have been submitted about this proposed regulation from both sides or all sides of the ideological spectrum. The majority of those submissions are negative.

Recently, the American Civil Liberties Union submitted a 26-page comment to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, stating:

Social welfare organizations praise or criticize candidates

for public office on the issues, and they should be able to

do so freely, without fear of losing or being denied tax-

exempt status, even if doing so could influence a citizen's

vote.

The ACLU continued, stating that the advocacy work done by these groups is ``the heart of our representative democracy.''

The ACLU and so many others who have also spoken out in opposition to this proposed regulation are absolutely

right. Political speech represents the best part of America, the ability for Americans to be able to reach out to their elected representatives and let them know when they agree or disagree with them.

No matter which side of the aisle we are on, Mr. Speaker, we must protect that fundamental freedom. So let us stand together today and pass this bill so that Americans, whether individually or collectively, can continue to strengthen our political process without fear of retribution.

I would like to thank Chairman Camp as well as subcommittee Chairman Boustany on the Ways and Means Committee and all of those across our country who have spoken out on this issue, and I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Virginia.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the ALERTT Act and in defense of working middle class families who face the danger that overzealous Washington regulators will destroy their jobs and impose new red tape that cuts their wages.

An America that works allows small businesses to flourish, jobs to be created, and for folks to have more take-home pay in their pockets. America doesn't work when Washington regulators impose more red tape on businesses, large and small, regardless of the cost. This bill fixes that.

Madam Chair, I hear a lot on this floor about the warnings of days gone by and the fearmongering attached to trying to at least instill some accountability on this bureaucracy in Washington. I don't think any of us on either side of the aisle wants to defend overzealous bureaucrats and imposing unnecessary burdens that have clogged this economy.

Now, America doesn't work when special interest groups use the courts to impose backroom regulations that destroy jobs and reduce take-home pay. This bill before us fixes that.

Now, make no mistake, excessive red tape hurts working middle class families. For example, it was recently reported that a proposed OSHA regulation would impose costs on a portion of the growing domestic energy sector equal to $1,120 per affected employee. These employees should not have to worry that the proposed regulations could mean smaller paychecks.

Or take, for example, another emerging practice of Washington regulators that hides the real impact that excessive regulation has on jobs. Under the pretense of minimal regulatory impact, this administration argues that the jobs lost, for instance, in mining, manufacturing, or construction, will be offset by new jobs in regulatory compliance. Therefore, a majority of their regulations look a lot better and not as harmful.

This is wrong. This is not being straight with the public. We must deliver transparency and accountability on the part of this administration and its bureaucracy.

I doubt it is any solace to the plant worker who loses his or her job because of regulations that a new job in another sector will be created to comply with these regulations.

Today, we will consider an amendment by a colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Keith Rothfus, to fix these problems. This amendment will help protect middle class jobs and wages. It is exactly the kind of reform that will make America work again.

Americans should not have to settle for the ``new normal'' of slow economic and job growth that the Obama administration seems to have embraced. We, in this House, reject this ``new normal'' and we will continue to fight to create an America that works again.

I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Goodlatte, and Representatives Holding, Collins and Bachus, who have worked hard on this bill before us, and I urge my colleagues in the House to support working middle class families by supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic Whip, for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Wednesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than noon to accommodate the Democrat Members' issues retreat. On Thursday and Friday, no votes are expected in the House.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 3193, the Consumer Financial Protection and Soundness Improvement Act, authored by Representative Sean Duffy. This bill reforms the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to make the Bureau accountable to hardworking American taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the debt limit borrowing authority runs out as early as the end of this month; therefore, I expect action to avoid default as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my remarks just prior, I would say to the gentleman that I am confident that the United States is not going to default on its debt and that we will resolve the need to increase the borrowing authority of this country prior to any deadline that the Treasury issues.

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman knows, we have been on this floor before and I have said that we believe in the majority that the immigration system in this country is broken. There needs to be reform. I think I have also said to the gentleman, as I have said publicly this week, we have to go about a rebuilding of the trust here. I think the fundamental issue right now is there is doubt cast on this White House, this President, this administration's willingness to implement the laws given the track record that we have seen on laws like ObamaCare and others.

I have said to the gentleman I believe that reform is badly needed. I believe that we have got a situation at the border and the interior that needs to be fixed. The gentleman knows I have been very outspoken on the issue of kids and the fact that so many are here, unbeknownst to themselves, brought here, and know no other place as home and then are stuck without any sense of the fact that they will be accepted in the country that they know.

But before we can even get there, there needs to be some trust. There needs to be some trust built by this President with this Congress because it seems that the track record is full of examples of the White House and the administration picking and choosing in terms of the regulations, the laws, and the provisions that it wants to implement. If it doesn't like to implement one, then it will just seemingly ignore that.

I don't think that the gentleman agrees that that is the way this system was designed or our Framers had in mind in terms of equal branches of power, one that makes the laws and one that fully and faithfully executes the law, and obviously a judiciary that provides that extra check and balance.

So again I would say to the gentleman, I would ask, if he is talking with the White House, please ask them to begin to work with us on any number of things to demonstrate that they are willing to actually drive toward the same result and not just work around us in terms of a unilateral result that they may seek.

Mr. Speaker, on both of those issues, there is a lot of work. On the SGR, he is exactly right; it is always the pay-for. We saw the struggle that surrounded the recent budget agreement, and coming up with $23 billion in cost reductions and savings over 10 years was very difficult. It is hard for folks outside of Washington to imagine why that is the case when you are dealing with trillions of dollars being spent.

I share the gentleman's frustration. I would like to see, as well as, I think, the seniors of this country would like to see, an end to a formula that doesn't work in terms of reimbursements to providers, and one that will allow for a better way and a more quality health care future for our seniors.

So I do share the goal that we should replace the SGR and at the same time ensure that seniors are not going to see a diminution in the quality of their care. The gentleman knows that these discussions are ongoing in committee as we speak.

As far as the UI situation, as the gentleman knows, there are currently 6 months of unemployment benefits available to folks who have, unfortunately, found themselves out of work. We care about those folks and want to do all we can to do what they really want, which is to get back to work. This goes back towards the administration's willingness to work with us.

Our leadership, Mr. Speaker, sent a letter to the President last week outlining four things, just four of the many things he spoke about in the State of the Union address, where there is pretty much agreement on what we need to do together. We have not heard back from the administration. One of those things was the SKILLS Act. If we don't want to accept the new norm of chronic unemployment, we ought to be going full-time overspeed to try to grow the economy, to increase the competitiveness of the American economy so people can get back to work, and so they can take care of their families. We know that the chronically unemployed have a real problem because if they are without either a high school diploma or a college degree, they are at a great disadvantage for today's job opportunities.

The SKILLS Act can address that. All we have heard is the President wants to, once again, create another commission to review all the studies that have been combed through before and that have resulted in our bill, Ms. Foxx of North Carolina's bill, the SKILLS Act.

Again, if the administration is so concerned about trying to addresses the plight of the chronically unemployed, let's go for jobs, not just accepting the new norm.

So again, discussions, building trust with one another, driving towards resolve could actually help the situation so that we can address this serious problem that plagues the communities of this country.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, my point is that the President, rather than going and acting unilaterally and appointing another commission, could easily have picked up the phone and said, ``Hey, I want to come up there,'' or, ``You all come here, and let's talk about getting the job done,'' rather than doing what is always done, which is kicking the can and creating another commission to go over the studies and outcomes of other commissions. That is my point.

If you have differences with the SKILLS Act, if the gentleman doesn't speak, we understand that. But the bottom line is we both agree we have to improve the outlook for skills for the chronically unemployed.

Why aren't we doing something on that? Why isn't there any response from the White House? That is my point. We could do this. We could work together and achieve results. And so again, I understand the gentleman's disagreement with the SKILLS Act, but let's work through it. The White House doesn't seem to want to do any of that.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the message of the President be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 27 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, January 29, 2014, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 1 p.m. tomorrow.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in support of the Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act. If I could just take a few seconds to respond to the allegations put forward by the gentleman from California, the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, I want to just make a point, Mr. Speaker. There is a real difference between users of a retailer's Web site and users of healthcare.gov because those who choose to go on the Web site of a retailer in the private sector do so at their choice.

The people of this country, all of the American people now, if they go to healthcare.gov, they are being forced to go to healthcare.gov, and so for the gentleman to sit here and say, well, we don't require this out of the other industries, banks or anything else, I would beg to differ. There are certainly requirements in law and duties owed by banks to their shareholders, customers and the rest, but I would say to the gentleman, this is a situation where the law at hand is requiring individuals--mandating them--to go to this site.

So contrary to the allegations made by the gentleman, what this bill does is it just requires the administration to provide 48 hours' notice after a breach of health care information or financial data. All it says is the administration has to let victims of identity theft or information theft be notified. That is it. This is a good government bill. Why do we want to wait until there is a data breach?

I would ask the gentleman to look to a quote by CMS' own chief information security officer, Teresa Fryer. She said that the Federal exchange ``does not reasonably meet security requirements.'' That is what the chief cybersecurity officer at the agency says, the exchange ``does not meet security requirements.''

Now, the Experian credit bureau said:

The health care industry, by far, will be the most

susceptible to publicly disclosed and widely scrutinized data

breaches of 2014.

If we know this, why wouldn't we take precautions to help people? That is all this bill does. It says if there is a risk of data breach, we should afford people the opportunity to take corrective action immediately. That is it. There is no message in there. This is just trying to help people.

So I would say to the gentleman, if he would just set aside the partisan attacks for once, let's help people. Let's go about the way we should be in putting people first here. We disagree on this law in requiring health care the way government says we should require, yes, but I think we can all agree we want to help people, and we want to make sure that they can keep their information safe. That is all this bill is about.

So I want to thank Chairman Fred Upton, Chairman Joe Pitts, and the members serving on the committees who have been conducting oversight on the issue for the past year, including the Science Committee, the Homeland Security and the Oversight and Government Reform Committees. Congresswoman Diane Black, certainly the gentleman from Florida, Gus Bilirakis, and Representative Kerry Bentivolio have all worked hard on this issue. I commend them for their efforts to just help people for once.

With that, I urge adoption and passage of the bill.