Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the League of Women Voters of Houston Education Fund for their commitment to the encouragement of active and informed participation of citizens in government.

The League of Women Voters of the United States and the League of Women Voters of the Houston Area were both established in 1920, the year that the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gave women the right to vote. The League of Women Voters is a direct descendant of the women's suffrage movement, and has become an active and effective organization that serves all voters.

The League of Women Voters of Houston Education Fund has an extensive, respected history of encouraging civic engagement throughout the Houston community. Their mission to encourage active and informed participation by providing accessible information and support services to the people is critical to the success of a democracy.

This August marks the 92nd anniversary of the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment. I join the League of Women Voters in celebrating Women's Equality Day by remembering this historic achievement and the courage, perseverance and accomplishments of women who fulfill the promise of the Nineteenth Amendment.

Members of the League of Women Voters of Houston Education Fund are volunteers who work in their communities to help the realities of the American system of government live up to its ideals. The organization would not be the success that it is today without their hard work and dedication. Their service to our community is greatly appreciated.

And so it is with great pleasure that I recognize the League of Women Voters of Houston Education Fund and celebrate the anniversary of the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report to H.R. 1905, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012. This bipartisan legislation represents the strongest set of sanctions to isolate any country in the world during peacetime.

It is imperative that our nation takes all steps necessary to isolate Iran, force them to end their dangerous pursuit of nuclear weapons, and secure that the regime in Teheran will no longer be a threat to peace and prosperity in the Middle East.

Once this legislation is passed and signed into law, virtually all of Iran's energy, financial, and transportation sectors would be subject to U.S. sanctions. Companies conducting business in these industries would face the possibility of losing access to U.S. markets.

I also applaud the inclusion of sanctions against human rights abusers in Iran and Syria in this legislation. The deplorable actions by the political and military leaders in Iran and Syria against their own people must come to an immediate halt and deserve global condemnation.

Important allies, such as the European Union, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, India, and Israel, have joined the American people in enacting sanctions against Iran.

It is important that this Chamber say with a strong, unified voice that we stand with Israel during these difficult times.

As co-chair of the Democratic Israel Working Group, I call on Members from both sides of the aisle to vote in support of this bipartisan resolution.

I would also like to take a moment to thank the President for his leadership on sanctions on Iran. Yesterday, President Obama signed an Executive Order that imposes new sanctions against the Iranian energy and petrochemical sectors, as well as sanctions against those who are providing material support to the National Iranian Oil Company, Naftiran Intertrade Company, or the Central Bank of Iran. These measures will help strengthen the existing sanctions regime and bring Iran that much closer to ending its heedless quest for nuclear weapons.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank both my colleague from Pennsylvania and also my neighbor in Texas, Congressman Olson, for making sure we get this bill to the floor today.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 4273, the Resolving Environmental and Grid Reliability Conflicts Act of 2012. This bipartisan legislation addresses a longstanding conflict in Federal law where a company or individual can be held liable for violating environmental laws when complying with a Federal order to generate power to avoid blackouts.

Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act gives the Department of Energy the authority to order an electric-generating facility to operate to avoid a reliability emergency. At the same time, environmental laws and regulations may restrict the operation of power plants or transmission lines.

So if a company or publicly owned utility is ordered by the DOE to operate under section 202(c) and at the same time is prohibited from operating in accordance with the DOE order due to environmental limitations, the operator must choose which legal mandate to follow. These conflicting legal mandates should not complicate an electric reliability crisis.

As a long-time member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and someone who has worked on both reliability and environmental legislation during that time, I can honestly say it was never our intention to put electric-generating facilities in the position of having to choose between compliance with one law over another.

And while there have only been a couple of instances to date where a generator has been in this situation, the potential for conflict will only grow as several coal-fired plants are scheduled to be taken offline in the coming years.

And as my Pennsylvania colleague noted, we have potential reliability issues in my and Mr. Olson's home State of Texas. Even though we are under a separate grid--ERCOT--it's important that we have this distinction corrected.

That's why Congress needs to address this issue, right here, right now or else we risk threatening our electrical reliability. H.R. 4273 clarifies that if an emergency order issued pursuant to section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act may result in a conflict with an environmental law or regulation, the order shall expire no later than 90 days after issuance. This is to ensure that DOE continues to have the necessary authority to ``keep the lights on'' in true emergencies.

However, it then gives DOE the opportunity to renew or reissue the order for an additional 90-day period only after consulting with the appropriate Federal agencies and including conditions submitted by these agencies to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts.

This is not a messaging bill. This is not an anti-EPA bill or an anti air toxic standards bill. Instead, it's a commonsense bill that would address a very worrisome deficiency in current law that is only going to become more prominent in the coming years.

This is one of a handful of bills that actually was supported by both Democrats and Republicans in the Energy and Commerce Committee. It also has support from the utility industry. That's why I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker I rise in support of the Make It in America plan, a series of bills set forth by House Democrats to put America back to work.

In the 29th District of Texas, we hold job fairs throughout the year to help our constituents find a job and make better lives for themselves and their families. The American public continually cites job creation and economic growth as the top concerns in the Nation.

The Make It in America plan aims to strengthen the economy and boost the middle class through continuing to grow our manufacturing and energy production sectors and creating jobs in America. Make It in America focuses on competition, investing in infrastructure, clean energy jobs, increased education, smart tax policies, and smart regulations.

Unfortunately, the majority in the 112th Congress has failed to bring these job-creating plans to the floor for a vote and continually refuses to put forward a comprehensive jobs plan. Congress must focus our legislative priorities, invest in our future, create good middle class jobs and increase America's competitiveness around the globe. By creating these jobs for hardworking Americans, the other areas of our economy will be stimulated.

I urge the majority to take up these bipartisan bills and help the American people get back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the hundred-year anniversary of the founding of Rice University, one of our nation's preeminent research universities.

Founded through the estate of Mr. William Marsh Rice as a gift to the City of Houston, Rice Institute, as it was originally known, opened its doors on September 23, 1912, with 77 students and a dozen faculty.

From these humble beginnings, Rice University has risen to be a leader in science, engineering, medicine, music, and athletics.

Rice placed a critical part in the development of our nation's space program and was the site of President John Kennedy's famous ``moon speech'' in 1962.

Today, Rice is recognized as one of the top national research universities in the country by such publications as Forbes and U.S. News and World Report.

Rice is also recognized for its residential college system, similar to resident colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, its beautiful campus grounds and architecture, and the high quality of student life.

A list of famous alumni include a ``Who's who'' of Houston's most recognized citizens, including George R. Brown, Thomas Cruikshank, William Hobby, and our present mayor, Annise Parker.

I congratulate Rice University, its students, faculty, and alumni on their 100 years of success and thank them for the vital role they serve on behalf of the Houston community and wish them another 100 years of trailblazing, discovery, and success.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 455, the motion to adjourn, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

personal explanation

I rise in strong opposition to the repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This Congress has spent most of our time voting on messaging bills and very little time actually legislating. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle and I agree on many issues. We even agree on some of the shortcomings in the Affordable Care Act. No bill is perfect, and we should be spending our time improving it, not abolishing it.

Repealing this bill is a vote to drop college students from their parents' health plan. It's a vote to allow insurance companies to discriminate against women and withhold lifesaving procedures because of preexisting conditions. It would stop 13 million Americans from receiving rebates on their health care premiums. A repeal would mean children, families, and working Americans are denied health insurance. In our district in Houston, Harris County, Texas, we have one of the highest uninsured rates in the country. The bill today denies my hardworking constituents the chance to qualify and purchase health insurance.

There's no question that repeal is a bad policy. This is all politics. Mr. Speaker, I ask the majority to put partisanship aside and reach across the aisle to improve this law and not resort to partisan gimmickry that exposes our Nation's most vulnerable to even more pain and suffering.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I'm proud of the decision of the United States Supreme Court today. I was proud to serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee that actually drafted this bill. I read it many times, and I actually had a lot of amendments.

The Affordable Care Act has already benefited millions of Americans and will continue to help those who are in the greatest of need-- children, young adults, people with preexisting conditions, and our seniors. In my own congressional district in Texas, this is particularly important because we have one of the highest rates of uninsured individuals in the country.

Our Constitution gives the U.S. Supreme Court the job to be the decider on what is constitutional. The Affordable Care Act is constitutional. Just like Social Security and Medicare, now it's the law of this great Nation.

Members, I'm from Texas. We believe it's our constitutional right to own every gun that was ever made, and we don't want to export them to anywhere--but this resolution is pure politics.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

In 2005, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) initiated Project Gunrunner that focused on stemming the flow of firearms into Mexico. This would stop guns from being obtained by drug cartels and criminal organizations that have killed thousands in Mexico in recent years.

Part of Project Gunrunner was Operation Fast and Furious, which has come under scrutiny over the past year due to reports that the ATF allowed the sale of hundreds of assault weapons to suspected straw purchasers, who then allegedly transported these weapons through the Southwest and into Mexico. In December 2010, suspected firearms linked to Operation Fast and Furious were found at the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

This resolution is not about Project Gunrunner or Operation Fast and Furious because the Department of Justice has produced thousands of pages of documents, two dozen officials have been interviewed, and the Attorney General has testified nine times, to show it was not responsible for these operations. The Attorney General has continually offered to provide even more information, including documents outside of the Committee's original subpoena. The documents that are now at the center of the resolution are completely unrelated to how Project Gunrunner or Operation Fast and Furious were initiated.

This investigation is nothing more than a hyper-partisan, election- year effort. The Committee vote was strictly along partisan lines and every amendment passed or failed on party-line votes. During this investigation, the Committee refused all Democratic requests for witnesses and hearings, as well as requests to interview any Bush Administration appointees.

Attorney General Eric Holder has produced sufficient evidence, through thousands of pages of documents and testifying nine times before the committee, to confirm that once he learned about Operation Fast and Furious, he took action to bring it to a close. The denial of Democratic requests to interview officials of the Bush Administration on this matter only further proves this is strictly a partisan political game to hold the first sitting Attorney General in contempt.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Galveston Bay Foundation for their 25 years of dedication and continual service to preserving, protecting, and enhancing Galveston Bay and its surrounding communities.

Since 1987, the Galveston Bay Foundation has demonstrated a lasting commitment to the conservation of our environment and community through the institution of essential and effective environmental programs. These programs continue to collectively improve the environment and well-being throughout our community. In doing so, the foundation has established a reputation of unyielding excellence and as a result earned accolades such as the Texas Environmental Excellence Award, a 5- Star Award from the Environmental Protection Agency, and many more.

Through conscious action the Galveston Bay Foundation continues to promote environmental responsibility and provide a safe coastal environment that enhances the welfare of the community, economy, and environment. The continuous service of the Galveston Bay Foundation has made an enduring impact on our community and for their continued efforts I am proud to support the Galveston Bay Foundation.

I congratulate the board of trustees, staff, and volunteers at the Galveston Bay Foundation for all of their hard work and dedication to the conservation of the Galveston Bay and surrounding communities.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 411, Coal Ash Instruction, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4480, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act.

While I support pieces of H.R. 4480, unfortunately I am not able to vote for the bill because I believe it will actually create more regulatory confusion and impediments for our domestic producers. Title I, for example, requires the Secretary of Energy to develop a plan to increase domestic oil and gas leasing from onshore and offshore federal lands that are under the jurisdiction of the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and Defense within 180 days of a release of petroleum from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. A new government bureaucracy at the Department of Energy would develop this plan, which duplicates the oil and gas leasing programs at the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. During a House Energy and Commerce Hearing on the bill, the Secretary of Energy expressed many concerns about their ability to effectively do this.

I am also concerned with Title III of the bill, which would overturn the multiple-use principle established in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. This would undermine the basic principal which has guided the management of public lands for 35 years.

I also have concerns with Section 206 of the bill, which would require the Environmental Protection Agency to consider industry costs when determining what level of air pollution is ``safe.'' By doing this we would be rolling back one of the core aspects of the Clean Air Act-- a requirement that was passed on a bipartisan basis over 40 years ago, signed into law by a Republican President and unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in 2001. I plan to offer an amendment that would strike section 206 and I hope that my colleagues will support it.

As a strong supporter of policies that encourage and support domestic energy production, my hope is that in the future, the House takes up legislation that deals with this important issue without including controversial policy riders that prevent bipartisan support in the House and movement in the Senate.

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

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

I would like to vote for this bill, but it goes way too far.

Mr. Chairman, I represent five large refineries and 20-plus chemical plants, so I'm very sensitive to what regulatory compliance can mean to a company's economic success. But for over 40 years, the Clean Air Act has required the Environmental Protection Agency to set the level of each ambient air quality standard based on what is necessary to protect public health. They do this because EPA's job is health, not economic impacts.

Again, for over 40 years, Republicans and Democrats have agreed to this principle, which was passed on a bipartisan basis in the 1970s and signed into law by a Republican President and unanimously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001.

This amendment would strike section 206 of the bill, which would require the EPA to consider industry costs when determining what level of air pollution is ``safe.'' But economic and compliance costs are already considered several times throughout the regulatory process, which is why section 206 is not necessary.

The EPA conducts a regulatory impact analysis for a range of emission standards when they propose the standard. Then they do a second regulatory impact analysis when they choose the final standard before it is sent to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

The regulatory process works. Last September, the Office of Management and Budget did not allow EPA to move forward with a revised ozone NAAQS standard because they felt that the costs of compliance would be too high for the regulated industries at this point in our economic recovery. To use a Texas saying, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Section 206 is a policy rider that undermines 40 years of bipartisan agreement, and I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment that would strike it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Colorado because the system does work. Even the President used economics. But that's the President's job, not the EPA.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I appreciate my colleague and your work on the committee, but that's why we need to remove 206. That provision actually takes away health and safety as EPA's primary responsibility. That's what it was created for in 1970. We already have a system that will work to deal with the economic problems. We go to OMB. But even more so, we can go to the States. Because once EPA and OMB approves that rule, then they go to the States to work out the compliance. And in our district, where I have a huge industrial capacity, we actually work with our State agency and EPA to make sure we can economically do that within a timeframe.

That's why this amendment should be acceptable, Mr. Chairman, and I would encourage Members to vote for this amendment when it comes up for a vote tomorrow.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my colleague, the ranking member on the Rules Committee, for allowing me to speak.

I'm a strong supporter and an original cosponsor or of the U.S. Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act. This legislation will help us protect U.S. consumers and level the playing field for American workers who have seen thousands of call center jobs needlessly sent offshore in recent years. Namely, this bill would require the call center to notify the Secretary of Labor at least 120 days before relocating outside the United States. It would require the Department of Labor to publicly list the firms that have moved call center jobs overseas and then make those very firms ineligible for any direct or indirect Federal loan for 5 years. To protect consumers, this legislation requires call center employees to notify U.S. consumers where they are located, if asked, and will require that call center to transfer calls to an American call center for questions.

The U.S. Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act has support of both sides of the aisle, and I ask all my colleagues in the Chamber to stand with American consumers particularly, but also with these American jobs, and support this legislation and, again, support the effort to make sure we can have a vote on the House floor for that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to have it noted in the Congressional Record that I was not able to be in Washington on June 8, 2012 for votes because of a family emergency. If I had been here, I would have voted as follows:

On the Gosar Amendment that reduces the budget for the Botanic Garden by $1,235,000 for fiscal year 2013, I would have voted ``no.''

On the Broun Amendment that reduces funding for the Congressional Research Service by $878,000 (FY 2012 Level) and transfer $878,000 to the spending reduction account, I would have voted ``no.''

On the Scalise Amendment that reduces by $1,000,000 the amount provided for the Open World Leadership Center and directs that $1,000,000 to the spending reduction account, I would voted ``aye.''

On the Moran/Welch/Pingree Amendment that prohibits the use of Styrofoam products in food service facilities in the House of Representatives, I would have voted ``no.''

On the Flake Amendment that prohibits funding for the purchase of paid online advertisements by Members, committees, and leadership offices, I would have voted ``aye.''

On the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 5882 that would cut by 10 percent the official franked mail component of the Member's Representational Allowance, I would have voted ``aye.''

On Final Passage of H.R. 5882, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2013, I would have voted ``no.''

Finally, on the Republican Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 4348, offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia, that would instruct House conferees to insist on provisions that limit funding out of the Highway Trust Fund (including the Mass Transit Account) for Federal aid highway and transit programs to amounts that do not exceed $37,500,000,000 for FY 2013, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 436 but I am opposed to the Medical Device Excise Tax. I support the Affordable Care Act, but just like all bills, it was not perfect.

In Texas, the medical device industry supports nearly 55,000 jobs. It is an industry at the cutting edge of technological innovation

and is critical to addressing many of the health challenges we face now and will in future. I believe this industry, just like any other, should pay their fair share, but I am worried that a tax like this will chill innovation. The tax is on revenue and not profits, which will have a disproportionate effect on small and mid-sized companies. Medical devices are incredibly expensive to develop and it takes a lot of revenue to offset overhead. By taxing revenue, instead of profit, it adds additional costs. Most business taxes are calculated on the profits after expenses, but this one is not.

A company near our district in Houston, Cyberonics, employs hundreds of Americans. A few years ago, I toured their facilities. I was surprised to learn that they did all of their manufacturing in-house, in Houston. This is an increasingly rare way to do business, but one we should encourage. Their company is a good example of American innovation and entrepreneurship. I am concerned that the way this tax is structured, it will negatively impact Cyberonics and companies like it. We should be taking steps to support research, design, and manufacturing job growth in our country.

While I oppose this tax, I am also opposed to the way this bill pays for the repeal of the tax. We should not replace a poorly designed policy with more poorly designed policies. This bill shifts the cost on to low and middle income earners and potentially risks their health insurance coverage under ACA.

We should find a better way to fix this and I want to work with my colleagues to craft a compromise that will not endanger American jobs but at the same time won't shift significant costs on to those who can least afford it.