Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, in 1733, when General Oglethorpe sailed up the Savannah River, I have been told the river was 12 feet deep. We have been playing in the mud down there ever since. Today, it is 42 feet deep, but 42 feet isn't enough for the large Panamax ships that will soon start coming through the expanded Panama Canal. If we are to stay competitive, we have to deepen the river.

There are 352,000 jobs in Georgia related to import/export and the Port of Savannah. In fact, the cost-benefit analysis of this investment is a dollar spent gives us a $5.50 return. In these tough economic times, that is why this legislation is so important.

Furthermore, it is basically a reauthorization necessitated by bureaucratic delays. The original authority to deepen the Savannah River was in 1999. It took 13 years and $41 million worth of study to finally get four Federal agencies to approve it. During that period of time, China built a port, from start to finish, which is bigger than the Port of Savannah.

Mr. Speaker, if we are to be competitive as a Nation, we have to do better than this. Today's legislation accelerates the approval process by alleviating unnecessary government delays.

This legislation is common sense; it is pro-jobs and pro-America; and I urge its passage.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because people do need a paycheck. They need to be able to plan their expenses based on their income, and we have disrupted that income flow, so it makes sense to say, let's get the pay schedule back on track.

But I want to say something in a broader context that, after offering the Senate three different compromises on keeping the government open-- three different compromises that were rejected--and then a fourth offer to let's immediately, last Sunday, go to a conference and start negotiating our differences, all of those were rejected; but even in that context, we have found a few things that we can agree on: the military pay bill, which not only included the men and women in uniform but the civilian support staff that they had.

As Mr. Moran has pointed out, recently we came together again for the furloughed employees to be able to get back pay for the time in which they're out of work. Then we tried the other day to pass--and did from the House--the NIH, the National Institutes of Health, which passed the House floor on an overwhelming bipartisan basis; and we're looking at other programs that have passed, again, on a bipartisan basis, such as WIC--the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program--Head Start, Impact Aid, and we have a number of others.

Why, Madam Speaker, are those important?

Because many of us have actually chaired and participated in conference committees where House and Senate Members come together to iron out their differences. Frequently, the gap is huge, and frequently, the differences are numerous.

We know from experience that if you can start chopping those big differences into small steps, eventually you close the gap, and that is what the House Appropriations Committee, under Chairman Rogers, is doing, and much of it with the support of Democrat House Members.

But if we can get some of these things off the table-- if we can agree on military pay, if we can agree on the civilian support staff for

military, if we can agree on furloughed employees, and if we can agree with NIH, that science and public health should be off the table--then, Madam Speaker, that big gap that stands between us and the Senate right now, it begins to narrow, and we create a little bit of momentum for a solution.

There are still going to be great differences that aren't going to be easy, but I think it is very important for us to come together and find the things on which we do agree, and at least move in a positive direction on them.

Mr. Speaker, over my years in Congress, I've had the

honor of chairing several conference committees. Conference committees are set up when there's a disagreement between a House-passed bill and a Senate-passed bill. You sit down with your list of differences and you start sawing away at them, if you will.

That's, in fact, what the House has been doing the past 2 weeks in the midst of this shutdown. We've been finding some things, such as military pay, science, civilian furlough issues, and health-related issues--things that are less controversial and on which we can agree-- so we can get some momentum to come up with a big agreement.

Indeed, the gap is large. We have disagreement on ObamaCare because it's one-sixth of the American economy. It's very big.

Secondly, we have a disagreement on the debt ceiling. Do we continue along the path of spending that we are on or do we make corrections?

Thirdly, we have a $90 billion gap between our spending level between the House and the Senate.

These are bigs issues. Sometimes, a long journey starts with small steps. That's why I urge our friends in the Senate to pass the legislation which the House has sent over to them, and then we can start focusing on the larger issues.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 370, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 73) making continuing appropriations for the National Institutes of Health for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 73, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my distinguished friend from California that I would like to move the CDC and would ask him to cosponsor that legislation if we could do similar to the CDC what we are doing to the NIH, because I agree with you in that I think it's very important.

I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California.

In reclaiming my time, I will say this to my friend: a long journey begins with small steps. If we can just take a few, small bipartisan steps together, I think it would change the entire tone of this debate, and I say that with sincerity.

In reclaiming my time, that's a leap. I'm talking steps.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers), a former nurse.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Dr. Tim Murphy, a distinguished psychologist, lieutenant commander in the Navy, and the chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Committee of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper).

(Mr. HARPER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I say to my good friend from Tennessee that if you take out the TANF funding, which the Obama administration charges the NIH to conduct business, this is level funding.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), a former nurse.

Mr. Speaker, if I could ask how much time we have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I just want to say this: It scares me to death that America is going bankrupt. Our national debt is 100 percent of the GDP. For every dollar we spend, 42 cents is borrowed. ObamaCare adds to that $1.7 trillion. If we don't get control of our spending, then we are not going to have an America as we know it. That's what this fight is about.

Now, what we're trying to do today is say there are tiny steps in which there is an agreement, and the NIH is one of them. We've already done this for military pay. This bill should not be a stretch. It should have widespread bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that if I can get a Democrat Party Member to cosponsor a continuation of the CDC, I would be glad to work together to move that bill.

And with that, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Andy Harris, a distinguished committee member.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we are here tonight to keep the government open. I keep hearing that we want to shut the government down. And yet this is actually our third attempt to send something to the U.S. Senate to give them an opportunity to negotiate with us.

And why are we here talking about a continuing resolution to begin with? We're here because this year, the House Appropriations Committee, with my colleagues on the other side, has passed five separate appropriations bills. There are 12 in total. Unfortunately, during the time period that we've passed five, the Senate has passed zero. Last year, the House passed seven and the Senate passed one.

After a while, you see there's a pattern. The Senate doesn't want to work on regular order. The Senate really does prefer continuing resolutions because then they can pull stunts like the one Harry Reid is doing now.

You know, Mr. Speaker, where were they yesterday? Where were they this weekend? The Senate adjourned. Where was the President? He was playing golf. He was so concerned about the government being shut down.

Now, what is the issue with ObamaCare? The Speaker at the time, Ms. Pelosi, said we need to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it.

Now, that bill has grown to 7.5 feet in height, and we are reading what's in it. But two things we know that it does not accomplish is it does not decrease the cost of health care, and it does not increase the accessibility. Those were the two major objectives. Those were the selling points.

Health care is one-sixth of the economy. Therefore, I think it's the right thing to fight over.

This is something that affects every American. We know already that premiums have skyrocketed under ObamaCare and that they will only grow worse. We also know that many major companies and smaller companies are stopping providing insurance to their employees. Accessibility is going down as well.

So ObamaCare has been a failure. Why is it that the Democrat Party believes in it so bad? Even when it fails, they can't let go. I don't think it's a bad thing to say, hey, you know what, we were wrong. We tried to decrease the cost of health care, we tried to increase the accessibility, but we did not achieve that. Therefore, maybe Harry Reid should sit down with Speaker Boehner. Maybe the President of the United States can interrupt his negotiations with the Iranians and come and talk to the Americans, i.e., Republican Americans. I think it would be a good thing. Again, Mr. Speaker, this will be our third attempt to work with the Harry Reid Democrats to keep the government open.

But I want to say this also to my friends on the other side of the aisle who have said they want to shut down the government. Let me mention, we had 17 shutdowns since 1976. And often one might say, well, that's when you had split government.

In 1977, the government shut down three separate times--once for 8 days, a second time for 8 days, and another time for 12 days. The Democrats controlled the House, the Democrats controlled the Senate, and there was a Democrat in the White House. Indeed, over the history of the last 25 years, there have been a number of government shutdowns until the Senate, the House, and the White House sat down and negotiated. That's all we're saying tonight is, you know what, we understand we don't control government, but we are willing to negotiate.

It is time for cooler heads to prevail in the U.S. Senate. It's time for the U.S. Senate to have some adult leadership and sit down with House leadership and hammer out the differences. That's why we're here right now, while the Senate, I believe, has already gone home. I guess the President is no longer playing golf. But we are ready to negotiate.

I thank the chairman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we're here tonight on a continued debate over ObamaCare for a good reason. In fact, there's three reasons.

Number one, health care is one-sixth of the economy. I think that before we turn over one-sixth of the economy to the Federal Government, we need to be very clear on the path that we're going on. Right now, the path is anything but clear. In fact, to quote one of the leading Democrat architects from the Senate, Senator Baucus, he said it's a train wreck.

So to me, to continue the debate on ObamaCare is the proper thing to do. One-sixth of the economy, Mr. Speaker. Think about that.

Secondly, in terms of our health care system now, as flawed as it may be, it's still the best health care system in the world. Indeed, 40 percent of the medical tourists come to America for procedures and operations. You can't say that about any other country.

Number three, ObamaCare has failed. Two of its prime objectives were, number one, to decrease the cost of health care, and number two, to increase the access. And let's examine those. Do you know anybody whose health care premium has decreased this year? I have asked this question many, many times back home and on the floor of the House. And I've invited people to call my office if their premiums have in fact decreased. I haven't heard from an individual. I haven't heard from a business. I've talked to many businesses who have had 25 and 30 percent increases. My own daughter's premium, a healthy 30-year-old, went from $170 a month to $270 a month.

The premiums are not going down because the cost isn't going down. ObamaCare has failed on that.

Then number two--and very importantly--accessibility has not increased. Two Fortune 500 companies in my home State of Georgia have announced the following: one says that they will no longer cover 15,000 spouses of their employees under their health care.

I thank the gentleman.

Another Fortune 500 company in Georgia has announced that 20,000 part-time employees will no longer have company-sponsored health care. We're hearing this over and over again.

I talked to one man who has a successful startup business. He got to 42 employees and he said, And I quit growing because I did not want to get to 50 because not only am I concerned about the cost of ObamaCare, but I don't know how it's going to be implemented. I don't know the rules of it.

So I would say this debate is well worth having. And I would say to our Democrat friends, whether you're voting for it or not, at this point it's not a matter of philosophy; it's a matter of admitting that it is a matter of mistake to go on with ObamaCare. It has not decreased the cost, and it has not increased the access of health care.

Before we say good-bye to the best health care system in the world and one-sixth of our economy, turning it over to the Federal Government, we need to stop and retool and start all over. So it is the right thing to do to fund the government, avoiding a shutdown, but not to fund ObamaCare.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 366, I call up the bill (H.R. 3210) making continuing appropriations for military pay in the event of a Government shutdown, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the consideration of H.R. 3210.

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

H.R. 3210 is called the Pay Our Military Act, and it's been introduced by Representative Mike Coffman and Representative Louie Gohmert, along with a number of other Members of Congress. The purpose of it is to authorize the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to continue to provide pay and allowances without interruption to the 1.4 million members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, the men and women who perform services during any potential funding gap. Without this action, their pay could be delayed.

Our troops should not suffer for Washington's failure to act. As the representative of more than 35,000 troops who are in and out of war zones, I know that they and their families cannot afford to miss one paycheck. Regardless of what happens in politics, we as Democrats and Republicans should be able to come together and ensure that our sailors, soldiers, and airmen are all paid and paid on time.

During the government shutdown in 1995, soldiers were paid because the Department of Defense had already been funded for the year. Their appropriation bill had already been passed by both Houses and signed into law by the President of the United States. That is not the case today; therefore, H.R. 3210 is essential. Not only would it pay our troops, but it would permit the payment of civilian personnel and contractors whom the Secretary determines are providing support to the Members of our armed services.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I can't imagine why Harry Reid and the Senate would shut down all these things for a health care bill called ObamaCare which is raising the cost of medicine and decreasing access to it.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Army Caucus, Judge John Carter from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), the Representative of the Warner Robins Air Force Base and a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to clarify one thing.

Under the current President, the national debt now is 100 percent of the GDP. For every $1 we spend, 42 cents is borrowed. That's bad enough, but now the President offers no reform to bend the spending curve whatsoever. Instead, he pushes forward a failed health care policy that has a price tag of $1.7 trillion. It does not decrease the cost of medicine, and it does not increase the access to medicine, which were the two primary objectives which we heard over and over again by the other party. That's why we're here tonight. This is one- sixth of the economy. And yet we hear the same dogma over and over again. That's why this debate is taking place.

We have passed a continuing resolution to keep the government funded so that these civilian employees and all other government employees that we hear so much about can continue to receive their paychecks. But Harry Reid and the Senate does not want to keep the government open because they're insisting on supporting a $1.7 trillion addition to the national debt, a health care policy which increases the cost of medicine and decreases the access.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), an Active Duty member of the United States Army who has the rank of colonel.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a coauthor of this legislation for many years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I just want to remind everybody we're here not because of the House Republican Appropriations Committee but because of the Senate Democrat Appropriations Committee which, to date, has not passed one single bill. We've passed the Defense bill. We've passed Homeland Security. We passed Military Construction.

What have Harry Reid and the Democrats, the Members of your party done? Zero. Not one bill. What did they do last year? We passed seven appropriations bills. What did Harry Reid and the Democrats do in the Senate? They passed one. That's why we're here debating the continuing resolution. It is not our desire to be here on this. We would rather have regular order. Indeed, we have worked hard for regular order.

But, Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of representing Moody Air Force Base; the Townsend Bombing Range; the 224th Signal Group in Brunswick, Georgia; the 165th Air Wing in Savannah, Georgia; the Combat Readiness Training Center in Savannah, Georgia; Fort Stewart in Hinesville, Georgia; Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, George; Kings Bay Naval Base in St. Mary's, Georgia; and members of the 48th Brigade all over my district. I have marines. I have three Coast Guard stations. On their behalf, we cannot let their pay be interrupted.

The things that these fighting men and women in uniform are doing for the United States of America should be off the table. That's why we're here in support of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I have our last speaker, who's going to close for us. Mr. Coffman is going to consume 3 minutes. So if the gentleman from Virginia wants to talk in 30 seconds, I will accommodate my friend.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, I would only say this. It's hard to figure out what the United States is doing at all under Harry Reid's leadership.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the Harry Reid Democrat Senate would pass the Defense appropriations bill, we would not be here tonight having this debate.

With that, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), the author of the bill, a retired marine-- although marines never retire.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare, as it has been affectionately called, was intended to do two things:

Number one, make health care more affordable.

Number two, make it more accessible, pure and simple.

Let's talk about that. Does anyone know anybody whose premium has gone down? My daughter is 30 years old, very healthy. Her premium went up from $170 a month to $270 a month.

I speak to businesses all the time who have had 25, 35, 40 percent premium increases. Now, my telephone number in my office is 202-225- 5831. If your premium has gone down, I would like to know about it.

The second thing ObamaCare was meant to do is make health care more accessible. In Georgia, we have two Fortune 500 companies. One has announced that it will no longer be covering the spouses of 15,000 employees. The other one announced that 20,000 part-time employees would no longer be covered under their health care.

So I don't know of any example of where accessibility has increased for the average person. Zero for two. Higher costs and less access. Let's repeal ObamaCare.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Thomas Watson Harrell, Sr., a World War II Navy veteran who passed away recently at the age of 91.

Born in Cuthbert, GA on October 12, 1921, Mr. Harrell enlisted in the Navy in 1942 and was first stationed in Norfolk, VA. Mr. Harrell served honorably and faithfully until 1945, rising to the rank of Quartermaster Second Class. For most of his service, Mr. Harrell sailed aboard the destroyer escort USS Crouter (DE-11). He was one of the original crew members and a part of the initial shakedown cruise. The Crouter would go on to see almost all of its action in the volatile South Pacific, including escorting the invasion force bound for Okinawa.

Mr. Harrell represents a part of this country's greatest generation, distinguished by their honor and sacrifice. Mr. Harrell's story will be preserved for future generations as a part of the Library of Congress's Veterans History Project, which preserves and makes accessible to future generations the personal accounts of American war veterans so that others may understand their stories and sacrifice.

Mr. Harrell was proud of his service and was an active member of the Destroyer Escort Sailors Association. Always mindful of his civic duties, Mr. Harrell was active in supporting his elected representatives and never missed an opportunity to vote, even voting in the last election by absentee ballot from his nursing home.

I am honored today to recognize the service of Mr. Thomas Watson Harrell, Sr. and his contributions to the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of the Gulfstream Student Leadership Program and its exceptional efforts to improve high school graduation rates in Savannah, Georgia. The Gulfstream Student Leadership Program summer trip to Washington provides students with the opportunity to see first- hand the inner workings of our government and gain an appreciation of our nation's history and monuments.

The students that I met last week in the Capitol were rising seniors who had completed three years of the Student Leadership Program. The program went into effect five years ago, and 96 percent of the initial class of 150 students went on to graduate. Currently, eleven local high schools participate in the Student Leadership Program, and the 2012- 2013 class includes close to 650 students.

This incredible program is made possible through the efforts of the Gulfstream Community Relations Staff, teachers and community advisors. I am pleased to recognize the students and teachers that were a part of this year's Student Leadership trip to Washington, and I look forward to working with them in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my constituent Janice Izlar, CRNA, DNAP, of Savannah, Georgia. Dr. Izlar will soon complete her year as national president of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA). I am proud that Dr. Izlar was elected as the 2012-2013 president of this prestigious national organization.

Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) are advanced practice registered nurses who treat approximately 34 million patients each year. They work in every setting in which anesthesia is delivered including hospital surgical suites, obstetrical delivery rooms, ambulatory surgical centers, and the offices of dentists, podiatrists, and specialty surgeons. They also provide acute and chronic pain management services to patients in need of such care. CRNAs provide anesthesia for all types of surgical cases and are the sole anesthesia providers in many rural hospitals.

As a CRNA, Dr. Izlar has contributed greatly to the healthcare community in southeast Georgia, serving as a self-employed CRNA and as Chief Nurse Anesthetist and Administrator for Anesthesia Services at the Georgia Institute for Plastic Surgery since 1996. Dr. Izlar was awarded her Doctorate in Nurse Anesthesia Practice by Virginia Commonwealth University, her Master of Science in Nursing by Columbia University, her Bachelor's in Nursing, cum laude, by the University of Tulsa, and her Diploma in Nurse Anesthesia by the North Carolina Baptist Hospital School of Nurse Anesthesia. In addition to her service as AANA President, Dr. Izlar has held various leadership positions in the AANA, including President-elect, Vice President, and Region 2 Director, and has served on numerous committees. She is a former president of the Georgia Association of Nurse Anesthetists and is a distinguished speaker on anesthesia topics, lecturing nationwide on the safety, value and cost-effectiveness of CRNA care.

During her AANA Presidency, Dr. Izlar has been a prominent advocate for the patients and practice of nurse anesthesia before federal agencies and members of Congress. She has worked tirelessly to promote anesthesia patient safety and the value of CRNAs to our healthcare system. I am proud to have worked with Janice for years as well as during her time as President and am happy to call her a friend and a loyal advocate for CRNA priorities in Washington and beyond. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Janice on a successful term.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by my friend from Virginia, and I do so for three reasons, and I believe that the previous speakers on our side have listed these reasons, but I wanted to just

drive these points. There are three of them.

Number one, it does cede a tremendous amount of power to the executive branch. It is clear that this administration prefers to bypass Congress every chance it gets and cede things to an unelected bureaucracy. And in this case, this is a tremendous decision that the bureaucracy would be making instead of the elected representatives in the House and the Senate.

Mr. Culberson actually quoted part of it. He said that the agencies will interpret in the regions such proximate other waters to be the watershed boundary defined by the geographic area that drains to the nearest downstream navigational or interstate water through a single point of entry.

So in my district where we have the Savannah River and the St. Mary's River, the Ogeechee River, the Altamaha River and the Ohoopee, it would appear that the entire district, which I represent in coastal Georgia, would come under this new permitting process if the bureaucrats and if Mr. Moran had his way. I'm against that. If that's going to happen, let the legislative branch debate it and then send it to the executive branch.

Number two, if you do so, all you're going to do is have more busybody bureaucrats in our lives interfering with job creation and interfering with progress in general.

You know, my area of the Savannah River was authorized in the 1999 WRDA Act to dredge the river. It took 13 years for four Federal agencies to sign off on the dredging even though we have been dredging the Savannah River ever since Oglethorpe sailed up it in 1733; but it took our government, four Federal agencies, 13 years to give us a record of decision.

During that period of time, China started to build a port that is now bigger than the Port of Savannah. They started from scratch to finish, and here we are supposed to be competing in a world marketplace, but that's the kind of permitting process and delays that the bureaucracies cause us.

I would rather leave these waters under State jurisdiction than the Federal Government.

Number three and finally, it's vague. It's totally vague. Anytime the Federal bureaucrats with their unlimited bank accounts get involved in rulemaking, they can run the clock. They can charge up the permitting, the lawyer fees, do everything they want.

I will ask a question of my friend from Virginia. Can you tell me what ``significant nexus to navigable waters'' means? Does anybody know what that means? I can promise you, 435 people in this body would have a different definition as to what a ``significant nexus to navigable waters'' means.

We do not need this executive branch and this administration to have more power. This is the crowd that brought you the IRS and the AP scandals. This is the crowd that brought you Fast and Furious. Do you really want them to have more power to interpret laws? I think not. I fear they would use that kind of authority to reward their friends and punish their enemies.

For these three reasons, Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I stand in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from Virginia, and I want to start out by clarifying something that was said a minute ago, that this was done by clever Bush administration lawyers. In fact, it was a rule proposed by President Clinton. That would be Democrat President Clinton, a rule proposed by Democrat President Clinton.

Now, there was a public comment period. It wasn't done in the dark of the night, but it was done with public comments, and the rule was changed in 2002, which is true that President Bush would have been the President during that time period. But it was an ongoing and a slow and deliberate process, and it was simply a commonsense need that was something that I think was pro-business, which I understand is offensive to some people.

But it also streamlines the bureaucracy and helps the private sector create jobs. And all it simply did was get the Corps of Engineers and the EPA to have the same definition of fill. That's not a radical concept. That's common sense. And again, if we're going to compete in the world marketplace, we should have common sense, even with Washington bureaucrats.

Now, the definition includes materials that, when placed into the waters of the U.S., have the effect of replacing or changing the bottom elevation of any portion of that water. Therefore, it includes rock, sand, soil, clay, plastics, construction debris, wood chips, and overburden from mining.

These are regulated right now. They're not exempt from this. It simply says that the EPA and the Corps of Engineers would use the same definition. So I stand in opposition to this.

And I do not think that this is the purpose of the gentleman's amendment, but I do worry that, as this administration seems to have an open war going on on coal, is this perhaps part of it? Not necessarily this amendment, but the thinking that two different agencies can now get on a different sheet in terms of what a definition is and, therefore, one agency can be more proactive in slowing up progress and activities of which you don't approve.

There is an estimation that if this was to happen, 375,000 jobs in the mining business could be jeopardized. Now, I understand, this administration doesn't like mining, but for the rest of us who use the products in the United States of America, this is something that is significant and disturbing; 375,000 jobs in what we have called an anemic recovery already.

So I believe that the responsible thing for us to do is to reject this amendment and say that, if this definition does need to be changed, let it not be done by bureaucrats, and let it not be done by lawyers either, but let it be done by the elected representatives, both Democrat and Republican, of the American people, and let 218 of us in the House have a ``yes'' or a ``no'' vote, and then 51 in the Senate, and then send it to the White House for signature, rather than have unelected bureaucrats whom no one knows make these very important significant legal decisions for us.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Fred W. Gretsch, a nationally recognized music industry specialist and businessman, on the 130th anniversary of his family's historic business, The Gretsch Company.

Fred's great-grandfather, Friedrich Gretsch, started The Gretsch Company in 1883, making banjos, drums and tambourines in Brooklyn, New York. Over a span of 130 years, The Gretsch Company has grown into an international business and produces some of the world's finest drums and guitars.

In 1967, The Gretsch Company was sold to the Baldwin Music Company, but without the family dedication and perseverance that drove the business for so many decades, the company began to falter. Fred Gretsch repurchased his family business in 1985 and moved operations to Savannah, Georgia, where the revitalized company began to offer new, vintage-styled Gretsch guitars and classic Gretsch drums. The new products were immediately successful, and the company once again became a leader in the musical instrument industry.

Because of Mr. Gretsch's tireless dedication to his family business and the music industry, The Gretsch Company is celebrating a significant milestone that many small businesses never reach. I am happy to congratulate Mr. Fred Gretsch and his wife, Dinah, on this accomplishment.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize the more than 1,600 young men and women who have come to our Capitol from across America this week to participate in the 49th annual Electric Cooperative Youth Tour.

These high school juniors and seniors that you see around the Capitol this week are here to get firsthand insights about our Nation's government and its political process and gain a greater understanding of our history. They will meet with their Representatives and Senators and watch Congress in action from the galleries and also visit many memorials and the museums.

I look forward to meeting with the 106 students from the State of Georgia, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

These students coming from the Electric Cooperative Tour are part of a great tradition. In 1957, Texas Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson inspired the youth tour when he addressed the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association meeting in Chicago. The Senator and future President declared:

If one thing comes out of this meeting, it will be sending

youngsters to the Nation's capital where they can actually

see what the flag stands for and represents.

So every June, for the past 49 years, over 50,000 young citizens and future leaders have put those words into action, and you can see the results of this tradition right here in the Capitol. Several of the groups have spawned congressional aides and elected Representatives themselves.

Back home in Georgia, the chairman of our State House Appropriations Committee, Terry England, is a prime example of someone who had the desire for public office and ran for elective office when it was fueled as a student when he came up here on the electric co-op tour some 20 years ago.

I congratulate Terry and thousands of others just like him who have engaged in this great tour. And I commend the national Electric Cooperative Youth Tour and thank the Georgia EMCs for all the great work they are doing in developing America's youth.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and stand in support of the amendment.

There's two very major points of this. Number one is that we cannot continue to deny able-bodied people the dignity of work. There seems to be a belief in the nanny state that there's something wrong with requiring able-bodied people to work. That's what this amendment does. It says to you that if you can work, you ought to be working so that other people who are unable to, they can get the needed assistance.

Number two, it gives States flexibility. I trust the people in Florida. I trust the people in Wisconsin. I trust the people in Georgia and Florida and all over the country to do what's best for their State. That's what we need in America today: less centralized, Washington bureaucratic planners and more State flexibility because what might work in your State might be different in mine, but this is a requirement for able-bodied people to get a job in order to receive public assistance benefits.

It's very common sense, and I yield back the balance of my time.