Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I rise today to engage my friend, Chairman McKeon, in a colloquy regarding the Defense Contract Audit Agency, or DCAA, and express concerns about the potential overreach of its authority.

The DCAA plays a critical role in our contracting system. As such, in recent years, Congress has provided substantial human and financial resources to address its well-documented workload backlog and other challenges. I am in favor of such resources and encourage DCAA to focus on eliminating the backlog. However, it appears that DCAA may be broadly accessing a myriad of contractor documents that have little or no impact on determining the effectiveness of contractor business systems.

The FY13 National Defense Authorization Act contained a provision, section 832, which set parameters for DCAA's access to the internal audits of companies that provide goods and services to the Department of Defense. Specifically, it is my understanding the committee was focused on contractors' business systems and ensuring robust and independent internal audit controls to those systems. However, it appears DCAA is broadly interpreting section 832 as providing DCAA with the authority to access all contractor internal audits and supporting documents. This is concerning on many levels.

I would ask the chairman if he has considered the potentially chilling effect on a company's desire to maintain a robust internal audit program if the government is demanding unfettered access to information they may not need or may potentially misuse. This is especially worrisome when this overreach extends to the very proprietary data that makes these companies competitive in the marketplace.

I thank the chairman for his leadership and ask if he shares my concerns regarding the potential overreach of DCAA in this area.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill provides $43.6 billion for medical treatment for the 6.5 million veterans today who use the VA. It increases funding for processes, such as the electronic health record system and the disability claims process, the paperless environment, and yet that's what we did last year and the year before.

Nonetheless, today, as we sit here, the VA has 865,265 claims in their backlog; 66\1/2\ percent of these claims have been pending for more than 125 days. The current claim to be processed, the current amount of time is 292 days, and some offices report some claims that have been pending for 450 days.

This is not acceptable. But every year we provide more money for the VA to process claims, and every year the backlog gets more.

So what this amendment does is it takes a different approach. It takes an approach that's used in the private sector on a regular basis for compensation. It says to the senior members of the VA that if they don't have the claims backlog reduced by 40 percent by next July, the senior leadership will have a pay cut of 25 percent. Mr. Chairman, this follows their own goal. All it says is that if you don't make your own goal, there will be a 25 percent pay reduction for the senior management of the VA.

I think everyone in Congress has a VA office with problems in their own district. In Decatur, Georgia, a VA hospital that serves 86,000 patients in the State of Georgia has a backlog of over 4,000--or 4,000 patients have fallen through the cracks. Three deaths occurred over the past 2 years when the VA lost track of mental health patients and referred it to a contractor while not keeping a close eye on them while they were supposed to be monitored.

One may have committed suicide because he could not see a doctor and had an overdose of his treatment. There are other atrocities that have happened in that one VA clinic. Again, Mr. Chairman, this is not adequate. This is not acceptable. For our veterans, we need to treat them better.

I am a member of the Armed Services Committee and often say that the American soldier needs to have the best equipment and the best training that's out there because we want them to fight and win wars; but we also want them to come home and live normal lives, so we need to make sure that our treatment of the American military does not end in a theater of war but continues throughout the rest of their lives. As the claims or as the injuries that they incurred while rendering service to the Nation haunt them for the rest of their lives, we need to be there for them for their medical treatment.

This amendment sends a very strong signal to the VA that we are serious that this backlog will be cleaned up and that, if not, there will be a price to pay.

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

I thank the gentleman from Texas for the time.

To my friend from Georgia, who I know is just as fervent as we are in terms of cleaning up the backlog, I would say the only part with which we are in disagreement is this approach, again emphasizing that this committee has provided the adequate funding to reduce the backlog. We did it last year, and we did it the year before, and we did it the year before that.

What we are doing with this amendment is what the private sector does every single day--it bases compensation on performance. We are saying, if you don't perform to your own guidelines, there will be a compensation penalty for it.

Congress has reduced its expenses, depending on the committee, anywhere from 8 to 14 percent. We have not had a COLA in several years now. In fact, the only way the United States Senate passed a budget this year was because of an amendment that was offered, called ``no budget, no pay,'' and the House passed a budget, too, under that threat. One way you do get people's attention is to say, You have got to perform in your job or there will be a salary cut. That's all we're doing.

For the men and women who put their lives on the line for our country that we could have this debate today and that we can go about our lives tomorrow and the next day and raise families in a free and independent country, we owe it to them. A backlog of 800,000 claims is not acceptable, and we are tired of talking about it. This amendment takes the final step. We are going to make a change. We are going to get that backlog cleaned up.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

In my role as chairman of the Health and Human Services Subcommittee of Appropriations, we oversee the budget for ObamaCare. I can tell you that the money is not there even for implementation. The request was for $1.2 billion. Now it has accelerated up to $1.7 billion, and there is no funding for it available. So here we are on the eve of the largest takeover of a private sector function in United States history, and the money is not there to implement it.

So what does the Secretary of HHS do? She goes to the private sector and says, We need to get money from you to implement ObamaCare.

Now, that is like the Mafia's shaking down businesses for protection money. I'm not saying at all that the Secretary would be trying to do that purposely, but it is similar to it. How can you ask people for money, whom you regulate, in order to implement a program that they're going to fall under? That is just repugnant to any American, and we can't let that happen.

The money is not there. We need to vote ``no'' and send this thing back to committee and look at it another day and in another way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Dr. Valerie A. Hepburn for her unprecedented service from July 2008 through June 2013 as the 4th President of the College of Coastal Georgia and to wish her well as she returns to her chosen field of public policy.

In addition to serving as College president, Dr. Hepburn held a faculty appointment as professor of public policy. She previously served as an administrator and faculty member in health policy and management at both the University of Georgia and Georgia State University. In 2006, Dr. Hepburn was awarded a prestigious Packer Policy Fellowship from the Australian Government. Prior to her academic service, she spent more than 20 years in senior leadership positions with state health, financing and regulatory agencies. She continues to work with public officials and research colleagues on health planning, education and resource allocation issues. She holds a Doctorate of Philosophy in Public Administration and Policy from the University of Georgia, a Master of Public Administration from Georgia State University and a Bachelors of Arts in Political Science from Agnes Scott College.

In 2008, when the University System of Georgia fulfilled the long- standing dream of Southeast Georgia by granting senior college status to the local community college, Erroll B. Davis Jr., then Chancellor of the University System of Georgia, had the foresight to enlist Dr. Hepburn to lead the transition. As a result of her visionary leadership, she has forged lasting partnerships between the College and the community that powerfully impact the region. The College now serves as a catalyst for economic development as well as for arts and cultural development. A collaborative, comprehensive master plan charts the expansion of the College as it moves from a campus of commuters to a residential center while respecting the taxpayers' investment in facilities, embracing green initiatives responsive to our beautiful coastal environment. The academic programs cultivate community engagement, critical thinking and problem-solving skills and culminate in degrees with career value.

The United States Department of Education has recognized the College of Coastal Georgia as being in the top 10 percent of affordable public colleges and universities across the nation. Additionally, the College is the first in the University System of Georgia to offer a baccalaureate degree in American Studies. The College provides an affordable, outstanding, comprehensive education for tomorrow's leaders and citizens through service learning, global awareness and engaged entrepreneurship. Dr. Hepburn has, in only five short years, shaped the model for a responsive and responsible institution of higher learning.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. William McKinney, a nationally recognized teacher, scholar, and academic leader, on his appointment as the 9th President of Valdosta State University and to wish him luck during his inaugural week.

Dr. McKinney earned a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering and a Bachelor of Arts in History from Bucknell University and both a Master of Arts in History and Philosophy and a Ph.D. at Indiana University-Bloomington. Prior to his appointment as Valdosta State University President, Dr. McKinney served as the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, as the Chairperson of Philosophy and Religion at Southeast Missouri State, and as Dean of the College of Humanities, Fine and Performing Arts at Slippery Rock University in Pennsylvania.

As a lifelong supporter of a liberal arts education, Dr. McKinney has published well over 100 papers, book chapters, and reviews on everything from environmental ethics to civic engagement. I know he will be an asset to the Valdosta State University Campus. I am proud to have him representing Valdosta State University and my home state. Congratulations, again, to Dr. McKinney. I look forward to working with him in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, recently the government came out with a 106-page regulatory and safety reform plan for ceiling fans. I did not know ceiling fans were such a hazard to America's health, but apparently they are.

So what's going to happen? That $40 ceiling fan that you've been buying and putting on your back porch will now go to $400 because we have to keep these

busybody bureaucrats employed. We have to keep them happy because of these hazardous fans.

Now, my friend, Joe ``Cut Spending'' McCutchen was recently talking to me about the big problem that is too much government, too much spending and interference in our lives. That's why today I supported the Ryan budget and yesterday the Republican Study Committee budget.

These budgets call for tax reform, for health care reform, for less spending and regulatory reform of job-killing regulations like the new 106-page document on ceiling fans.

Let's hope the Senate passes a tough budget. But if they do not, with or without that, let's continue to work on spending cuts, reducing the size of government and ending government interference in our lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and accomplishments of Preston ``Pres'' Henne, who will culminate a truly outstanding 44-year career in the aerospace industry when he retires from Gulfstream Aerospace on March 31, 2013 as senior vice president for Programs, Engineering and Test.

During Pres' 19 years with Gulfstream, he was responsible for leading the teams which designed, developed, tested and certified the Gulfstream V and G550 aircraft, which earned the Robert J. Collier trophies from the National Aeronautics Association in 1997 and 2003, respectively. The trophy is awarded annually for the greatest achievement in aeronautics and astronautics in North America.

Under Pres' direction, Gulfstream developed and certified six new aircraft--the G650, G550, GV, G450, G280 and G150. In conjunction with these new products, Pres was also responsible for launching a number of industry-leading product enhancements, including the Gulfstream Enhanced Vision System and Synthetic Vision-Primary Flight Display.

Most recently, Pres oversaw the development of the company's much- anticipated G650, one of the world's most sophisticated business-jet aircraft. The G650, which entered service in 2012, was designed with technological advances such as a digital fly-by-wire system, triplex flight management systems, auto emergency descent and enhanced and synthetic vision systems. Pres also supervised the design and development of the G280, an aircraft that has been noted for its best- in-class performance, cabin comfort and technology.

Pres was also instrumental in the establishment of a strong engineering organization and a Research and Development Center campus with four office buildings and a state of the art laboratory building. All of which reflected Pres' extraordinary vision for the future of Gulfstream's product development.

Pres earned a bachelor's degree in aeronautical and astronautical engineering with highest undergraduate honors from the University of Illinois in 1969 and a master's degree in engineering from California State University at Long Beach in 1974.

Pres is a Fellow of the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society and a member of the National Academy of Engineering. His awards include the AIAA 1996 Engineer of the Year Award, the AIAA 2001 Hap Arnold Award for Excellence in Aeronautical Program Management, the 2005 University of Illinois Alumni Award for Distinguished Service, a 2012 Living Legend of Aviation Award from the Kiddie Hawk Air Academy, the AIAA 2012 Reed Aeronautics Award and a 2012 Aviation Week Laureate Award.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Pandemic Reauthorization bill to acknowledge the importance of PHAPA and the pandemic and medical countermeasure community; however, I do so with reservations. While H.R. 307 does not allocate funds, this bill does reauthorize the Special Reserve Fund for five years. The multiyear fund gives industry a degree of certainty when embarking on long term, multi-million dollar investments to create treatments that do not have a private market to reply upon. This is an important goal. However, our federal budget is bloated with forty-two cents out of every dollar borrowed and the refunding of the Special Reserve Fund comes at a particularly difficult time. A better structure for this funding mechanism must be developed. Nonetheless, I support the work PHAPA supports and will continue to discuss fiscally-sound funding solutions for the Special Reserve Fund during the FY2014 Labor, Health and Human Services subcommittee on Appropriations hearings and meetings.

I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, the President owns this economy. He owns the high unemployment rate--the 23 million Americans who are unemployed or underemployed. He owns the lack of jobs, lack of opportunities. He owns the $750 billion annual deficit that he has had for the 4 years. It is time for the President to step up.

Now, knowing that this fiscal cliff was going to take place for well over a year now--in fact, people have seen it coming long before then-- the President has not acted in good faith and put alternatives on the floor for us to vote on.

What we're doing here today is three things. Number one, we are moving a centralized negotiation back to where it should be, a decentralized basis so that 435 House Members can vote, can speak on it and express their opinion. Now, hopefully, beyond that, the Senate can take it and amend it and change it and do whatever they want, but this debate belongs inside the United States Capitol. What the Speaker is doing today is giving us that opportunity.

Last year, we heard so much about the 99 percenters. This is going to give tax relief to those 99 percent, and it's permanent. I know how long it's taken us to do something with the death tax. That is in this bill.

This is good for the economy. It's good for economic growth, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

Thank you, Mr. Woodall. And I certainly join everything that has been said about Jay Pierson already, but I'm going to say it from my point of view.

My daughter is in a rock and roll band, and one of her great frustrations is trying to get everybody in sync. Well, that's what Jay Pierson does here on the House floor. With all these 435 egos and all the parts and all the things that go on behind the scenes, he seems to be the conductor that gets everything running in a harmonious fashion. He's here early. I've never been able to beat him. I don't know what time he goes home at night. He stays very, very late.

Whatever the subject matter is, he seems to be on top of it from a legislative and substantive point of view, then from a parliamentary point of view. He seems to know what the timing is. He knows the history of it. If there's a meltdown, he knows how to get out of it, because it seems like he's been there before. He listens to the speakers even when no one else seems to be speaking. And 2 or 3 weeks later he will say, You remember that speech you made? Is that right? It appears that he remembers that. I just have to thank him for his professionalism in that manner.

I have to say this to Mr. Pierson. I want to say this on a very personal level. I've been married 33 years. I'm proud to be a Member of Congress, but I'm more proud that I've been able to be married 33 years and I've raised four kids. Jay, I have to say, you played a part in it. Because as a father of four, sometimes the most important thing that can take place on the House floor interferes with your most important role of being a daddy. And sometimes knowing if you're going to be out on Thursday on Friday, will we get out at 2 o'clock so I can catch that 2:30 flight, will there be a delay, and what votes are coming up, it means so much on those small but very important things called birthdays and anniversaries and school plays and football games. And, Jay, I can tell you, in my 20 years in Congress, my attendance at those things hasn't been 100 percent, but it's been a heck of a lot better than it would have been without your advice and counsel.

So on behalf of the Kingston family--my four kids and my wife, Libby--we appreciate your friendship and we appreciate the extra value added because of your public service to all of our families.

Thank you. May God bless you and the road that lies ahead for you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and accomplishments of Donald Holleder, Major, United States Army.

Donald Holleder was born on August 3, 1934, in Buffalo, New York. He was an outstanding high school athlete, and was sought

after by some of America's most prestigious universities. But Donald Holleder chose to attend the United States Military Academy at West Point, even forgoing a National Football League draft selection by the New York Giants in 1956 to serve as an officer in the Army.

Don Holleder was, by nature, a selfless man who subordinated himself to the greater good of the team, whether that team was on the football field or the field of battle. He was the embodiment of a true leader, willing to endure personal sacrifice so that others could succeed, even at risk to his own personal safety.

Major Holleder's actions in Vietnam on the morning of October 17th, 1967 at the Battle of Ong Thanh were unparalleled in their bravery. According to eyewitness accounts documented in the Army's recommendation for award, his actions to save wounded soldiers under enemy fire were above and beyond the call of duty. After several requests to be permitted to assist his men, the Brigade Commander relented and gave his approval. Having voluntarily gone outside the perimeter, armed with only a .45 caliber pistol and advised of the peril he faced, he ran several times into no-man's land, risking his own life to save others. Stabilizing a rapidly deteriorating situation and reestablishing command, this Brigade staff officer saved many lives before he was mortally wounded.

On April 27th, 2012, Major Donald Holleder was posthumously awarded the Distinguished Service Cross in recognition of his sacrifice. His actions were indeed so notable and involved risk of life so extraordinary that he clearly deserves to be set apart from his comrades, exemplifying the timeless values of courage and sacrifice that this award is intended to honor.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I offer this amendment with Ms. McCollum from Minnesota today. In fact, it was her amendment from last year that got me involved in this. Basically, what this does is stops the Defense Department from using major sports sponsorships, such as NASCAR motor sports and bass fishing, for a recruitment tool, which is no longer necessary.

There are a number of reasons for this:

Number one, it's not effective. On May 18, 2012, Major Brian Creech said in the USA Today that the National Guard's spending $26.5 million dollars to sponsor NASCAR got 24,800 inquiries. Of those, they got 20 potential recruits. Of those, what did they get for the $26 million? Not one single recruit. I want to say again, $26 million, 24,000 inquiries, zero--zero--recruits. It's not effective.

Now, the National Guard support group has been going around with this document saying, Oh, yes, but look at all the images that we get. Well, again, out of this, according to their own document, they got 40 recruits. So for the money, if you do the math, that's $72,000 per recruit.

And why is that? Well, perhaps because the demographic of NASCAR is that 69 percent of the people are over 35. So when they go and they're pushing their brand or advertising at NASCAR, nearly 70 percent of the people aren't eligible. That's not their target group.

The RAND Corporation, in its 2007 study of recruitment, said that if you want to increase recruitment, then you have to increase the number of recruiters, period. That was the number one thing. That's why on July 10, the Army dropped out of it, and they said:

Although it is a beneficial endeavor for us, it's also

rather expensive, and we decided we could repurpose that

investment into other programs.

So when Ms. McCollum actually originally offered this, it was an $80 million reduction into the savings account, but since the Army dropped it, now we're offering $72 million.

Secondly, very, very important for us to remember is that the military is reducing its size now, not because of sequestration, before sequestration. They're dropping the number of troops in the Army and the Marines by 103,000, alone. The Defense Department's recruiter has said that the recruitment is high right now because of the economy.

Now, number 3, this program has no accountability. In February, our office, as a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, we asked the Pentagon: What are your hard numbers? If you're spending $72 million sponsoring major sports programs, what are you getting out of it? And they couldn't come up with it. Now, that disturbs me as a fiscal conservative, because I want to believe that if the Pentagon is spending that much money on something, they're able to defend it.

The Miller Beer Company actually put it this way. They said it this way. They said, on exposure:

I don't care how much exposure we get, what that is

supposed to be worth, or what our awareness is versus the

competition. I need to be able to tell our CEO and our

shareholders how many additional cases of beer that I sold.

In short, the Army can't tell us how many recruiters they really do get from this.

And, number four, we've got sequestration facing us, on top of a $487 billion defense cut over the next 10 years,

plus a troop reduction of over 100,000 already. We may have additional cuts. And Secretary Panetta has said that we need to work together to find better ways to spend the money and stretch our dollars.

I'm as pro military as they get. I'm proud to say I believe the First District of Georgia has as much military as any district in the country. I have four major military installations and two guard facilities. We have every branch of the military, and we have a bombing range in there. The only thing that has a bigger population than my military are my NASCAR fans. And yet they're saying to me, We're pro NASCAR, but we realize the situation in America today is that for every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed. We can spend this money a lot better than we are today.

Again, look what we're spending per recruit. According to the National Guard document which they provided our office--at least they did provide us with a document which we did not get from the Pentagon-- it is still costing us over $700,000 per recruit, from their own documentation.

We can do better than this, and that's why Ms. McCollum and I have worked together and reached across the aisle to say we can spend this money elsewhere more effectively.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that cancer research is already funded in this bill at a $246 million level.

I also want to say that Mr. Young, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Dicks, and Mr. Lewis have had a long tradition of leadership on cancer research in the Defense Appropriations Committee. We have always been very supportive of it and will continue so. The bill is already at $246 million.

Secondly, why did we put the money into the cruiser program? We did so because at a time when we are pivoting much of our Navy fleet into the Pacific area, we believe we needed to have as many of these ships capable of missile defense, or the Aegis system, as possible because the world is so unstable.

Many of these ships will probably go to the Pacific. There are six of them that we are re-outfitting for this system, and then some of them may go to the Middle East.

Now, I just got back from spending a night on a carrier that was part of the Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf, and our trip also included Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Djibouti. I wish that some of the Members of Congress could get some of the briefings that we got in terms of the missile threat in the Middle East alone, because it is an unstable part of the globe right now, and we have to have our best technology out there and our best sailors and our best airmen ready at all times in case there is a missile attack, and that's what the Defense Committee on a bipartisan basis recognized with this $506 million.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I want to say this. While we all acknowledge there was a numerical explosion and a substantive explosion or a questionable, in substance, on earmarks and that's why earmarks are banned, one of the advantages of earmarks is that it did let the small mom-and-pop innovative small businesses have a crack at the bat at the Pentagon budget. And most of us who are familiar with the Pentagon budget would say it's broken or at least it needs lots of improvement. What the earmarking did do is let small companies have a bite at the apple. So in the interest of banning earmarks, we set up this program to allow small businesses.

I want to give you a graphic example. I had a man come to me one time and said, I used to work with a large defense contractor. He named the contractor and I don't want to name them. But he said, This is a circuit panel. In fact, it's a memory panel. It's about the size of this notebook in my hand. And he said, This is for a nuclear submarine, and it costs about $10 million. I know because I invented it when I was with the large defense contractor. And all nuclear submarines now buy this kind of memory board. But your cell phone--pulling out the BlackBerry--now has more memory in it than that big, awkward panel. But the only way I'm going to get a crack at the business with the U.S. Navy would be through the earmarking process.

Now, I can replace this $10 million circuit memory board for probably hundreds of thousands of dollars, but I can't do that now. You've thrown away that tool for both of us.

So we set up this board to try to let those small businesses have a crack at the bat. And I agree with you there's money in the account that maybe it should be spent down. We need to be looking at it before plussing-up. I think you have raised some good points, but I believe the reason why the program is out there is very important in order to keep the large defense contractors honest, if you will, and provide a path for the small innovators.

I yield to the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, as an airplane parts manufacturer, I can promise you that you know how difficult it was to sell your products to the United States Air Force. And this program would allow a small innovator to do that and therefore reduce the cost to the taxpayers of parts for airplanes.

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

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

I want to say, most importantly, this was authorized in the National Defense Authorization this year which was passed on an overwhelming basis, on a bipartisan vote, and their authorization actually was a lot more than our $75 billion. And the reason why this money is in there and it affects Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California is that there are some changes that are going on in the missile silos, so rather than close down the shop and hope that the bad guys give us a pass until we're ready to defend ourselves, we're having to move these missiles and keep them current, keep them active, and keep them capable while this construction is going on, and then we finish the construction and put them back, and that's why the authorizing committee, on a bipartisan basis, authorized it, and that's why our subcommittee has also supported it, although at a lower number.

With that, I recommend a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Kingston

Amendment No. 2: Page 8, line 2, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $4,100,000)''.

Page 8, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $4,200,000)''.

Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $2,300,000)''.

Page 8, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $1,900,000)''.

Page 10, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.

Page 11, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $700,000)''.

Page 12, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $53,900,000)''.

Page 13, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $1,200,000)''.

Page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $72,300,000)''.

Madam Speaker, there are five quick reasons why I think this bill should be repealed:

Number one, it does not decrease the cost of health care. In fact, it is estimated that it will increase costs by 13 percent per family and is already moving toward a $2,100 increase.

Number two, the loss of health care. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 20 million people will lose their employer-based health insurance because of the mandates in ObamaCare.

Number three, it interferes with the patient-doctor relationship. The law creates 159 new boards, offices, and panels within the Federal Government to be in charge of people's health care decisions.

Number four, increased government spending at a time where we borrow 40 cents on every dollar we spend and our national debt is 100 percent of the GDP. ObamaCare is expected to cost over $1.8 trillion over the next decade. We don't have the money.

Number five, loss of jobs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that nearly 800,000 jobs will be lost because of ObamaCare.

Madam Speaker, we need to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with the best ideas of Republicans and Democrats, which should include expanded health savings accounts, ending frivolous lawsuits, association health plans, across-State-line health care purchases, and State-run high-risk pools. These ideas will bring America together rather than divide us as a country over this very important issue.

Madam Speaker, following are my remarks in their entirety:

Rising Health Care Costs--Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), CBO projects health insurance premiums will increase by $2,100 per family.

By 2016, health insurance premiums for individuals and families will increase by 13%.

Loss of Health Care Coverage--CBO estimates 20 million people could lose their employer-based health insurance because of the mandates imposed by PPACA.

According to HHS's own assumptions, as high as 80% of small businesses and 64% of large businesses will discontinue offering health insurance to its employees.

According to a survey by House Ways and Means, 71 of the nation's largest employers could save more than $28 billion in 2014 alone and $422.4 billion over a decade, by deciding to drop health insurance coverage for their 10.2 million employees and dependents and paying the $2,000 per-employee penalty instead.

Some colleges have already begun dropping student health insurance plans for the coming academic year and others are warning students of premium increases because of a provision in the Obamacare requiring plans to expand their coverage benefits.

For example, Bethany College in Kansas is cancelling its health insurance plan for students rather than face a premium increase of over 350 percent, causing the plans to increase from $445 per year to more than $2,000 per year.

A mandate in Obamacare requires all child-only health insurance carriers to guaranty issue plans, which allows individuals to purchase health insurance on the way to the emergency room. As a result, 17 states including Georgia no longer offer new child-only health insurance policies.

Interference with Patient-Doctor Relationship--PPACA creates the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) consisting of 15 bureaucrats responsible for making spending and coverage decisions for Medicare.

CBO projects IPAB will have a marginal effect on reducing Medicare spending.

The law does create 159 new boards, offices and panels within the federal government in charge of making decisions for people's health care.

Increased Government Spending--PPACA is expected to cost $1.8 trillion over the next decade, which is nearly double the original estimate.

Total federal spending on health care will increase from 5.4 percent of GDP this year to 10.7 percent of GDP in 2037 and 18.3% by 2087.

Loss of Jobs--The CBO estimates nearly 800,000 jobs will be lost because of passages of PPACA. This is because of the law's misguided incentives that increase the marginal tax rates discouraging work and labor supply.

According to a survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 74 percent of small businesses stated PPACA makes it harder for firms to hire new workers.

The same survey found 30% of the businesses surveyed are not hiring at all thanks to PPACA.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation (FLETA) Board as they celebrate their 10th anniversary on June 5, 2012. The FLETA Board of Directors is comprised of 21 senior officials from federal law enforcement agencies, academia, and professional organizations. Since the FLETA Board's inception, fifteen federal law enforcement academies and over 60 individual law enforcement training programs have voluntarily presented themselves to be assessed through the FLETA process and receive accreditation.

The FLETA Office of Accreditation is one of the smallest entities in the Federal Government with only seven government employees, yet the impact on federal training and operations is extensive. FLETA assists law enforcement agencies in virtually every department of the Federal Government to improve operations through more effective and efficient training. The mission of FLETA is more important now than ever before. This agency's efforts are demonstrative of good government in action, accountability through self-regulation, and exhibit the transparency that Americans expect of their government.

I would like to congratulate FLETA on their 10th anniversary and wish them much success in the future as they continue to assist federal law enforcement operations through training.