Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Indiana.

I rise in support of the Gosar-Gibbs-Altmire amendment to protect the Second Amendment rights of our Nation's sportsmen.

The Army Corps of Engineers owns or manages more than 11 million acres of Federal lands, where Americans are not allowed to carry firearms for self-defense, including 90,000 camp sites and thousands of miles of trails where law enforcement is scattered.

Our amendment will simplify regulations for law-abiding citizens by defunding a Federal regulation that bans firearms for self-defense on Army Corps lands. This will not change rules against bringing firearms into Federal buildings, such as Army Corps headquarters, or locks and dams. It will simply guarantee that sportsmen are able to defend themselves while they legally hunt and fish on property that the Army Corps owns and operates.

To correct this problem in the long term, Mr. Gibbs and I have also introduced the Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act. But this amendment is a necessary first step and is supported by the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan bill, which was crafted and introduced with job protection and regulatory clarity as its top priorities.

The Clean Water Act originally created a working relationship between the Federal Government and the States. But recently that relationship has been undermined by unnecessary intervention by the EPA.

When the government imposes impossible standards on job creators, the entire economy suffers. Businesses go through rigorous processes to receive permits from State governments to proceed with work that creates jobs and provides revenue to local governments, only to be undercut at the last minute by EPA regulations that do not take into account local context or economic impact.

My colleagues should vote ``yes'' on this bill to prevent this further EPA overreach.

I continue to hear my colleagues promote the fantasy that government has banned the incandescent light bulb. They think if they say it over and over again that it will be true. But it's not true. The incandescent light bulb is not banned. Manufacturers are not told which technology to use to produce light bulbs, and consumers will still be able to buy the incandescent light bulb for years to come.

Incandescent bulbs that meet the new standards are already on the market. Three American-made brands are here before me. They have the same look and emit the same light as traditional incandescent bulbs. But there is a difference: They last much longer and offer substantial energy efficiency savings for consumers.

Hopefully, a symbolic light bulb will soon go on above the heads of my colleagues to enlighten them to let them know that their rhetoric bears no fact to reality, and the incandescent bulb is here to stay whether they like it or not.

Mr. Speaker, this week, I cosigned a letter to Transportation Secretary LaHood expressing concern about the waste of taxpayer dollars at the Federal Highway Administration's International Scan Program. This program has likely wasted millions of dollars over the past 10 years, sending government officials abroad most recently to study billboards in five different countries, over 17 days, at a cost of $300,000 to the taxpayers.

Rightly, Secretary LaHood responded to our letter by immediately suspending the program, but the question remains: Why did it exist in the first place, and how many others like it exist throughout the Federal bureaucracy?

We must continue to scrutinize the budgets at all Federal agencies so we can put an end to this type of wasteful spending once and for all. Hopefully, the suspension of this billboard program is just a sign of things to come.

I appreciate the gentleman from Louisiana yielding his time as he prepares his remarks, which I look forward to hearing.

Earlier this afternoon and into the evening, this House considered an appropriations bill related to Veterans Affairs and Military Construction. At that point I asked my colleagues to support an amendment that I offered for the FY 2012 Military Construction-Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, and that amendment I am thankful to say was accepted. It was bipartisan acceptance. Both the majority and minority agreed it should be added to the bill, and I just wanted to tell the gentleman and my colleagues that amendment is very straightforward. It moves $22 million from the VA general administration to solve a dramatic cut in medical and prosthetic research.

This bill that we are talking about, the VA-Military Construction account, as it was written, funds medical and prosthetic research at $509 million in FY 2012, but that is a $72 million cut over last year. But the amendment that I offered restores funding to an account that directly impacts treatment of amputees and other wounded veterans.

Like all of my colleagues, I want to do everything I possibly can to support our veterans and to promote these programs. And like many of us, I have visited the facilities for amputees at Walter Reed Army Medical Center right here in Washington, DC, and I have spoken with those disabled wounded warriors who have lost limbs in the line of duty.

Through technological and medical improvements at that facility, the DOD has demonstrated its ability to improve world-class health care to amputees and other wounded servicemembers. The VA must have the funding necessary to carry on that mission after veterans leave the service.

Just last week, the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing entitled: ``Seamless Transition--Meeting the Needs of Servicemembers and Veterans.'' During the hearing, multiple wounded warriors testified about the difficulty of transferring between DOD and VA care.

In particular, one witness, Lance Corporal Tim Horton from Oklahoma, highlighted the disparity between health care he received as he sought out prosthetics that help him go about his everyday life.

Lance Corporal Horton said: ``I know other veterans who live in close proximity to Walter Reed who are able to walk in and out with the services and equipment they need within the same day, all without ever needing to go through their local VA. While waiting weeks for an appointment might seem like a minor inconvenience, for a warrior like myself, spending weeks without necessary prosthetics equipment, or sometimes even worse, equipment that causes extreme discomfort and other medical issues, can be wholly disruptive to our daily lives. The timeliness and consistency of care should not be a function of where warriors happen to live.''

I have spoken with amputees with similar stories from my district in western Pennsylvania who have expressed their dissatisfaction with the medical care they receive after retiring from the military. I am sure all of my colleagues would agree, we can never repay America's veterans for the sacrifice that they have made for our country. What amount of money could replace an arm or a leg lost in the line of duty?

I firmly believe, as I am sure we all believe, that we need to get our fiscal house in order, but in this extreme time of fiscal restraint and prioritization of appropriations, I believe that no one should stand ahead of our Nation's veterans when making these difficult funding decisions. I believe that medical and prosthetic research is a higher priority than bureaucratic administration.

CBO has scored my amendment as having no impact on budget authority, and it would actually reduce FY 2012 outlays by $5 million.

This amendment helps direct the priorities of the VA towards the veterans that deserve its funding and support, and I want to thank the American Legion for its support in helping craft this amendment because it is good for veterans, and I am so happy that my colleagues have agreed to accept this amendment as part of the bill. Hopefully, it will survive in the Senate and become law.

I greatly appreciate the gentleman from Louisiana yielding me some time to allow me to discuss this.

Offered By: Mr. Altmire

Amendment No. 3: Page 32, line 7, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(increased by $22,000,000)''.

Page 33, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $22,000,000)''.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the LaTourette- Pascrell amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill to restore funding for the Assistance to Firefighters and Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response grant programs.

The AFG and SAFER programs are essential to our public safety and security. These programs improve the readiness of our Nation's firefighters, ensuring that the brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day for the safety of our communities are prepared with the capabilities they need to continue protecting and serving our communities safely and effectively.

These grants provided by the AFG and SAFER programs are the single most important source of Federal assistance to volunteer fire departments. They help fire departments equip, train and maintain their personnel so they are prepared to respond to all emergencies. These programs are able to address the immediate and individualized needs of fire departments efficiently and effectively because funding is awarded directly to fire departments instead of being funneled through other layers of government bureaucracies.

As a result of the recent economic downturn and budget constraints at all levels of government, many fire departments have been forced to cut personnel and services. Without adequate funding for AFG and SAFER, thousands of firefighters could be laid off, and communities across the country could be put further at risk.

There are more than 150 fire departments in my district alone, and each one plays a critical role in keeping local communities safe. Many of these fire departments have benefited from AFG funding. Beaver Falls, Hanover, New Brighton, and Raccoon Township fire departments are just a few of the many that have used the grants to purchase new equipment or to train additional personnel.

Just this year, Berkley Hills Fire Department used an AFG grant to purchase an aerial ladder fire truck that will help the department better protect the numerous multistory apartment complexes, retirement homes and businesses in Ross Township. The West Deer Township Volunteer Fire Company also received an AFG grant this year that allowed the fire company to replace outdated equipment with new portable radios and automated external defibrillators. These upgrades will not only increase firefighter safety; they will also improve the services provided to the communities those fire departments serve.

Enacting the cuts to the AFG and SAFER programs in the underlying legislation will only make it harder for fire departments to avoid layoffs and protect our communities. By adequately funding AFG and SAFER programs, we can help volunteer fire departments nationwide obtain the equipment and personnel they need to effectively respond to emergencies. According to the International Association of Firefighters, over 1,600 firefighters could lose their jobs as a result of the funding cuts that are in this bill.

I urge all Members to support firefighters in their districts and vote in favor of increased funding for firefighters and to support the amendment of Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Pascrell.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Texas, and we are joining the Office of Congresswoman Giffords in offering this amendment.

I had the opportunity last week to travel to Congresswoman Giffords' district and the 114-mile border that she has along the Mexican border and her district. And when you see, as my colleague from Texas knows, these ranchers and the territory that they have to cover--and we have a national community campaign now: ``If you see something, saying something.'' Well, these are areas where you don't have the communications. Even if you see

something, there's no one to tell. There's no way to get that message out.

So what the gentleman from Texas is trying to do with this amendment is trying to make sure that the equipment is there so that these ranchers and community citizens, if they see somebody coming across the border, if they see something that is alarming to them, they're able to communicate it. Right now that technology does not exist. They are literally in the dark as far as communicating it. There is a public safety aspect to this amendment. And there is a Border Patrol aspect-- the ability of our law enforcement personnel to communicate with each other and communicate with the local citizens who, in some cases, are out miles and miles away from any form of mobile communications.

So I strongly support this amendment. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership in offering it, and I thank Congresswoman Giffords and her office for leading the charge on this very important technology.

Offered By: Mr. Altmire

Amendment No. 75: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

use of american iron, steel, and manufactured goods

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of American steel and maintaining security along our southern border. This amendment is actually very simple. I am offering it because it requires that any repairs, modifications, maintenance, or construction of new portions of the fence along our southern border be made with American steel, American iron, and American-manufactured steel goods.

Now, as I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Buy American Act, which was enacted in 1933, already requires

the government to purchase domestic goods for a direct Federal procurement. And for some particularly important areas critical to our national security, such as nearly all defense projects and spending, the requirements for our government to buy American goods are even stronger.

I believe that the steel used in the fence along our southern border should be included in that category. And that is simply what this amendment does. I can't imagine that there would be opposition in this Chamber to the use of American-made steel in the construction of our border fence along our southern border.

Many of my colleagues, I am sure, remember in 2007 when it came to our attention that we were in some cases using Chinese-made steel in construction of the Mexican border fence. We were all equally outraged by that. We were able to encourage, and finally, through hard work and bipartisanship, encourage successfully the Department of Homeland Security to use American-made steel. This amendment gives that the force of law, as I said, under the Buy American Act, which already applies to many American-made goods in the defense industry. So that's the purpose of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Offered By: Mr. Altmire

Amendment No. 75: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

use of american iron, steel, and manufactured goods

I appreciate the gentleman from California. I come from a region of the country, western Pennsylvania, bordering my friend from Ohio, and I was listening to the debate, and I just wanted to talk about this same issue.

This is the key to our recovery and our continued leadership and innovation in this country because, as we have seen in western Pennsylvania and all across this country, the American worker is going to compete and win on a level playing field against anybody in the world any day of the week. We just want to make sure that we have a tax policy that is in place, a trade policy that is in place, and a manufacturing and jobs policy that is in place that is going to allow the American worker that level playing field to compete and win against the rest of the world.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation I introduced to encourage the development of a vital component to the next generation of nuclear reactors that will provide clean, domestic energy solutions for all Americans.

The Department of Energy initiated the Nuclear Power 2010 Program in February 2002 as a joint public-private program to develop advanced reactor technologies and encourage the private sector to build new nuclear power plants in the United States. My legislation, the Nuclear Power 2021 Act, applies the Nuclear Power 2010 model to small modular reactors. Under the bill, the Department of Energy would be able to enter into public-private partnerships to design and license two small modular reactors by the year 2021.

As my colleagues may know, today's traditional larger reactors range from 1,000 to 1,700 megawatts and cost between $5 billion and $10 billion to construct. In contrast, small modular reactors generate 10 to 300 megawatts and cost about $750 million to construct. These small reactors offer several advantages to large reactors in certain situations, including shorter construction times, increased safety controls, and electricity generation. While large reactors are built on a future generation site, a process that can take up to 5 years, smaller reactors can be manufactured in modular pieces in factories and transported by rail or truck, cutting construction times in half. Small reactors can also be completely manufactured and fueled in a factory. They can be sealed and shipped to the site for power generation, and after use, they can be shipped back to the factory for defueling, minimizing the potential spread of nuclear material.

Additionally, small modular reactors produce a small nuclear reaction which generates less heat, making them easier to shut down in the event of a malfunction. Another advantage of small modular reactors is that, unlike large reactors, they can generate power in any location. While large reactors require millions of gallons of water per day for cooling and must be located near large water sources, small reactors can be water-cooled or air-cooled. This technology could open up new parts of the country to nuclear development, such as the arid West and locations that cannot support larger capacity generation, such as isolated rural areas or regions with smaller grids.

Unfortunately, development and deployment of new nuclear reactor technologies can currently take upwards of two decades. Time and resources are limited for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop the institutional capacity to license new reactor designs, and traditional public-private partnerships are often insufficient to mitigate the business risk of bringing small modular reactors to market. This is why I believe this legislation is crucial for developing this all-American technology that could help us lead the world in electricity innovation and generation. I encourage my colleagues to join me in making America more energy independent, creating good-paying American jobs, and working toward the future of clean energy generation by cosponsoring the Nuclear Power 2021 Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Small Business Innovation Research program. For over a quarter century, SBIR has been key to American competitiveness around the world. It has provided quality research, spurred technological advancements, and allowed innovative small businesses to partner with the government for the development of some of today's most cutting-edge goods and services.

The region I represent in western Pennsylvania is home to a number of companies that have benefited from the SBIR program, yet these companies have been faced with uncertainty over the past few years because Congress has failed to act on a full reauthorization. Short- term extensions are putting the future of research and development at risk. In this fragile economy, Congress owes it to these innovators to give them the certainty they need to fully pursue their ideas.

I have supported legislation to reauthorize this program for the past 4 years because I understand the importance of innovation and the Federal Government's unique role in creating a fertile climate for it. In the past, whenever our Nation has bounced back from economic downturns, innovation has been the catalyst. Time and again, inventive ideas have led to new products, generating a wave of job creation and putting us on a path back to prosperity.

This year, I have joined with my colleagues on the Small Business Committee to introduce a full 3-year reauthorization of the SBIR program. As Congress looks for ways to reduce spending yet keep America globally competitive, the SBIR program is that rare piece of legislation that can accomplish both goals simultaneously.

At its most fundamental, the SBIR program provides valuable seed money for entrepreneurs who are willing to explore untested concepts and, ultimately, develop new products. Additionally, it solves one of the primary concerns facing small businesses today--access to capital. This reauthorization would make important changes to the current program that will allow more entrepreneurs to participate by allowing companies that receive funding from multiple venture capital groups to competitively apply for a portion of SBIR grants.

Reauthorization of SBIR will allow us to continue to foster research and innovation that will translate into a wealth of new employment opportunities and economic growth for western Pennsylvania and all of America. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation that encourages creativity and ensures America will stay a global leader in innovation for years to come.

Madam Speaker, 4 years ago I began to express my concerns about the competitive bidding program that CMS proposed for durable medical equipment. The goal of the program was laudable--to save money and to cut waste, fraud, and abuse from the Medicare program--but the implementation of the program has been fraught with problems.

This issue is of particular importance to me because the Pittsburgh region, which I represent, was one of the first nine regions chosen by CMS to implement the competitive bidding demonstration. As I learned more about the design of the program, it became clear that CMS did not foresee the unintended consequences that could result, including the possibility that patients could lose the personal relationship they've developed with their local provider, in turn compromising their quality of care; or the possibility that small suppliers, which make up well over 90 percent of the Nation's medical equipment providers, would not be able to compete in the new market.

I also realized that western Pennsylvania would be disproportionately impacted by competitive bidding because of our large Medicare population and the growing medical device industry that is key to the success of our region's economy.

After a poor start to the competitive bidding program in 2008, Congress intervened and passed legislation that I helped introduce to direct CMS to delay the program for 18 months. Critical flaws in the initial bidding process produced fewer competitors, fewer home care services, and a substantial decrease in the quality of care offered to seniors and individuals with disabilities. Congress also instructed CMS to redesign the program to avoid these programs when it conducted the re-bid.

Last fall, CMS launched the re-bid and this past January the program went into effect in the nine regions in the country, including western Pennsylvania. In the first few months of implementation, the worst fears expressed by patients, providers, and Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have been realized. It is clear that despite the delay and the direction from Congress, no significant improvements have been made to the program or the bidding process. Providers who have served beneficiaries for years are closing their doors, and patients have been left confused and unsure where to turn for their care.

While CMS hopes the program will ensure beneficiary access to quality medical supplies and services and improve the effectiveness of payments, the results suggest otherwise. So 2 weeks ago, CMS announced it would delay the second round of its competitive bidding program for 6 months, until the summer of 2013. Additionally, the chief Medicare expert at the Congressional Budget Office recently said the CMS competitive bidding process is ``seriously flawed.''

This is a good sign, but the round two delay does nothing to help the beneficiaries and small businesses that have already been negatively impacted by round one. The program continues to be a bad deal for seniors and small business owners. That's why I joined with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Glenn Thompson, to introduce legislation to repeal the DME competitive bidding program. Our bill would fully repeal the program in a budget-neutral manner, not adding one penny to the Federal deficit. To date, we have 75 bipartisan cosponsors and over 30 advocacy groups that have endorsed our legislation.

I cannot support the DME competitive bidding program when it has become evident the program will unravel the DME small business community and compromise quality of care for seniors and others who rely on durable medical equipment devices. I will continue to work with Congressman Thompson to advance this legislation, and I would ask my colleagues to join us in this effort to repeal DME competitive bidding.

I thank my friend, and I thank my neighbor from Pennsylvania as well. It's good to have a bipartisan discussion on an issue that is critical to this country--our energy independence and using our domestic reserves.

In Pennsylvania, we have a unique circumstance, as does New York, in that $4 million is invested in producing each Marcellus shale well, and with 2,500 wells produced annually just in Pennsylvania, we're talking about $10 billion that is invested in Marcellus shale sites. That's money that's coming right back into Pennsylvania. That's money that would be coming back into New York if the gentleman had his way, which I would support.

When we talk about natural gas--and we're going to get into the details, and we have gotten into the details of Marcellus shale, in particular, and what a great find this has been for the country--we think about ways that we can use the natural gas that results from Marcellus shale, things like natural gas-powered vehicles. We're going to have a discussion later in the year on an energy bill here in this Congress--it will be a bipartisan bill--as natural gas is going to be a critical part of our Nation's energy future.

Think about the great work that the scientists are doing on the research and development of natural gas vehicles, on the production of natural gas vehicles, on the purchasing and conversion in the country, and on finding a way to give tax credits to consumers so they can convert their vehicles into natural gas operating.

Then of course you have the chicken and the egg situation of who's going to go first. Do you have the filling station before you have the car or do you have the car before you have the filling station? We have to do both together. We have to incentivize the stations to put natural gas pumps at their stations and, of course, incentivize the conversion of the natural gas vehicle, which helps all of us. With the price of gas nearing and exceeding $4 in many States in the country, this is only going to help with our energy future.

When you think about North America in particular, this is so exciting because gas resources are much larger, and the cost of producing gas is much lower because of the find of the Marcellus shale. If you are in a household in this country that doesn't get its electricity from natural gas, your electricity bill is still going to be lower because of the resources that we have, because of the abundance of natural gas.

We're talking about cheap energy because of the volume that we're talking about, unprecedented reserves that exceed the oil under Saudi Arabia, as the gentleman was discussing earlier. The ability of the United States to store natural gas has improved dramatically over the years.

So now we're in position where we can produce the gas, we can use it domestically to bring down the cost of electricity, we can store it, and we're going to export some of this gas as well. The market for natural gas around the world is increasing because of the Marcellus shale find in Pennsylvania and in New York and West Virginia and Virginia, Ohio. This is really a wonderful thing for this country.

And the total U.S. natural gas production in 2010 just last year was at its highest level ever. In 2010, the natural gas production in this country was at its highest level ever compared to oil consumption, which, since 2005, has dropped more than 5 percent, and natural gas use has risen 10 percent in that time. Of course, that's preceding the big find with the Marcellus shale. So we're only going to see that grow and thrive.

So we're keeping energy prices low. We're making ourselves energy independent, which is critical. There's a national security issue to that. There's an economic and a jobs issue which we're seeing in Pennsylvania firsthand. And of course there's an energy issue to that, how we're going to continue to grow our energy resources.

So I congratulate the gentleman for leading the discussion tonight, and I look forward to continuing not just tonight but beyond because this has to be part of our energy future in this country. And it was the cover of ``Time'' magazine. So when you think about the Nation paying attention, the spotlight being on our region of the country, it truly is because this is something that's going to benefit everybody in this country.

I was going to actually segue into that exact point, because I know the gentleman from New York was going to talk about the process. And it's important to keep in mind there, of course, are always going to be concerns with doing the drilling as safely as possible, limiting any impact on the drinking water. And I know we are going to talk about the process.

Consider the fact that we're talking about drilling that has been done for decades safely, thousands and thousands of wells drilled in this process without any repercussions, any negative impact all across the country, and now beginning in the Marcellus shale area. We are talking about a water table, the drinking water at approximately 500 feet. The drilling takes place a mile below that, 5,000, 6,000 feet below the water table. It has been proven in the decades and decades and thousands and thousands of wells that have been drilled that if you do it correctly, if the company is diligent, if they follow the proper procedures, they can do it without harm. It's been proven.

Now, yes, as happens in any industry, energy or otherwise, if you have bad actors and you have people that don't follow the right procedures, that cut corners, then the potential would exist for a bad outcome. But that happens in any business, in any industry. So we do need to make sure that the drillers, and by and large they have shown the ability do this safely, continue to do that and pay attention to the rules and the regulations. But we can't in any way put a burden upon the drillers that exceeds the risk factor.

We need to make sure that we are cultivating the resources, we are doing it in the appropriate and proven safe way as we have done for decades. I turn it over to the gentleman from New York.