Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, you know, last week the President said to American job creators that if you've got a business, you didn't build that; somebody else made that happen.

Well, let me tell you, Mr. President, that prior to coming to Congress I ran my own business for 16 years. Where was the President or this phantom person that he claims that created my business? Where were they when I was driving 60,000 miles a year chasing business or putting in 16-hour days or signing the loan paperwork at the bank so that I could make payroll or keep the wheels turning on my vehicles? The only other person that was there when I started my business was my wife, Melody, who supported me in so many ways.

This asinine comment by the President of the United States clearly shows that neither he nor anyone in the administration know anything about creating jobs or running a business here in America.

May God bless the real job creators in America, and may God continue to bless this great Nation.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, Americans know that the government takeover of health care is wrong. They spoke very loudly when the other side of the aisle forced this on America in the last Congress. It was bad policy before the Supreme Court ruled, and it was bad policy in January when we first passed the repeal bill. It's bad policy today, and it will be bad policy tomorrow. It takes $500 billion away from Medicare. It puts government bureaucrats between Americans and their doctors. It rations care for American seniors. It adds exponentially to the Nation's debt. It grows government. Specifically, it grows the Internal Revenue Service to collect the tax, which the Supreme Court so evidently pointed out that it is a tax that will be assessed if you fail to meet government's requirement to buy something.

Socialized medicine is wrong for America, and it is time to repeal the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 4348, the surface transportation reauthorization bill of 2012.

I first want to salute Chairman Mica for the tremendous job he has done in bringing this bill to the floor today, and I want to thank him for allowing me to serve as chairman of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee. This monumental reform package will be considered the signature jobs bill of the 112th Congress, and I am pleased to have been a conferee on the negotiations of the conference report.

States will have over 2 years of funding certainty with no tax increases. By providing long-term funding stability to States, major projects will be able to move forward to help create jobs and make much-needed repairs to our Nation's critical transportation infrastructure. These are jobs, Mr. Speaker, that will not be outsourced to China or elsewhere.

Traffic congestion costs the U.S. economy over $100 billion a year, approximately. With congestion expected to increase over the next decade and beyond, the job creation from this bill will help reduce congestion costs and boost the economy.

This conference report contains no earmarks.

Funding is distributed based on formulas which go directly to State Departments of Transportation, which will prioritize the highway and transit projects that are the most needed and most important in their State.

The number of Federal programs has been greatly reduced, which will give the States greater flexibility on how they spend their limited Federal resources. The conference report doubles the funding for the Highway Safety Improvement Program, which gives States resources for improvements to dangerous and unsafe sections on our Nation's highways and will save lives. A more robust Highway Safety Improvement Program will help continue the downward trend of highway fatalities and serious injuries that we have seen in the last several years.

The House included several streamlining provisions that will have a dramatic effect on the project delivery process. Federal agencies will be given deadlines to review burdensome environmental requirements, and it requires concurrent instead of consecutive project reviews. Projects that are in the footprint of an existing highway will not be required to go through this process. According to the last study of the Federal Highway Administration, the project delivery process can take up to 15 years from conception to completion. This is government at its worst. These reforms will help cut project delivery times in half and save taxpayers a great deal of money.

The Senate bill also includes a wide spectrum of additional government bureaucracy and red tape for small business that would have severely hurt their bottom line. We were successful in removing most of these over-burdensome regulations.

This, Madam Speaker, is the most conservative highway bill ever, both from a fiscal standpoint and from a policy standpoint. I would especially like to praise the staff that has worked so hard, led by Jim Tymon, one of the most competent and capable people this Congress has ever had, from a staff standpoint.

I look forward to passing this reform bill and putting Americans back to work, and I urge passage of this bill.

I thank the chairman.

There can be no national security without energy security. Let that sink in. There can be no national security without energy security.

House Republicans support a truly all-of-the-above energy policy, not one put forth by the Obama administration and House Democrats, which basically is an all-of-the-above, except for X, Y, and Z, policy, which blows through Americans' hard-earned tax dollars by chasing phantom solutions to our energy needs with companies like Solyndra. ``All of the above'' means opening up Federal lands for energy production and exploration, and it puts Americans to work.

Americans simply need to look to one western State to see a microcosm of what America could be with an energy-driven economy. That State is North Dakota. When you get off the plane in North Dakota, they give you a job whether you need one or not. They're approaching a zero percent unemployment rate--zero. It is an energy-driven economy. It is the microcosm of what this Nation could be if we would pursue an energy- driven economy.

Energy from Federal lands could be a reality. Energy from the Outer Continental Shelf could be a reality if we would embrace opening up American resources for production, which is like the folks in North Dakota have done on State and private lands. This is good policy for America. Energy policy works.

I want to thank my friend from Georgia for yielding to me tonight.

I think our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are in denial about deficits and debt. What it means--I put the debt clock right here in front for everyone to see, but if you can't see it, America is $15.74 trillion in debt.

In fact, we've had over $30 million added to the Nation's debt just since we have been talking this evening and the clock's running right now; $50,000 per American citizen in this country is your share of the Nation's debt.

You know, back in July of 2010, my wife and I, we took our boys, it was after a campaign, and we went out across the Nation. In 17 days we went through 19 States, and we visited no less than 11 national parks. Now, this was after the $1.2 trillion stimulus package passed by President Obama in the Democrat-controlled Congress.

But what did I see as I drove through the 19 States of this country's heartland? Where did I see the construction projects on the road, the $1.2 trillion in deficit spending to get the jobs we never got?

I saw the construction happening, road construction happening on roads leading into national parks. I didn't see it on the interstate highways that would allow transportation of commerce around this land. I saw it in the national parks.

We're $15.74 trillion in debt, and all the gentleman is asking to do is let's live within our means. Let's collect the highway tax, and let's just spend that. Let's not continue to perpetuate deficit spending. But, you know, we throw words around like ``millions'' and ``billions'' and ``trillions'' around this Nation, and we lose track of what a trillion is.

But let me just tell you, if we decided to get serious about paying back our Nation's creditors, and we did it at the rate of $20 million a day, and we did that every day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year--and, ladies and gentlemen, listen up--if we did that every day of the year, from the time Jesus Christ was born until now, we have only paid back $14.9 trillion of our debt, less than what we owe, at the rate of $20 million a day, for 746,000 days that it's been.

Now it's time to get serious about what we're doing in this country with regard to revenue and with regard to deficit spending. This the fourth year in a row we will be in excess of a trillion dollars, spending a trillion dollars more than we're bringing in as a Nation. All we're doing on the Republican side is saying, you know what, it's time America lives within its means. It's time we have a balanced budget.

We need a balanced budget to the Nation's Constitution to require this body, which shows no fiscal restraint, require this body to live within its means just like we have to do at home in our family budgets and our small business budgets. It's time to get serious in this country about our Nation's debt and about what our deficit spending means.

Quit spending money for jobs we never got from the Obama stimulus package.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the TL Hanna High School Girls' Soccer Team for winning the State 4A Championship. These young women had a phenomenal 27 2 season, defeating Wando High School two to nothing to capture the state title for the first time in school history.

Led by their coach, Katelyn Davis, and their trainer Jason Powell, the team had three players named ``all state'', and five named ``all region''.

After winning the State Championship in Columbia, South Carolina, on May 18, one of the players was asked about her head coach by a member of the press and stated: ``She is the rock of this team. Our big sister. We look up to her so much, and wouldn't be here without her.''

Coach Davis did an excellent job leading her team to the state title, keeping them focused on their motto ``one team, one goal.''

Competitive sports are valuable for teaching important life lessons such as determination, hard work, and being part of a team. I'm confident that these young women will carry their experiences with them out into the world, and use them to boldly succeed in life.

Congratulations to: Tatiana Guarin, Madison Anderson, Madyson Strong, Paige Miller, Baylee Gillmore, Chelsea Drennan, Catherine Roberts, Madison Cutts, Amber Bowles, Kelly Shaw, Meredith Parker, Jan Wilson, Anna Brannon, Olivia Bair, Kylie Miller, Christina Barrington, Lina Baroni, Margaret McElwee, Fantasia Todd.

You all have many reasons to be proud. I know that you'll never forget your 2012 Championship season, and I hope you'll take the same level of boldness that you brought to the field with you everywhere you go in life.

Congratulations Yellow Jackets, and God Bless.

Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that the new government in Egypt adhere to the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.

This amendment conditions U.S. funding for U.S. military participation in joint military exercises with Egypt. If Egypt abrogates, terminates, or withdraws from the 1979 Israeli-Egypt peace treaty, then the U.S. will not fund any joint military exercises with Egypt.

I urge adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Amash's efforts to protect liberty.

Let us be clear, there should be no ambiguity when the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens are at risk. The fear that Americans have over indefinite detention is well-founded. We have the obligation, and now the opportunity, to be crystal clear in this language, and I believe that this amendment moves this NDAA in the right direction of protecting these cherished constitutional rights.

I urge support of this amendment.

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

First, let me say that there is centuries-old precedence of international law governing the navigational rights in territorial waters and navigation through the straits around the globe. The U.N.'s Convention on the Law of the Sea was submitted to the United States Senate for its advice and consent in adherence to the United States Constitution 30 years ago in the 1980s, but the United States Senate has consistently refused to support it.

The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea threatens the United States' national security interests and subordinates United States sovereignty to the global bureaucracy known as the United Nations.

It threatens U.S. sovereignty under part XV by subjecting U.S. companies to mandatory dispute settlements and costly lawsuits by creating an unaccountable International Seabed Authority, ISA, to make rules that the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea members must follow. In addition, these rules may be changed by the ISA over the objection of any signatory nation.

It threatens U.S. military priorities because the U.S. Navy could find itself subject to international dispute resolution for its military activities in a nation-state's exclusive economic zones because article 288 does not define ``military activity.'' An example here might be the restriction, not the enhancement, of the free movement of United States Navy vessels in areas such as the South China Sea where we see China attempting to extend its territorial waters into areas such as the Spratly Islands.

You talk about redistribution of the wealth, it threatens U.S. foreign policy objectives because article 82 requires the revenue given to the ISA be distributed to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea members. No transparency exists--as it doesn't in most U.N. policies-- but no transparency exists on how countries use the funds, and nothing prevents the ISA from redistributing U.S. revenue to state sponsors of terrorism or undemocratic regimes with human rights abuses.

It threatens the U.S. economic interests. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea provides for international revenue sharing from the exploitation of resources taken from the deep seabed--nickel, copper, cobalt are just some of the few, as well as oil and gas taken from the extended continental shelf. Now, this brings into question offshore and deep sea energy production and the question of whether we really want to turn over regulatory authority of these potential assets to the United Nations.

In addition, the Law of the Sea treaty could also potentially subject United States rivers and lakes to international jurisdiction where U.S. waterways meet international waters.

The Law of the Sea treaty would, in essence, turn the United States Navy into a policing arm of the United Nations, since we have the largest and most capable Navy in the world.

My amendment would protect the United States Navy, the United States military chain of command, authority of the Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of Defense, Commander in Chief, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the constitutional requirements of the U.S. Congress. My amendment limits American tax dollars to any institution or organization established by the U.N.'s Convention on the Law of the Sea, and I encourage the Members' support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairwoman for giving me this opportunity to talk about the reason the United States should stand with Israel.

I brought my oldest son with me. He is in the gallery today. His name is Graham. I wanted him to hear, and people of his generation to hear, and to understand that America stands with Israel, that we were there at the beginning of the foundation of that nation.

We understand the threats that exist in the world today and that, when you have an ally, you never abandon the ally, and you never try to change that ally to meet your vision of the world. You stand with them unconditionally. America stands with Israel in the defense of that nation. We stand with Israel in the prosperity of that nation. We stand with Israel in the good times and in the bad times. We've been there from the beginning. We will be there today, and we will be there tomorrow.

It is important for this generation to understand that America plays a very vital role in standing with someone who has stood with us time and time again.

May God continue to bless America, and may God continue to bless the State of Israel.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, the right to a secret ballot should be sacred in America, and I stand in unison with my colleagues from South Dakota, Utah, and Arizona in defunding the NLRB's ability to sue States over the right to a secret ballot.

For decades, we have seen a sharp decline in private sector labor unions, while government employee labor unions have used the political process to expand. In an effort to curb the recent labor trends in the private sector, the administration's taxpayer-funded voice for labor-- the National Labor Relations Board--has filed numerous suits against right-to-work States and enacted over-the-top, union-friendly policies simply because right-to-work States like South Carolina allow employees to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to join labor unions.

The NLRB's latest attempt to boost labor unions involves suing two States, Arizona and South Dakota, and intimidating several other States because of State laws protecting the secret-ballot process in labor union elections.

Just recently, 80 percent of South Carolinians voted overwhelmingly-- 80 percent--to enact secret-ballot protections in union certification elections. These are exactly the protections that NLRB bureaucrats are attacking today.

This is not only an attack on our states' rights, but also on the secret-ballot election process that allows workers to vote their conscience without fear of union retaliation.

My amendment does not eliminate the NLRB or strip away all of their funding--even though they probably deserve exactly that after 2 years of abusing businesses, including Boeing in my home State. Rather, my amendment simply protects the States whose citizens have spoken on this issue by stopping the NLRB lawsuits against those States.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for workers' rights, stand up for the rights of voters in our States who have spoken, and stand up for the rights of our States themselves and support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I reclaim my time, and I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

MR. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman from Washington is turning this on its head; and standing on your head is dangerous in any circumstances; but in the water, it's bad for your breathing.

What we have in the law are individual transferrable quotas. It was written into Magnuson-Stevens, and it does exactly what catch shares are supposed to do, with one difference.

The gentleman says Washington is micromanaging. No, it was the National Marine Fisheries Service that twisted the law. The law says they can do this for new ones. The gentleman's right, it doesn't disrupt anything. It allows them to do it subject to a vote of the people in the fishery.

I would say to my friend from Maine that may be what they think in Maine. I represent the fishing port in the United States that brings in the most money, and the people there want to be able to vote for themselves. They do not, as does the gentleman from Washington, identify the regional councils as the voice of the fishermen. They have a lot of complaints about that, including the NMFS intervention.

So this is the question. It is not whether or not we should have the system that the gentlewoman from Maine mentioned, whether or not you should be able to allocate and come together.

There is one point at issue here: should the fishermen themselves have to vote for it. In the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it said you can do any of that new if the fishermen voted it. The NMFS didn't like the notion of a fishermen vote, so they came up with catch shares and said the fishermen don't have to vote.

So all of the benefits the gentlewoman from Maine claims, everything else can be done. The difference is the gentleman from Washington apparently thinks the councils are fishermen. The councils do not, in my experience of 20 years of representing a large fishing port, represent the fishermen. The fishermen represent the fishermen.

And so the question is not whether or not we allow this kind of allocation in shares, but should it be subject to a vote of the fishermen, as the Magnuson-Stevens Act said, or should this wiggle room that NMFS came up with allow it to go to the council with NMFS people and others sitting on it, State officials sitting on it, as opposed to the fishermen.

So the gentleman's amendment is very clear. It will allow those kinds of allocations. It would allow any of those things. It allows everything that you get in catch shares, except it calls them individual transferrable quotas, as it did in the law, not catch shares; and it's subject to a vote of the people in the fisheries.

That's the sole issue here in this amendment: should the people who are the fishermen themselves be able to vote on this, or should NMFS be able to tell the council and the council should be able to do it.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts lending his voice to this debate in favor of it.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Offered By: Mr. Duncan of South Carolina

Amendment No. 37: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Duncan

Amendment No. 38: At the end of the bill (and before the

short title) insert the following:

Sec. 542. None of the funds made available by this Act may

be used to litigate against any of the several States on

behalf of the National Labor Relations Board pertaining to

secret ballot union elections.

Offered By: Mr. Duncan of South Carolina

Amendment No. 8: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of our country's veterans, and I want to begin briefly by mentioning an organization that helps veterans that was recently brought to my attention, Patriot Outreach, a nonprofit organization to assist our military with getting the help they need to deal with the trauma associated with aspects of military service. You can learn more about that at PatriotOutreach.org, and I think they're doing a great service for our veterans.

Benjamin Disraeli once said that ``the legacy of heroes is the memory of a great name, and the inheritance of a great example.'' In our country, some of our greatest heroes are veterans, individuals who answered our Nation's call to protect and defend our freedom.

Our veterans are one of our Nation's greatest treasures and, as such, our country has given them a firm promise. Because of their willingness to protect us with their service, when their service ends, we promise to take care of them. But, unfortunately, if you talk to veterans today, they don't believe that our government is living up to their promises.

When we made the commitment to take care of our troops when they returned home, we never said anything about making them jump through hoops or navigate a complicated bureaucracy. We promised our veterans

the Moon and, instead, have failed, in many instances, to provide them with the most basic of care.

As of March 16 this year, the Columbia, South Carolina Regional Office of the Veterans Administration had over 21,927 pending cases, with an average wait time of 232 days.

Survivor benefits for veterans' spouses can take between 10 and 18 months to be disbursed, and sometimes even longer, depending on the health status of the beneficiary.

My office is currently assisting a constituent who contacted us because he has had 12 claims pending before the VA, which date all the way back to 2004. Another constituent has had her claims delayed over 18 months because she's been told by the VA that they don't have medical records. Now, this is despite the fact that she's already sent the VA her medical records twice by certified mail.

Unfortunately, claims aren't the only backlog facing the VA. Veterans are also facing delays in seeking medical attention. A lack of doctors and inefficiency in the system have forced some veterans to have to wait months to receive medical care.

Mr. Speaker, to put it simply, the VA isn't clicking and ticking. Despite the best intentions of VA personnel to deliver a high level of service and care to our veterans, too many of our former servicemen and -women are falling through the cracks.

In the Third District of South Carolina, we recently created an advisory committee composed of retired military veterans to provide insight into some of the problems that they're facing today. Their view is not that the law needs to be changed necessarily, but that the spirit of the law is not being followed. Veterans were promised certain benefits and, in too many cases, they are still waiting to receive them.

In addition to the mounting pile of problems regarding veterans services, I'm deeply concerned that veterans will be negatively impacted by the implementation of ObamaCare. The clear goal of the Obama administration's unconditional and unconstitutional health care law is to begin lumping our servicemen and -women into the bureaucracy of ObamaCare. Not only do I think that this breaks a promise made to our veterans, but I'm afraid it will make an already bad situation worse.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we can do better; and for the sake of our living heroes, we must do better. Let us not forget the promises that we've made to our veterans, and let us not just honor our veterans with our words, but let's also honor them with our actions.

Thank you. May God bless our troops in the field, those here at home. May God bless those who have served our country in uniform, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.