Floor Statements

I want to thank the Congressman from Chicago, the Reverend Bobby Rush, for recognizing me.

Mr. Speaker, we always in Texas refer to the former Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn who served for 48 years as ``Man of the House.'' In fact, there have been books written about Rayburn with that title, ``The Man of the House.'' I am a six-generation native Texan, so I certainly would be considered to be somewhat Texas-centric.

In all honesty, I would have to say that the ultimate and true man of the House is the Honorable John Dingell of Michigan. His father served before him, elected, I believe, while President Roosevelt was President of the United States, and John Dingell literally grew up in the House of Representatives.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, President Roosevelt, I believe, the very next day, December 8, addressed a joint session of Congress in his famous Day of Infamy speech. John Dingell was on the floor to hear that speech in person, not as a Congressman, but as the son of a Congressman.

He got elected to replace his father when his father passed away in 1955 and, as has been mentioned, has served longer than any other Member of Congress in the history of this Nation. If you count not only his service in Congress, but the time he spent as a child when his father was in Congress, he has literally been in the House for almost a third of its existence as an institution.

I am not sure how many Members he has served with, but it is in the neighborhood of 2,500 Members that he has personally served with.

When I got elected to Congress in 1984, I did not get on the Energy and Commerce Committee in my freshman year, but I did my sophomore year in 1986. John Dingell was then chairman and was chairman until the Republicans took the majority in the election in 1994, so I served with Chairman Dingell for my first 10 years in the Congress.

He was a chairman in every sense of the word. The legislation that he helped craft during his chairmanship is some of the most important in the history of this Congress. Certainly, things

that he would be most proud of would be the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, some of the health care legislation, and some of the telecommunications legislation.

Those are laws that were passed under his chairmanship and are still the basic law in their field in this country.

When I became chairman in 2003, he was the ranking Democrat on the committee. He helped me, sometimes in public, sometimes behind the scenes. Even when he didn't agree with the legislation that the Republican majority was pushing, he was always thoughtful and giving me tips on procedure and process and sometimes policy.

When we passed a bill to move television from analog to digital, I wanted to put a date certain very quickly. With his counsel, he convinced me that we should draw that out, and he also said: ``The final date of the transition shouldn't be until after the Super Bowl; just in case there is a problem, people will get to watch the Super Bowl and won't be cussing you and the Congress for moving from analog to digital.'' He was absolutely right on that.

With Chairman Upton's leadership, who is on the floor this evening-- several years ago, I went to Chairman Upton and suggested that we ask the Speaker to name the Energy and Commerce main committee room on the first floor of the Rayburn Building, 2123, the John Dingell Room. Chairman Upton thought that was a great idea. He recommended it to the Speaker, and that now is the John Dingell Room.

I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to say that we are truly losing one of the giants of the Congress when John Dingell retires at the end of this session.

He is still going to be here. His wife, Debbie, has been elected to succeed him, so hopefully, we will still see him in the Congress, but I really have difficulty imagining a Congress that John Dingell is not a member of. He will be missed. We honor him, and I consider it a personal privilege that he calls me a friend.

I thank the gentleman from Chicago for yielding me some time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today to honor an amazing life, and a legendary career. On November 6th, America lost one of the great innovators in medical technology and a dear friend of mine, Thomas ``Tommy'' Thompson. While Tommy Thompson may not be a household name, there is not one household in America who has not been touched by his life's work.

Tommy was a dynamic medical device innovator whose passion in life was to improve the human condition. And in this pursuit he was immensely successful. But Tommy wasn't content with his own successes, he wanted to make sure that the countless doctors, engineers and other innovators in this field also had an environment where they could develop medical breakthroughs. Tommy was the type of leader who didn't just point out problems, he tirelessly fought to fix them. In 1992, he joined with a group of innovators to establish the Medical Device Manufacturers Association to give the innovative and entrepreneurial sector of the industry a strong and independent voice in the nation's capital. What started as a handful of medical technology companies has grown to nearly 300 members across the United States. Under Tommy's leadership, the association helped drive countless policies and regulations that improved patient care and innovation. For the past few years, Tommy discussed the devastating impact the medical device tax was having on innovators trying to develop the cures of tomorrow. Tommy was also a tireless advocate to ensure patients and physicians had access to the technologies they needed, and worked to remove barriers and roadblocks so that they could obtain the best care possible. There is no question that medical technology innovators today are standing on the shoulders of Tommy and all the passion and hard work he dedicated towards improving the innovation ecosystem. To honor Tommy, I will continue to work to repeal this tax.

Tommy's passion also extended to helping organizations and individuals in his home state of Texas. He devoted countless hours to many of his favorite organizations there including the Fairhill School, the Foundation for Lovejoy Schools, and Phi Kappa Sigma at The University of Texas.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to his wife Betty and all his family and loved ones at this difficult time. We have all lost a great man whose love of improving patient care was second only to that for his family.

At one time or another everyone wonders what kind of legacy our lives might produce, and what it is that future generations may say about our brief time here on Earth. Tommy never said it--he was too humble and too magnanimous--but I will: Tommy Thompson was a legend and a leader in the medical device industry, allowing patients around the world to live longer, healthier lives. He gave so much of his time, treasure and talents, never expecting anything in return. Whether helping a local school or giving time to mentor an engineer just starting in the field, Tommy cared about people and improving this world. That is his legacy. That is what he will always be known for. That is a legacy anyone would be proud of, and we will be forever grateful for all that Tommy did on behalf of patients and innovators.

Thomas ``Tommy'' Thompson led a life dedicated to that old-fashioned notion that if you're focused on helping others, you truly can change the world. Tommy did change the world, and we are all better off thanks to his selfless passion and generosity.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee.

First of all, let's try to define what this bill actually does. We have had a lot of rhetoric on the House floor the last 30 minutes or so. It is a pretty simple bill. It removes the President from the decisionmaking authority. He can sign the bill and it would become law; he cannot sign it after so many days and it can become law; or he can veto it--but he doesn't have to make the decision whether to build the pipeline or not. That is the first thing. It takes the President out of the decisionmaking loop, except for the fact that he has the option as the President of the United States to sign the bill into law, veto it, or to let it become law without his signature.

Secondly, it says that if the bill does become law and the environmental groups still want to contest it, you get expedited judicial review so that we immediately get a decision. That is what the bill does. It is a simple bill.

A lot of the Keystone pipeline has already been built. From some of the rhetoric on the floor, you would think that it hadn't even been started yet. The reason the State Department and the President are even in the loop is because it is an international pipeline. Having said that, the international part of it has been built. The connection between Canada and the United States has been built and is operational. The part that is in question is within the interior of the United States of America.

If you were building a pipeline that wasn't connected to the Keystone pipeline as it exists, you wouldn't have to have the State Department review it and you wouldn't have to have the President make a decision. But because it is the continuation or in addition to an existing international pipeline, the State Department has to make a decision and, in this case, the President right now has to make a decision.

It is an 800,000-barrel-a-day pipeline if we make it operational. That brings oil from Canada into the United States where it can go to any number of domestic refineries, or it could actually, as has been said, it could be exported potentially. But in all probability, they will get a better market price in the United States down on the Gulf Coast and they would prefer to sell it here. But the market would make that decision, Mr. Speaker.

So, if at first you don't succeed, try, try, and try again. The House leadership, on a bipartisan basis, is going to send another bill on the Keystone pipeline to the other body. My understanding is that they are going to vote on it next week if it passes the House tomorrow, and then we will send it to the President. This would be a great Thanksgiving present for the American people, as has been pointed out: more job creation, more options for domestic refineries, potentially lower gasoline prices than they even are today for motorists and our consumers. It is a win-win-win.

There is no group in America that opposes it. Republicans support it; Democrats support it; labor unions support it. The only group is the radical environmentalists that probably make up 2 or 3 percent of the population. I just don't understand it.

I want to thank the committee of jurisdiction for bringing the bill to the floor, for the Rules Committee reporting out the rule. I urge a strong ``yes'' vote on the rule, and tomorrow I urge a strong ``yes'' vote on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3670) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to expand and clarify the prohibition on provision of inaccurate caller identification information, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Mr. Speaker, I am the only other speaker left on my side, and I reserve the right to close. So I would yield to the gentleman from Utah or the gentlelady from New York if they wish to speak.

Mr. Speaker, the Congress is not spoofing when we say we are going to do something about those individuals that do try to spoof the American public.

As has been pointed out, we passed a law back in, actually, it was the 2009 act, but we passed it in 2010, the Truth in Caller ID Act, to mitigate the effects of caller spoofing.

As you well know, you look on your caller ID and you see that an innocent or innocuous individual or company is calling you, as has been pointed out. It could be the police department, could

be the Pizza Hut, could be almost anything, so you take the call and that is not what it is. In many cases they are trying to defraud our elderly in some scam or something like this. So we passed a law that we thought would handle it. But it needs to be updated, and that is what this bill does.

As has been pointed out, it makes it illegal to initiate these calls from outside the United States. It makes it illegal to do it over the Internet with a Voice Over Internet Protocol-based system. And it also broadens the jurisdiction to include text messaging.

As we well know, Mr. Speaker, text messaging is ubiquitous now on our Blackberrys and our iPads and iPhones and all of our personal telecommunication devices.

This bill has bipartisan support. The subcommittee chairman, Mr. Walden, is an original cosponsor. The subcommittee ranking member, Ms. Eshoo of California, is a cosponsor. Chairman Emeritus on the Democratic side John Dingell is a cosponsor. I am an original sponsor.

So this is one of these instances, Mr. Speaker, that Republicans and Democrats are united. Chairman Upton, the full committee chairman, and Mr. Waxman, the full committee ranking member, are totally supportive.

There is every indication that, if this body passes this bill this evening, it will go to the other body, the United States Senate, and we fully expect it to pass it. This is one of those rare birds in this Congress that might actually be signed by the President of the United States.

There is no known opposition to the bill. Our stakeholders, as Mr. Matheson has pointed out, support it. Google supports it. The FCC supports it. AT&T, CTIA, Microsoft, USTelecom, Vonage, Verizon, and AARP are just some of the more popularly known stakeholders that support the bill.

So I rise in strong support, Mr. Speaker, that we unanimously pass H.R. 3670, the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2013, and send it to the Senate for its consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions. I hope we will yield back some of that time.

First, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the leadership you have exhibited, not just in the Rules Committee, but on this issue in general. You have been a longtime advocate of substantive immigration reform in a conservative way. You have been active this week in the Conference and in the Texas delegation as we attempt to move this legislation. And, of course, you have been very active this afternoon in the Rules Committee.

I want to also compliment the leadership of the majority as we have tried to craft a compassionate conservative path forward. I happen to be an advocate of comprehensive immigration reform. I have a draft bill that I have been waiting until the right time to introduce, and, hopefully, get bipartisan support. I am not one of these ``just say no'' Republicans.

Having said that, we have a crisis on our southern border because of some actions the President has taken in the past and some inactions that he is not taking now. We have got this terrible situation where thousands and thousands of young children--some unaccompanied, by themselves, others with adults--who have been flooding the southern border, allegedly some of them paying thousands of dollars to individuals who are allegedly related to the drug cartels. It is an unsustainable situation, Mr. Speaker. It can't go on.

The bill that is going to be before the body later this evening targets funding to add additional judges to review these children on a case-by-case basis. It reverses current law so that children from noncontiguous countries are treated the same as the children from Canada and Mexico who perhaps attempt to come into the country without proper documentation. I don't think it is an inhumane thing to do, Mr. Speaker. I think it is actually the right thing to do.

The bill before us is going to have funds to reimburse the States that have decided to deploy their National Guardsmen to the border. One of those States is my State of Texas. This bill would target funding to reimburse the State of Texas for the cost of deploying the National Guard. I think that is a good thing.

The bill before us is going to be completely offset, taking money that has already been appropriated but not expended. The offsets are not fake, they are not: in the 10th year we will theoretically save some money that would have otherwise been spent. These offsets are for funds that have been appropriated and have been obligated but not used. Some of those funds are in the foreign aid accounts of the countries that are sending us some of their citizens, and I think that is appropriate.

We can have a debate at the appropriate time on a more comprehensive package. That is obviously something that at some point I hope this body addresses. I am going to be an active, positive participant in that, Mr. Speaker.

But for today, to solve the current situation on the border, this is a targeted package. It will be better than current law if it is enacted. It will improve the situation, I think, within the next 2 months. If it were to be enacted in its totality, you would basically not have the problem of the unaccompanied minor children or minors with adults that are flooding our borders. It is a conservative approach. I will tell my friends on the minority side, I happen to be proud of that. I believe that the body is going to pass this. I am going to vote for both bills, the appropriation supplemental and then the DACA bill that Congresswoman Blackburn has expressed leadership on and done such a good job on, and of which I am a cosponsor.

I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee for giving me some time. I strongly support the rule, and I will vote for the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, it is very rare that you have a constituent who reaches the century mark, but I have one, a young lady named Helen Maddox in Arlington, Texas, who will be celebrating her 100th birthday later this week.

Helen was not born a native Texan, but she got there as soon as she could. She and her husband moved to Arlington, Texas, over half a century ago, and she has lived there ever since. Her husband is now deceased.

Helen has been very active in the Republican Women, in numerous civic clubs, and has been a very strong personal friend of mine and also a political supporter. She will be celebrating her 100th birthday this week.

On behalf of the United States Congress, I want to wish her the absolute very best birthday and hope that the next 100 are as happy and positive as her first 100 have been.

Happy birthday, Helen Maddox, of Arlington, Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to what I just said.

Honoring helen maddox on her 100th birthday

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a very special woman on a very special day--her 100th birthday. Helen Maddox was born on her family's small family farm in Romulus, Michigan on July 28, 1914.

She was the youngest of three and admits that while she was surrounded by love, life back then wasn't always easy. There was always a long list of chores that included taking care of the animals and helping with the crops.

Helen worked at a roadside stand selling fruits and vegetables and says her curly hair was a great marketing tool. People would stop because of her cute curls, and then buy something.

Her parents were community leaders and that is a trait that rubbed off on Helen.

Like many people who weren't lucky enough to be born in Texas, she moved there as an adult. She immediately became involved in the small, but growing community of Arlington, Texas. Back then it was a town of just 15,000, now it is close to 400,000. Helen Maddox played a role in making it a big city with a small town feel.

She started attending city council meetings so she could keep up with what was going on

and support city leaders. Helen founded the Arlington Women's Club in 1957 and it is still going strong. She also worked with longtime Mayor Tom Vandergriff to organize the YMCA.

She and her late husband loved to travel, many times hitting the road in their Winnebago.

Helen slowly got more involved in Republican politics. In 1986 she got an invitation to have tea at the White House with Nancy Reagan.

When Arlington became part of my district 20 years ago, Helen was one of the first people to welcome me. She was 80 at the time, but still full of life and her love of Arlington and America was infectious.

As she hits 100 she is still active in the community. I am proud today to say Happy 100th Birthday to my friend--Helen Maddox!

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a very special woman on a very special day--her 100th birthday. Helen Maddox was born on her family's small family farm in Romulus, Michigan on July 28, 1914.

She was the youngest of three and admits that while she was surrounded by love, life back then wasn't always easy. There was always a long list of chores that included taking care of the animals and helping with the crops.

Helen worked at a roadside stand selling fruits and vegetables and says her curly hair was a great marketing tool. People would stop because of her cute curls, and then buy something.

Her parents were community leaders and that is a trait that rubbed off on Helen.

Like many people who weren't lucky enough to be born in Texas, she moved there as an adult. She immediately became involved in the small, but growing community of Arlington, Texas. Back then it was a town of just 15,000, now it is close to 400,000. Helen Maddox played a role in making it a big city with a small town feel.

She started attending city council meetings so she could keep up with what was going on and support city leaders. Helen founded the Arlington Women's Club in 1957 and it is still going strong. She also worked with longtime Mayor Tom Vandergriff to organize the YMCA.

She and her late husband loved to travel, many times hitting the road in their Winnebago.

Helen slowly got more involved in Republican politics. In 1986 she got an invitation to have tea at the White House with Nancy Reagan.

When Arlington became part of my district 20 years ago, Helen was one of the first people to welcome me. She was 80 at the time, but still full of life and her love of Arlington and America was infectious.

As she hits 100 she is still active in the community. I am proud today to say Happy 100th Birthday to my friend--Helen Maddox!

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, the full committee chairman, and I would like to enter into a little bit of a colloquy.

I am an original cosponsor. I certainly want to prevent taxation of the Internet, but as you know, I represent one of the 36 districts in Texas, and in my district, my largest city is the city of Arlington, and they currently collect approximately $1 million a year in revenue from connection fees to the Internet in their city limits, and under this bill, that would be prohibited.

I had been led to believe that we were going to have the same grandfather provision that we have had for the last 16 years. Apparently, that is not the case.

Could the chairman enlighten me why we are not grandfathering existing local collection fees, and what might be done in conjunction with the other body if and when this goes to conference?

I yield to the chairman.

Will the gentleman yield?

If the gentleman will allow me to be part of the process and inform me at such a time that it would be possible to offer an amendment or to work with you and the other body, I would certainly be more than willing to do that.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, at the end of the dialogue on this amendment, it is my intention to withdraw it, and I want the House to know that.

As we all know, we have the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 that stipulates that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government, through the Department of Energy, to accept all high-level nuclear waste that has been generated by our civilian reactors.

This has not been done, even though we have a law that says it should be done. There is a permanent repository that is located in the State of Nevada.

The citizens of that State have serious reservations about accepting high-level waste in their State, and as a consequence, they have managed, through various bills over the years, to prevent that facility from going forward.

The amendment that I have before the body today would authorize a pilot program through the Department of Energy, on a competitive basis and its being consent-based by State, to allow interim storage at one or more facilities.

The money would come from the nuclear waste fund from which we have collected over $15 billion. This amendment would not preclude Yucca Mountain, in any way, from being the permanent repository.

It would allow any State in the Nation that wished to submit a proposal to the Secretary of Energy within 120 days, if my amendment were to become

law; then, on a competitive basis, the Secretary of Energy, after holding public hearings, would make a determination that one or more sites in the country could accept this waste on an interim basis.

I think this is a good amendment. It would cut the Gordian knot that has constrained us for over 30 years, and if we were to be allowed to vote on it, I am absolutely certain the House would pass it.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), my cosponsor on the minority side.

Madam Chair, could I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time at this point in time.

Madam Chair, let me reiterate, before I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment, that, one, it is obviously bipartisan. Two, I think it would pass the House overwhelmingly, because, as the chairman of the full committee just said, we have had two votes in the last hour that were 5-1 in favor of disposing of high- level waste. I would say you could say those were votes in favor of disposing of it at Yucca Mountain, but certainly we have the votes for a permanent repository.

The amendment before the body at this moment is a pilot program. It is for interim storage. It in no way would preclude any effort to fund and develop the permanent repository at Yucca. And if the State of Nevada wanted to, they could compete for the interim storage and I think, in all probability, might decide to do so.

So I would hope that sometime in this Congress through the appropriation process with the other body or, as the full committee chairman has just promised, in the next Congress through the normal regular order authorization process that we deal both with interim storage and permanent storage.

And I think I have the chairman's commitment to do that. Is that correct?

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Simpson, for his courtesy and his staff's courtesy, the ranking member, Ms. Kaptur, the full committee, Mr. Rogers and his staff.

I will submit a letter for the Record from the Governor of Texas dated July 3 in support of my amendment.

The State of Texas,

Office of the Governor,

July 3, 2014.

Dear Texas Congressional Delegation: After President Obama

abandoned any further development of Yucca Mountain and

Congress ceased all funding in 2011, the country must look

for new solutions to the long-term issue of safe and secure

handling of high level radioactive waste (HLW) Early in 2013

the U.S. Department of Energy announced that it was looking

into alternative, permanent disposal solutions to replace the

proposed storage facility at Yucca Mountain. By its own

estimations, a permanent HLW disposal solution will not be

available until 2048.

An amendment proposed by Congressman Joe Barton authorizes

the Secretary of Energy to conduct a pilot program that would

provide interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and HLW, with

the priority for storage given to spent nuclear fuel located

on sites without an operating nuclear reactor. This option

could demonstrate how this waste can be transported and

stored in a secure and viable manner, providing a step toward

a long-term solution to this ongoing issue.

With or without a long-term solution for disposing of HLW,

implementation of interim facilities is needed. I believe it

is time for the Congress to act and ensure that the United

States has a safe and secure solution for HLW, and I support

this effort by Congressman Barton.

Sincerely,

Rick Perry,

Governor.

Madam Chair, I would, at this point in time, ask unanimous consent to withdraw the Barton-Green amendment.

I thank the gentleman. I almost objected to unanimous consent, but I decided it is tradition.

Mr. Chairman, the Republicans wish to congratulate our friends on the minority side for their victory. It was well earned. We fought hard, but we ended up this year in second place--one game behind. That is not bad, but it is not first place.

We had some great players on our team. Our MVP, Kevin Brady, was two for three. He made Cedric sweat a little bit.

Jeff Flake, our Senator from Arizona, stepped on third on a hard smash and made a throw to Mr. Rooney at first base for a double play. We threw a man out at the plate. Mr. Shimkus came in as a relief pitcher and shut the Democrats down for several innings. So we had some bright spots.

The sixth victory in a row was well earned, but I will say that trophy is on loan. It is not permanently on that side of the aisle.

While you have won six games in a row, we have won about 60 votes in a row here on the House floor.

We are willing to bet some money on that for a little bit.

In any event, charity was the big winner. As you pointed out, we set a record for money raised for the Washington Literacy Center; the Boys and Girls Club of Washington, D.C.; and the Dream Foundation for the Nationals.

I wish to congratulate you, Mr. Doyle, and your team.

To my Republican players: I am very proud of you. Our guys played hard and practiced hard. I will say we graciously suffered being on the wrong end of the score once again.

Congratulations to Mike Doyle and the Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the newly formed Asian Business Division of the Grand Prairie, Texas Chamber of Commerce. I was honored to speak at this unique group's first meeting on May 13, 2014.

The Asian population is the fastest growing community in this already diverse city. The Chamber's new division will focus on reaching out to this demographic to make sure they have the tools and resources to build a strong business community in Grand Prairie.

It is based in a complex known as Asia Time Square. The shopping development is already home to dozens of Asian businesses--with plans to add dozens more.

The Asian Business Division plans to drive economic growth in the city by continuing to lure businesses and jobs to the area, taking a strategic approach to building the groups' brand, improving the overall value of the Grand Prairie Chamber of Commerce in the area, and creating a dynamic business development plan that assists a diverse employer base.

This unique partnership wouldn't be possible without the hard work of countless people, including leadership of the Chamber of Commerce and the Loh Family (which owns and operates Asia Times Square).

I am confident that this new relationship will benefit everyone in the area and ensure that it competes successfully for new businesses, new jobs and only makes Grand Prairie a more attractive place to live, work, play and raise a family.

Mr. Speaker, we are here to honor a Texas legend in his own time, the Honorable Kent Hance of Dimmitt, Texas, some of us Aggies would put an ``a'' instead of an ``i.'' But Kent was born in west Texas and he, as has already been pointed out, got elected to the Texas Senate at a very young age. Then I got elected to the House of Representatives in 1978, along with such stalwarts as Phil Gramm of College Station. I think Charlie Stenholm was already here. Ralph Hall came a little bit later. Marvin Leath of Waco came a little bit later.

He became what was known as a Boll Weevil Democrat. When Ronald Reagan got elected, President Reagan called a number of the Boll Weevils to the White House and asked if they would support his economic plan, but he only asked one to carry the Reagan tax cut which really began the renaissance of America, and that young man was Congressman Kent Hance of the 19th Congressional District. He was on the Ways and Means Committee as a Democrat. He carried the Reagan tax cut in the Ways and Means Committee and prevailed. I would assume the chairman then was Dan Rostenkowski. I am not sure, but I think that's right.

Well, in 1984, he decided to go back to Texas. He relinquished his seat and Larry Combest replaced him, and five other young Texans came in as part of the Texas Six Pack: Dick Armey, Joe Barton, Larry Combest, Beau Boulter, I believe, and Mac Sweeney. He switched parties, became a Republican, and got appointed to the railroad commission. He was the first Republican to be named chairman of the railroad commission.

He did run for Governor a time or two in that time span and did not have the same luck for Governor. He went into the private sector, became a consultant and an attorney and helped me politically on a number of issues, then, as has been pointed out, became chancellor of Texas Tech. And the students hardly know what a chancellor is, most universities not only know Ken Hance, they affectionately call him the ``Hancellor'' at Texas Tech.

The thing that impresses me the most about Kent is that, when people are in elected office and we are successful, we have lots of friends, and they call us and pat us on the back and offer to do things and help us and support us. When we lose or are not successful, normally the only people that try to raise our spirits are our family and sometimes people that we owe money to.

On one particular occasion, I had had a political setback and I was really down and I was kind of moping around my house in Ennis, Texas. And one morning about, I want to say, 9:30, my cell phone rang and it was Kent Hance, and I will never forget that.

So we're here to honor you for your public service, but I am also here to thank you for your personal friendship. You are a great man. I wish you well, and I hope you stay involved in the public sector, because people of your caliber are in short supply and are always needed.

God bless you and God bless your family.

Mr. Speaker, I thank both my friend on the majority side and my friend on the minority side for allowing me this unusual procedure.

I do rise in support of the rule. I am going to vote for the rule. But, Mr. Speaker, I am going to oppose the underlying bill on the debt ceiling.

I have brought some materials that have been prepared by the Congressional Research Service with materials that were provided by the Office of Management and Budget that show in the fiscal year that we are now engaged, mandatory spending is 62 percent of the total budget, and interest on the debt is over 6 percent. Those two combined are two- thirds of all total spending, mandatory spending and interest on the debt.

It is not going to get any easier, Mr. Speaker, to solve this problem by passing so-called clean debt ceilings that don't address the underlying problem. I understand the problems governing on the majority side, and I understand the issues with the Presidency and the Senate being controlled by the Democrats. I understand that.

But I couldn't walk into a bank in Ennis, Texas, today and say, I owe you $300,000 right now, but I want to borrow another $200,000. They would want to know what plan I had to repay the money I had already borrowed, and they would want to know how giving me another $200,000 would actually be the appropriate thing to do.

What we are doing on the underlying bill, Mr. Speaker, with this so- called clean debt ceiling is simply saying, we want to borrow--I am not sure how much it is--probably 600 or $700 billion, where we already owe $17 trillion. We have no plan to repay the money we have already borrowed and certainly have no plan to repay the money we are going to borrow.

So my comment today is, this Congress should be addressing this problem in a bipartisan fashion today. We will be back here in March of next year. We will have the same debate. So I will be voting ``no'' later this evening.

I do thank my good friend from Georgia and my good friend from New York for allowing me to speak.

Mr. Speaker, sometime in the very near future, we are going to have to vote on an increase in the national debt. The national debt ceiling is currently at $17 trillion, and all expectations are that the increase will put it up over $18 trillion or at least $17.5 trillion.

It is unconscionable to me that one of the largest items already in our budget is the interest on the national debt, and that it is also one of the fastest growing items in the budget. I will not vote, Mr. Speaker, for a so-called ``clean'' debt ceiling, because I think that is a dirty deal for the American people.

It is time to begin structural changes to our entitlement programs that make them subject to some sort of caps so that we can get back to balance and keep our budget in balance. This is one of those inflection points in American history, and I hope that the House of Representatives will insist on real reform in our budget before we vote to increase the public debt by one penny.

Thank you. I want to recognize your leadership on the Republican Study Committee and the Health Task Force on preparing the legislation that you just referred to.

I am the past chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the past ranking member of that committee; and when the Affordable Care Act came through the Congress, I was the senior Republican on the committee of jurisdiction.

I don't want to tell you and the American people that I told you so, but I told you so. We knew that this wasn't going to work.

For example, we had a hearing today about the Affordable Care Act in the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. It was focusing on the security of the Web site and on all of the problems and when the administration knew about those problems and what they did or didn't do. In the course of that hearing, Congressman Cory Gardner of Colorado was asking the senior civil servant, Mr. Chao from CMS, some questions.

The gentleman from CMS just kind of, off the cuff, said, You know that 60 to 70 percent of the programs haven't been developed yet.

Congressman Gardner followed up and said, What are you talking about?

He said, All we are working on right now is the Web site to get people registered. We haven't completed that portion of the program about billing, that portion about accounting for treatment, how we interact with the hospitals and the patients and the doctors. Basically, 60 to 70 percent of the system has not been programmed yet.

Can you imagine that, if we are having the horrendous problems we are having on just getting people interacted with making choices of which kind of coverage they are going to choose, the problems you are going to have when you actually begin to have to use the system for real health care in January?

So I and, I think, you and the other members of the Republican Study Committee task force on health, who helped prepare the legislation that you are talking about, are going to begin to push to delay the Affordable Care Act.

I have a bill, H.R. 3348, that makes it voluntary the first year in that we are not going to impose the individual mandate on people. The President has already delayed the employer mandate for a year. My bill, H.R. 3348, would delay the individual mandate so that, as we work through all of the problems, people can choose to participate or can choose not to participate.

I think it is becoming more apparent every day that the Affordable Care Act is like that shiny automobile that you see when you go into the showroom or go to the car lot. You see it, and the salesman says, Man, this thing is great. It gets 30 miles a gallon. It doesn't use much oil. Everything is power steering, and it has air-conditioning and a great stereo system. So you put down your down payment, and you take it out on the road. Son of a gun. The thing doesn't go above 50. It burns oil like it is going out of style. The air-conditioning doesn't work. The stereo system barely works. It is just a lemon.

The Affordable Care Act is a lemon, and the American people and the Democrats on the other side of the aisle who voted for it are having buyer's remorse.

So what we need to do is to delay it or to repeal it or to at least make it voluntary. Then let's look at some of these alternatives like the legislation that we put into play in which we give people real choices. It is a patient-centered, client-centered system. We allow insurance to be sold across State lines. We beef up affordable savings accounts, Health Savings Accounts. We do cover preexisting conditions, which I know you will talk about later on, but we do

it with a high-risk pool on a State-by-State basis.

The Democrats have told us time after time in the general debate that you Republicans are against the Affordable Care Act, but you don't have an alternative.

We have an alternative, and I think it is a good alternative. I am a sponsor of the legislation, and I am here to support you in this Special Order. As we go through and outline what is in it, I think the American people and the other Members of the House who are watching these proceedings--more and more of them--will say, We don't like that lemon that we have. Maybe we ought to go back, and maybe we ought to start over. Maybe some of these ideas in the alternative we should take a serious look at.

So I commend you for your work on the legislation, and I also commend you for leading this Special Order this evening.