Floor Statements

Thank you, Congressman Doyle. There are a few things you said, like most Democrats, stretching the truth a little bit. You know, you said that there are only 21 outs in the game. Well, we being very generous and open-hearted Republicans, we play a game where you got about 31 outs because we were so friendly with the way we didn't catch the ball.

For my Republican colleagues, there is good news and bad news. The good news is we got nine times as many hits this year. We got 500 percent more runs this year. So in some ways, we did a lot better. But the bad news is that the Democrats doubled the number of runs. And as my 6-year-old son Jack told me on the way home after the game--he's a T-ball expert--he said, Those guys didn't let up on you.

As some of you who actually went to the game noticed, at about the fourth inning, Pete Sessions, our first base coach, and Tim Scott, one of our pitchers, who are both on the Rules Committee, had to leave to go back to Rules. Now, there's no truth to the rumor that I had asked for an emergency rule asking Cedric Richmond be declared ineligible for that game. There is no truth to that rumor.

Our guys played well. Our MVP, Pat Meehan of Pennsylvania, pitched in relief real well. John Shimkus got two hits. Jeff Flake got a double and knocked in two runs. Sam Graves stole several bases and played very well out in the field. So as my 6-year-old son Jack also said, Mr. Doyle, enjoy it while you can because it won't last forever; you can't win every game.

But congratulations, and a job well done on both sides.

He did, but that means that God owes us one. Congratulations.

I thank the distinguished chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. When the American public asks, ``Why can't Congress just work together?'' we should hold this bill up as Exhibit A that it is possible.

As the ranking member just pointed out, this is a bipartisan, bicameral preconference agreement for a very complicated bill. We reauthorize the Food and Drug Administration user fee program for 5 years. We also reauthorize the medical device user fee program for 5 years, and, I believe for the first time, do one for generic and biosimilars. This is a complicated, complex piece of legislation, but it has been worked out in a bipartisan agreement.

I have had some concerns about the extent and the cost of the user fees. I will continue to monitor that, Mr. Speaker. But this is a good piece of legislation. The chairman and ranking member and the subcommittee chairman and ranking member and all the others who have worked on this should be commended. This is an excellent bill, and I hope that the Congress will unanimously support it and the Senate will agree when we send it to the other body.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I wasn't planning on speaking on this bill. But I was listening in my office to the debate between the proponents and opponents of the bill and felt moved to come over and try to answer some of the questions that the opponents have asked of the bill.

EPA is supposed to be a fair referee. They're supposed to say: If it's a strike, it's a strike; if it's a ball, it's a ball; if he's out, he's out; if he's safe, he's safe. But the Obama EPA is not a fair referee. It's not a fair umpire. The Obama EPA has a preconceived--what I consider to be a radical environmental agenda, and they appear heck- bent to impose it on the American people, whether there is a scientific rationale or not.

As Mr. Olson of Texas just pointed out, the President, as a candidate, said that he basically wanted to try to make it impossible to build any more coal-fired power plants in America. When he became President, he appointed a regional administrator down in Texas, Dr. Armendariz, who said that he wanted to try to put hydraulic fracturing out of business and brought a case against Range Resources in Texas that was thrown out on its face because of the lack of evidence that there was any environmental damage caused by hydraulic fracturing, in this specific case in Parker County.

You had the civil servant at the EPA early in the Obama administration, when they were considering their endangerment finding, which they had to impose in order to say they could regulate greenhouse gases, they had a career civil servant who sent a detailed, I think 50- or 60-page analysis of the proposed endangerment finding and basically said it was hogwash. And he got back emails from within the White House and the higher rankings at political subdivisions of the EPA that said, Don't tell us the facts. We've already made up our minds.

This same Dr. Armendariz made a comment not too many years ago that he wanted to crucify industry. He has since resigned because of those comments.

Those of us who support the McKinley motion to instruct do so because we don't think the current EPA is fair. Sometimes we have to tell the EPA what to do because they seem to be incapable of applying basic scientific methods, scientific principles. They want to impose a radical environmental agenda, apparently. And some of us don't think that's right, and we don't think it's good for the American people and the American economy.

So I strongly support what my good friend from West Virginia is doing because it at least makes it possible for a source that, for years and years and decades, has been used without any problem at all to continue to be used. And I think that's a good thing. So I rise in support. I thank the gentleman for the time, and I hope the House will adopt his motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. Speaker, Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou will be inaugurated for the second and final time on Sunday, May 20th. In addition to its continued democratic development, Taiwan has undergone numerous unprecedented economic, travel and tourism changes--between itself and mainland China--since President Ma first took office four years ago.

In July 2008, just over two months after taking office, President Ma launched the first regularized direct flights across the Taiwan Strait since the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949. Such flights now number 558 per week, having greatly eased the burdens of Taiwanese living and working in mainland China. It's also made life much easier for American tourists and businesspeople crossing the Strait instead of having to change planes in Hong Kong, or another third party port, as they once did.

And in 2010, Taiwan enacted its Economic and Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) with mainland China that zeroed out tariffs on a number of Taiwan exports to the mainland. Further ECFA liberalizations will follow. ECFA's allowed Taiwan companies to tap mainland consumer markets while allowing them to stay in Taiwan and trade from their own home base. ECFA's further offered Taiwanese greater consumer choice at more affordable prices, while additionally uncovering opportunities for U.S. companies that have operations on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. It's thus no wonder the American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei has, after years of calling for such changes, wholeheartedly applauded President Ma's economic openings. Slowly but surely, Taiwan's steadily reinserting itself into the global economic supply chain, strongly making its case for a resumption of Trade and Investment Framework Agreement talks with the United States.

The influx of mainland Chinese tourists to Taiwan, allowed since 2008, has boosted the island's economy while also exposing mainlanders to Taiwan's free society and vibrant democracy. This fact was most notable during Taiwan's January 14th presidential and legislative elections won by President Ma and his Kuomintang (KMT) Chinese party. Visiting mainlanders were mesmerized by Taiwan's televised debates and dueling public events, and their some of their cohorts back home even took to blogging about it. Last year, 1.8 million mainland Chinese tourists visited Taiwan. That's 30% of all 6.08 million tourists who visited Taiwan in 2011.

On this, his second inauguration, I ask my colleagues to not only congratulate President Ma on his inauguration, but also on his openings to mainland China that have not just benefited Taiwan companies and consumers, but also U.S. economic interests and enterprises in the region.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of the rule. I think the number of amendments that they've made in order is consistent with Speaker Boehner's policy of running an open House.

Unfortunately, one of those amendments that was not made in order is

the Barton-Markey amendment on privacy. I am going to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill because it does not protect the privacy of the individual American citizen.

We do have a real threat, a cyberthreat, in this country. This bill is an honest attempt to deal with that threat; but absent explicit privacy protection against individuals, to me, that is a greater threat to democracy and liberty than the cyberthreats that face America.

So unless they pull the bill and they revise some of the privacy protections, I am going to ask for a ``no'' vote on the bill. But on the rule, I do think we should vote for the rule.

I thank the chairman.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches

and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall

issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or

affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be

searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

My friends, that is the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, one of the original 10 in the Bill of Rights protecting, in writing, the privacy of the United States citizenry.

I want to give Mr. Rogers and Mr. Ruppersberger an ``A'' for effort in terms of identifying the problem, but I have to give them an ``F'' for problem solution.

The word ``privacy'' in the underlying bill is mentioned one time, and that in passing. There are no explicit protections for privacy. In fact, there is an explicit exemption of liability to all people who engage in the collection, dissemination, transfer, and sharing of information. The cause of action, if you feel your privacy has been violated, is to go to district court and prove there was willful and knowing sharing of your information without your permission. If you prevail in Federal district court, you get $1,000, or whatever it costs you.

My friends, we have a real problem. I take the chairman at his word-- he's a former FBI agent--that he wants to solve this cyberthreat. I know he means it. But until we protect the privacy rights of our citizens, the solution is worse than the problem that they're trying to solve.

Please vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to congratulate the Girl Scouts of the USA on their 100th Anniversary.

With a mission to build, ``girls of courage, confidence, and character, who make the world a better place'' the Girl Scouts have served over 50 million women in the United States.

From the first ever Girl Scout troop created in 1912, the Girl Scouts have sought to instill girls and young women with the ability to be both self-reliant and resourceful and I believe very few organizations have shown the capacity to foster leadership in our nation's girls like the Girl Scouts of the USA.

The Girl Scouts have proven themselves to be an organization of action. With a goal of fostering leadership, the statistics alone speak to the overwhelming success of the Girl Scouts. Over half of my female colleagues in both the House and the Senate were Girl Scouts and over half of all female business owners in the United States were former Girl Scouts. I have no doubt that many of the 2.3 million girls currently involved with this dynamic organization will continue to live out their call to ``make the world a better place'' through their leadership, and I look forward to seeing what the next generation of dedicated Girls Scouts will accomplish.

I am proud to join my colleagues in co-sponsoring H. Res. 460, Expressing support for designation of 2012 as the ``Year of the Girl'' and celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Girl Scouts of the USA.

I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman.

Texas Congressmen don't often quote Shakespeare, but I'm going to attempt it. There's a line in Hamlet that goes something to the effect: Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

And my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle seem to be protesting too much. It's a very modest bill, 20-something pages in length. It's basically a good government bill.

The bill basically says that the FCC, before they issue a rule, they've got to actually put it out for public comment for at least 30 days. Then once they formalize it, they have to let people have another 30 days to comment on what they actually are proposing.

Subcommittee Chairman Walden circulated a draft bill. To my knowledge, he circulated it to the entire committee and to the industry and the stakeholders. I know in my case I had a few modest suggestions that were incorporated in the bill. Then when it went to subcommittee, I offered an amendment that was accepted.

He did the same process at full committee.

It came to the Rules Committee. I'm told that there were 10 amendments that had been made in order, with eight of those by my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle. We'll have that debate and the vote on those later today or tomorrow.

So here you have a very modest bill with good government transparency reporting that brings the FCC into the 21st century on how to do business, and you would think that we're going back to the dark ages. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm in very strong support of the process, which is important, and also the policy and the legislation that has resulted from it. I would hope that on a bipartisan basis, at the appropriate time, we vote in the affirmative on H.R. 3309.

It's a good piece of legislation. It can pass the Senate. It can be signed by the President, and it should be.

I thank the distinguished chairman.

We have just heard an argument from one of the authors, if not the chief author, of the new health care law. So it's understandable that former Chairman Waxman would rise in indignant defense of his product and opposed to this bill.

H.R. 5, the PATH bill, is in actuality a reasoned response to an irrational attempt to socialize health care in the United States of America. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, which this legislation repeals, is an independent 15-member panel appointed by the President, unless the President doesn't appoint it, in which case three of the President's chief advisers become the board. And if they don't decide to do it, then one person, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, has the authority when this kicks in in 2014 to make all kinds of decisions that directly impact health care in America.

I don't think, and a majority of my colleagues don't think, that that's the way it should be done. So this bill in one paragraph--I think on page 24--repeals that section. That is a good start.

It is not the end-all be-all, but it is a good start to regaining control of health care by individuals and the marketplace.

The other thing this bill does is it puts in a medical malpractice reform that has been long overdue. The President, in his State of the Union, said he was for medical malpractice reform, but I am told that he has said he is not for this medical malpractice reform, just like he is not against the Keystone pipeline, but he called Senators to oppose it when it came up in the other body.

We need medical malpractice reform. Independent observers have said that this bill, which Congressman Gingrey of Georgia is the original sponsor of, would save $48 billion over, I think, a 10-year period if enacted--$48 billion. That's real reform. It does not preempt States. It allows the States to continue their medical malpractice laws that they've already enacted.

So I ask that we vote for this piece of legislation.

And I thank the chairman and the subcommittee chairman and all of the Members who have made it possible.

I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding.

I've been in the House, this is my 28th year, 14 years in the minority and now I'm in my 14th year in the majority. I don't believe I have ever voted against a rule when I was in the majority, but I'm going to vote against this one. I'm also going to vote against the underlying bill.

I'm not saying anything disparaging about the leadership on both sides of the aisle and the leadership in both bodies, but we are taking money away from the Social Security trust fund and we are substituting an IOU that may or may not ever be repaid. So on principle alone, I think we should at least shoot straight with the American people. So I will vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

On the rule, when we became the majority, we, the Republicans, we promised the American people that we would be more open and more transparent than the previous majority that was headed by Speaker Pelosi; and one of our primary promises was that we would give the American people 3 days, or 72 hours, before any bill was voted on the House floor. This rule waives that principle. And I know it's expedient and I know that there is majority support, as you can tell by the debate for both political parties on this bill, but I think to go back on a principle to the American people, that what we vote on, especially bills that are very important, should have enough time that people can look at what's in the bill. I don't think that's something that you compromise for political expediency.

So I will vote ``no'' against this rule for the first time in my career in the House of Representatives as a member of the majority when a majority rule is up, and I would hope that this is a one-time exception that we violate the principle that we promised when we became the majority.

I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for yielding.

I am actually here to speak on Mr. Markey's amendment, the previous amendment. I do want to oppose the amendment of my good friend from Chicago, Mr. Rush, but I think Mr. Terry eloquently made the case as to why it is not in order at this point in time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to the previous amendment that Mr. Markey offered, which would restrict the use of both crude oil and refined products that come in from the Keystone pipeline to have to be sold in the United States. It goes without saying that if it's crude oil it would make absolutely no sense to transship it through the Keystone pipeline to the gulf coast and then put it in a tanker to go overseas. If you're going to export crude oil, it makes much more sense to export it directly from Canada.

On the refined product end of it, you have to know one thing, which is that this crude oil that we would be importing from Canada is a heavy crude oil. We have some of the best refineries in the country that have been upgraded by billions and billions of dollars so that we can handle not just the light sweet crudes, like West Texas Intermediate or Saudi Light, but so we can handle these heavy crudes, like the Canadian crude oil, that would come down.

When you have a barrel of crude oil, you can't just say, I want to make it all gasoline. You can make a lot of gasoline, but you're going to end up having to make diesel oil and asphalt and a lot of other products. Our refineries are the best in the world at cracking these heavy crudes. As they come down through the Midwest to the Louisiana and Texas refineries, most of the refined products would be sold in the United States, but the United States is primarily a gasoline market. The European market, on the other hand, is primarily a diesel market. So, as our refineries have become better and more competitive, it makes sense not to put a restriction on the refined products but to let the market allocate it. It would actually create jobs in the United States. We could ship some of these refined--primarily diesel, but some of the distillates could go to the European market. You'd get a better margin, create jobs, and protect jobs here in the United States. The primary market will always be the United States. Currently, about 75 percent of the crude oil that's refined on the gulf coast is used in refined products that are sold in the United States, but somewhere around 20 to 25 percent has been going to Europe, primarily the distillates and the diesel.

The Markey amendment would turn that market on its head. It would be counterproductive to our economy, counterproductive to our consumers, and counterproductive to the general oil markets in the world.

I know Mr. Markey is trying to do what he thinks is the right thing, but in actuality, we defeated his amendment in the committee, I think, 34 14 or something like this. We got eight Democrats--about 40 percent of the Democrats--to vote with us against the Markey amendment in committee. We ought to defeat it by that same margin here on the floor of the House of Representatives.

At this point, I also want to thank Mr. Whitfield for his excellent leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 1981, I was applying for the White House Fellow's Program, which is a program where you work for the President of the United States for 1 year in one of the executive agencies like the Department of Energy or the Department of State. Our regional seminar was in Austin, Texas, at the LBJ School of Government. We had a lunch, and I sat at lunch with Hillary Rodham Clinton and a lady name Sarah Weddington, who was the lead attorney in the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case. Little did I know then, back in 1981, that that case would still be the law of the land.

Today, thousands of people from all over the United States came to protest that court case and asked the Congress to help overturn it.

I'm a lifetime 95 percent pro-life voting Member, and I pledged to the crowd on the Mall that I would do everything I could in Congress to help overturn that decision. Life is precious. Life begins at conception, and we need to recognize that in the Congress of the United States.

I thank the distinguished policy chairman, and I thank the gentleman from Idaho for his evenhanded leadership in the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I voted to send the Senate bill to conference, and I hope that both parties in both Chambers appoint serious conferees and really try to come up with a solution to the problem.

I do want to point out a few facts that have been avoided on both sides of

the aisle. It's really not a payroll tax. It is a Social Security dedicated trust fund tax.

Since Franklin Roosevelt and the Congress created Social Security in the 1930s, payroll Social Security taxes go into the system by workers, employers, and self-employed individuals, and then benefits come out.

Last year, for the first time, we reduced the amount of Social Security taxes going into the system and gave an IOU from the Treasury into the Social Security trust fund. The extension, whether it's for 2 months or 1 year, of that same policy this year is taking $120 billion to $150 billion out of the system that's real money and putting into it an IOU that we will pay at a date future. This would be like if I went to the doctor and the doctor tells me that I have got lung cancer, and I say, ``Well, what should I do, Doctor?'' and he says, ``Smoke more cigarettes.''

I mean, we paid more out in Social Security benefits this current year than we paid in, and this exacerbates the problem. I would ask that we come up with a permanent solution, Mr. Speaker, and not keep avoiding the problem.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss a project that is of utmost importance to the American people. As the gentleman from Nebraska just mentioned, it's called the Keystone XL pipeline. It is a proposal to extend an existing pipeline that starts in Canada, comes down through the Midwestern parts of the United States, into Oklahoma. The proposal is to extend that pipeline to the gulf coast of Texas and Louisiana.

Why is this important to every American?

Quite simply because we use lots of energy in America and because we do not produce as much as we use, so we have to import some of the energy. A lot of the energy we use comes from oil; and the Keystone XL pipeline, if built, would bring crude oil that starts up in Canada, down through the Midwest, to the gulf coast where we have about 50 percent of the United States' refining capacity.

This is a good deal because, number one, Canada is an ally. We are importing quite a bit of oil right now from Venezuela, which has a government dictator, Mr. Chavez, who is somewhat hostile to the United States. We are importing oil from the Middle East. While we have allies in the Middle East, that is an unstable region in terms of its political stability. So, if we could get more energy from North America, from Canada, that would be a good thing for us.

In the construction phase, this pipeline will create--the gentleman from Nebraska would know the exact number--somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 jobs, I believe. Once in production, with all of the spinoffs, we think up to 100,000 jobs would be created here in the United States. It would make us more secure.

When you just look at the facts of it, you have to ponder why anybody would be opposed to it.

I am puzzled as to why some of my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle are opposed to it. The State Department, under the leadership of Hillary Clinton, endorsed the pipeline. They did an impact statement that said it was positive. At one point in time, it looked like it was going to get approval and move through. The environmental groups came to Washington last fall. They surrounded the White House, and protested against President Obama. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the President decided to delay a decision until after the election, which is why we're here today.

In what we call the ``jobs bill'' that passed the House 2 days ago, there is a provision in it that requires a decision to be made on Keystone within 60 days, I believe, of the enactment of the bill if the President signs it. The President has said he would veto that bill, which shows that, while he said back in the fall that he wanted to delay a decision, apparently he opposes it. So he opposes jobs. He also opposes energy security for the United States, which is an odd platform, in my opinion, to run on in a Presidential election campaign--but it's a free country, and if the President wants to go down that trail, he has the right to do that.

So I believe that Keystone is a good idea. In my congressional district down in Texas, there are numerous pipelines. There are oil pipelines, natural gas pipelines, gasoline refined product pipelines, water pipelines. We have never had any major problems with any of those pipelines from an environmental standpoint. The Keystone pipeline would be built using the absolute latest in technology and with the latest in safety, in inspections, in maintenance. I just cannot imagine why we would oppose it.

So I am in strong support of it, and I want to thank Mr. Terry for his leadership on this issue. He has introduced bills. He has worked tirelessly in committee. He has worked tirelessly on the floor here. As I said, I hope that we get

this done, but I am in very strong support. I want to thank him for his leadership, and I also want to thank Congressman Carter for his leadership. He's here today, and he has worked very diligently on the Keystone pipeline, too.

I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for yielding.

One of the arguments that's been made about the EAC, Mr. Speaker, is that it's the Federal Election Commission that ensures every American citizen's right to vote. If only that were true, Mr. Speaker.

The National Association of Secretaries of State, which is the organization in each State that oversees the elections, has called for the dissolution of the EAC. The committee has heard firsthand testimony from Secretaries of State all across the country. Both in 2005 and again in 2010, the National Association of Secretaries of State has called for the dissolution of the EAC.

If the organizations that are actually responsible in each State for holding the elections, Mr. Speaker, are asking that the Federal agency that's supposed to help them should be dissolved, I think it would behoove the Congress to listen to the States and in this case dissolve this commission.