Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4348. While this is not a perfect bill, it will fund important transportation projects while creating well-paying jobs across this country.

H.R. 4348 will reauthorize through the end of fiscal year 2014 our highway and transit programs at current levels--$105 billion. While I am disappointed in this short-term reauthorization, I do believe this authorization will provide some stability to our state and local governments. We know that for every $1 billion of federal funds invested in our highway and transit infrastructure nearly 39,000 jobs are created or sustained. This investment will give our transportation industry the ability to continue to create thousands of jobs across our country.

I am also extremely pleased that all states will be guaranteed a minimum rate of return of 95 percent on their payments into the Highway Trust Fund. During the last reauthorization I worked hard with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to increase Michigan's rate of return to 92 percent, and I am pleased to be able to support increasing it once again. This bill will continue the Safe Routes to School program, and the transportation enhancement activities such as bike paths, bike lanes, and trails. This program has been critical to helping communities in my district, like Ann Arbor, to make their communities more livable and attractive to families and businesses, while also greening our environment by providing alternatives for their commute. Furthermore, I am pleased that H.R. 4348 will continue to fund our mass-transit program, providing funding to critical projects that will bring our transit infrastructure into the 21st Century.

I am disappointed that H.R. 4348 did not reauthorize the Coordinated Border Infrastructure program. Michigan was one of the leaders in creating CBIP given its critical relationship with Canada and it has been instrumental in addressing border congestion. It is my hope that we can reauthorize this program in the coming months. Unfortunately, this bill does not include any provisions directing the Department of Transportation to develop a long-term national rail plan. I passed one of the first pieces of legislation authorizing investment in high-speed rail, but there has never been a strong commitment to bringing our rail program into the 21st Century until this Administration. This Administration has wisely invested billions of dollars into bringing highspeed rail travel across the country and to corridors outside the Northeast. By ignoring this goal we are halting the progress of high- speed rail and falling further behind our neighbors abroad.

I would have liked for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, or LWCF, reauthorization and funding to be included in the final bill. LWCF was included in the Senate language with overwhelming bipartisan support and I joined with 145 of my House colleagues requesting the conference committee to include the reauthorization and funding. LWCF develops local partnerships to conserve critical wildlife habitat, hunting and fishing access, state and local parks, productive forests, and important lands to be protected for future generations. I hope the House will give serious consideration to reauthorizing and funding LWCF in the coming weeks.

This bill includes a one-year extension of the 3.4 percent interest rate for subsidized Stafford student loans. I am happy that this is finally being authorized because as we continue to recover economically, we must ensure that students can afford a higher education. There were nearly 48,000 students attending a university or college in my district last year who received one of these loans and doubling the interest rate would have a significant impact on students as they get ready to start the new school year. Our children, 25 percent of our population, are 100 percent of our future. They are counting on us and I am pleased we are now standing up for the future to make higher education and job training affordable.

While we are taking a step forward today, we must start thinking towards next July when this one-year extension will expire. We cannot wait until the last minute to address this issue as we did this year. We must start thinking now about how to deal with this problem. This is not just a campaign talking point, this affects students and families and can be the difference between achieving your goals or being priced out of your dreams.

The Flood Insurance extension is a much needed part of this compromise. As we continue to experience extreme weather across the country, we need to ensure that homeowners with flooded homes can get the help they need to put their lives back together. However, as FEMA works on implementing new floodplain maps, we must ensure that the maps make sense. Homeowners and small businesses in my district are being driven out of the homes and stores due to the high cost of flood insurance that they've never had to pay before. I urge FEMA to continue to work with local governments to address these concerns and keep families in their homes and small businesses open.

I applaud this bill, and I hope my colleagues keep working together in this manner--actually passing bills that make a difference and take action instead of playing political football on issues that do not impact the majority of Americans.

I have a motion at the desk.

I yield myself 4 minutes.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I rise to offer this motion to refer so that this investigation can focus on the real issues at hand and to get the facts.

I begin by expressing my respect and affection for the chairman of the committee, Mr. Issa. I want to see a proper investigation and the facts gotten about serious misbehavior and utter incompetence at the Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives, called the ATF. This is a tragedy.

I have had the entirety of the motion read so that we can understand what a real investigation is. I didn't roll off the cabbage wagon yesterday, Mr. Speaker. I chaired committees for over 20 or 30 years, and I have conducted more investigations than any man in this particular body. It is clear that the events here were characterized by dishonest, evasive, and deceitful activities on the part of ATF personnel.

I want to find out what has happened. This is not the first time I've crossed swords with ATF and this is not the first time I have found them engaged in shameful, illegal, and improper behavior. In one instance, I caught them raiding the home of an individual. They shot him in the brain and they pitched his wife, in her underpants, out into the hall.

Operation Fast and Furious was a highly irresponsible operation that never should have occurred. People on both sides of this aisle agree to that. The American people want the answers and they deserve to have a proper, thorough, and bipartisan investigation that gets them the truth. My constituent Brian Terry wants the truth from the grave, and his families asks that we get the truth. With God as my judge, they deserve it, and they shall have it if I can get it for them.

I have shared scores of investigations and hearings over 50 years on wrongdoing which have collected hundreds of millions of dollars wrongfully taken from our people and have caught more than a few serious wrongdoers, who have paid proper penalties for their wrongdoing.

These investigations were always bipartisan, with both sides of the aisle actively participating and fully informed. The actions of the committee were unanimously conducted and supported by Members on both sides of the aisle. What we see before us does not follow that model, and it brings no respect to this body. As someone who holds the institution here in the highest regard, I find this to be most troubling.

Instead of going after the real answers and getting the facts about what happened at ATF, the majority of the committee has engaged in what appears to be a partisan political witch hunt, with the Attorney General as its target. Over the 16-month investigation, Democrats were not permitted to call a single witness to testify. So much for bipartisanship. The American people deserve better than this, Mr. Speaker. They deserve a legitimate inquiry based on facts which all Members of this body can support.

This is not a Second Amendment question. I have defended the Second Amendment more than any Member of this body, and I am a past member of the board of directors of NRA and a life member of that body. We deserve, and the American people deserve, a legitimate inquiry based on the facts.

It seems to me there's a simple way to resolve this dispute. First, adopt the resolution. Then see to it that the Attorney General produces the documents that are currently at issue, and I will actively support the gentleman and see to it that those facts and documents are presented.

Second, the House Republicans should give a good-faith commitment to work towards resolving the contempt fight. If the documents in fact are consistent with the Attorney General's testimony that he never authorized or approved or knew about gunwalking, then I think we should consider the matter of contempt resolved.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Well, I was aware of this. I have communicated with the family my sorrow at their loss, and my office is setting up a meeting with the Terry family as soon as I can get back to Michigan.

My motion here would ensure that the witnesses the minority has requested, including the former Director of ATF during the time of this operation, are called for a full, open public hearing to ensure that the American people get the whole story.

I'm not here solely representing the interests of the Terry family. I'm here representing the interests of the whole country and all of the 800,000 people that I serve in the 15th District of Michigan.

As I've said on a number of occasions in the last year, Congress has two choices in their decisionmaking: we can work together and get something done, or we can play political football. I choose to get something done, which is why I have offered a resolution. And if you have listened to what I had read by the Clerk, you will observe that it says we want a full, thorough, bipartisan investigation. That's the way the matter should be done. And Members on this side will support the findings of that investigation if the chairman of that committee will permit this kind of undertaking to be begun.

I would observe this very interesting fact. The contempt resolution is going to give the same instructions to the same fellow who is under contempt. He will simply put it in his pocket, and we will find that this body has been weakened in its dealings with the executive branch.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support it. I rise in strong support of it, and I urge my colleagues to join.

This legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support on both sides of the Capitol and from industry and patient groups. We should also be proud of the work we have done to get it here today.

I would observe that it has been done because the Members worked together in the finest traditions of this body. And I'm also proud of the work that my colleagues on the committee and the staff have done on this matter. I was pleased to work with them to include strong upstream drug supply chain provisions, something that's been a long priority of mine.

I'm also pleased that, for the first time, commercial importers will be required to register, so we'll know who's bringing what in and whether it's safe or not. There will also be parity between inspections of domestic and foreign drug facilities, something which is a major problem because foreign facilities and foreign manufacturers now import much into this country, much of which is unsafe and improperly inspected.

FDA will be able to maintain a practice in which they will detain and destruct counterfeit drugs and those which are unsafe or intentionally or otherwise adulterated, and they will be able to impose increased penalties on those who adulterate these drugs and pharmaceuticals.

These provisions, which mirror safety provisions in my drug safety bill, will equip FDA with the authorities it needs to better oversee our increasingly globalized drug supply chain and will give American families comfort that the pharmaceuticals that they are taking are safe, and help to deter and to respond to any future heparin-like incidents which killed some 80 Americans and hurt thousands more.

While I am disappointed we were unable to come forward with a consensus on a national track-and-trace standard, it's my hope that we will continue to work on this in coming days. And I want to commend my colleagues, Mr. Matheson and Mr. Bilbray, for the fine work they have done on this matter.

I've also been working on this issue for many years, and we've come closer than ever before to finding a consensus. Given additional time, I think we could have resolved this issue; but because of time pressures, we were not able to.

I also want to thank my friends, Mr. Upton, Mr. Harkin, Ranking Members Waxman and Enzi, and their staff for the hard work they did to send this critical bill to the President before July 4. I also want to thank Kimberly Trzeciak of my staff for her diligence on the supply chain provisions and other matters.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It will be something of which we will be proud. It will confer much safety on the American people in areas of very substantial danger; and it will see to it that, to a modest degree at least, the industry-supported provisions, including those which involved the collection of fees, will begin to work for the benefit of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 436. We find ourselves, yet again, going through another Republican dog and pony show as my colleagues attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act bit by bit without replacing any of these pieces. I cannot even count how many of these circuses we have gone through this session. Instead of working for their constituents, my friends across the aisle are busy concocting schemes solely for political gain that will ultimately cost the American people, this time to the tune of more than $29 billion. That's right, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that if the medical device tax is repealed it will add to our deficit.

I think we would all agree that the medical technology industry is a critical industry, employing more than 400,000 workers nationwide and more than 9,000 in my home state. The work that they do is critical to keeping the American people healthy and to keeping our country competitive. During the drafting of the Affordable Care Act, the medical device industry, along with pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies and hospitals, committed to doing their part to make health reform a reality. Advocating to repeal the medical device tax appears to me to be going back on that commitment to the President and the American people.

Supporters of H.R. 436 like to say the medical device tax hurts small manufacturers, but the reality is the ten largest manufacturers will pay 86 percent of the tax. These same supporters claim the tax will result in the loss of jobs, but they seem to forget about the millions of new customers that the ACA will provide device companies. It seems to me that if you have 33 million more people with the ability to access medical devices, companies may need some employees to help them meet this new demand. I agree that it is important that the medical device industry can continue to succeed, and I believe that the Affordable Care Act will do so.

In addition to abolishing the medical device tax, H.R. 436 aims to repeal the definitions the Affordable Care Act put in place for tax- advantaged flexible spending accounts and health savings accounts. A small minority of workers benefit in minor ways from these accounts, whereas millions of Americans will be guaranteed access to comprehensive, affordable health care through the ACA. By enacting these provisions the ACA raises over $4 billion. The Republicans think they will pay for dismantling the ACA with changes they already used to finance two earlier pieces of legislation. Dipping repeatedly into a pot of money that will force hundreds of thousands of citizens to forgo health care coverage is not a viable solution. While my colleagues speak about wanting to balance our budget and reduce our deficit they are busy repealing a tax that would add to our precarious fiscal circumstances and taking away provisions enacted in the ACA that generate vitally needed dollars. And, my friends, we are all aware of the age old axiom that actions speak louder than words.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not a constructive use of this body's time. We cannot re-litigate the debates of the past. If we are to improve the health care that we are delivering to patients, and inspiring and encouraging innovation in our industry, I stand ready and willing to work with my colleagues on bipartisan legislation that will do so.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I want to begin by expressing great respect and affection for my friend from Montana who has just spoken. It was a fine speech, but it has nothing to do with the issues before us.

What the committee, in this legislation, has done has been to simply assure that the Corps of Engineers may not put forth guidelines clarifying the law as it was enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case that we are discussing in connection with the Clean Water Act.

It does something more. It fixes it so that farmers will lose certain protections which have been put in for their benefit by the law. And you're going to find, as my friend from Maryland has so wisely observed, that you are going to hurt a bunch of American farming public by denying them a protection which has been given them. Citizens, under the language of the committee bill, will have no way of knowing what the law is or how it is interpreted by the committee.

It is not an issue before us today whether or not you agree with the Clean Water Act. The question is, simply: Is the Corps of Engineers going to be able to tell people what the law is and how it is to be interpreted by the Corps and how citizens will then have to behave?

Under the law, the amendment simply says the Corps may inform people of what the law, as set forth in the Supreme Court's rulings, means. I think that is something which is important in terms of seeing to it that people may go forward with their planning, with economic development and everything of that sort.

It is not wise to deny citizens this kind of information. It is extremely unwise to deny business the opportunity to know what it is they must do to comply with the law as enunciated by the Supreme Court. The amendment makes great sense. The bill, as written, simply re-fights an issue that is not before this body at this time. I hate to see the kind of confusion that is being inflicted upon this body by a simple misunderstanding of what the law is, what the bill does, and what the amendment does.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. If you want clarity, if you want people to know how to comply with the law as set forth by the Supreme Court, adopt the amendment. If you want confusion and if you want misfortune to be visited on farmers and the public and confusion to afflict economic development and business, then support the bill as it is and oppose the amendment.

There is a tremendous lack of wisdom here in this fight. Let us understand the issue that plagues us, which is simply whether or not the Corps of Engineers is going to be able to tell people what the law is. At issue is not any change in the law. The amendment accepts the fact that the Supreme Court has made a decision. I happen to strongly disagree with that decision by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, I am going to have to wait until some future time to come down and attack what is clear misbehavior by the Supreme Court. I was on the floor and had a colloquy with the management of the legislation at the time the bill was passed, and the Supreme Court has clearly disregarded and ignored the legislative history and, worse than that, the clear language of the bill. That issue is not before us today.

What is before us today is simply: Are the Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Government going to be able to tell the people what the law is as set forth by the Supreme Court?

To say anything else about this legislation is either to be misled or to mislead. I would beg my colleagues to vote in favor of the intelligent approach of seeing to it that we are going to allow people to know what the law is and allow the Corps of Engineers to set out what the law is for the benefit of business, industry, and people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Moran-Dingell amendment which will protect not only the Clean Water Act but also the power and integrity of the United States Congress.

When the Clean Water Act was passed, I stood on the floor of this House as one of its

authors and explained the intent of the Conference Report on the Clean Water Act in a colloquy with Representative Jim Wright of Texas, who was managing the bill. I said, `'the conference bill defines the term `navigable waters' broadly for water quality purposes. It means all `the waters of the United States' in a geographical sense. It does not mean the `navigable waters of the United States' in the technical sense as we sometimes see in some laws.''

In 2006, the Supreme Court significantly restricted the original Congressional intent of the Federal government's authority under the Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court completely ignored Congress' intent to provide a broader definition of ``U.S. waters'' and instead upended 35 years of precedence simply because they refused to properly review the legislative history of laws made on this floor by those managing the bill.

Because of the Supreme Court's misguided decision, the Army Corps of Engineers is working on new guidelines that will take into account the decision of the Court and define what their new jurisdiction will be under the Clean Water Act. This is not a massive expansion of power by the Corps as some would have the House believe. This is simply an honest attempt to comply with the Supreme Court's decision.

By preventing the Corps from spending any funds to implement these new guidelines, this House would be casting a dark pall of uncertainty over the country. If someone wants to build a home or new business near a wetland or other body of water, do they need to consult with the Army Corps of Engineers before doing so? The language in this bill would not answer that question and would lead to more costs and confusion to that homeowner or businessperson in legal and court fees. The language in this bill would lead to more court battles and create a wonderful mess that would lead to lawyers making plenty of money.

I ask my colleagues to not let the Supreme Court to blatantly ignore established Congressional intent and to instead allow the Army Corps of Engineers to do the work we told them to do and to implement new guidelines conforming to the court's decision.

Please vote for the Moran-Dingell Amendment.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5651, to reauthorize the prescription drug and medical device user-fee programs, to establish new user-fee programs for generic drugs and biosimilars, and also to give substantial new authorities to the Food and Drug Administration, with the support of the industry, to provide broad additional protections to American consumers.

H.R. 5651 is an excellent example of the great good that can be done when both parties come together in the spirit of bipartisanship, cooperation, and compromise, and when they work with consumers and the industry to achieve a bill supported by all.

This legislation will ensure the timely access to safe and effective drugs and medical devices, encourage the development of the innovative drug treatments for our children, and improve the Food and Drug Administration's current authority to deal with drug shortages. More importantly, this legislation will provide FDA with much-needed new authorities to secure the safety of our drug supply and to help prevent another incident like that unfortunate one involving heparin, in which over 80 people died from a blood thinner which was contaminated from where it came, in China, and which also sickened over 100 people of whom we know.

H.R. 5651's drug supply chain provisions will improve information FDA has about domestic and foreign drug manufacturers. It will, for the first time in history, provide FDA with information about importers and will enable FDA to control imported pharmaceuticals and devices. It will also allow FDA to detain or to destroy counterfeit or adulterated drugs, prohibit the entry of imported drugs that have been delayed or been denied inspection by FDA, and will encourage parity in the inspections of the domestic and foreign drug establishments. It will permit, for the first time, the real inspection of foreign producers, and it will treat all manufacturers alike.

These provisions mirror those in drug legislation which I authored earlier. The new authorities provided to FDA for our drug supply will enable the leveling of the playing field for our domestic drug manufacturers and will give American families the peace of mind that FDA can and will--and will have the authority to--respond to unsafe, misbranded, counterfeit, or contaminated drugs.

I want to thank my colleagues on the committee for the fine way this legislation was worked on, particularly Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Waxman, Subcommittee on Health Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Pallone, and their staffs--Clay Alspach, Ryan Long, Rachel Sher, Eric Flamm, Arun Patel, and Tiffany Guarascio, as well as Kimberlee Trzeciak of my staff--for their hard work and their commitment through this process to producing a bipartisan bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a coauthor of this important legislation. We have built upon the good work that FDA is already doing as well as the strong agreements negotiated by industry and FDA, and I urge the House to pass this bill.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to swiftly pass legislation this summer that can be signed into law by the President.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 568, a resolution emphasizing the importance of preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I have long held that the United States should make every effort to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and this resolution is consistent with that belief. Allowing them to do so would needlessly create instability in the region, potentially spark a nuclear arms race, and would threaten our ally Israel. As someone who has consistently defended the security of Israel, such an outcome would be unacceptable.

I applaud President Obama for taking a strong and decisive stand on this important issue. H. Res 568 recognizes the President's March 31, 2010 statement that the ``consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran are unacceptable,'' and I wholeheartedly agree. That being said, we should give diplomacy and tough economic sanctions every chance to succeed in dealing with Iran. As I have said in the past, the consequences of rushing to war are grave and should be made with all due consideration. I have high hopes for the talks that the international community is holding with Iran at the end of the month, and look forward to seeing the result. The whole world is indeed watching.

Madam Speaker, it is with great disappointment that I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4970, the Violence Alainst Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) of 2012. I was proud to support the original Violence Against Women Act when Congress passed it with bipartisan support in 1994 because it created landmark programs to help victims of domestic violence, provided grants for law enforcement agencies, and established new categories of crimes such as stalking. VAWA is one of the true bipartisan success stories in Congress and it has achieved a real, significant and lasting impact on our nation. Since VAWA first passed, the annual incidence of domestic violence has decreased by 53 percent. However, there is still much work to be done, as approximately one in five women have been raped in their lifetime, and 45 percent of the women killed in the United States die after being attacked by an intimate partner.

Given the fact that violence against women continues to be a serious problem in this country, it is disappointing to see the Republican majority pursue such a partisan and reckless path forward with this legislation. Instead of following the Senate's lead, which passed an effective and bipartisan bill to reauthorize VAWA, the GOP has decided to play politics with this important issue and has significantly weakened protections for battered women and instituted discriminatory policies. Specifically, H.R. 4970 does not include key provisions of the Senate bill which ensure that LGBT victims are not discriminated against in VAWA programs. We can all agree that no victim of domestic abuse should be denied care because of their sexual orientation. As a lifetime supporter of civil rights I cannot in good conscience support legislation which would permit this to happen.

Further, three out of five Native American women are victims of domestic violence in their lifetime, which is a pressing national problem. The Senate bill addresses this concern by including provisions which would give Native American tribal governments jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute incidents of violence, in addition to providing grants to assist tribes in prosecuting such crimes. Yet H.R. 4970 does not adequately address these concerns by not including any of these provisions in the legislation. Such crass indifference makes this legislation impossible to support.

The path forward to reauthorize VAWA is clear. The Senate sent a clear message by passing a strong, bipartisan bill, and the House should do the same. Let us stop fighting these needless partisan battles and instead come together to reauthorize a program which has worked so well over the years. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against H.R. 4970 and support the Senate bill.

Madam Speaker, I am an unwavering supporter of Israel, therefore I speak today more in sorrow than in anger. I first want to express my esteem for my friend, the gentleman from Maryland Mr. Hoyer. I would like to support his legislation, H.R. 4133, the United States- Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012, but it is impossible for me to do so. As one who has consistently supported the freedom, independence and security of the State of Israel since I was first sworn into this great body, I am deeply saddened at the way this matter is being handled.

There is much in this legislation which is good but there is much which is unwise and could lead us down a dark and difficult road. I fear this legislation is drawn so that it could be considered as a blueprint for going to war with Iran. What are the limits on U.S. commitments under this legislation? I can find none in H.R. 4133, and this troubles me greatly. How would this impact our diplomatic efforts, and our negotiations to halt Iran's nuclear program? Would this result in increased strife and instability in the Middle East?

The answers to these questions remain unclear because there have been no legislative hearings on this matter, no factual record, and no committee report to consider. Everyone in this chamber agrees that allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon is unacceptable and that we should take every action to prevent such an outcome. However, this does not mean that we should rush to vote on this legislation, which has never been considered in committee and could have grave consequences for our national security, especially as our diplomats are engaged in the most delicate of negotiations.

Experience comes from learning from one's mistakes. I made a blunder when I voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which was hurried and rushed through the House, and I vowed never to make the same error again. Many members of this body also made a similar mistake when this Congress voted to go to war with Iraq based on faulty intelligence. The international community is scheduled to have direct discussions and negotiations with Iran on the nuclear issue at the end of the month. At the very least we should wait to see the progress of those talks before issuing the edicts contained in this legislation today.

Matters of war and national security should be considered in all due diligence, and not be rushed to the floor without the proper consideration. I urge everyone to take a step back and consider what we are voting on, hold the proper hearings, and have a truly deliberative process before we rush off to another war which our Nation can ill afford.

Mr. Speaker, as we continue to recover economically, we must ensure that students can afford a higher education. In 2007, as we were dealing with the worst of the recession, I voted in favor of legislation to reduce interest rates on Stafford loans from 6.8 to 3.4 percent. On July 31, interest rates will go back to 6.8 percent if Congress does not act.

There are nearly 48,000 students attending a university or college in my district who have a Stafford subsidized student loan. Those loans total over $212 million. Doubling the interest rate will add an unnecessary burden on those students as they graduate and enter the workforce. For each year that Congress does not act to keep rates at 3.4 percent, students add an additional $1000 in debt over the life of their loans. It may prevent them from starting a family, buying a home, or getting a new car. We must do everything we can to help as they get started.

The cost of the student loan bill is $6 billion. Unfortunately, Republicans have chosen to pay for it by repealing the Prevention and Public Health Fund included in the Affordable Care Act that invests in innovative programs, practices and treatments to prevent cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and programs particularly important to women's health. We should not have to choose how we are going to invest in our country's future; how do you decide to cut investments in the education for the workforce of tomorrow versus the health of that very same workforce?

I support the Democratic alternative negotiated between the White House and Congressional Democrats that pays for the student loan interest rate by closing a corporate tax loophole. I hope that the House leadership will allow a vote on this commonsense alternative so students and their families aren't left paying for higher interest rates to go to school. Republicans know that their proposal cannot be supported by Democrats. They don't seem to know that by not finding a compromise, they are playing politics with students, families, and the future of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Flora Walker on receiving the Eleanor Roosevelt Award at the Michigan Democratic Party (MDP) Jefferson-Jackson Annual Women's Caucus Luncheon. She is a truly deserving recipient and I am pleased to see her contributions recognized with this prestigious award.

Not only has Ms. Walker blessed us with over forty years of service in Michigan, as well as continuing service with the UDW/AFSCME in Nevada, but she was also the first female president of the AFL CIO in Michigan. Thanks to her efforts, the bar was set very high for those following in her footsteps. Her work has greatly enriched the common good and improved the lives of many families. I commend her and am grateful for her tireless work ethic and the important work she has accomplished.

The Eleanor Roosevelt Award hosted by the MDP honors members of the community who have furthered the ideals of the Democratic Party with their commitment to the party's cause. Each year one man and one woman are selected to receive this prestigious award, which recognizes their work as continuing the work of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his wife, Eleanor Roosevelt. It fills me with great pride to see my friend, Flora Walker, be the recipient in 2012.

Mr. Speaker, I would request that the House of Representatives join me in offering congratulations to Ms. Walker for her outstanding achievements. I commend the organizations and honorees for their important work in advancing the values of the Democratic Party and wish her the best of luck in all future endeavors.

Mr. Chairman, I will begin by praising my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee. It is just that he has brought us a bad piece of legislation. It should be rejected instantly by the House of Representatives because it does nothing to help anything. I refer to the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act, which it is not.

Time and time again, we Democrats accuse our Republican colleagues of passing bills that are in search of problems. I would like to say that this is the same. But worse than that, I can say that we have before us a bill that is a prime example of trying to cure the disease and kill the patient at the same time.

In point of fact, H.R. 3309 would take the FCC entirely out of the Administrative Procedure Act and make it subject to a unique set of procedural requirements totally understood by no one. And there will have to be a bunch of lawyers hired, as the gentleman from Nebraska has pointed out, because they're sure going to need them to understand what has been done.

Everybody in this Chamber should have real fears about turning over 60 years of solid administrative jurisprudence and standing it on its head and how that will bring about disastrous results not only to the Commission but to all of the entities regulated by that body, because nobody is going to understand what this has done.

Mr. Chairman, Charles James Fox wrote something called the ``India Resolution'' in 1783. It goes as follows: ``Resolved, that we have seen your work, and it will not do.'' H.R. 3309 evokes the same sorry sentiment.

My friends on the other side of the aisle like reminding me that no Democrat has been a bigger critic of the FCC than I have. They're right. But that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with what they've proposed to do in H.R. 3309. Instead of passing a bad bill which they don't understand, on which no adequate hearings have been held, and on which the industry is scared to death, we should get down to the business of having decent proceedings in which we would go into this matter thoroughly as a matter of oversight, to compel the Commission to come forward to address the question of their accountability, of their transparency, and of their regulatory consistency.

This Commerce Committee has skinned many cats in my days with that authority, and by the great horn spoon, we could do it again. But we shouldn't come on the floor waving a silly bill like this around which is going to do nothing to benefit society and which the committee doesn't understand and cannot explain.

Now, if I have got any time left, I will yield to my friend from Oregon.

Of course, but they didn't relate to the matters that you have brought before the House at this time. You can't explain what's in this bill, and nobody here knows what it does.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and to extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the matter of this Special Order, referring very specifically to our dear friend, the Parliamentarian, Mr. Sullivan.

I want to thank the Chair for the kindness that you have shown me, and I want to express my particular thanks and good wishes to my dear friend, Mr. LaTourette, before this matter, and now, through the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, I yield to the distinguished minority leader, my friend, Mr. Hoyer, the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to my dear friend from California (Mr. Schiff), through my distinguished friend from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to, through my good friend from Ohio, to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Mel Watt.

Mr. Speaker, I yield, through my good friend from Ohio, to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona.

With thanks to my good friend for his kind comments, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland through the distinguished gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, again, through the kindness of my good friend from Ohio, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield through my good friend from Ohio to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

We have no further requests for time, but I would like to say a couple of words.

This, I will tell the gentleman, is his time. He has led in the matter. I am prepared to accede to his leadership.

I begin then by thanking my good friend from Ohio for his leadership in this matter and express to him my great personal respect and high esteem. I am particularly pleased that we have been able to have these brief remarks from his friends, colleagues, and coworkers about our good friend, Mr. Sullivan, our coworker and Parliamentarian of the House. I have known all the Parliamentarians during their sitting back to Mr. Deschler, Mr. Brown, Mr. Charlie Johnson and now, of course, our good friend, Mr. Sullivan. And before them, I had the privilege of knowing the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, a Member of this body and also a prior Parliamentarian of this body.

I'm sure that this has been an evening that has been somewhat painful to our friend, the Parliamentarian, because he has heard all kinds of nice things about him at a time when that is rather an unaccustomed practice. But I would like to tell him how proud we are that we have had such dedicated public servants to work for and on behalf of the House of Representatives and on behalf of all of us.

As he retires at the end of this week as the Parliamentarian of the House, I hope he knows that his work would be approved, and enthusiastically so, by all the gentlemen that I have mentioned earlier. I would also hope that he understands that he has seen the greatest respect and affection from his colleagues here in the House for his fairness, impartiality, for his decency, for his integrity, and for the fair and nonpartisan--he would note I did not say ``bipartisan,'' I said ``nonpartisan''--way he has conducted his responsibilities as the Parliamentarian of the House.

Each and every one of us could count on Mr. Sullivan to take our calls on even the smallest questions about motions and procedures. And all of us, without any question or any doubt, knew that the advice we were getting was completely honest. We also knew that he would help us work out our problems so that we could be functioning and effective Members of this body. And we also knew that he would take a firm stand for the protection of the traditions and the institutional values of this body and would ensure that the rules were always interpreted properly.

He was a true institutionalist. He loved and revered the House of Representatives, and he knew something that was very important that many of us had not yet learned, and that is that this body, as an institution, is more important to all of us and to this Nation than is any single issue or aggregation or congregation of issues or any individual or any group of individuals, because without the trust, the affection, and the respect of the American people, this institution cannot function, cannot lead, cannot govern, and cannot carry out the trusts that we have been given back to the days of the Founders of the country.

I want Mr. Sullivan to know that he will always be missed; but we know that he has left us in capable hands because he has built a fine office, and Tom Wickham, like Mr. Sullivan, has already proven to be dependable, discreet and well versed in the rules and procedures of the House; and we know that he will serve the House with the same dedication, decency, integrity and honesty that his predecessor, Mr. Sullivan, has characterized his work with.

All of us are going to miss him. He has been a distinguished public servant in the highest sense of the term; and all of us will wish him well as he goes off to do his business, whatever it may be, and we will hope that he has tremendous success, long life, great happiness, and a chance to come back here

from time to time to see his old friends and to join in talking about the memories that we share together, the great things that we've done, the small things that we've done, and all the wonderful stories that we have to tell and share about the privilege of serving in this, the greatest legislative body in the world.

I am going to express to him the wish that he will have happiness in his retirement. I know that that wish is shared and honored by all of his colleagues and all of our colleagues, and I know that the very fine group of Parliamentarians who are here to show their appreciation to him for his wonderful leadership share in the thoughts that you have heard.

This has been an extraordinary bipartisan expression of the affection and respect that we have for our Parliamentarian, which he has earned. We have not praised him; we have simply told the truth about him. And that is something that he can be proud of that we are able to do and willing to do. I would note that there are some who might live in mortal and desperate fear of having others telling the truth about them.

So, in any event, we express to him our thanks and our admiration, and also that of the entire membership of the House of Representatives who have been honored by your service, your guidance, your friendship, your dignity, and your great appreciation of this body and the responsibilities we have.

Now I thank my good friend from Ohio for being so generous and for his leadership in this matter.

Mr. Chair, the people have sent us up here to legislate and pass laws that will benefit and protect the American public and move our country forward. It is more than disheartening, it is shameful that once again we find ourselves here today wasting time to vote on a piece of partisan, Republican legislation that has no hope of moving beyond this chamber. H.R. 5 does nothing to benefit the American people, nor does this Act do anything to protect access to healthcare as its name declares.

Even worse, this misguided legislation is being considered during the same week we are celebrating the second anniversary of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). I am unbelievably proud of that fact that the bill I authored has guaranteed that 105 million Americans no longer face lifetime limits on their insurance, 2 million young adults are now insured under their parents' plans, and seniors no longer find themselves lost in the ``coverage gap'' and lacking access to prescription drugs. With all of these tangible, quantifiable benefits, why are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spending their time attempting to dismantle a law that is already being implemented? Why do they spend their time trying to chip away at it piece by piece when they could be working on legislation that would benefit their constituents? Working to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) and not even bothering to come up with any sort of replacement seems dubious and makes no sense to me. But then again, I am just a poor, Polish lawyer from Detroit.

Not only are my Republican friends attempting to repeal IPAB, they have added it to their medical malpractice legislation, H.R. 5, which contains provisions that they have brought time and again to this floor, failing every time. Each time they resurrect the same language.

In doing so, they do not demonstrate genuine interest in legislating on behalf of the American people. The Republicans know the Senate will not vote for such a bill. Nor will I. I will not approve a bill that caps non-economic medical malpractice damages at $250,000. Apparently, this is the price the Republicans put on a lifetime of physical impairment, pain, suffering and even wrongful death.

I know our medical malpractice system needs improvement. If only my Republican friends would come to me with a third way, a new fair and workable way, to approach this problem. I would be more than happy to work with them on a bipartisan basis, which this Congress so desperately needs right now.

But, until that time, I am forced to vote against this piece of legislation. I will not approve of a bill that rehashes the same old medical malpractice language. I will not vote for a bill that attempts to wear down bits of the Affordable Care Act. If they had their way, the Republicans would repeal the entire ACA, and take away insurance from over 30 million Americans. Instead, we are busy granting insurance coverage to 17 million children with pre-existing conditions.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3606, the JOBS Act. This unfortunate amalgam of bad ideas is being sold to us as an easy way to create jobs and help small businesses. I fully support both causes, but passing H.R. 3606 is not the way to see them to fruition.

The JOBS Act takes as its premise the tired rhetoric that deregulation naturally will lead to business growth and job creation. The bill contains four others, H.R. 1070, H.R. 1965, H.R. 2930, and H.R. 2940, which the House passed in November of last year. I am the only Member of this body to have voted against all four, and my conviction in their potential to facilitate investor fraud and abuse remains strong. Simply put, increasing the amount of capital a company may raise and the number of shareholders it may have before registering with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), carving out registration requirements for crowdfunding in the Securities Act, and removing the long-standing prohibition on public solicitation in the sale of unregistered stock offerings will create more risk than reward. Mark my words: Investors will be swindled, and great sums of money will be lost, all because of the dubious assumption that deregulation stimulates economic growth.

As if this were not bad enough, H.R. 3606 goes one step further to allow all but the very largest new companies up to five years to raise money from the public without having to assess the adequacy of their own internal controls. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires this for good reason: to protect investors, promote higher-quality financial reporting, and thereby create lower costs of capital for companies.

We have just survived the greatest shock to the Nation's financial services sector since the Great Depression. Regulation subsequent to 1929 created decades of stability and prosperity. The gradual erosion of the laws and regulations put in place in the aftermath of the Great Depression ultimately caused the crash in 2008, which cost this country millions of jobs and wiped out trillions of dollars in our constituents' collective net worth. Now is not the time to deregulate.

If my colleagues wish to create jobs, I suggest we consider investing in improving our country's crumbling infrastructure, supporting research and development with grants and low-interest loans, and assuring our citizens have the education they need to compete in the future. Exposing American investors to all manner of fraud and rascality will create misery instead of jobs.

Vote down H.R. 3606.