Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the rule to consider my resolution to reform the sugar program. At the time we passed the farm bill this summer, opponents of sugar reform were telling us that the program didn't cost taxpayers a dime. Now, just a few months later, the program is costing taxpayers $250 million.

Sugar is the only commodity program in the farm bill that had no reform. Even as other commodities were modified to put more risk on farmers, sugar continues to get its sweet deal. Cotton, peanuts, dairy farmers will all see changes in the coming year, but not sugar farmers.

It is a sweet deal that is sour for consumers, for taxpayers, and for businesses across the country. For consumers, those who use sugar, high prices mean they are paying an additional $3.5 billion a year. For taxpayers, low sugar prices mean bailouts rising to hundreds of millions of dollars. For businesses, for those who use and consume sugar in the food industry, high sugar prices place them at a distinct disadvantage to foreign competition.

The Department of Commerce estimates that 127,000 jobs were lost in food industries between 1997 and 2011. There are 600,000 jobs across the country at risk.

My resolution does not repeal the sugar program. It is very modest reform, modest reform that would allow the Secretary of Agriculture to stabilize the price of sugar. Stabilizing the price isn't just good for consumers, it is good for farmers who can rely on a more constant price and not be subject to wild swings in the market.

With the truth about the sugar program even more clear now, it is time we had an honest debate about fairness in our agriculture programs. This does not require the import of a single additional pound of sugar. It gives the Secretary flexibility to meet domestic demand.

So I urge Members to support the resolution and support the rule.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 380, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 378) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding certain provisions of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642 relating to the Secretary of Agriculture's administration of tariff-rate quotas for raw and refined sugar, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of the resolution and call on the House to support reforming the sugar program in upcoming negotiations on the farm bill.

Just a few months ago, I offered a reform amendment to the farm bill that gained unprecedented support and which made modest, but essential, reforms to our government's sugar program. Today, we debate this resolution, one that is even more modest but just as critical to bringing stability and balance to our sugar market. As a matter of fact, my resolution is even more timely. Following our debate on this program, the government began shoveling out money to support sugar growers--$250 million worth in 4 months. We were told by the opposing side that it operated at no cost. We need to address this wasteful practice.

Mr. Speaker, every single one of us has a small food business in his district. Sugar is an essential ingredient even in many foods that aren't necessarily sweet. We all know how hard it is on small businesses right now. We know how critical these jobs are to our economy. Shouldn't we do everything we can to help them grow strong?

Today, millions of American families are on tight budgets. They watch their spending carefully, especially when it comes to buying food; and when they walk down the grocery aisle, they may not realize the costs that go into the products that they buy for themselves and their children. Very few of them know that they are paying significantly more for these products in order to ensure the profits of a small handful of sugar producers. They don't realize that, altogether, Americans are paying an additional $3.5 billion a year because of a government sugar program that makes little sense.

Tens of millions of Americans are looking for jobs. Many don't understand why there isn't more work available right now. What they don't know is that a nationwide industry is suffering because we have a sugar program that favors the few over the many. There are more than 600,000 jobs in sugar-using industries today. However, that industry has seen tough times. More than 127,000 jobs have been lost since the late 1990s. The Department of Commerce estimates that, for every one job the sugar program saves, three are lost in sugar-using industries. The sugar program is a bad deal for businesses, for consumers, for job seekers, and for taxpayers. When the House passed a farm bill this summer, every single commodity program was reformed except for one--the sugar program.

The sugar program is probably more in need of reform than any other commodity. The program controls prices to ensure that at all times sugar farmers and producers profit. When prices are high, as they were for 4 out of the last 5 years, producers do very well. When prices are low, the government buys sugar and makes sure that farmers and producers make their money back. This isn't a functioning sugar market. It is a nonstop bailout.

Meanwhile, the world price for sugar is typically much lower than here in the United States, and this is a big advantage for foreign competitors. In fact, Canada even advertises their access to the world sugar market as a reason for American companies to relocate or to build new facilities in their nation. Mexican food companies also have lower and more stable prices and the advantages of importing products to the U.S. under NAFTA. Simply put, we are handicapping our food industries at a time when they face intense competition. Good jobs are flowing out of the U.S. into other nations.

In the farm bill we sent over to the Senate, every single commodity program was reformed except for sugar. Dairy farmers, peanut growers, cotton growers, and many more will all see changes to their programs. The resolution on the House floor today proposes a modest change to the sugar program.

Currently, the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to manage imports of sugar for 6 months out of the year. The other 6 months of the year, he can do nothing even if prices spike unreasonably high. The Secretary basically has to make an educated guess about how much sugar should be imported. The way the statute is written, the Secretary must err on the side of the growers and producers. This means that, if the guess is wrong, Big Sugar benefits and consumers get fleeced.

It is time that we put an end to a policy that makes little sense--a policy that didn't even exist until the 2008 farm bill. This is a failed experiment that has hurt lots of people and has helped only a handful.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that this resolution is on the floor today. I believe that the House should make a strong statement--that our conferees should work to get good reform to the sugar program in this year's farm bill. I am also grateful for the bipartisan support for this measure. At a time when it seems like Democrats and Republicans can't agree on much, we have a very strong bipartisan group working across the aisle to stand up for consumers, for job seekers, for businesses, and for taxpayers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Danny Davis, the cochair of the Sugar Reform Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California, Jackie Speier.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), a leader in sugar reform.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), another leader in sugar reform in our Nation.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, again, this is reform. It is not a repeal of the sugar program. It is a very modest reform, simply going back to what the Secretary had before 2008 with the ability, the flexibility to allow sugar imports, when necessary, to meet domestic demand.

It allows sugar farmers to retain their price supports. It helps save American taxpayers and consumers money, about $3.5 billion per year. It helps protect hundreds of thousands of good American manufacturing jobs. It does not require the import of a single additional pound of sugar, and it reduces market manipulation.

Madam Speaker, I urge the Members on both sides of the aisle to support this resolution. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, last week before the shutdown, this House overwhelmingly passed legislation to provide for our military in case of a government shutdown. We voted to provide them not only pay, but benefits for themselves and their families. Now the President's lawyers at the Department of Defense are blocking death gratuities to the families of those who've made the ultimate sacrifice.

Families of soldiers killed in battle are being victimized by the Department of Defense. It's outrageous. Today, Congress will act again to make our wishes even more clear. The President is the Commander in Chief. He should not be using troops and their families as pawns in this political bickering. He should be doing everything he can to stand up for the men and women of our military. Instead, he is refusing to negotiate until he gets his way. He is violating the trust between himself as Commander in Chief and the troops and destroying their morale.

Divided government is hard, but it's what the people have given us. It requires negotiation and compromise. Let's provide for our troops and their families. Let's sit down and talk, and let's get the whole government reopened.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Food and Drug Safety Act.

Since the Senate will not negotiate with us about opening up the entire government, we will continue proposing commonsense bills to reopen critical functions as soon as possible.

This bill funds the FDA and ensures that it performs important duties, including inspections of food, medical devices, and pharmaceutical facilities. It makes sure that reviews of lifesaving new devices and drugs continue and that the government doesn't stand in the way of innovation.

We have the most dynamic and productive medical research firms in the world. American companies and universities are paving the way to incredible new cures. In fact, three American scientists were just honored with this year's Nobel Prize in medicine for their research into how our cells function. Americans can continue leading the world in this field, but we have to make sure that the FDA conducts reviews promptly.

Let's get the FDA back open and performing their important work. Patients, young and old, are counting on it.

Mr. Speaker, right now we have wounded warriors and veterans needing medical care, wondering whether they will receive all the care they're entitled to. These are men and women who have suffered for our Nation to keep us free and safe.

It is a shame that last night we could not agree to fully fund operations for Veterans Affairs. The House passed a full Veterans appropriations bill in June, with a vote of 421-4. That bill was never taken up in the Senate.

If we cannot have our conferees negotiate on a full bill to open back up the government, we will act to protect the must vulnerable.

Today, we will again consider this bill. I hope that the dozens of my Democratic colleagues who supported this sensible measure last night will continue to stand with us. We have to make sure that we are serving those who served us on the field of battle. Wounded warriors should not be used as pawns in this political bickering.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the House is considering today H.R. 3204, the Drug Quality and Security Act. This legislation would address two important issues affecting the quality and security of America's drug supply.

First, the bill would protect traditional pharmacies and clarify laws related to human drug compounding in response to last year's nationwide meningitis outbreak--one of the largest public health crises in recent memory.

Second, the bill would strengthen the prescription drug supply chain in order to protect American families against counterfeit drugs.

As we all remember, in the summer and fall of 2012, a Massachusetts company, the New England Compounding Center, the NECC, shipped over 17,000 vials of an injectable steroid solution from three contaminated lots to health care facilities across the country. After receiving injections of NECC's contaminated steroid, over 64 people died from complications associated with fungal meningitis, and 750 others were stricken with meningitis or other persistent fungal infections.

Title I of H.R. 3204 is based off of Representative Morgan Griffith's Compounding Clarity Act and is the culmination of a nearly yearlong House Energy and Commerce Committee investigation. It clarifies FDA's authority over the practice of compounding drugs, and it requires FDA to engage in dialogue with State regulators to prevent against another tragedy like NECC's while protecting the role of traditional pharmacies in compounding.

Title II, based on Representative Bob Latta's Safeguarding America's Pharmaceuticals Act, addresses the safety of the Nation's prescription drug supply chain, as drugs travel from the manufacturer to the pharmacy. It creates a uniform national standard for drug supply chain security to protect Americans against counterfeit drugs while eliminating needless levels of bureaucracy.

The Drug Quality and Security Act is the result of months of bipartisan, bicameral negotiation, and I would like to thank Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Waxman, Chairman Emeritus Dingell, Representatives Griffith, Latta, Pallone, DeGette, and Gene Green for their work on this important legislation, and also Senators Harkin and Alexander in the Senate.

Finally, I would like to thank the staff of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, especially Clay Alspach, Paul Edattel, Carly McWilliams, Heidi Stirrup, and Monica Volante.

This bill is supported by PhRMA, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, the National Community Pharmacists Association, the Healthcare Supply Chain Association, and the Pharmaceutical Distribution Security Alliance, among others.

I would urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense, bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, over 3 months ago, the House passed a Defense appropriations bill with overwhelming bipartisan support.

As we approach the end of the fiscal year, I want to remind Senate Democrats and the President that our fighting men and women are counting on us. The leadership in the Senate failed to even bring a Defense funding measure to the floor this year.

Now, should they fail to work with the House to fund the government, pay for our soldiers, sailors, and airmen could be delayed. Cutbacks could reduce their readiness and delay the procurement of tools they need to defend our Nation and themselves.

At a time when fighting continues in Afghanistan and we face serious threats from terrorists, at a time when the President is threatening force in Syria, we cannot let our guard down. We should not use our military and wounded warriors as pawns in political partisanship.

The Senate needs to act without delay to pass funding and keep the government from shutting down. The safety of brave Americans around the world is at risk if we fail.

I rise in support of H.R. 2775, and I commend the gentlelady, Congresswoman Black, and also Congresswoman Ellmers for their leadership on this issue.

Madam Speaker, earlier this year, we found out that the IRS flagged for further review 90 percent of Americans who claimed the adoption tax credit, and 70 percent of the adoptive families faced at least a partial audit. Only a minuscule percentage of the tax credits given to those families were disallowed. Many needy families saw their returns delayed for months. We also found out this year that hundreds of conservative nonprofits had their applications for tax-exempt status delayed for months and years by IRS agents.

Ask millions of small business owners who have spent hours laboring over tax returns--the government doesn't typically operate by the honor system, but when it comes to doling out billions of dollars in new ObamaCare subsidies, the government is just going to accept applications without question, on the honor system.

This is all in the interest of getting ObamaCare up and running as soon as possible without any regard to potential fraud, and it's after the old ``pay and chase'' model. We are entrusted with protecting taxpayer dollars, not watching them go out to people who don't need them. If the Treasury Department can't figure out how to prevent fraud, then subsidies shouldn't be going out the door. And if the tax subsidy is overpaid to the insurance companies for the tax credits for individuals, guess who pays back the overpayment? It's not the insurance companies. It comes out of the individual's pocket.

I'm sure I won't be the only person on the floor today to recall President Reagan's words of ``trust, but verify.'' The byword for ObamaCare is just simply ``trust.'' The Obama administration doesn't trust adoptive parents or conservative nonprofits or small businesses; but for the purpose of getting the President's signature legislation up and running, they are perfectly willing to see taxpayers get fleeced. This is simply wrong. We need to demand that the administration follow the law. ObamaCare was such a landmark piece of legislation. Why does it have to be ignored at every turn?

I urge Members to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, every week I hear from constituents who are being hurt by the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The law is imposing new costs on businesses and workers, reducing take-home pay, reducing the number of jobs available, and reducing the number of hours employees are working.

Survey after survey confirms that the anecdotes I hear from back home are true for Americans across the country. A survey of 300 accountants finds that employers are holding back on hiring workers and that some are even paring back their payrolls.

CNBC reports that doctors are skeptical and confused about the implementation of the law. Workers, doctors, and employers have every right to be confused since the Affordable Care Act is being implemented haphazardly and without regard to the law as it is written. Beneficiaries will sign up for subsidies without income verification.

We don't truly know what we'll get until October, but we can say with confidence that it won't be what the President promised years ago. Americans won't be saving $2,500 a year, many will lose the coverage they have, and others will have to switch to a new doctor.

Many promises have already been broken, and more disappointment is bound to happen.

Mr. Speaker, today, I come to the floor to recognize two young heroes from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

Last week, a young five-year-old girl was abducted from her front yard by a stranger, an older man who turned out to be a previously convicted sex offender.

The police and folks across the neighborhood quickly organized a search.

Temar Boggs and Chris Garcia set out on their bikes with other friends.

When the boys spotted a suspicious car wandering through their development, they checked it out and saw the young girl inside.

They relentlessly chased the driver on their bikes for 15 furious minutes.

Recognizing that the boys wouldn't give up, the man let her out of the car and drove away.

She immediately ran to the boys asking for her mother.

They safely brought her back home, and while they might not think of themselves as heroes, they certainly are.

Thanks to Temar and Chris, the girl is home and the suspect is now in custody.

Mr. Speaker, today, I come to the floor to recognize two young heroes from Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

Last week, a young 5-year-old girl, Jocelyn Rojas, was abducted from her front yard by a stranger, an older man, who turned out to be a previously convicted sex offender.

The police and folks across the neighborhood quickly organized a search. Temar Boggs and Chris Garcia set out on their bikes with other friends, and when the boys spotted a suspicious car wandering through their development, they checked it out and saw the young girl inside. They relentlessly chased the driver on their bikes for 15 furious minutes. In recognizing that the boys wouldn't give up, the man let Jocelyn out of the car and drove away. She immediately ran to the boys, asking for her mother, and they safely took her back home.

While they may not think of themselves as heroes, they certainly are. Thanks to Temar and Chris, Jocelyn is home, and the suspect is now in custody.

Mr. Speaker, I watched with great interest the recent events in Egypt where millions took to the street in support of real democracy, real freedom, and the actual upholding and protection of fundamental human rights. Sadly, those who promote and preach violence continue to assert the dominance of their ideology and rights to the exclusion and detriment of anyone who does not agree with them.

In light of these recent events, I would like to submit for the Record a short letter from the Board of Governors of the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt regarding Egypt and the desires of the Egyptian people.

The business community, the human rights and democracy activists, and even Egyptian government officials are asking for our support for democracy and freedom.

In light of these recent events, it is vital to note that due to the complete absence of an impeachment process and a working parliament, there was no established mechanism for a transition of power--the only course of action available and possible to the people was ``popular impeachment.''

It is critical that the Egyptian people know that we stand with them in this time of transition as they seek, once again, to draft a Constitution that protects and upholds the rights of all Egyptians and maintains international norms and standards, and as they seek to build and strengthen institutions and processes of democracy, transparency, and freedom.

I urge the Congress to respond to recent events in Egypt by supporting and working with those in the country who desire to protect and uphold fundamental human rights and to

build and strength democracy and freedom for all Egyptians.

American Chamber

of Commerce in Egypt,

July 7, 2013.

As Americans celebrated their Independence Day and reminded

the world of the values of democracy based on the principles

of inclusiveness, respect for the rights of minorities and

equality for all, millions of Egyptians went to the streets,

throughout the country, to demand their own democracy and the

right to a better life and a better Egypt.

The historic developments that began June 30 included

widespread demonstrations across Egypt's governorates

involving more than 25 million Egyptians. The protests vastly

exceeded the numbers that ignited the January 25th Revolution

in 2011, and is believed to have been the largest peaceful

demonstration in world history. This citizen-led ``coup for

democracy'' was a genuine reflection of the fact that the

peoples' desire for real democratic change remained

unfulfilled.

The popular demonstrations, according to many Egyptians,

stemmed from flagrant violations of democratic principles,

starting with then President Mohamed Morsi's constitutional

declaration in November 2012, in which he effectively

declared himself above the law. Egypt's first democratically-

elected president, whom we genuinely hoped would be a

president for all Egyptians, wantonly expanded his powers and

focused on implementing an ideological agenda rather than

addressing the serious economic crisis facing the country. He

deliberately blocked the creation of a constitution that

guaranteed checks and balances and provided equality for all.

The president's refusal to compromise and his gross

mismanagement of government affairs jeopardized the stability

of the region's most populous nation and directly affected

its crucial strategic role.

It is important to note that it was not economic failures

that precipitated the demonstrations of June 30, but rather,

the vast majority of demonstrators saw a blatant attempt by

the government to reshape Egypt's complex, multi-variant,

pluralistic culture by dismantling the judiciary, suppressing

the independent media, repressing freedom of speech and

dissent and refusing to recognize the rights of minorities

and women. The Egyptian people demanded these rights and

values following the January 25 revolution, but they were

dismissed and ignored by the government that came to power.

The American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt is the leading

business association in Egypt and the Middle East with over

1,800 members. For over 35 years, we have promoted business

relations between the United States and Egypt, during which

time we have built a strong network of business leaders,

Members of Congress and their staffs, executive branch

officials, and other decision and policy makers in Egypt and

the United States. Today, AmCham is communicating a message

to its network of friends and business partners.

All of AmCham's members share a commitment to a strong

U.S.-Egypt relationship at all levels and an Egyptian economy

based on a free market, opportunities for youth, job

creation, better education, entrepreneurship and active

participation in the global economy. At this critical

juncture, we believe that Egypt's relationship with the

United States is critical to the long-term success of Egypt's

revolutionary process and beyond. We therefore believe it is

imperative that the United States:

acknowledge that June 30 was a ``people's revolution'' and

nothing else;

support the transitional plan for new, free, transparent

multi-party elections;

provide leadership in the international community to

mobilize the economic assistance that Egypt requires in the

short-term to stabilize its economy;

initiate a sustained high-level economic dialogue with

Egypt designed to create the conditions for long term,

private-sector led growth;

encourage U.S. businesses to invest in Egypt.

A strong, stable, moderate and truly democratic Egypt is in

the best interest of both countries, and those interests

would be adversely affected if current U.S. policymakers

elect to disengage from Egypt and its people in their quest

for true democracy or reduce current levels of support for

the Egyptian military. Over the past two years, many of the

largest U.S. multinationals who are active members of AmCham

(including many Fortune 500 companies) have remained engaged

in and committed to Egypt. They are bullish on Egypt's future

and its future prospects. They are confident that the

Egyptian people will settle for nothing less than a real

democracy and an economy that offers opportunity for all.

In that spirit, and during this difficult period in Egypt's

history, AmCham appreciates the support you have offered

Egypt over many years and looks forward to stronger business

ties between Egypt and the United States that are based on

mutual respect and understanding. Most importantly, we

appreciate your continuous and invaluable support to Egypt

and the Egyptian people.

Sincerely,

Board of Governors,

The American Chamber

of Commerce in Egypt.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of delaying both the employer and individual mandates.

According to a new Gallup poll, 4 in 10 uninsured Americans don't even realize that they'll be subject to fines under the Affordable Care Act. They're about to find out that they're required to purchase insurance that is now even more expensive than it was in the past.

In California, one of the few States to release detailed data about the cost of ObamaCare coverage, individual market premiums will double for many residents.

Researchers compared the estimated cost of health insurance plans on the new exchanges with what is currently available on the individual market in the State, and astonishingly they found that current health plans cost significantly less than comparable plans that will be sold on the exchanges come October 1. In other words, some people will be paying more for the same thing because of the new complexity of federally supported exchanges. Now, some individuals will be eligible for subsidies, but many will get no help at all. In fact, they'll be paying more in order to support the subsidies. They will just have to watch their take-home pay get smaller.

The administration heard from business owners about the chaos being caused by the law. Some employers are laying off employees; some employers are shifting to part-time employees; some employers are deciding not to expand their businesses; and many employees can't get a job. Employees are losing their health insurance, losing benefits, losing income, trying to find another part-time job just to survive, and the administration panicked and is unlawfully delaying the employer mandate.

It's deeply unfair to subject individuals to a mandate that they can neither comprehend nor afford.

Today, we're fighting for fairness, but we will continue the fight to completely stop this train wreck before it finally wrecks family budgets, health care, and our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the peaceful reintegration of the young and aspiring Republic of Moldova. I also want to acknowledge my colleagues Reps. David Price, Rep. Eliot Engel, Rep. William Keating, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Rep. Mark Meadows, Rep. Diaz-Balart, Rep. Alcee Hastings, Rep. Patrick McHenry, who have agreed to associate themselves with this statement.

Most importantly, we support the recent conclusion of negotiations between the Republic of Moldova and the European Union on Moldova's Association Agreement, held in Luxembourg on July 25, 2013. We welcome the progress instituted by Prime Minister Julie Leanca and the Moldovan government in strengthening democratic institutions and the rule of law, as well as in preparing for economic and political association with the European Union.

As the goals and promotion of values of the Eastern Partnership are of utmost importance to U.S. strategic policy, we encourage Moldova to remain united in its continued focus on the domestic reforms integral to eventual European Union accession. We hope that the forthcoming EU Summit in Vilnius in November will result in an opportunity to reaffirm Moldova's EU aspirations, and call on the U.S. State Department to assist in every aspect of this challenging transition. Doing so affirms the United States' commitment to our allies in this region.

While encouraged by Moldova's increasing harmonization with EU norms and standards--as evidenced by its recent agreement on the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement as part of the European Union's Association Agreement--Moldova is being forced to fight for its own internationally recognized sovereign, independent and territorial integrity.

We are concerned with the unilateral set of actions undertaken by the self-proclaimed leaders of the breakaway region of Transnistria, who recently launched provocative actions by adopting the so-called ``legal act on the border.'' These unilateral actions violate Moldova's sovereignty, as the leadership of Transnistria has claimed territories that are fully in the control of the Republic of Moldova. We are also concerned by recent entreaties by the leadership in Transnistria-- entreaties that threaten Moldova's territorial integrity and European Union accession prospects. These actions undermine the July 1992 ceasefire as well as the ``5+2'' conflict settlement process. We call on the U.S. State Department to secure a fair and democratic settlement process while maintaining Moldova's independence and sovereignty.

Today, we stand in support of the Moldovan Parliament's Declaration on the Current Situation of the Transnistrean Conflict Settlement Process, adopted consensually on June 21, 2013, and urge leaders of the self-proclaimed Transnistria, as well as all parties involved in 5+2 negotiation process, to conclude negotiations on the legal status of the Transnistrian region and its rightful role in the Republic of Moldova. Only a legal status agreed upon through the 5+2 framework will prevent further escalation of conflict. At the same time, we firmly recognize the need to finalize the withdrawal of Russian troops and munitions from the region, according to its internationally recognized obligations assumed at the 1999 summit of the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe.

We call on the United States and the international community to take all the diplomatic steps possible to prevent further escalation of conflict, protect Moldova's European Union accession aspirations, resume talks on the political status of Transnistria and ensure the reintegration of a sovereign and independent Moldova.

Mr. Speaker, the true cost of the Affordable Care Act is being revealed day by day. We knew from the beginning that the law was double counting more than $716 billion in cuts to Medicare to pay for the new entitlements. Another $115 billion in implementation costs were left off the books. Then we saw the $70 billion in projected revenues evaporate as the long-term care insurance plan was proven to be unsustainable and abandoned.

Now the President is telling us he needs more than double the anticipated amount to pay out the law's subsidies. Could this be because the administration will use the honor system to determine eligibility for subsidies, with no verification procedures in passing out subsidies?

Maybe we should use the honor system more often. We could trust that everyone paid their taxes. That would save us all money we spend on IRS agents.

We could trust that industries aren't polluting. That would save a lot of money we spend on the EPA.

Reagan used to say, ``Trust, but verify.'' The byword for this administration is ``Trust, and hope you aren't being defrauded.''