Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a pair of southeast Texans who have honored us every weekday morning for more than a quarter century. Up until July 1st of this year, part of starting your morning in the Houston area was tuning into News Radio 740 KTRH for the news from JP Pritchard and Lana Hughes.

Whether it was announcing breaking news from Texas, Washington, DC or across the globe, Houston's anchors--and Houston depended on them. Through devastating Hurricanes like Alicia, Rita and Ike and the most destructive Tropical Storm in U.S. history, Tropical Storm Allison, these dedicated anchors were the calming, assuring voices that kept Texans informed through good economic times and bad. Along the way, these Texas Radio Hall of Fame members became the most honored radio news team anyone can remember with dozens of national, state and local awards.

Native Texan Lana Hughes is a graduate of Conroe High School in the 8th Congressional District and Baylor University. She joined KTRH from the Conroe Courier and KIKR Radio. She is a walking encyclopedia of modern southeast Texas history, especially the accomplishments of the men and women of NASA. Many animals in Houston also have Auntie Lana thank for their loving homes.

A graduate of Drake University, JP Pritchard wasn't born in Texas, but he got there as fast as he could. He and his wife Esther, raised three sons in Texas and are now enjoying being grandparents. From reporter/anchor and news director of KULF Radio to KTRH, JP has a lot to be proud of including his awarding-winning documentary on the History of Houston.

I have had the pleasure of getting to know these consummate professionals and just how hard they worked to keep Houston informed every day. It is hard not to be in awe of all they accomplished while making it look so effortless. Synonymous with Houston for more than a quarter century, JP and Lana were inducted together into the Texas Radio Hall of Fame together. As they move on to new adventures, Houston owes them a debt of gratitude for being an amazing resource for so many for so long. I just wanted to say ``Thank you'' to Houston's anchors.

Mr. Speaker, it's important we know, as we try to change this government, that we're actually making changes in the direction it's going.

Without the Budget Control Act, our government will be over 23 percent of the size of our economy by the end of this decade. The Budget Control Act changes that. By the end of the decade, it will be about 21.5 percent of the size of our economy. It is comparable, coming close to the shrinkage of the economy under President Reagan in his 8 years in the White House.

The truth of the matter is this doesn't go far enough for conservatives. You can't cut far enough or soon enough for Members of Congress like myself because we just believe this country is so deep, so dangerously deep in debt.

But with this vote today, tonight we cut out the same amount of spending the President put in this government in that ill-fated failed stimulus bill. And later this year, we get a chance to vote another cut in this government equivalent to the size of ObamaCare. So we start with two strong cuts reversing and shrinking the size of government.

In this bill, we achieve two-thirds of the discretionary cuts included in the Ryan Budget, in the Path to Prosperity that the Republican House Members believe in. Now, a few months ago, if someone said the Senate passed a budget and they've agreed to two-thirds of your cuts in discretionary spending, we would have celebrated. We're not celebrating today because we know there's so much more work to be done.

But we know also that this cuts spending today. It puts controls on future Congresses in the way they spend. That's important. And it holds Congress and the White House both accountable for getting the size of this government back in control without increasing taxes on families like you, on our job creators back home along Main Street, and it does so today.

I support this bill as a first step, anxious to get to more spending and savings and getting this wasteful, bloated government down to size. And I know, too, any vote, my principle is tax cuts and spending cuts. If I can change the direction of this country with bigger spending cuts, my vote will be a ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of Mr. A.J. Leger, a dedicated community volunteer, a veteran of the Marine Corp, and a shining example of a successful entrepreneur here in America. Growing up in Lafayette, Louisiana, Mr. Leger had a jump start on his career in the restaurant business back in 1952 at the ripe age of 12 years old working as a busboy at Don's Seafood and Steakhouse in his hometown. Who would have thought nearly 16 years later he would own his own restaurant employing his own busboys. His is a story familiar to all of us, as this is the story of America and the opportunities afforded to its citizens.

Soon after his graduation, Mr. Leger married his high school sweetheart, Patricia, before spending 6 years in the Marine Corps. After being honorably discharged, Mr. Leger picked up where he left off on his restaurant career becoming kitchen manager at Don's Seafood in both Baton Rouge and Shreveport locations. In 1968, Mr. Leger decided to cross the Sabine River, and open up with his two business partners one of the longest running and most successful restaurants in Beaumont, Texas, Don's Seafood located right off Interstate 10.

Mr. Leger served for over 40 years as an active member of the Sabine Area Restaurant Association, was awarded Outstanding Restaurateur Sabine Area Chapter by the Texas

Restaurant Association and in 1997 the association selected him for their highest honor by induction to the TRA's Hall of Fame.

In his free time, Mr. Leger could be found cooking for local fundraisers and charitable organizations such as the Young Mens Business League, Greater Beaumont Chamber of Commerce, City of Beaumont, Texas Fire Museum, Boys Haven, and at the Texas State Capitol. Best known for his gumbo, Mr. Leger once said he had ``cooked enough gumbo to float a battleship, over 12,000 lobsters, and millions of pounds of crawfish''.

On Tuesday, May 31, 2011, Mr. Leger went to be with our Lord but he will always be remembered and highly thought of by the many lives he touched and the countless hours he devoted giving back to the community he called home. Mr. Leger leaves behind his high school sweetheart, Patricia, to whom he was married for 52 years and three loving daughters, Rhonda, Angie, and Jodie with families of their own, including five grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, stories like A.J. Leger's remind us of what truly makes America a great Nation. It is an honor to join with the Southeast Texas community in honoring the life of Mr. A.J. Leger.

Mr. Speaker, Chairman Camp, the bill, ladies and gentlemen, has come due.

Because Congress holds the purse strings, we just ran the numbers. Since World War II, Democrats in Congress have run up 90 percent of the debt that's held by the public. Ninety percent of the debt that we owe to foreign countries, to other corporations, to you and me have been run up by one side of the aisle. Wouldn't it be great if Democrats joined us in paying the bills that they ran up? But they won't.

Today, Republicans will take responsibility for their mess. We're going to make sure this country pays its bills, but we're going to make sure we start cutting up the credit cards, we change the financial behavior of this country, and that we actually give our kids and grandkids a future that they can count on, that they can afford, a country that's much stronger than the one we're facing today if we don't address this debt problem.

As a conservative, you can't cut soon enough or deep enough for me, but the Budget Control Act starts us on the right step. It cuts $2.7 trillion in two steps. We cut more than we allow to be borrowed, we make sure there are no tax increases on our children, on our small businesses, on your families. We make sure there is finally a real straight up-and-down vote on a constitutional amendment to finally balance Washington's budget. We get more than half of the spending cuts in the Republican budget proposed by our Budget Chairman Paul Ryan. More than half of those cuts are put in place because of this bill.

It doesn't solve the problems of America, but I'll tell you what: If you vote this bill down, all we've done is write a blank check to the President; we've given everyone a free ride in Washington until next election, and they will not be held accountable, no one in Congress, for getting our financial house in order.

This bill is the first step. It's the right step. It's where we need to move forward.

I thank Chairman Shuster for the time.

I might point out that our energy companies are making major profits overseas because that's where this White House has chased our jobs and our energy production.

Today we're saying ``yes'' to North American-made energy. The Keystone XL pipeline will increase our access to safe and secure energy supplies from our neighbors from the north. Not from the Middle East, not from unstable parts of the word.

When completed, the pipeline will build millions of barrels of oil into our Midwest and gulf coast refineries and thousands of jobs--good- paying American-made jobs--with them. Unemployment is high. Prices at the pump are high. We've seen the effects of delay of American-made energy. And if you haven't seen that delay, ask our gulf coast workers who've lost their jobs and been hurt because of the ``permitorium'' in the Gulf of Mexico.

We have part of the solution before us today. More North American- made energy, solutions for safe, affordable energy from a strong trading partner and ally, and a solution that supports good old American jobs.

I rise in opposition to this amendment. I respect very much the gentleman from Georgia's efforts on cutting and shrinking the size of government, but the Joint Economic Committee is already under the appropriations recommendation operating below the 2006 level. So it is doing more than its share of shrinking and running efficiently.

Unlike other committees, the Joint Economic Committee is created by law to be the counterpart for a Congress to weigh against the President's Council of Economic Advisers. It is bicameral. It is bipartisan. It provides information important to the size of government, the efficiency of government, and what can get our economy going. An example of the research is the 4 months, weekends, evenings, that was done going through every page and provision of the new 2,801- page health care law and identifying all of the new bureaucracies, agencies, and taxes that will be in between you and your doctor. That research could not be done otherwise. And I want to tell you, our Democrat friends will tell you that it provides the same type of analysis for their issues.

This is the type of information that Congress needs as we move forward on the critical issues of the economy. This committee has done its share of cuts, and I respectfully oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment might well be described as the ``Homeowner's Right to Know.''

The original bill, H.R. 1309, contains several very positive notification requirements to help ensure that our constituents are more aware of the National Flood Insurance Program, the flood mapping process, and how they can protect their property from the risk of flood. However, one critical area in which the underlying bill needs to require adequate notification is when a homeowner is being newly added into a revised or updated flood map.

My amendment would require the FEMA Administrator to provide a copy of a flood insurance risk map to property owners who are newly added to such a map along with information regarding the appeals process at the time the map is issued. The purpose is simple: One, bring more transparency to the flood mapping process; and, two, protect homeowners' rights by ensuring they have adequate notice their property is being added to the floodplain while ensuring that they have the information about the appeals process.

Too often, homeowners aren't even aware that FEMA is making changes to the flood maps in their communities until after a map is finalized and they receive a notice from their mortgage lender that they are now required to purchase flood insurance. Perhaps just as often, properties are not only unknowingly added to the floodplain, but they are added based on inconsistent or inaccurate data used by FEMA to create the maps. As a result, many homeowners are forced into buying flood insurance for the first time and mandated to do so when, in fact, their flood risk hasn't changed.

Constituents in my own district have experienced these issues firsthand. One county in my district has been going through the remapping process for the past couple of years. Last year, FEMA introduced a draft map that would have added literally thousands of homes into the floodplain. In one portion of the county, I would estimate that nearly 10 percent of the total number of homes would be added by FEMA's draft map, yet few people were even aware. I know they weren't aware because I had conversations with insurance agents who write flood policies in the community, and they weren't aware. I have had major developers who are building in that area talk to me about other related issues but didn't know about the new draft map. To make matters worse, we believe the map was technically inaccurate. FEMA was using incongruent data. As a result, new floodplains were proposed when, in fact, flood risk could not increase.

In a second community, the outcry was so great that FEMA had to come back for a public town hall meeting to discuss the mapping process after the map went into effect. Local residents started getting notifications from their lenders that they needed to purchase flood insurance, and they simply didn't know why. My office received calls from residents in one portion of that community where the homes have been confirmed as nearly 8 feet above the highest recorded level of flooding in that area ever, but they were now in the floodplain. No one had bothered to tell them.

My amendment would ensure that in all these scenarios the homeowner would simply be notified that their home was potentially being added to a floodplain and tell them about their right to appeal. Homeowners deserve to be informed when the government is making decisions that impact their property. This simple amendment will ensure that they do.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Good morning, America. President Reagan once said the nine most terrifying words in the English language were: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

Recently, I met with job creators, small businesses and mid-size businesses in my east Texas district to talk about jobs, and I wish the President would have been with me to listen to the men and women who create jobs in my district, and they're like the men and women who create jobs across America. In meeting after meeting, job creators in my district made their voices heard loud and clear. They don't want another Washington jobs bill. They don't want government that taxes more, spends more, regulates more, and borrows more. They aren't looking to Washington for more incentives or tools to start hiring.

Want more jobs, they ask? Then get your finances in order and get Washington out of the way of our economic recovery. They want this Congress to cut now and cut deep, and when this Congress thinks it's cut enough wasteful and nonessential government spending, they want this Congress to cut more. In other words, they want their lawmakers to do what it takes to get our Nation back on sound footing.

In Willis, city council member Anna Ross asked, We're making the tough choices in our city budget. When will the Federal Government do the same?

At the Conroe Rotary Club, Angela Allen told me she wants Washington to pay down the debt, go after fraud in Medicare, and above all, get out of the way of our job creators.

In Orange, Texas, small businesspeople flat out rejected more borrowed stimulus. They insist Congress not raise the debt ceiling unless we begin cutting up Washington's credit cards.

And local hospital administrator Jarren Garrett said it as bluntly as can be: Control spending.

In Huntsville, Texas, I heard how concerned people over our huge job- killing Tax Code. Sandra Sherman not only wants us to stop the spending. She wants government out of so many areas of our lives from housing, and banking, and medicine, and energy, insurance, and other sectors.

E.V. Blissard sent a loud message that we should not give in to the big spenders. E.V. is right. We can't give up the fight for a fair tax or to save Medicare and Social Security for our young people.

I heard that same message in Livingston, Texas, and New Caney, Texas, where they said forcing fewer and fewer taxpayers to carry more and more of the Federal Government burden is a sure way to kill the golden goose of prosperity.

Fear and uncertainty of what's coming next from Washington, including higher taxes, higher health care costs, higher energy costs is keeping these employers from putting out that ``Help Wanted'' sign we're all looking for.

In every town hall, roundtable, and civic club in my district the four letter word on the lips of everyone's tongue was ``debt.'' Mr. President, in Texas the businesses that can help America pull out of its economic slump say it's time to cut up America's credit cards and end the spending spree in Washington. They will tell you if Washington doesn't back away from the cliff of more debt, more spending, more regulation, and more taxes, they fear we might cease to recognize our great Nation in the future.

Today, 2 years after that economic recovery supposedly started years after we spent $820 billion against our Republican objections, that stimulus, we have fewer Americans working today than when the stimulus began, one-half million fewer people working than when all that stimulus was supposed to jump-start the economy. Manufacturing is down, factory orders are down, consumer confidence is down. We were promised our unemployment rate right now would be 6\1/2\ percent. Well, it is almost 9 percent. We have the largest number of people out of work, unemployed. It's almost at historic levels. We have fewer people working today than almost a quarter of a century ago, fewer people in the workforce in almost a generation.

The stimulus failed. It is time for a new approach. It's time to listen to the job creators. What they really did like, by the way, was the Republican plan for America's job creators to get the Tax Code out of the way of our small business people, to get higher energy and health care costs out of the way of our job creators. They want to lower the barriers so America competes and finds new customers around the world, get those barriers out of the way, and they want a better business climate, more patent reform, more lawsuit reform, get those extra costs out of the way of our small businesses, and they want us to get our financial house in order.

Mr. President, get out of the White House, listen to our job creators. They don't want more government jobs bills. They want you and this Congress out of the way of what they know they want to do. And with that, we will bring jobs, bring the unemployment rate down, and bring us back to the strongest economy in the world, not just for a few years but for the entire century.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the world has changed. It's not enough to simply buy American anymore, we have to sell American. We have to sell our American agriculture products, our technology products and services all throughout the world. But oftentimes, when we compete, we find much of the world is tilted against us. Other countries cut agreements to make it tough for us to sell. That's why we are involved in the World Trade Organization, to insist that other countries play by the rules, but that means America has to play by the rules as well.

We lost this case in the WTO. So the question today isn't about cotton subsidies or even saving money; it's about the smart way to address this issue that protects American jobs.

Now I am very sympathetic to this amendment. Paying Brazil nearly $12 million a month is not the right way to resolve this issue, and I agree with that. In fact, America should simply live up to its WTO obligation and insist that others do the same as well.

The settlement that's in place today is necessary to prevent Brazil from imposing almost $1 billion of new tariffs, new taxes on American products when we try to sell them into Brazil. And it's not just agriculture products. As you heard Chairman Frank Lucas talk, he made the point that not only can Brazil penalize our ag products, they can tax and tariff a broad range of products, especially America's innovation economy. So in your State, if you have companies that produce pharmaceuticals, medical devices, business software, technology, anything in the innovation sector of America, your companies and your workers face the loss of jobs and the loss of product sales because of this issue.

So the smart way to handle this is to deal with this not only in the farm bill, but at the WTO today, insisting that as we end these cotton subsidies, other countries end their agricultural subsidies as well. That is the smart way to resolve this issue that doesn't hurt America and jobs, in fact protects our American intellectual property rights in Brazil and other countries.

This is an issue of doing it the smart way. I oppose this amendment. I urge our colleagues to continue to work together to resolve this issue in a smart way for our economy and a smart way for our jobs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to state that had I been present on June 13, 2011, for the vote series, I would have voted against the LaTourette and Sherman amendments and voted for the Amash amendment as well as the Veterans' Affairs Title. I was unable to be in Washington for the votes as I was attending the visitation service of a close family friend.

Mr. Speaker, Members, America is undergoing a terribly subpar recovery, one of the worst we've seen; three times worse of an economic recovery than under President Reagan, a worse recovery than even what President Obama promised us when he spent all those hundreds of billions of dollars of the stimulus money. We have 13 million Americans out of work. Our unemployment rate is sky high. And the only reason it's come down a little is that we have fewer people working in the workforce than we have had for a quarter of a century.

One of the strongest signals we can send to consumers and families and to businesses to restore their confidence is to make sure they understand America is going to get its financial house in order. Republicans in Congress are going to send a statement today that America will get its house in order. This vote today basically says we're not going to grant the President an unconditional increase in how much America can borrow. Here is a good reason why.

We took a look at who ran up the debt for America over the years. This chart shows we basically said, Who controls the purse strings? Congress. We took a look at all the debt that's been incurred since World War II, and what it shows is that the debt held by the public, that's by people, by countries like China, like firms in the Federal Reserve Board, 90 percent of the debt that's been run up since World War II has been accrued by Democrats, 10 percent by Republicans.

Now, that doesn't leave us, as Republicans, off the hook. As a matter of fact, we're committed to lowering this debt and getting control of spending. But there is a special obligation by our Democrat friends and the President to get this spending under control, to put discipline on the size of government, to restore some financial soundness, to, in effect, cut up the credit cards. That's what Republicans are committed to do. That's what Americans, poll after poll, say we need to do as a Nation. That's why a ``no'' vote on this unconditional debt increase is the right vote, not just for the country but for our future.

Our postman is retiring this weekend. Normally that wouldn't be national news, but this is no ordinary man. Russell Skinner has been serving our community and our neighborhood for more than 30 years. He's more than that; he's an entrepreneur. He has his own flooring company. You'll see him on evenings and weekends working to try to provide not just good service to his customers, but to take care of his family as well. He runs a Christian gospel singing group. You will see him in our local churches around the region bringing God's songs and music across our region.

Russell Skinner loves his country, he loves our soldiers, he loves his family, and he loves his God. And he is just part of the American dream, living it, working it, fighting it. Russell Skinner will be missed in our community. He is what's great about America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Dr. George Davison Tennison born on July 5, 1918.

Dr. George Tennison was known as ``Dr. George'' to everyone in Silsbee, Texas. Dr. George, a veteran of World War II served his country proudly as a U.S. Navy physician in the war. He served as part of the Navy Medical Corp on board a troop transport. He received an honorable discharge from the Navy in 1946. After leaving the Navy, he returned to Silsbee where he practiced medicine for 52 years. It is widely speculated that Dr. George delivered over 5,000 babies over his distinguished career.

Dr. George was a rare breed of rural physician who traveled country dirt roads in the evenings after office hours to provide care for patients who had no transportation into town.

In 1940, Dr. George married Elise Nelson of Zachary, Louisiana, and they had five children over 70 years of marriage.

Dr. George was long active in the community. He was a former school board President and member of the Kiwanis Club, bank board, and the hospital board.

Dr. George was known around Silsbee for his love of duck hunting. He loved hunting so much that he frequently got up at 3 A.M. to go out on the duck marshes before daylight. After a couple hours of hunting, he returned to his clinic for a full day of treating patients.

He was also known for his award winning roses. For as long as he was able, he grew hundreds of rose bushes in his yard and won many rose competitions.

Dr. George was instrumental in starting the first Episcopal Church in Hardin County, St. John's, where he served on the church vestry.

Dr. George is survived by his loving wife of 70 years, Elise Nelson Tennison.

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

Madam Speaker, on behalf of Dave Camp, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and me, I stand today in strong support of H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, a bill that restricts the use of taxpayer funds for abortion.

I will continue my statement, but at this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader of the U.S. House.

I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Simply put, this legislation is about making sure taxpayer funds aren't used to fund abortions. In the clearest and most general terms, we're codifying the longstanding bipartisan Hyde amendment which prevents taxpayer funds from being used for abortion-related costs.

I want to be clear about what the legislation does and does not do. This legislation does not, as critics claim, affect either the ability of an individual to pay for an abortion or abortion coverage through private funds or the ability of an entity to provide separate abortion coverage. It does not apply to abortions in the cases of rape, incest or life-threatening physical conditions of the mother. Nor does it apply to treatment of injury, infection or other health problems resulting from an abortion. And to be crystal clear, this legislation does not increase taxes.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to submit a letter from Americans for Tax Reform to that effect.

Americans for Tax Reform,

Washington, DC, March 16, 2011.

Hon. Pat Tiberi,

House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Richard Neal,

House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Tiberi and Ranking Member Neal: On behalf of

Americans for Tax Reform, I write today to clarify our

position on H.R. 3, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion

Act.'' As you know, the Congressional Budget Office on March

15, 2011 declared that H.R. 3 has ``negligible effects on tax

revenues.'' In budgetary parlance, that is synonymous with a

zero tax score. As a result, ATR has no problems or issues

with H.R. 3. The bill has no net tax change whatsoever, and

is therefore not legislation at all relating to the Taxpayer

Protection Pledge. Attempts to claim otherwise are not based

on reality, but on mere political gamesmanship of the lowest

order.

We look forward to continuing to work with you to make

certain that all tax legislation is (at worst) tax revenue-

neutral, as H.R. 3 already is.

Sincerely,

Grover Norquist.

This legislation makes specific and narrow changes to the Tax Code so if funds in an FSA or health savings account are used to pay for an abortion, those dollars will not receive tax-favored treatment; prevents the cost of an abortion from counting towards the deduction for unreimbursed medical expense; and clarifies tax subsidies made available in the 2010 health law for the purpose of insurance cannot be used for policies that cover abortion.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3 is pro-life, pro-family, and it is pro- taxpayer. It's a responsible step to ensuring a longstanding precedent Republicans and Democrats have supported for decades. And I urge all Members to support H.R. 3 so that no taxpayer funds are used for abortion.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), a nurse and a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall, No. 289, I inadvertently was detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''