Floor Statements

I rise today in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman of New York (Mr. Bishop) and, subsequently, to that of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), which also affects the uniform national standard of ballast water discharge.

This legislation creates a national standard that we desperately need. Currently, each State is able to create its own rules and regulations for ballast water discharge. The State of New York recently enacted extreme new ballast water requirements that are 100 times more stringent than international standards. After an extensive study, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources determined that the technology does not exist to meet this standard. If allowed to go into effect, these regulations would cost Indiana approximately 8,800 jobs while doing little to protect the Great Lakes from invasive species.

On September 7, Governor Daniels of Indiana joined Wisconsin Governor

Walker and Ohio Governor Kasich in submitting a letter to New York Governor Cuomo opposing New York's extreme new ballast requirements.

I urge all my colleagues to save maritime jobs not only in Indiana but across the Great Lakes and vote against these two amendments.

September 7, 2011.

Hon. Andrew Cuomo,

Governor of New York State, NYS State Office Building,

Albany, NY.

Dear Governor Cuomo: We are writing to share our concerns

regarding regulations adopted by the New York Department of

Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) that could seriously

impede maritime commerce in the Great Lakes States to the

west of New York.

In late 2008, NYDEC issued rules intended to prevent the

introduction of aquatic nuisance species into New York waters

via the ballast water of commercial vessels. While we share

NYDEC's concern regarding the impact of invasive species on

the ecology of the Great Lakes, we note that the

International Maritime Organization (IMO) has coordinated a

global treaty to require all ships to install environmental

technology by 2016 to clean ballast water to a specific water

quality standard. The IMO is the maritime arm of the United

Nations and it coordinates international shipping policy.

Many Great Lakes states have incorporated the IMO ballast

water treatment standard into their own rules. Likewise, the

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has embraced these same requirements

for new federal regulations to be issued later this year.

Under New York's regulations, shipowners must install

technology on existing vessels by August 1, 2013, to treat

ballast water to a level 100 times more stringent than the

IMO standard. Any vessels built after January 1, 2013, must

include technology to treat ballast water to a level 1,000

times more stringent than the IMO standard. These rules not

only apply to ships visiting New York ports, but also extend

to ships in passage through New York waters destined for the

ports of neighboring states and provinces. The rules apply to

ships whether or not they discharge ballast water.

Today, there is no technology approved by the USCG to meet

New York's regulatory requirements. In fact, the USCG has yet

to establish a ballast water treatment technology approval

process. Shipowners will not install ballast water treatment

systems unless USCG approved, because they are unable to

obtain insurance otherwise.

We also note that in February 2010, the Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) established ballast

water treatment regulations similar to the NYDEC; i.e., 100

times the IMO standard. Wisconsin's ballast water discharge

general permit required the WDNR to conduct a feasibility

determination of this standard, which it completed in

December 2010. After considerable analysis, and in

consultation with the Ballast Water Collaborative, a group of

leading environmental scientists, vendors, naval architects

and other experts in the U.S. and Canada, including New York

DEC staff, the WDNR concluded that treatment technologies do

not exist today to meet the 100 times IMO standard. The WDNR

ballast water general permit was subsequently modified to

require the IMO standards.

Ohio and Indiana employ the Vessel General Permit (VGP)

under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES)--which has gone through each state's 401 review

process and includes conditions that do not exceed IMO

standards to regulate ballast waters. Further, USEPA has a

Memorandum of Understanding with the US Coast Guard to, when

inspecting vessels, ensure they are complying with the VGP.

We know the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tasked its

Science Advisory Board (SAB) to address the question of

whether ballast water treatment technology exists now, or in

the foreseeable future, to meet a standard greater than IMO.

In the SAB's recently issued final report, it emphatically

stated that no such technology exists.

The State of New York is now the only jurisdiction in the

Great Lakes that still regulates ballast water treatment

technology more stringently than the IMO standard, and New

York's standards are technologically impossible to meet.

Unless the NYDEC regulations are amended, they will possibly

force the closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway, and imperil

thousands of maritime-related jobs in the Great Lakes States

and Canada. Fortunately, the final USCG ballast water

regulations will be published in the next few months. We have

always supported a strong, consistent--standard that covers

all U.S. waters.

NYDEC regulations are already having an effect on maritime

commerce in the Great Lakes as shippers, ports, industry and

labor unions look to establish long-term business agreements

and plan future investments. Preventing the spread of

invasive species continues to be a top priority for all of

us, but waterborne shipping is critical to our economies, and

we must work together toward controlling invasive species

while also protecting the commerce of our nation's waterways.

We urge New York to take prompt action and amend its ballast

water regulations to align with the IMO and USCG standards.

Sincerely,

Gov. Scott Walker,

Wisconsin.

Gov. Mitch Daniels,

Indiana.

Gov. John Kasich,

Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill.

I guess yesterday there was some confusion at the White House about the Republican plan for job creation, and I would like to just point out that in early June we released that, and it can be found on jobs.gop.gov if the President is interested.

The Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act stops the administration from another attempt to enforce unachievable standards that don't provide the health or environmental benefits that are claimed. And in exchange for no benefits, we're going to give up more jobs in States and industries than cannot afford more setbacks. In my State of Indiana, 95 percent of our electrical energy depends on coal. It would be devastating.

An independent study released earlier this year found that as many as 316,000 jobs will be taken away if this rule is enacted by the EPA. At a time when the President is touring the country promoting his jobs bill, I think it's hypocritical of his own EPA to promulgate a rule like the coal ash rule that's been shown by outside organizations to kill jobs.

So this is my question: Why is the EPA focusing on regulating coal ash when they, themselves, say the materials do not--I repeat, do not-- exhibit any of the four characteristics of hazardous waste? Their own extensive studies reported to Congress show that coal ash does not exhibit corrosivity, reactivity, ignitability, or toxicity. Why then are we forcing through a regulation that goes against EPA's own findings?

The reason is because of an ideological, anti-coal agenda from the administration. That's why.

But the concern on most Americans' minds is job creation, and this here is

a jobs bill. To let the EPA regulate coal ash rather than leaving it to the States' hands would only create jobs at the EPA. We need more jobs in Indiana's Eighth Congressional District. For that reason, I support the rule and I support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor U.S. Navy Captain Charles LaSota.

Captain LaSota took command at Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center in 2008 and today is his retirement ceremony.

I would like to congratulate Captain LaSota for a distinguished career. His many achievements in academics and the Navy have made him an officer that all sailors and citizens should emulate. His dedication to our nation has spanned many decades and many posts and for that I would like to thank Captain LaSota.

At Crane, Captain LaSota not only added more than 800 personnel during his command, but he also made sure to give back to the community that supports the base through organizations such as the Boy Scouts, American Red Cross, Ride to Recovery, and the Crane Learning and Employment Center for Veteran's with Disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor U.S. Army Private First Class Brett Everett Wood. PFC Wood, a 19-year-old of Spencer, Indiana, lost his life in combat on September 9 in Kandahar, Afghanistan, during an insurgent attack on his unit with an improvised explosive device.

PFC Wood was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 5th Infantry Regiment of the 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Wainwright, Alaska.

Indiana lost a great citizen who enlisted with his brother, Nikk, during the summer of 2010. His sacrifice and valor in defense of the freedoms we hold dear should be commended, and I would like to offer my most heartfelt condolences to PFC Wood's family and friends. From a grateful Nation, he will be missed but not forgotten.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the legislation before the House--H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act. Coal mining is a lifeblood industry in southwest Indiana and throughout the Midwest. We have abundant reserves of the natural resource throughout my state and the citizens of my district depend heavily on coal mining and the burning of coal for electricity. In fact, 98 percent of Indiana's power generation comes from coal.

The Environmental Protection Agency has gone to great lengths to disrupt coal production in the United States--in many cases haphazardly and without recognition of the economic and social benefits derived from coal mining and the electricity it generates.

The further hampering of our country's ability to mine and utilize coal will have drastic effects on the economy--hitting hardest those areas, like my district, that depend on coal for jobs and paychecks.

That said, there are utilities in this country that have completed or are making currently the strategic investments necessary to comply with the EPA rules this bill seeks to delay. These investments have been made at significant cost to the utility customers, who are paying higher rates as a result.

As this legislative initiative moves from House passage to Senate consideration--and negotiation between the two bodies--it is imperative we find a workable solution that both protects the investments these utilities have made and are making while maintaining the underlying intent of the bill before us.

For this reason, I plan to work toward such a solution because not doing so would leave those utilities at a significant competitive disadvantage in the marketplace--and frankly would be unfair to the customer. I am hopeful my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the SABIC Innovative Plastics facility in Mount Vernon, Indiana as recipient of the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable's MVP2 Project Award. SABIC Innovative Plastics is one of the largest producers of thermoplastics, glycols, methanol and fertilizers and this award is testament to its facilities dedication to pollution prevention.

The project garnering this award recovered and commercialized sodium nitrate. This initiative reduced water use by 19 million gallons and carbon dioxide generation by 10 million pounds for a combined savings of $4.45 million annually.

I am proud to have the global headquarters of SABIC in our district and their commitment to environmental sustainability should be commended. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Mt. Vernon SABIC Innovative Plastics facility for receipt of the MVP2 Project Award.

Thank you, Mr. Kline.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about jobs. The first thing I want to do is correct this ridiculous notion that this bill causes jobs to go overseas. I would argue it does just the opposite.

Just like Dr. Roe, I grew up in a union household. My father was a United Mine Worker, and that's why I am here today. I was elected to Congress to protect all workers, not just a select few.

Ninety-three percent of American workers are not in a union; 7 percent are, in the private sector. The National Labor Relations Board complaint is an attack on American job creators.

Again, I was elected to protect all workers, not just a select few.

The NLRB's decision to punish Boeing for creating 1,100 new jobs is just another example of the administration abusing its position to advance a biased agenda. I want to remind everyone no jobs were taken from Washington State.

This is a straightforward bill that prohibits the NLRB from ordering an employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstances. This bill will create an environment necessary for employers to develop their businesses in the State that offers the best opportunity--and, I would argue, in the best country that offers the best opportunity--to grow and create jobs and not have this left up to a board of unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and let's get America back to work.

Thank you, Chairman Kline.

Mr. Chairman, first let me thank Representative Hunter, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and others for their hard work and leadership on this legislation.

I rise today as a cosponsor of H.R. 2218, the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act. Where American education was once a world leader, over the past few decades we are losing our advantage. The Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act will facilitate the development and replication of high-performing charter schools that will help America regain its stature as a leader in educating its citizens.

Charter schools are created through a contract with local education providers that allow flexibility and innovation in educating our children while maintaining the same requirements and accountability of traditional public schools. Charter schools are able to

bring innovation and special programming into the curriculum that is uniquely tailored to the needs of their specific student population. This not only allows choice for parents whose children may be better suited for this kind of flexibility, but also can inspire progress in traditional schools by raising the bar and creating greater transparency.

By increasing funding opportunities for the replication of successful charter schools and facilities assistance, H.R. 2218 encourages States to invest in charter schools.

Further, H.R. 2218 supports the evaluation of the impact of charter schools on their students, faculty, parents, and communities to ensure that high-quality education is available for every child and parents can choose the correct venue for their child's education.

In my district in Evansville, Indiana, Signature School was ranked the top high school in the Midwest and the number three charter school in the country by The Washington Post. These rankings were based on data that indicate how well a school prepares its students for college based on Advanced Placement tests or International Baccalaureate completions. Signature School is an example of a high-performing charter school that this legislation aims to replicate.

Replicating schools like Signature School that have a proven history for effectively preparing our children for college is not only in the best interest of students and parents but also in the best interest of the economy. By increasing the number of students that are college ready, we build a more educated generation, more prepared to take on the complex jobs in health care, engineering, science and technology and others that future industries will demand.

With an unemployment rate near 9 percent, educating our students is critical. By increasing our students' access to high-quality charter schools, H.R. 2218 will prepare our children for the high-tech jobs of the future. This is essential if we are to maintain our competitiveness in a global economy.

Madam Speaker, here we are on the verge of a financial meltdown, and my friends on the other side of the aisle are worried about politics. They are here today worried about protecting the President from having to do his job: lead.

The Republicans in the House are leading. We have passed two bills that would end this crisis, and the Senate hasn't voted on them; they've tabled them.

We're here to lead. We need leadership and we are providing it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for America's financial future.

We are at a time when we need to make every effort to save our Nation's credit rating. The rating agencies have said that raising the debt ceiling is not enough. While I would have preferred the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan, the Budget Control Act vote today and the balanced budget amendment vote tomorrow is the best remaining approach to reduce spending and help avoid a downgrade.

We can institute real reforms today as a first step on a long path to fiscal stability. However, the bill isn't perfect. I wanted more, and frankly, all of our constituents deserve more. The reality is our friends on the other side of the aisle won't allow it.

With years of reckless spending by the Federal Government, instead of making tough choices to address our spending problems, the other side wants to raise taxes on the American people to continue funding Washington, D.C.'s spending spree. In addition, they want us to give the President a blank check to get him through the 2012 election. Well, that's not going to happen. The United States has always maintained a AAA credit rating, and the threat of inaction by our colleagues in the U.S. Senate and no plan offered by the administration puts that at risk.

The House has and will take action.

We need to send a clear message to the American people that we are willing to make the tough choices and work together on behalf of our Nation's citizens. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill and to take the first step to restoring fiscal responsibility to our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Terre Haute Police Officer Brent D. Long. Officer Long was killed in the line of duty on July 11, 2011, while assisting to serve a felony warrant.

A proud member of the Terre Haute, Indiana, Police Department for 6 years as a K-9 handler and a member of the department's SWAT team, Officer Long was 34 years old.

Terre Haute has lost one of its finest citizens, and the community will forever be indebted to Officer Long's service. His sacrifice and valor should be commended, and I would like to offer my most heartfelt condolences to Officer Long's family, friends, and to the Terre Haute Police Department, who have lost one of their own.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor U.S. Army Specialist James A. Waters. Specialist Waters, a 21-year-old native of Cloverdale, Indiana, lost his life in combat on July 1 in Kandahar, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered from an improvised explosive device during an insurgent attack.

Specialist Waters was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division in Fort Drum, New York. Indiana lost a great citizen, who was affectionately known as Jimmy. He planned to marry his high school sweetheart in December.

His sacrifice and valor should be commended, and I would like to offer my most heartfelt condolences to Specialist Waters' family and friends. From a grateful Nation, he will be missed but not forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about jobs.

Last week, during the district work period, I met with local business leaders, toured businesses throughout my district, and listened to their concerns. It should not come as a surprise to anyone the main topic of conversation was where are the jobs and what is the state of the economy.

Over and over, the small business leaders told me that government regulations and uncertainty are negatively affecting their ability to grow and create jobs. Businesses are afraid to invest in the future due to the uncertainty in our Tax Code, the increased costs and regulations stemming from the Affordable Care Act--which they can't afford--and the increased burdens of an out-of-control regulatory process that has stifled job creation.

Just yesterday, the National Federation of Independent Business released their report showing a decline in optimism for small businesses for a third consecutive month. It has been 28 months since the ill-conceived stimulus passed and a year since June 2010 was declared ``recovery summer'' by the administration; yet 1.9 million fewer Americans have jobs. This is why we need to get our fiscal house in order, cut spending, repeal the Affordable Care Act, and end onerous regulations.

The Republican majority gets the message, and everything we're doing is to create a climate where we can expand and create jobs in America.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor to H.R. 1380.

Thank you, Dr. Roe, for yielding.

I was a cardiothoracic surgeon just recently, last year, prior to coming to Congress. I helped patients and their families make informed decisions regarding the care they needed or the care their loved ones needed. I provided a professional opinion based on the facts and sometimes had to convey information and news to patients and their families that they didn't want to hear.

Mr. Speaker, I came here to tell the American people the truth that sometimes can be difficult to hear, but the American people deserve the truth about what's happening with health care in this country.

The majority of my patients were Medicare patients. We know that Medicare is one of the main drivers of our long-term systemic debt.

I want to reiterate that on May 13 the Medicare Board of Trustees released their annual report on the program's financial status. In it, the Medicare Trustees stated that the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will become insolvent in 2024. That's within 13 years, Mr. Speaker, 5 years sooner than last year was predicted.

And from a physician's standpoint, according to the American Medical Association, one in three primary care doctors is currently limiting Medicare patients in their practice, and one in eight physicians is forced to refuse Medicare patients altogether due to the cuts already that have been made in the Medicare program. And with the Medicare population estimated to double by 2030 to approximately 70 million Americans, imagine the access problems we're going to have then.

Today, the average couple that turns 65 has paid in over $100,000 to the Medicare program but is receiving over $300,000 in benefits. Mr. Speaker, this is not a sustainable model. Without significant reforms, beneficiaries in the future are going to be at risk for limited access to quality care they deserve and they count on, and ultimately face rationing of care, waiting lists, and dramatic cuts to current seniors based only on the cost, not based on what Dr. Roe has said, the quality of care or what type of care they need, but based on the money alone.

Anyone promoting the status quo is dooming Medicare to failure, and soon. It's coming up in 2024. Our plan doesn't affect any American over age 55. They have counted on these benefits. But what it does is preserves the program for future Americans. Again, the status quo is dooming Medicare to failure, and soon.

Congressional Democrats and the current administration have offered no plan to date except the Independent Payment Advisory Board that Dr. Roe and others have been talking about in the ObamaCare bill; again, I want to say again, 15 unelected Washington, D.C., bureaucrats making decisions about Medicare, making decisions about the future of health care for our seniors.

IPAB was thought to be maybe the silver bullet--if you listen to them tell the story--to control costs. But what IPAB really will do is will recommend cuts be made to the program--not savings, cuts, we're talking about here. CMS will then make those recommendations to Congress unless we get a two-thirds vote. They go in play. They start to happen. We have given up, as Dr. Roe said, our congressional authority to do something about the future of health care for our citizens.

This is a misguided approach that will, again, empower this group of unaccountable bureaucrats to determine the type of health care you may receive based on your age and your health. Health care decisions are best made when left up to the patient and their doctor.

You and your doctor and your family know what's best for you, not the government.

And I want to finish by saying, for me, personally, Mr. Speaker, this is about the future of health care for the American people. I fear for what the future may hold--access problems, waiting lists, rationing of care. Look at other countries that have socialized medicine. All of these things are occurring. This may be based on your age, based on your health. We don't know what they're going to be based on in the future. It could be based on other factors.

Do we really want this type of health care for the American citizens? I would answer ``no'' on behalf of my patients and on behalf of all Americans and, especially in the case of IPAB, on behalf of our American seniors.

I feel exactly the same way, Dr. Roe.

For me, again, I've never seen a Democrat or a Republican patient. I see a patient. In fact, in my practice as a heart surgeon, frequently, I didn't even know what type of health care coverage that patients had.

For a doctor, like you or me, for any health care professional, what matters is what's the right type of health care to provide for that patient regardless of ability to pay. And what we're looking at here is the potential where these bureaucrats may tell you, Dr. Roe, that you cannot treat this patient based on their decision about whether or not it's affordable for the American people. They're going to make decisions based on money, not based on what needs to be done.