Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, every dollar that Washington takes from small businesses is a dollar they don't have to invest in new equipment, expand operations, hire a new employee, or provide higher pay and better benefits. Particularly, in the Obama economy, businesses are already pinned down by uncertainty and need all the flexibility they can get to adapt and grow.

This legislation will strengthen our economy and spur greater investment by permanently giving small businesses organized as S corporations the ability to access capital without tax penalties. As noted at our committee hearing earlier this year, a permanent 5-year built-in gains period would provide greater flexibility in the day-to- day operations of S corporations that have built-in gain assets in order to make new investments and create jobs.

I urge support for H.R. 4453, the S Corporation Permanent Tax Relief Act, so we can create an America that works by fixing the Tax Code to provide permanent tax relief for small businesses.

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

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

In 2008, Congress passed legislation to suspend public-private competitions at the DOD through the OMB Circular A-76. That moratorium remains in place today. In 2009, the OMB issued a memorandum which regulated the move to insourcing at the DOD.

Today, nearly half of the Federal Government owns and operates thousands of activities that are commercial in nature. These functions are not inherent or unique to government; rather, they can be found in small and Main Street businesses across the Nation. Not only are these Federal agencies duplicating private business, but many engage in unfair government competition with the private sector.

My amendment seeks to place a moratorium on the insourcing of previously contracted activities within the DOD. Exceptions would be made, number one, if the activity were inherently governmental and, thereby, should never have been contracted out in the first place; or, number two, if the DOD would employ a reverse A-76 to itemize specific costs saved to the taxpayer, should the DOD be able to

perform the commercial activity more efficiently for the taxpayer.

According to the OMB, the act of conducting the A-76 competition alone can generate a savings of 10 to 40 percent on average. That is just the average savings generated from simply going through the process.

While the A-76 process is not perfect, it is the best opportunity we have for a cost comparison. As an accountant, I understand the importance of a cost comparison. This amendment is just the first step. Studies also show that utilizing the A-76 public-private cost comparisons can save up to $27 billion per year. Again, this is just by implementing the cost comparison tool.

In 2011, the Department of Defense completed a report in response to section 325 of the NDAA for fiscal year 2010, which concluded with two major recommendations to Congress, the first of which is to lift the suspension on A-76 competitions. This is the recommendation from the

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, opponents may argue that this is a burden to place on the DOD when they are seeking to insource, but I believe that ensuring taxpayer dollars are well spent and that taxpayers are getting the best value for their money is hardly a burden.

A formal, documented process which shows the cost savings will make sure that this is fair for the small businesses who depend on these contracts to thrive.

The American Legion approves of this proposed amendment. They stated:

The practice of converting functions and services that have

been performed by contractors with government employees

limits the amount of contracts that can go to the private

sector to stimulate and grow the veteran small business

industrial base. When the government takes a couple of

positions away from a small business, they are essentially

crippling the small business' ability to succeed in the

private sector. These practices primarily affect small

businesses, as large contractors are rarely affected by

insourcing policy because of their size and number of

employees.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is also supported by the TRSA, MAPPS, the Business Coalition for Fair Competition, and the American Conservative Union.

Mr. Chairman, I will submit their statements in support for the Record.

Submitted for the Record in Support of Jenkins Amendment #135

Textile Rental Services Association (TRSA): In its 1996

examination of the issue, the Center for Naval Analyses

likewise found benefits of competing work. The visibility and

identification of alternate providers were beneficial aspects

of the process identified by the Center. As a bottom line,

the Center for Naval Analyses determined a 30% average

savings resulted from this beneficial focus on competition,

with savings persisting over time. A leaner, more efficient

government is a worthy goal, and Rep. Jenkins (KS) Amendment

#135 is a means to achieve this goal.

MAPPS: We have seen insourcing take place beyond

`inherently governmental' activities such as commercial

activities like mapping and geospatial activities. The

Jenkins Amendment is the fairest approach by helping defend

business opportunities for the private sector, including

small business.

Business Coalition for Fair Competition (BCFC): The Jenkins

Amendment is the `yellow pages test' personified. This

amendment 1) prevents the outright conversion of ``commercial

activities'' from private sector firms into DOD performance;

2) requires an official cost accounting be performed and

documented to identify whether DOD performance is more cost

effective than the private sector contractor; and 3) helps

protect private sector firms, including small business, from

losing contracts taken away unfairly by the Federal

government.

American Conservative Union (ACU): The Jenkins Amendment is

essential to stopping the government goliath from gobbling up

jobs that belong in the private sector. Rather than wringing

our hands over slow growth and the lack of good paying jobs,

we should start by protecting existing private sector jobs

from further `insourcing' by this Administration. This

amendment will help do that.

In closing, my amendment seeks to strike a balance. If the service is inherently governmental, it should be contracted out. If it is a commercial activity, the Federal Government owes it to the American taxpayer to get the best value, the most efficiency, and the best service available.

We owe this to our warfighters to ensure they are receiving the best possible services as they protect us. This cannot be assured without the use of a fair competitive processes. With a debt of more than $17 trillion, calls for reductions that will erode the end strength of our military and a stagnant private-sector job market, we must find ways to reduce spending and find efficiencies at DOD while boosting job creation in our communities.

This amendment is an opportunity to vote for small business, break up Federal monopolies, ensure more efficient services, empower the warfighter, and maintain funding for DOD.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I submit the following statements in support of Jenkins Amendment #15 to H.R. 4435.

National Veteran Small Business Coalition (NVSBC): ``The

National Veteran Small Business Coalition (NVSBC) has seen

the negative effect of Insourcing on veteran and service

disabled veteran small businesses over the last few years.

Veterans who have fought for this government should not have

to compete for business opportunities with the same

government who ordered them in harm's way.

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI): A leaner, more

efficient government is a worthy goal. Competitive sourcing

provides important, demonstrable benefits for our business

workforce, our economy, and our government's efficiency. The

Competitive Enterprise Institute supports Rep. Lynn Jenkins'

insourcing-and-outsourcing-related amendment to achieve that

goal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for H.R. 2672, the CFPB Rural Designation Petition and Correction Act.

One of the most troubling aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act was its creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is a new bureaucracy with broad powers that is unaccountable to Congress or the American people.

When I talk to financial institutions in Kansas, one of their main concerns with this agency is that the CFPB will fail to correctly classify rural banks and, possibly, leave them open to overzealous regulation as a result.

I am a proud cosponsor and supporter of this bill, which will allow these financial institutions a way to appeal the CFPB's decisionmaking process and ensure that rural lenders and their communities are not unintentional victims of poor decisionmaking by the CFPB.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Indiana, Congressman Young, for introducing this important legislation and Chairman Camp for making it a top priority.

We have heard from employees and employers alike about the negative consequences of the employer mandate penalty. More specifically, we have heard firsthand that defining a full-time employee as one who works no more than 30 hours per week hurts the ability of employers to hire workers and grow their businesses, and it hurts the efforts of low-wage workers trying to enter the middle class.

Even though the President has unilaterally delayed the employer mandate twice, employers are already reacting to the employer mandate by reducing their employee hours. I spoke with one business owner in my district this week who told me that although he will not reduce the hours of current employees, he has not hired a single employee for more than 30 hours of work per week in over a year. Additionally, he told me that the number of his employees working 40 hours per week has naturally declined by 25 percent and that he will continue to replace these full-time employees with part-time employees.

It is also concerning that the employer mandate penalty is disproportionately affecting Americans who can least afford it--women, young people, and low-wage earners. A study done by the Hoover Institution concluded that Americans most at risk of having their hours reduced are the 2.6 million Americans who currently work over 30 hours but have an income slightly above poverty level. Madam Speaker, 1.64 million of these folks are women and another 1.56 million are young people.

I am proud to support this legislation to restore certainty to our employers and opportunity to employees by defining a full-time workweek as 40 hours.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Society for Human Resource Management,

Alexandria, VA, April 2, 2014.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the Society for Human

Resource Management (SHRM) and our 275,000 members, I urge

you to support the ``Save American Workers Act'' (H.R. 2575)

when it is brought to the House floor for a vote tomorrow,

Thursday, April 3. Specifically, H.R. 2575 would amend the

Internal Revenue Code to modify the definition of a full-time

employee from 30 hours to 40 hours of service per week for

purposes of the employer mandate, which requires employers to

provide health care coverage for their employees under the

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

As you may know, SHRM is the world's largest HR membership

organization devoted to human resource management. SHRM

members implement critical workplace policies every day. To

that end, employers are encountering difficulties

implementing the new PPACA requirements. Specifically,

defining ``full-time'' as an employee working 30 hours a week

is inconsistent with standard employment practices and

benefits coverage requirements in the U.S. and conflicts with

other federal laws. Some employers have opted to eliminate

health care coverage for part-time employees, while others

have re-engineered their staffing models to reduce employee

work hours below the 30-hour threshold that triggers the

coverage requirements. According to a recent CBO report, the

U.S. economy will have the equivalent of 2.3 million fewer

full-time workers by 2021 as a result of the PPACA--nearly

three times previous estimates. The Save American Workers Act

restores a common understanding in America, spanning over

half a century, of what constitutes full-time work.

SHRM and its members believe that effective health care

reform should expand access to coverage, while not inhibiting

or altering employer business models. The PPACA's definition

of full-time as 30 hours of service per week severely

restricts an employer's flexibility to offer a benefits

package that best meets the needs of their employees.

I strongly urge you and your colleagues in the House of

Representatives to vote in favor of the Save American Workers

Act. If you have any additional questions about how amending

the definition of a full-time employee would impact workplace

operations please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Mike Aitken,

Vice President of Government Affairs.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), my friend and colleague on the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to our colleague from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), our honorable chair of the Republican Conference.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming, I just want to highlight that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a substitute teacher earning $11.07 an hour, if that substitute teacher's hours were cut back from 39 to 29 hours, she would lose $125 per week, or $6,484 per year, or nearly a 26 percent pay cut. These are the folks we are here fighting for.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a colleague on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), my colleague on the Committee of Ways and Means, control the remainder of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mars Chocolate North America on the grand opening of their state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in Topeka, Kansas.

This is the first Mars Chocolate factory built in the U.S. in 35 years. Mars has invested more than $270 million to build this facility, bringing hundreds of jobs to the Topeka area. They will be manufacturing Snickers as well as 39 million individual M&Ms per day.

I want to also congratulate the city of Topeka, Shawnee County, the chamber of commerce, and the State of Kansas for attracting world-class manufacturing to our State. Mars conducted an extensive search, reviewing 80 potential sites. Our talented workforce, access to key infrastructure, and positive business environment all made Topeka the best choice.

Thank you, Mars, for making Topeka your home in the heartland, and welcome to Kansas.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commend this Chamber for passing three pieces of legislation this week that will offer Americans relief from the President's health care law.

These bills, which passed with bipartisan support, reaffirm America's commitment to the ideals of religious freedom, volunteerism, and military service. Unfortunately, the President's health care law has put all three of these in jeopardy.

As written, the law would force Americans with a conscientious religious objection to buy health insurance and count volunteer firefighters, other emergency responders, Active military members, and our Nation's veterans toward the employer mandate tax thresholds.

I am a proud cosponsor of three of these bills because they all will ensure the Affordable Care Act does not discriminate against Americans on the basis of religion or sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 497, I call up the bill (H.R. 4118) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to delay the implementation of the penalty for failure to comply with the individual health insurance mandate, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 4118.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the illustrious chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, the enforcement of the individual mandate penalty tax is an important issue, an issue of basic fairness, and I look forward to debating this legislation on the House floor.

On February 10 of this year, the Department of the Treasury announced that it would delay enforcement of the employer mandate penalty tax for businesses with 51 to 100 employees until 2016. This delay in the President's health care law comes on the heels of a similar delay the administration announced last July, which exempted all large businesses from the employer mandate penalty until 2015.

Amidst all of these delays, it is easy to forget that the employer mandate, like the individual mandate, was required by the Affordable Care Act to be in effect right now. The President has now acted unilaterally on two separate occasions to give Big Business relief from this tax burden. However, he has not leveled the playing field for the millions of individuals and families who are forced to comply with the individual mandate tax.

Aside from the fact that it is fundamentally unfair to give businesses special treatment that is not extended to these individuals, American families have also been forced to deal with a botched rollout of healthcare.gov and a series of confusing administration delays of the law issued via blog post. This has led to confusion, frustration, and, ultimately, difficulty complying with the law.

Nowhere is this more evident than the fact that only 4 million Americans have enrolled in health coverage on the healthcare.gov Web site. This means that with less than a month to go in this initial open enrollment period, we are still 3 million enrollees short of the original CBO projection of 7 million enrollees--one that even the administration once touted as its goal. Enrollment is still 2 million enrollees short of CBO's new projection of 6 million enrollees.

These millions can be added to the tens of millions of other American individuals and families who will now likely be forced to pay the individual mandate penalty. In my State, Kansas, the latest census information estimates that 356,000 folks are uninsured. At the last count, only 22,000 of those individuals have enrolled on healthcare.gov.

Unlike businesses, the President has offered no relief for these individuals who do not or are unable to comply with the law's mandates. I believe that this is simply not fair and that the House must act to provide parity for these folks. That is why I have introduced this bill under consideration today.

H.R. 4118 would eliminate implementation of the individual mandate penalty by 1 year. This means that the individual mandate penalty would be zeroed out this year. It would rise to $95 or 1 percent of income in 2015, to $325 or 2 percent of income in 2016, and $695 or 2\1/2\ percent of income in 2017 and thereafter. I believe this is a simple concept, and considering the circumstances, I applaud this committee for taking up this legislation to provide fairness to all Americans under the President's health care law.

In closing, I would ask this: If the President can delay the employer mandate, where is the relief for everyone else? It is time to give relief to hardworking individuals and families and work toward a legislative solution to eliminate these tax penalties for everyone. Congress must pass this bill today and create simple fairness for all.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Kevin Brady, our chair of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci), our colleague and friend on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young), our friend and colleague on the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Eric Cantor, our current Republican House majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Steve Scalise, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

I see no other speakers, so I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this bill is about fairness and about providing relief to all hardworking Americans just as the administration keeps giving to businesses. It is about leveling the playing field for the millions of individuals and middle class families who are forced to comply with this health care law.

Just last week, a stunning poll found that only 6 percent of Americans claim ObamaCare is working and want it kept intact. Opposition to this law is at an all-time high, and even the President admitted that the launch of this law was fumbled. Add that to the millions of Americans who are losing their health insurance that they like, are losing access to the doctors they have always seen, are submitting their personal data to an unsecured system, are paying higher premiums they can't afford, and clearly, we have a law that is not working and is not fair to the American people.

The court of public opinion is a powerful thing. The House will listen, and it will continue to listen, and it will continue to provide relief and fairness to middle class families. I hope the Senate and the President will also do the right thing for the American people.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and seek time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Democrats are simply missing the point. The President is the one who has delayed the employer mandate, the President has said this law is not ready, and the President has declined to extend the same flexibility to individuals.

This is about basic fairness. It is only fair that hardworking taxpayers are given the same treatment as businesses.

Like so many other provisions of the law that have been delayed, repealed, or declared unworkable, this is just another example that, despite the administration's promises, ObamaCare is not working for the American people.

I reject this motion.

Please support H.R. 4118, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, investigations by the Ways and Means and Government Reform Committees have uncovered numerous examples of what appears to be a concerted effort by the IRS to target conservative groups and develop new regulations that could essentially silence conservative groups.

If allowed to take effect, these proposed regulations impact groups that have always been allowed to voice their positions on public policy. Notably, one group exempt from these proposed regulations--even though they do similar types of outreach--is labor.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is founded on the freedom of speech, and any effort to hinder grassroots advocacy by the IRS must be stopped. At the very least the IRS regulations should be put on hold until investigations into the agency's prior misconduct are complete.

I urge my colleagues to support the Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act, to ensure the administration does not use the IRS as a weapon to silence groups based on political beliefs.

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

(Ms. JENKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand before the House today in support of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. I supported this legislation last Congress because the message I have consistently received from my constituents is that they do not want their taxpayers dollars funding abortions. Period.

It is time to put this issue to rest once and for all. The majority of Americans, regardless of where they stand on the larger issue, do not want their taxpayer dollars paying for abortions, but for too long, we have had a patchwork of provisions when it comes to Federal funding, which has created potential loopholes and confusion. H.R. 7 solidifies the longstanding provisions of the Hyde amendment, which are especially needed when it comes to the Affordable Health Care Act.

Madam Speaker, I don't have time to stand here and list all of the problems with the President's health care law, but one of these problems can be fixed through the passage of this bipartisan bill, which simply states that taxpayer dollars will not pay for abortions.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume simply to note that, according to the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the bill would have negligible effects on tax revenues.

Similarly, the CBO estimates that any effects on direct spending would be negligible for each year and over the 10-year budget window.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the author of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Madam Speaker, I don't see any additional speakers, so we will be prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, we are not interested in raising taxes. This bill does not do that. We are simply ensuring that hardworking Americans who pay taxes and oppose abortion don't see their taxpayer dollars going to fund abortion.

We have had legislation similar to this bill in place for over three decades. This legislation is not a new idea. The majority of Americans have long held that taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for abortion practices that they do not believe in.

I would ask everyone to support passage of H.R. 7, Madam Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Health care is a personal issue, and many Kansans are worried about submitting their sensitive and private information into a system that can't protect them against the devastating consequences of security breaches and fraud.

Experts have repeatedly raised red flags about the security of the information people are submitting to the ObamaCare exchanges, and a former Social Security Administrator even described the Web site as a hacker's dream. Important questions about the Web site security remain unanswered, and Americans, especially those who have lost their plans due to the President's health care law, deserve some piece of mind that their information is safe from cyber thieves.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill that requires HHS to notify Americans within 2 business days if their personal information has been compromised. Much more is required of private sector companies whose products are not mandated by law. The least the administration can do is notify Americans if their information has been stolen or unlawfully accessed through the ObamaCare exchange.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on this critical issue. I will note that I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I grew up on a family farm in Holton, Kansas. However, as anyone from a tight-knit community knows, folks see it as a civic duty to pitch in where help is needed. This means that many folks choose to be volunteer firefighters. These volunteers give freely of their time and well-being to help ensure that, when disaster occurs, folks in the community are safe. I know this well because my daddy served as a Kansas State fire marshal for many years.

I have spent significant time on the House floor talking about the unintended consequences of passing the President's health care law, which allows the government to take control of the health care industry. This is another one of those unintended consequences. The President's health care law will penalize volunteer firefighters and EMTs by counting them as full-time employees and possibly subjecting their departments to the employer mandate tax.

Penalizing volunteer fire departments should not be the intent of the President's health care law, and the effects could be disastrous. In Kansas alone, there are 550 volunteer fire departments that are staffed by 13,000 volunteer firefighters. It would be a terrible mistake to jeopardize the status of these departments and the communities they serve by penalizing them under the Affordable Care Act. Given the commonsense nature of this legislation and the bipartisan support of it, I remain committed to ensuring that this gets fixed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my constituent and friend, Pam Trusdale, on the occasion of her 15th anniversary as Executive Director of the National Association of Trailer Manufacturers. From NATM's headquarters in my Congressional District in Topeka, Kansas, Pam leads advocacy, outreach and safety-promotion efforts on behalf of the light and medium duty trailer industry, one that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of American jobs and several billion dollars of positive economic output.

The great work NATM does on behalf of its members and the industry at large would certainly not be possible without Pam's 15 years of leadership and vision. When she joined the organization in 1998, it was a fledgling group of a handful of companies who joined together to better the industry's future. Since that time, membership has expanded dramatically and NATM's advocacy on behalf of its members in Washington, D.C. has, as well. Soon, NATM will move into a new headquarters building in Topeka in order to accommodate its growth in staff and continue serving its members.

Among the many initiatives in which Pam's leadership has been instrumental is the creation of NATM's Compliance Verification Program. Through the Program, NATM's technical staff visits members' manufacturing plants to ensure the proper procedures are in place to build trailers that are in accordance with federal safety regulations and best industry practices. Pam has guided the Program from its creation through a unanimous vote to make participation mandatory for membership in the Association. When consumers across the country see the NATM decal on a dealer's showroom floor, they know instantly they are purchasing a safety compliant trailer.

In addition to her efforts leading NATM, Pam has also been active in serving the Topeka community. She currently serves on the Board of Regents of Washburn University, her alma mater, and is active with the Kansas Society of Association Executives. She is also a member of the Stormont-Vail Foundation Advisory Board and past chairwoman of the Stormont-Vail Foundation Board of Trustees.

Congratulations, Pam, on this milestone. May you and NATM enjoy many more successful years.

Mr. Speaker, ``Stop talking; start doing.'' That is what Gabriella Miller, a passionate childhood cancer advocate asks of our Nation's leaders.

As an original cosponsor of the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act, I encourage my colleagues to honor her request and support this piece of legislation. The bill directs $126 million to fund a new pediatric research initiative at the National Institutes of Health. These dollars will fund research, clinical trials, and medical advancement aimed at discovering better treatments to help kids fight their battles against childhood diseases.

In my State, the University of Kansas Medical Center is making great strides in the fight against pediatric illnesses, including plans for a pediatric blood cancer program, research to prevent severe behavior disorders in children, and efforts to establish an institute for children's health and development.

Although Gabriella lost her battle to brain cancer in October, this bill supports programs that will find cures for brave kids like her.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Republican Conference, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, on November 20, during critical negotiations in Geneva about Tehran's nuclear program, Iran's supreme leader tweeted this disturbing statement: ``Israel is the sinister, unclean rabid dog of the region.'' That same day, he added, The United States and Israel are a ``threat to the world'' and ``enemies'' that ``should be resisted.''

This is the Iranian regime we are dealing with. They have ignored diplomatic efforts for years, and they cannot be trusted. An interim deal might seem like good news, but it does not make our Nation or our allies in the Middle East safer, especially when Iran claims the agreement is a victory over the great aggressor--the West.

This rhetoric leaves me skeptical that any progress has been made, and I encourage our leaders and international partners to take the necessary measures to halt Iran's nuclear program, not only for our own security, but that of our allies and democracies around the world.