Floor Statements

Thank you, Dr. Roe.

The Federal Government is out of control. It has become too big. It is spending too much. It is taxing too much. It is regulating too much. It is borrowing too much. And it is sticking its ugly nose into our business too much. It has to stop, and ObamaCare does every one of those things.

As a medical doctor, I understand firsthand the disastrous effects of ObamaCare and have been fighting from the very beginning to stop this terrible law.

Every day, I hear from my constituents in the 10th District of Georgia on how this law is hurting them. Premiums are increasing. Cancelation letters are flying all across the State of Georgia. Business owners are being forced to lay off employees, and patients are finding that they no longer can afford their health insurance altogether.

I will share with you a few examples. One Georgia businessman, who is the owner of several fast food restaurants, currently employs over 200 full-time workers. He recently told me that he is seriously considering letting them all go and hiring only part-time employees; this due to the burden of ObamaCare.

A resident of Henry County wrote to me that as an uninsured woman with preexisting conditions, she was looking forward to enrolling in ObamaCare. Then when she went to sign up, she found that a quarter of her income would have to be paid in premiums alone. Due to the high cost, she had no other choice but to remain uninsured.

One man from Monroe, Georgia, contacted me just last week to inform me that his insurance costs have increased by 800 percent, 800 percent due to ObamaCare.

A woman from Barrow County told me that her husband's insurance that he bought through AARP has already been canceled, and to get another policy with the same coverage would cost him $150 more a month than what he is paying now. This couple currently pays more in health insurance than what they pay for their mortgage. Increasing their payments by an extra $150 a month would be a tremendous, tremendous financial burden on them.

Sadly, this is just the beginning. It is expected that more than 400,000 Georgians will lose their current health insurance due to ObamaCare. Until we are able to stop this disastrous law, we will continue to hear more and more of these stories.

As a medical doctor, I know what is best for my patients. That is why I have introduced legislation, H.R. 2900, the Patient OPTION act. It would repeal ObamaCare in full and put patients in charge of their health care decisions, where they can buy health insurance at a cheaper price than what they are currently paying. My Patient OPTION Act was endorsed by FreedomWorks in the last Congress.

My bill will make health insurance cheaper for everyone--literally cheaper for everyone. Not like the President promised us. But he lied. It will provide access to good quality health care for all Americans, and it will save Medicare from going broke.

If Americans want full control of their coverage, health insurance at a lower cost, and the freedom to make their own decisions in health care, then the Patient OPTION Act is the only true solution.

It is clear that Georgians and Americans are hurting under ObamaCare. That is why I will not stop fighting to rip ObamaCare out by the roots and to replace it with reform that will actually lower costs, deliver care, and focus on the true needs of all American families.

Through the voice of ``we the people'' demanding the repeal of ObamaCare, we can work to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with legislation that serves the best interest of patients, not government. That solution is my Patient OPTION Act, H.R. 2900.

Mr. Speaker, America is at a crossroads. We have a decision to make. Do we continue down the path of more government, more spending, more taxes, and more borrowing; or do we stand up and fight for the ideals promoted by those who founded our Nation and drafted our Constitution?

Make no mistake about it, the current government shutdown and the looming debt crisis is the result of this administration and this Senate's refusal to respect and honor the will of the American people. We must stand up for our principles that lead to prosperity for all Americans. Less government, less spending, and the simple idea that delaying ObamaCare for 1 year is fair for all Americans and is worth fighting for.

I urge our House leadership and my colleagues to stand strong and to have what many of my Senate colleagues do not: the courage to oppose any deal that does not defund and delay ObamaCare for all Americans now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the rich heritage of Zion Missionary Baptist Church whose members are celebrating its 150th anniversary. In 1863, shortly after President Abraham Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation, thirty-six freedmen founded a church at the Pepperton Community in Jasper, Georgia. Since then, Zion Missionary Baptist Church has become a thriving fellowship, dedicated to ministry and service in the African-American community.

It is worth noting that before there were African-American mayors, governors, or even a president, Black churches, like Zion, thrived with leadership from African-American Sunday school teachers, deacons, and pastors. As with many churches, over the years the members of Zion were seen as community leaders, who helped mentor, educate, and counsel many in the Black community. Today, Zion serves not only as a place of worship, but as a people with a mission to serve as a source of encouragement, inspiration, and pride for members of the community for more than a century.

The 150 year history of Zion Missionary Baptist Church includes many pastors, challenges, and changes, but its unwavering commitment to being a place where the community gathers to help and support one another is to be commended. No matter the cause, event, or activity, God has used Zion to influence its community. Therefore, I close by asking you to support and pray for what God is doing at Zion Missionary Baptist Church. May it continue as a pillar of strength for the residents of Butts County for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, this government is out of control. It has become too big and too intrusive. It is spending too much. It is taxing too much. It is regulating too much. It is borrowing too much. And it's sticking its ugly nose into our business too much. This must stop.

ObamaCare does every one of those things. This law is as disastrous as a train running full throttle without an engineer, speeding toward a head-on collision and wrecking everything in its tracks.

I come before you today with a solution, my Patient Option Act, H.R. 2900. My Patient Option Act will revitalize American health care, not through government interference but by giving the American people full control over their health care decisions. It will make health care cheaper for everyone. It provides coverage for all Americans, and it will save Medicare from going broke.

My Patient Option Act repeals ObamaCare in its entirety and replaces it with some patient-centered, commonsense solutions. These solutions include 100 percent deductibility for health care expenses for everyone, including insurance; flexibility for individuals and businesses to join associations where there will be a smorgasbord of health care insurance options; expanding health savings accounts that patients will own and control; freedom for consumers to purchase health insurance across State lines; and tax incentives to reward physicians who provide free care to patients who cannot afford health insurance.

My Patient Option Act accomplishes all of this, and more, in just 77 pages.

That's a stark contrast to the over 2,700-page regulatory nightmare of ObamaCare. In fact, ObamaCare's regulations are 2 million words longer than the Bible. Any bill that much longer than the Bible has to be bad for America.

My Patient Option Act is the solution that Americans need and deserve. Unfortunately, the clock is ticking and time has almost run out.

A Georgia businessman recently told me that his insurance premiums for his employees have increased by 40 percent this year, compared to last, due to ObamaCare.

Another Georgia businessman, who is an owner of several fast-food restaurants and currently employs over 200 full-time workers, recently told me that he is seriously considering letting them all go and hiring only part-time employees.

And recently, even President Obama's Health and Human Services Department has admitted that you might not be able to keep your current doctor, even if you want to. If Congress does not act soon, we will be hearing more and more of these same stories.

I'm here to tell all Americans and all American families that it doesn't have to be this way.

Mr. Speaker, if Americans want true, patient-centered, health care reform, then they must contact their Congressman and Senators and urge them to pass my Patient Option Act.

Mr. Speaker, if Americans want lower costs, coverage for everyone, and government out of the way of the doctor-patient relationship, then they must contact their Representatives and urge them to pass my Patient Option Act.

If Americans want full control of their coverage and freedom to make their own decisions in health care, then the Patient Option Act is the only true solution.

We don't have much time; but through the voices of we, the people, the American people, we can work to repeal this disastrous law and replace it with legislation that serves the best interest of my patients and all patients, not government. That's my Patient Option Act.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase the appropriations for Amtrak's capital and debt service grants by $600 million and increase the spending reduction amount by the same amount. It would have the effect of entirely defunding this account.

Amtrak was created by Congress in 1970 to provide nationwide passenger rail service. It currently operates more than 40 routes across the United States. Unfortunately, the majority of these routes operate at a huge loss to taxpayers. The committee report for the underlying bill details just how big that loss is. In fiscal year 2011, Amtrak's long-distance routes ran a deficit of $554 million. By next year, that amount is projected to grow to $610 million in losses.

Mr. Chairman, the committee also takes note of Amtrak's troubled food and beverage service, which has lost a total of $313 million just over the last 3 years. This year alone, Amtrak is projected to lose nearly $75 million on its food and beverage service, reflecting just a return of only 64 percent on its expenses. Despite these losses, Amtrak pays the attendants who serve on board food and beverages between $24 and $27 per hour. The committee itself points out that this wage is more than 20 percent higher than that of flight attendants, and these employees' current labor agreement calls for another 3 percent increase each year for the next 2 years.

Mr. Chairman, this isn't the first time I've come to the floor to talk about Amtrak, and I can say with some confidence that this probably won't be the last.

We as a country are broke; yet we continue to offer hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars each year to a passenger rail line which refuses to make meaningful reforms. The waste here is rampant, and we just cannot afford it anywhere. Our Nation is broke. We've got to stop spending money we don't have. We have to live within our means.

I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I yield to the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, this amendment would remove the $55 million increase--and only the increase--from the Homeless Assistance Grant Program and transfer that same amount into the Spending Reduction account.

I understand that times are tough nationwide--that they are tough for families, that they are tough for businesses and that everyone has to cut back. We have to live within our means, but the fact remains that we are broke as a country. Our Federal Government is in massive, massive debt. According to the committee report, the $55 million increase proposed for this program would be used to increase funding for the Continuum of Care Projects and Emergency Solutions Grants.

Madam Chairman, these are worthy programs. They help a lot of people who are transitioning out of homelessness, but I'm not asking that we cut their funding. Not at all. I'm simply asking that we hold the line--fund what we have been funding and put the rest of this large increase towards fixing our Nation's debt crisis.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, this amendment would simply reduce the $19.7 million increase proposed for the rental housing assistance program under HUD by $5 million, putting this amount in the spending reduction account.

As before, this would not be a cut to this program. It wouldn't even bring funding back to the 2013 levels like many amendments that I've offered today would have done. Instead, it would allow for a $14.7 million increase to this program instead of the $19.7 million increase.

I'm not arguing the merits of this program, Madam Chairman; but as I've said before, and I'll say it again, this country is broke.

I commend the subcommittee and the chairman, my friend, Mr. Latham, for making some tough choices in this bill. He's done a great job in doing so, and I applaud his efforts. But if we want to solve our current fiscal crisis, we must continue to make very careful decisions. This is a small reduction, and it will just help in the process of getting our government to living within its means.

I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment would reduce funding in the bill for the Federal Maritime Commission's Salaries and Expenses by $100,000, and transfer that same amount to the Spending Reduction Account.

This amendment would have the effect of bringing the appropriations for this purpose back to the current levels, what we have right now. I offered a similar amendment to this bill last year, which would have eliminated a proposed $900,000 increase to this same account. Unfortunately, that amendment failed by a 172-249 vote, a pretty strong margin.

So this year, I bring you a request to hold the line, to eliminate this very small increase of $100,000, an amount which is less than many bureaucrats here in Washington take home as their yearly salary.

Perhaps more than any of my amendments that I've offered tonight, I hope that this one passes, Madam Chair, because if this amendment to strike a $100,000 increase to Federal employee salaries fails, it means that we are in serious, serious trouble when it comes to solving our spending problem.

I urge my colleagues to prove me wrong and to support my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I've got good news for my friends from Arizona and from Iowa. This is the last amendment that I plan to offer on this bill.

It would reduce the proposed funding for the Amtrak Office of Inspector General's Salaries and Expenses by $4,800,000 and transfer that same amount to the Spending Reduction Account.

Like many of the amendments that I've offered today, it would simply remove a proposed increase, returning the final amendment back to current spending levels.

The Amtrak IG's role is to root out waste, fraud and abuse within the corporation. As I detailed during consideration of my earlier amendment related to Amtrak, I am of the opinion that the IG still has a ways to go in this regard.

Yet, the committee report includes an interesting statement which appears to serve as a pat on the back for the OIG, and perhaps even as a justification for this large proposed increase.

The line simply says: ``The Committee appreciates that the Amtrak OIG submitted a separate budget request to the Committees on Appropriations and directs it to do so in Fiscal Year 2015.''

Now, to my read, this means that simply because the OIG did his job, it will receive nearly $5 million in extra Federal dollars for salaries and expenses. I think that's preposterous.

Madam Chairman, I talked a lot about Amtrak's failings earlier, and I'm not going to rehash the same arguments. I only ask that my colleagues support my amendment. Let's hold the spending to the current levels, and hold the line on wasteful spending. Let's live within our means, and let's roll back this increase.

I encourage acceptance of my amendment, and I recommended an ``aye'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on April 16, 2013, the House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittees on Oversight and Energy held a joint hearing titled, ``Assessing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Wind Energy Incentives.'' The attached document contains excerpts from an analysis that is part of the record for that hearing.

``A Comparative Analysis of the Development and Application of Marine

Navigation Safety and Marine Environmental Protection Criteria for Offshore Renewable Energy Installations, March 11, 2013'', By: John F.

McGowan, RADM USCG (ret), For: The McGOWAN Group, LLC.

Introduction

The following has been excerpted from an analysis performed

in March 2013 by The McGowan Group, LLC.

In recent years, the Department of the Interior's Bureau of

Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the U.S. Coast Guard

(USCG) has taken steps to establish a process and standards

for the leasing of areas for development of Offshore

Renewable Energy Installations (OREIs) on the U.S. Outer

Continental Shelf (OCS). In 2006, the USCG embarked on

setting standards to safeguard marine safety and marine

environmental protection for the siting and operation of

OREIs on the nation's waterways and oceans. In response to

special legislation enacted in 2006, the USCG was also

required to establish navigational safety terms and

conditions (T&C) specifically for Nantucket Sound due to the

proposal for the 130 turbine Cape Wind Associates (CWA) OREI.

This report provides a comparative analysis of the T&C for

Nantucket Sound under Section 414 of the Coast Guard Maritime

Transportation Act of 2006 (CGMTA) and the navigational

safety actions taken elsewhere or now under development by

USCG and BOEM. As this report concludes, the Nantucket Sound

standards provide significantly less protection for

navigation safety than the comparative measures established

or proposed for every other OREI location.

The site and the design (Nantucket Sound and Cape Wind)

Nantucket Sound is not only a heavily used body of water,

but one of the most dangerous places to navigate in the U.S.

In fact, the seaman's' handbook, The Coast Pilot, singles out

Nantucket Sound for special caution due to the frequent

occurrence of wind, fog, and high velocity currents.

Horseshoe Shoal, found near the center of Nantucket Sound,

is a well-known and marked hazard whose rocks are seldom

visible above the Sound's surface. Water depths in and around

the Shoal vary from 2 ft. to nearly 60 ft. The shoal is

bounded by the North Channel, which runs below Great Neck and

Hyannis, and the Main Channel, which runs from Vineyard Sound

from the west to the Atlantic Ocean to the east. The Main

Channel that the CWA facility would abut has a controlling

depth of thirty feet. The proposed project site is virtually

surrounded by general anchorages for vessels awaiting entry

into port, conducting repairs, or escaping or riding-out bad

weather or visibility that is common in Nantucket Sound.

Other than marked channels and charts, there are no Traffic

Separation Schemes (TSS), vessel traffic reporting or control

systems in place in the Sound. The port of Boston, Buzzards

Bay, the Cape Cod Canal, and Rhode Island Sound all have TSS

ship routes, or in the case of the Cape Cod Canal and

Buzzard's Bay, vessel reporting systems in place. These USCG

systems significantly mitigate navigational risk and play a

prominent role in the navigational risk assessment for other

areas being considered as potential sites for offshore wind

facilities on the Atlantic coast. The absence of TSS or other

vessel control measures makes navigational risk in the Sound

subject to comparatively greater risks.

While the Main Channel in Nantucket Sound can support

vessels with drafts up to 24 ft., including cruise liners, it

also serves as the main artery for ferries connecting the

Sound's islands and for an estimated 250 large oceangoing

fishing vessels. The proposed site for the CWA facility

borders these channels and routes extensively used year-round

by the ferry systems, some of which offer high-speed service

at 30 knots on all its sides.

The CWA proposal would place the WTGs directly adjacent to

these busy vessel routes, in some cases to be constructed

within 975 ft. to 1,200 ft. from the edge of the North and

Main channels, respectively. Without an additional buffer

from these routes, an allision with the nearest WTGs would

occur in a mere 60 seconds, at normal speeds, for a vessel or

boat that leaves the channel. A high speed ferry would have

20 seconds to detect, take action, and respond to avoid such

allisions. Collision risk with vessels traveling within or

adjacent to the project site also would be a problem due to

WTG interference with navigation and collision avoidance

radar.

Section 414 and the 2008 MMS FEIS

In 2005, Congress enacted Section 414 of the Coast Guard

Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (CGMTA). Section 414

requires the USCG to ``specify the reasonable terms and

conditions the Commandant determines necessary to provide for

navigational safety with respect to the proposed lease,

easement, or right-of-way and each alternative to the

proposed lease, easement or right-of-way considered by'' the

Secretary of the Interior for an offshore wind energy

facility in Nantucket Sound.

Section 414 makes it clear that the T&C are to protect the

navigational status quo, not to protect CWA or its design.

The USCG can fulfill this duty only by developing T&C that

ensure the project does not present navigational risks,

including the possible need to alter the project design

through the establishment of a buffer zone from existing

shipping and ferry routes, or to deny the lease application

at the proposed location. The burden to provide for

navigational safety belongs to CWA, not to mariners,

fishermen, or the public.

In late 2008, USCG altered its approach that would have

addressed navigation safety concerns by including changes to

the project, to instead adopt the position that the project

had to be accepted as it was proposed. As a result, all

burden for safety was placed on mariners and USCG did not

recommend a safety separation or buffer zone from the Sound's

established channels and shipping routes. Several lawsuits

are pending against the CWA project, including challenge of

the USCG T&C.

BOEM's EAs

BOEM began implementing DOI's ``Smart from the Start''

initiative in 2011 with USCG and other agencies to produce

environmental assessments (EAs) for offshore wind

development. The initiative called for the identification of

areas on the Atlantic OCS that were most suitable for

commercial wind energy and the availability of those areas

for leasing and site assessment. During 2011, BOEM published

Notices identifying those ocean areas and requested public

comment.

Significant public comment was received from maritime

interests in response to the BOEM Notices. Major changes were

made to the various Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) including

excluded areas. The EAs provide mitigation of marine

navigation risk by outright exclusion of areas that could

produce navigation or fishing conflict and by providing safe

separation/buffer zones between WEAs and vessel routes. The

following safety criteria are evident from the final

selection of lease blocks in these EAs:

The presence of Traffic Separation Schemes (TSS) or other

vessel routing/control measures facilitate the safe

designation of WEAs in ocean areas bearing volumes of marine

traffic and/or fishing activity.

Safety separation/buffer zones of 1 nm from TSSs and from

shipping routes should be applied in WEA identification as

well as in subsequent site selection.

Marine traffic routes and fishing areas should be

identified and their densities estimated and projected for

future growth and expansion in defining the limits of WEAs.

Blocks should be excluded which would conflict with the

safe operation and transit of shipping on recognized routes

and from vessels working in traditional fishing areas.

None of these criteria were applied to the siting, size and

shape of the CWA proposal for Nantucket Sound.

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

Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I believe in the Constitution as our Founding Fathers meant it to be: limited government, with enumerated powers of all branches of government, the Congress and every branch.

As a result, I don't believe there is a Federal role in education at all. These powers ought to belong to the States and to the people. Parents and teachers should direct the education of the children, not the Federal Government.

Since 1965, the Federal Government has spent a total of $2 trillion. Unfortunately, this big Federal role in education has resulted in mandate after mandate and regulation after regulation being forced upon school superintendents, principals, teachers, parents, and students with little measurable gain in quality of education.

The underlying bill reduces the burden which came out of No Child Left Behind. I call it No Teacher Left Unshackled. I don't believe that it goes far enough, but I can appreciate the movement away from total Federal control, slight though it may be.

That being said, the final say on many education issues will remain in the hands of what I like to call ``fat cat bureaucrats'' here in Washington, D.C., men and women within the Department of Education who pull in an average salary of over $101,000 a year despite the fact that many of them have never taught a child how to read. That is twice the average salary of teachers in my home State of Georgia.

Why is this a problem? I am sure that many of these bureaucrats are considered to be experts, so-called experts in the field of education, but they don't know the individual needs of each community, school, or student. The parents, teachers, and students who are subject to their requirements don't know much about them either.

My amendment would change all that. It would require the Secretary of Education to include in the reporting that is requested by the underlying bill the average salaries of employees whose positions are eliminated due to program consolidation, as well as the average salaries of the remaining employees in the Department according to their job function.

My amendment would simply bring needed transparency to the Department. Hopefully, it will begin the discussion about how scarce education dollars ought to be spent.

I urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment, an amendment of transparency, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate it.

The purpose of this is just transparency so that American citizens can know exactly what's going on.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you. I appreciate it.

The purpose is, as we consolidate programs, we have all of these employees in the Department of Education who are going to lose a lot of their function. As we do so, particularly with sequestration and with the scarce dollars in the Federal Government across the board, we need to know who is doing what and what they're being paid and what they're being paid for.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I inquire as to how much time I have left.

I yield 1 minute to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

Mr. Chairman, I was interested in my good friend from California's comments.

He just very openly displayed the difference in philosophies between my friends on the other side and of many of us on this side, and that's a difference of opinion. My friends on the other side seem to think that the Federal Government needs to direct and be involved in everything with regard to human endeavor, though, constitutionally, we don't have the authority to do that.

This is an amendment that just asks for transparency so that, hopefully, we, the people across this country, can see who is doing what within the Department of Education. It just opens up the opportunity so that, as we do consolidate the various programs within the Department, we can see what the bureaucrats within the Department are being paid and what they're doing for that amount of money that they're receiving out of the Federal Treasury. We all need to be held accountable, we all need to be held responsible, and this is just a means of just--not adding work.

The gentleman said it's a ``do nothing'' amendment. He should support it then if it's a ``do nothing'' amendment. I don't understand why he so objects to it, and I hope that he will change his mind and support it. I have tremendous respect for my friend. I consider him a good friend. He has been a great Member of Congress, and he has fought very hard for his philosophy. Our philosophies just seem to be a little bit different.

I encourage all Members to support this transparency amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Corporal Armando Torres, a 25-year-old marine and Iraq war vet, who finds himself in a desperate situation. More than 2 months ago, Corporal Torres was kidnapped, along with his father and uncle, from a Mexican ranch.

While the media's lack of attention has their kidnappers thinking we've just given up, my colleagues and my fellow marines in the House of Representatives have a different message: marines will not leave their brothers behind, and the U.S. should not either. We will not rest until we bring Corporal Torres home.

Now is the time to send a message to Torres' kidnappers that their actions against a U.S. citizen and a marine veteran will not be tolerated. I urge my fellow marines to join me on the House floor and to demand action for Corporal Torres and his family.

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

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today cuts significant amounts from a number of programs which I have traditionally targeted for spending reductions.

Now, I commend my friends, the full committee chairman, Hal Rogers, and the subcommittee chairman, also a good friend, Mr. Frelinghuysen, for these cuts, and I congratulate them on such.

That being said, we're at a time of a real fiscal emergency. Congress has allowed the sequester to happen, and we can see some of the effects of the sequester in this underlying bill. I opposed the use of the sequester from the get-go because I believe that governmentwide, across-the-board cuts are not a wise way of cutting spending. I believe that it's bad policy.

Instead of furloughing civilian DOD employees and cutting our military, we ought to make targeted cuts where there's room to do so. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would do just that. It would trim just a small additional 1 percent, or about $9.8 million, from programs relating to renewable energy and energy efficiency, and put that amount toward spending reduction.

The committee report for the underlying bill notes that funding for these programs prioritizes reducing gas prices and supporting American manufacturing. And absolutely, we must be doing those things. Yet, these funds are focused on technologies which are still emerging, like new vehicle technology, hydrogen and fuel cell technology, and bio- energy.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not arguing that these technologies aren't worth studying. What I'm suggesting is that we--and I'm not suggesting that we completely defund them. I'm suggesting we make a mere 1 percent cut towards the proposed spending level.

What I'm saying is that we make this small additional cut and work towards getting our fiscal house in order before pouring scarce funding into new, unproven technology.

I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

This amendment would reduce the appropriations that are suggested for the energy programs relating to renewable energy, energy reliability, and efficiency by $4.751 million and increase the spending reduction account by that same amount. It is meant to eliminate the committee-recommended increase to funding for facilities and infrastructure under this section of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, we must do everything that we can to rein in spending. We're facing an economic emergency as a Nation. My friends, particularly on the other side, seem to not face the fact that we're headed for an economic meltdown if we don't stop this uncontrolled spending that I believe is irresponsible.

My amendment is not a cut to funding, but to simply eliminate a proposed increase, keeping the appropriated amount at the current level we have right now today.

I believe this is a commonsense amendment, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce funding for basic energy science research by cutting 10 percent out of its $1.5 billion budget. It would apply those funds to the spending reduction account.

Basic energy science is a worthy goal to explore fundamental phenomena and create scientific knowledge to keep our technologies and ideas on the global, leading edge. However, it is not the Federal Government's function to act as a venture capitalist for science theory research. I believe that this endeavor is instead best left to our world-renowned universities and private institutions.

My amendment does not stop this research. It would simply put it on balance with the reductions that have already been applied in the bill to our present energy resources.

In this bill, general science is cut by only 5 percent, while research on fossil fuels and nuclear energy is cut by 17 percent and 14 percent respectively.

We're in an economic emergency, Mr. Chairman. Our Nation is facing an economic meltdown, and Federal dollars are very scarce. As we face this huge budget deficit together, we've got to look at every option available to meet the challenges of doing more with less.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment eliminates the remaining funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan program, transferring $6 million to the Spending Reduction Account. Since 2008, the U.S. Government has been in the business of lending money to build cars that no one wants to buy. For instance, $50 million went to the Vehicle Production Group for natural gas minivans. That company failed. Meanwhile, $190 million went to Fisker Automotive to make electric cars that catch on fire. For instance, the Karma, Fisker's hybrid-electric luxury sedan, which cost around $100,000 apiece, was recalled to fix a hose connection that allowed coolant leaks into the battery chamber, causing an electrical short. Fortunately, no one was hurt before production was ended. Unfortunately, taxpayers got back only a fraction of the payout.

Mr. Chairman, I'm 100 percent supportive of the automobile industry producing more fuel-efficient automobiles. However, there's simply no good reason that the Federal Government should be subsidizing billion- dollar companies at a time when our Nation is broke. It is time that we begin to reverse this disturbing trend of energy loan programs for companies and let the automobile industry succeed or fail in the marketplace on its own merits. We have to stop these kinds of subsidies, particularly in these hard times when our Nation is in an economic emergency.

I urge support of this commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the appropriations for the Department of Energy's salaries and expenses by $9.5 million and place that amount in the spending reduction account. When combined with the reduction included in the underlying bill, this amount would represent a 25 percent cut from current levels.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that this may seem somewhat drastic. However, I've spoken again and again today about the fiscal emergency facing our country.

There are legitimate constitutional functions of the Federal Government which must be funded, particularly those that relate to our national defense. Yet even those functions are facing cuts--deep cuts. This means that prioritization is necessary so that we may determine our wants versus our needs.

We need to open up access to new sources of energy. We need to stop being dependent on foreign oil. The Department of Energy has done very little to further either of these goals. In fact, according to its original purpose of being stood up, it has been a dismal failure.

Certainly, there are advances to be made in current technology. But in the here and now, we know that we are sitting on vast resources that are so tied up in red tape it could be decades before they could come to fruition.

The House has passed several bills--and will continue to pass bills-- to lighten the Federal burden and bring true energy freedom to this country. But the Senate and the administration disagree with us. They would rather throw millions upon millions towards new sources of clean energy, some of which have turned into highly publicized wastes of taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Chairman, we need to prioritize developing the resources that we have now. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy has proven time and again it is out of touch with the needs of our country. The bureaucrats responsible for putting the Solyndras of the world above traditional sources of energy pull in more than $100,000 a year on average, all the while doing little to lighten costs for American families. In fact, despite a supposed hiring freeze, the Department of Energy's Web site, right now today, is currently advertising 31 job openings paying over $105,000 per year.

This is ridiculous, Mr. Chairman, and it must stop.

My amendment would force the Department of Energy to reevaluate its priorities and put our current needs first rather than hoping that new, clean sources of energy will pan out eventually.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today has great potential to create jobs, to boost our economy, and provide our country with new, much-needed sources of energy. But as written, it also has the potential to invite frivolous, duplicative lawsuits filed by outside entities with no real tie to the individual contracts stemming from this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, we have seen it happen time and time again: situations in which the community, the developer, and the Federal Government are all on the same page, but plans are ultimately ground to a halt by activist environmental groups that file lawsuit after lawsuit in order to stop the development in its tracks.

My amendment would stop this cycle as it relates to projects begun under this bill. It would allow individuals and groups not party to a lease under this bill to file a suit once--only once--within 60 days of an official action under the bill. Should a suing entity lose, it would be allowed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and final resolution would have to be reached within 180 days.

Finally, my amendment would also include a ``loser pays'' standard, meant to protect taxpayers and discourage the filing of a suit without true legal merit.

Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill would do much to move our country ahead, but I fear that we will not reach our full potential unless this important language is included.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

I urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not advocating for ``loser pays'' in all civil cases. My amendment relates only to these specific cases, in

which an extremist environmental group files suit after suit simply to stop the development of natural resources and energy resources on American soil. Under my amendment, parties to a lease aren't subject to this standard.

Furthermore, my amendment does not undo the ability for members of the community who are concerned about a particular lease to petition the government--State or Federal--during the NEPA process.

Finally, while I understand the concern that ``loser pays'' harms complainants with the least amount of disposable income, I would simply say that near-record gas prices are harming them and are hurting the most vulnerable in our society, poor people and senior citizens on limited income. In fact, my colleague from Georgia, my good friend, was saying it's unnecessary. But if it's unnecessary, he shouldn't be afraid of this amendment. This is a commonsense amendment, and I urge its support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply repeal the outdated and expensive dairy price support law enacted as part of the Agriculture Act of 1949.

This provision created a commodity support policy for dairy production that, though suspended upon the enactment of each farm bill that has been reauthorized, it still remains on the books as permanent law. That this old law is still technically in effect is a problem for two reasons:

First, the price support calculations essentially establish a ``floor'' for milk prices, which is set at twice the current market price. This means that the Federal Government would be required to step in and purchase surplus milk at double the current purchase price, which would drive up costs for taxpayers but would also result in a higher cost at the grocery store, potentially making a typical gallon of milk cost $7. This will hurt the most vulnerable in our society-- poor children and seniors on a limited income.

This potential and likely unintended consequence is troubling, but more troubling is that this old law threatens to rear its ugly head every time the farm bill expires before it is reauthorized. In fact, we faced this very issue at the beginning of this year, though it was buried in the larger ``fiscal cliff'' deal that passed on January 1.

Mr. Chairman, in this time of congressional gridlock, we've seen bailouts, failed stimulus bills, near-government shutdowns, and panic about sequestration and tax hikes. The last thing we need is one more ``cliff'' for Americans to fall off of.

This law is outdated, it is unused and is ultimately a nuisance which requires a patch every time Congress fails to renew the larger farm bill, which, unfortunately, is a frequent occurrence.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman from Oklahoma yield?

The reason is that the milk price support is actually a ``floor'' for the cost at which the government buys surplus milk. What that will do is raise the cost that the government is going to have to pay for this surplus milk, which is just going to cost the taxpayers more money.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

From the comments my good friend from Minnesota and my good friend from Oklahoma stated, maybe we should repeal the whole '49 law. I would be all in favor of working with both gentlemen to try to find some way to do that. I'm sure both gentlemen would be very eager to not have the incentive to go back to that law as a piecemeal way of trying to deal with these problems.

My friend from Minnesota is exactly right. I used to farm. I've been a dairy farmer. I had Holstein cows. I was a true farmer--I've raised feeder steers; I've hay-farmed; I've truck-farmed; and I've row- cropped. I know agriculture. I wasn't a gentleman farmer. I'd climb in the back of the combine between stops and change the air drum. So I know agriculture.

I know the biggest problem agriculture faces today is the regulation, particularly from EPA. I'd like to see those regulations rolled back because that would help our agriculture more than any other thing that we could do, and I would be all in favor of doing that.

The reason I brought the milk part of the old law forward was exactly the reason my good friend from Minnesota stated, in that you have to milk cows not once a day but at least twice a day, sometimes three. The milk support price that is guaranteed in this underlying law will raise costs if we go back to that and it stays in place. If we don't have the farm bill suspended or reauthorized, then what happens is the Federal Government is going to pay much higher prices for milk, and that's going to increase the cost in the grocery store for all Americans, and it's going to hurt the poor people, particularly poor children and senior citizens.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Reclaiming my time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, there's a lot going on in our country right now, but we here in Congress need to remember that the number one priority remains getting our economy back on track. That's why, today, I reintroduced the original JOBS Act.

My JOBS Act would reduce the corporate tax rate and capital gains tax to zero. It would totally eliminate them. It would also extend for 3 years bonus depreciation and would allow 100 percent expensing for business assets. Finally, the JOBS Act would permanently repeal the estate and gift taxes--the death taxes.

My bill would give businesses the boost that they need to create more jobs. It would stimulate our economy and would bring manufacturing jobs back to America.

I urge my colleagues to support my JOBS Act.