Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I endorse everything that the chairman just spoke about.

I am proud that the House is taking up this bipartisan action today to address an issue that impacts each of our districts, and that is prescription drug abuse.

I want to thank especially Mr. Marino, who is using his experience to bring this legislation to the floor, and it was great working with him, Mrs. Blackburn, and also with Congresswoman Chu.

Vermont is facing an opiate epidemic. That is true in many States around the country. In addition to the alarming increases in heroin abuse, we have had admissions in Vermont for prescription drug abuse that have increased 361 percent from 2005 to 2013.

As we have seen in my State, we are most effective in dealing with this public health crisis when everybody who has a stake in this works together. That is the collaborative approach that Mr. Pitts mentioned. That has got to be the providers, the public health officials, law enforcement, distributors, pharmacists. They have all got to come together to tackle this problem.

If we don't have flexibility and collaboration we can do something that might make enforcement tighter, but access to legitimate prescription drugs tougher. So the goal here is to get the balance right. We want to help folks get access to the prescription medication that they need. It alleviates suffering and it eliminates pain, but we want to make sure that the enforcement is solid so there isn't the abuse.

Today, distributors, like Burlington Drug Company in Vermont, and local pharmacies face very unpredictable enforcement from the DEA. DEA has a job, but so do the drug distributors and the doctors. That inconsistent enforcement--that unpredictable enforcement, I should say--can lead to disruptions in the supply chain, which end up limiting patient access to legitimate prescription drugs.

The Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act will encourage collaboration between law enforcement, members of the supply chain, and public health providers and officials, while ensuring that patients have the access to the treatment their doctor has prescribed.

So this is, as you mentioned, Mr. Pitts, common sense. It is collaboration. It is working together and having mutual respect that each entity in this process has its own job to do, but for all of us to do it together, we have got to work together and communicate.

It has been great to work with Representatives Marino, Blackburn, and Chu on this bill. I thank them for their leadership. I want to also thank Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Waxman for their leadership, and, of course, Mr. Pallone and Mr. Pitts.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4709.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember retired U.S. Air Force Major Gene Eardensohn of Charlotte, Vermont who passed away this year on the 29th of June. Major Eardensohn dedicated his life to the defense of our country. After college, he joined the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II. He served as a pilot and flew combat missions throughout the war. He later served in the Korean War and the Vietnam War. He fought as a command pilot, flying both B-47 and B-52 aircrafts; later becoming an instructor in 11 different aircrafts. He retired having performed an impressive 29,000 flying hours. Major Eardensohn defended his country through three wars; but he was also a father of four children and a grandfather of seven grandchildren. Since retirement his family and friends nicknamed him, ``Pilot Extraordinaire'' and that is exactly what he was, extraordinary. His courage, devotion and patriotism are now forever preserved in our country's history.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I am in favor of it.

First of all, I do want to thank Mr. Kline and Mr. Miller for bringing this bill to the floor, and I want to thank the staffs for working with Mr. Gowdy and me on this amendment and an amendment to follow.

One of the things that brought Mr. Gowdy and me together is the concern about the cost of education, and I know that has been a major concern for the Education and the Workforce Committee. But one of the dilemmas that we have is that, if we put more money in as taxpayers-- and I am a strong supporter of more grant and more aid for our colleges--but if every dollar we put in is a dollar increase in tuition, then the students are treading water and the taxpayers are treading water.

So what are some of the things that we can do to try and help give the flexibility to our institutions of higher learning the ability to actually accelerate graduation and, therefore, help potentially lower the cost?

Mr. Gowdy outlined what this competency-based learning amendment would do. It would reward students who have some ambition and get started early. It would allow college administrators to properly give credit for that serious effort on the part of students, and it might help reverse what has been a trend where a lot of students are taking more than 4 years to graduate and allow them the opportunity with their effort and discipline to graduate in less than 4 years. If you graduate in 3\1/2\ years, that is a significant savings to that family and that student who is borrowing money as a way of getting ahead in this society.

So I really appreciate the focus that the committee has had on this question and appreciate very much the work that Mr. Gowdy in trying to present to this body this amendment which will help, I think, facilitate the goal of making college more affordable. It is absolutely so essential to the young people of this country.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just say the same to Mr. Gowdy. I appreciate working with him on this and also on our Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I am for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this question of college debt that my colleague, Mr. Gowdy, spoke about, that is brutal. It is not a red State-blue State deal, and it is not a Republican-Democratic deal. It is young people getting out of college with a mountain of debt, and they are starting out with the equivalent of a mortgage.

There has been an enormous amount of attention in this body to how to deal with that and a lot of debate about how to deal with it. I know Mr. Miller has been a champion on this cause along with Mr. Tierney on our side and, I know, Mr. Gowdy and Mr. Kline on the other side.

I have pushed back, to some extent, on our college administrators, because it is not just a matter of what taxpayers can afford to fund by way of grant and aid or what families can afford to put up from their hard-earned savings, it is a question of what will college administrators do to try to keep those tuition increases down. So we need the active participation of our college administrators.

When I talked to Mr. Gowdy, he talked to his folks, I guess the president of Clemson, and I spoke with the president of the University of Vermont and some of our other college leaders in Vermont, and they were somewhat resistant to the notion of our getting involved in what they saw as their job and made some complaints that regulations were causing them to have to spend money.

Now, sometimes that can be an excuse, but I think what Mr. Gowdy said is the right way to go. Let's take a look at them.

I happen to think there are times when you need law and you need regulation. Title IX has been a law that has done an immense amount of good for young women who want the full opportunity to be as athletic as young men, and that was a law that did real good. Sometimes regulations do good--but not always.

Instead of just having a debate about more regulation or no regulation, what Mr. Gowdy and I are saying is, hey, let's get the people who are affected by this from all sides, have them take a look at these things and come up with an analysis of this is working, this isn't working. Because as a person who is in favor of law and regulation in appropriate cases, I am against bad regulations that just get in the way of a good education and affordability.

So this doesn't stack the deck either way, but it does allow parties who are involved in having to deal with regulations to have a way of looking at them, assessing them, and making recommendations about them.

What I see as beneficial on this is that we are going to have this as a tool to get our college administrators more actively involved with us in what is, I think, an enormous challenge of our times, and that is make college affordable and sustainable for the hardworking families in your district, Mr. Chairman, and in my district and Mr. Gowdy's.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my cosponsor, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4572, the STELA Reauthorization Act, a bill that allows satellite providers to continue to offer broadcast television programming to their subscribers.

Americans across the country will benefit from reauthorizing the expiring communications and copyright statute that allows satellite customers to have access to broadcast content, but it particularly benefits rural communities, a concern of many of us in this body. Folks from Vermont are going to benefit by this. They rely heavily on satellite for access to video programming.

The STELA Reauthorization Act is the work product of two committees, the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Judiciary Committee. Because of the bill's complexity, both substantively and procedurally, the Communications and Technology Subcommittee held a series of hearings starting early last year to examine the various issues affecting our Nation's ever-evolving video marketplace. As a result, H.R. 4572 includes several targeted provisions designed to improve regulatory parity in the video marketplace.

One, the bill prohibits two noncommonly owned broadcasters from jointly negotiating for retransmission consent with cable and satellite companies.

Two, the bill also includes a compromise on the deadline for broadcasters to unwind certain joint sales agreements in an attempt to keep intact the FCC's local broadcast ownership rules.

The final provision we are voting on today strengthens the waiver process both for the broadcasters seeking to maintain their joint sales agreements, as well as for the FCC looking to streamline waiver applications.

In addition, the bill eliminates the FCC's integration ban for cable set-top boxes, a rule that was designed to help promote a retail market for cable set-top boxes that regrettably is not working as intended.

To allow independent manufacturers of set-top boxes a chance to compete, the FCC requires both cable companies and third-party set-top box manufacturers to rely on the same piece of technology to decrypt their signals, called the CableCARD.

Not only has this regime not resulted in the kind of competition Congress envisioned, energy experts told us that the CableCARD actually creates significant energy inefficiencies. So our bill takes this rule off the books, but does not place any forward-looking restrictions on the FCC's authority to continue to promote retail competition for set- top boxes.

These narrow changes only begin to scratch the surface of the broken video marketplace. In my view, Congress should revisit the entire video regime and update the corresponding laws to better represent the 21st century marketplace, to drive competition, and, most importantly, to provide more benefits to consumers.

The various stakeholders, from distributors to programmers to broadcasters and content providers, have all been able to reap financial rewards, as they should, in this video marketplace, but my concern and the concern of many of us is that the consumer has been left out of the equation.

They have paid, on average, twice the rate of inflation annually for cable over the past 20 years. I understand there are a lot of costs that go into the overall rate to consumers, but it is time for the consumers' concerns to be heard and responded to.

I want to thank Chairman Upton and Chairman Walden for working with Ranking Members Waxman and Eshoo and Democrats--thank you, gentlemen-- on the bipartisan compromise on this bill.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill today, but I do hope that this is only the beginning, and we can work together on a more comprehensive bill to address the broken aspects of the video marketplace.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Latta and Mr. Green for their very good work in making a good bill better. I want to also salute Mr. Upton and Mr. Walden for their good work, working closely in partnership with Mr. Waxman and Ms. Eshoo.

We have no further speakers, so I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as we debate the bipartisan H.R. 3086, the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act, I would like to draw your attention to another important bipartisan effort, the Marketplace Fairness Act.

Over a year ago, the Senate passed that act with strong bipartisan support from 69 Senators. As you know, essentially what it says is that we will treat retailers the same, whether they are brick-and-mortar retailers in our downtown or Internet retailers, and if the State has passed a sales tax, then it would apply to all transactions.

This is important. When I talk to Vermont's small business owners, they tell me stories about the incredible unlevel playing field that they face. Folks come in, browse, shop, and then go online to buy. The difference is the sales tax avoidance.

These brick-and-mortar businesses are absolutely essential to the vitality of so many communities in Vermont and in so many communities in your State. This is hurting our small businesses, which make up about 60 percent of our State's private sector workforce.

Madam Speaker, I urge us to act on the Marketplace Fairness Act.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, the hallmark of a great country is a great infrastructure.

In its infancy, this country built interstate canals that helped commerce and life become strong and our economy vigorous. In the height of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln met with Justin Morrill, then a Senator from the State of Vermont, and conceived the ambition of an intercontinental railroad. In the 1950s, President Dwight D. Eisenhower said that we needed an interstate highway system.

This temporary bill, where our only responsibility is to make sure we can preserve what we have by having the funds necessary to repair roads and bridges is an abdication of our responsibility. Congress can do better, and America needs better. Our bridges and our roads are falling apart. I recently visited two projects in Vermont that are in desperate need of repair, but this bill provides temporary funding for 8 months. Not only that, instead of basing it on user fees, which have always been the way we funded infrastructure projects that we all benefit by, it raids pension funds. It essentially creates a pothole in future pensions to fill potholes in our highways.

Some folks are saying that we need time in order to put together a long-term bill. Madam Speaker, we have had time. What we need is a decision. There are options out there. As the gentleman from Colorado said, we are not lacking options; what we are lacking is will. This has traditionally been an area of common agreement between Republicans and Democrats where, yes, it is always difficult to figure out what that revenue source is, but that difficulty is not an excuse for Congress to fail to do its job and give this highway trust fund a sustainable and long-term revenue source so that folks in Montpelier and folks in Austin, Texas, can put together those plans to repair our roads and bridges, put America back to work, and get this economy going.

I urge us to defeat this rule and to defeat this bill and for Congress finally to do its job.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of the Welch- Pingree-Michaud-Kuster-Shay-Porter amendment, and I want to thank my colleagues from northern New England for cosponsoring this amendment with me.

H.R. 3301, as we have been hearing, exempts literally all modifications of cross-border pipelines from Federal approval and environmental review without any regard to the impacts on public health, safety, and the environment. My view: that is a terrible idea.

Some pipeline modifications, in fact, are truly minor and are unlikely to affect the environment or put public safety at risk. For example, if the pipeline is sold to a new owner, there is no need for a Federal review. So there is a place here for no review.

But many modifications could have just as much impact as a brand new pipeline, and there is no justification to exempt from consideration those issues that would be reviewed if it were a new pipeline.

The Portland Montreal Pipe Line reversal is an exact example of a pipeline modification that could have very significant impacts. Currently that pipeline carries light sweet crude from the U.S. to Canada, but a proposal in the works is to reverse that pipeline to carry tar sands oil from Canada, through New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine, to ports of Casco Bay, where it would be loaded on the ships for export. That has raised a lot of concerns in these States.

Any spill of tar sands crude is a very big deal, far worse than any other type of oil spill. Vermonters are concerned about reversing of the pipeline to transport those tar sands, that it would accelerate the development of the tar sands oil, which is the dirtiest and most carbon intensive in the universe.

Forty-two towns and municipalities in the State of Vermont have passed resolutions opposing this project. Concerned citizens deserve to have their voices heard. Under H.R. 3301, the pipeline owners could completely skip the process. I oppose this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maine, Representative Pingree.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, two things. I want to speak to the leader of our Energy and Commerce Committee, but also to the proponent of this bill, Mr. Green.

We can have too much regulation or we can have too little regulation, and they both have problems. Mr. Green talks about the hassle his company is having getting a name change. That is ridiculous. That company should be able to change its name and not have to go through the hassle of a permit. Then when the agency holds back and doesn't even give them an answer for 3 years, we have a problem, and I agree with that. Under my amendment, those issues like a name change would not be at all subject to the permitting process.

On the other hand, we in Vermont are concerned about a reversal of flow and having tar sands go through. It is a really big deal. Forty- two towns in my State passed resolutions saying that they wanted to have a say in this. It is known that spills happen, and tar sands bills are a much bigger deal than other kinds.

What we have in the legislation is not working together to find what is the balance or to try to move us towards a balance so there are not unnecessary burdens for a name change and simple things, but, on the other hand, we don't abolish the review process altogether.

This legislation doesn't seek that balance. What this legislation does is, in effect, abolish the review process, and that is a problem, so our going from too much review on a name change to no review on tar sands coming through Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.

Our legislation, I think, is the only thing that is being considered that, in fact, offers a balance. If it is a name change, a minor deal, no permit required. If it is significant, then, yes, you are going to have to go through the review.

I want to thank the chairman and the Speaker and the body for its time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, we support this. I am delighted to be here on an important afternoon to commemorate the lives of great Americans with these postal namings, which I hope we can do on a bipartisan basis.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers) for bringing this to the House floor for consideration.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of this postal renaming, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing from Mr. Davis as he recounts the extraordinary life, service, and contributions of Mr. Burgess. We fully support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I am pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of H.R. 3472, which would designate the United States postal facility located in Alden, New York, as the Sergeant Brett E. Gornewicz Memorial Post Office.

Once again, we are hearing a story of an extraordinary American, and all of us are proud to be associated with memorializing that.

I reserve the balance of my time and look forward to hearing from the sponsor, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Speaker, I join Mr. Meadows in urging all of my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.

Just to comment, listening to Mr. Collins and to his predecessors-- and we are going to have a few more--it is so amazing to think about these people that live in all of our districts, and what they did quietly with no expectation that anyone would notice or a post office would be named.

The thing I find inspiring, as I am listening to my colleagues, is that it is all really rooted in their local community. We are naming post offices, which is the center of activity for a lot of us, to recognize the everyday accomplishments of people who consider themselves to be everyday Americans, but who are quite extraordinary.

So I thank Mr. Meadows and Mr. Collins, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank my colleague, Mr. Meadows. You spoke very well and eloquently about how Vermonters are very proud of Thaddeus Stevens. You gave so much of his biography that I am going to just embrace what you said, but I am going to give you one pronunciation hint: it is Peacham, Vermont. We are going to bring you up there and show you where Thaddeus Stevens was born.

Again, thank you so much for your very gracious remarks about Thaddeus Stevens. We in Vermont are very proud of him, as I think Americans are, for many reasons.

Vermont was the 14th State. We were the first State that banned slavery in its constitution. We were also the first independent republic that had become part of the Union.

Thaddeus Stevens, we would like to think, carried on what was a Vermont conviction about the freedom of men and women, regardless of race. That conviction was to fight against slavery throughout the most tumultuous times of our republic: the years going up to the Civil War, the years during the Civil War, and then the post-Civil War Reconstruction period.

Some of the most important contributions by the United States Congress occurred after the Civil War, with the passage of, among other things, the 14th Amendment. Thaddeus Stevens was a leading proponent of that 14th Amendment that guaranteed due process of law to all of our citizens, regardless of race. This has been extremely important in our Constitution.

Thaddeus Stevens was a self-made person. He went to a local school. He attended Dartmouth and then went to Pennsylvania to make his mark. He becomes a State legislator. He was elected to Congress in one party, but he later changed. He began in the Anti-Masonic Party, later changed to the Whig Party, and then eventually joined the Republican Party.

All the while, he was guided by a conviction that all men and women are created equal. That is the test that each of us faces: How can we bring to life that constitutional commitment that all of us have embraced?

I would like to thank Senator Sanders for his leadership in working with the Danville community to draft this bill. Senator Sanders was also a transplant from Brooklyn, New York. He lived in the Danville area. He has been a lifelong admirer of Thaddeus Stevens.

Senator Leahy, of course, was also a steadfast supporter in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this bill to acknowledge Thaddeus Stevens' public service and the steadfast dedication that his life represents to the equality of our citizens, regardless of race.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of H.R. 2112, to designate a facility of the United States Postal Service as the National Clandestine Service of the Central Intelligence Agency NCS Officer Gregg David Wenzel Memorial Post Office.

I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney), the sponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of H.R. 1671, a bill which would designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6937 Village Parkway in Dublin, California, as the James ``Jim'' Kohnen Post Office.

I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I am pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of this bill, to designate the U.S. Postal Service facility located at 1 Walter Hammond Place in Waldwick, New Jersey, as the Staff Sergeant Joseph D'Augustine Post Office Building, and I very much look forward to hearing an account of Sergeant D'Augustine from Mr. Garrett.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his eloquent statement, and we fully support this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.