Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 118.

The Department of Health and Human Services, in July, essentially stripped many of the provisions of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act in regard to TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and they should not do that. They absolutely should not do that.

This resolution, of course, calls for action under the Congressional Review Act--our authority, Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress to say, no, you cannot do this, HHS, by any kind of executive order, and we are going to challenge it. Because people, sometimes, yes, they do need a little bit of a nudge to get off welfare and onto work; but in the final analysis, these individuals have the pride of having a job. There is nothing that compares to that. And as long as you have that opportunity, I think most individuals--and as I say, some may need a little bit of a nudge--but most people would gladly embrace that opportunity.

So that's what this is all about. We're just simply saying we want to make sure that the provisions--in a very bipartisan way--President Clinton, in agreeing with Congress to have that welfare reform, it was worked out very carefully. We as a Congress will not permit those provisions to be stripped out of welfare to work. So, please, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, join me in supporting H.J. Res. 118.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 118, a bill expressing Congress's disapproval of the administration's waiving of TANF work requirements.

This legislation would utilize the Congressional Review Act to restore the welfare to work requirements of the 1996 welfare reform law that the Department of Health and Human Services unilaterally stripped in July. When President Clinton signed welfare reform into law, he said, ``First and foremost, it should be about moving people from welfare to work.'' Mr. Speaker, the administration has absolutely no justification to waive the reforms required by this bipartisan law.

Welfare to work requirements have proven to lower poverty levels, increase earnings, and reduce government dependence. This legislation will restore the reforms that are an integral part of helping people become independent and self-sufficient.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 118 because we cannot allow the Administration to roll back key features of the 1996 reforms.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding to me.

I want to respond to my Democratic colleague from Illinois who just spoke, my Democratic colleague who is the ranking member of a subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, he used all of his allotted time plus additional time to talk and rail about a do-nothing Congress. I want to remind the gentleman and I want to remind all of my colleagues that this bill, this No More Solyndras Act that we are bringing to the House floor today, comes from another subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, a subcommittee of which the gentleman from Illinois is not a member. That subcommittee, as you all know, is the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation.

The gentleman made some points in regard to the public looking at us as a do-nothing Congress, and in many ways that's true. Not a lot has been done, and not a lot has been accomplished. But it sounds like he is suggesting that we members of the Oversight and Investigation Committee of Energy and Commerce, or, for that matter, any subcommittee on oversight and investigation of any standing committee of the House of Representatives, should sit back and do nothing because it's an election year.

Colleagues, it's an election year every 2 years. It's a Presidential election year every 4 years. We have our work to do.

I feel very compelled to stand here before you today and compliment, in the highest way, the chairman of this Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation of Energy and Commerce in the House of Representatives, a distinguished Member with well over 20 years of service. You all know that he'll be retiring from this body after this year. I am so proud to be on that committee, to work with him, to have an opportunity to see how he handled this 18-month investigation of this Solyndra loan program through the Department of Energy, and how flawed that it was, and how diligent he was in trying to get the information necessary to connect the dots. Yes, even, indeed, issuing subpoenas to get the information. I am proud of the overall chairman of the committee, Fred Upton, the gentleman from Michigan, in regard to being very careful and deliberate and working with the other side of the aisle, not making a rush to judgment, but a very careful and planned investigation to finally get to where we are today. And I'm extremely proud of the work of the staff of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation.

The bottom line, my colleagues, is we have work to do. If we're members of Oversight and Investigation, we have got to ferret out waste, fraud, abuse, corruption. Any program of the Federal Government that takes money from we, the taxpayer, whether it's a loan or a grant or whatever, we have to investigate, to look, to make sure that these programs are being done in the right way and not for political purposes. To promote an industry? Yes. But to make sure that this applicant is reasonable, that due diligence has occurred, that they have a good business plan, that they're not burning cash, and that we're not putting good money after bad. In this case, Mr. Chairman, it was $550 million. This is just one of three failed programs. Abound is another one. Beacon Power is another one. That is three out of the first four. There was something wrong in River City.

We're altogether correct and right in ending this program. That is why I stand here today, and I encourage each and every Member on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on the No More Solyndras Act.

Mr. Speaker, as one of the Co-Chairs of the bipartisan Congressional Taiwan Caucus, I rise in strong support of S. Con. Res. 17. I particularly want to commend Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking Member Berman for bringing this concurrent resolution to the floor. Additionally, I would like to applaud the work and leadership of our other Co-Chairs--Ms. Berkley of Nevada, Mr. Diaz- Balart of Florida, and Mr. Connolly of Virginia--for their work supporting our relationship with Taiwan.

Since its inception in 1947, the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, has been a great resource for the international community to develop and foster the most efficient and safest means of airline travel across the world. In the aftermath of the horrific terrorist attacks 11 years ago today on September 11, 2001, it was the ICAO that convened a conference to endorse a uniform international strategy to ensure aviation safety throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, our friends in Taiwan have been excluded from participation in the ICAO since 1971. Not only has that diminished Taiwan's ability to stay at the cutting edge of aviation, it has also presented obstacles to the international community as a whole because the ICAO cannot completely fulfill its mission to meet the needs of all people in efficient and safe air travel.

Taiwan has a very large footprint within commercial aviation that warrants its inclusion within the ICAO. The Taipei Flight Information Region covers airspace of 176,000 square nautical miles and provides air traffic control services to over 1.3 million flights annually. Additionally, there are over 174,000 international flights carrying more than 35 million passengers that fly in and out of Taiwan each year. With this high volume of air traffic, Taiwan certainly deserves to have a seat at the table of the ICAO--at least as an observer.

Mr. Speaker, this is precisely what this concurrent resolution seeks to accomplish. Providing Taiwan with meaningful participation at the ICAO only benefits both the Taiwanese and the international community as a whole. Due to our longstanding relationship and respect for our friends in Taiwan, I urge all of my colleagues to support S. Con. Res. 17.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of the nearly three thousand lives lost in the attacks of September 11th. On Patriots Day, we also honor the servicemen and women who have paid the ultimate price in the war on terror. We will never be able to fully honor their sacrifice in the defense of our freedoms.

In the 11 years since the devastation of that day, our anger and sadness have turned to unfaltering resolve and determination. On that terrible day, 19 terrorists believed they would bring America to its knees. They believed our Nation and our people could be defeated by a cowardly attack. They were wrong.

Today, America is a brighter beacon of freedom than she ever has been. We remain a nation inspired by the sacrifices of those before us and committed to the ideals they fought so dearly to protect. Mr. Speaker, we will never forget the loved ones and the heroes lost on that day.

Mr. Speaker, there is a time-old saying that one can either be respected or loved, but not both, and that leaders should always strive towards the former. As one of the most beloved and well-regarded leaders in our community, though, and as only Otis could, he managed to be both.

My family moved to Marietta in 1975 and, like so many families, we got to know the Brumbys through Marietta City schools. Our children were in the same grades, played on the same sports teams, and went to one another's birthday parties. One of our daughters, Phyllis, was particularly close to Betsy Brumby. They were, as we called it, ``spend-the-night'' friends. Just like he and Martha Lee, their children were respectful and well-liked by everyone. Their son, Otis III (``Little O'') became the starting quarterback for the Marietta Blue Devils. My wife and I know how proud Otis and Martha Lee were on those Friday nights at Northcutt Stadium.

Otis was deeply involved in and steadfastly dedicated to Marietta schools. He was a staunch supporter of the Marietta School Board and, for a time, was a member himself. I began my political career on the Marietta School Board and have always admired his commitment to our local schools. In many ways--and for many reasons--he inspired me.

As the editor of the Marietta Daily Journal, Otis was always fair and even-handed. When he identified a problem, he drew attention to it, regardless of party affiliation. When he shined a light on something, he always left the situation better than he found it. Otis always sought the truth, but in his quest for it, he still treated everyone well. Besides being fair to Republicans and Democrats alike, the diehard Dawgs fan even managed to be gracious to this Georgia Tech alum.

Our community mourns his loss alongside his wife, children, and beautiful grandchildren. Otis will be deeply missed. But we will honor his memory today and every day. Because of one man's rich life, we've all gained so much.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to urge Senate Democrats to halt President Obama's job-killing tax hike. According to one study, this massive tax increase would eliminate 700,000 jobs, raise taxes on the middle class, and deal a massive blow to our nation's economic engine, small businesses.

The President and his czars continue to burden our nation's job creators with onerous, anti-growth regulations. Along with his tax hikes and burdensome regulations, President Obama's health care law threatens patient access, raises taxes, and takes over one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

In the meantime, House Republicans have maintained a laser-like focus on jobs, passing more than 30 pro-growth jobs bills, which continue to stack up on Senator Reid's desk.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama's economic policies have failed. This massive tax hike on the middle class is unsustainable and a hindrance to growth and job creation. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to take up our jobs bills and stop the tax hike.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 406, a bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to permit candidates for Federal office to designate an individual to disburse the campaign funds of the candidate in the event of the candidate's death, authored by my colleague from North Carolina, Walter Jones.

Unfortunately, he has personally experienced the situation that this legislation is attempting to remedy when his father--a 14 term member of this body--passed away and questions arose as to what to do with remaining campaign funds.

Current law authorizes the campaign treasurer to disperse campaign funds but does not give instruction on how those funds should be spent in the event of a candidate's death.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 406 is a common-sense solution to resolving this potentially complex issue. I was proud to support the legislation when it came before the Committee on House Administration, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it today.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 537 on suspending the rules and passing S. 679--the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011--I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 538 on suspending the rules and passing H.R. 828--the Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2011--I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 539 on suspending the rules and passing H.R. 3803--the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act--I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted `'aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8, the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012. In August of 2009, President Obama told NBC News, ``You don't raise taxes in a recession.'' Quite frankly, I agree with the President and would take it a step further. We should never raise taxes at all, period.

Unfortunately, if we do nothing before the end of the year, we risk raising taxes on Americans by $384 billion over the next ten years according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. For my home State of Georgia alone, this would represent a tax increase of $3,010 per tax return. At a time when we have had 41 straight months of unemployment, it would be irresponsible to place an additional burden on working families and job creators, particularly when Ernst & Young recently released a study stating that this tax increase would destroy 700,000 jobs.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have a simple solution. H.R. 8 will prevent this looming tax increase on all Americans, especially the 1 million small business entrepreneurs that would likely feel the pain the most.

To all of my colleagues, we have a clear choice today. You can either support H.R. 8 to prevent a $384 billion tax increase, or you could oppose this legislation, endorse these tax increases and destroy 700,000 jobs in the process. The choice is yours.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 459, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2012, and I would like to commend our colleague from Texas, Dr. Ron Paul, who has worked tirelessly as the author of this legislation for a number of years.

With its ability to control monetary supply policy, the Federal Reserve is arguably the most powerful entity of the federal government. Yet, despite this power, current law specifically prevents Congress from fully auditing the monetary policy actions the Fed takes that impact each of us on a daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, as a proud cosponsor of H.R. 459, I believe it is well past time to change that policy. This legislation would simply require the Comptroller General to conduct a full audit of the Federal Reserve before the end of 2012.

At a time when the Federal Reserve has expanded its balance sheet to $3 trillion as of last month, the American people deserve to have transparency and accountability when it comes to our monetary supply policy. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 459.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, my physician colleague, for yielding.

I missed some of the hour. I regret that, and hopefully I'm not repeating some remarks that have already been made. Even if I am, I think it's important for people to understand that Medicaid expansion is threatening each and every one of our 50 States and the territories.

The provision in the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, that's titled, ``Maintenance of Effort''--actually, this maintenance of effort provision, Mr. Speaker, began even before the passage of ObamaCare. ObamaCare passed March 23, 2010, a little more than 2 years ago. It just extended this.

But what happened with the stimulus package back in 2008 is that States were told that they would not be allowed to purge their rolls of people that were, at that point in time, under Medicaid to see if, per chance, they were in this country illegally and not eligible or their income level had risen to the point that they were doing just fine, thank you, maybe making $50,000 a year and could afford their own

health insurance premiums not to be paid for by we, the taxpayer and the citizens of the State of Georgia, my great State. And then it was extended with the passage of ObamaCare to say that, through the year 2013, these States could not do that.

Well, what's happened is, I've got some statistics. And just to quote from the National Governors' Association report, ``States are facing a collective $175 billion budget shortfall through 2013'' in large part because of this maintenance of effort requirement under Medicaid, that they're not allowed to make sure that the people on the Medicaid program are the ones that need to be there, the most needy that can't afford--their children can't afford health care. And now these rolls are sort of set in stone until the year 2013. And in many cases, Mr. Speaker, they include childless adults, childless adults who maybe were eligible to get on the program at a point where their income was very low or maybe they were out of work. But now, shouldn't the Governors be allowed--at least on an annual basis, if not every 6 months--to look at those rolls and make sure that the dollars for health care are going to the folks that really need it and their children? That's what the Medicaid program was all about when it was started as an amendment to the Social Security Act back in 1965.

So I wanted to mention that. It may have already been talked about earlier. My colleagues in the Doctors Caucus of the House know of what they speak with regard to health care. There are a lot of other issues in Medicaid. But I thought, in particular, I would want to discuss that.

But in conclusion, on this point, if allowing a State to improve its enrollment and its verification system saves enough money to keep our children's education program intact and the safety of its citizens, with regard to police and fire protection, intact, then why wouldn't we support this change? Why wouldn't we repeal this maintenance of effort?

If giving Governors the ability to manage their own Medicaid programs prevents drastic cuts to education or job creation programs, why in the world would we not support that? The only reason I can think of would be to force, under ObamaCare, more and more people into the Medicaid program, where the States have to eventually do that FMAP and that sharing of the cost because, otherwise, they would be in the exchanges, and the subsidies, as we know, go up to 400 percent of the Federal poverty level. It's all part of this grand scheme to eventually have national health insurance, Medicare for all, if you will, and it's got to stop.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Flores amendment that will prevent funds in H.R. 5856--the FY13 Defense Appropriations Act--from being used to carry out Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Section 526 prohibits all federal agencies from contracting for alternative fuels that emit higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions than ``conventional petroleum sources.'' This means that if a federal agency--particularly the Department of Defense--attempts to utilize an alternative fuel that even has one scintilla more carbon emissions than conventional fuels, it is prohibited from doing so. As a result, Section 526 limits innovation from DoD to improve clean carbon capture technologies for alternative fuels, thereby increasing our dependence on foreign oil, and will only further increase fuel costs.

The amendment intends to remove the handcuffs placed on the agencies under this bill by Section 526. This means that the DoD will still be able to purchase Canadian fuels with traces of oil sands that may create more of a carbon footprint than completely conventional fuel.

Mr. Chair, I support a full repeal of Section 526 because the cost of refined product for DoD has increased by over 500% in the last ten years when volume only increased by 30%. Furthermore, within the last month, the U.S. Navy spent $26 per gallon and the U.S. Air Force just spent $59 per gallon for bio-fuels used for the Administration's Great Green Fleet Demonstration while conventional fuel bears less of a cost on the Pentagon.

When defense spending is already facing $600 billion in sequestration cuts, we must find commonsense ways to best utilize taxpayer dollars. This amendment takes a very important step of achieving this goal by prohibiting funding to carry out Section 526 for the upcoming fiscal year at the DoD.

With that in mind, I commend my colleague from Texas--Bill Flores-- for his continued leadership on this important issue. I urge this body to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

I would like to introduce you to Sole Commissioner Boss Hog from Hazzard County, Georgia. Boss Hog used his position of authority to terrorize the citizens of his community with the help of henchmen like Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane in the 1970s television show ``The Dukes of Hazzard.''

Mr. Speaker, today, life imitates art. We now have another boss in our midst--I call this boss ObamaCare. The only health care that citizens of this country can access are those approved by the boss.

If you like what you currently have, you can't keep it. Let me repeat, if you like what you currently have, you can't keep it, according to the boss, the boss and his henchmen who help fund this tyranny. They include the biggest permanent tax increase on Americans, borne in large part by middle class families and the employers who give them jobs.

It enacts a $500-plus billion cut to the Medicare program, all while the program is going bankrupt. And finally, new rules that allow the boss to dictate how doctors actually practice medicine. No longer will my colleagues in the medical profession be able to put the needs of their patients first.

Mr. Speaker, our Forefathers rejected tyranny, and so should we. Support H.R. 6079, a bill that would repeal ObamaCare. Let's get rid of the boss once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, since its creation in 2009, a majority of patients in this country have been united behind

a single truth--they do not want ObamaCare. Young people don't want it because it increases their costs--making them pay high prices for care they don't need or cannot afford. Patients with chronic illnesses don't want it because it allows a board of bureaucrats to restrict access to life saving treatments if they cost too much. Seniors don't want it because it takes $575 billion out of the Medicare program and will make it harder for them to find a physician or hospital for treatment when they are sick.

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of ObamaCare. Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of work ahead of us but one thing is certain: my former patients do not want ObamaCare in any way, shape, or form.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The FDA Safety and Innovation Act of 2012 may not be a great bill, but it is a darn good bill. And as a physician and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I strongly support it.

As my colleagues have said on both sides, this is a bicameral, bipartisan piece of legislation, and yes, we can get our work done. I want to particularly thank Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Waxman, Health Subcommittee Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Pallone, and all of the Members that have worked so hard on this really vast, huge bill that covers a lot of things, not the least of which, of course, is to provide 65 percent of the funding for the FDA so they can, indeed, hire the best and brightest scientists so they get their work done in a timely manner, get new drugs to the market, medical devices, and bottom line, keep the health care system in this country the best in the world for our constituents and our patients.

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention one particular aspect of the bill that I was very much involved in, and that's this issue of antibiotic shortage. The bill as it stood alone was called the GAIN Act, and I had a tremendous amount of help on both sides of the aisle. On the Democratic side, there was Congresswoman Eshoo, Congresswoman DeGette, and Congressman Gene Green. On my side of the aisle, there was Mike Rogers of Michigan, Mr. Shimkus, and Mr. Whitfield. What we do with that portion of the bill is to provide an opportunity for the manufacturers of antibiotics to have an additional 5 years of exclusivity so they can bring these innovative fifth- and sixth- generation antibiotics to the market and still have an opportunity to recoup the investment and the expense of doing so.

I want to just say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, it's a proud day, I think, for all of us, for Chairman Emeritus Dingell, the former chairman on our side of the aisle, Mr. Barton, and everybody involved in this bill. I thank all of you. Let's all unanimously support this bill.