Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.

The previous speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota, it sounds like his policy on his side of the aisle is: No oil, no matter what.

This is a very good bill. If it becomes law, H.R. 4480, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, will put people back to work. It will be a great giant step toward creating energy independence for this country. And, yes, indeed, my colleagues, it will bring down the price of gasoline at the pump, which has actually doubled in 3\1/2\ years under President Obama's watch.

As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, let me focus on one specific title of this legislation: The Strategic Energy Production Act. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve that we have in this country is about 700 million barrels of oil. Mr. Chairman, that reserve is there for a situation of a domestic crisis, not a political crisis. We use 20 million barrels of oil a day in this country. If you assume that 60 percent of it was domestically produced and we had to import 8 million barrels of oil a day, then think about how many days it would last if we truly had a crisis and OPEC cut us off completely from what we import. That reserve would last about 90 days. That is a 3-month period of time. Yet, President Obama wants to take that reserve and use it for political purposes.

This title of the bill, Mr. Chairman, just simply says that every ounce of oil that he takes out of the strategic reserve, we would increase that same amount on Federal lands.

I thank the gentleman.

Here is an important point, my colleagues. What this President has done has simply cut the production on Federal lands by 11 percent on his watch.

Let's pass this bill so that we do create jobs, we put people back to work, we become independent in this country, and not dependent on nations that hate us.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 374 on agreeing to the Moran Amendment to H.R. 5882, the Fiscal Year 2013 Legislation Branch Appropriations Act, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Flake

I thank subcommittee Chairman Pitts, Chairman Upton, subcommittee Ranking Member Pallone. The bill that we are passing today in the House of Representatives, H.R. 5651, is an opportunity to come to the well in support of something that we have done in a bipartisan way. I really relish that fairly rare opportunity. Mr. Speaker, once again we are showing the American people that we can, when we have a need, a need and good ideas. Months and months and months went into working on this bill, staffs on both side. I commend them all and, of course, Ranking Member Waxman as well.

Let me just say this. Other Members are talking about the many aspects of the bill, talking about the user-fee aspect of prescription drugs, generic drugs, biologic, biosimilars, the drug safety chain aspect, addressing this problem of shortage of drugs. Emeritus Member Dingell is a big part of that aspect of the bill.

Let me just say one thing about something that I had a lot of input into, and I am very proud of, and that is a specific drug, antibiotics, where we have a tremendous shortage. That inclusion of my bill, the GAIN Act, Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now, in this bill, I think, is hugely important. We have a lack of antibiotics in this country. We need to incentivize manufacturers to come forward with new and better antibiotics.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just mention very briefly anecdotally, in my district, the 11th District of Georgia, northwest Georgia, a young college student fell recently in a stream, the little Tallapoosa River, deeply gashed her leg. Bacteria got in that leg, which normally 99 out of a 100 times, Mr. Speaker, would cause no problems whatsoever.

In this instance, I guess maybe because of the depth of the wound and the amount of the trauma to the tissue, it resulted in something called necrotizing fasciitis. This young student, 24 years old, has been struggling for months in an Augusta hospital to recover from these injuries. She is on the way to recovery, thank God, but not without significant long-term disabilities. That's why things like the GAIN aspect of the bill is so important so that we can get new and better antibiotics to the market.

I support this bill tremendously in a bipartisan way.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3310, the FCC Consolidating Reporting Act of 2012. I commend the author of this legislation and fellow member of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, Steve Scalise of Louisiana, for his work on this issue. And I also applaud the work of subcommittee chairman Greg Walden, who ensured that we moved this legislation through regular order.

H.R. 3310 consolidates eight congressionally mandated studies into a single report with a focus on intermodal competition, deploying communications to underserved and unserved communities, eliminating regulatory barriers, and empowering small businesses. This legislation will also make the FCC more efficient by eliminating a number of duplicative, repealed, or outdated reports that are still listed in statute. For example, in the 21st century, it is simply not necessary for the FCC to provide the report on competition between wire telephone and wire telegraph providers. Think Morse code.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3310 passed the full Energy and Commerce Committee by a voice vote on March 6, 2012. It will alleviate the unnecessary and antiquated reporting standards and replace them with an analysis of the 21st century marketplace and its demands on the telecommunications industry. This legislation represents solid policy. I urge my colleagues, support H.R. 3310.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of H.R. 1299, the Secure Border Act of 2011, authored by my good friend, Candice Miller, and urge my colleagues to support it.

This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive strategy for gaining control of our borders at all ports of entry. In developing that strategy, an analysis of current security effectiveness will help define the needs and requirements of an implementable border security blueprint.

Mr. Speaker, the reason this is necessary is because illegal immigration is one of the biggest crises facing our nation and securing our borders is of paramount importance.

The Government Accountability Office recently reported that less than half of our southwest border is under operational control. At the same time, only 32 percent of our northern border operates at an ``acceptable'' security level.

Mr. Speaker, keeping our nation safe is the federal government's chief responsibility, and that's why it is so important that we pass this legislation.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed from H.R. 1513.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Granger Amendment #44 to H.R. 4310 that was included in the En Bloc Amendment #3. As one of the co-chairs of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, I believe this amendment embodies the spirit of the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 in providing assistance to Taiwan for its own defense.

Through the TRA, we are able to conduct arms sales to Taipei. Over the past 30 years, we have done this time and time again. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has failed to proceed on Taiwan's top request--the F 16 C/D aircraft. Taiwan has an aging fixed wing aircraft fleet, and with the growing military gap across the Taiwan Strait, it is critical that we sell them this aircraft. The Granger Amendment does just that by requiring the President to move forward on the sale of no fewer than 66 F 16 C/Ds.

Mr. Chair, the Taiwan Caucus sent letters in 2010 and 2011 urging the White House to move forward on this matter. In 2010, 136 bipartisan Members signed that letter, and in 2011, 181 Members joined in the effort. Unfortunately, those letters were received with mostly silence. However, the White House cannot ignore this amendment.

I urge my colleagues to uphold our commitment to Taiwan and support the Granger Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, during National Police Week, to honor Probation Officer Tiffany Bishop. Officer Bishop was fatally wounded August 31, 2011, during a training exercise at the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison in Jackson, Georgia. At the time of her death, she had served the Georgia Department of Corrections with distinction for six months.

Tiffany was born in Waycross, Georgia and attended Union Grove High School, where she was president of the drama club. She graduated with honors from Georgia State College and University, where she earned a bachelor's and Master's degree in criminal justice.

Officer Bishop was recognized this week on the Capitol steps at the 31st Annual Peace Officers' Memorial Service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this fallen officer, and all those who have died in service to their communities.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of amendment #45, offered by Mr. Gohmert. This amendment clarifies that the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act and the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) do not deny the writ of habeas corpus--or any Constitutional rights--to those detained in the United States under the AUMF who are entitled to such rights.

Mr. Chair, this amendment is necessary because while the intent in the FY '12 NDAA was not to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without access to legal representation, some have misconstrued it as such. Simply put, this misunderstanding must end today. I support this amendment because I believe that providing for the safety and security of United States citizens is the paramount responsibility of the federal government. As we continue to fight the Global War on Terror, we must provide the President, the intelligence community, and our troops with all of the tools necessary to carry out this duty. Clearly, we must do this within the framework of our Constitution, and make certain that the Constitutional rights provided for our citizens are not violated.

Mr. Chair, in order to guarantee our citizens' Constitutional rights, I am further pleased that the text of H.R. 4388, the Right to Habeas Corpus Act--which was authored by Mr. Rigell of Virginia and of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor--was included in the FY '13 NDAA. Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution states `The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.' This legislation affirms that and goes on to state that ``Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107 40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112 81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is detained in the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.''

Mr. Chair, with the adoption of Mr. Gohmert's amendment and inclusion of Mr. Rigell's legislation, we are taking the steps necessary to ensure the protection of our citizens' rights, while at the same time denying terrorists the same privileges.

Former Attorneys General Ed Meese and Mike Mukasey--as well as other high ranking national security officials from both the Reagan and Bush Administrations--requested in a May 9 letter to the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee that ``As the House begins consideration of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, we urge you to ensure that attempts to exploit misconceptions about the NDAA are not successful in harming U.S. national security.'' Clearly they are referencing the misunderstanding stemming from the FY '12 NDAA. They further wrote that ``the FY '12 NDAA included an affirmation of the detention authority provided by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Given the President's plan to withdraw U.S. combat forces from Afghanistan and the continuing threat posed by groups like al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, this affirmation was a critical step in reinforcing the military's legal authorities to combat terror.''

As it relates to the other end of the spectrum--providing terrorists the same rights as would be conferred to U.S. citizens, as would be the case if the amendment authored by Mr. Smith and Mr. Amash were to be adopted--their letter states that ``. . . rewarding terrorists with greater rights for making it to the United States would actually incentivize them to come to our shores, or to recruit from within the United States, where they pose the greatest risk to the American people. Such a result is perverse.''

Mr. Chair, I am glad that because of our actions today, we are making clear the distinction between the rights provided our citizens and those provided to terrorists, while stating unequivocally that U.S. citizens will not be stripped of their habeas privileges.

I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Gohmert's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Patty Mozley for 43 years of dedicated service to the students of The Walker School in Marietta, Georgia.

Patty moved to Marietta in 1969 and began teaching third grade, and she held that position for 17 years. She also served as interim principal and spent the last 26 years as an enrollment adviser.

An avid playwright, Mozley also began The Walker School's drama program, writing and directing the first script. Before her retirement, The Walker School renamed the studio theater in Mozley's honor. Students, parents, and communities need more educators like her. She has inspired countless lives, and she has fostered a love for learning in her students.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Ms. Patty Mozley's outstanding accomplishments and her unwavering commitment to education.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Young Amendment #141 to H.R. 4310 that was included as part of En Bloc Amendment #6. I commend my colleague from Alaska for his leadership on this issue, and like him, I agree that the Secretary of Defense should expedite completion of the study of our nation's strategic ports in last year's National Defense Authorization Act.

One of the ports that is included in this study is the Port of Savannah in my home State of Georgia. The Port of Savannah is the nation's fastest- growing and fourth-busiest port. It serves as the most important infrastructure target in Georgia and the single-largest economic development issue for the state.

The economic impact that this port has is astounding. The Port of Savannah alone accounted for $9.5 billion in shipments to the Metro Atlanta region in 2011. Furthermore, the effect of both the Port of Savannah and the Port of Brunswick have on Georgia's economy are staggering. According to a recent University of Georgia study, these two ports support more than 350,000 jobs--which is 1 out of every 12 jobs across the state.

Mr. Chair, simply put, the Port of Savannah has is critical for economic development, not only in my home state, but throughout the southeast region. I am pleased that it was included on the list to study by DoD, and I believe this study needs to be completed this fiscal year.

I urge my colleagues to support the Young Amendment.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 288 on adoption of the Rehberg Amendment No. 59 to H.R. 4310, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a distinguished community leader in Cartersville, Georgia, Dr. Joe Edwards is celebrating his 25th anniversary as pastor of the Church Liberty Square.

Under his direction, Liberty Square has grown into a ``life-based'' church complex, boasting a K 12 school, family home communities, and a food distribution center that serves the needy. Pastor Edwards is a man who lives his faith; he and members of the Church at Liberty Square have positively transformed their community.

Pastor Edwards' devotion to Christ's ministry is an example to us all. I wish him continued blessings in his work. There is no doubt that Cartersville is a better place because of Pastor Edwards.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Pastor Edwards and the Church at Liberty Square.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Patty Mozley for her 43 years of dedicated service to the students of The Walker School in Marietta, Georgia.

Mozley moved to Marietta in 1969 and began teaching third grade at The Walker School, a position she held for 17 years. She also served as interim principal, and spent her last 26 years as an enrollment advisor.

An avid playwright, Mozley also began The Walker School's drama program, writing and directing the first script. Before her retirement, The Walker School renamed its studio theatre in Mozley's honor.

Students, parents, and communities need more educators like her. She has inspired countless lives and fostered a love for learning in her students.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Ms. Mozley's outstanding accomplishments and her unwavering commitment to education.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of amendment No. 8, the Bartlett-Flake amendment, to H.R. 4310.

The amendment will prevent the DOD from requiring contractors to sign expensive union-favoring project labor agreements as a condition of winning Federal construction contracts for projects authorized by the bill.

Under a PLA, the construction firm must agree to sign a union collective bargaining agreement, whether it's unionized or not, before it can bid on a government project. PLAs can result in increased costs for contractors and taxpayers by as much as 18 percent and cause unnecessary procurement delays and political favoritism in the Federal procurement process.

At a time when the Department of Defense is facing devastating across-the-board cuts, it simply does not make sense to encourage PLAs. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Ellison/Conyers amendment.

Simply put, if the goal is to deprive the Marine Corps of the Short Take-Off Vertical Landing variant of the F 35, designed to replace its aging Harriers and F 18's--while simultaneously increasing the per unit cost of Joint Strike Fighters--then this amendment achieves it.

The STOVL variant is desperately needed for the execution of short takeoffs and vertical landings in combat deployments aboard amphibious assault ships and in austere conditions ashore.

It will provide the Marines with a much more capable tactical fighter force that meets the future threats facing our nation.

This misguided amendment is opposed by the Department of Defense and the Marine Corps, not only because it would invest in yesterday's technology at the expense of tomorrow's, but because the F 35B has performed exceedingly well over the past 18 months, testing ahead of schedule in both 2011 and 2012.

Because the F 35B is urgently needed by the Marine Corps and our international partners, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to urge my colleagues to support my nonbinding amendment, No. 39, which would express the sense of Congress that active duty military personnel who live in or are stationed in Washington, D.C. should be exempt from existing District of Columbia firearm restrictions.

Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that the District of Columbia has historically had some of the most restrictive firearm regulations in the Nation. In fact, in June of 2008, the Supreme Court--in the District of Columbia v. Heller case--ruled that the District's handgun ban and requirements that rifles and shotguns in the home be kept unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock is unconstitutional. In that decision it also said that the Second Amendment is applicable to an individual, not just a militia.

Well, just 1 month later, the District of Columbia enacted the Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008, which places onerous restrictions on the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms, thus violating the spirit, if not the letter, by which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in D.C. v. Heller.

Mr. Chairman, there are approximately 40,000 servicemen and -women across all branches of the Armed Forces that either live in or they're stationed on active duty within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Indeed, many of them are stationed at the Pentagon. Unless these individuals are granted a waiver as serving in a law enforcement role, they are subject to the District of Columbia's onerous and highly restrictive laws on the possession of firearms.

Mr. Chairman, there are servicemen and -women who have been prosecuted because of this unconstitutional prohibition, despite their training in the use of firearms. This is a travesty. Studies have clearly shown that firearms are a crime deterrent. The de facto handgun ban leaves law-abiding citizens unable to protect themselves from violent acts or individuals breaking the law.

This amendment recognizes that the D.C. handgun law, especially in regard to trained servicemen and -women, punishes individuals well equipped to protect themselves and others while emboldening perpetrators of violent crime. Mr. Chairman, if we trust these brave men and women to defend our country, why do we not trust them to legally exercise their Second Amendment rights?

I would like to note that the NRA is supportive of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, can I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I remind the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia that, first and foremost, this is a sense of Congress resolution, nonbinding resolution. It's not to be, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, confused with any other ban or amendment that she referenced. It's certainly not to be confused with H.R. 645, a bill that would eliminate D.C.'s gun safety laws, which she was so concerned about in the last couple of years.

This is just simply saying, very clearly, Mr. Chairman, and especially to the governing body, the City Council and Mayor of the District of Columbia, look, we want to help you. We are recommending that you take this action. We're not forcing you to do this.

This is, again, as I say, a nonbinding resolution. It is just the sense of Congress, which, after all, has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. We want to say to the governing body, we think it's a darn good idea for you to enact this waiver for these military men and women, 40,000 of them, as I say, stationed either in D.C., at the Pentagon, at Fort Myer in Virginia or Maryland, that have the ability and the training, the necessary judgment and mentality to actually help the 500,000 residents of the District of Columbia.

I don't think that my colleague and any colleagues on the other side of the aisle who might be in opposition to this, I think that opposition is misguided. They're missing an opportunity to support something that would be good, indeed, good for the safety of the people of the District of Columbia.

If we criminalize the possession of firearms, then it might be a trite and hackneyed expression, but only criminals then would have the right to bear arms.

Now, this bill that the District of Columbia passed in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision, Heller v. District of Columbia, that upheld the Second Amendment rights for individuals and said that what law existed in the

District of Columbia was unconstitutional.

So they come up with some arcane, very difficult, almost impossible rules and regulations in regard to the possession of firearms so that they, de facto, make it impossible. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, support this amendment, sense of Congress, nonbinding.

I yield back the balance of my time.