Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Marietta native and Vanderbilt second baseman, Dansby Swanson, on his accomplishments in the 2014 NCAA College World Series.

Swanson was awarded the College World Series' Most Outstanding Player Award and was an incredible asset in helping Vanderbilt clinch its first College World Series Championship.

Throughout the 2014 season, Swanson became one of the key players on Vanderbilt's tremendously talented roster and was key in Vandy's 3-2 victory over the University of Virginia in the final to cap off a landmark 50 win season.

Just a sophomore, Swanson batted .323 with five runs scored and two RBI in Omaha--the most impressive performance of any player in the tournament.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Georgia's 11th Congressional District, I applaud Dansby for his achievement and look forward to his future successes. I extend my enthusiastic congratulations to him on achieving the highest level of recognition possible in the NCAA College World Series.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4631--the Autism CARES Act of 2014. As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I would like to commend the author of this legislation, Chris Smith of New Jersey, for his leadership on this issue. I would also like to commend Full Committee Chairman Fred Upton of Michigan and Health Subcommittee Chairman Joe Pitts from Pennsylvania for moving this important, bipartisan, bill through regular order.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the consideration of H.R. 4631, I have been pleased to collaborate with Atlanta's Marcus Autism Center. Those of us from Georgia and leaders in the Congressional Autism Caucus are very familiar with the innovative treatment offered to children with autism at the Marcus Autism Center and the cutting-edge research its scientists are conducting there. I am proud to say the Marcus Autism Center--which is part of the Children's Healthcare of Atlanta system-- is one of three National Institutes of Health Autism Centers of Excellence.

Furthermore, I have enjoyed working with the Center's leadership, particularly Executive Director Don Mueller, to make sure that H.R. 4631--once implemented--will facilitate new breakthroughs in early diagnosis and intervention for children with autism. I have been impressed by the recent study authored by Marcus Autism Center researchers, Dr. Ami Klin and Dr. Warren Jones, which was published in Nature, a leading international scientific journal. This study showed that they detected signs of autism in the first two to six months of life using eye-tracking technology. This study opens a window for even earlier diagnosis and intervention in the future. By diagnosing and intervening earlier, we can reduce the most challenging disabilities related to autism and maximize the potential of children with autism.

Mr. Speaker, today, the average age for diagnosing children with autism in the United States is around five years old. I have been informed by Marcus Autism Center officials that this study is the first step towards transformational future change and that if the medical profession can identify signs of autism in toddlers and then infants, we can capitalize on this window of opportunity to change the very course of autism.

Therefore, as this reauthorization is being implemented, agencies must recognize the priority we place on facilitating improvements in early diagnosis and intervention of autism. I

made this very point during the Energy and Commerce Committee mark-up, and I am pleased that Chairman Upton was willing to include important language to this effect in the Committee Report to accompany H.R. 4631.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the continued advancements made at places like the Marcus Autism Center as we diagnosis and treat people with autism with the help of H.R. 4631. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 355 on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 641, I am not recorded due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall No. 356 on adoption of H. Res. 641, I am not recorded due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall No. 357 on the DeFazio Amendment No. 3 to H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, I am not recorded due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 358 on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, offered by Mr. Garamendi of California, I am not recorded due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 359 on final passage of H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, I am not recorded due to a death in the family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, printed in the Congressional Record, No. 28.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that will prohibit funds in the underlying bill from being used to provide mortgage insurance under title II of the National Housing Act for any mortgage on a single-family dwelling--to be used as a principal residence--to a potential borrower who provides only an individual taxpayer identification number--called ITIN--for identification.

This includes usage for mortgage loans available under the FHA to ensure that an individual must use a Social Security number rather than an ITIN--individual taxpayer identification number--in order to secure government-backed mortgage insurance.

The ITIN was first implemented by the IRS and is a 9-digit tax processing number. The IRS issues the ITIN to individuals who are required to have a taxpayer identification number but who do not have-- and are not eligible to obtain--a Social Security number. The IRS has indicated that the ITIN's only purpose should be Federal tax reporting. However, that has not always been the case.

Unfortunately, Madam Chairman, it is relatively easy for illegal immigrants to attain an ITIN because proof of legal residency in the United States is not a requirement. Due to this practice, illegal immigrants have the incentive to obtain an ITIN as a means to become permanent residents by showing the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services that they have been paying taxes while residing illegally in the country.

Of course I will yield to the chair.

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

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, printed in the Congressional Record, No. 29.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense amendment to H.R. 4745.

The Gingrey-Bridenstine amendment would prohibit funds in the underlying bill from being used to pay a Federal employee for any period of time that such an employee is using official time.

As the author of H.R. 107, the Federal Employee Accountability Act, this amendment is a continuation of the work I have done over the last three Congresses to repeal the governmentwide use of official time.

Under current law, Federal employees can use official, taxpayer- funded time to perform union functions or to participate in union activities when they would otherwise be on official duty status.

Madam Chair, according to a FOIA request by the Americans for Limited Government, there are 35 employees at the Department of Transportation alone--making an average, by the way, of almost $140,000 a year--who spend 100 percent of their workday working on behalf of a union.

These employees were hired to perform duties on behalf of the taxpayer--several are engineers or air traffic controllers--yet they are working exclusively for the union at the taxpayers' expense.

In fiscal year 2011, the most recent year for which we have official time data, the Department of Transportation spent more than $17 million on official time.

In the same year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development spent more than $2 million on official time.

Across the entire Federal Government, more than 3 million official time hours were used in collective bargaining or arbitration of grievances against an employer--who, by the way, is us--in fiscal year 2011. These union activities were performed at taxpayer expense to the tune of $155 million for the same time period.

While we are not voting on veterans funding today, it is timely, given recent events, to mention the impact that the use of official time has on the

Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA is one of the largest abusers of official time, spending more than $42.5 million on this cost in fiscal year 2011.

In 2012, more than 250 VA employees worked 100 percent of their day for the union, rather than working on behalf of our Nation's heroes. Over 100 of those same employees were health care professionals, including nurses, technicians, and mental health therapists.

In the wake of the nationwide scandal of the VA, it is unthinkable that employees there are allowed to work on behalf of the union, rather than focusing on serving our veterans.

It is particularly shocking that the use of official time by medical professionals and others at the VA continues, when the VA claims a shortage of health care professionals is what is contributing to the problems like the long waiting lists for people that are suicidal because of traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress syndrome.

Madam Chair, we must demand accountability at the VA and across government to be sure civil servants are focusing on their positions of record, not serving unions at taxpayer expense.

That is why stand-alone legislation I have introduced, H.R. 107, would repeal the governmentwide use of official time, saving over $1.5 billion over 10 years.

While we are not considering my stand-alone legislation on the floor today, I am proud to offer this amendment as a small step toward reining in the use and abuse of official time.

Simply put, a Federal employee hired to work as an air traffic controller should spend his or her time at work performing his or her duties as an air traffic controller, not serving as a taxpayer-funded union official.

Madam Chair, I want to make it very clear that I am not proposing to do away with unions. However, I am working diligently to increase the efficiency of the Federal workforce. This amendment limits Federal activity during normal business hours to simply working, not carrying out union activities.

We should not be forcing taxpayers to support private and often very politically active organizations. At $140,000 a year, Federal employees should spend their days performing the duties for which taxpayers hired them.

While families all over the Nation are tightening their belts and cutting their own spending, it should not be the practice of the Federal Government to allow expensive, special interest handouts; rather the Federal Government should be reining in its spending and looking for ways to save money and function more efficiently. This amendment is an important first step.

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

Madam Chair, as the designee of Mr. Mica of Florida, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 4745. This amendment would prohibit funds from being used to subsidize Amtrak food and beverage service.

As my colleagues know, Amtrak operates at a loss every year, partially due to millions lost in the food service cost. In 2012, Amtrak lost $72 million

on its food and beverage service, and that loss is just one in a consistent series of losses. This loss on its own would be cause for concern, but even more concerning is that the loss directly violates the law.

Madam Chairwoman, in 1981, Federal law mandated that Amtrak break even on its food and beverage service by the following year, 1982. Despite this, Amtrak not only failed to break even, but it contracted with high-end chefs to develop gourmet recipes for Amtrak meals, to the tune of more than $905 million in the last decade.

Heavily subsidized routes feature dishes such as lamb shank and Atlantic salmon, and Amtrak has a Culinary Advisory Team to develop new high-end recipes. In 2012, a hamburger cost Amtrak $16.15, with riders paying $9.50. This means that we, the taxpayers, are forced to pick up the tab for the remaining $6.65 through subsidies provided to Amtrak. On some routes, first-class passengers are offered complimentary cheese, wine, and champagne. While the passenger may enjoy these luxury items, it is not fair that the taxpayer is forced to subsidize these extravagances.

Each spring, Amtrak brings together some of the best chefs in the country for a retreat of sorts. These chefs--several of them, of course, award-winning--come together for what The Washington Post has called ``an intensive 3-day session of cooking and brainstorming.'' At last year's gathering, chefs tasted more than 100 offerings. Of the recipes tested, including recipes for braised pork chop and a spinach and mushroom frittata, several will be deemed unsuitable for offering on Amtrak either due to kitchen limitations or due to a lack of cohesiveness with the rest of the menu.

Madam Chairwoman, I ask you: When the average American is struggling to make ends meet, why are we throwing away money at Amtrak for these luxuries, especially when Amtrak consistently operates at a loss?

If a private company wants to host a brainstorming weekend for top chefs, that is its prerogative, but the taxpayer should not be on the hook for a getaway focused on developing lavish meals for Amtrak passengers.

Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize Amtrak, and they certainly should not be forced to cover tens of millions of dollars in costs to pay for gourmet meals and first-class service on Amtrak. Amtrak's food and beverage losses violate the law. Yet this is flagrantly disregarded. Rather than taking steps to correct the problem, the service goes after more upscale options.

We must end this cycle of wasteful spending and enact real change to get our fiscal house back in order. With a national debt of more than $17 trillion, we cannot afford to keep throwing money away, particularly on luxuries such as gourmet meals on a federally subsidized train service.

For that reason, Mr. Mica and I are offering this amendment to prohibit funds made available by this act from being used to subsidize Amtrak food and beverage service. I urge my colleagues to support the Gingrey-Mica amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Gingrey of Georgia

Amendment No. 28: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Gingrey of Georgia

Amendment No. 29: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Chair, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment included in En Bloc Amendment #7 that would express the Sense of Congress that active duty military personnel who live in or are stationed in Washington, DC should be exempt from existing District of Columbia firearms restrictions.

It is no secret that the District of Columbia has historically had some of the most restrictive firearm regulations in the nation even after the victory for Second Amendment rights in the 2008 ruling by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. With approximately 40,000 service men and women across all branches of the Armed Forces either living in or stationed on active duty within the Washington, DC metropolitan area, these individuals are subject to the very laws of the District of Columbia that make the lawful possession of firearms nearly impossible.

Mr. Chair, my amendment would recognize that the DC handgun law, especially in regard to trained service men and women, punishes individuals well-equipped to protect themselves and others while emboldening perpetrators of violent crime. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are concerned. They are concerned about their jobs. They are concerned about their health and the economy. Last week, 37 percent of Americans ranked these as the most important issues facing our country.

House Republicans have a plan to replace ObamaCare, to create jobs, to grow the economy, and to help hardworking Americans take home more of their paychecks.

While there are some difficult decisions ahead of us, there are some simple decisions that we can agree upon right now. Americans need the repeal

and replacement of ObamaCare so they really can keep their doctor and their hospital. Americans need a simplified Tax Code, one that is fair to everyone. And Americans need the government to remove unnecessary red tape that is preventing economic growth.

We have a plan that can turn their concern into an America that works, an America they need.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this colloquy is to clarify the intent of section 1051 of the conference report, Interstate Water Agreements and Compacts.

First, can you please confirm that this section does not alter any existing rights or obligations under current law?

My understanding is that this section acknowledges the difficulty that interstate water disputes present. Unfortunately, we have a longstanding dispute in our region that is centered on the operation of two Federal reservoirs located in Georgia--Allatoona Lake and Lake Lanier. Alabama and Florida have claimed for years that the Army was not authorized to provide water to Georgia from those two reservoirs. Having won the court case, Georgia has asked the Army to make some decisions decades overdue.

I want to make it clear that the congressional intent of section 1051 will not be interpreted as sending a message to the Army or to any reviewing court about how they should respond to a request from the State of Georgia.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my friend Mr. Rothfus's commonsense amendment to H.R. 4486. I also want to thank Chairman Culberson for his hard work on this legislation on behalf of our nation's veterans.

This amendment would prohibit senior VA officials from collecting bonuses. According to several reports by the Inspector General at the Department of Veterans Affairs, there have been a series of tragic--and preventable--deaths at VA facilities across the country. The preventable deaths in the VA healthcare system have been attributed to mismanagement, improper oversight, and failure to schedule timely medical appointments, among other errors.

Yet, despite the fact that more than 20 deaths have been attributed to mismanagement and lack of oversight, tens of thousands of dollars in bonuses were awarded to top level executives at the VA.

This practice has been evident at the Atlanta VA Medical Center, where Inspector General reports highlighted widespread mismanagement, delays in care, and a lack of uniform and acceptable policies. At least three deaths--and possibly a fourth--have been attributed to this lack of oversight, including a suicidal patient who was supposed to be closely monitored by staff in the hospital's mental health ward but died of a drug overdose after staff members lost track of him for

hours. Despite the fact that as many as four unexpected deaths were attributed to mismanagement and lack of oversight, thousands of dollars in bonuses were awarded to top level executives at the facility.

At the Charlie Norwood VA Medical Center in Augusta, thousands of patients sat on a backlogged list for endoscopy consultations after management failed to act in a timely manner to schedule appointments for checkups in the gastrointestinal clinic. These delays contributed to the deaths of three patients, who died waiting for care in what could otherwise have been a treatable illness. No one has been fired at this facility--to the contrary, VA refuses to say whether or not officials there are eligible for bonuses despite the deaths. Simply put, our veterans deserve better.

It is past time that we stop rewarding people for simply showing up to work--bonuses should be the exception, not the norm. It should never be easier to get a bonus than to get fired, but that is what we have seen at the VA.

Top officials at facilities from Atlanta to Pittsburgh have received ``performance awards,'' even while veterans died. Veterans deserve to know that in return for serving their country, they will not be endangered in the very place they go to seek care. They deserve the peace of mind that would come from knowing that those responsible for the tragic deaths received more than a slap on the wrist one day and a bonus the next. Our veterans deserve to know that deaths in the system are taken seriously and met with consequences. It is incomprehensible that management officials could simultaneously be complicit in mismanagement that led to a preventable death and also rewarded with a hefty bonus.

Furthermore, at a time when so many of our soldiers are returning from war, and in light of the deaths in Georgia and across the country, I believe the VA should prioritize veterans' health and well-being above all else.

Mr. Chair, I believe we should reward our veterans with quality care and services in exchange for their commitment to our country and our freedoms. Money spent on executive bonuses would be better spent on ensuring our nation's men and women in uniform receive the best possible care when they come home.

I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing support for our nation's veterans by supporting this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 187 on Final Passage of H.R. 4486, the Fiscal Year 2015 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Chair, I rise today to highlight what I believe are anti-competitive practices at the Government Printing Office, or GPO.

As its name implies, the GPO was set up to do government printing. Title 44 of the United States Code states that ``all printing, binding, and blank-book work for Congress, the Executive Office, the Judiciary, other than the Supreme Court of the United States . . . shall be done at the Government Printing Office.'' GPO's mission statement is to ``produce, protect, preserve, and distribute the official publications and information products of the Federal Government.'' Somehow, GPO has interpreted this to mean that ``printing'' includes the creation of secure federal credentials.

Madam Chair, the production of secure federal credentials cannot be reasonably classified as printing. The production of these credentials involves electronic storage capability, anti-counterfeiting technologies, and specialized manufacturing techniques. Furthermore, Title 44 was codified in 1968--secure credentials were not created until 30 years later. It is hard to believe that lawmakers in the 1960's could have envisioned the technical know-how that goes into making these credentials, much less classified the production as printing.

The real problem, however, lies with GPO asserting its authority to make these products while crowding out private sector competition. The federal government has successfully contracted out production of secure credentials to the private sector for years. The private sector competes for these contracts, ensuring that we end up with the best product for the best price. More disturbingly, I have heard reports indicating that GPO has a dedicated sales staff, and sends other staffers on sales calls to promote its secure credentials capabilities to federal agencies. GPO's attempt to fill this space inhibits competition by encouraging the federal government to insource at the expense of innovations in the private sector. I believe we need to level the playing field.

By highlighting this issue, I hope to trigger a discussion that will define a clear role for the GPO today, but also to ensure that the private secure credentials industry, the acknowledged leaders in this field, will have a chance to compete for government contracts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor from H.R. 3344.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to call for designation of April 18 as a day of honor for Journeymen Linemen.

Accordingly, I have introduced a resolution to recognize April 18, 2014, as National Lineman Appreciation Day in order to honor these brave men and women for their contributions to protect public safety.

Linemen are often the first responders during a storm or other catastrophic event, which means these brave men and women are often required to make the scene safe for other public safety heroes. Linemen work with thousands of volts of electricity high atop power lines every day of the year in order to protect the nation from dangerous electrical currents.

The profession of Lineman is steeped in tradition and family, both professionally and personally. Generations ago, Linemen climbed poles using hooks and blocks, but as technology has grown through the years, inventive Linemen have pioneered advancements with innovative materials, altering the direction of line work for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring the extraordinary commitment and courage demonstrated every day by the nation's Linemen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1557, the Children's Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2013. This bill extends and reauthorizes funding for those children's hospitals with approved graduate medical residency training program. We must act now to promote and strengthen our country's pediatric workforce.

It is no secret that our country faces a growing shortage of physicians. It is important for Congress to recognize that investments in our future doctors will be essential to ensuring patient access and quality health outcomes. If we do not have the physicians to care for our sick and needy, no amount of technological advancement will be enough to provide health care services for everyone. The vote today recognizes this fact, and will confirm our desire to provide adequate future access to pediatric care.

As a physician of over 30 years, and one who has delivered over 5,200 babies, I understand the tremendous impact that pediatricians have on the health of our children. The bipartisan support and engagement of this legislation points to its truly important need and I urge my colleagues today to vote to ensure that an adequate funding stream is available to train tomorrow's pediatricians.

For these important reasons, I support S. 1557.