Floor Statements

To the dean of the delegation and to the rest of my colleagues from New Jersey, Washington, D.C., the Senate, the Chambers will not be the same without Frank Lautenberg walking about.

He is and he was a man who lived truly an extraordinary life. You've heard of his humble beginnings that Bill, I guess, knows pretty well, of his growing up in that neighborhood and going on to fight through World War II, as Leonard points out; and of that extraordinary entrepreneurial spirit. In all of those ways, he lived an extraordinary life that left an extraordinary impact upon the people of his community and the State and on all of those people who benefited from his business acumen--to be able to use that service--to the jobs that he provided and then to take that and bring it here to Washington and the benefits that he provided even far beyond his own humble beginnings back in Paterson, New Jersey, but across the country as well.

So we come here today, joined in the thought that our prayers are with him, his family, his children, and grandchildren. We just hope that through this difficult time that they must be going that they can find some solace in the fact that so many people who have come here today and who are back in New Jersey respect him and appreciate him and thank him for what he did for the State.

I thank the gentleman.

I rise today obviously in support of H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act.

At a time when new regulation after new regulation is being proposed by

this administration, it is critical that we restore some semblance of order to the regulatory process and ensure that our Nation's small businesses do not continue to drown in a sea of red tape. So this legislation specifically subjects the SEC to a more robust version of the President's own order, which requires and outlines an enhanced cost-benefit analysis requirement, as well as requires a review of existing regulations.

The SEC Regulatory Accountability Act will do what? It will enhance the SEC's existing economic analysis requirements for requiring the Commission to first identify the nature of the problem that would be addressed before issuing any new regulations.

While the SEC has already certain cost-benefit related requirements in current law relative to rulemaking, as indicated before, recent court decisions have vacated or remanded several of these and pointed out the deficiencies in the Commission's use of cost-benefit analysis.

For example, recently the SEC inspector general issued a report that expressed several concerns about the quality of their analysis. They found that none of the rulemaking examined attempted to quantify either benefits or costs, other than informational collection cost.

This bill will ensure that the benefits of any rulemaking outweigh the cost, and that both new and existing regulations are accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand.

The legislation will also require the SEC to assess the cost and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating at all, and to choose the approach that basically gives us the best benefits.

Under the bill, the SEC shall evaluate whether a proposed regulation is inconsistent, incompatible, or duplicative of other Federal regulations, as well.

So because some rulemaking has been politicized in the past, the bill then requires this cost-benefit analysis which I talk about will be performed by who? By the Commission's chief economist.

These are commonsense reforms. They are appropriate, especially given the fact that the Commission continues to struggle with this issue. For instance, as already pointed out in the recent unanimous decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which vacated the Commission's proxy access rule, the Court stated:

The Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously for

having failed once again adequately to assess the economic

benefits of a new rule and inconsistently and

opportunistically framed the costs and benefits of the rule.

The bill also includes, besides all this, a section that will provide a clearer post-implementation assessment of new regulations so that post-implementation cost-benefit analysis can also be done, in addition to the pre-implementation. This will be able to better inform the true impact of the major rules once they're in place.

Now, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say these new requirements will be too costly and will open the SEC to a flood of additional lawsuits. No, no, no, no. This could be further from the truth. By having these robust standards, the rules will be drafted so well that they will be thoroughly done, they will not be struck down by the courts, and we will not have to wade through additional time and money defending them in court and then redrafting the rules, like the proxy access rule.

So in the end, this is a commonsense, pragmatic approach to our rulemaking process that should have been in place all along. And with our economy struggling now with unemployment above 7\1/2\ percent, we need to ensure that we're making it easier, not harder, for businesses to begin hiring again.

Clearly, Mr. Chairman, a stronger commitment to economic analysis by the SEC is absolutely essential to ensure reasonable rules do not unduly burden registered companies or negatively impact job creation.

I was not going to speak again until, in fact, I was being lectured on what a true conservative is by the other side of the aisle, who gave us the over 2,000-page Dodd-Frank legislation that has in fact stymied the economy, despite what the gentleman from Connecticut was saying before, that is setting literally trillions of dollars on the side, not being invested; that the unemployment rate hovers at high levels because of this stagnation in the economy because of the legislation.

To the other side of the aisle, to define what a true conservative is, a true conservative would actually read the bill, as other Members of the other side of the aisle have not done. Those who could not find simple words such as ``benefit'' when it is listed many times, those who could not find the benefits to investors when it's listed multiple times. A true conservative would understand what they're talking about when they come to the floor, Mr. Chairman. A true conservative would do what's in the best interest of the economy, of the investor, of the job seekers of this country, as well. A true conservative would support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I appreciate the gentlelady's offer of an amendment here. I also appreciate the fact that the lady and I have often worked together on legislation in the past in our respective committee, but on this one I humbly disagree.

As she says, the amendment before us basically guts the bill and simply sets forth a sense of Congress.

Two points, one on policy and one on practicality.

On policy, if this were the gentlelady's idea that this is the way we should go on this piece of underlying legislation, as the ranking member of the subcommittee and as a member of the full committee, she had every opportunity in the world to come before the committee at the time and put this before us, at which time we could have had a full and complete debate on it.

Had we done so, we probably would have pointed out to her two things.

One, she makes reference to the D.C. Circuit Court's opinion on lines 14 through 18 of her case. Would that the D.C. Circuit Court had said that the SEC is doing a good job, that they had the authority to do so and that nothing else is necessary in going forward. If she had read the opinion, she would have known that that's not quite what they said.

The D.C. Circuit Court stated that the SEC, the Commission, acted arbitrarily and capriciously for having failed--note this--``once again''--so this is not the only time--but once again to adequately assess the economic effects of the new rule and, again, inconsistently and opportunistically framed cost benefits of the rule.

So the citation that she gives of the D.C. Circuit Court does not support her position but undermines her position. The D.C. Circuit basically supports our position that the SEC has failed, and that it has failed repeatedly to do what it should do, and that is why we have the legislation before you today.

And when she talks about red tape and unnecessary--well, that's not what the AFL-CIO says, and that's not what the American Bar Association says. The SEC did look at the issue of doing a retrospective look at this. They did so back over a year and a half ago, back in September of 2011, and they asked for input.

What did the AFL-CIO say about that?

To be effective, security regulations must be continuously

updated to address the emergence of new loopholes, abuses and

market failures.

Likewise, the American Bar Association also chimed in about the retrospective analysis, which is what the SEC could have been doing, should have been doing, didn't do, and that is what our bill will require them to do.

So I appreciate the gentlelady's efforts in this area, but I would recommend a ``no'' vote on her amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, and I will simply address both the process and the policy briefly.

On the process, I appreciate the gentlelady's bringing this amendment here to the floor today; but, as she knows, we were in committee for multiple hours hearing various amendments on the underlying legislation, and she had every opportunity to bring it before the entire committee at that time, and we could have had a full and complete debate and actual vote in the committee at that time. I am lost for a reason why she did not go through the regular order.

But, more specifically, to the merits of the underlying bill and the amendment, if there could be anything simpler or easier than what we are trying to do in the underlying bill, H.R. 1062, Mr. Speaker, let's be real. Mr. Speaker, all we're asking the SEC to do is this: identify a problem first before you do a regulation, and then once you consider a regulation, consider all the alternatives that are out there, not just the initial one that comes forward. And then once you've passed that regulation, the next year and years after that, go back and reconsider them and make sure that they're being done effectively and they were the most efficient regulations for the economy. That's the underlying legislation, and that's why I encourage my Members to support the underlying bill.

To the MTR, what is the SEC charged to do? Three, basically, core provisions: investor protection, capital formation, and efficient markets. And perhaps to the point here, one of the most important is investor protection.

Who are we talking about when we're talking about investors? It's that single mom out there who is trying to raise a young girl and trying to put her into college and have money to do so. It's the young couple who wants to have financing to be able to buy their first home. It's the moms, dads, and our grandparents, the pensioners and the retirees who want to know that their investments are secure and the markets are operating efficiently. To the point here with your amendment most specifically, yes, it's the cop on the beat, it's the fireman, and it's the union worker who wants to make sure that he's investing his time and efforts into our community and his investments are taken care of in an efficient operation in the markets on Wall Street and the markets as well.

That's what our bill does. All of them are taken care of in the underlying legislation. Your amendment basically says that we don't care as far as making sure the most efficient rules are concerned when it comes to the firefighters, the pensioners, or the teachers.

I'll close on this. If we want to honor the firefighters, if we want to honor the police officers, and if we want to honor the teachers and the pension funds, vote ``no'' on this MTR and vote ``yes'' on the final passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today, we remember the Armenian people who lost their lives almost a century ago in the Armenian Genocide. In the first genocide of the 20th century, Ottoman officials arrested more than 200 Armenian leaders. Subsequently, 1.5 million Armenians were arrested and forced to march hundreds of miles to the present-day Syrian Desert. Men, women, and children were starved and tortured solely because of their faith and ethnicity.

Yet, there are some today who still choose not to recognize the atrocities that occurred between 1915 and 1923. But we know the truth. We know there were men, women, children, and families who were detained and ordered to march into the desert. We know there were those who were forced to escape their homes in search of safety. And we know there were those who never made it out.

Scripture says before you make comment about the speck in someone else's eye, remove the plank from your eye. Well, we certainly have a plank in our eye from the Administration and from the State Department, who is just refusing to do what is right in this area. So, we must first address and remove that plank in our eye and make the admission in this country and then we can call even more strongly on other countries, specifically Turkey.

We must continue to remember the injustice and acts of hatred that occurred almost a century ago. By doing so, we work to prevent a repetition of atrocities. And by continuing to hold events such as the annual commemoration, we make our voices heard. I can only hope that our acknowledgement and recognition of the crimes against humanity will set an example, paving the way for a peaceful resolution between the Turkey and Armenia. Thank you.

I rise to speak about the strong relationship between the United States and South Korea, one of our most important relationships, for South Korea is one of America's closest allies in Asia and, indeed, in the entire world. Since the Korean war in the 1950s, the U.S. and South Korea have stood side by side in the name of democracy and liberty and to face down the forces of tyranny and oppression and dictatorship from North Korea and the broader world.

All you need to do is to compare North and South Korea to understand how successful South Korea has been and how much of a failure the Kim regime in the North has been.

South Korea is the world's 15th-largest economy and Asia's fourth- largest. Companies like Samsung, Kia, and LG are major, globally known brands, while Seoul ranks as one of the great cities of the world. South Korea is a vibrant, open society with an equally vibrant and open political system.

Now take North Korea. North Korea is a kleptocratic, vicious dictatorship that tramples on the most basic rights of its citizens, all in the name of glorifying the Kim family and its cadre of jack- booted thugs. There is no freedom of choice, no freedom of religion, and no freedom to dissent from the line of the Kim regime. For the average North Korean, there is only poverty, despotism, and no hope as the regime squanders its resources on its bloated military and dangerous nuclear program.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Oradell Public Library. On February 7th, 1913, a small group of community leaders met in Oradell to discuss the creation of a public library. A little over two months later, these individuals successfully opened the public library on April 19, 1913.

The library was originally managed by its Board of Trustees and the president of the board, William Zabriskie, who served in that position for 25 years. The board dedicated their time and efforts to ensure the library continued to grow and serve the community. The examples of generosity that contributed to the development and evolution of the library are numerous, but some instances demand specific mention.

The first librarian, Marie A. Skinner, worked on a volunteer basis for the first three months and thereafter received a mere ten dollars per month for her hard work. A local carpenter volunteered his time and materials to build the library's first shelves. World renowned painter Charles Livingston Bull, an Oradell resident and an original board member, donated multiple works of art which reside in the library to this day. After ten years of occupying a room behind the local post office, the library moved to its own building provided by the Bellis- Blauvelt family. Residents later donated books to increase the library's collection.

A hundred years after its founding, the Oradell Public Library remains an exemplary model of what is possible when people come together for the betterment of their community. I congratulate the Oradell Public Library on this important and impressive milestone. It is an honor to represent the people of Oradell and to commend the hard work and personal sacrifice of so many that established the Oradell Public Library.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for arranging today's Special Order. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey also for his leadership on this very important issue, not just today, not just yesterday, but over years, year after year after year, coming to this floor, speaking around our State, speaking around the Nation as well, speaking for those who do not have a voice, speaking for the weak, the unborn. We thank you for your leadership in this area. We recognize that you have done a profound thing for this Nation, and we thank you for that.

I, too, come from New Jersey; and tonight I would like to speak briefly, and I will reference a woman who lived in New Jersey, who lived in Bergen County, who actually lived in Tenafly, up in my neck of the woods. And maybe some of you have heard her name before, and you would if you've walked about this Capitol, because she is commemorated in a sculpture located in the rotunda of this building, and I'm talking about Elizabeth Cady Stanton. She was a suffragette. She was a women's rights activist. She was someone who fought long and hard to ensure the equality of women before the law in this country. And also she fought for the important issue of the sanctity of life. Way back over 100 years ago in 1873, she wrote a letter to Julia Ward Howe, a prominent abolitionist and also a suffragette, and in it she wrote the following:

When we consider that women are treated as property, it is

degrading to women that we should treat our own children as

property to be disposed of as we see fit.

So she classified abortion as a form of infanticide.

Today, Mrs. Stanton, I believe, would be horrified. I believe she would be disgusted, as my colleagues are as well, with what millions of Americans are watching going on in Philadelphia right now.

Kermit Gosnell is on trial in a city that gave birth to America, in a city that gave birth to the Declaration of Independence, a city that gave birth to the idea, the promise of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He's there on trial for the callous murder of eight Americans, one woman, she who died from a botched abortion, and seven innocent, defenseless children who were born alive and healthy but then were killed by the abortionist.

These are only the murders that Gosnell is being charged with. His clinic, it is recorded, has carried out literally hundreds, thousands of abortions over the years using the doctor's own gruesome techniques on children, who were often over the Pennsylvania legal limit of 24 weeks.

Now, as was pointed out, news reports on the trial are nonexistent. Reports of testimony in the grand jury are basically nonexistent in the media. But if you dig down and you get a copy of the grand jury's report, you see what we're talking about and how gruesome it is.

According to the grand jury's report, ``Gosnell had a simple solution''--this

is from the grand jury's report. ``Gosnell had a simple solution for unwanted babies; he killed them.'' He didn't call it that. He called it, ensuring fetal demise. He called it, then, ``snipping.'' Over the years there were literally hundreds of snippings. This we find from the grand jury's report.

Snipping? This is not a medical procedure. This is murder, and we should call it for what it is.

Where, then, is the protection of life? Where, then, is the protection of liberty? Where is the protection of the pursuit of happiness?

Where is the outrage at what is going on there? Where is the outrage that nothing of this is being reported in any of the major newspapers across this country, on any of the major radio stations, on any of the major TV or cable channels across this country?

You have to dig, as I did, to find it in the back pages. The media and the pro-abortion movement are more concerned about things like Rush Limbaugh's comments on contraception, or ensuring that girls under 18, kids, have easy access to the morning after pill than they are with this trial, the gruesome acts in the trial, they allege, of Dr. Gosnell, or for the 1.2 million unborn Americans who die in America every year.

So, Mr. Speaker I join the rest of my colleagues tonight in expressing my disgust with this case and the failure also, the disgust also with the media to cover these actions.

Every child is precious. Every child is a gift. We must continue, then, this fight to protect this most fundamental right for the unborn, and each of us, the right to life. And we must also make sure that when it is destroyed, that it is exposed.

Again, with that, I conclude, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his actions tonight.

I thank the CBC for actually coming to the floor with a budget, something that the President of the United States has not been able to do four out of five times, even though it is the law of the land that he is required to do so. So I commend them for doing so.

We should look to see what is it that we agree with in this and what do we disagree with. We do agree on several points, such as that we want to have a just and fair Tax Code. We do agree, as we have in our budget, to make sure that we address the most vulnerable, those people who are out of work, the poor in the country, those who are trying hard to make ends meet, to try to end poverty as well, to try to make sure that there is health care in this country. But where we differ from the CBC is the impact that their budget would have on each and every one of these.

Their budget would have a devastating impact on those who are out of work, those who are trying to not just get a handout, but get a hand up; those who are looking for health care and not being able to afford it; those who are looking for health care from the Federal Government and realizing that within a short period of time, over the next decade, we will see, actually, the money in the Federal Government for the health care that they're receiving right now basically run out.

So that is why I applaud their attempt to come to the floor with a budget. But I ask them to take a look at what the impact of their budget will do as opposed to what the Republican budget will do. We will actually be able to create jobs in this country. We did so before in something called the JOBS Act, which we passed in a bipartisan manner.

We are going to take the next step to make sure that there is a level playing field in this country versus other countries, to bring back those jobs that have been lost to other foreign nations and bring them back into this country as well. We will be able to reform the system with regard to the poor. We will be able to provide for a system that provides for the American family in a fair and just Tax Code.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today, as they say, in opposition to the Progressive Caucus substitute. While my friends across the aisle are motivated by good intentions, I believe that their substitute is, frankly, a blueprint for fiscal disaster. Instead of restoring the certainty to the economy by promoting fairness and providing American families the opportunity for more prosperity, this budget is simply a black hole for American families.

I can at least give credit to both the Progressive Caucus and the Democrat Caucus for offering a budget because the President of the United States has failed to do so. As you are aware, on February 4, the President, as required by law, is to give us a budget. It's March 20 now; and the American people, well, we're still waiting. That is the fourth time in 5 years that President Obama has failed to submit a budget on time and failed to abide by the law.

The Senate Democrats, well, they're not much better. It has taken them almost 4 years to produce a budget that basically now increases government spending by $265 billion, taxes up by almost $1 trillion, and cuts health care providers by almost $300 billion. Over the period covered by the budget, deficits under the Senate plan are nearly $4 trillion larger than those under the House plan.

So, today, we have a Progressive substitute on the floor. This budget will do what? It will raise taxes by almost $6 trillion over the next 10 years, including a new tax on carbon. $5.7 trillion in new taxes necessarily means greater tax burdens on who? The American family. These tax cuts put job creators in the penalty box again, and that means more Americans will be where? Without jobs.

These tax policies are deceptively sold under, really, a warped notion of what ``fairness'' is. The reality is this ``fairness'' of theirs is merely a heavy-handed government taking from one pocket and putting in another pocket.

This budget's tax policy is based on the equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. When he's talking about equality, Milton Friedman once pointed out that a society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality, however, will get a high degree of both.

So true fairness is the freedom to manage and direct one's own life and one's own future. Those who take risks giving their all in the pursuit of the American Dream deserve to keep what they've earned. Those who work hard day in and day out, they deserve to keep what they've earned.

But the Progressive budget is nothing but regressive. There's nothing fair about this budget, especially to the risk-taker or to the hardworking American family. Their budget would spend nearly $9 trillion more than the Republican budget. Note, now, when I say those numbers--where does that money come from--that means from our children and our grandchildren. They ultimately will be the ones who will have to bear this burden.

This budget would also establish a government-run health insurance option under ObamaCare and let the government basically set price controls on drugs. What does that mean? That means for those who were around back in 1970s, I think that's most of us, price controls on gasoline. How did that work out for us? Not too long. Waiting lines for gas is one thing. Waiting lines, however, for lifesaving medicine is a whole other story.

This budget would also expand the current, broken, and failed Federal job-training program without any reform whatsoever. This budget calls for even more money for the bureaucrats in Washington with regard to education, and this budget calls for even more

money into the broken-down highway transit system that we have in this country.

And this budget even fails in the government's first responsibility-- providing for the common defense. This budget further goes and guts the Defense Department by calling for almost $700 billion in cuts to the Pentagon compared to our budget.

This Progressive substitute then would put this country basically on the wrong path. For that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on this budget.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Lankford.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who played a critical role in fashioning the budget that is before us, the Republican budget, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

In recognizing that we can create the jobs and the prosperity by not raising taxes at the same time, I yield now 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

I would ask the Chair how much time remains on both sides.

That being the case, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

And just to take a word from the gentlelady from California, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), who has actually walked the walk and created jobs to create more American prosperity.

Mr. Chairman, so here we are at the end of the debate, and where are we?

The Progressive substitute, what would it do? It would raise taxes on the American family. It would increase spending throughout the country. It would put programs such as Medicare, to allow them to go bankrupt, if you will, within the decade, in 2023. It would do all this and put the burden on our children and never, ever balance.

In contrast, before us is the House Republican's Path to Prosperity. What does it do? It takes the first step. It takes the very first step toward reversing this trend, this path to debt and decline that the President and his fellow Democrats on that side of the aisle, and the Senate Democrats as well, have laid out for the American people. See, the Republican budget stops spending money that we do not have. The Republican budget simply does the right things in this area.

The Republican budget fixes our broken Tax Code. It does away with all of those unfair corporate deductions and the like that we've talked about. There is some commonality there. So it fixes our broken Tax Code, and it does so in a way at the end of the day creates jobs, increases wages, and helps the American family. The Republican budget will protect and strengthen important priorities like Medicare and national security, not allowed by the other side of the aisle. The Republican budget will also reform our welfare programs, such as Medicaid, so they can actually deliver on their promise and not go bankrupt.

Every American family, every family in this country understands the necessity of having a balanced budget. The President and the Democrats could surely learn by talking to them across the country. Budgets are more than numbers. Budgets basically come here to Congress and set priorities, if you will; and beyond that, they have real impact on human beings.

Unlike the Progressive substitute that's before us right now, the Path to Prosperity will provide real economic security for workers, for parents. It will ensure security retirement for the elderly and our seniors. It will expand opportunity for the young. For that reason, I urge this Chamber to vote on the side of freedom and opportunity and reject the Progressive Caucus budget substitute.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise because today's budget is the budget that helps American families. I rise today to support a budget that recognizes that the status quo is not only unacceptable to American families, but it is also unsustainable to the economy.

This budget that is before us now will finally restore much needed certainty, certainly to the economy, promote fairness, and provide those American families with the opportunity they are looking for to prosper. Importantly, this budget stops spending money that we simply do not have. At the same time, it advances commonsense changes in proposals to strengthen our Nation's safety net programs. We do that for American families.

So the Path to Prosperity takes us the first step towards reversing the path to debt and decline that the President and his fellow Democrats have laid out for the American people. To say that President Obama and the Democrats over in the Senate have failed to lead this Nation in what is probably the most predictable economic crisis in our Nation's history would be a drastic understatement.

Why is that? On February 4, the President's budget was due. On March 19, the American people are still waiting. It was over four times in 5 years that this President has failed to basically follow the law of the land and to submit a budget on time.

It is interesting that the President's brackets are always on time. His budgets, not so much.

The Senate Democrats are not any better. It took them almost 4 years to produce a budget that increases government spending by $265 billion, raises taxes on this country by almost $1 trillion; and, at the same time, it has cut health care providers by almost $300 billion.

Over the period covered by the budget, deficits under the Senate plan are going to be nearly $4 trillion--yes, $4 trillion larger than those under the House Republican budget that we are talking about right now.

Every family, every family in the country, every family in America, they understand the necessity of having a balanced budget. The President and Senate Democrats could surely learn by going back to their districts and learning from the example of American families across the country in how to set a budget. Families don't have the luxury of waiting for the next election. They don't have the luxury, if you will, of going through yet another cycle. Quite frankly, as we stand here today in Washington, neither does Washington.

Let's stop the spending insanity, if you will. Let's start putting the country back on track, and let's do this for the American family.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I want to thank the chairman, and I also want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina--I'm not sure if she's here right now--for her efforts to make necessary and meaningful changes and reforms to the SKILLS Act.

The Federal Government spends literally billions and billions of dollars on workforce training programs every single year. But in 2011, there was a study done by the GAO, the Government Accountability Office. They found that very little is actually known about the effectiveness of a lot of these programs.

So when we're here at a time of constrained spending and constrained budgets, we have to do everything we can from both sides of the aisle to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and that the recipients of these dollars or the programs actually get an effective program at the end of the day. So the SKILLS Act that's before us now includes provisions mandating--this is good--meaningful evaluations of these very same programs.

But simply mandating that evaluations be done doesn't really guarantee that they will actually be conducted. For example, back in 1998, there was the Workforce Investment Act legislation, and it mandated that the Department of Labor conduct what they called then the gold standard, if you will, of studies, of job training programs, and required that those studies be done by 2005. But here as we stand here now in 2013, those studies still aren't done. In actuality, we checked into it, and they said they will not be completed until the year 2015. That's 10 years later than when the studies were supposed to be completed.

Look, Congress can no longer tolerate the neglect of report deadlines, especially concerning the effectiveness of Federal programs that cost us billions of dollars. And when they're not being done effectively, the people who should be getting the affected programs are not getting the services they perform.

My amendment simply provides an incentive to the Department of Labor to conduct these evaluations on time so we can have the information and the authorizing committees can have the information to do their job, as well. It does neither the taxpayer nor the job seeker any good at all if Congress is funding something that is ineffective.

This amendment will put the executive branch on notice, and Congress is keeping an eye on their performance, and the authorizing committees can also have more information to do their jobs.

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

I begin by saying I associate myself with the words of the gentlelady over there in that we should not put the burden on the least in this country, and that's why we support this legislation before us and this amendment.

I now yield 20 seconds to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

I just want to reiterate that we are on the exact same page with our colleagues from the other side of the aisle.

We understand the burdens that the Americans across this country are suffering right now. We understand that the burden and the cuts that we may have to consider in going forward in this country should not fall on the least among us, that they should not fall on those who are without jobs, and that they should not fall on those who are struggling at the bottom and who are trying to get up to the middle class and to an even higher rung after that. We have to work together to make sure that they do not suffer like that, and that's why we have this amendment.

It is to make sure that every single dollar that we pass in this Congress and that every single penny that we spend on a program is an effective dollar, is an effective penny that gets the job done and that lets them rise out of the depths of despair that they are in to a higher level, and we want to make sure that we have effective programs. That's exactly what our amendment would do, and I encourage both sides of the aisle to join in the support of this legislation.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

Right now, as we stand here, the national debt in this country stands over $16 trillion, and one-third of that was rung up just during this President Obama's administration. And some outside expert says, what does that translate to you and me? Well, the average taxpayer may be in debt of $111,000 to the U.S. Government because of that.

On top of that, do you know that this is the fourth time that this White

House, that this President, has failed to follow the law and to submit a budget to the House on time? But when he finally does, I really do hope that this budget differs from his other ones which were riddled with red ink and absolutely had no intent to balance, not in 5 years, 10 years, or 15 years. They never balanced. In short, his budgets have been an economic disaster. Maybe that's why there has been bipartisan opposition to these budgets.

In the Senate, which is Democratically controlled, he got absolutely zero support for his budgets in the past. So it's high time that this President gets serious about the deficits, acknowledges that frivolous spending is part of the problem, and addresses the issues with appropriate budgets.

I support this legislation before us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address an important issue regarding the implementation of the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act (NRRA). The NRRA is legislation that I co-authored and was signed into law as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

The NRRA was drafted with the specific intention of addressing burdensome and often conflicting regulatory and tax compliance issues facing only two industries--the surplus lines and reinsurance. This legislation received bi-partisan support and was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in multiple Congresses. At no point during the bill's multi-year consideration was its application to the captive insurance industry ever discussed.

Unfortunately, several states have indicated that they plan to interpret the NRRA to also apply to the captive insurance industry. This was not the intent of Congress. In drafting this legislation, it was never contemplated to have the captive industry fall under the NRRA. In addition, this legislation has been subject to numerous Congressional hearings and has been approved by this body on multiple occasions. At no time was the legislation's application to the captive industry addressed or suggested. Furthermore, in the bill's summary, the intent of this legislation was clearly stated to impact only two specific industries--surplus lines and reinsurance.

Inaccurate and inconsistent interpretations will cause confusion throughout the captive insurance industry. Should regulators implement this faulty interpretation, captive insurance companies would be subject to additional taxation and regulation--the exact opposite intent of the underlying legislation.

As one of the authors of this legislation, I am committed to ensuring that this title of Dodd-Frank is implemented as Congress intended, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee to address this issue if necessary in the future.

``If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.''

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 41) to temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend the remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.

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

The list of cosponsors to this legislation submitted this morning should be treated as original cosponsors, reflecting their intent to, in fact, be on the legislation when it was introduced last night.

I rise today to continue the process of this House of seeking to aid and help those American citizens who have been devastated by Hurricane Sandy. This storm has left literally millions without power, thousands without homes, and the total area is destroyed.

So the piece of legislation before us today is very simple. It temporarily increases FEMA's borrowing authority for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program. And so this legislation is really vital to ensure that the homeowners in my State of New Jersey, as well as in New York and Connecticut and any other affected areas, will be able to continue to have their contractual flood insurance policies with the NFIP honored.

So by temporarily increasing this borrowing authority, it will provide to both homeowners and insurance companies handling the claims that the Federal Government will meet its contractual obligations. People who have been devastated by the storm will be able to continue to move forward and onward with their lives.

I want to take a moment just to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm), who led a group of Members and other volunteers to help clean and repair some of the devastated areas. I was pleased to personally join the gentleman in their volunteer activity.

While we witnessed much devastation and destruction, we also saw determination and friendly faces of local residents and volunteers from across the country who are committed to restoring and rebuilding this area.

So while it's easy for Members to come to the floor and vote for a piece of legislation to help the area, it's a lot more difficult to be on the ground physically working, scrubbing, lifting, building, and cleaning. And while the Congress can and does help, it is the hard work, the grit, and the determination of the citizens of the area and the volunteers and the workers from all over the country that will ultimately be the driving force in this area.

So to conclude, I again commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm) for his efforts, and the others around who have volunteered in this effort, and look forward to continue to work with him and others in the area, both here in Congress, for the people of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut and the affected area.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for his comments and also recognize that this legislation helps not only those people in his neck of the woods, but across the country, as we resume the money in the fund for FEMA and for the Flood Insurance Program.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), who recognizes that the people from the area have not been waiting. Their insurance claims have been paid from day one. We are just here today to ensure that those payments continue, going forward.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the other young gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

I once again yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), who also recognizes that there have been absolutely no victims of delay when it comes to the flood insurance program because their payments have been made continuously because that program has been funded and we continue to fund it today.

I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, who has actually led the efforts on the ground putting the shoulder to the grindstone, so to speak, to

actually help and restore some of these people's homes.

At this time, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Runyan), who has seen firsthand the devastation to our State.

At this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) who realizes it's not just what we do on the floor but it's also the volunteering and the dedication to help these people as well.

I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

First of all, I yield myself 15 seconds just to set the record straight.

With regard to the legislation before us, which is a flood insurance program, the aid under this program is going and has been going to the recipients in the affected area because there was funding in this program before. What we're doing right now is to make sure that that aid will continue to go to those people who have contracts for insurance.

With that, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson), who also is very familiar with the devastation that was caused to constituents.

Madam Speaker, I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to a gentleman from a State which is not immune to natural disasters, the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

In recognizing that some on the other side of the aisle can't take ``yes'' for an answer, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further requests for time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

In closing, I thank all of those who have come to the floor to address this situation.

For those of us who live in the affected area, our heart goes out to the families--the moms, the dads, the little children, the senior citizens--who have lost everything: homes that have just been inundated with water so they're not recognizable anymore; homes that have to be totally knocked down or homes that have to be totally

refurbished, stripped down to their studs and started from the foundations back up again to rebuild them; homes that have been simply washed out to sea and will never be seen again; homes that have been destroyed; trees that have crashed through homes; electricity that has been out for weeks. Our heart goes out to the people who have suffered so much and for so long and who continue to suffer.

I commend Members from both sides of the aisle for coming to the floor today to support this legislation.

I also thank those people, the volunteers, who took it upon themselves without any government mandate or edict or pay, or what have you, to go out and to rescue these people and to work for these people day in and day out--from the very beginning, the OEM people, the management people, the fire department, the rescue squad, and just rank-and-file folks who came out and tried to help and continue to do so. They've run the food banks, groups liked Samaritan's Purse. They've been out there on the front lines and have supported these people in their hours of need.

And I extend an invitation to every single Member of Congress who has come to the floor and said that they, too, support these people, to put on their work shoes and their work boots and their jackets and to get out of this Congress and to get out of this city and to go into the affected area, and not just give speeches and not just pass legislation of other people's money, but to actually come to our State and to join us in the field and actually do the work that's necessary to get done. And so I extend that invitation to each and every one, and I look forward to hearing from each and every one of you, and I ask for your support of this legislation.

I extend an invitation to Ms. Waters to work further on the legislation with regard to flood insurance because we heard the number earlier--this is a nonsustainable program. We're taking in something like 75 cents and we're paying out about a buck in claims. That can't go on. We need to work together on this, and I look forward to that, and I look for a ``yes'' vote on this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6570) to amend the American Recovery Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to consolidate certain CBO reporting requirements.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous material.

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

Mr. Speaker, under the current law, the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, is statutorily required to submit semiannual and quarterly reports to Congress pursuant to TARP and stimulus requirements. Unfortunately, these reports have become mainly duplicative and repetitive in nature. They say the same thing over and over again, and do not provide a lot of new information to Congress. In addition, these reports consume a great deal of limited CBO staff resources. So to remedy this, we have H.R. 6570 before us. What this will do is reduce the frequency of the reports required each year by the CBO as well as required by the GAO.

First, H.R. 6570 would change the quarterly stimulus reporting requirements for the CBO and GAO to annual report requirements due at the end of each calendar year. This legislation would also sunset the ARRA reporting requirements for CBO and GAO on January 1, 2016. H.R. 6570 would not impact the current reporting requirements for recipients of ARRA funds or the reports required by the executive branch agencies, I would like to point out.

Secondly, H.R. 6570 would change the TARP reporting requirements for CBO and the OMB to an annual basis from a semiannual basis. So this legislation would also sunset the reporting requirements for the CBO and OMB to when the last TARP asset has been sold or last transferred out of the ownership control of the Federal Government.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a commonsense bill to reduce government duplication and ensure that congressional support agencies such as CBO and the GAO are using their limited resources most effectively. With that, I urge support of this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I also have no further requests for time. So I will just conclude by saying to the gentlelady, thank you very much for working with us on this bill. Thank you for the support for the legislation.

And with that, I will yield back the balance of my time.