Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor, as the previous speaker has said, to say this side of the aisle is committed to reaching a solution and not just a deal to this problem. We are committed to reaching out across the aisle and across the other side of this House to reach a compromise.

We have already compromised on the level of cuts going even further. We have already compromised on the level of the caps, raising the caps to make it even easier in that regard as well. We have also already compromised from where we started with regard to a balanced budget amendment, holding true to the idea that we should, as all Americans also agree, eventually pass a change to the Constitution and require a balanced budget amendment.

But at the end of the day, although we will compromise on cuts and we will compromise on caps and we will compromise on moving forward on a balanced budget amendment, let it be clear, as God is my witness, we will not compromise on our principles; our principles of defending the Constitution and defending Americans and making sure that our posterity does not have this excessive debt on it.

I congratulate the chairman of the full committee, the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Wisconsin for the good work done on, really, a commonsense piece of legislation before us.

Earlier, I heard the ranking member from Massachusetts comment about the partisanship here. He said something like, well, we didn't make this partisan; they did it. Well, I remind the chairman that his underlying piece of legislation, the Dodd-Frank piece of legislation, actually had more Democrats vote against it than it had Republicans for it. And he was the one that actually pushed through a bill in an extremely partisan manner, and that's really why we're here today.

I believe that the agency we're talking about, the CFPB, is really a one-stop shop to basically allocate credit and give the government the power to direct and control the economy. At the same time they're talking about consumer protection, what are they doing? They're separating safety and soundness from it. How can you have consumer protection when you're separating safety and soundness?

I also remind the ranking member, who originally was the sponsor of Dodd-Frank--the bill that has his name on it, that bill that is going to destroy so many jobs in this country as pointed out once before-- that he was in favor of the same type of legislation that we have before us today on the floor. So, basically, this is once again a case of where the ranking member was in favor of it before he was against it. So operating under that logic we are hearing from the other side, if the bill today weakens the agency, then the bill that the gentleman introduced originally would actually destroy the agency.

Now, I've heard the ranking member during his debates do what he always does when he doesn't have the facts or the law on his side: He attacks and he twists other people's motives. He knows that he was essentially supportive of the elements of this bill today by offering these provisions himself before to get through the House, but today he comes out against it. Basically, he accuses everyone on our side of the aisle of trying to kill his legislation.

But I remind him to consider his own statements. The ranking member has claimed over this past week that the most important piece of the Dodd-Frank bill is the risk retention section of the legislation.

So he says on the one hand that the risk retention is most important; then he turns around and says that any loans with 4 percent down payment should be exempt from risk retention. I don't know very many loans that are at that level. So I find it surprising that he is attempting to exempt everyone from what he claims is the most important portion of his bill instead of accusing everyone else of attempting to destroy this job-destroying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the gentleman from Massachusetts think before he speaks on the legislation and then come out in support of the same legislation that he once supported in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. West).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I rise today in support of a plan, an actual plan, to address our fiscal crisis, to cut, cap and balance.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with our debt now topping $14 trillion, we have no other choice but to start sending clear, immediate signals to the marketplace and the world that we are serious about spending and debt reform. And to show that we are serious, we need to put skin in the game in the form of immediate spending cuts today, caps on spending that occurs tomorrow, and a balanced budget amendment to protect us from spending too much in the future.

You know, I find it interesting that the proponents of a debt limit increase without any substantial reforms point to the so-called financial meltdown-type scenarios of failing to raise the debt limit by August 2. We hear that interest rates for U.S. Treasuries would skyrocket, causing the cost of servicing current debt to increase, which in turn would require more borrowing and disastrous consequences for the Federal budget and also the global economy.

But you know what the other side fails to mention in any of these scenarios is what would happen if we don't get spending under control. The challenge is clear. What are the solutions, though, to it?

House Republicans today are demonstrating that we are committed to confronting our country's addiction to spending and debt with bold and decisive action and with a plan in place. The cut, cap, and balance plan is not only the right prescription to address our fiscal crisis, it is the only plan on the table that makes structural changes to right our fiscal ship. In fact, it is the only plan in place.

Nobody wants to raise the debt ceiling, but if it's going to be raised, we should use it as an opportunity to finally implement comprehensive reform measures to ensure that we never find ourselves in this situation again; because if we do nothing, we put off the tough decision for another day, the only one to blame is ourselves. This is our moment. This is our time to act.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), who is concerned not only about the soul of the Nation today but the soul of the Nation for our posterity as well, who is not willing to duck the hard fiscal issues.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves), who recognizes that if the balanced budget amendment was appropriate back in 1995, with debt now reaching over $14 trillion today, how much more so is it relevant to pass today.

Mr. Speaker, just to remind the other side of the aisle with regard to the radical plan that we talked about here with regard to changing or amending the Constitution, it was Thomas Jefferson who said, in a letter to John Taylor, I wish that it were possible to obtain just a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone, that our government would return to the genuine principles of the Constitution. And he was speaking, of course, of what we're doing here today, what Thomas Jefferson wished that we had done over 200 years ago: a balanced budget amendment.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Just to the gentleman from the other side of the aisle who made the point regarding what sort of amendment that Thomas Jefferson may have been looking for today, whether he actually would be looking for one, what we call a supermajority, what have you, in point of fact I believe Jefferson would be going even further than what we are doing here today and simply say that Congress should not have the ability to borrow at all. The amendment that we are putting forward would actually give us greater flexibility with that in time of emergency, in time of war, and Congress can take it upon themselves to borrow. Jefferson understood that first and foremost that Congress, just like the businesses and families at the time, needed to live within their means. And he saw it as immoral, basically, to take the responsibilities of this generation and place them on future generations.

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

We are also reminded that Jefferson said in 1816 that he sincerely believed that the principle of spending money today that we don't have, to be paid for by posterity, is but swindling future generations--something this Republican Party does not wish to do.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), who, while the White House says that leadership is not simply proposing a bill to vote up or down, recognizes that the White House has not given us any plan of leadership so far on this issue.

(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg).

Would that we had the problem of this Congress over the last 2 years trying to balance the budget, what with $1 trillion in additional stimulus spending, $2 trillion in the cost of ObamaCare, $3 trillion overall added to the budget deficit. Would that be the problem that we'd look to the other side of the aisle to try to live within our means. Unfortunately, that's not the case. And that's the reason why, as our Founders understood and as we spoke of Jefferson before, the need to try to constrain ourselves with cutting spending now, placing legislative caps offered tomorrow, and then going forward in the future with a constitutional balanced budget amendment.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), who understands the importance of living within our means.

Mr. Speaker, I would just remind Members of what the leader on the other side said, wondering whether Members have actually read the bill. If Members do read the bill, they understand that Cut, Cap, and Balance, as provided before us, actually does those three things and allows us to pay the bills at the same time.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

At this point, I will yield that 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to rise with me in support for my amendment, which will save Americans over $500 million.

My amendment before us today makes reasonable and targeted spending reductions in order to do what? Achieve significant savings that will contribute to our Nation's fiscal health.

Mr. Chairman, we must really now step forward and take bold steps to reduce spending. And I do commend my colleague from the State of New Jersey for the hard work that he has put in, and I appreciate so many of the comments that he has already made on the floor, pointing out to the other side that in so many cases there is money in these accounts, the money hasn't been spent, and they have taken a serious look to try to rein in spending throughout the committee process. For they realize that our Nation is on a path to bankruptcy and we have maxed out our Nation's credit card.

So while the committee did an admirable job and made significant cuts in the underlying bill, I stand here myself, and I and the Republican Study Committee believe that we can go further than this. So this amendment is a very reasonable attempt at showing that this body is serious about cutting spending.

Mr. Chairman, for too long the Federal Government's energy programs have been sold to the American public as basically wise investments that will yield vast new technologies whose costs would basically pale in comparison to the benefits later on. But when you think about it, when you think about the billions and billions of dollars that we have spent year after year, our energy infrastructure remains largely the same in many respects, and we are still here today dependent upon foreign sources of oil. And energy prices? Well, they just continue to spiral upward.

The other side talked wise energy policy. Well, time and time again, Federal energy programs have failed to live up to their potential. These Federal programs have allowed the government to basically play venture capitalists, if you will, and they do so not with their own money. Not at all. They do it with taxpayer moneys. And despite the little return on their investment, they have little choice in making these investments. American taxpayers basically are commanded to increase this investment every year.

For example--I will just give out one since we have been here for a long time this evening--the American people are being asked by their government to invest literally millions to promote something called ``advanced solid-state lighting.'' What is that? It's a technology that even its supporters can see is far too expensive to compete in today's marketplace. So does this sound like something that an intelligent investor would do? I think not. But only Members of Congress who are spending other people's money would do so.

Mr. Chairman, the United States is home to the most vibrant marketplace of ideas and investors. So the very best way for government to encourage energy innovation and revolutionary technology is to do what? It is to use that marketplace and get out of the way and allow private capital to make those investments. It is in the marketplace where private individuals will assess the risks and rewards, and they will invest responsibly with their own money on projects that will merit further development.

So to conclude, considering the precarious state of our economy and the fiscal condition of this country, the government can no longer invest in some of these extremely risky and unproven projects without regard to loss and expense. Government can no longer play the role of that reckless investor. We must eliminate the waste where it exists and encourage the Federal Government to spend the American public's money in a wise and prudent manner.

For that reason I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this amendment and fiscal responsibility.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Garrett

Amendment No. 51: Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $300,000,000)''.

Page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $32,000,000)''.

Page 28, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $167,500,000)''.

Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $500,000)''.

Page 32, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $500,000)''.

Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $500,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Republic of South Sudan and their declaration of formal independence on July 9, 2011. Six months ago, the people of Southern Sudan spoke clearly when nearly 99 percent of the voters declared independence from the repressive government in Khartoum. While this is a historic moment for southern Sudan and its people, this nation faces great challenges in the infancy of its sovereignty.

For the Republic of South Sudan to prosper, a number of challenges must be overcome. Foremost, the country must determine questions as fundamental as citizenship rights and the location of borders with neighboring nations. Additionally, Southern Sudan must establish peace and security within its borders in order to sustain meaningful growth. North Sudanese governmental support for attacks on Southern Sudan have killed more than 1,000 civilians, and have displaced hundreds of thousands of men, women and children over the past year and a half. Simply put, these attacks must cease.

In terms of the economy, international agreements regarding Southern Sudan's debts must be negotiated, as well as the development of an infrastructure to allow for the efficient export of oil. However, even in these challenging and uncertain times, this young nation has demonstrated a commitment to improve the lives of its citizens. Recently, we have observed marked increases in commerce and trade, both domestically and internationally, thanks to the government's continued development of modern infrastructure. The ruling government has reached out to opposition groups within Southern Sudan in an honest effort to maintain national unity throughout this momentous process. While there are still hurdles to be overcome, today I recognize and congratulate the Sudanese people for their significant accomplishments in having reached this momentous occasion.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise today in support of this amendment and one which I have also cosponsored with the gentleman.

This amendment, quite honestly, is common sense, in that it simply looks to add accountability in how the Pentagon spends our taxpayers' dollars. Now, the GAO released an independent audit that they performed in March that concluded that the cost of the Pentagon's largest programs has risen by $135 billion--that's over 9 percent--to $1.68 trillion by 2008. And as was pointed out, over half of that, or $70 billion of that, involves overruns. And what they say in their report appeared ``to be indicative of production problems and inefficiencies or flawed initial cost estimates.''

Since then, we have not had a complete audit by the Pentagon, and since then, overruns have only multiplied.

Just this past week, earlier in the week, I had the opportunity to serve in the Budget Committee, where we had the CBO come in. And we asked them point blank for some of the information that we would like to have with regard to these audits, that we would like the information from them so they could pinpoint some of the, as we always say on the floor, the waste, fraud, and abuse that goes on. But more specifically, where the inefficiencies are. And the answer we got from them was somewhat telling. They said they cannot supply this Congress with the information that we would like because they do not get the information themselves from the DOD. And that is the problem.

That is the problem. The Department of Defense is consistently overbudget in acquisition and equipment modernization. There are 92 major defense acquisition programs. Seventy-five percent of them are overbudget. Twenty percent of them are overbudget by more than 50 percent.

Mr. Chairman, this is something that needs to be addressed. This amendment will once again hold the Pentagon accountable, assuring that the taxpayer dollars are spent prudently, as intended. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have strong constitutional concerns regarding H.R. 2278. When the Founding Fathers met at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the differentiation between which branch of the federal government initiates war and which branch conducts it was one of the most seriously debated topics. After deep thought and consideration, the Founders decided to grant Congress the power to declare war and left to the President, as Commander-in-Chief, the authority to conduct wars. Today, the Congress is asked to vote on a measure that would reverse the constitutionally prescribed war powers by directing the President on how to conduct the military conflict in Libya.

While I have supported past efforts to defund the military conflict in Libya, I cannot vote in support of a bill that only defunds some of the military effort while endorsing others. The Congress should and must debate the merits of our foray into Libya and either authorize it completely or demand that the President terminate our military engagement. This is the only constitutionally sound course for Congress to take.

Madam Chair, the Hatch-Waxman Act provides for the extension of patent terms covering drug products that must be approved by the FDA. And the extension that we're talking about here, while seemingly straightforward, the Patent Office and the FDA have interpreted it, as we have said, in two different ways, creating uncertainty that has led to miscalculations.

So our amendment, consistent with a court ruling, will clarify that when the FDA provides the final approval after normal business hours, the 60-day clock begins on the next business day. So by doing this, by ensuring that patent holders will not lose their rights prematurely, what this amendment does is it will not only resolve a longstanding problem but will encourage the development of innovative new drugs as well.

With that, I urge the adoption of this very commonsense amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as founder and chairman of the Constitution Caucus, I applaud the opportunity to debate the constitutionality of this bill. This is the first of what I hope will be many more instances to discuss the constitutionality of legislation considered on this floor.

What this bill does is change the U.S. patent system from one which allows the moment of invention to determine who is entitled to a patent to one which confers this power to a government agency. Such a change would violate the intellectual property clause of the Constitution. Why is that? Because the Founders rejected the idea that rights are bestowed to the people by the government in favor of the revolutionary principle that men are born with natural rights.

Our Constitution instituted a government that secures only these natural and preexisting rights. So inventions created by the fruits of intellectual labor are the property of the inventor. These and only these first and true inventors then are entitled to public protection of their rightful property. To remain true to the principles of liberty, we must preserve a system that protects the true and first inventor.

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

This is a protect retiree pensions and jobs by ensuring a well-functioning swaps market amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for your support today for my amendment which would do that--prevent unintended consequences from impacting literally millions of pension plan participants and the beneficiaries that follow. My amendment would simply require the CFTC to finalize important data-reporting rules before they implement new rules for certain swap transactions.

See, with this change, it would be able to collect the transaction data that it needs to determine the reasonable standards for block trade levels and real-time reporting requirements without first disrupting the marketplace. You see, finalizing any numerical determination of block trade sizes or setting real-time reporting requirement timeframes prior to having necessary data, really, if you think about it, would be arbitrary, would encourage litigation, and will likely have the unintended consequences on those very same pension funds I talked about--their ability to protect their investors, as well as on the economic growth of our country and job creation.

So, what this amendment would do is require swap data-reporting rules to be finalized and be in place before promulgating the final block trade rules or those real-time reporting criteria rules.

Now, I do this because numerous market participants of all shapes and sizes have sent to us public comment letters warning of the dangers of getting block trades and real-time rules wrong. I will just give you this one. I had others. I will just give you one of those letters, and that comes from the American Benefits Council. Who are they? Well, they and their members provide benefit services to over 100 million Americans in the Committee on Investment of Employee Benefit Assets, whose members include more than 100 of the country's largest pension funds and manage more than $1 trillion on behalf of 15 million member plan participants and the beneficiaries.

I will just give you one quote from this, not all the other ones: We have concerns about the sequencing of proposed real-time reporting rules in relation to the collection of swap market information. We believe that they should first obtain market information via reporting of trades of swap data repositories--which have to be set up, of course--and then propose rules based on this data such as real-time reporting, which necessarily would better serve the intended purposes.

So, in conclusion, by instituting a more commonsense approach to these rule-makings, we're giving them the ability to collect that data of the swap transaction information to determine those reasonable block trade levels that they have to set, the real-time reporting requirement as well, and to do so in a way that will not impair the well- functioning of the marketplace.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

So the gentleman agrees that there is only partial information at this point in time out there.

On some things.

On other things, the gentleman would agree that there is no information out there at all on certain--

I would appreciate if the gentleman would not make the allegation that we make these applications here because anyone is in cahoots with Wall Street banks, such as you've just made.

If the gentleman will yield, I know I read through it quickly because I was asked to move along things quickly at the end of the evening, but one of the documents that I read was one of the comment letters. It was not from the Wall Street bank but was from the American Benefits Council, those very same pension benefits companies speaking about this. They are the ones who are raising it. So it is those end users. Those are the participants. Those people are representing beneficiaries. They are the ones who are asking for this delay. It's not the Wall Street banks that I'm making reference to. It's the pension funds.

We can supply you with the ones.

Offered By: Mr. Garrett

Amendment No. 22: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I applaud Speaker Boehner for raising this important issue today before the House.

I cannot agree more with the Speaker that the President has failed to explain to the Nation the purpose and goals of our military operation in Libya. The Speaker's resolution rightly demands answers from the President with regard to U.S. security interests and military objectives in our engagement in Libya. I would go even further than that to suggest that the President has been in violation of the law and has set out specific responses from Congress.

But let's be clear: Congress must engage in a full, open and honest debate about sending our brave men and women into harm's way, into combat. We owe that to them, and we owe that to the American people. The Founders intended such a debate when they granted Congress the power to declare war.

The President's complete failure to consult with Congress and receive specific authority as required by the War Powers Act and by the Constitution leads to only one conclusion: that President Obama is in violation of the Constitution and the authority under the War Powers Act as well.

The United States Congress cannot now sit idly by any longer as the President refuses to abide by his constitutional and his legal requirements. So, in conclusion, I believe that Congress must hold this President accountable, and the Speaker's resolution is a first step in that direction.

I thank the chairman.

Today, I stand here to introduce this amendment, No. 58, to the National Defense Authorization Act to clearly set out congressional intent with regard to military operations in Libya.

The amendment is simple: it clarifies that this authorization bill does not serve as congressional authorization for any military operation in Libya. The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the sole power to declare war, to authorize it. And we know that the War Powers Resolution was enacted to give the President the ability to commit forces to defend American interests in an expedited manner for up to 60 days before having to seek that congressional authorization. Subsequent military engagement must then, under that act, be authorized by this Congress.

But despite that clear standard, Presidents have routinely disregarded the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution and the role of Congress. As you know, President Obama consulted the U.N. and the Arab League of Nations before engaging in hostilities. However, the whole of Congress was not consulted nor authorized and to date has not authorized any military action in Libya whatsoever.

I do believe firmly that the President must come to this Congress for authorization to continue any and all U.S. military action. So I encourage Members of this House to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress and a friend of Taiwan, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Taiwan's full membership in the World Health Organization, WHO.

Since 2009, China has permitted Taiwan to participate in the annual summit of the WHO in Geneva on a restricted basis. This year's meeting will be held from May 16th to the 24th. While I certainly welcome Taiwan's participation in this important international body, I am also concerned about the restrictions that China has placed upon Taiwan's involvement.

First, Taiwan's role in the WHO has been restricted to that of ``observer status.'' This means that Taiwan does not have the ability to vote, speak, or participate in deliberations--they can only sit and listen. I believe that as a sovereign state, with a population of 23 million people, Taiwan deserves full representation in the United Nations and its affiliated organizations. As such, Taiwan should be recognized as a full voting member of the WHO.

As we all know, infectious disease knows no borders. Taiwan was affected in 2003 by an outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and the 2009 outbreak of the H1N1 virus. These events demonstrate the important role Taiwan plays in global health and the Nation should be recognized as such.

Second, Taiwan is participating again this year as ``Chinese- Taipei.'' I would prefer to see Taiwan recognized under its name ``Taiwan'' rather than as a subsidiary of China.

Lastly, I have grave concern with China's veto power over Taiwan's role on the international stage. Chinese approval should not be a prerequisite for Taiwanese participation in United Nations organizations, or any other international organization. Taiwan should not have to rely upon the goodwill of China to voice beyond its borders. Allowing this to become the international norm will undermine its current status as an independent, sovereign state.

To close, I believe the United States should amend its current policy of supporting ``meaningful participation.'' I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Taiwan's full and equal membership in the WHO as well as other international organizations.