Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding and for managing the time here.

I bring forward this FCC Consolidated Reporting Act because this is a bill that focuses on streamlining government. It focuses on really establishing and identifying areas where we need to improve competition in the telecommunications marketplace and make recommendations to Congress that can help us make better policy for the country. At the same time, we are eliminating a lot of unnecessary reports that are currently burdening not only the people who are out there creating jobs but also the FCC by having eight different reports that are required annually to be filed and to be evaluated by the FCC at disparate times throughout the year, to consolidate all that into one report, one report that focuses on the entire telecommunications marketplace on a biennial basis. That report would come in at the end of the 2-year period so that each new Congress would be presented with very relevant and much more timely information that would help each Congress evaluate if changes and reforms need to be made to the law.

What laws am I talking about, Mr. Speaker? I am talking about in the current marketplace some of these various disparate reports where you might have throughout the year a requirement where a report has to look just at the satellite industry or a report looks just at the cable industry or a report looks just at the landline industry. Mr. Speaker, as we know, all of these industries now compete against each other, and whether you are getting your telecommunications data at home, through a cable, through fiber, through satellite, on your mobile device, it is all ultimately the same content that people are consuming, and all of these companies are competing against each other.

It is not like in the old days where you just had telephone lines and the telephone companies would compete against each other, and then cable companies would compete against each other. Now it is a consolidated marketplace, and it is time that we get all these disparate reports that are outdated and bring them all into one place.

When you look at what this means, they say time is money, and so when all of these reports are required by Federal law, where all of these different entities have to put together reports and a lot of times create documents, paperwork that is unnecessary, that is outdated, that doesn't really reflect what is happening in the marketplace, that is time that they can better spend creating jobs, Mr. Speaker. It is time they can better spend reinvesting so that we can have better broadband as consumers, families across the country that use all of this great telecommunications infrastructure. Let's focus more on competing and creating a better marketplace.

Something else this bill does is get rid of some outdated laws, Mr. Speaker. Do you know there is still a requirement in Federal law, that we get rid of in this bill, that there is a requirement every year that there has to be a telegraph report that studies competition in the telegraph industry. Mr. Speaker, this might have been useful back in 1934 when Congress mandated it. You can go back to the 1830s when Samuel Morse invented the telegraph, but we don't really need to be spending time and legal requirements that there be a report filed annually on competition in the telegraph industry. We get rid of that in this bill.

So often we hear from people around the country, when Congress is contemplating new laws, when are they going to get rid of some of the old laws that are unnecessary on the books? We actually do that in this bill. This has bipartisan support. It is a commonsense piece of legislation that actually streamlines government and focuses on helping increase competition for families across this country.

I urge adoption of this piece of legislation.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for bringing this budget resolution to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, ObamaCare has failed the American people. And if you go back to the beginning, it was created with a series of lies to the American people. We all remember: if you like what you have, you can keep it. How has that worked out for millions of Americans who lost the plans that they liked and now cannot keep that plan?

What about the promise, Mr. Chairman, that premiums would go down by $2,500? President Obama made that claim. And today, in States all across the Nation, you are seeing premiums go up, on average, 25 percent, and that is on top of double-digit increases every single year ObamaCare has been in effect.

This law is not working. It is failing families. It is costing jobs across our economy. It is time to repeal this law and actually replace it with reforms that put patients back in charge of their medical decisions with their doctors. What a great concept that would be.

It is about time we focus on lowering the cost of health care and giving people real choices. In so many markets across the country--and it is a growing number--families have only one choice for health care now because ObamaCare has forced so many people out of the marketplace, which means you as a family don't have any choices, because one choice means it is a monopoly. And you wonder why the costs are skyrocketing.

Mr. Chairman, this should not be about preserving somebody's legacy. It should be about fulfilling those promises to the American people that were broken. And we are here to fulfill that promise--how refreshing it is that you have people that ran for years saying we are going to repeal ObamaCare--with a President who is ready to sign the bill to repeal ObamaCare.

Today, just in the second week of this new Congress, we are taking the first step to fulfill that promise to the American people, to put their healthcare decisions back in their hands with costs that they can afford, and real choices that work for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Walden, for his leadership in bringing this forward and the ranking member, Mr. Pallone, as well as Ms. Eshoo, the ranking member of the subcommittee, who has been working very closely I know with myself and others to bring a good, bipartisan bill that actually gets rid of outdated regulations and reports.

This FCC Consolidated Reporting Act actually reduces the workload that the FCC has placed for years and years that has been outdated. If you look at some of the reports that have been required for years that they are supposed to go and consolidate and accumulate, they have reports on competitiveness within the telegraph. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, it is long past time that we update these laws and get the FCC reform in place that will finally bring some consolidation so that industry can look at a full picture instead of a bunch of different silos and reports that are so outdated, like the telegraph, that they are not even being done, yet these laws are still on the books.

This is an important reform, and it is a good bipartisan reform that shows that Congress can work to get these kinds of things done to actually make things simpler in the real world and make an agency like the FCC more efficient in their operations.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding and for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor to repeal the President's health care law.

It was back in 2010 when then-Speaker Pelosi infamously said:

We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we know what is in the bill. American people across the country have seen the devastating impacts of the President's health care law. Millions of people have lost the good health care that they had that they liked. We all heard the promise: If you like what you have, you can keep it. The promise was broken to millions of people.

And not only did they lose good health care, but many, many millions of people have seen dramatic increases. They are paying double-digit increases for the health care that they do have. And what is worse, Mr. Speaker, is we have seen that vital doctor-patient relationship violated now by unelected bureaucrats in Washington who have come in between the doctor and the patients to make decisions on people's health care. That is not the way to do reform. That was the old way, the Washington-knows-best way.

There is a better way, and this bill starts that process by first repealing the law in its entirety and then getting the committees of jurisdiction involved, putting an alternative in place with a shot clock of 180 days where we can come up with a real bipartisan alternative. Let's repeal this law, and let's restore the doctor- patient relationship.

``The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty-thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate and celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Battle of New Orleans. A lot of celebrations are going on about this important, decisive victory that helped America expand West and establish the Port of New Orleans, but there has also been such a great collaboration with the British Government.

In fact, the British Government has been working with the National Park Service and the Battle of New Orleans Commission to not only commemorate this occasion, but also to remember those who died on both the American and British sides.

They are working together again to forge that great relationship that we have always had. In fact, this was the last time that the United States and Great Britain were on the opposite sides of a war.

While we appreciate that great relationship we have with Great Britain, we are also celebrating that important moment in the history of the United States: the 200th anniversary of the Battle of New Orleans.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding and for his leadership on immigration issues.

I especially want to thank my colleague and friend from Florida, Congressman Yoho, for bringing forward this important piece of legislation, which just goes back and reestablishes the rule of law, Mr. Speaker. You have got a President who has consistently gone out, time and time again, and shown disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law of this Nation.

We just had an election in November. The President, himself, said this was going to be a referendum on his agenda, and the American people were crystal clear about their dislike of this failed agenda from this President. They have told him: Get back to work. Go work with Congress to solve problems.

What is the first response? The President has to poke his finger in the eye of the American people, people who spoke loud and clear to him, in saying that he is going to disregard what they said; and he is going to ignore the rule of law and, in fact, ignore what our constitutional framework of checks and balances is. He thinks he can just sit in the Oval Office and write his own laws, and then he comes forward with this proposal to literally disregard enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws.

This isn't going to stand, Mr. Speaker. This legislation says: You can't do that, Mr. President. There is a rule of law. You need to start enforcing that law.

We came together as a House just a few months ago and passed a border security bill. Let's actually get back to the rule of law and protecting our Nation's borders. It is not just an immigration issue; it is a national security issue.

So what is the President's response to this legislation? He threatens a veto. Again, the President thinks he can just sit in the Oval Office and make up his own laws.

That is not the way our system of government works, Mr. Speaker. So we bring this legislation forward today to get us back to that rule of law and to remind the President that it is time for him to heed the message that millions of Americans across the country sent just a few weeks ago in saying: You need to start working with Congress to solve real problems.

In fact, this weekend, in my home State of Louisiana, there are three more elections on that ballot. Pay close attention, Mr. President. Pay close attention to yet another referendum on your agenda that is going to occur this Saturday with a Senate election and two more House races. The American people want you to get out of the cocoon of the Oval Office and start working with Congress to solve real problems.

We have passed legislation to solve those problems. You can try to ignore them, issue veto threats, but it is time for to you roll up your sleeves and get to work with us and solve those problems together. Pull back your executive action. This legislation ensures that happens.

I urge approval.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit because I strongly support American manufacturing, and that is what our bill is about. It is about getting Americans back to work.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle want to talk about protecting seniors. The biggest threat we hear about seniors right now is the President's health care law that cut hundreds of billions of dollars out of the Medicare program.

Why don't you work with us to repeal that law and replace it with reforms that actually strengthen Medicare and help seniors? That would be a really good place to start.

Now, let's talk about jobs, Mr. Speaker, because that is the focus of this bill, and this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. What we are trying to do is actually support some of the things the President himself has talked about.

The President said that he wants to cut red tape. Do you know what this bill does, Mr. Speaker? It cuts red tape.

The President says he wants to be the most transparent President ever. We would actually like to help him fulfill that promise. In our bill, we actually require transparency from the EPA to actually start proving what they are saying that they want to do with actual science.

If you look at what has been holding back our economy, so many States will tell you, when they are trying to issue permits, it is agencies like the EPA that are holding back their ability to create jobs and issue permits that would result in higher air quality standards.

Ironically, the motion to recommit that they are bringing forward would actually make it harder to implement higher air quality standards.

We have had testimony in committee, Mr. Speaker, from companies that have told us that they are right now delayed by years, in some cases, in the permitting process to build new or better plants to create thousands of jobs in America because the EPA will come up with rules and guidelines; yet they won't even show States or industry groups how they can achieve this in the real world.

There is this parallel universe, Mr. Speaker. You have got the EPA coming out time and time again with rules and regulations that cannot be implemented in the real world, and then you have got people that are trying to create jobs in America saying, ``The biggest thing holding us back from creating good American jobs is these crazy radical rules coming out by the EPA and other agencies like it.''

Mr. Speaker, we have got a choice to make, here in this Chamber and across this country. The President says he wants to create jobs; yet he comes out with rules with those agencies like the EPA that are the biggest impediment to us creating jobs in America.

The President says he wants to be transparent, and yet he refuses to be transparent, and a bill, like our bill here today, says he has to be transparent. Show us how you are expediting the permitting process. He talks about that. It is time to walk the walk.

He says he actually wants to remove that red tape. Well, do you know what, Mr. Speaker? In our bill, we hold the President to his promise by removing that red tape.

We ask ourselves today: Do we want to get our economy moving again? I say ``yes.'' Do we want to cut the red tape the President promises but doesn't deliver? I say, ``Yes. Let's cut that red tape.''

Do we want to get our economy moving again? I say, ``Let's create those jobs, get our economy moving again, and get these radical agencies that are slowing down job growth in our country out of the way.''

Let's vote down this motion to recommit, pass the underlying bipartisan bill, and get the economy moving again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Upton for yielding and for his leadership, as well as Chairman Walden of the subcommittee and the ranking members, for bringing a good bipartisan bill to the floor that addresses some real problems and starts to lay some groundwork for important future discussions about the video marketplace.

Let me first say, Mr. Speaker, that the STELA Reauthorization Act will give certainty and ensure that 1.5 million satellite consumers across the country don't have to fear losing their signal at the end of this year, which will happen without passage of this legislation. So it is very important that immediately we get this resolved so that we don't create that uncertainty across the country.

Also, Mr. Speaker, why this bill is important is it finally starts to implement some important and much-needed reforms to our video marketplace laws. I have been saying this a long time: If you look at the laws that we have on the books, we have a 21st century marketplace, we have a dynamic industry that has evolved and grown, and the technology has advanced in a dramatic way over the last few decades, but, unfortunately, the laws have not changed to reflect the current marketplace. We have started that conversation with a few of the provisions in this bill, and I was happy to work with the chairman, the ranking member, and others on some of those provisions; and we also talked about the need to have a deeper conversation about a Communications Act update next year in the new Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues on that as well. But in the meantime, it is important that we pass this bill and that we urge the Senate to move quickly as well to create that certainty for those customers all across the country that are counting on us to get this done.

Again, I congratulate the chairman and ranking member for working in a bipartisan way to bring this bill to the House floor and pass it along.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Whitfield for yielding, and I especially want to thank my colleague from Louisiana, Congressman Cassidy, for the leadership that he had in fighting hard to get this bill brought to the floor so we can finally get the Keystone pipeline built.

If you look at this issue, this is all about jobs, and it is all about American energy security, Mr. Speaker. What does the Keystone pipeline mean for America? According to the Obama administration, 40,000 jobs will be created here in America, good jobs that our economy needs.

In fact, this is not a partisan issue; this is a very bipartisan issue. Republicans and Democrats alike have come together and said, ``Build the Keystone pipeline.'' Even the labor unions have said, ``Build the Keystone pipeline.''

Unfortunately, just a small group of radical environmental extremists have held this project hostage, and President Obama has hidden behind studies and subterfuge to say, ``Don't do it.''

Now, Congress can come together in a bipartisan way and say, ``Let's get this thing done.'' Let's actually work with Canada, who is a friend, Mr. Speaker, and bring almost a million barrels a day of oil from Canada that we will no longer need to get from countries who don't like us. This isn't about a million new barrels coming into America; it is about deciding who we are going to do business with.

When we trade with Canada, we get about 80 cents on the dollar back. When we send billions of dollars to Middle Eastern countries, sometimes that money is used against us, against our troops, and we get less than 50 cents on the dollar back.

Everything about this says do it, says ``yes.'' Stop staying ``no'' to American jobs. Stop saying ``no'' to American energy security.

This is an issue that brings people together, and there was a message that the American people sent last week. They don't want a go-alone President. They want a Washington that can work for them. This is a classic example of how Republicans and Democrats can come together and say ``yes'' to a project that creates good jobs for our country and creates American energy security for our Nation.

The time for studies is over. This has been studied to death for 6 years. Everybody that looks at this says, ``You have got to do it.'' All we are saying is let the United States agree with Canada to cross the border. They still have to get the permits from each State that this pipeline would go through and all those great jobs that would come with that pipeline and the billions of dollars of private investment.

The time for studying is over, Mr. Speaker. It is time for action. It is time for those great American jobs. It is time to say ``yes'' to the Keystone pipeline. I urge approval from my colleagues for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Washington for yielding and for his leadership over the years. We are going to miss him in this House, but I appreciate him leading on these energy efforts as he has over the years. I want to also thank my colleague from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), for bringing this bill forward.

This is a jobs bill, but this is also a bill about American energy security, and, Mr. Speaker, it is a bill about national security.

Let's go through each of those. First of all, this bill green-lights the Keystone pipeline. Here, you have got a bill that has been sitting on Barack Obama's desk for 6 years, Mr. Speaker, where 40,000 jobs hang in the mix, and President Obama continues to say ``no.''

We are finally saying ``yes'' to 40,000 American jobs, a great investment in a trading partner in Canada. We can get energy from Canada that we would no longer have to get from Middle Eastern countries who don't like us, Mr. Speaker.

What this bill also does is opens up some of those vast natural resources throughout the Outer Continental Shelf that are closed right now off the coast of places like Virginia, Alaska, and, yes, even in Louisiana, where in our State we have said those extra revenue sources--that money that would be coming into our treasury--would help us reduce the national debt, but the revenue-sharing States would also be able to play a role in that.

If a State wants to help produce energy for America, they can also help our own economy. In our State, we said we want to focus on restoring our coast, putting that buffer in place that blocks future storms.

Mr. Speaker, this also helps lower gas prices at the pumps. Families who are struggling in this tough economy because of all the radical regulations coming out of the Obama administration can finally get some relief in gas prices through that energy security, again, removing the dependence we have on Middle Eastern countries and other people who don't like us.

We dealt with and started to address the threat from groups like ISIL, Mr. Speaker. Do you know that ISIL makes over $2 million a day from the oil fields they control that funds their terrorist activities?

Let's become energy secure as a Nation and get the energy security that goes with it, the jobs that go with it and all the great access to those resources that improve our economy.

I urge adoption of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding and for working so hard with the Armed Services Committee through Chairman McKeon to bring forth this amendment that ultimately lets the President start a process that he laid out in his speech last week.

Mr. Speaker, the threat of ISIS is real and growing. It is not just limited to the Middle East, though. Americans know this is ultimately something that we will have to confront if we don't address it now with swift action.

If you look at the legislation that has been brought forward, there were some important protections that were put in place over the course of the last few days in negotiations with the White House that, I think, are very significant and lay out clear benchmarks for President Obama over these next 3 months that this authorization would last.

The first thing the President has got to do under this authorization is to go and build that coalition. This is not a go-it-alone strategy. That is not going to be the kind of strategy that is going to work. The President has got to go and put those countries together to carry this out. He has got to get firm commitments, not only on amounts of resources that will be put in place, but also the number of troops that those countries would put in place.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, any transfers of funds that would be needed to carry this out would have to first come back to Congress before they can move forward. Any plan for vetting

Syrians who we would train, which is going to be an incredibly important process, has to come back to Congress, and those plans have to be laid out.

I think that is so important that those protections are in place because, ultimately, Mr. Speaker, the President is the Commander in Chief. He has asked for this authorization. But there has got to be a give and take and, ultimately, a role that Congress plays where the President is letting us know each step of the way that he is carrying out the mission as he laid it out, he is building that coalition that he said he would put together. And over these next 3 months, Mr. Speaker, it is going to be important that he does those tasks.

And ultimately, as we come back here to deal with this again, it is going to be important that the President lay out the broader strategy, because so many of our Members know this is not the final step that is going to eliminate the threat of Islamic terrorism. This is the very beginning. I think not only Members here in this body--Republican and Democrat alike--but I think people all across the country want to, ultimately, see that broader strategy by the President for how he is going to take on this challenge and eliminate these terrorists from the face of the Earth.

I rise in support and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for his leadership, and the gentlewoman from Texas for her leadership in putting this working group together to bring a bill to address this crisis.

Mr. Speaker, there is a crisis at our border. The President has refused and failed to do his job to address the crisis. The Senate in fact today failed to do their job and left town without passing anything to address this crisis, but the House is here working.

The people's House is here working, and we are not going to stop working until we get our job done and pass legislation that actually addresses this crisis, and that is what this bill does, Mr. Speaker.

We have got a bill that actually allows the Governors along the border to call up the National Guard to help secure the border. The President ought to do this job. The President has all the tools to secure the border, but he won't. He has failed to do one of his basic functions in securing the American border.

Shouldn't the Governors along that border be able to call up the National Guard to help secure it if the President won't? Not only do we do that, Mr. Speaker, but we put the funds in place to ensure that it gets done.

Some other things we do is end this catch-and-release program that has been a magnet for thousands of people to come across the border and be released throughout the country--some never to be seen again. We can stop this, and we do in our bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is important legislation that actually sends a strong message that we are going to take this issue seriously, and we are going to actually solve this crisis. If the Senate wants to be serious about doing their job and if the President wants to be serious about doing his job, they ought to come back here and pass something of their own, but they won't, but that is no reason to fail to lead. That is why the House is leading.

We are going to pass this bill, and we are going to propose a solution to this crisis. I encourage the Senate to come back and do their job, and I encourage the President to start doing his.

I thank my friend, the gentleman from Virginia, for bringing this bill to the floor and for his leadership on Mrs. Blackburn's legislation.

Mr. Speaker, if you go back and look at DACA in 2012, when it was issued as an executive order, it was an example of President Obama's executive overreach.

Some want to make this a partisan issue, yet, Mr. Speaker, more than a dozen times, the United States Supreme Court has issued 9-0 rulings that President Obama has overreached his executive authority. That is not a 5-4 decision. That is 9-0. Ruth Bader Ginsburg recognized more than a dozen times this President has overreached his executive authority.

Mr. Speaker, why is this DACA ruling so dangerous? This has been the magnet that has led to the flood of people coming across our border. This crisis at the border is partially responsible to the DACA ruling. We have got to stop having this kind of message go out that has led not only to a flood of people coming across our border, but has led to and can be responsible for the human trafficking that is going on. There are so many devastating things that this has done. We have got to stop this overreach.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to present an amendment that is a bipartisan amendment that has passed for the last 2 years that this bill has come before the House.

What this deals with is a change in process for mitigation methods that the Corps of Engineers implemented back in 2011 called the Modified Charleston Method. And when they implemented this new method of mitigation, it basically started making a lot of projects--surely in southeast Louisiana--unworkable, including, Mr. Chairman, flood protection projects.

One of the things we have seen is that it actually has increased the cost of flood protection projects along the coast by over 300 percent, which in many cases has made those flood protection projects unaffordable for local governments to be able to afford for themselves, where they are putting up their own money. It is not even Federal money.

And here comes the Federal Government, putting in an unworkable plan that makes it cost-prohibitive to actually implement flood protection. And, of course, we have seen at the Federal level what happens if you don't have that kind of protection. We sure don't want to be in a position where we are stopping local communities from being able to protect themselves against flood with their own money.

What is even more ironic about this, Mr. Chairman, is that the Corps of Engineers, while they have imposed this on local governments and private business, they have exempted themselves from it. The Corps of Engineers doesn't even use this method that they have imposed on everybody else--I am sure because they recognize it would be unworkable for them. But they impose it on everybody else. That is not the way we should do business, Mr. Chairman.

What this amendment says is that no funds can be expended to implement that unworkable method. Let's get back to the normal way of doing mitigation, which was practical, which was the way most other places in the country do it.

I would like to submit for the Record a letter from my colleague from Louisiana, Cedric Richmond, who is also in strong support and is the lead cosponsor of this amendment.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 10, 2014.

Hon. Mike Simpson, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related

Agencies House Committee on Appropriations, Washington,

I urge adoption, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the balance of my time.