Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this amendment forward. I rise in strong support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we are talking about appropriations bills, and, of course, people across the country are concerned, as we are, about the fact that our country is spending money we don't have. Washington spends almost 40 cents of every dollar with borrowed money. This is money we are borrowing from countries like China, ironically, and then here you have an

amendment that highlights the fact that we are spending money through the National Science Foundation on grants to study the effects of global warming on tea grown in China.

I mean, is this part of the deal that we cut with China when they loan us money to continue deficit spending? This is ludicrous. This is a classic example of wasteful Washington spending. And I commend, again, the gentleman for bringing this amendment because there are opportunities we have to highlight areas of wasteful Washington spending where we should at least be able to agree, as Republicans and Democrats, that every single dollar we are looking at we ought to ask the first question: Is this program--is this program worth borrowing money not only from countries like China, but borrowing money from our children? Our children are going to have to pay for these bills. And does this really rise to that level that it is worth borrowing money from our children, who are going to be getting that credit card bill, $931,000 of tax payer money, to study the effects of climate change on tea grown in China?

This is ludicrous. This is ludicrous spending. We ought not be doing it. We ought to at least be able to set priorities and agree, as Republicans and Democrats, that we are going to get serious about fiscal responsibility, and it starts with the little things.

This is not billions and trillions that we are talking about, but this is how you get to billions and trillions of dollars of debt. So while China holds maybe over a trillion dollars of our debt, I don't think it is going to cause any kind of international relations problem, that fact that we are going to say we should not spend $931,000 of money we don't have that is being borrowed from countries like China to study the effects of global warming on tea grown in China.

This is ludicrous. This doesn't pass the laugh test. When they say it is not all of the tea in China, this is a place where we should agree to stop spending taxpayer money on something that is incredibly wasteful.

Again, this is money borrowed from our children and borrowed from countries like China. We ought not be doing it.

Again, I thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment. It is a great example where we should be able to agree and say enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding, but especially I want to thank Chairman Shuster for the hard work that he put in to putting together a bill that--and I will just read The Wall Street Journal today: ``A water bill shows what happens when Congress has to set priorities.'' They go on to say: ``This process puts House Members in control of spending decisions even as it requires them to choose on the basis of fact and analysis.''

Mr. Speaker, what this bill really does is ushers in some much-needed reforms, if you just look at the reforms to the Corps of Engineers process.

I want to also commend our Senator, David Vitter, who was on that conference committee, for fighting for this, as Chairman Shuster did, to put those process reforms in place, because so often we hear that the corps studies issues to death. Frankly, if you look at some of the limitations, the environmental review process, that can bog projects down, this bill contains important reforms that streamline the environmental review process so that we can finally focus on more building and less studying.

Let's actually put our money into building infrastructure, not on studying things to death and ultimately never getting anything done. This bill really ushers in some important reforms on that front.

The critical reforms to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund that the Speaker talked about are very important--long, long overdue--things that I think people all across the country will see great benefits from.

I know when we look at some of the things in Louisiana--just the ability to improve flood protection with the Morganza to the Gulf project that finally will be authorized, something that will protect not only homeowners all throughout south Louisiana, but the important energy infrastructure that provides over 20 percent of the Nation's oil and gas. That is going to be an important reform.

Then, of course, if you look at the dredging component--to authorize 50 feet of dredging in the Mississippi River, as you see the Panama Canal widening. We don't want the United States to be left out of the great economic opportunities that are going to be involved in moving more commerce through the United States and then exporting--exporting more American goods that are produced and made here in America throughout the world.

All of the reforms that I mentioned, and so many others, are critical steps forward in finally getting a WRRDA bill that answers the needs of our Nation.

Again, I thank the chairman for his hard work.

I want to thank Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller for bringing this legislation to the floor, as it is so important when you talk about the things that we need to do to help give our children better opportunities.

Mr. Chairman, the charter school movement has literally transformed the public education system in New Orleans. If you look at what was happening in the city of New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina, it was the most failed and corrupt public school system in the country.

After Hurricane Katrina--I was in the legislature at the time--many of my colleagues came together, and we passed a charter system that empowered communities to get involved in the education of their children.

What we saw was revolutionary. What we saw were parents finally having options and choices to send their kids to schools that were competing for those children, schools that were actually providing better opportunities.

Before Hurricane Katrina, 75 percent of the students in New Orleans' public schools were attending failing schools, schools that were giving them no opportunity and no hope for their future.

What has happened since with this revolution of the charter school movement in New Orleans? What we have

seen is that, now, over 91 percent of the public school students in New Orleans attend charter schools.

What does that really mean for quality? That is ultimately what really matters. What kind of education are these children now being able to get?

As I said before, before Katrina, 75 percent of the students in the public schools in New Orleans were attending failing schools. Today, fewer than 15 percent of those students are attending schools with either a D or an F rating because, now, there is competition.

Parents have multiple options of where to send their kids, and those schools are competing for the students. I visited Hynes Elementary School last week in my district, in the Lakeview part of New Orleans. It is a charter school that is incredibly successful.

You see such enthusiasm from these young kids. They have an over 450- person waiting list to go to this charter school. It really is working, the fact that you have invoked this competition.

I want to applaud Majority Leader Cantor. Majority Leader Cantor actually came down and toured a number of the charter schools in New Orleans.

Of course, New Orleans is not the only place, but it is probably the place in which you have such a dramatic change--again, a revolution-- that has literally served as the model for how you can transform failed public education systems that were denying students the opportunity to have a future, to achieve that American Dream.

When we talk about opportunities for children, this is not a Republican idea or a Democrat idea. This is our ability to pass on the franchise of the American Dream to our children.

Charter schools have helped expand that opportunity, and that is why it is so important that we pass H.R. 10, so as to help replicate those successful programs and to help highlight what is working with the charter school movement.

You can look to New Orleans and see just how it has transformed people's lives for the better. This is something we need to do. It is great that this is a bipartisan effort.

Again, I applaud Chairman Kline for bringing this bill to the floor.

I want to thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding and for his leadership in bringing forth this budget. As the chairman of the Republican Study Committee's Budget and Spending Task Force, Mr. Woodall has brought this budget called Back to Basics, and that is really what we are here to talk about right now.

Madam Chair, what are those basics we should get back to?

I think they are the basic fundamentals that our Founding Fathers laid out when they created this great Nation. It is still the greatest nation in the history of the world, but it is a nation with serious challenges.

If you look at our economy, our economy is struggling in many ways because of policies coming out of Washington, because of Washington's failure to confront those challenges.

People across this country are ready to confront those challenges. They are looking to us to finally start laying out a vision that says we are going to start living within our means, that we are going to do the things that families across this Nation do every single year, and that is finally getting back to fiscal discipline.

When my friend on the other side--I guess the person who is tasked with coming and opposing budgets that balance--uses terms like ``draconian''--Madam Chair, I will tell you what is draconian. What is draconian is to deny the opportunity to our children and grandchildren that we enjoy today, something that every single generation in the history of our country has.

One of the pure definitions of the American Dream is that every generation in our Nation's history, since George Washington led us through that Revolution, has had better opportunities than those that we enjoy today; yet most people in this country recognize, if we don't get our fiscal house in order, our children--my 7- and 4-year-olds, whom my wife drove to school this morning--won't have those same opportunities, and they all deserve the opportunities that we enjoy.

So how do we do it? How do we get back to basics?

We do it by having really good, strong, bold policy--bold policy that says we ought to live within our means.

Our budget balances by year 4. In 2018, we have a balanced Federal budget. If you compare that with President Obama's budget, he has got a budget that has over $1 trillion in new taxes.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say: oh, you need to stick more taxes on all of these businesses.

If anybody is making a profit in America, it seems like they want to put a bull's-eye on him. If one happens to be successful and make a profit and create jobs in this country, that is somehow a bad thing.

If you take their approach in their budgets--in all of their budgets--they have over $1 trillion in new taxes. President Obama has nearly $2 trillion in new taxes, so you would think: okay, all of those new taxes must be what get you to balance.

In fact, Madam Chair, all of those new taxes just get you more despair. This President's budget never, ever gets to balance, but he has all of those tax increases that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about.

In our budget, we don't have any new tax increases. What we have is good, smart fiscal discipline policy that says let's get our economy moving again and let's believe in the American people.

By not raising taxes and by getting our economy moving, you actually get to balance in 4 short years and start creating surpluses, so we can pay back that debt, as my friend from Georgia talked about, so that we don't have to send all of those interest payments to other countries and to other priorities. Let's set those priorities in America.

How do we do this? How do we actually get back to balance in such a short period of time?

Number one, we save Medicare from bankruptcy, just as Paul Ryan does in the House Republican budget that came out of the Budget Committee. We share many of those same principles that get us to fiscal responsibility by saving Medicare, by not letting it go bankrupt, as our colleagues on the other side do and as the President's own budget does.

The President's own budget allows Medicare to go bankrupt. We don't think that is responsible, so we take care of those who paid into a system over their lifetimes.

We also invoke smart policy. If you start with health care, in our bill, we actually repeal the President's health care law and replace it with the American Health Care Reform Act, a bill that actually puts patients back in charge of their health care and that allows us to, again, have families be in charge of those decisions and to lower costs.

It is good, smart policy. We will talk more about it, but this is the right path to getting our economy back on track.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from South Carolina for bringing this budget forward. In fact, this is President Obama's budget.

I wouldn't be surprised if President Obama referred to his budget as a ``political stunt.'' If you look at the history of President Obama's budget, which he is legally required to file every year, he is in the sixth year of his Presidency. Do you know that 5 of those 6 years President Obama failed to meet the legal deadline to file his budget?

During that 5 out of 6-year period, every single year of those 6 years, President Obama made time to fill out his Final Four brackets.

Now, if his Final Four brackets do about as good as his budget does for the country--because if you look at the President's budget, which we're here debating, and I am speaking against, as my colleague from South Carolina is, the President's budget shows his priorities for the country, just like we are lying about our priorities for the country to get our budget back into balance, to get our economy moving again.

What does President Obama do? President Obama raises over $1 trillion in new taxes, job-crushing taxes, that will pull our economy even further back than he has already brought it, but you would think, if you listen to liberal orthodoxy that that $1 trillion is going to get us to a balanced budget, right?

They always say they need more money and former taxes to balance the budget. Look what happens, Mr. Chair, the President's budget never, ever gets to balance, with over $1 trillion in new taxes that he takes out of this economy, killing jobs across America, never gets to balance.

Our budgets that we are bringing forward do not raise a dime in new taxes and, in fact, gets to balance within the 10-year window, which underscores the difference in our visions for the country. We show through real policy that actually controlling the spending in Washington, forcing Washington to live within its means, is what gets our economy moving again and what gets us to balance.

President Obama proves with his own budget that, with over $1 trillion in new job-crushing taxes he never, ever

gets to balance; but, again, 5 out of the President's 6 years in office, only one time has he actually met the legal deadline to file his budget.

He always met the deadline to make his Final Four picks. I think he's shown what his priorities are. We are showing ours.

I urge a ``no'' vote on President Obama's budget.

I want to thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation.

Of course, President Obama's own health care law has now resulted in the direct loss of work for millions of people across this country. One of the perverse incentives in ObamaCare actually forces employers through incentives in the law to drop the number of hours that their employees work. This isn't something employees want, and it is not something employers want; yet it is directly there in the law where you get penalized--you actually get fined by the IRS--if you are not doing this. When you talk about these impacts of the law, it is having devastating impacts on families across this country. The President was talking about the minimum wage. The President has literally forced a 25 percent pay cut for millions of Americans through his incentive in the law that is encouraging employers to drop their workforce hours below 40 hours a week to 30 hours and 28 hours a week.

I represent parts of the city of New Orleans. Some of the best restaurants in the world are in the city of New Orleans. We love going to those restaurants, and so many people from all over the world love going to those restaurants, but many of those restaurant owners tell me that they love their workforces, that they love the employees who work for them. They are like family businesses. Yet they are being forced because of this law to drop the hours of those workers below 30 hours.

There is no reason for this, Mr. Speaker. This bill fixes this problem.

President Obama and the White House said, Hey, look. This is a burden for poor workers. This is freeing them up to do things that they really want to do--as if people don't want to be working. One of the things they said is that you could go sit in a park and write poetry. These people don't want to be sitting in a park, writing poetry, at 2 o'clock on a Thursday afternoon. They want to be at their jobs, working, and the law doesn't let them do that.

Let's fix this. We can get this economy moving again. These are crazy policies, like this component of ObamaCare that literally forces people to be dropped below 30 hours to address some new definition of ``part- time worker'' and ``full-time worker.''

These are the kinds of policies that are devastating American families. This is what we are here to fix. We need to pass this bill, fix this problem and get people back to work so they don't have to sit on a park bench on a Thursday afternoon, and they can actually be at their jobs, working.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from Washington for yielding and for bringing this bill forward.

We are seeing an abuse of the Antiquities Act where you have got a President using this law to shut off more areas of Federal land to things like energy exploration. That is not what this law was intended to do.

In fact, I think, if you look at the reforms that are included in this law, they are very good and responsible in ensuring that a President still has the ability to designate monuments where appropriate, one in each State for a Presidential term.

If there is some monument that warrants being designated a national monument, that opportunity is still there. You just have to come and talk to Congress.

I know this President has a hard time working with Congress, but we are right here. He talks about he has got a pen and a phone. Pick up the phone, Mr. President.

You can call us, and if it makes sense, we are going to work with you to get it done; but don't abuse the Antiquities Act to go and cordon off Federal land, so that we can't explore for energy and for other great resource needs.

I think it is important that we finally put the brakes on this Presidential land grab that we are seeing.

I encourage all my colleagues to support this legislation.

I appreciate my colleague yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America Act introduced by my colleague from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, there is a war on coal by the Obama administration. It is being carried out every day throughout this country in many ways through rules and regulations imposed by radical agencies like the EPA, and so what we are doing here is pushing back and saying: Enough is enough. Stop killing jobs in America, Mr. President. Stop increasing energy costs for American families, hardworking taxpayers who are struggling in this bad economy.

The President continues to pursue this global warming agenda. It is snowing outside of the Capitol right now as we speak in support of this bill, and they are still talking about global warming and imposing more regulations that are killing--killing--American jobs.

If you look at the sue-and-settle process that has brought us to this point, that really is the reason behind legislation like the bill we are bringing up today. The sue-and-settle process that the Obama administration is using through agencies like the EPA, in this case, has resulted in 7,000 lost jobs and is wreaking havoc in 22 States. Just one rule.

This isn't a bill that was passed through Congress. The President loves bragging about he has got a pen and a phone, yet he is using Federal agencies, not law passed by the people's House, debated in the open public view. Behind closed doors, they are going and trying to impose these radical regulations that are killing jobs in America. The President is going to spend days and days on the campaign trail, a campaign trail that never ends. He never leads and governs. He runs around campaigning, and his latest mantra is to talk about unemployment benefits. Mr. Chairman, the best unemployment benefit is a good job.

The American people don't want to be getting unemployment checks from the Federal Government--they want jobs--and yet this administration, through its war on coal and so many other radical regulations, is killing jobs in America. Enough is enough. This legislation helps to undo the damage that President Obama's radical policies are wreaking through our economy.

Again, I commend my colleague from Ohio for bringing this legislation forward. I think we will see a very strong bipartisan vote in support of helping get jobs back in our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler) for your leadership in bringing to light an incredibly important issue that is going to be debated right across the street from where we stand today in the House over at the Supreme Court.

The Hobby Lobby case deals with so much more than just one company, but it really deals with one of the fundamental rights that has been laid out in our Constitution, and that is the right of religious freedom.

What does that right really mean? Just how much ability does the Federal Government have to impede upon that right, especially when we talk about the right of a President--in this case, Barack Obama--to put out an edict that would literally take away that right to religious freedom from millions of Americans that enjoy it today and have enjoyed it since the beginning of our country?

If you will look at the rostrum right above the Speaker, it says, ``In God We Trust.'' A lot of people across the country would be surprised because there are school boards, there are other governmental bodies that right now have threats against them if they try to pray before any kind of governmental service.

In schools--in many schools across our country today, that right of religious expression is being challenged by groups every single day, and they threaten different groups, schools, other governmental organizations; yet, here in the House Chamber, we pray at the beginning and the start of every session every day.

We have ``In God We Trust'' emblazoned right above the Speaker's rostrum, and it is there for a reason.

It is because our Founding Fathers, when they created this Nation, they didn't say these were rights, the rights that they laid out in the Constitution. These were not rights that were given by men. These were rights that were granted through men from God.

Don't take my word for it. These were the writings of our Founding Fathers. They acknowledged God. They praised God. They talked about the great blessings of liberty given to us by God.

Yes, our Founding Fathers said that. This isn't some rightwing nut in the Tea Party. Thomas Jefferson may have been considered one of those rightwing nuts, using the definitions of some of the liberals running around this town today.

But if you look at what this President is doing right now, trying to trample on those religious freedoms, the Hobby Lobby case is the epitome of where those tramplings of those rights converge, to our job creators.

This is a business that wants to just run and provide services to people all across this country, a few locations in my district. My wife likes going to Hobby Lobby.

They shouldn't have to be faced with a dilemma every time they cut their paychecks to their employees of whether or not they are going to violate their own religious freedoms just to continue operating as a business in this country.

Nobody should be faced with the threat of our government taking away their religious freedoms just to be able to operate as a business; and yet, that is what is happening right now with the President's mandate through his own health care law.

It is not just limited to businesses, Mr. Speaker. If you look at what is also happening, you know, the President loves talking about a war on women. This President loves dividing this country anywhere he gets the opportunity for political gain to try to divide Americans against each other. How shameless that is.

Where is the President's war on women when it relates to religious freedom?

It is against people like the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic order of nuns that is just trying to do good for people. They are forced to sue the Federal Government because this President, Barack Obama, wants to make Little Sisters of the Poor pay for abortion- inducing drugs as part of their condition of providing health care. Otherwise, they are in violation of the law.

What law, Mr. Speaker, would force Catholic nuns to pay for abortion- inducing drugs just to comply with health care laws?

That is what is at stake here. That is why it is so important, this debate that is going to happen across the street, and that is why it is so important that we all come together to stand up against this kind of oppression of religious freedom.

It wasn't the tenth of all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. It was the First Amendment that guaranteed religious freedom. That is what we stand here in support of tonight.

I sure hope the Supreme Court hears those arguments as well and recognizes not just what we are talking about tonight, but what our Founding Fathers laid out as one of the basic fundamental tenets of our Nation's constitutional guarantee, and that is the right of religious freedom.

I appreciate all of my colleagues standing up in support of it, as we all do; and hopefully, the Supreme Court hears those pleas and rules the right way.

I thank the chairman for yielding, and I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) for leading on this issue.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of this legislation that finally puts a check and a balance on Federal agencies that are literally out there shaking down landowners over their property rights.

When you look at what the Federal Government is doing and you wonder why people are losing faith in the government, why people don't trust government, when a Federal agent shows up and says the only way you can get a permit is if you give up your property rights to your water, literally, extortion is coming from Federal bureaucrats.

This is not the way our government is supposed to operate, Madam Chair. This is what this legislation is here to remedy.

When you look at what is going on, it is not just the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture. We have seen this from other Federal agencies. Look at what the EPA does with their sue-and- settle process, where they literally go behind the cloak of darkness and cut secret deals and, again, force people to do things that aren't even in statute, just as a condition of getting basic permits. This is not how government is supposed to operate.

So while we have seen some of the egregious abuses limited in the Western parts of our country, this is not just a Western issue, Madam Chair. All Americans ought to be concerned when the Federal Government is literally shaking down and extorting Americans and forcing them to give away their private property rights just as a condition of getting a permit.

It is not right. It is not the right way to treat people. It is not the right way for the Federal Government to operate. This bill finally remedies that problem. It stops those abuses. I urge strong support of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Kansas for yielding and for her leadership on this bill that I am proud to cosponsor.

The SIMPLE Fairness Act is about just that, providing fairness for hardworking taxpayers. If you look at how the President's health care law is being implemented, Mr. Speaker, you have got the President literally saying he is going to give exemption after exemption after exemption to the political class, to the select few who have special interest protections here in Washington.

The President, by the way, has said: Big businesses can get exemptions from ObamaCare. The President has said: Insurance companies can get exemptions from ObamaCare.

But then, when it comes to hardworking taxpayers, families out there who are struggling under the weight of this law, the President says no, you can't have that same exemption that he has given to everybody else.

So what we are saying here, Mr. Speaker, is if these exemptions are good enough for big businesses and if these exemptions are good enough for insurance companies, shouldn't they also be good enough for hardworking taxpayers who are struggling in this bad economy that the President has given us and under the weight of this unworkable law, that the President himself is acknowledging is unworkable, by giving all these exemptions away to everybody else?

Now, if you look at the law, Mr. Speaker, the President doesn't have the legal authority to just waive a law--to literally take out a pen and change the law.

What the President does have is the ability to work with us in Congress in a bipartisan way, which when you look at the vote on this bill, it will be bipartisan in support of giving these hardworking taxpayers that same exemption.

But this law, ObamaCare, is built on a foundation of broken promises. If you like what you have, you can keep it, of course, is probably the most broken promise in political history; but there is more. The President said insurance

costs will be lower. Insurance costs are higher for families.

The President even said he will meet with anybody who has a better idea. Well, we do have a better idea, Mr. Speaker. Over 120 Members of Congress, including medical doctors, have cosponsored the American Health Care Reform Act.

We took the President up on his promise, now almost 3 months ago, and the President has refused to fulfill that promise of meeting with anybody who has a better idea. He won't even sit down and talk with us about a better idea to put patients back in charge of health care.

There is a better way. We ought to treat people fairly. This bill does it. I urge adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from West Virginia for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we have a flood insurance program that is broken. In fact, 18 different times in the last 5 years the National Flood Insurance Program has either expired or nearly expired because of all of the flaws and disagreements within Congress. And yet the result of that was that Biggert-Waters law of 2012 that is now being implemented in a way that is unworkable for the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I think if you look at what American families expect, they expect a flood insurance program that is both sustainable and affordable, and these two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, what we are achieving with this bill that is on the floor today will accomplish both. It will make the program sustainable for the future with real reforms, reforms that can actually be implemented in a way that will allow the program to move forward and pay for itself. In fact, this bill is fully paid for.

It also allows it to be done in a way that families can afford to pay their flood insurance premiums, because sending somebody a $10,000- or $20,000-a-year bill on a $200,000 house that never flooded is not an actuarially sound rate; it is a death sentence. Federal law should not be implemented in a way that literally forces millions of people out of their homes who played by the rules.

So what we are bringing to the floor today is an actual solution to a problem. This is not some delay. It is a real, long-term solution that pays for itself within the program with real reforms that allow people to move forward with a flood insurance program that will be sustainable and ultimately lead to a private market where you don't just have FEMA to go to, you can actually have private options as well for families. I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for yielding and for his leadership on holding the IRS accountable.

Mr. Speaker, we should not stand by and let the IRS target American citizens based on their political beliefs, and yet, that is what has been going on. It has been uncovered.

The President tries to act like it is some isolated incident, and yet, of course, we have got all kind of testimony that shows this goes way beyond some local office. This is widespread abuse of power by the Internal Revenue Service, and what we are seeing now, with this latest proposed rule, is literally something that would try to shut down an entire segment of American people who want to participate in the democratic process, Mr. Speaker.

The IRS should not be able to go and target people based on their political views, and yet that is what is happening, and President Obama is encouraging this kind of activity where you, literally, have the White House using enemy lists to go after people with groups like the

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding and for bringing the Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act. Mr. Speaker, all we are saying here is if American families' personal information is stolen through this Web site, through the exchange Web site, they ought to be notified by the administration that their data was breached.

And, of course, you have the White House actually coming out and saying they will veto this bill. What does the Obama administration have against protecting the privacy of American families' personal information? You have got an administration official who testified for our committee, the chief information security officer who actually said there is also no confidence that personal identifiable information will be protected.

Well, if they can't ensure the protection--and by the way, the individual mandate says this is not an option for American families, they have to go through this exchange to get insurance that is approved by the government. So if the government is going to mandate it, and we don't want the government to mandate this, but if they are going to mandate it, they ought to be able to ensure that the data is protected. And if it is breached, they ought to notify them that this has happened. And yet they issue a veto threat against this. We need to pass this legislation and put this transparency in law. Pass this bill.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership and for yielding time.

Clearly, when you look at the problems with the National Flood Insurance Program, what brought us to this point were a number of things. One was that the program continued to lapse over and over again. Multiple times, Congress had passed many patches and Band-Aids. And ultimately, we would like to see a private marketplace where people could go buy flood insurance. In fact, the Federal Government requires that people in many areas purchase flood insurance, and yet the only place you can go right now is NFIP. You can only go there to buy this, which is a requirement for people purchasing a home in many places.

So if you look at how the implementation by FEMA is adversely affecting millions of people across the country--specifically, some examples we have seen in southeast Louisiana, in my district, point out these glaring inequalities that have to be fixed by this Congress for this program to work properly. In fact, many of the things that we all want to see to get to an actuarially sound program will be undermined if the FEMA implementation goes forward without the reforms that we have been building a bipartisan coalition to implement.

And if you look at this--I will give you a couple of examples, Mr. Speaker, in south Louisiana. In Terrebonne and Lafourche Parishes, right on the front lines of the Gulf of Mexico, we are not talking about people who have multimillion dollar vacation homes or anything like that. These are hardworking taxpayers, people that work in the oil field, helping produce American energy, people that are middle class families that are being faced now with this rate shock. In many cases, these are people who never flooded.

We have got a levee district that we went and brought some of the FEMA officials out to just a few months ago, the Larose to Golden Meadow Hurricane Protection System in Lafourche Parish. We went out there. This is a levee protection system that was built by local people with local money, not Federal money. This wasn't a levee protection system that was built by the Corps of Engineers which, by the way, the Corps' levees failed during Katrina. These folks down in Lafourche Parish, they built their own levees, and they never flooded in Hurricane Katrina. They never flooded in Hurricanes Rita or Isaac. In fact, this levee protection system was so successful that many of these people never even filed a flood insurance claim. And yet FEMA completely ignores that that levee protection system exists. And some of these people are going to be faced with $25,000-a-year flood insurance premiums.

Now, some people might say that is an actuarially sound rate, but that is going to be a death sentence to those families. Everybody recognizes if you own a $200,000 house and then FEMA comes and says, Okay, your annual premium for flood insurance is going to be $25,000 a year, you are literally forcing that person to walk away from their home. So you are going to lose the money they are already paying into the system; and, again, in many cases, we are talking about people who never even flooded, people who paid their own tax dollars--not Federal money but local money to build a flood protection system that works.

It has worked for all of these storms, and yet FEMA is ignoring the fact that that flood protection system even exists. And ironically, FEMA certified the Corps flood protection systems that failed.

So these are the things that we are trying to address and fix, again, working in a bipartisan way because ultimately we want to see a competitive system. We want to see a system that is actuarially sound. But anybody who thinks that these massive rate increases you would be sending to people who played by the rules and never filed a claim in many cases can pay a $15,000, $20,000 a year premium just for flood insurance when it is much more than they are even paying for their own home note, it is just fantasy. So we are going to continue working to get this fixed, to put in place a system that is actuarially sound in a way where people can continue to play by the rules and continue to keep their homes and continue to be good, productive taxpayers and contribute to our society like they are today. So that is what we are going to continue working on.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership.