Floor Statements

I want to thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Messer from Indiana, for yielding and for your leadership in talking about this here on the House floor.

I think a lot of us over the last few years that this law has been on the books, while we have been pointing out all of the many problems that it is creating for families, we predicted, unfortunately, we saw this coming. This ``train wreck,'' as it was called by the lead sponsor in the Senate who rammed the bill through, he called it a train wreck recently because he finally acknowledged how devastating this would be. Of course, the President, we all remember that promise that was repeated time and time again: If you like what you have, you can keep it. Something we all embrace.

Of course, I knew, you knew, so many of us knew, I think even the President knew, unfortunately, when he was making that promise time and time again for the last 3 years, that that promise could not be kept under the President's health care law; just with all the mandates, all the unworkable taxes and mandates and these government bureaucrats that come between patients and doctors and get in the middle of health care, and IRS agents coming with the hammer to enforce this law.

We all knew. We saw that there would be no way people would be able to keep the health care that they liked. While we repeated it many times, it wasn't real until recently when millions--millions--of families started getting cancelation notices, losing the good health care that they have today and enjoy.

I have gotten letters from so many of my constituents. We reached out through social media with Facebook and Twitter and Share with Steve and asked for their stories. I remember Shaun from Covington who said, I am losing the good health care I have.

I posed the question to Secretary Sebelius at a hearing. I said, here is a guy in my district, we are hearing this over and over again, he is losing his health care, what do you tell him? She said, well, just go in the marketplace. Of course this is the Web site that doesn't work that spent over $500 million of taxpayer money. Not one person has been held accountable, by the way, for that failure.

As we point out all these failures, we also said there is a better way. We as conservatives stepped forward and said, we ought to put down on paper the things we stand for: market-driven, consumer-patient oriented health care reforms that actually lower costs, that will actually increase access. We put it together in a bill called the American Health Care Reform Act, H.R. 3121, a bill anybody can go look up and read. In fact, a bill that is less than 200 pages long with all the great reforms in it. Of course, comparing and contrasting that to the President's health care law with over 2,700 pages, all these unworkable mandates.

What the bill does is just basic commonsense reforms that should have been done years ago. We, of course, as you mentioned, allow people to buy across State lines. People in America, probably some of the best consumers in the world, with the Internet with so many options, people go online every day and find good products for their family. They don't care where that product is from. If it is good for their family, they are going to buy it.

With health care you really can't do that. You don't really have that opportunity. The health care law has taken those options away from families. So we say, let's empower people again, let's put patients back in charge of their health care decisions.

I am from Louisiana. If I find a better deal for my family in the State of Maryland, I can go buy that plan. I should be able to buy that plan. Right now I really can't. Yet you do that with car insurance and so many other products. You are able to buy across State lines, and it gives you opportunities.

We do so many other things to make sure people with preexisting conditions can't be discriminated against, allowing small businesses to pull together.

Again, this is a bill that has been put together by conservatives in the House. In fact, a number of medical doctors, actual medical doctors, people with real world experience in health care, helped draft this bill and, ultimately, we brought it forward and we have over 100 cosponsors.

So I think the momentum is building as the President's law just continues to

collapse and, frankly, the President's credibility collapses with it. People I think are looking for that better way, and we have it with the American Health Care Reform Act.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his leadership, and I yield back.

Sure. One of the things we have heard so much from this administration about health care as they have referred to people's plans, good plans, they refer to many of them as ``lousy'' plans. I have been in hearings where we have had Obama administration officials, in fact the President himself goes around chastising people and saying, you might be losing your plan, but it probably wasn't that good of a plan anyway.

Who is it for some Washington politician to tell somebody, and in Covington, Louisiana, as a constituent of mine, Shaun, said, who is it for the President to say that Shaun's plan was lousy when Shaun liked his plan? The President's promise was not, ``If Barack Obama likes what you have, you can keep it.'' The promise was, ``If you like what you have, you can keep it.'' No Washington politician or bureaucrat or IRS agent should be able to take that away from you.

Yet, as that was happening and they are berating people saying, your plan wasn't that good, it was a lousy plan, I said it is kind of like a guy who burns down your house and then he shows up with an empty bucket of water and then he sits there and gives you a lecture on how bad and lousy your house was before the fire. All you want is your house back. You didn't want somebody to burn it down in the first place.

People just want their good health care. They sure don't want to be lectured by some bureaucrat or politician in Washington saying, hey, your plan really wasn't that good because I don't think it was that good; when, in fact, the person back home is saying, I thought it was good, it was good for my family, my doctor can go see my kids, and I want to continue that relationship with my doctor, and they are about to lose it. They are losing it with these Washington politicians who helped ram this bill through.

That is why I think, as the President's health care law collapses on all the weight of these unworkable mandates and taxes, we need to put up an alternative, and we have an alternative called a better way--the American Health Care Reform Act.

We want to help bail those people out with a real bucket of water and a real relief sign that there is something that we are doing, not only to point out how bad the law is--they are seeing it play out every day--but also how we can actually fix the problems that are becoming even worse because of this law.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for bringing this bill to the floor, which I support.

Mr. Speaker, we all heard that promise that if you like what you have, you can keep it. It is probably the most often repeated promise that Barack Obama has made in his 5 years as President. Yet the President is finally acknowledging that that promise will not be kept to millions of Americans who are losing the good plans they like.

They can't feign that they didn't know this was going to happen, by the way, Mr. Speaker, because, back in 2010, the administration had a report that said over 60 percent of private plans would be canceled under the President's health care law. I have seen it myself in my district. I have got Chris from Covington and Aaron from Slidell who have gotten letters saying they are going to lose the good plans they have because of the President's health care law.

The President's answer was, Oh, it was a lousy plan.

Mr. Speaker, it was not a lousy plan for Chris or for Aaron or for the millions of Americans who are losing their plans. They liked their plans. Some Washington politician shouldn't be able to say, I don't think it is good enough, so I am going to take it from you even though it is right for your family.

Let's put patients and doctors back in charge of these decisions. Let's empower hardworking families to be the ones in control of their health care decisions, not some Washington politician. I urge the passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, we all have heard the promise over and over again:

If you like what you have, you can keep it.

It is probably the most often repeated promise since Barack Obama has been President. For 5 years now, that promise has been made, and unfortunately, now millions of Americans are realizing that that promise has been broken over and over again. Over 100,000 Louisiana families are seeing that broken promise.

In fact, we had a social media site called Share with Steve where we asked people in Louisiana's First Congressional District to share their stories with me, and the stories that I have heard have been compelling and heartbreaking. In fact, I started sharing some of those stories with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. When Secretary Sebelius was before us in the House Energy and Commerce Committee just a little over a week ago, I shared some of those stories with her.

One of those stories was Shaun from Covington, and I read Shaun's story of the health care that he has now lost for his family because of the President's health care law. Of course, you have got Secretary Sebelius who is running the President's health care law and all of these broken promises that we are hearing about. I said, What would you tell Shaun, Madam Secretary, who has now lost the good health care he has for his family when you promised him that he would be able to keep that health care?

Unfortunately, all we got was a smug response from a bureaucrat in Washington, and her response to Shaun was, Well, you can just go shop around in the health care exchange.

Well, first of all, that is not the promise that she and the President made to Shaun. The President promised Shaun he could keep his health care if he liked it. And Shaun likes his health care and doesn't want to lose it and, even more, doesn't want to have to go to some Web site that doesn't even work to go buy a plan that his family doesn't need. What Shaun conveyed to me after that interaction with the Secretary was that what he is being presented now are options that are even more expensive and don't include the kind of coverage that his family wants.

So I think what is most insulting to Americans is not only now that they are losing that health care, that President Obama broke that promise, that sacred promise between a doctor and a patient, but now you are hearing this elitist Washington politician response where you have got these bureaucrats and politicians in Washington telling people like Shaun, We didn't think your plan was good enough.

So not only have they broken the promise, but now they are deciding what they think is good enough for a patient and their doctor. And so a family in a place like Covington, Louisiana, that I represent, or all around the country, that had good health insurance, that liked the plan that they had, is being told not only that they can't keep it, but that some Washington bureaucrat didn't think their plan was good enough, even though they thought their plan was good enough.

So this is what is wrong with government-run health care. This is why we fought this bill back in 2009 when it was going through the Energy and Commerce Committee and here on the House floor when you had then- Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying you have got to pass the bill to find out what is in it. Of course American families are now seeing what is in it, and they don't like what they are seeing in this bill.

Later this week, we are bringing up a bill on the House floor that I am proud to cosponsor that allows you to keep

the plan that you have if you like it. Of course, the President's promise really should have been if Barack Obama likes your plan you can keep it, because that is the only way you can keep your plan is if the Federal Government approves of it even if you like it and you lose it.

What we are also seeing, of course, over on the Senate side, and even here on the House floor, many people who voted for the President's health care law are acting as if they had no idea this was going to happen. Of course they knew this was going to happen. If you read the bill, you could tell that people would lose the good health care they liked. There were reports coming out in 2010 that said millions of Americans will lose the health care they like, and yet now you have Senators over there and even some House Members who voted for the President's health care law acting like they had no idea this was going to come to pass. Of course they knew that millions of Americans would lose the good health care that they like. They just didn't think maybe that people would realize that it was the President's health care law that caused it and hold them accountable. And so now people are starting to be held accountable, as they should.

But, Madam Speaker, there is a better way. In fact, I am proud to have led an effort to bring forward the American Health Care Reform Act, a true alternative to the President's health care law that actually starts addressing the problems to lower costs, to allow people to keep the good health care plans that they like, and to give people real options.

In fact, our bill has over 100 cosponsors now, including medical doctors who serve in Congress who helped draft this bill, who understand that the doctor-patient relationship should continue to be maintained and be that sacred relationship that it used to always be before the government started coming in between people's health care, before IRS agents started coming in between people's health care.

So this bill allows people to buy insurance across State lines, giving people real flexibility, real choice, real competition in health care, where people will be competing for your business to dramatically lower costs, to allow people to have the option to buy their own health care instead of going through their company, and they will be able to have the same tax benefits that a company gets. So if they buy a health care plan on their own that is better than what their employer provides, they will be able to deduct that cost, which they can't do today. It allows small businesses and even individuals to pool together and get the buying power of a large corporation. This is the way we should be doing this, Madam Speaker, not this government-run approach.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, for his leadership in bringing the WRRDA bill to the floor.

I wanted to talk specifically about the Morganza to the Gulf project. I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania has been down to Terrebonne and Lafourche Parish and seen this project that is so vital, not only for hurricane protection, but also for protecting the infrastructure that produces 30 percent of our Nation's oil and gas, a lot of the energy infrastructure for our country.

I know the process that has been set up in this bill allows for Chief's Reports, once they move forward, to then go to the committee for hearing. The Chief's Report for this project wasn't completed until after the last hearing that your committee had.

I just wanted to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania to see if there was going to be another committee hearing in the near future to take up new projects that have gotten Chief's Reports since that time, and to see if Morganza to the Gulf would be one of the projects that we could have on that list.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New Orleans, Mr. Richmond, for bringing this amendment forward; and, of course, what we are trying to do is just put an additional reform in place to make sure that when a cost-benefit analysis is done, it truly reflects the value of those projects, especially as we are talking about flood protection and hurricane reduction projects, in many cases, where local governments are doing a lot of the work themselves to protect not only people and communities, but also vital energy infrastructure.

Of course, having the value of that infrastructure, as my colleague from New Orleans pointed out, even when we see a storm enter the Gulf of Mexico, and as rigs in the gulf are evacuated, we see immediate increases in the price of gasoline all across the country.

So we ought to be encouraging those local communities to be building up and strengthening their flood protection, whether it is coastal restoration, where our State of Louisiana has actually dedicated the lion's share of all of the offshore oil revenues our State will ultimately start getting in 2017, to make sure that that money is dedicated to restoring our coast, literally, where you have the State putting hundreds of millions of dollars of its own money where its mouth is to protect those resources.

But just as locals are doing that work, as the Corps is evaluating larger projects, Federal projects that would also protect that vital infrastructure, it is important that that calculation be made because, ultimately, if there is a storm or damage and that work is not done, then the economy will suffer. We have seen it suffer across the Nation.

I do want to mention, Mr. Chairman, that the American Petroleum Institute has come out in support of this amendment. It is a strong bipartisan amendment, and we appreciate the support of API; and, obviously, they understand the national importance of having this kind of reform in the bill.

I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler) for her leadership as the chair of the RSC Communications Committee for leading this effort to talk about real solutions. Of course, today we are in day 14 of a government shutdown, a shutdown that has seen Republicans bring proposal after proposal after proposal to fund government. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out, there are more than 20 bills now that have been passed by the House of Representatives to fund all or parts of the Federal Government--20 bills. This chart chronicles the timeline, going back to September 20, well in advance of the midnight hour where, today, on day 14, by the way, President Obama has still yet to even engage in conversations.

In fact, we went to the White House Thursday to meet with the President, sat in a room with him for an hour and a half. The simple offer was: Mr. President, we will increase the debt ceiling. All we are asking is for you to start talking, just to agree to have conversations; and, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we left that meeting without the President even being willing to start talking.

And so we are 14 days into a government shutdown that the President is decrying and calling people names. You have got people in the White House literally calling people suicide bombers,

terrorists, and all kinds of other things that are so unbecoming of the Office of the President of the United States--again, a President who said he was going to change the tone in Washington allowing people in his White House to call people on the opposition terrorists and suicide bombers--and yet he refuses to even sit at the table and negotiate our differences while we have passed 20 different bills to fund all or parts of government.

What are some of those parts of government? A bill to fund veterans affairs. Mr. Speaker, for all the areas of disagreement we have in Washington--and clearly, with a divided Nation with a divided government, there are areas where we have disagreement, but we should all be able to come to the table and say we ought to fund our veterans while we are negotiating our differences on the things we disagree upon.

And yet we sent the bill over to the Senate to fund our veterans, and Harry Reid tabled that bill, Mr. Speaker. We sent a bill to say that disaster aid shouldn't be something that we disagree over. We passed a bill with bipartisan votes and sent it over to the Senate. In fact, we saw one of the most disgraceful acts by a Commander in Chief, Mr. Speaker, where for days we saw this administration refusing to give death benefits to our fallen heroes, a moment I don't think we have seen in our Nation's history.

And we passed a bill to say don't hold our veterans hostage, and yet you still see barricades--I call them ``Obamacades''--up in front of the World War II Memorial, an open-air memorial where, in normal days, there is nobody there being paid to guard or block this memorial. It is an open-air memorial built to honor our World War II heroes. And yet when our World War II heroes come from all around the country, some in their nineties, come to see their memorial, they are greeted by barricades by this administration. This is the kind of embarrassing leadership that we are getting out of the White House when all we are saying is let's negotiate our differences like has always been done.

When Ronald Reagan was President, Tip O'Neill was the Speaker, and you had divided government. There were 12 different shutdowns during that time in our Nation's history. What Ronald Reagan did as a leader, as a great leader, one that we surely miss today, Ronald Reagan started having regular meetings with Tip O'Neill. They actually built a relationship, started getting things done. And we saw one of the greatest revolutions, economic expansion in our Nation's history because you had a real leadership in the White House.

Mr. Speaker, again, we have sent 20 different bills over to the Senate, all chronicled, many of which had large Democrat votes out of the House. Still to this day, not one word from the President over whether he would agree to start talking. Of course, he wants to make it all about ObamaCare. Clearly, there are big areas where we have disagreement, but it is not just a partisan issue. It is not just Republicans who have issues with ObamaCare. Let's start with the occupant of the Oval Office.

Barack Obama has problems with ObamaCare. He has issued over 1,200 waivers to his signature law, as the gentlelady from Missouri pointed out. I have yet to find one small business in my district who got one of those waivers, by the way. It was handed out to a lot of special- interest friends who could get access to the White House. Is that the way the government is supposed to run? In fact, he even worked out a deal to give Members of Congress an exemption from his signature health care law.

So what we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is why don't we start with the basic premise of fairness. If this law is so good, make it apply to everybody. If it is not that good, if it is so bad you need to issue 1,200 waivers to your friends, Mr. Speaker, then why not give that same waiver to all Americans until this thing is ready to work, which clearly it is not. As somebody once said, the failures of this law, October 1 was a date that for 3 years they knew was coming, where these exchanges had to be up and running, and now we are hearing debacle after debacle, people registering 12, 14 times without being able to get through. Somebody said it is like Flowers.com not being prepared for Valentine's Day.

So as we stand here today talking about getting our economy back on track and talking about the 20 different proposals we have sent over to the Senate to get government up and running, most of which have not been given even a minute's consideration, literally tabled on party- line votes by Senator Reid, what we are saying is: How about just fairness? Let's start with fairness and make ObamaCare apply to everybody. If it is that good, why don't we make it apply to everybody? Get rid of all these special waivers, all these special backroom deals to everybody from the President's friends to Members of Congress. Let's make it apply to everybody. Let's get the government back open, and let's start tackling our long-term spending problems that are causing programs like Medicare and Social Security to face bankruptcy where we have put good plans on the table to save those programs from bankruptcy and, frankly, Mr. Speaker, to save our country from bankruptcy so we can hand off to our kids and grandkids the same opportunity that we enjoy today in the greatest country in the history of the world, a country that is facing serious problems, a country, unfortunately, facing a lack of leadership from the President who, 14 days into a government shutdown, still to this day has not even agreed to start talking with people from the other party to work out those differences.

I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri for creating this forum to talk about solutions, and my other colleagues in the Republican Study Committee who have been bringing forward solution after solution to get our economy moving again and restore the greatness that this country knows is there, that beacon of light that we are all fighting for here tonight on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House and talk about the things we're doing here in this House to continue to fund government and keep the government open. If you look at what has been going on the last couple weeks, Mr. Speaker, you have seen more than four bills passed by the House of Representatives to fund all of government. You've seen us send bills over to the Senate to keep government open. But what you've also seen, Mr. Speaker, is the President of the United States and the leader of the Senate refusing to take up the bills because they're not getting everything they want. The Senate President, Harry Reid, said he's not going to budge an inch--not an inch--from his position. He'd rather shut the government down than to move one inch. President Obama said he won't negotiate. He refuses to negotiate with Republicans unless they give him everything he wants. He won't budge an inch. So what we've done in the House, Mr. Speaker, during that time is say: You know what? We're going to put a lot of options on the table because we do believe we ought to fund government properly. We ought to address the problems facing our country and get our economy moving again, and address all the problems that the President's health care law is facing.

But we also know that we live in a democracy, and when you've got divided government, Mr. Speaker, that means both sides ultimately have to come together. That's what our laws actually demand. And yet you've got a President saying it's my way or the highway; if I don't get everything I want, I won't budge. And then you've got Republicans saying: Let's pass bills to keep things going; let's actually negotiate and work out our differences.

I think the American people are realizing that, Mr. Speaker. They're seeing the unreasonable approach of President Obama. If you look at what has happened in the House the last few days, you're actually seeing a groundswell not just of Republican ideas to keep government funded. We passed a bill to fund veterans. Shouldn't we all, while we've got all of these other disagreements on government--there are actually areas where Democrats and Republicans agree. You don't hear a lot about it, Mr. Speaker, but there are a number of those.

So we've started putting those ideas on the table and saying we have some real disagreements over health care policy, but shouldn't we at least fund our veterans? Shouldn't we at least fund cancer treatment for those patients that are struggling through cancer that aren't looking at this from a Republican or Democrat issue; they just want their treatment? And so we passed a bill, and it got bipartisan votes in the House. It was not a partisan vote. A lot of Democrats joined with Republicans to say let's at least fund cancer treatment while we're negotiating these other differences. And the Senate majority leader's answer was: Why would we want to do that? How shameful, Mr. Speaker, that you would have the Senate majority leader saying he would rather hold them hostage unless he gets everything he wants. Nobody gets everything they want in a democracy. And so we continue to pass bills to address these problems.

We passed bills to fund our National Guard troops. Again, large bipartisan votes--a growing number, by the way, of Democrat votes that have been joining with Republicans--to take a reasonable approach to this, because again, ``my way or the highway'' is not how you govern in a democracy. You send those bills over to fund our veterans and to fund our National Guard and to fund cancer patients. And you literally, on a party-line vote, have the Senate leader saying he's going to kill those bills until he gets everything he wants, and is forcing every Democrat in the Senate to vote with him, to play some kind of partisan game. That's not how our democracy works, Mr. Speaker.

And where's the President's leadership on this? You should see the President standing up and saying stop these games; stop punishing people; stop taking hostages. And yet he's so afraid to stare down the Senate majority leader that he sits on the sidelines and continues just to throw rocks at people instead of getting in the fray and saying, as all adults in a room, let's get together and work out our differences. The President continues to say he won't budge an inch.

And so today, Mr. Speaker, we're going to continue moving forward in the House. As a tropical storm enters the Gulf of Mexico, we're going to take up a bill that says we ought to fund our emergency response in FEMA. Shouldn't again we at least be able to put partisan differences on the side on other issues that are unrelated and say at least we ought to take care and respond to disasters. That bill will be on the floor. And I'll predict, Mr. Speaker, that you'll see broad bipartisan support to vote that bill out of the House and pass it over to the Senate. Maybe, just maybe, let's all hold out encouragement that the Senate majority leader will finally put his partisan differences on the side and say let's at least agree to do that. Don't hold hostages.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, when you look at what the President has been doing with these monuments, punishing the American people. The World War II Memorial is a great example of the greatness of America, the Greatest Generation, a tribute to those men and women who risked everything. You had heroes in their 20s that stormed the beaches of Normandy. They stared down the enemy. They didn't blink. Of course,

they came earlier this week to the World War II Memorial to see the memorial that was built in their honor, and they're faced with Obamacades blocking off that memorial. I'm glad they stared it down, they didn't blink, and they took that memorial.

Mr. President, tear down those Obamacades. Let our veterans into the World War II Memorial.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.

I rise in strong support of this bill that funds the NIH and makes sure that cancer patients are able to get the treatments that they need and that that vital research continues to move forward.

Clearly, we've got some disagreements between the House and Senate on other areas of government funding, but shouldn't we at least be able to come together on this area where we all have agreement and make sure we take care of those cancer patients so that they're not held hostage to these other negotiations?

In fact, we should be able to get that, but Senator Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, was earlier asked, ``But if you could help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do it?''

Senate Majority Leader Reid's response was, ``Why would we want to do that?''

It would be disgraceful, Mr. Speaker, for Senator Reid to deny cancer patients the treatment and the research they deserve just because he wants to score some kind of political point.

Mr. Speaker, it's not too late for Senate Majority Leader Reid to have a change of heart. Stop holding people hostage. We can come to agreement as Republicans and Democrats. Let's do that, and then deal with the other areas of disagreement. Let's at least take care of our cancer patients.

I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota for her leadership on claiming this time but also for all she's done to point out--and I think, Mr. Speaker, as every day goes by, more and more Americans are finding out just how devastating the President's health care law is to their families.

The President likes mocking Republicans who have said we want to stand up and find a better way. We don't think this law is workable. We've had 41 laws, the President has bragged and mocked, 41 laws to repeal or defund portions of the law.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama himself has actually signed seven of those bills into law. President Obama has recognized his bill is so unworkable that he issued 1,400 waivers to his friends who could find access to the White House.

Then he said, okay, the employer mandate's so bad, I'll give a break to big businesses because it's so unworkable.

Then, just a few weeks ago, President Obama himself, Mr. Speaker, said that he was going to actually go and give a big break to insurance companies. But you know who we haven't given a break to yet? American families.

Hardworking American families deserve the same relief from the President's health care law that he has granted, time and time again, to the privileged few who can get access to the White House. That's not how democracy is supposed to work. That's not how health policy is supposed to work.

This law is so unworkable that the heads of labor unions, including James Hoffa, of all people, have said that this bill, the President's health care law, will be a disaster to middle class working families and will destroy the 40-hour work week that's the foundation of our Nation's economy.

We want to give that same break to him. We want to give that same break to all American families, and that's what this fight all about. It's a fight to ensure that government continues to get funded, while also providing the same relief from the President's health care law that he already has said he wants to give, but just to the chosen few who can get access to the White House.

If it's so good for everybody, it should apply to everybody. But if it's so bad, it shouldn't be Swiss cheese holes that you carve out to exempt your friends; it should be an exemption for all American families. That's what we're fighting.

Again, I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota.

I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky, for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to continue to fund government while also defunding the President's health care law in ensuring that this country does not default on its debts.

While some might criticize this effort, this is not a Republican idea. Talk to union leaders. James Hoffa says that the President's health care law is destroying the middle class family and the 40-hour workweek. In fact, the President himself has acknowledged that the Senate author of the bill calls this law a train wreck, and then the President said that he wants to delay components of the law, but only for the privileged class, only for those people that can get access to the White House.

We are fighting to give that same relief to all American families. This law is unworkable. It's killing jobs in America. It's causing people to lose good health care that they have today.

In Louisiana alone, our families are facing over 50 percent increases in their health care premiums because of this law that's devastating our economy. It is not ready for prime time. The President has even acknowledged it. He's signed seven bills to defund or repeal components of the law himself.

It is time this House takes action and then the Senate does their job and takes action as well.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2844) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to consolidate the reporting obligations of the Federal Communications Commission in order to improve congressional oversight and reduce reporting burdens, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.

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

The legislation before the House this afternoon, H.R. 2844, the FCC Consolidated Reporting Act, is a bipartisan bill that seeks to provide flexibility and relief to both our job creators as well as the Federal Communications Commission. This bill is another step in the process of streamlining government so that businesses can focus their time and resources on growing our economy and creating jobs instead of complying with outdated and burdensome mandates from the Federal Government. Every dollar spent on outdated FCC reporting mandates is a dollar that could otherwise be spent creating more high-paying jobs and investing in new infrastructure.

H.R. 2844 also recognizes the reality that our Nation is in a fiscal crisis and that we must find ways to do more with less. By consolidating eight annual and tri-annual reports into a single biannual Communications Marketplace Report, not only do we recognize this new budget reality by giving the FCC more flexibility and tools to drive greater efficiencies but we can usher in a platform to analyze the converged nature of today's highly competitive intermodal communications industry, which has moved beyond the traditional confines of the 1992 and 1996 Cable and Communications Act.

This simple, commonsense measure will also ensure that Congress has timely access to the Commission's best analysis of the communication's landscape at the beginning of each Congress by requiring that the Communications Marketplace Report be published in the last quarter of an even-numbered year. This will allow Congress to better use findings to inform our legislative activities.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a great example of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle coming together to reform outdated government mandates that were created by Congresses of the past. I applaud Chairmen Upton and Walden, as well as Ranking Member Eshoo, for working so closely and cooperatively with me on this legislation; and I strongly encourage my colleagues to join in supporting passage of this commonsense measure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I want to thank the gentlelady from California, again, for her hard work on this and the good bipartisan cooperation that we've had in making these reforms.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, as we heard from our constituents, as we just got back from this August work period where many of us held townhall meetings throughout our district, people are frustrated with why Congress can't work together to get things done. I think this is a good example of how both parties came together and looked at some very outdated laws.

People also ask, Why are you always passing laws and why don't you actually get rid of some of the laws on the books that don't make any sense? Well, that's what we're doing here with H.R. 2844. We're actually going through and repealing laws that are burdens to our small businesses that are out there trying to create jobs in the technology industry. One of the great growing segments of our economy is the telecommunications industry; and yet look at some of these reports that they're required and mandated to compile, many of which have no real bearing on the marketplace today. As the chairman of the subcommittee mentioned, we actually do repeal the telegraph report. Why we still have a law on the books that requires a report issued on competitiveness in the telegraph industry--that goes to show how we have so many of these outdated laws on the books still to this day. And Congress from time to time needs to go and repeal outdated rules and regulations like this. That's what we're doing in this legislation.

It's a good, commonsense piece of legislation that we worked on in a bipartisan way to bring to the floor. I urge all my colleagues to pass the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding and for bringing this bill forward.

Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of the REINS Act. If you look at why we are bringing this bill forward, it is because of the onslaught of radical regulations that have been coming from this Obama administration for the last 4\1/2\ years.

Every time I go back home and talk to small business owners in my district, the biggest impediment that they tell me they have to creating more jobs--the biggest impediment--is the rules and regulations coming down from the Federal Government. If you look at what the REINS Act does, it doesn't stop those rules and regulations. It just says, if these rules and regulations are so important and have a $100 million impact on our economy, shouldn't they come before Congress and have to state their cases? I mean, what are you so afraid of in coming before the public body and having transparency?

President Obama said he was going to be the most transparent President ever. Yet he has got these bureaucrats who want to go behind closed doors and come up with rules and regulations. We have had hearings on some of this stuff, by the way, and they talk about things that are going to save kids' lives and things that are going to improve the quality of our air. We have had hearing after hearing in which the rules that they come up with have absolutely nothing to do with improving the quality of people's health.

What it has to do with is ramming through a radical agenda that they can't pass through Congress, and if Congress can't pass it--the publicly elected body of the United States Government--then you shouldn't go through the back door and have some unelected bureaucrat try to ram that through on this country and cause a devastating impact on jobs.

There have been over 130 different major rules under the Obama administration having a $70 billion impact on families in this country. With that $70 billion of impact that's going to cost families more money for food, for energy--for everything they do--shouldn't they have to come before the public bodies here in Congress and state the case? If it's such a good rule, what are they afraid of? Why don't they want that transparency?

It's because they don't want the transparency. They want to ram through the radical agenda, and the REINS Act just puts a stop to the unelected bureaucrats from doing it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I bring this amendment forward on the REINS Act to simply prohibit the Obama administration from imposing a carbon tax on the United States. If they wanted to impose that kind of tax, they could not do it through regulation. Of course, we've heard the Obama administration, from President Obama to his EPA Administrator and others, talking about various forms of taxes on energy that they want to impose. Whether it's a carbon tax, whether it's a cap-and- trade-type scheme, they've continued to throw out that opportunity to impose that kind of radical regulation by themselves without action from Congress.

Clearly, as we talk about the REINS Act and we talk about any kind of regulation having over a $100 million impact on our economy, we want to make it very clear that any attempt to impose a carbon tax would fall under that same definition of ``major rule'' where they could not do it by regulation.

If you look at what's been studied on this issue--again, this idea of a carbon tax has been floating around for a while by the Obama administration. In fact, the National Association of Manufacturers, Mr. Chairman, did a study, and it's titled ``The Economic Outcomes of a U.S. Carbon Tax.'' Let me tell you, it's not pretty some of the things that they talk about in this study.

If the Obama administration had their way and imposed a tax on carbon, manufacturing output in energy-intensive sectors, for example, could drop by as much as 15 percent. We're talking real job losses that would come to this country.

What would it do to families in terms of energy costs? How would it affect them? In the same study, they say, just in the first year of a carbon tax, we would see an increase in the cost of natural gas by more than 40 percent, and the price of gasoline at the pump would go up by 20 cents a gallon. That's just in the first year of a carbon tax. It would have devastating impacts on our economy.

Clearly, if you look at what President Obama and his administration officials are doing and saying, they want to keep the door open to impose a carbon tax through regulation. This amendment says absolutely not.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, if I could go back to that National Association of Manufacturers study on the impact of a carbon tax, the gentleman from Tennessee might be interested in knowing that in Tennessee alone, in the first year of a carbon tax, household utilities would go up by 14 percent, and, in fact, they could experience job losses of up to 40,000 lost jobs just in the State of Tennessee in year one, with a 40 percent increase in their natural gas prices.

I wanted to point that out, and then yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Goodlatte.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I just want to point out that clearly the Obama administration must be very interested in imposing a tax on carbon through regulation. The fact that the opposition has objected to this and stated all of the reasons that they think a carbon tax should be imposed tells you that they are holding out for that opportunity.

Of course, if you look at the devastating impacts of a carbon tax-- there are a lot of good studies out there. Again, I go back to the National Association of Manufacturers. It's a very respected national organization, people that stand up for American jobs. The report they did, entitled, ``Economic Outcomes of a U.S. Carbon Tax,'' is devastating.

Clearly, the administration wants to do this. If it's such a good idea, bring the idea to Congress; bring it through the House; bring it through the Senate. They could get their floor leaders in the Senate to bring it up tomorrow, but they don't want this kind of scrutiny.

Just the other day, the President was in Tennessee bragging about all these new jobs plans that he has; and while he was doing it, ironically, in another State, his new EPA Administrator was talking about climate change. In fact, she called climate change the ``opportunity of a lifetime,'' and that the EPA would continue to impose regulations

despite what we think here in Congress.

That's not the way the legislative process works. That's not the system of government our great Founders created. They said, if an idea is so good, bring it to the people's House; bring it to the Senate, and pass it that way. Don't try to impose it through radical regulation and devastate our economy.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a former Member of the House and a grand lady from Louisiana, Ms. Lindy Boggs.

She was a pioneer and a trailblazer for the State of Louisiana. She served

Louisiana's Second Congressional District following the death of her late husband, Hale Boggs, who was then the majority leader of the House. She was the first woman elected to represent the State of Louisiana in Congress, and she was a founder of the Congresswoman's Caucus. In tribute to her service as a pioneer for women, the Congressional Women's Reading Room down the hall is rightfully named in her honor. Lindy was the first woman and only Louisianian Ambassador to the Holy See during the tenure of Pope John Paul II.

Lindy effortlessly balanced her role as a respected leader and as a loving mother. She loved her city of New Orleans. In fact, she lived on Bourbon Street in New Orleans for many of her later years. She loved her beloved Tulane University. In fact, just recently, she and her daughter Cokie participated in a fundraiser to benefit Tulane University just a few weeks ago in New Orleans.

She is somebody who will be dearly missed and someone whom we are honored to be able to call a former colleague of ours here in the House.

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment I bring forward is a very basic, straightforward, commonsense amendment that deals with the funding priorities within the Department of Defense. We know we are living in a post-sequester world. We have many hearings here on Capitol Hill where we have generals and, in fact, even the Secretary of Defense talking about the threats to military operations through the sequester cuts. We all know that those are real, and especially in these tight economic times, and even if we weren't in tight economic times, but especially right now, we ought to be watching every single dollar that is spent within the Department of Defense and work to find ways to make smarter use of those dollars.

One of the things that we've found as we've combed through is that the Department of Defense has been entering into contracts to buy renewable fuels, biodiesel and other forms of renewable fuels to supplant what are the traditional, conventional fuels. The problem is that the contracts they are entering into are tremendously more expensive to the taxpayer than if they just bought conventional fuel.

So what this amendment would do is to say that the Department of Defense cannot enter into those contracts to buy nontraditional fuels at these higher costs.

I want to give a couple of examples. I think it is important to note a few of them because this is something that has been happening recently that we found. There is a memorandum of understanding between the Navy, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Energy for each of those entities to spend $170 million each to ``assist development and support of a sustainable commercial biofuels industry.''

Now, Mr. Chairman, whatever you think of expanding and developing a biofuels industry, that's not a mission of the Department of Defense, and especially when their budgets are being cut and the generals and the Secretary of Defense are saying they don't have enough money to perform and execute their basic military operations. Yet they're spending $170 million to prop up a failing biofuels industry when

they could instead be buying traditional fuels.

I just want to give one example of what we call this renewable energy sticker shock. Here you've got furloughs at the Pentagon, the military has grounded the Blue Angels, and yet they have a contract right now to buy renewable jet fuel at $59 per gallon--$59 per gallon--when the traditional cost of conventional jet fuel is $3.73 per gallon. And yet the military, to carry out some kind of social agenda, is spending an extra $56, almost $56 more per gallon, so they can buy renewable fuel. So this is one example of many where the military is not making the smartest use of their military dollars, at a time when Secretary Hagel himself has testified before committee that the services have begun to significantly reduce training and maintenance of operating forces.

So if they're reducing the training and maintenance of operating forces, why are they spending hundreds of millions of dollars to prop up a renewable energy industry that is clearly not viable yet. One day it will be, but today it's not, and yet they're spending in some cases 5, 10, 12 times more to buy this renewable energy than they would pay for conventional, wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. This amendment just says that has to stop.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the balance of my time to close.

I will close, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman makes an important point when he says that the Department of Defense is America's largest user of energy. Then I think it is even more important that they watch every penny. You know, I've got hardworking taxpayers, soccer moms in my district, that will drive an extra three blocks just to save a penny a gallon on gasoline because they can see that price at the pump, and it matters to them. If they can save a penny a gallon, they'll drive a couple of extra blocks. And yet you've got the Department of Defense, the largest user of energy in the Nation, according to my friend, saying that they're willing to not drive an extra block to save money; they'll drive a couple of extra blocks to spend $59 a gallon when they can buy that same jet fuel for $3.73 a gallon.

Again, another contract, there was a big, high-profile production on the Great Green Fleet where they flew some planes on renewable energy. It cost an extra $10 million just for that one example.

Again, they're flying the Blue Angels--they're grounded right now, and we're out there flying jets that run on algae and cooking oil, spending hundreds of millions of dollars more than if you used traditional jet fuel.

So while I applaud the gentleman's effort to support renewable energy, that's not something that the Department of Defense should be wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on when the Secretary of Defense has said that we actually are right now significantly reducing training and maintenance of operational forces. We should take those hundreds of millions of dollars we'll save with this amendment and provide it for our troops for the support they need because right now it actually risks our troops' lives. It's a 50 percent higher risk for them to be transporting renewable fuels than it is to transport traditional fuels because of the density of that renewable fuel. So it puts them more at risk. I urge support of this amendment. Let's save those hundreds of millions of dollars and dedicate it towards our Nation's security.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment I bring forward today deals specifically with reforms that many States have made. I will talk specifically about reforms that have been made in my great State of Louisiana, especially as it relates to teacher evaluation.

Specifically, what my amendment would do would be to remove the mandate that is in the legislation that requires States to adopt the Federal rule on teacher evaluation.

The reason I say that is not just because Louisiana has a highly successful teacher evaluation program that is working very well for the people of Louisiana, but in general, when you look at the successes that we've seen across the country as it relates to education reform, it has been State and local governments that have driven those great successes. That is because the States are the incubators, and our States and local governments are the most accountable to the parents who have most at stake in concern for the children's education.

The amendment specifically makes sure that there can be no mandate by the Federal Government, especially one that would override what is being done at the State level. I have seen very closely in my State--in fact, when I was in the State legislature, we passed some dramatic education reforms.

When you look at the city of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, before the hurricane, it was probably one of the most failed, corrupt public education systems in the Nation. Because we made reforms--not only at the State, but at the local level--where we created charter schools, we had so much innovation that now other States across the country are looking to what we did as a model for how to transfer or merge urban education.

Parents are actually much more involved in their children's education because they have a real stake, they have real choices to give their children, better educational opportunities, and I don't want to see that interfered with by anything that might come out of the Federal Government.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to address a few of the points that were made by my friend from Colorado.

He said, ``It's hard to get evaluations right.''

I actually agree with him on that statement.

If that's the case, then the question we are posed with is: Who is best suited to evaluate teachers? Is it some unelected bureaucrat in Washington or is it a State or a locally elected official who is directly accountable to the parents of those children?

So we're not presented with some false choice of whether or not to evaluate teachers. As I pointed out, in the legislature in my State of Louisiana, they fought it out, and they actually passed a teacher evaluation program a few years ago that's doing well. It's actually getting good results. That's the kind of innovation we should be encouraging. We shouldn't have this idea that there is this ``one size fits all'' in Washington and that Washington knows best and that, if a State can do it better, too bad, that's its fault because the Federal Government wants to tell it how to evaluate its teachers.

I think we ought to trust the people who know best and who are most directly accountable to the parents of the students, and that's our State and local school boards. That's why this amendment says, if they've got a better way to evaluate teachers, they're the ones who are better suited to do it, not some unelected bureaucrat in Washington.

With that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present this amendment that deals with the Corps of Engineers' new program that was put in place 2 years ago, specifically in the New Orleans district, called the Modified Charleston Method.

The Corps changed the usual and normal method for mitigation. On any kind of mitigation that's done on wetlands throughout the country, you have to mitigate if you are going to do development. Everybody understands that. Everybody has worked with that over the years.

Two years ago, the Corps changed, specifically for the New Orleans district, that process and literally put in place a process that has made it very unworkable to do a lot of our flood protection projects and economic development projects.

This amendment, by the way, is identical to language that we passed in the same appropriations bill last year, so the House has already gone on record saying that this is an unworkable plan by the Corps of Engineers. This new MCM method, as it is being referred to, has literally shut down many flood protection projects and economic development projects in south Louisiana.

What we have been saying to the Corps of Engineers is let's work together on putting reasonable rules in place. This rule is unworkable, so much so that the Corps didn't even use these rules when they were doing their own projects. Americans understand that when government tries to impose rules on the people and yet doesn't even follow those same rules themselves, it shows there is a problem. Yet that's what is happening in this case.

All we are saying is everybody understands we need to do mitigation, but

when the Corps comes out with these new rules that triple, in many cases, the amount of mitigation that needs to be done to a point where it is unworkable--as an example, just last year, Corps permit applications for development projects were down by 33 percent because they literally took off the table the ability to do any kind of development in many areas of south Louisiana--that's not how rules and regulations are supposed to work. You ought to be working with local communities and not saying you can't even protect yourself from flooding. Literally, if you look at the wetlands rules, they are preventing us from restoring wetlands with these rules on wetlands. It doesn't make sense. It is something that's unworkable.

This amendment addresses this problem and says, if the Corps can't move forward with the Modified Charleston Method, then let's go back to the table and put some rules in place that actually make sense, put some commonsense rules in place.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment that reestablishes priorities here. It's similar to an amendment we passed overwhelmingly last year on this same piece of legislation, the Energy and Water appropriations bill.

What this amendment does is it transfers $2 million out of the Department of Energy's Administrative account and moves that money into the Corps of Engineers construction budget. And the reason we're doing this is to move more projects forward, to actually get some of that backlog that the Corps of Engineers have moved forward and open up the door for projects all across the country that are vital to not only our Nation's waterways, our economy, our ability to export, but in Louisiana, for example, it would provide opportunity to move forward on the Louisiana Coastal Area plan, which is a coastal restoration plan that's a major flood protection project.

So what we're talking about is, literally, one penny, one penny coming out of administration, of bureaucracy in Washington, to move that money into actual construction projects.

And I think when you talk to taxpayers across the country, they are less concerned about having bureaucracy in Washington. They want to actually see government get things done. They want to see this backlog get cleared out, and they want to see other projects that are important to our Nation's economy move forward. And that's what this amendment does. It's a bipartisan amendment.

I want to thank my colleagues--Mr. Richmond, Mr. Cassidy--who have also helped work on this. But again, this deals with projects all across the country that are in a backlog that could help move our economy forward rather than spending that money on administration in Washington.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The way that this amendment is drafted actually would apply nationwide. This would move $2 million out of that administrative account in the Department of Energy, move it into the overall Corps construction budget, so it would be available to the Corps of Engineers for construction projects across the Nation.