Floor Statements

Speaking of saving money, here is an interesting story.

Just 2 weeks after Texans in Randall County voted for Republican Barry Goldwater over their native son, Lyndon Johnson, in the Presidential race in the 1960s, the Pentagon announced Randall County's Air Force base was closing. Folks were ``flabbergasted'' said an Amarillo newspaper columnist. The Air Force had just made millions in investments at the base, but now airmen and equipment were moving to a nearby county that supported Johnson.

It was this kind of abuse of executive power that led Congress to write a new law ensuring we had proper oversight over base closures. In my Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District, we're finding out why that law must be strengthened. Last week, I learned the Air Force is again attempting to shut down the 911th Airlift Wing, an Air Force Reserve base, for a reason that has nothing do with cost or military strategy. In fact, the 911th is one of the most lean and cost-effective bases in the country.

How and why they can do this without congressional approval is interesting. The Air Force claims inaccurately there are fewer than 300 civilian employees authorized to be employed at the 911th, allowing the Pentagon to close the base without congressional review. The Pentagon, however, has invested over $50 million in improvements in the base, including new buildings in the last 5 years. The 911th, however, has lower overhead costs because emergency responses like fire and safety, air traffic control, security, runway maintenance, and land are provided by Pittsburgh International Airport for free. Hence, if the 911th were forced to in-source those activities, the number of authorized personnel would be hundreds more, and would far exceed the 300-person threshold. Thus, the Pentagon would be prevented from unilaterally closing it. Further, the Air Force Reserve would have to invest millions more in equipment and training if it was not provided for free, but the Air Force did not look at any of these numbers, and they did not review the cost of the space.

The Pentagon is trying to close the base because they can, not because they should. In their haste to come up with a quick cut, it will cost the taxpayers over $100 million in coming years, and that is why Congress needs to have oversight.

The House has passed a defense bill to prevent a suboptimal decision like this one in the future. The House bill includes language requiring the Pentagon to notify Congress about any base closure or transfer of troops impacting more than 1,000 uniform personnel. Unlike the way the Air Force is operating now, the Defense Department would have to include a justification for the reduction, an evaluation of

the costs and benefits, and an evaluation of the local, economic, environmental, strategic, and operational consequences. By requiring significant reductions in uniform personnel to be included in the budget request, Congress will have two opportunities to review, block, or approve a base closure in the annual defense authorization bill and the defense appropriations bill.

The Senate is nearing completion of its version of the defense bill today, and it's my hope that both Chambers will work to restore Congress' proper oversight authority. The issue facing Congress is not a new one. Since the 1960s, the executive branch has tried repeatedly to close bases for reasons other than the best interests of taxpayers or the military. The necessity of a strong base closure law giving Congress oversight of these decisions was perhaps best expressed in 1985 by Senator Carl Levin. He said:

These protections against untrammeled executive power to

close bases came because Members of this Senate and this

Congress felt that the power to close bases had been abused

and had been used as a club over Members of Congress.

Today, it is the 911th, but tomorrow it could be a base in any Member's district. I urge my colleagues to support efforts to strengthen the base closure law.

This morning, I rise with a heavy heart, but on behalf of a grateful Nation, to honor a soldier born and raised in southwestern Pennsylvania, who gave his life on September 14 in service to our country.

This week, he returned to his home, the United States, where he will be laid to rest. Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Raible, commanding officer of Marine Attack Squadron 211, died in the assault on Camp Bastion, which is connected to the American-run base Camp Leatherneck, in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. It was a despicable attack by the Taliban that not only took the life of this dedicated, respected, and brave marine but that also resulted in the worst loss of U.S. military aircraft since the Vietnam war.

But this morning, I rise so my colleagues, my constituents at home in Westmoreland County, and the entire Nation will know more about this courageous marine known as ``Otis,'' who commanded a Marine Harrier jet squadron.

After graduating at the top of his class from Norwin High School, where he was a starting defensive back for the Knights, Lieutenant Colonel Raible earned his degree in civil engineering from Pittsburgh's prestigious Carnegie Mellon University. Following his college graduation, Raible joined the United States Marine Corps, and by 1998 had become a naval aviator. A natural leader, Raible rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel last summer, having received numerous military honors along the way, including a Meritorious Service Medal, 10 Strike- Flight awards, and a Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, to name just a few.

In support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, Raible deployed many times to serve our Nation. Colonel Raible commanded the only Marine Harrier squadron in

Afghanistan in which he flew over 2,000 hours in Harrier aircraft.

A southwestern Pennsylvanian at heart, it should come as no surprise that Otis was known, while seated in the cockpit, to listen to the Steelers while flying in the skies over Iraq. But more than anything, Lieutenant Colonel Raible was a father, a husband, and a son; a proud dad of three children, ages 11, 9, and 2. Otis so loved and was loved by his family.

As his mother Belvina of North Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, said, her son died defending all that he held dear. ``He was the best of the best,'' she said. Indeed, Mrs. Raible, he was.

Today, we as a Nation say ``thank you'' to Lieutenant Colonel Raible and to his entire family. We're so grateful for your service and for your sacrifice protecting our freedom. Through your service, you have made your family and your Nation better. Through your sacrifice, you have made America stronger. Through your courage, you have made America proud.

Many times, I'm sure you soared above the clouds where you could touch the face of God. Now you rest in his loving arms for eternity. Thank you, Colonel. Our Nation thanks you, as well.

I thank the gentlelady from West Virginia. Thank you also for your tireless advocacy for coal as we are here fighting the war on coal.

It's interesting. I remember when I was attending college at Wheeling Jesuit University. Oftentimes, for charitable activities, we'd go into the mountains of Appalachia and help families where coal mines had shut down because they were played out, and we'd seen the incredible poverty there. We also know that, over the last century, miners toiled for years in those coal patch towns and tried to make things safer, and they accomplished that. They worked for better wages, and they accomplished that. Now they're fighting for their very existence and their jobs and livelihoods.

To add to what you're saying about the jobs here, this is not just coal miners. It's the manufacturers who make the longwall equipment-- the continuous miners, the rails, the wire, the ventilators, the elevators, the safety equipment. They are fighting for their jobs. It's the railroads, the trucks, the barges, the workers who make the rails, the hopper cars, the barges, the trucks who are there, fighting for their jobs.

Where will they go? Really, this is not just an attack on some of the power plants. We may lose 175 or so initially. The goal is to shut down 400 power plants altogether. What will happen then?

Now, this keeps the President's pledge that, if you want to use coal, it will bankrupt you, but it's also going to bankrupt these families when they can't pay their bills when their electric rates go up. They're already paying $3,000 more per year for their gasoline for their cars. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told the Democratic National Convention:

Under President Obama's leadership, the U.S. moved forward

with an all-of-the-above energy strategy--oil, gas, nuclear,

hydro,

biofuels, wind, geothermal, solar. All of it, he said. What's

missing is coal.

If we're not going to build a new power plant, that's also jobs not just for the miners. It means no jobs for the boilermakers, the electrical workers, the ironworkers, the steamfitters, the plumbers, the insulators, the carpenters, the laborers, the operating engineers, the cement masons, and the steelworkers. That means, down in southwestern Pennsylvania, in Greene County, where 43 percent of their income is coal, they won't have that income. Washington County will also suffer, and so many Americans will suffer.

We need to be investing in new technologies to clean up coal and to clean up these power plants and rebuild them, not to shut them down.

I'll add a story here.

I remember back in the 1970s, in Buffalo Creek, West Virginia, where a dam broke and wiped out the town. I remember going there to work with the Red Cross. In the late evening at Van High School, I was talking to a gentleman who had lost his home. He had said that, before the dam broke, the police had come down the street, and they'd said, Leave your homes. The dam has broken. He said he grabbed his kids, and they ran up the hill as fast as they could. As fast as he could run, the water was at his feet, and when he turned around, his home was gone; the town was gone; there was nothing left.

In the darkness of that classroom late at night, I could hear him beginning to cry, and I said, But you have your family.

He said, I know, and there is someone else in this town who has lost everything. He even lost his family.

I said, Well, prayers and good luck helped you.

He said, No. It was also the fact that we heard the same warnings. The difference was I listened, and he did not.

We are at that same point, too. We are hearing about the existence of towns all throughout Appalachia and all throughout this Nation. We need to be mining American coal and using our ingenuity to clean it up, not shut it down, to help all these towns, to help the schools, and to help those families.

White House adviser Larry Summers said it best. When one of Solyndra's own investors was astonished to learn his startup firm qualified for this massive DOE earmark, Summers replied the government is a ``crappy venture capitalist.'' Nearly 3 years later and $1 billion in losses to taxpayers later, isn't it clear the Department of Energy loan program has failed?

Many of us want our country to implement a comprehensive, successful energy-independence strategy that uses clean coal, nuclear, clean natural gas, and other sources. That's why Chairman Upton's bill included an amendment I authored to have the GAO examine the kind of subsidies and assistance foreign governments give to their energy companies. But after an 18-month investigation by the committee, the truth is the current loan program, as it stands, cannot be salvaged. We found that the loopholes created in this program by thwarting the letter and spirit of the law have shaken its foundation.

Solyndra was rushed, reckless, and political. It was rushed because the entire stimulus loan program was built to get money out the door quickly. The law originally said they had to pay it back, complete the projects, and the taxpayers had to be paid back first. These taxpayer safety nets were removed. Second, it was reckless. Officials at OMB, DOE, Treasury, and outside investment professionals all warned that Solyndra was doomed to fail. Even Solyndra employees questioned its longevity. Finally, it was political. Campaign bundler George Kaiser made 16 visits to the White House about Solyndra. This committee uncovered emails between Kaiser and White House officials on Solyndra. There were internal deliberations about how the White House could mask the bad news of Solyndra's bankruptcy.

Those are the facts. It's time to turn out the lights on Solyndra and this DOE loan guarantee program. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and support for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 710) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a hazardous waste electronic manifest system, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on S. 710.

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

The enactment of S. 710 will enable the EPA to employ current technology to sharply reduce paperwork regulatory requirements at the same time it makes crucial information more accessible for States, first responders, and the public.

When people create hazardous waste, we require them to carefully track the movement and disposition. That way we know that, when a drum full of some hazardous waste is removed from a factory, the same amount winds up where it belongs--in a proper disposal facility--and that none of it is tossed into a sewer or a vacant lot. But for years, guaranteeing this actually happened meant keeping up with the reporting requirement--filling out multiple copies of paper forms and mailing them to the EPA and State officials, as

well as keeping paper copies at each place of business.

The inefficiency of this system in today's electronic business-to- business world certainly stands out to anyone. In fact, we learned of a case when first responders arrived at the scene of a chemical plant fire and they needed to know what substances were inside the plant before they started fighting the fire. In the whole city, the only copies of the forms identifying the hazardous waste were inside the building and were consumed in the fire. Now, there has got to be a better way.

With an electronic system, instead of filling out long forms and mailing them, the critically needed data, with a few computer key strokes, can be sent wherever it is needed. State regulators, first responders, and others will be able to pull it up on their computers and track the materials in real time. The changeover will not only save millions of dollars for regulated businesses, but quite frankly, it will save lives. So, even though the e-manifest system in S. 710 is funded by user fees, I want to note it will not be a burden on small businesses. Users pay only when and to the extent they file manifests. Otherwise, the new system will work like the old paper system, where the process to identify discrepancies in shipments is preserved.

Mr. Speaker, S. 710 was a good bill when it arrived here from the other body, but we made it better. First, we converted it from so- called ``mandatory'' spending to ``discretionary.'' That will allow our colleagues on the Appropriations Committees an annual chance to review the program and make sure that money collected from users and money spent on the system is only enough to get the job done. Next, in working with our friends from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we added language to help the EPA harmonize its changeover to electronic filing with the Department of Transportation. The DOT also has its own requirements for handling and reporting hazardous materials, and we want the agencies to talk to each other and their computers to speak the same language.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to send S. 710, as amended, back to the other body, where we expect it to be approved without further amendment so that the President can sign it into law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers on this bill, and I'm prepared to close if the gentleman from North Carolina is prepared to close, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 555, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Remember back in school when your math teacher expected you to show your work when solving a problem? It made sense. A number on a page, even if it was the correct answer, didn't suffice because your teacher wanted you to demonstrate you knew how to solve the problem. There, the outcome was a grade on a quiz or a test. But what about when we're talking about hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars? Why is it we take on blind faith the cost estimates produced by one of the most influential accounting firms in the United States, the Congressional Budget Office.

In 1974, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, was formed to give Congress independent, nonpartisan, objective analysis of legislation. In addition, the CBO is required by law to produce a cost estimate--or ``score''--for every bill coming out of committee of either Chamber of Congress. It sounds good in theory, but the problem is no one knows how CBO arrives at their numbers--and they won't tell us. They don't have to. CBO is not required to ``show their work,'' like we were required in school, when announcing economic impact results.

Members of Congress rely on the CBO score. A favorable or a budget- neutral score makes a difference for a bill's success or failure. If there are savings, chances are better that the bill will get a vote on the floor. If it's budget-neutral, it may still get a vote. But what happens if the analysis was wrong and turns out to lead to big deficits, or what if Congress failed to call up a bill for a vote because CBO scored it as deficit spending when really it could lead to substantial savings?

The price of an inaccurate estimate right now is extremely high. Our national debt is closing in on $16 trillion. Major safety net programs like Medicare and Medicaid are heading for bankruptcy. Congress has to act to bring our country back from the brink of a fiscal cliff. It is crucial for policymakers to have all available information about the true cost of legislation. And that's why I introduced H.R. 6136, the CBO Transparency Act, so lawmakers and the public have an opportunity to review CBO's work.

Today, you can access information on hospital visits, crop yields, and air quality levels, which are used to produce major regulation by the EPA and others. But you can't find out how the CBO scored things. Like any scientific study, opening up the details of a CBO analysis for greater inspection and peer review will enable us to better understand how decisions are made.

This bill isn't about pointing out inaccuracies in CBO's estimates. What we're doing here is using transparency to enhance the credibility of the Congressional Budget Office. Once the information is out there, it can be reviewed by Congress and all Americans. Is the information correct? Do they consider all the facts? Was something left out? Was their analysis done right?

In 2009, a University of Chicago researcher revealed a CBO office had grossly underestimated potential savings from changes to Medicare and Medicaid. For instance, CBO overestimated the cost of Medicare part D by 40 percent. In the 1980s, CBO predicted spending on hospitals stays under new law would be $19 million more expensive than the actual cost. Congress changed Medicare to pay hospitals a fixed amount per admission. This encouraged shorter stays, led to fewer diagnostic services, and lowered administrative costs. But CBO didn't predict that, and by 1986 actual spending for hospital payments was 18 percent lower than estimated.

The CBO also estimated that if hospitals reported infection rates, it would cost about $30 million over 5 years. It turns out when they report infection rates, they pay attention to it. And the savings has been billions of dollars over 5 years and tens of thousands of lives. When the CBO says the stimulus saved 3.3 million jobs or tax rates don't impact decisions by individuals or businesses or that cutting spending will slow economic growth, we currently have no way of understanding the conclusions CBO has reached because we can't get information on how they got there.

Ultimately, the decisions we make in Congress are only as good as the data upon which they are based. I hope all my colleagues will join me in this effort. Transparency is a cornerstone of sound government. I urge Democrats and Republicans to sign on to this bipartisan good government bill, H.R. 6136, the CBO Transparency Act.

Mr. Speaker, last week, we received some unemployment numbers, or employment numbers, of 80,000 new jobs. It was a bleak statistic telling us that now we were in our 41st straight week where unemployment was above 8 percent. Of course, the real unemployment numbers are saying there are 23 million Americans out of work or looking for work, people who are unemployed or underemployed based upon their skill set and taking whatever job they can get.

But put this 80,000 new jobs in an additional context, and it is of deeper concern. This year, 3.1 million students graduated from high school, and 1.7 million graduated with a bachelor's degree from a program. Add to that list also those who have an associate's degree or simply have dropped out of school, and we recognize those 80,000 new jobs are barely a drop in the bucket.

Also note that among those who are college graduates, recently, 53 percent of them are underemployed; that is, working in a job below the qualification levels which they have achieved. About 1.5 million under age 25 in 2011 were jobless or underemployed, the highest in at least 11 years. In the year 2000, the share was at a low of 41 percent.

Now, families are concerned because they don't want more unemployment checks when they can be getting an employment check. They need jobs to pay for their food and their housing, to pay off loans for their cars and schools, to save something for retirement or save something for other family needs for the future.

But put this in the context of other increases families have had to face in the last few years. The increased cost for gasoline in the last 3\1/2\ to 4 years is about $2,200 per year per family. The increased cost of electricity with new coal regulations put forth by the EPA will cause families' electric bills to rise by $300 to $400 per year. The new coal regulations are estimated to lead to a loss of 180,000 jobs per year. CONSOL has announced it's laying off 318 miners. Arch Coal has laid off 750 miners in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia. Alpha notified employees at four West Virginia mines of a loss of 100 jobs.

The coal regulations are such from the EPA that we have had no new coal-fired power plant permits granted for the last few years. Simply, no plants are being built, and ones are being closed down. And yet we have a massive amount of coal which we can use to create clean energy if the EPA would allow us to build some newer, cleaner plants. Look at sulfur dioxide--there has been a 56 percent decrease, and with nitrous dioxide a 38 percent decrease since the 1970s, while coal has tripled in its use. Mercury emissions have decreased by 60 percent since the 1950s, and we can do better.

We also note that we can have new jobs from offshore drilling, and although the House has passed such legislation, the Senate and the White House have blocked it. If we drill for oil and natural gas, several things can happen. One, it can free up 2.5 to $3.7 trillion, which we can use to invest in infrastructure of roads, highways, bridges, locks and dams, and water and sewer projects. But as long as those areas are blocked, we cannot reap the benefits from that. Instead, we continue to spend money to protect OPEC oil fields and had a trade deficit of $127 billion last year with OPEC. And sadly, of course, there is that unmeasurable, immeasurable cost of having our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines

fight overseas, fighting Taliban and al Qaeda funded with OPEC oil profits.

Finally, we have the increased cost of health insurance. The Kaiser Family Foundation has estimated the cost to the average family to be about $1,200 more since we passed the health care bill here, and median income for families is down $4,300.

There are solutions that the House, Senate, and White House can work on together. But much of this is in the area of using our domestic energy and to stop saying ``no'' to domestic energy. Although an all- of-the-above policy that includes wind and solar is valuable, we cannot create jobs by also saying ``no'' to coal, 10 Federal agencies trying to block natural gas drilling, and everyone dropping the ability to drill for oil. We have solutions, we have answers. We only have to have the will to pass these.

I have never doubted my friends on the other side of the aisle's compassion or sincerity, but have always believed there was a better way of handling these health care costs to make sure that we all get the health care we need and the doctor we choose at a price we can afford.

Here are some ways we need to do this:

Allow people to buy across State lines. A University of Minnesota study said it would drop the uninsured by 12 million;

The ability to join groups, because the purchasing power of groups is what is making Medicare part D come in at 40 percent under budget;

Put an emphasis on coordinated care, which decreases hospitalizations and avoidable readmissions and complications, sometimes by 20 to 40 percent;

By making sure health care plans are personal, affordable and permanent, you can take the plan you need across jobs and you can't be cut for being sick;

To make sure there are tax deductions for buying insurance just like employers have, to allow the chronically ill to be part of high-risk pools;

To encourage people to take steps in their own life to maintain their own health, and;

To have better use of prescription drugs, generic and nongeneric, which also saves a massive amount of money because some $250 billion a year is wasted in drug problems.

We need this instead of $570 billion in new taxes in a $1.76 trillion bill.

Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 392, I was present but the voting machine did not record my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, what good are life-saving drugs if you can't afford them?

That's why real reform of the Nation's health care system begins with promoting quality and affordability. I am excited this legislation is moving forward because the FDA will finally have a system for bringing more life-saving generic drugs to market.

Today's bill authorizes the first generic drug user-fee program in order to expedite the approval of generics, which are only a fraction of the cost of brand-name drugs. Generic medications can save a patient $1,000 a year on medication alone, but it may well yield billions in savings across our Nation when affordable generic drugs are used to treat acute and chronic illness. Right now, consumers are spending millions, if not billions, more in out-of-pocket costs because the FDA doesn't have the resources to tackle 2,800 generic applications awaiting review.

There will be fewer strokes, heart attacks, and cases of cardiovascular disease when this bill moves forward into law, and we will be assured the medicines our families take are of the highest quality. Under this bill, regulators will no longer be able to look past China's history of tainted drugs, like the 2007 heparin scare that killed 200 people.

I would like to thank Congressmen Dingell and Waxman and Chairman Upton for moving forward with this bipartisan bill. I urge its adoption.

I want to thank the chairman and Ranking Member Price for their hard work in writing a bill that keeps American families safe and prioritizes border and immigration law enforcement in a very tough budget environment.

In this bill, the Federal Air Marshal Service is under particular pressure to reduce costs, and we all share the common goal of pursuing the most cost-efficient and mission-effective air marshals to protect our skies.

In my district, there are over 80 dedicated and professional air marshals at the Pittsburgh International Airport, which is one of the country's 50 busiest airports. We all know about the air marshals' hard work, training, and risk to keep us safe; but I'm concerned about the potential impact on air marshals' cost and the impact upon families if the Federal Air Marshal Service moves forward with a restructuring plan. That's why I was going to offer an amendment with Congressman Altmire to ensure no decision is made impacting Pittsburgh's air marshal workforce without first conducting a cost-benefit analysis that explores all potential options.

I'm concerned if the Transportation Security Administration proceeds with

closing the Pittsburgh office, any potential for savings would be dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to relocate employees and their families.

Currently, taxpayers and the TSA pay almost nothing in commuting costs because the Pittsburgh air marshal office is less than 2 miles from the Pittsburgh airport terminal. Since air marshals are doing most of their work on a plane, the office exists mostly as a place for employees to go and complete their paperwork. Forcing air marshals to travel between a new office potentially much further from the Pittsburgh airport would dramatically increase costs and travel time.

What's most important for purposes of cost and security is the proximity of the air marshal workforce to the airport. I have asked the Federal Air Marshal Service to review alternatives to closure or transfer of the Pittsburgh field office, including co-locating its office on the grounds of the 911th Airlift Wing, which is an Air Reserve military base, part of the Pittsburgh International Airport.

Moving to the 911th would save the Agency a significant amount of overhead and rent costs while preserving the Federal Air Marshal Service operational mission to keep the skies safe.

I've been assured by the director of the Federal Air Marshal Service that he will look into alternatives to save costs, and I would like to get the assurance from the chairman that he'll work with me on securing that report.

Offered By: Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

I thank the chairman.

This year a typical senior will spend 15 percent of their household income on health care, including $620 plus on prescriptions.

But that sum would be much higher if there were no FDA-approved generic pharmaceuticals. Without generics, that same senior might pay $1,000 for medicine, and Medicare would spend some $67 billion more.

We must always assure that any medication, brand name or generic, is of the highest quality. But currently the Food and Drug Administration cannot assure that medicines coming in from overseas factories such as those in China are pure.

This bill includes my legislation, the Generic Drug and Biosimilar User Fee Act, to authorize for the first time an FDA program that will expedite approval of generics and clear a backlog of over 2,800 generic applications. Currently, the FDA is supposed to make a decision on the application within 16 months.

But the agency is taking twice that time because it lacks resources for conducting reviews and inspecting factories. U.S. factories are inspected perhaps once every 2 years, and more often if the FDA decides; foreign factories perhaps 7 to 9 years. That means millions of dosages of drugs coming in from overseas without any inspection.

Recall what happened when heparin ended up killing perhaps 100 to 200 people and causing other complications for many people. Ninety percent of pharmaceutical ingredients are made in foreign factories, but we cannot remain

dependent on drugs from other countries that are below U.S. standards.

People of all ages deserve peace of mind, and we all want to have the highest trust for all medicines, either brand name or generic. This bill will restore and support that trust for American consumers.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and note that we all share the highest respect and admiration for all our military, from all branches. But the Air Force proposal to retire more than 200 aircraft and eliminate 9,100 positions impacts 149 U.S. installations, but only one base faces cuts so severe that it would be closed, and that is the 911th Air Reserve Station in Pittsburgh.

If the 911th was inefficient, not cost-effective, or served no unique strategic purpose, I would support the Air Force's decision wholeheartedly, but I'm afraid the attempt to close the 911th was misguided, mistaken, and misinformed. That's why I submitted an amendment, along with Representatives Doyle, Critz, and Altmire, to ensure Congress has the ability to review Pentagon decisions and enforce cost and strategic accountability on force reductions.

I'm grateful Mr. Young of Alaska worked to combine our amendment with his and that it was adopted in en bloc No. 6. But first I want to say a few words about why this effort was so critical, not just to the 911th Airlift Wing, but the entire country.

The decision to close the 911th is the present-day tale of the $400 hammer and the $200 toilet seat. When you don't do proper due diligence, haste makes waste.

As my community has witnessed with the Air Force's attempt to close the 911th, the Pentagon is using a loophole to outflank Congress and ignore the intent of the statutes. The Pennsylvania congressional delegation repeatedly sought information about the decision to close our base, but we never received accurate and detailed information about the Air Force's justifications.

As the home of seven C 130 Hercules transport planes, the 1,100-plus reservists at the 911th provide critical mission support for global military logistical operations with an active tempo in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Air Force did not perform a base-by-base cost comparison of the 911th against other Reserve and Guard stations housing C 130s. Instead, it did a plane-by-plane cost comparison, comparing the oldest models with the newer ones. Unfortunately, the 911th now has the oldest models of C 130s because the Air Force recently swapped out the newer ones for active duty operations in Afghanistan.

With four 10,000-foot runways and a control tower, fire, safety, and security support provided at virtually no cost to the Air Force, the 911th is indeed cost-effective, while other bases cost hundreds of millions of dollars over 10 years for similar and even less services.

Since 1976, Congress has insisted on having a voice in Pentagon decisions to close or substantially reduce civilian personnel at military bases. Two statutes have been enacted to prevent base closures from occurring without congressional review. Our crucial amendment prevents the Pentagon from moving forward on a back-door BRAC in violation of congressional intent to review those decisions and ensure base closure attempts are both in the best interest of the taxpayers and our national defense.

And it protects the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services by requiring force reduction proposals be submitted as part of the President's budget request. This gives Congress two opportunities to review and reverse base closures if they are not in national strategic interest, both in the annual defense authorization and appropriations bills. Our language protects Congress' ability to review force structure changes and requires the Pentagon to complete a thorough and accurate analysis before moving forward.

But through the support of Chairman McKeon, Mr. Forbes of Virginia, Ranking Member Smith, as well as the leadership of the Defense Appropriation Subcommittee, who have worked with us on this issue, the underlying legislation prevents the Air Force from making any aircraft retirements or transfers in the next fiscal year.

With the NDAA and defense appropriations bills, Congress will now have the opportunity to vote on legislation to save the 911th Airlift Wing for the upcoming year and stop the Air Force from making any decision on massive Guard and Reserve cuts that are misguided, mistaken, and misinformed.

Even if both of these bills were enacted, this amendment is still needed, because without it, the executive branch can close any Guard or Reserve base without giving Congress a chance to review the decision.

On behalf of the families of the 1,100-plus military families at the 911th, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment since the Young-Murphy amendment has already been adopted.