Floor Statements

I thank my friend from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1845, as amended, the Medicare IVIG Access and Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act of 2012.

This legislation would create a 3-year demonstration project to provide up to 4,000 Medicare beneficiaries suffering from primary immunodeficiency diseases with in-home coverage of IVIG. Medicare beneficiaries with PIDD need the biologic IVIG to boost their immune system so they can fight off infection and maintain a high quality of life.

Medicare currently offers comprehensive coverage of IVIG treatments in the physician's office and hospital setting, but not when IVIG is administered in the home. This flawed payment policy encourages Medicare beneficiaries to receive care in the most costly settings.

Under this demonstration project, Medicare part B would cover the home administration costs, including the trained medical professional who administers the biologic, allowing up to 4,000 beneficiaries with PIDD to receive IVIG treatments in their home. Importantly, beneficiaries who receive IVIG

in their home can avoid the risk of infection inherent in alternative treatment settings.

The HHS Secretary would be required to issue a report to Congress detailing the impact this demonstration project had on beneficiary access to care, and whether or not CMS should permanently change its IVIG coverage policy. According to CBO, the costs of this one-time demonstration are fully offset by permanently reforming Medicare's secondary-payer rules as detailed in the SMART Act.

The SMART Act will help ensure that taxpayers will not be stuck with a Medicare bill for incidents caused when another party is liable or negligent. The SMART Act also makes important changes so that the arcane Medicare rules would no longer be an impediment for parties resolving their differences and reaching settlement.

Madam Speaker, we need to protect the Medicare trust funds, and we need to have an efficient, consistent, and clear process to resolve these claims; and the SMART Act does exactly that.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

I thank my good friend from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in strong support of H.R. 1509, which is commonsense, bipartisan legislation that will protect our Nation's seniors.

I do not doubt that many of us have received letters from constituents who have faced problems due to their Social Security number being compromised. Over the years, I've held a number of forums in my northern California district to raise awareness about identity theft and financial scams targeting senior citizens. I've heard complaints from many of these constituents that, while the public increasingly understands the importance of safeguarding personal information, Medicare isn't doing its part. With today's vote, we take the first step towards removing these numbers from the Medicare cards that beneficiaries are encouraged to carry with them at all times. We've heard too many excuses over the years, and it is becoming clear to me that CMS simply isn't interested in protecting seniors and people with disabilities from identity theft. Importantly, this legislation will not increase the deficit.

H.R. 1509 also includes a study to examine the use of smart card technology in the Medicare program. Some technology stakeholders have expressed concerns with the duration of the 2-year study. If GAO is able to complete the study on a more expedited timeframe, I would be happy to work with Congressman Gerlach and the technology community to shorten this deadline as the bill moves through the legislative process.

Given the inaction at CMS on removing Social Security numbers from Medicare cards, it is time for the Congress to lead. It is time to take this long overdue, commonsense approach and protect America's seniors. I urge passage of H.R. 1509.

I thank my good friend.

How wonderful it is to be able to sit here and listen to all these incredibly warm remarks from people who, like myself, know and love Jay Pierson. And there's a reason for that. Jay, you're one of the best of the best.

It's hard to believe that 26 years comes and goes so very, very quickly, but it was 26 years ago when I first came here. Of course you come here and you're excited and you've come here with a dream because of our great country and to preserve our Constitution, but boy, there's a lot to learn. There's a lot of hallways to figure out. There's a lot of procedures to try to figure out how to work our way through. Jay, you were always there. You were there, for a guy like myself, that I could come up to on the QT. It seems like we were always someplace where we just asked Jay: What do we do with this? When are we voting next? What is this vote on? What are the procedures coming up next? No matter what the question, Jay Pierson had the correct answer in a way that even a freshman or one that was new learning could understand.

Of course, also, we have something else in common, the Pacific Ocean, California, another Californian like myself.

But Jay, you have been such a friend, not just to my colleagues, but to me. That says a lot about you. There isn't any way to express our appreciation to you enough but to say thank you, thank you, thank you. You have made my tenure here so much more successful and enjoyable because I had someone there, kind of a shining star up there. If I wasn't quite sure how to navigate my way around this floor, I could always go to Jay. You knew what was coming up next, when it was coming up, an estimate of when we were going to vote the next time, so on and so forth. So, Jay, thank you. Thank you for being a friend.

I'm sure each of us felt the same way I did. It was like, Gee, I think I'm Jay's best friend. I think every one of us felt that way because, indeed, Jay, that's how you did treat each of us because that's the way you are. So, Jay, thank you.

It's interesting. When we were both talking, I mentioned that I was retiring; you were letting me know you're retiring at the same time.

Well, anyway, best of luck to you. Thank you for serving this great Nation of ours in the way that you have. Thank you for assisting people like myself--and there has been hundreds, many hundreds of us whom you've assisted over the years--I should put that into perhaps the thousands. We will be eternally grateful. Good luck to you. God bless you. God bless your family.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 612 and 613 I would have voted ``nay'' on the former, the motion to recommit, and ``yea'' on the latter, passage.

personal explanation

I thank my good friend from California (Mr. Calvert) for those kind remarks and your great friendship over the years and great leadership that you have offered.

I was deeply honored and humbled when the good people of northern California elected me 26 years ago to be their Representative. I came to Washington as President Ronald Reagan, one of my personal heroes, was wrapping up the final years of his second term. That was more than a quarter century ago, and yet the years have moved by at a breathtaking pace.

Time does not permit me to even begin to recount the memories. There have been incredible highs and incredible lows, but I always treasure the time I was allowed to serve in this amazing institution that was forged by the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

I have mixed feelings today. I will deeply miss the company of dedicated colleagues who have become my good friends. I value and treasure the members of my staff who have literally become a second family, and I know I will

feel a sense of loss when we say good-bye. I know that when I pick up the morning newspaper next January and I read about the enormously important issues that are being put to a vote, a part of me will wish I could still be here to fight the battle.

And yet I look forward to the next phase of my life. I want to see more of those 12 grandchildren. I get to have more time with my dear wife, Pam, the most supportive spouse any man could hope and pray for. And I know that when I step down, a host of deeply committed patriotic colleagues will do everything in their power to advance the cause of liberty.

I am greatly encouraged by the dedication and passion of the large class of Republican Members who were swept into office in the historic election of 2010. I am also very gratified that northern California will be represented next year by a Republican freshman who knows what it is like to drive a tractor and get mud on his boots. I have confidence in this new generation of leaders.

I cannot leave this Congress without saying a few words about the wonderful people of northern California. In my rural district, you will find farmers with rough hands and sunburned faces. You will find tough timber fallers and mill workers. The people of rural northern California have that old-fashioned and refreshing patriotism that leads them to post this kind of sign at the county line: ``Where we honor veterans.''

In my two decades of service, the thing that has always struck me the most about my constituents is that what they really want most from the Federal Government is simply to be left alone. They do not want a new program. They want to run their small businesses, their farms, and their mills without being wrapped up in 15 yards of red tape. They want to compete. They want to prosper.

They understand the premise of this country: personal liberty; the freedom to pursue a dream; the concept of risk and reward. That's not too much to ask. For their sake and for the sake of all Americans, I ask my colleagues to get back to the roots of our Nation, to freshly embrace our heritage, to trust the ingenuity of the American people to thrive and prosper if we will simply get out of their way.

I have deeply appreciated the opportunity to serve with you, and I extend my deepest thanks to the constituents of northern California for allowing me the extraordinary privilege of fighting for them in the United States House of Representatives.

I thank my good friend.

Thank you, Chairman Camp.

Madam Speaker, the bill before us is about economic growth and job creation. It's about expanding U.S. exports to the ninth largest economy in the world. It's about making sure U.S. businesses receive the same treatment in Russia as their competitors in Europe. It's about ensuring we have the tools to hold an unreliable trading partner accountable.

This legislation is not a handout or gift to Russia. Maintaining Jackson-Vanik does not give us any leverage, as Russia is already a WTO member. A vote against this bill is a vote against U.S. employers. It's a vote against small businesses. It's a vote against farmers and a vote against ranchers.

I urge my colleagues to support legislation to give Americans fair access to an important market.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 118 because I believe Congress must act to preserve a principle that has helped lift millions of American families out of poverty. The principle is simple: Able-bodied welfare recipients should engage in work. And we know for a fact, based on the success of welfare reform, that this principle works. More than sixteen years of strong work requirements have demonstrated that a job and a

paycheck--not a government check--is the best escape from the clutches of poverty and the best hope of building a better life.

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has announced its intention to allow states to opt out of these requirements. I believe Congress must emphatically reject this plan. We must refuse to go down a path that leads us back to a sad and painful time in our history where millions of American families were trapped in a cycle of poverty and dependency. This is the stark choice we have before us today.

The Administration's plan is egregious on process as well as substance. By blatantly going beyond their statutory authority, the Administration's action fits into a growing and disturbing pattern of this President disregarding the law and acting unilaterally to override laws duly enacted by Congress. We cannot stand by and allow the executive branch to trample on the Constitutional authority of this body, which has the sole power to legislate.

Given these concerns, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval and reject the Administration's misguided attempt to undermine the hope of prosperity for millions of American families eager to support themselves economically. Mr. Speaker, let us reaffirm the principle that, far more effectively than any government program, work places the American people on the path to self-sufficiency and prosperity.

Yesterday, this House voted to stop the job-destroying tax hike that threatens to hit every American taxpayer at midnight on December 31. Today, we have an opportunity to build on that. We have an opportunity not only to do the right thing for jobs and job creators in the short-term, but to begin building the foundation for a more stable and prosperous economy in the future.

Few would argue that our current Tax Code is ideal. It's far too complicated, with taxpayers spending over $160 billion each year just to figure out what they owe. Even the Commissioner of the IRS has acknowledged that he hires a professional tax preparer to do his own taxes.

It's often unfair, with some taxpayers enjoying the benefits of narrow tax breaks that are not available to others. It has increasingly become a patchwork of temporary rules that fail to provide America's small businesses and job creators with the certainty they need to plan for the future.

Many of its features actually penalize the work, investment, and savings that are necessary to economic growth. Furthermore, an outdated international tax system, combined with the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, places American companies at a disadvantage against their competitors based in Europe and China.

The bill before us lays out a pathway to a simpler, fairer, and more pro-growth Tax Code. With the right kind of tax reform, our Tax Code can become a means to support job creation rather than an obstacle standing in the way. In fact, it has been estimated that the tax reform would free up American businesses to create as many as 1 million new jobs in the first year alone.

I want to commend Chairman Camp for his outstanding leadership on this issue and for making it clear that House Republicans are serious about tax reform. Today's vote will send a strong message that tax reform is moving forward. I urge all Members to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, this House must act to stop the midnight tax hike that threatens to hit all American taxpayers on December 31. This midnight menace includes a 50 percent cut in the value of the child tax credit, higher taxes on dividends for seniors living on fixed incomes, the return of the infamous marriage penalty for working families, and the alternative minimum tax, ensnaring middle-income taxpayers.

An average family of four with an income of $50,000 could see a tax increase of almost $2,200 a year. The President says he wants to stop the midnight tax hike for some taxpayers, but not all. He claims that he merely wants the wealthy to pay more. The truth is that his tax increase proposal would especially hit small business owners. As someone who comes from a small business background myself, I understand that many small businesses pay taxes as individuals. Their income includes money that they reinvest in the business to expand and hire more workers. A big tax increase could harm the very businesses we are relying on to create more jobs. In fact, a new study by Ernst & Young suggests that the President's tax proposal would cost more than 700,000 American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, what lane will you choose? I urge the House to pass H.R. 8 and prevent a tax hike for all Americans.

I thank my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge support for H.R. 1237, a noncontroversial land exchange bill I introduced to provide for greater economic opportunities in Trinity County, located in the northern California congressional district I represent. With a 19 percent unemployment rate, this rural community faces significant economic challenges.

The Trinity County Public Utilities District owns property surrounded by land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. The TPUD seeks to economically improve one parcel near the Weaverville Airport, but it currently cannot do so because it is landlocked by the Forest Service.

This legislation would transfer 47 acres of the district's property near the Trinity River, known as Sky Ranch, to the Bureau of Land Management and 150 acres within Six Rivers National Forest, known as Van Duzen, to the Forest Service. The district would receive a parcel of equal value from the Shasta-Trinity National Forest that surrounds their site at the airport.

This land exchange would benefit the Federal Government as well by consolidating BLM and Forest Service holdings and increasing the efficiency of managing the land. This would allow the TPUD to develop the property and enhance economic opportunities for the community.

Trinity County faces significant challenges attracting businesses because the Federal Government currently owns 75 percent of the available land--over 1.5 million acres--limiting the availability of land for commercial use.

The county also faces significant economic challenges because government mismanagement and lawsuits from fringe groups have shut down responsible stewardship and management of the county's vast timber resources. This decline in management has been devastating to the timber industry and has had a multiplier effect on the county's economy, with severe impacts on schools, infrastructure, and small retail businesses.

In closing, I strongly believe that these resources belong to the people, and local needs should drive their management. Sensible land exchanges like the one this legislation would implement would have the twofold benefit of making Federal land management more efficient while providing local communities with greater access to their natural resources.

I want to thank Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Grijalva for their efforts on behalf of this commonsense bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Madam Speaker, coming from a small business background, I originally ran for public office not because of what government was doing for me, but rather what it was doing to me.

Many small business owners in my northern California district feel the same way, but apparently the President isn't getting that message. The other day he said:

If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.

Madam Speaker, perhaps that is why he's so determined to raise taxes on small businesses on January 1. Now Senate Democrats are saying that if they can't get their small business tax hike, they'll let taxes go up for everyone. That's just wrong. Let's stop the tax hike for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard many perspectives on what the Supreme Court did in its health care ruling.

I want to focus on what the Court's decision did not change. The Supreme Court's ruling did not change the fact that the Democrat health law makes it more expensive for employers to hire workers. Businesses in my district have put their expansion plans on hold because they are worried about higher costs. This law was bad for jobs when it was passed, and it's still bad for jobs now.

The Court's ruling did not change the perverse incentives in the President's law that will encourage some employers to drop their health benefits. Millions of Americans will lose the coverage they have and like. That was true when this law was passed, and it's still true now.

The Court's ruling did not change the failure of the President's law to reduce health care costs. The administration's own Medicare actuaries concluded that this law will actually increase the overall cost of health care and CBO found it will raise health care insurance premiums as well. This was a serious failure when the law was passed, and it's still a serious failure today.

The Court's ruling did not change the 21 new taxes in the Democrat health care law. In fact, the ruling highlights how the President's law raises Americans' taxes to pay for an unsustainable new program at a time when unemployment remains far too high. These tax hikes hurt our economy when they were passed, and they're are still hurting our economy today.

That's why I began advocating for repeal of this bad law as soon as it was passed, and why I still support repeal today.

Vote ``yes'' for repeal.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise in support of H.R. 2578, the Conservation and Economic Growth Act, which would extend the bipartisan Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Recovery Act for 7 more years, ensuring that the Forest Service has a stable

and consistent period to fully implement it. At the discretion of the Forest Service, the bill would also allow for its expansion to all National Forest system lands within parts of California and Nevada. The expansion of the pilot project will enable the Forest Service to use the effective QLG approach in additional forest communities.

The northern California congressional district I represent includes all or parts of seven national forests. The rural forest communities near to them have been devastated by years of mismanagement of our national forests. Nearly 20 years ago, a group of local environmentalists and citizens formed the Quincy Library Group to develop a collaborative and locally driven solution to bring health and stability to our communities and the forests they live in. The QLG's efforts brought about the bipartisan Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act.

Mr. Chairman, we need commonsense forest management that allows communities to utilize their natural resources and create jobs while also restoring the health of our forests. The Quincy Library Group pilot project can provide a model for achieving these critical goals.

In 2007, the 64,000-acre Moonlight fire occurred in the Plumas National Forest. That fire came to an abrupt halt when it reached Antelope, a QLG-constructed defensible fuel profile zone. It saved tens of thousands of spotted owl habitat from burning.

Mr. Chairman, this is the solution to our catastrophic wildfire problem that can and should be replicated. I urge my colleagues to extend and expand this balanced and collaborative project.

I rise in strong support of the Protect Medical Innovation Act.

Mr. Speaker, it's a well-known principle if you increase taxes on something, you get less of it. The medical device tax is a tax on innovation. It's a tax on creating good-paying American jobs, and it's a tax on the development of potentially lifesaving medical treatment.

Because it taxes sales instead of income, it will be especially harmful to new startup businesses that aren't turning a profit yet. My friends on the other side object to the offset in this bill even though it merely requires that people pay back benefits they make too much money to qualify for. Their view seems to be that we should make it as easy as possible for people to sign up for taxpayer-funded benefits. And if that means we waste some money along the way, so be it.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when we're borrowing 32 cents of every dollar we spend, I suggest we should be doubly careful to ensure that benefits go only to those who truly need them.

The question before us today is simple: do we want less innovation, less entrepreneurship, less high-tech jobs, and less medical breakthroughs? If you think America has too much of these things, vote ``no.'' But if you want to see more jobs, more startups, and more health care innovation, vote ``yes'' and repeal this damaging tax.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5.

Today's debate goes to the heart of the question of what kind of health care system we want to have. House Republicans believe the solution to making health care more affordable and strengthening the Medicare program is more freedom, empowering innovation and competition to reduce costs and improve quality, giving seniors the opportunity to choose the health care that's best for them.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board, IPAB, represents a very different approach to controlling health care costs, a one-size-fits- all plan in which unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats decide what kind of health care you should get. Physicians, patient advocates, and respected scholars, Democrats and Republicans alike, have warned that the IPAB threatens access to care for seniors and people with disabilities. The board has the authority to meet and make decisions in secret without considering the perspective of patients and their doctors and without judicial review. Madam Chairman, this is the wrong approach. IPAB must be repealed.

H.R. 5 also includes important reforms to reduce the cost of frivolous medical lawsuits. The President's health care overhaul has not fulfilled his promise to reduce health insurance premiums by $2,500, but commonsense medical liability reforms will truly bring down health costs both for American families and the Medicare program.

I urge the passage of this legislation.